Does anyone dispute that Indiana Jones is the premier archaeologist adventurer? Many movie fiends and game fans alike grew up with the man who would come to define the term "action-adventure" thanks to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Nearly 30 years following his recovery of the Ark from those dastardly Nazis, Indy's legacy continues to excite fans with timeless tales of high adventure, fantastic music, and diabolical villains and colorful characters taking us from one corner of the world to the next.

So why couldn't he do the same in gaming? To quote one of Assassin's Creed's many lines, "What has happened here?" I'm not going to claim that I have any answers, but I'm going to try and sort through my thoughts here and figure out where Indy's gaming expedition went wrong.

Not all of his attempts to break out on the gaming front were forgettable...I still think that Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is one of the best adventure titles ever that also just so happened to completely capture the feel of the film franchise. Likewise, the movie adaptations of the Last Crusade apparently managed to avoid the curse that usually accompanies tie-ins...but many others haven't been so lucky.

Indy on the 2600 may have looked ugly, but at the time, it was cutting-edge stuff with an inventory, puzzles, and a crude open world.

The Atari game based on Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't much on looks, but it was fun for what it was at the time. Today, it probably wouldn't make it even as an XBLA title unless it were part of a collection and contained a few Achievements to sweeten the deal.

Then we have the arcade game based on Temple of Doom -- I'm still trying to forget the pink conveyor belts from the NES port -- the text-only adventure called Indiana Jones in Revenge of the Ancients. And who could forget the Find Your Fate books? So not every effort at doing more with Indy outside of the movies were bad.

Indy versus Dracula? I'll be there as soon as I turn to page 98.

But I still had to wonder why Indy couldn't conquer the world of gaming in the same way the he did the silver screen. He should have a journal packed with leads to explore in virtually any genre -- in much the same way that Star Wars has expanded itself into nearly every niche out there.

Don't ever do this again. Please.

Although a few attempts would come close to translating the feel into a game, they haven't quite grasped the same brass ring that Tomb Raider and, more recently, Uncharted have. But looking at it as a fan, I'm also getting the impression that Indy games have become relegated to that area where it is nice to see one, but not exactly what you would want on your Christmas list.

Indy's early history seemed to show that he was best suited to titles that emphasized adventure over action. Those seemed to do OK and were a lot of fun in terms of storytelling, puzzles, and the optional action sequence that you could avoid if you wanted to.

But when he tried to add more action into the mix, that's where things went a little iffy. It's not that action and adventure couldn't mix; it's that for some reason, when action and adventure came together in an Indy game, there were bound to be some critical flaws that would turn players off, such as in the DS' Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings, despite some of the better ideas that were also there.

At this point, it was almost as if the franchise wasn't even trying very hard anymore, leaving it to the competition to simply outpace him, making his titles fit only for platforming compilations or Legos (not that there's anything wrong with Legos).

In some respects, Indy's gaming career is something of a history of missed opportunities for both fans of the film and players in general, although I'm sure that his films have inspired quite a few designers responsible for the success of his rivals. Everyone loves Indy, but a good game would also be nice, too.

Many of Indy's games have always had awesome, poster-style cover art

Fate of Atlantis wasn't shy about its puzzles because it was a pure adventure game as opposed to an action packed extravaganza. It even had something of an open world to it allowing the player to revisit areas around the globe in order to gather clues and hints, something that I would have liked to have seen in a later Indy title. How cool would it have been to visit a tavern in Cairo, chew the fat with the locals, and then head out on an optional side quest that he may have managed to weasel out from a shady character with a trained monkey?

But the Indy franchise has always taken a somewhat meandering route through its own development over the years. After Fate came the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, then the SNES compilation from Factor 5 which actually wasn't bad, and then his Desktop Adventures which was basically a Minesweeper substitute for when you need to get away from that spreadsheet. Seven years after Fate, Indy would return with a big production in the Infernal Machine but by then, he already had competition in the form of Tomb Raider and its sequels.

The puzzle solving, even that in Infernal Machine, never seemed to catch up to Lara Croft's ever growing focus on exploration and environmentally relevant brain busters that fit in with her world. Even the Emperor's Tomb had overly relied on levers to trip doors and platforms before reverting back to its somewhat heavy emphasis on combat. Before that, Infernal Machine brought in boss monsters  that, while fun from an action standpoint, didn't make much sense from an Indy perspective.

While Indy lay dormant since the Emperor's Tomb, Tomb Raider's design would evolve past the levers and pressure plate mentality of her previous efforts. Legacy, Anniversary, and most recently, Underworld, continued this trend with vast, open worlds that doubled as puzzles and used her grapple to great effect which had always been something that Indy's games had always struggled to emulate well until Staff of Kings had basically taken all of the guesswork out of it with near-automation. Uncharted's lush, open areas, death defying wall climbs, and interesting locales filled with a variety of imaginative challenges had also proven that Nathan Drake didn't have to be as flexible as Lara in getting to where he needed to go.

Drake can shoot, punch, and barely grasp onto ledges for dear life...much like another famous archaeologist could also be doing.

Uncharted's everyman along with spunky sidekick, Elena, also brought home the fact that they weren't indestructible superheroes. I'm not saying that I'd want to see Indy start talking to himself in the same way whenever he's confronted with danger, but he could do with a few witty quips when he's faced with a giant stone door that slams shut in his face or when Soviets and Nazis try to shoot it off. Or even a bit of character interaction at hub locations for when he's on the trail of a clue or two for where he may have to go next. It would have also been nice to see some dialog with a few other characters outside of the cinematics.

So what can Indy do to retake the crown from Nathan and Lara? To be honest, I'm not sure if it can be done, something that the cancellation of his next-gen debut has already implied. At the same time, I'm not asking that he reinvent the genre so much so that the next game takes ten years to develop, either.  There are bits and pieces out there that can come together to give the Man in the Hat a much deserved return to gaming. Uncharted and the new Tomb Raiders have proven that there are still a lot of creative ways to jump for that ledge, swing over those spikes, and hang on for dear life as an ancient city falls apart at your feet. The only thing missing is Indy.