Quote:
Originally Posted by gray pierce
I might be stretching it a bit far here but I wonder do we want AGs to be immensely popular? I mean, not to sound snobbish or anything, but when I look at the masses I wonder if this really is the audience we want. For example I was sitting in the train a couple of weeks back and across form me were sitting two guys who had just finished Tomb Raider Underworld and all they could talk about was how long it took them to finish the game and how many secrets they gathered. They didn't talk about the story, the characters, the gameplay or even the graphics. Is this the way we want AGs to go? People only discussing how many puzzles they solved and how long it took them to do so. Is this really the future we want for AGs?
|
Actually, with due respect, you do sound snobbish. Do you mean to say that you're basing "the masses'" perceived lack of appreciation for what makes adventure games worth looking at on a couple of guys you overheard on a train? You might be surprised to learn that many people who love various kinds of games are substantial types of people - i.e. well educated, cultured, affluent, etc. Not necessarily Einsteins, but smart and informed enough that they can make their own choices on what kind of game they want to play.
If I may be so anecdotal about it, I have a fine arts degree and enjoy many kinds of games, including adventure games. My niece, who is 16 and is already taking college level classes alongside her high school curriculum (she plans on becoming a forensic scientist), loved playing Nancy Drew and CSI on her PC; today she loves games like Left 4 Dead and Dragon Age (yep, I introduced her to all those games).
Naturally, many others like me and my niece are out there, choosing good games and never limiting themselves to just one kind of game.
So what if what we want to appreciate in a game is merely how beautiful it looks and how many hidden things we can find? We can easily play adventure games and then turn around and play Fable II and not be considered by you or others here as "the masses" that are unfit to play adventures.
Quote:
|
Don't get me wrong I don't want AGs to fall into oblivion either but what's wrong with the way they are now: with their own small audience who can truly appreciate them for what they are. Sure they'll continue to be low budget and nowhere nere as beautiful as any action-adventure or shooter but that's not what it's really about is it? I mean if they want AGs to appeal to the masses they'll have to start focussing on engines rather than story and I don't know about you but that's certainly not the way I want AGs to go. Innovation is good but it shouldn't go at the cost of that what makes the genre so good in the first place
|
As I had originally written in a
long editorial about it, not only should traditional adventure games stay traditional, but developers should also continue to improve them, refine them, and make each successive one better and better. And they would still be the adventure game you love.
But, it's also good - and necessary - to diversify and be innovative here and there because it introduces new and exciting ways to experience story and challenge!
Your reasoning is weak and perhaps a bit knee-jerk. Innovation is still possible while maintaining a level of quality. Advanced technology like real time 3D, artificial intelligence, and motion sensitive interface can enhance the experience without sacrificing the challenges of puzzle solving and story.
And startlingly modern games like Heavy Rain can and do exist alongside a traditional game like the upcoming Gray Matter, and that's because THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A MARKET FOR BOTH TYPES OF ADVENTURE GAME.
In short, I honestly don't know what you're complaining about and why.
