Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BacardiJim
And frankly, I don't care how defensive such gamers want to get about it, it DOES indicate a "dumbing down" of the genre. However, this MAY not necessarily be a bad thing. It certainly makes adventure games more accessible to the masses. I will trust that while adventure games gain more widespread popularity by lowering the mental bar, there will still be a few quality games released for those of us who like some tough mental challenges thrown in with our pretty pictures.
|
Well, I guess I can expect you not to care about this post, but I heartily disagree with the statements I quoted. Refer to my first post in this thread for starters. In order for the genre to get "dumbed down" it must have been more intelligent than it is now. I absolutely do NOT believe that more puzzles equates to a more intelligent game. Frankly, I find this absurd. I love the classic adventures dearly, but I would never claim in a million years that their puzzles require
intelligence to solve, or that intelligence was the reason they were great. They require patience, persistance, and are probably facilitated more than anything else simply be experience--the more used to solving generally completely counterintuitive puzzles you are, the easier it will become. All of this "metal bar" business is, to me, just another example of the high-and-mighty attitude taken by many adventure gamers, particularly the ones who rail against change in the genre, that I brought up in my first post. I know plenty of people more intelligent than I who would take a look at Zork and its "intelligent" puzzles, roll their eyes, and say "You call THIS smart?" I used to have the very attitude which I now condemn. But when I go back and actually PLAY those old games I once saw as being so much smarter than their modern-day counterparts, I realize they are great for different reasons.
EDIT: And BJ, in regards to your first paragraph: The question was "What's your primary reason for playing adventures?", not "What was the original model of the adventure genre?", so I'm somewhat bothered by your not-TOO-subtle attitude of superiority essentially saying "I've been around longer than you, and this is what adventures used to be, so it's the right way." There's nothing wrong with you preferring the first option! Don't think I'm trying to hypocritically indicate what part of adventures is the most important. But on the other hand, you shouldn't try to provide some all-encompassing justification for your preference. It's perfectly fine to say that you, Bacardi Jim, are a puzzle fan and you love solving them, but to equate your own personal preference with superior intelligence, and the other option as "dumbing down"--give me a break. Your Leisure Suit Larry example is also rather weak. I love movies because they offer excellent narrative possibilities not present in other mediums. Does the existence of hard-boiled action films devoid of such possibilities provide reason to invalidate what I love about movies? Of course not! Even such movies which are considered classics (just as the LSL games are often considered classic adventures) do not cancel out my own preferences.
