You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers

Home Adventure Forums Gaming Adventure Just why do we want them back anyway?


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2005, 01:47 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14
Default Just why do we want them back anyway?

So I've read through the stickies on the death/future of adventure games, and I have my own theories on the whole thing, which I won't go into too much because they've pretty much been said before.

I am part of a small company with a little funding developing a game, which was always envisioned as an adventure, and although we are still in the early art stages, I am becoming more apprehensive about the viability of an adventure game in today's world.

And I have some questions for you all.

As we talk about whether AGs are dead and how we will revive them, I wonder why we want them back in the first place? I don't mean this sarcastically. There are still SOME being made, but what is it we want "back" and why? Are we talking about the industry returning to the golden age of the early 90's where adventure games were wildly popular?

Although punk rock (in a bastardized form) has made something of a come back, the elitists of the scene (who we might equate to hardcore adventure gamers) are certainly not going to tell you they want to see their music topping the charts again. The obscurity is part of the "cool."

So is the reason we want AGs to be popular again so that more of them will be produced, so there will be more for us to enjoy, and more likelihood of quality ones appearing?

Another issue. I always thought of myself as a big adventure game fan; I certainly was as a kid in the LucasArts days. But I am reailzing it may not be adventures, purely as a genre, that I love. For two reasons:

Recent adventure releases have excited me at first, but upon buying them I haven't put more than a few minutes into them simply because I think they suck. It's just opinion, and I don't want to argue to much about the merits of particular games, but Runaway was an example of something I thought I'd love that turned out to be terrible in my mind.

So I started looking back, and wondering if it's all about nostalgia? When I play Sam and Max or Day of the Tentacle again now, I still laugh, I still enjoy it, and as an adult continue to find it a great experience. I felt pretty sure that when Freelance Police came out (which of course, it didn't) I would be very much engaged by it. But maybe I wouldn't have been? Maybe it's simply a nostalgia factor.

No, I think...because i never played Monkey Island 2 as a child, for whatever reasons, and didn't until college...and I enjoyed every minute of it. But I remember thinking Space Quest IV was awesome as a kid too, and digging that up to play again, I think...wow...what a piece of crap.

Then there's a whole list of other newer adventure releases talked about this site that I simply wouldn't consider buying. Because the style and story don't appeal to me in the slightest.

So...part of the appeal, perhaps the gross aspect of the appeal of old adventure games, was the style and the stories. Quirky humor, funny conversations and happenings, good character arcs. And I have no interest in playing Siberia or something, even if the gameplay style and such are identical to Day of the Tentacle.

So I think, the point and click, puzzle solving aspect of an adventure game can't make it great on its own, even if done well. Its about the story, the characters, the world, the humor.

And then I started thinking about what just might be a new way of looking at the whole problem. In adventure games, and it's key that they are GAMES, plot, character development, world, dialogue, all come FIRST, and gameplay comes second.

What other genre is like this? None. Everywhere else, GAMEPLAY comes first, graphics are the close second, and then all that other stuff. Sure, stories and characters are greatly lacking in most modern games, and I'd love to see more, but they aren't essential.

Personally, I don't think Halo has much of a story, so it may not be a great example, but many people do. The multiplayer element adds hugely to its value, but we'll disregard that. The very first reason you play it is because you enjoy the game play. You may or may not be interested in what happens next story wise, but it's almost definitely secondary to the gratification that comes simply from playing it. But why do I find adventure games gratifying? Story, story, story. It's real nice, sure, to have a thinking challenge instead of a finger twitching challenge, but at the end of the day, why was it gratifying to solve the puzzles? Because I was rewarded with more story, and that's what motivated me to play- advancing the story, not simply the gameplay in itself. THe puzzles, (the gameplay) don't hold up on their own, even if they're perfectly designed.

Maybe not everyone agrees though. That's what I really want to know. Would you enjoy and keep playing an adventure game that say, had great, great puzzles, perfectly challenging in every way, but not much of a story?

So how do we make gameplay function first? I think the answer is, in this genre, it can't independent of story, and so, we have all the talk about adding action to games.

People I've shown the opening scenes and art for our project seem to find it, very, very funny. I talked to some people who are avid gamers, like good stories, but have never played any old adventure games. After trying to explain to them exactly what I wanted to do, the answer always came down to: "Oh. THen why don't you just make a movie?"

Good question. Here's the answer I came up with. I want the joy of interactivity, where you can actually talk to those funny characters, get responses, and explore the world they inhabit. But where will the game play come from? How will it work for today's gamers?

I asked the same friend finally, after explaining adventure games, wheter he thought it would work out for today's market, assuming it was of top notch production value, graphics, engine, etc. I said, "do you think people would be interested in a totally puzzle game, with no violence, timed sequences, reflex action, but a great story, style, characterization, etc.?"

He said, "Sure. There's already games like that."

Really?

"Yeah. Grand Theft Auto."

No, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying...(I explained some of the puzzles from Monkey Island.)

"Well GTA's the same thing. There's part's where you have to find something like a blue key to open a blue door."

Yeah, but it's pretty obvious that blue keys go in blue doors. YOu didn't have to think it out much.

"Well there's other puzzles too. Like you have to jump over a hill three times to advance."

Sigh. Conversation continued like this, and I spoke to a bunch of people, and consistent answers I got for what an adventure game would need to be a hit with this market were:

"Well, then it would have to be multiplayer some how. Even if it's not fighting with friends, that I could interact with other real people, maybe to collaborate to solve puzzles."

"It has to be up to date with what is a top seller. All the eye candy has to be on par, and I have to be able to navigate the world in real time 3D."

"It wouldn't be fun if what I do doesn't actually change the story, not just advance it. I'd need to be able to ahve different outcomes by doing different things."

"It needs some kind of score. Where I could get to the end but possibly not have accomplished everything. Where I could compare to my friends and see that I did it better than they did."

Not sure if I agree with most of this, but it's food for thought.

Tear me apart. Go!

Last edited by thedigitalmonkey; 10-06-2005 at 01:52 PM.
thedigitalmonkey is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 02:54 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Terramax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,595
Default

Adventure games nowadays get great(er) budgets and become greater games. I think it's simply the marketing. I don't know in the big scene in America but adventure games in the UK never get posters in "Game" stores (Electronic Boutique they were once called) or advertisements. I think this is it.

"Still Life" was a great game. Sure, it had its flaws and sure the ending was a little sudden, but it was a damn good attempt. Friends of mine who have never owned an adventure game are buying/ have bought the game now that they know about it.

"Fahrenheit" has sold incredibly well for the game it is. Sure, to me it seems more "GTA" than "Monkey Island" and the game too had a few flaws in its design and plot yet was still bought up by a major(ish) publisher. When I went to see the price in game, the PC version of it sold out!

My personal view is obvious - it's the publisher and industries fault. It has nothing to do with the game. If the games were bad then I wouldn't be on this forum. None of us here would. I'd be on a FPS forum writing about FPS games. I can't wait for the adventure games next year and neither should the next AG fan.

Unfortunatly, this is coming from someone who can't be all nostalgic about the old adventures. My first was "Blazing Dragons" on the sega saturn followed by "Discworld" on the PSX. I have played a few of the older (Sam and Max, Monkey Island 3, DOTT) but none seem better to me. The stories in the titles then seem no better than the ones now. In fact, I can barely find "SaM" and "DOTT" playable at all neither funny compared to "Discworld Noir".

Personally, reading other members with fond members of the past, I do think there are many out there who are blanked by nostalgia. But then again that can be with any genre. How many FPS fans expect the next "Halo" or "Half life" everytime they pick up a mediocre game of the genre. Why do these games still sell well ( or better then AG)? Because of the publishing budget.

I dont' think we should lose hope though. In Germany, AGs are doing incredibly well and in Europe as a whole seem to make more 3rd person AGs than the US.

I can't think of a way to answer your comment on not bothering to play adventures from nowadays. Personaly, "Wanted" and "Still Life" are some of the best adventures I've ever played. If you aren't interested in games like these then I suggest you move on to another genre of games.

I don't know how much of this you will find useful but, these are my thoughts.
Terramax is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 03:15 PM   #3
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 298
Default

Hello!

You said something I think needs attention:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey
And then I started thinking about what just might be a new way of looking at the whole problem. In adventure games, and it's key that they are GAMES, plot, character development, world, dialogue, all come FIRST, and gameplay comes second.

What other genre is like this? None. Everywhere else, GAMEPLAY comes first, graphics are the close second, and then all that other stuff. Sure, stories and characters are greatly lacking in most modern games, and I'd love to see more, but they aren't essential.
It would be a fallacy to say that GAMEPLAY comes first in every other genre but the adventure genre. There are plenty of games that cater to other areas of game development. Graphics-whores understand this perfectly well.

Also, to say that "story" supercedes GAMEPLAY in the adventure genre is also misleading. What makes the games from the "golden days" so dang golden is the strong marriage between narrative and GAMEPLAY. In essence, the game world unfolds as you interact with it in a meaningful way (meaningful according to the mechanics of the game, of course). Story and character development are not considered more important in adventure games. Those games that push the adventuring to the side do so at the risk of making the adventure game nothing more than a novel requiring point and click in order to turn pages.

The essence of a TRUE adventure game is when narrative storytelling and player interaction with characters and environment are meticulously and purposefully intertwined. This is GAMEPLAY. To say that gameplay is, in fact, an element separate from story describes a game that is NOT an adventure game. (Or maybe it does indicate a poory designed one.)

The best of the best adventure games do not feel forced or disjointed. They are interactive stories that enable players to make choices which elicit narrative responses (whether open-ended or closed). This certainly does not indicate that adventure games put gameplay on the so called "back burner."

Kirk
Kirk is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 08:28 PM   #4
I'm complicated
 
smashing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 736
Send a message via MSN to smashing
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey
So I think, the point and click, puzzle solving aspect of an adventure game can't make it great on its own, even if done well. Its about the story, the characters, the world, the humor.

And then I started thinking about what just might be a new way of looking at the whole problem. In adventure games, and it's key that they are GAMES, plot, character development, world, dialogue, all come FIRST, and gameplay comes second.

What other genre is like this? None. Everywhere else, GAMEPLAY comes first, graphics are the close second, and then all that other stuff. Sure, stories and characters are greatly lacking in most modern games, and I'd love to see more, but they aren't essential.
I can name two other genres where gameplay comes second: Interactive Fiction and Educational games.

Frankly, with advancement in technology, just having simple gameplay is just not enough to capture new audience. To us, players who are not at all unpleased that AG have become a niche market, gameplay is definitely not as essential as the story and character development. However, to people who have not had the luxury to play AG in the good olde days, their concept of adventure is pretty much define by the more renown games like Myst or the other action adventure games like Tomb Raider and whatnot. I'm not saying that these ain't adventure games of course (Laura Croft is an adventure game heroine in my books! ), just games that have gameplay being more important than the story.

At the end of the day, most publishers ain't interested in releasing games with a great story; they are interested in releasing best-sellers, in order to feed their families. Economic wisom dictates that the most stable way to bring in a constant stream of liquid asset, is to conform to the mass market. Consequently, a situation where the games dominating the markets are first-person shooters or action adventure games. Once in a while however, big companies like Atari, will opt for a bit of diversity by supporting games with different (preferably innovative) gameplay. Hence we have games like Fahrenheit, which are like lottery picks for the publisher. You won't know for sure whether it'll float or sink. You just throw in the excess money you have, and hope that you'll strike jackpot.

And to prove that people nowadays are more concerned with gameplay than the story, just look at Fahrenheit. It's precisely because of Fahrenheit, where there's a sudden influx of people into this humble forum. Does Fahrenheit boast exactly a great story? Maybe. But the main attraction to the game ultimately (which is more of an interactive fiction game than an adventure game after all...) is the gameplay, not the story. Gameplay is king. It's the reality.

Just look at the other recent release, Bone. It could easily be yet another traditional adventure game, that focus more of the story than the gameplay. Yet, to my dismay, they have to add in action sequence in it, to attract new gamers.

Dreamfall similarly will have action sequences as well, though they claim that these could be prevented if you make certain choices. Still, it proves the point that gameplay is important, to have such sequences in the first place.

There will bound to be many more adventures games to come that will have "better" gameplay to attract new gamers. As much as it is to the dismay of a number of us, it's a reality a-coming.
__________________
Just seen DEATH, and he'd said HI.
smashing is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 08:38 PM   #5
Sierra Junkie
 
avatar_58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 797
Send a message via MSN to avatar_58
Default

Hey all I know is.....adventure games are the only linear games that I can replay whenever I am bored no matter how much I've memorized them. Today, I will go back and play sierra's gems over (even knowing the puzzles etc) and they are great to pass the time.
avatar_58 is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 08:46 PM   #6
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smashing
And to prove that people nowadays are more concerned with gameplay than the story, just look at Fahrenheit. It's precisely because of Fahrenheit, where there's a sudden influx of people into this humble forum. Does Fahrenheit boast exactly a great story? Maybe. But the main attraction to the game ultimately (which is more of an interactive fiction game than an adventure game after all...) is the gameplay, not the story. Gameplay is king. It's the reality.
Where have you been hanging out, smashing? The main reason many people are raving about Fahrenheit IS the story AND the how well the characters have been developed. And we're NOT talking about adventure gamers, but those people who play RPGs, RTSs, and FPSs. Hell, a lot of them are praising Fahrenheit because to them it's not another boring-as-hell, 2D point-&-clicker. And a lot of these guys are actually veteran adventure gamers themselves, the ones who were big fans of LucasArts and Sierra in the early to mid 90s. They talk about how they got sick and tired of what they perceived as the decline in quality, originality, and vision of adventure games in the past several years, so they dumped it all and moved on to RPGs and action/adventures.

Also, many of them have absolutely no problems with the simon says minigames and the trigger pressing because they're used to it, they're used to the fast paced button mashing of FPSs and action/adventures. To them it's a no-brainer.

Go to the forums at Blues News, Gamespy, Gamespot, and other general gaming sites and you'll see for yourself. They're mad about Fahrenheit for the story and the character development.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:13 PM   #7
Sierra Junkie
 
avatar_58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 797
Send a message via MSN to avatar_58
Default

Fahrenheit...whatever it does, it does it well.
avatar_58 is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:28 PM   #8
I'm complicated
 
smashing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 736
Send a message via MSN to smashing
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
Where have you been hanging out, smashing?
Was out to pan everyone! Man! The short-cut is heavenly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trepsie
Hell, a lot of them are praising Fahrenheit because to them it's not another boring-as-hell, 2D point-&-clicker.
I agree whole-heartedly on that and I have no qualms against Fahrenheit either. I was using it as an example that AG just can't get away with the same old point and click system, and using the emphasis on just story and puzzles as the formula for a good AG.

Having a good gameplay is the reality these days to attract gamers first. If a gamer doesn't even want to pick up a game, thinking that the interface or gameplay is still, it won't matter even if the game boast the best story and character development ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trepsie
Go to the forums at Blues News, Gamespy, Gamespot, and other general gaming sites and you'll see for yourself. They're mad about Fahrenheit for the story and the character development.
Will do so after this...
trep
__________________
Just seen DEATH, and he'd said HI.
smashing is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:33 PM   #9
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

What I'm seriously hoping for is that a few other talented adventure game devs will want to investigate how Fahrenheit works in terms of incorporating gameplay so deeply in the story (not necessarily the simon says sequences and the trigger mashing) - how you interact with the gameworld, your characters, and how your choices affect the conditions and details of the plot.

I would love for there to be some adventure games that explore issues of ethical choices, as well as real time artificial intelligence.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:41 PM   #10
I'm complicated
 
smashing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 736
Send a message via MSN to smashing
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
I would love for there to be some adventure games that explore issues of ethical choices, as well as real time artificial intelligence.
Like facade?
__________________
Just seen DEATH, and he'd said HI.
smashing is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:46 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Udvarnoky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk

It would be a fallacy to say that GAMEPLAY comes first in every other genre but the adventure genre. There are plenty of games that cater to other areas of game development. Graphics-whores understand this perfectly well.

Also, to say that "story" supercedes GAMEPLAY in the adventure genre is also misleading. What makes the games from the "golden days" so dang golden is the strong marriage between narrative and GAMEPLAY. In essence, the game world unfolds as you interact with it in a meaningful way (meaningful according to the mechanics of the game, of course). Story and character development are not considered more important in adventure games. Those games that push the adventuring to the side do so at the risk of making the adventure game nothing more than a novel requiring point and click in order to turn pages.

The essence of a TRUE adventure game is when narrative storytelling and player interaction with characters and environment are meticulously and purposefully intertwined. This is GAMEPLAY. To say that gameplay is, in fact, an element separate from story describes a game that is NOT an adventure game. (Or maybe it does indicate a poory designed one.)
/\
The correct answer.
Udvarnoky is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 09:47 PM   #12
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smashing
Like facade?
Facade is more of an experiment than an actual game. What they're hoping for is that progressive game devs will look into it and get inspired.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 10:10 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Kurufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 3,038
Default

thedigitalmonkey, although I don't fully agree with your conclusions, I really like you method of studying the relationship between gameplay and story; the adventure genre wouldn't be where it is now if some designers had asked themselves that question ten years ago. I wrote a few things on the subject in another thread, with a different perspective. That might interest you.

And the question of different perspectives is an interesting one too. You say:

Quote:
And then I started thinking about what just might be a new way of looking at the whole problem. In adventure games, and it's key that they are GAMES, plot, character development, world, dialogue, all come FIRST, and gameplay comes second.
I strongly disagree with that, but I see what you mean. I've mean meaning for a long time to start a "what was your very first adventure game and how did it influence your view of the genre" thread, as I think that is the crux of the matter; I think I'm really going to do it, this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
What I'm seriously hoping for is that a few other talented adventure game devs will want to investigate how Fahrenheit works in terms of incorporating gameplay so deeply in the story (not necessarily the simon says sequences and the trigger mashing) - how you interact with the gameworld, your characters, and how your choices affect the conditions and details of the plot.

I would love for there to be some adventure games that explore issues of ethical choices, as well as real time artificial intelligence.
Amen to that (or at least most of it).
Kurufinwe is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 10:25 PM   #14
Member
 
entranced's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 96
Default

Adventure games are known for their medium - difficult puzzles and challenges, and really making use of your thinking cap. This is why I miss them. Today's games barely pay heed to the player's intelligence and critical thinking skills, if at all. I thought Fahrenheit was really going to challenge me...but I'm sorry to say that Fahrenheit failed that aspect of the adventure game genre. It turned out to be one of the easiest games I've ever played.

Spoiler:
Finding a friggin book as the game's hardest puzzle? That "puzzle" took me 5 minutes...and 2 of those minutes I spent in the bathroom. And pairing up evidence was a no brainer, ESPECIALLY when I was the one who decided which pieces of evidence would be available.

Last edited by entranced; 10-06-2005 at 10:30 PM.
entranced is offline  
Old 10-06-2005, 11:08 PM   #15
Thats the ticket
 
vivasawadee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 395
Default

I think the "twitch" factor plays a large part in the arguments.

Some people want to play games that test only their mental, not physical dexterity.

The old school adventure games like Sierra and Lucasarts, you can spend days on a certain puzzle (I know I did) and get nowhere without a walkthrough. There were very static and I'm glad that those days are over.

The newer style games like Fahrenheit are the way to go. I was glued to the game and the play mechanics complimented what was happening really well. Hopefully the developers will continue on the same path and add more variety to the gameplay.

thedigitalmonkey, if you want your game to be a success please get the player involved as much as possible. Don't let them get stuck in dead ends and give them choices or illusion of choice in which they decide the outcome. Don't make puzzles too hard, make them logical and reward the player properly. And most importantly remember that you are making a game. Make it fun to play!
vivasawadee is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:03 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Kero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 28
Default

I have found this thread to be an interesting read. I have to agree that adventure games are changing - that gameplay like "trigger mashing" is being incorporated to attract new players. Unfortunately this type of gameplay - while attracting new players - may be leaving older players in the dust. I no longer have the requisit manual dexterity required for successful "trigger mashing". If the only way one can advance in the game is by completing a speedy series of "trigger mashes" then the game ends right there for me. Great puzzels and story lines won't mean a thing if I can't finish because my fingers aren't fast enough. If this truely is the wave of the future - then it's back to replaying my copies of orignial Myst and Journeyman Project.

PS - Kurufinwe - my first ever adventure game was original Myst on a Mac Quadra. I still have the Quadra and the game!
__________________
A little nonsence now and then is relished by the wisest (wo)men
Kero is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:04 AM   #17
Member
 
entranced's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivasawadee
The old school adventure games like Sierra and Lucasarts, you can spend days on a certain puzzle (I know I did) and get nowhere without a walkthrough. There were very static and I'm glad that those days are over.
I guess I was too broad in my statements. I like challenges that are difficult, but nowhere near impossible. I'm not a fan of the frustrating puzzles you find in games like 11th Hour or Ripper, for example, where actual puzzles are just thrown into a game in which you just end up sitting there trying every possible solution until you finally get the right one, two days later.

I'm talking about challenges integrated directly into the story/gameplay that you can figure out if you think things through for a little bit or do more exploring. Something that will take some effort. There's too easy and there's next to impossible. Fahrenheit was the former. I want something in between.
entranced is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:26 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Terramax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
Where have you been hanging out, smashing? The main reason many people are raving about Fahrenheit IS the story AND the how well the characters have been developed.
That's not what I've read on some adventure forums. Many people have complained that its story downfalls by the second third way through.
Terramax is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:29 AM   #19
merely human
 
Intrepid Homoludens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 22,309
Default

You didn't read what I posted. I posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trep
And we're NOT talking about adventure gamers, but those people who play RPGs, RTSs, and FPSs. Hell, a lot of them are praising Fahrenheit because to them it's not another boring-as-hell, 2D point-&-clicker. And a lot of these guys are actually veteran adventure gamers themselves, the ones who were big fans of LucasArts and Sierra in the early to mid 90s. They talk about how they got sick and tired of what they perceived as the decline in quality, originality, and vision of adventure games in the past several years, so they dumped it all and moved on to RPGs and action/adventures.
__________________
platform: laptop, iPhone 3Gs | gaming: x360, PS3, psp, iPhone, wii | blog: a space alien | book: the moral landscape: how science can determine human values by sam harris | games: l.a.noire, portal 2, brink, dragon age 2, heavy rain | sites: NPR, skeptoid, gaygamer | music: ray lamontagne, adele, washed out, james blake | twitter: a_space_alien
Intrepid Homoludens is offline  
Old 10-07-2005, 12:38 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Terramax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,595
Default

That means nothing to me. I play many RPGs- ive played more of them than AG. Also, it means nothing because I never played the old Sierra and Lucas Arts. To me, the only difference between "Discworld" and "Still Life" (hence, my point-of-view of the genre) is the increase in quality graphics.
Terramax is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.