Quote:
Originally Posted by After a brisk nap
What kind of question is that? Do you really think anyone would choose not to play an adventure game because of the program it was made with? That makes about as much sense as only playing games where the graphics are made in Photoshop, refusing to play any that are drawn in Paint Shop Pro.
Look, I see a lot of anti-AGS prejudice in this thread, and I don't really get it. If you're a developer, use whatever engine is best for you. And if you're a player, the only thing that really matters is the quality of the game. Bias is only going to blind you to what's out there.
|
I do, yes. Perhaps "prejudiced" was the wrong word,
inclined would be more fitting. I suspect that amateur adventure game players are more inclined to play a game in an engine they're familiar with, yes.
Why I came to this conclusion, is very simple. I have seen a lot of polished, great games in other engines that never achieved large popularity. It could be because the develper didn't adventise the game enough, yes. Still, for example, take a look at this site. There are by far, more adventure games in AGS written about than games of other engines. I realize that the writers will deny this. Call it anti-AGS prejudice if you wish, but as a whole, games have an increased chance of fame and popularity if they're made with AGS. On a site, like, say Adventure Developers, where a good deal of staff here hang out, you will see a good many non-AGS games being promoted, but they just don't seem to reach popularity levels of AGS games.
Take, for example, two adventure games that came out in 2003. Out of Order and The Apprentice. Both were supposed to be excellent games. One was SLUDGE, one was AGS. Whereas, say, Out of Order isn't heard of anymore, you can't throw a dead cat without hitting an article praising The Apprentice, if you'll excuse the expression. I realise I'll invoke a lot of comments about how The Apprentice was much better than Out of Order and whatnot, and therefor worthy of more mention, but my point stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by After a brisk nap
What I think it more interesting is to look at the higher end of the curve. There are quite a few Underground and indie games in low-resolution 320x200 (or 320x240) whose graphics are essentially professional quality. That is to say, they look as good (or nearly as good) as commercial games of the same resolution. (Like The Infinity String, Knightsquire, the Apprentice series, Cedric and the Revolution, The Blackwell Legacy, No-Action Jackson, etc.) On the other hand, how many high resolution amateur adventures could be mistaken for a commercial, professional title? Not many. (Some that are under development, though, like Rise of the Hidden Sun and Kaptain Brawe. The higher resolution graphics are probably one of the reasons they're still under development.)
|
I understand what you're saying, yes. Professional games from the 90s, with lo-res graphics, had a realistic touch to every detail, despite the low resolution. Sadly, it's not a trait that is seen very often anymore.
