[rhead]

first off i just wanted to say hi, as this is my first post. ive been an adventure gamer since i was about seven, when i was introduced to space quest 2. since then ive pretty much played them all, with return to zork, kings quest five, space quest six (i think), day of the tentacle, and the gabriel knight series being my favs. (phatasmagoria is up there too but its not something i like to admit)

anyway, since going to college ive pretty much given up on the genre, and ccomputer games in general, as well, adventures games are commercially dead and i just dont have the time anymore. during this winter break though ive been so ridiculosly bored, that i decided to see if any good games were released in the past couple of years, and thats how i stumbled upon this site and the glowing accolades bestowed upon syberia.

i bought the game the next day, installed it on my labtop, and then pretty much beat the entire thing in one sitting. now dont get me wrong the visuals were great (though nothing new), and the story was interesting, but that game as a whole didnt seem to add up to anything. the ending was a total letdown, as the entire game seemed to be building to some sort of climax, but nothing ever comes of it.

my biggest gripe is well the game just didnt seem like well...a game. yeah you had to use inventory objects every so often, but the entire game for the most part consisted of finding keys and pulling levers. what boggels my mind are the glowing reviews attached to the box, that reads "adventure game of the year"

have adventure gamers become so starved that even mediocrity passes
as entertainment? what ever happened to the imagination and story of the old sierra games, the whimsy of the lucas arts games, or sheer originality of the zork series?

[rhead]

also, besides the longest journey (which im currently playing, and which actually is incredibly good) are there any games that came out recently worth buying?

[mag]

Well, this is my first post too. So hi, everyone!

Anyway, I can certainly understand your opinion, even though I don't really agree with it myself. I will say that if Syberia has a flaw, it's the lack of interactivity in the game. As you point out, there aren't really a lot of puzzles in it. But I thought that those puzzles that were in the game were quite well done. Especially the ones where Kate had to get some auotomaton invention working. Sure, sometimes it did resort to just crazy lever pulling and finding the right key, but at least it was something a little bit different from the standard inventory puzzle. Not earth-shatteringly different, but interesting nonetheless.

As far as the ending goes, I kind of liked it myself. But I like weird endings. I guess I'm just a freak like that.

But while I can see where you're coming from not liking the game, I think it's a little unfair to call it "mediocre." It certainly has more originality than the Sierra games you mention. I mean I like the Quest games as much as the next fellow, but by around the point of King's Quest 4 or 5 it was starting to get a little redundant. I'd even stack Syberia up against some of the better Lucasarts games. So I don't think adventure gamers are really settling for anything with Syberia. It may not be the best adventure game ever made, but I think it certainly has enough merits to make up for its shortcomings.

But again, I AM a freak, so maybe I'm just totally off with that assessment.

mag

[remixor]

Originally Posted by rhead

my biggest gripe is well the game just didnt seem like well...a game. yeah you had to use inventory objects every so often, but the entire game for the most part consisted of finding keys and pulling levers. what boggels my mind are the glowing reviews attached to the box, that reads "adventure game of the year"

I can't say I agree with this 100%, but I can completely see where you're coming from. Your basic opinion is one I hold, for the most part, and I think the almost universal critical acclaim is almost more indicative of the rest of the genre than of that particular game. I STILL haven't completed Syberia despite having picked it up at least six month ago, because I'm just really bored of walking around and fiddling with gears. The story actually looks interesting enough to me, it's just that the gameplay sort of causes me not to care.

[Zanthia]

I agree that syberia is not much of a game. It has very good graphics, thats true and story is even original and is not about saving the world. But without good puzzles it feals more like a... movie? and endless dialogs doesn't help it.
Thise game is an answer to a question 'do adventure games need puzzle'.

[Skinny Minnie]

Originally Posted by Zanthia

Thise game is an answer to a question 'do adventure games need puzzle'.

I feel the same way, Zanthia. And conversely, games need a good story with steady plot twists all the way through, too. I used to think I was more of a story gamer than a puzzle gamer, but you really need creative doses of both for a top game. When the puzzles are cliched or overly simple, it takes away from the gaming experience. I'd say the optimum adventure games have a great story and characters with creative puzzles that really grow from the plot and move it along.

[DomStLeger]

I also didn't think great deal of Syberia; apart from it's artistic merit I haven't been able to get much enjoyment out of the game myself.

Anyway, Broken Sword 3 is a great new game, I'd recommend it to anyone who likes ags with the warning that it's short and there are a few minor frustrations.

[ragnar]

I get so tired of the Syberia-bashing. Go read Intrepids thread about the symbolisms in Syberia and enjoy the game. I did enjoy it.

[Garyos]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

apart from it's artistic merit I haven't been able to get much enjoyment out of the game myself.

That sums it up for me, Ragnar. A game can be artsy and have bad gamepaly at the same time.

EDIT: Changed "boring" to "bad gameplay". The game isn't THAT bad.

[ragnar]

Well, I never found Syberia to be boring, I rather wish there was more of it. And I didn't find the gameplay bad either, sure the puzzles might have been a little harder and there could have been more interactivity with objects around you, but not so much as to make it bad gameplay.

It is rather strange, but there seems to always be an urge to bring up all the bad sides of new adventure games, without pointing out the good sides. If the adventure gamers themselves bash the new games so much, it might not be strange if noone else wants to play them.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by ragnar

It is rather strange, but there seems to always be an urge to bring up all the bad sides of new adventure games, without pointing out the good sides. If the adventure gamers themselves bash the new games so much, it might not be strange if noone else wants to play them.

I DON'T find it strange that nobody else wants to play modern adventure games. I play most of them out of a sense of duty (though there are exceptions), and if I hadn't already been in love with the genre because of my past attachment to it, I'm sure I certainly wouldn't bother most of the time. There's good stuff, and the quality:quantity ratio is pretty low in all genres of gaming, but when the quantity itself is so damn small as it is in the adventure genre, the quality gets harder and harder to find.

[Garyos]

Originally Posted by remixor

I DON'T find it strange that nobody else wants to play modern adventure games. I play most of them out of a sense of duty (though there are exceptions), and if I hadn't already been in love with the genre because of my past attachment to it, I'm sure I certainly wouldn't bother most of the time. There's good stuff, and the quality:quantity ratio is pretty low in all genres of gaming, but when the quantity itself is so damn small as it is in the adventure genre, the quality gets harder and harder to find.

That was what I was about to say.....

[Bastich]

Even though I didn't care for the characters, the story, or the "puzzles," I am still somewhat looking forward to Syberia 2.

Seriously though, Maybe I am being uncharacteristically optimistic, but I am hoping they can take those awesome graphics and actually do something with them this time around.

Yes, I know. I am setting myself up for MAJOR disappointment. But a man can dream, right????

[Curt]

Originally Posted by remixor

I DON'T find it strange that nobody else wants to play modern adventure games. I play most of them out of a sense of duty (though there are exceptions)

Am I the only one who finds such a comment very odd? Why on earth do you play games out of a sense of duty? How is playing a poor or average adventure game out of a sense of duty meant to maintain a good standard in the genre? By buying games we know not to be very good only encourages developers to produce sequels and clones that are also poor or average. The adventure genre is undoubtedly my personal favourite but I'd never dream of playing a game unless it appealed to me in some way. Duty doesn't even come into it. Could you maybe expand on what you mean, Remixor, in case I've misinterpreted your point.

As for Syberia, I agree with Ragnar for the most part. The game had wonderful locations, some interesting and realistic characters and a really good story. What the game lacked, and this is what made it an average game for me, was a serious challenge. That was a pity otherwise it could have been competing with the best. Oh, and Oscar was an utter annoyance.

I don't think the game can be considered overrated though when one looks into the level of animosity shown towards it on the whole, especially in these forums.

So to answer the initial question of "is it even a game?" - of course it is. Just a rather challengeless one, so the game element is a very small part of the product. I consider it to be more of an interactive story with a few gaming elements tacked on (which is what I'm half-expecting when I eventually get around to playing Broken Sword 3).

And like Bastich, I'm also looking forward to Syberia 2 for some reason.

[Zanthia]

Because befor you play game you never now will it be good or bad. And people who play AGs for a long time see there duty in playing everything that comes out in genre so they won't miss something good. I think.

[soltys]

Originally Posted by rhead

also, besides the longest journey (which im currently playing, and which actually is incredibly good) are there any games that came out recently worth buying?

"Runaway: a road adventure" was released very recently. It has some nice puzzles and generally is pretty good (overally good, not only in comparison to current adventure games). If you enjoy TLJ there's high chance you will enjoy Runaway as well.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Zanthia

Because befor you play game you never now will it be good or bad. And people who play AGs for a long time see there duty in playing everything that comes out in genre so they won't miss something good. I think.

I'd like to reply to this but I'm completely bamboozled as to what the justification you are trying make a point out of actually consists of, Zanthia. Are you saying that any habitual fool endeared to this most notoriously cosmopolitan of genres wouldn't know how one would like ones eggs done?

If so then I must ask, did you actually read my post?

[Jackal]

Curt, you're partially answering your own questions. I'd agree that playing renowned junk out of duty would be odd, but it is indeed a cosmopolitan genre. What new game would you be completely confident buying based on popular opinion? Seems every game has its tug-of-war camps. BS3, Uru, Syberia... Then there's a second tier (rarely loved or loathed to the same degree) like Runaway and Mysterious Journey 2 that still have their strengths hindered by their flaws.

I can't speak for what remixor meant, but I often have to play adventures HOPING to be pleasantly rewarded. I'll be starting Black Mirror soon, and I'm going in with eyes wide open, and the bottom line is that I'll have to cross my fingers that I'm among those that like the positives more than dislike the negatives. Pretty much a crapshoot. I wouldn't call it duty so much as wishful thinking, but with adventures, that's about as good as it tends to get.

Originally Posted by Curt

By buying games we know not to be very good only encourages developers to produce sequels and clones that are also poor or average.

Although slightly off-topic (because again, I'd never recommend anyone knowingly buy a stinkfest), I'm not sure this applies to such a tenuous niche market. Of course I agree totally that gamers should yell loud and hard for quality, but realistically, adventures that tank commercially just lead to the next one NOT being made, not being made better. Unlike healthier genres, there's gotta be a little give and take between consumer and developer/publisher. Heck, Microids almost went belly up even AFTER Syberia.

And speaking of Syberia, I really think the game succeeded at what it TRIED to do. Most of the complaints center around it not doing what it DIDN'T try to do. From what I've heard so far, the second part DOESN'T try to do the same things. So I think the same people will probably be delighted/disappointed.

[Curt]

Singer, my opinion on Remixors comment was based purely on my own experiences with this particular genre. As I stated in my post, this genre is my favourite (in that I have played and enjoyed far more games from the adventure genre than any other and it's the only genre where I regularly check news on upcoming games - made easier of course because there are probably fewer releases to keep up with than most other genres). In the days before and shortly after I got myself an internet connection (back in 1996), I regularly purchased 4 or 5 magazines at 5 pound (sorry, no pound sign on my computer) a throw, monthly, just to make sure that any game I purchased was really what I wanted - research was the name of the game (at that time it was worthwhile as I probably purchased 2 or 3 games a month at around 30-35 pound a game).

What surprised me so much about Remixors comment, and the reason I asked him to elaborate, was the fact that I believed him to also be somebody who would generally research before purchase. The whole idea of somebody buying games from a particular genre merely out of a duty, in the hope that this will somehow save the genre, shocks me frankly.

A game being classed as an adventure doesn't make it more appealing to me. A game that I more or less know will be a good adventure (as a result of plenty of research) will always be worthy of my hard-earned cash (believe that if you will ) over, say, an action game or strategy game that I more or less know to be good.

I wouldn't be inclined to sit through the whole of a mediocre game just as I wouldn't be inclined to sit through the whole of a mediocre film, and the game is likely to cost a lot more money - so duty doesn't even come into it for me personally.



(Btw, my post to Zanthia was merely to play her up )

[Jackal]

Oh, I hear ya'. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a huge diversity of tastes within the adventure genre that doesn't exist elsewhere. So even research can be iffy.

I can't imagine anyone buying garbage just to "save" the genre, either. Better off without.