Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AudioSoldier
You've just proved what I’ve been saying all along. Fan games are not as good as their commercial counterparts because they're developed by small teams that don't have the resources to churn out games that are worth your while.
|
I think many amateur games
are worth my while. I certainly don't regret the time I spent playing
5 Days a Stranger,
Grrr! Bearly Sane,
Two of a Kind,
Ben Jordan 3, or KQ2VGA. Were they perfect? No. But their flaws weren't greater than those of many professional games.
Quote:
|
And how are they better designed? First you take the time to point out their downfalls, then go the other way and try and reason that they're better made. How, how? They're shorter, less professionally created, filled with design flaws and plot holes...I could write an essay on why they’ll never be as good or as downright worthy as something backed by a publisher.
|
Since when does length equate to quality? I'd rather play a short but sweet game than spend dozens of hours on something that's not as enjoyable.
Although the graphics in amateur games cannot compete with commercial games on a technological level, the best of them arguably rival them artistically. Lower resolution, yes; less animation, yes; more likely to be 2D cartoony than 3D rendered, yes; but the image itself can be just as good. The Apprentice games could be put side-by-side with commercial games done in a similar style and with similar technology without embarrassment. Many of the other best-looking amateur games are very short mini-games with maybe three screens that you can complete in ten minutes--half an hour. Recently I played
Caverns, which has (a) beautiful background(s) done in a crayon style.
In most high-quality amateur games, the graphics range from adequate to solid. Most could not be mistaken for professional work, but they do the job. In my opinion, graphics rarely make or break an adventure game, anyway.
The same goes for many of the other things money buys you: voice acting, "state-of-the-art" visuals and so on. Sure, those bells and whistles are nice to have, but they won't turn a bad game into a good one, and doing without them won't usually ruin a great game.
Sure, there are many amateur games with shoddy design and glaring flaws. But it's not really fair to compare the worst examples, or even the average samples, to commercial games. The barrier of entry is so much lower. To really see what amateur games are capable of, you need to look at the best of the bunch. (Admittedly, the games you list are among the best. I really don't think much of what you say applies to them.)
If you play games primarily for the eye-candy and production values, of course amateur adventure games aren't for you. But if you're looking for a fun challenge, an entertaining story, some old-school but cautiously experimental gameplay, and a personal vision that hasn't had all its edges filed off to appeal to the widest possible demographics, you could do much worse than checking out some of the games being made with AGS, WME, SLUDGE, and all the other adventure game engines.
