Note that I never mentioned action in my statement. I mentioned how the player is limited by their knowledge and abilities, not necessarily combat abilities. As for the example on the first Zelda game, the internet can say it is action-adventure or even RPG. But at heart it is an adventure game. Miyamoto(hopefully typed that right) wanted to replicate his experiences of getting lost when younger and exploring unknown areas to him. That in itself is what adventures are, by definition. Going to the nearest forest you've never visited to discover the unknown, find out what lies beyond. And luckily not get attacked by a stray bear, you don't want to go into that kind of beyond.
I just feel like there is a misconception in what generally defines adventure games. Because again, any game can be story-focused. Undertale isn't an Adventure game, story-focused though. Detroit Become Human, story-focused. The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, NieR: Automata, same applies. If an Adventure game is defined as story focused, all of these games would be categorized Adventure.
Once more, I'm approaching this from a technical point of view. One where games as interactive experiences are defined by mechanics and user interaction from within their worlds. So technically speaking, adventure games are games where you explore that which you have no knowledge about. You're there to travel and see what lies in this small new world aided by its mechanics and puzzles. If a game purely was story-driven it'd be the same as watching a movie; totally counterintuitive to what videogames are. And obviously if a game doesn't have a story, then it would ultimately lead to a dull experience without a drive for the player's actions. In all games you will advance the story by overcoming challenges and solving problems. It is the main goal of every piece to push the player forward until the end of the story it wants to tell.
Concluding, I see how adventure games are defined with that general view. Yet I disagree due to the fact that said definition is very vague, and could apply to any other genre similarly.
The term Adventure Game does not mean a game about an adventure. You can make an Adventure Game about building a ham sandwich in your kitchen. The genre is named after the game Colossal Cave Adventure. Games that are somewhat similar to that game are called Adventure Games.
It's much like the term Rogue-like. You would not call a game Rogue-like because it has a rogue in it. You call it Rogue-like because the game is somewhat similar to the game Rogue.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Precisely, Colossal Cave Adventure, a game where you are dropped into an unknown world left to your own devices to explore. To wander about using your collected knowledge and proceed with picked up items. To fall off a pit because you took the risk to explore further. Literally, it is a game about an adventure- with the slightest hint of a story. And the puzzles don't lock the player out of a story, they're locked from knowledge and other items that might help on other parts of the journey later.
As for your rogue-like example, you are right. And it is the same as what I said earlier. Videogames are defined by their mechanics. Rogue-likes are like Rogue; in the term which, those games have mechanics similar to the one that gave birth to the genre. Games similar to Colossal Cave Adventure would mean they involve its mechanics, worldbuilding, and use of exploration to deliver that feeling of having an actual Adventure.
Determining that and using Colossal Cave Adventure as example, what I said is not far from the truth. An Adventure game is about having an adventure in a world limited by the player's knowledge, abilities, (I might perhaps add) possessions, or the game's mechanics.
Bold statement considering your game (which is one of the games I tried during the jam) doesn't actually prove my points wrong.
(Following the failed attempt on stealing the crystal..) The character wakes up in her room and the only guide you get is your "friend" telling you to come out. After you find your way out of the room you're free to go anywhere and explore a world unknown to you, the player. Talking to the guy was 100% optional until you need to carry on with the story. At least I suppose, nothing out of the ordinary happened anywhere else when I skipped him. Well... getting the honey from the old lady was unordinary and unexpected... Not to say the player might not pick up all the items at first if they're not thorough. The blood lake area has an "Ahah!" moment, where it might seem obvious but you wouldn't know that - unless you have the bottle first. The player is only limited by how much they explored and picked up, the world itself is completely open.
While I'm at it, quick bug report: The second time I entered the library while wandering about without following the story, I was locked inside for good. I couldn't get out.
I'm not saying the host's definition is wrong, I'm saying it's vaguely explaining what an adventure game is. "Story-driven" and challenges preventing you from continuing the story can apply to any other genre of videogames too. I don't need people to agree with me. I'm saying these things so they open their minds.
