Adventure Forums - View Single Post - Since year 2000: Two NEAR PERFECT most recent releases

Jacques l'aliéné · 09-08-2007, 03:05 AM

I agree with you Harald. I've edited the original post to say "NEARLY". The point I was trying to emphasise was that I wanted people to be hyper, hyper choosy in picking out any game, or games. Are there actually any that have been released in the 21 Century that have been better than any of the very best of the preceeding years ?

For the purpose of this question I definitely want to exclude graphics as an element for comparison because that's a technological advantage that I don't want to be included in the comparison. Yes, I know that good graphics contribute enormously to atmosphere as well. But, for the purpose of this excercise, don't include it. Just consider the other elements. And, DEFINITELY, say so if you think that NO GAMES, since 2000, can be regarded as absolute Classics compared to the best of ones that came before.

Even in the 1990's, I'm sure that people could think of games with 'inferior' graphics that were sooo good in other respects that they are regarded as absolute classics. If you regard graphics quality as an uneliminateable element - which I'd completely understand from your perspective - then don't pick any games out in answer to the question. I'm really just after your choices excluding graphics. For instance, some independently made Adventures may have far inferior graphics, but do the other ingredients make for a CLASSIC ? How would you be able to consider commercially available text Adventures, for instance, if you couldn't compare their 'graphics' with graphics equivalents ? '1893: A World's Fair Mystery', 'Future Boy', for example ?

Similarly, for example, think of a game that you thought had a fantastic story, with excellent puzzles, excellent graphics, good game length, excellent music, excellent sound effects, acting, etc.. Now, take away the 'excellent' graphics. A major element, I agree. But it wouldn't have made the game a bummer, would it? Not, surely, compared to some (many I'd say), 21st Century games with fantastically mesmerising graphics but, taking those away, nowhere near as good in all of the other essential elements when compared to Adventures regarded as fantastic from earlier years that didn't have the advantage of today's technology when it comes to 'game look'.

I know graphics quality is a very important consideration. But, just for the purpose of this question, only look at the other elements. Imagine, if it helps, you're comparing Text Adventures/IF with music and sounds if you find that helps. It doesn't for me, but who knows?

Apologies for such an awkward question. I have reasons for asking. No, I'm not making a 'poor graphics' game.

Remember, "And, DEFINITELY, say so if you think that" ... (excluding graphics as a factor), ... "NO GAMES, since 2000, can be regarded as absolute Classics compared to the best of ones that came before.". That statistic is just as valuable to me.

Thanks.

09-08-2007, 03:05 AM	#7
Jacques l'aliéné Flatulent Philanthropist Join Date: May 2005 Location: Below wreckers hill in the Welsh wilderness Posts: 623	I agree with you Harald. I've edited the original post to say "NEARLY". The point I was trying to emphasise was that I wanted people to be hyper, hyper choosy in picking out any game, or games. Are there actually any that have been released in the 21 Century that have been better than any of the very best of the preceeding years ? For the purpose of this question I definitely want to exclude graphics as an element for comparison because that's a technological advantage that I don't want to be included in the comparison. Yes, I know that good graphics contribute enormously to atmosphere as well. But, for the purpose of this excercise, don't include it. Just consider the other elements. And, DEFINITELY, say so if you think that NO GAMES, since 2000, can be regarded as absolute Classics compared to the best of ones that came before. Even in the 1990's, I'm sure that people could think of games with 'inferior' graphics that were sooo good in other respects that they are regarded as absolute classics. If you regard graphics quality as an uneliminateable element - which I'd completely understand from your perspective - then don't pick any games out in answer to the question. I'm really just after your choices excluding graphics. For instance, some independently made Adventures may have far inferior graphics, but do the other ingredients make for a CLASSIC ? How would you be able to consider commercially available text Adventures, for instance, if you couldn't compare their 'graphics' with graphics equivalents ? '1893: A World's Fair Mystery', 'Future Boy', for example ? Similarly, for example, think of a game that you thought had a fantastic story, with excellent puzzles, excellent graphics, good game length, excellent music, excellent sound effects, acting, etc.. Now, take away the 'excellent' graphics. A major element, I agree. But it wouldn't have made the game a bummer, would it? Not, surely, compared to some (many I'd say), 21st Century games with fantastically mesmerising graphics but, taking those away, nowhere near as good in all of the other essential elements when compared to Adventures regarded as fantastic from earlier years that didn't have the advantage of today's technology when it comes to 'game look'. I know graphics quality is a very important consideration. But, just for the purpose of this question, only look at the other elements. Imagine, if it helps, you're comparing Text Adventures/IF with music and sounds if you find that helps. It doesn't for me, but who knows? Apologies for such an awkward question. I have reasons for asking. No, I'm not making a 'poor graphics' game. Remember, "And, DEFINITELY, say so if you think that" ... (excluding graphics as a factor), ... "NO GAMES, since 2000, can be regarded as absolute Classics compared to the best of ones that came before.". That statistic is just as valuable to me. Thanks. Last edited by Jacques l'aliéné; 09-08-2007 at 03:50 AM. Reason: Misspelled Harald.