[The Seed]

There's an interview with Charles Cecil been posted up at www.computerandvideogames.com, which I think possibly warrents some discussion.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=131508

I know he's very respected, but I have to take issue with a few of his comments regarding 'humorous' adventures:

The early 1990s were a golden era for point-and-click adventures. What do you think of the LucasArts titles of the time such as The Secret of Monkey Island?

Charles Cecil: In the category of jokey adventures, they were fantastic - unbeatable. But we were never in that area - we were all about writing serious games with a humorous touch, rather than slapstick games. So we were never directly competing. In fact now, I think the market has moved completely away from LucasArts kind of slapstick gaming - would you pay 30 for a humorous game any more? As the market has become more mass market, you want a game that grips you - which is why I still believe in the potential of games like Broken Sword, which have historical backgrounds, and ultimately are telling serious stories that will hopefully really excite players.

So basically Lucasarts games were good for their type of game but were inferior to serious adventure games?

And lets have a show of hands: who here would not buy comedy adventure games anymore because their past it? Well sure, count me out, I'd rather play a proper adventure game with a historical background, where supposedly ordinary guy Stobart in fact turns out to be "Sir George", and the villain somehow turns into a Dragon at the end and Sir George has to slay the Dragon. Not quite what I'd call serious and well, quite frankly not too exciting either.

[Kurufinwe]

Yeah, I completely agree with you, Charles Cecil should have another look at BS3 before taking himself too seriously.

But I don't want to read any more of this, or I'm going to Already Hate [TM] BS4 (which is almost already the case after their press release revealing that absolutely ridiculous storyline).

[Aj_]

Shadow of the Templars might not have been like LucasArts but "gritty" is ridiculous. Smoking Mirror and Sleeping Dragon however were off the wall as much as LucasArts, and the end part of Sleeping Dragon went far beyond anything.

Originally Posted by PCZone

Are you still of the opinion that "point-and-click adventures are dead"?

Charles Cecil: Point-and-click works when the world is static - you find things that you want to interact with and the static world reacts to you clicking, which is not what I wanted with BS3 or the new game. I still stand by the idea of point-and-click being dead. However, I'm not in any way saying that the use of a mouse or indirect control is wrong - and we are moving back to this way of playing adventure games in Broken Sword 4.

That's what I like hearing. Lets hope they don't screw up this type of interface like their attempt at direct control.

[Wreck]

PC Zone is a good mag. One of my films was featured in there as well as PC Zone Benelux and SPIN Magazine. PC Zone was by far the most pleasant to work with though.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by The Seed

So basically Lucasarts games were good for their type of game but were inferior to serious adventure games?

And lets have a show of hands: who here would not buy comedy adventure games anymore because their past it? Well sure, count me out, I'd rather play a proper adventure game with a historical background, where supposedly ordinary guy Stobart in fact turns out to be "Sir George", and the villain somehow turns into a Dragon at the end and Sir George has to slay the Dragon. Not quite what I'd call serious and well, quite frankly not too exciting either.

I find it interesting that you interpreted his comment in an entirely different manner to me. I agree that The Sleeping Dragon was flawed, and I suspect that Cecil would admit that. But he nowhere says that slapstick games are inferior to serious games, or that his games are better - indeed, doesn't he describe the output of LucasArts as "unbeatable"? His argument is that the market has moved on, and that it is the more serious titles that are selling well. And, much as I enjoy the slapstick games, I'm tempted to agree with him here. Look at the relative commercial failure of Psychonauts compared to the more "serious" output of the games industry, and then tell me, honestly, that he's entirely wrong on this matter.

[The Seed]

Originally Posted by RLacey

But he nowhere says that slapstick games are inferior to serious games, or that his games are better - indeed, doesn't he describe the output of LucasArts as "unbeatable"?

The way I read it was that he was saying that Lucasarts games were unbeatable - compared to other 'jokey' adventure games, not adventure games in general.

And I still don't believe that comedy is less marketable than serious, although I admit I don't have anything to back that up. As far as adventure games are concerned, I think that the reason we don't see as many quality comedy adventure games these days is simply that it's more difficult to pull off successfully, and it's easier to write serious adventures.

[Jackal]

He could have been talking merely about general market trends, until he directly questioned whether anyone would still buy one, and rationalized why people wouldn't. That made it more personal, and certainly implies a superiority, if not openly claiming it. I certainly don't think he meant anything malicious by it, though. And if he didn't think his style was "better", he wouldn't be much of a developer.

The theory about comedic market is still an interesting one, though, and I question any logic behind it. How often do "experts" look at data and draw the entirely wrong conclusions from it, and create the very trend they already believe exists. (i.e. thinking comic games don't sell anymore, no one makes any, which kills the market, which proves that comic games don't sell anymore.)

I think there is most definitely still a market for comic games that has simply suffered from neglect and publisher shortsightedness. Which is why I'm so glad to see Telltale, Juniper Games, and Deck 13 all moving in that direction. Thing is, it may take a while for them to catch on again. The first few may not succeed as they should, as the new generation is skeptical, marketers have forgotten how to market comedy, etc.

From our interview with Jan Klose:

However, these games have been very popular in the past. And we just couldn't believe that people aren't interested in these games any more. We suppose the games were just going down together with the 2D technology, and finally 3D is catching up in terms of rich environments as they are needed for such games. Conclusion: the time for great new adventure games is just now!

Couldn't agree more.

[insane_cobra]

Claiming that humorous games don't sell anymore is ridiculous. Okay, so Psychonauts didn't sell well, but what about other, successful platformers? What about Katamari Damacy and a slew of Nintendo games? Humorous adventure games maybe don't sell well, but adventure games don't sell well in general.

[davez82]

Actually when u think about it there are no humurous games now adays. I can only count a few and they really suck. A lot of games nowadays just suck not just humurous, its just that humor doesnt sell. I bought katamari damacy, cause of the rave gameplay reviews it got, not cause people said it was funny, but fun. I think cecil is just refferring to what sells and humor doesnt sell, i didnt buy liesure suit larry 8 did you? adv games really need to incorporate more replay value in their games and the only way i can see doing that is either, making games longer, or having multiple paths either incorporrated in the game or something like a character chooser in the beginning of the game that provides different pov's on the game. Its also depressing that live action fmv has died from gaming in general, live action fmv was my favorite aspect of gaming especially adv games.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Charles Cecil

In the category of jokey adventures, they were fantastic - unbeatable. But we were never in that area - we were all about writing serious games with a humorous touch, rather than slapstick games.

Underwear-loving Indians anyone?

Seriously, were all Revolution games made behind his back? My main beef with such a high-praised game that Beneath a Steel Sky is, was way too many plain silly scenes and dialogues for what the setting and main story arc would suggest. First Broken Sword is in my personal top ten or something, but if it's aiming to be a serious game (at least more serious than a certain whip-swinging archaelogist from LucasArts was), I must reevaluate my list - it fails completely.

And I wouldn't call any LA game I played a slapstick humour by the way, but pretending that "slapstick"="all comedy" for a minute, this still leaves us with Loom, The Dig, Grim Fandango and possibly Full Throttle, none of which strikes me as a game designed mainly to make players laugh.

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by davez82

Actually when u think about it there are no humurous games now adays. I can only count a few and they really suck. A lot of games nowadays just suck not just humurous, its just that humor doesnt sell. I bought katamari damacy, cause of the rave gameplay reviews it got, not cause people said it was funny, but fun. I think cecil is just refferring to what sells and humor doesnt sell, i didnt buy liesure suit larry 8 did you?

There are humorous games out there today also. Yes, even truly funny games. They are quite few though and there's definitely more of the trying-to-be-funny-but-not-actually-being-funny kind of games, which probably has hurt this segment quite a bit. Your example of LSL: MCL is a good one in that it was built up around a humor which seriously underestimated the consumers. A good example how you shouldn't do a funny game if you want the consumers on your side. Sure, you will sell more by putting girls with big boobs everywhere, but that will not give you any respect from the gamers that are supposed to buy your next game.

The funny thing about humor is that when it comes down to it, humor is a very serious topic. If you want a game (or a talk show on TV or whatever) to truly be funny you have to take the job seriously and know what kind of humor will work in what kind of situation and so forth. Humor is a complicated matter if you want to do it right.
That's probably why so few humorous games are made these days, most developers don't have the skills or balls to pull it off. The fact that they generally don't seem to sell very well either, is most likely a big part of that problem also.

I believe humorous games can sell though. It's all about marketing them the right way and to the right people. The problem in today’s game market is that game publishers don't want to take the chance of publishing a humorous game, especially not if it's a 2D humorous game. Just ask Steve Ince if you want a second opinion.

At the moment there's definitely a trend in this industry in making increasingly darker and grittier games. If that's what the gamers wants then let them have it I say. BUT, as the Blue Sky in Games Campaign has shown, there's a growing interest among gamers to get to play something not quite so freaking serious as most games seem to be today.
I'm hopeful that this is a sign of better times to come...

Its also depressing that live action fmv has died from gaming in general, live action fmv was my favorite aspect of gaming especially adv games.

I've never really been a fan of live action FMV and quite frankly I don't see the need to bring it back to games anymore. As real-time graphics become better looking all the time, the need to have (usually lousy) actors playing a role in games seem more and more unnecessary. I guess if you're looking for some kind of special artsy look and feel to it, you could go for it, but otherwise I really don't see the point.