[Sughly]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of people bring up this notion of how adventures appeal to mainstream as an aspect of how successful adventures are. I don't think it's really the measure of success, how well documented and covered an adventure is in the so called mainstream.

I think titles like the ones mentioned at the beginning of the thread have been considerably successful. I don't have figures, so it is hard to tell, but I go by what I find in pre-sales selling out, of indie developers growing from title to title, etc. Even the fact that new adventure titles are actually getting reviewed by mainstream sites and magazines now (even if they are extremely narrow minded and biased). This is what I think is a great measurement of success. While there are titles like Heavy Rain that people will hold up on a pedastal and say 'this is how adventures become successful', I like to perceive success in these other ways. I think what Jacques mentioned with the increase in people asking him about adventures following casuals is another one of those measures.

And before people attack on the notion that the reviews have been biased, I'd like to defend myself by saying they attack the genre for all the things that a lot of others admire it for. That's what's biased about it. It's like me giving Halo a negative opinion because you shoot aliens most of the time instead of having more dialogue and character development. It's like showing a David Lynch film to someone who's favourite film is Twilight. They will almost always not get it, and that's fine with me. I do, and a lot of others do and more are starting to (I'm talking about adventures again now ).