[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Tabbu

Where I'm getting here is that I wonder where is THE adventure game that has a deep plot, amazing graphics, interesting characters.. ..all that. Syberia had nice clean pre-rendered backrounds and 3d characters. But what I hated was that backrounds where so static! There was some water animation and birds flying but nothing else. It really ruined the realism for me. Syberia had a nice plot and interesting characters, but main character's design was really dull. BS3 had a little better 3d graphics and moody lighting, but it had the same problems that Syberia: Too clean and static. BS3's plot was.. ..oh well, inadvertently funny. I enjoyed the conversations in BS3.

We have to accept the fact the adventure genre is the worst culprit as far as avoiding progressiveness and experimentation. Too many people prefer its status quo, which may help foster a refinement of the genre, but in the end prevents it from growing and diversifying. Although I loved Syberia, I do agree with you that it looked and felt too clean and static, i.e. stagnant. And I don't mean lack of NPCs walking around. The world felt clinical because it didn't move - it didn't convince me that it was a living, breathing world.

But have you played the Syberia II demo? It's much better, it looks and feel more 'live' than its prequel, the cinematography (for lack of a better word) is exquisite. I feel Syberia II to be a distillation of the beautiful, classic 2D adventure game.

What I don't understand that why these 3d adventures can't look as good as the dull shooting games?

Now for all you reading this response, do not erroneously think for one second that I hate 2D. I mean, you've just read my admiration for Syberia II above.

Why can't 3d adventures can't look as good as the dull shooting games? Because adventure game developers don't take the trouble, but more realistically many of them don't have the budget to take advantage of good graphics engines. There are many of us here who are happy enough with a good story and good puzzles. But who the hell am I fooling when I tell myself that? Why just stop at that? Why do devs and gamers always think that that's where it should end? Why should I merely be happy with good story and puzzles and have to put up with boring, boring, boring, outdated graphics and art direction? We have MAJOR proof in other genres and within the adventure genre that graphics can enrich the adventure experience so much more beyond merely being window dressing. Just look at the stunning hyperrealistic beauty of Max Payne 2, the cool cel shaded look of XIII, or the jawdroppingly exotic Uru? I mean, I consider Uru to be one of very few benchmarks for how supremely gorgeous AND immersive an adventure game can be.

I think that a game like Jack The Ripper would have made a fantastic real time 3D adventure in first person perspective, but as it stands it was a budget title and they devs couldn't afford it. Truly a pity, because I feel it could have been far more immersive and suspenseful.

Also games that I adore are Silent Hill series. I've played only the 3rd and saw little bit of the beginning of 2nd one. I hate the monster hitting and killing, but the characters, plot and graphics are wonderful. Once I played the SH 3 I thought many times that this engine could be great in adventure games. Film grain made 3d look more real and not clean and static. Characters are very detailed and the dynamic shadows! Astonishing.

So after all this text, my dream adventure games is: Moody, deep plot like Silent Hill 2.

Real life like graphics that could be pre-rendered dynamic backrounds like in Blade Runner, or realtime 3d like in SH3 or mix of both. More puzzles that are about communication and interreaction with npc's. Maybe a number of solutions to puzzles whould be logical in some cases. "Why I can't do that" is the question that comes often to my head.

There's been a number of discussions here about freedom of choice for the player in regards the puzzles. You can do a search to find the threads.

Soundtrack is also very important. I'm composer myself and I know the importance of good actors, fx and music.

This is definitely one major area adventure devs are moronically ignoring. Playing The Watchmaker, one of the reasons I said "F#&k this, I'm just gonna use a walkthrough and finish this piece of mediocre crap to get it out of the way!" was that the voice acting was one of the absolute worst I've ever heard. That and the horrible character models, the lame animations, and the flat out boring camera work in terms of narrative. The presentation sucked.

I wrote mainly about graphics. Althought they don't make the game, they can support it and make it more convincing to player. Graphics are the weakest link in nowday adventures. Well that's what I think.

Oh, yes, graphics DO make the game - more specifically, they help enrich the experience and immersion for the player. I think story and puzzles are most important, but graphics should also play a major role. Don't let anyone BS you into thinking otherwise. I mean, for cripe's sakes, they're GRAPHIC adventures. You don't play them with your eyes closed, thereby why give us mediocre, boring graphics and awfully dull art direction? I think originality in story, art direction, puzzle design, and good graphics are the weakest aspects in adventures right now.