[crabapple]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

While it's ridiculous that people should have to justify their preferences, there are many reasons why I tend to steer clear of 1st-person games. The navigation is often confusing (I particularly dislike the 360-degree spinning found in most modern node-based games), there's a general lack of character interaction and conversation, the stories often seem like an afterthought, I find the 3D-rendered graphics anonymous and sterile, and the mechanical/logical puzzles feel like brain-teasers rather than organic challenges. True, there are 3rd-person games that are no more interactive, but as a rule I don't like those games either.

Weren't the Tex Murphy games Under a Killing Moon and Pandora Directive 1st person? Did you not like those either?

Originally Posted by tsa

I can imagine why games based on literature are attractive to developers; they're cheaper to make because you don't have to pay the people who write the story a lot.

I don't think it's that. After all, even when they adapt an existing story they have to pay the writer. They can't just lift it directly from the book. And though the Agatha Christie games are based on existing books, I think all the Sherlock Holmes games are original stories.

I think they make games based on known franchises because they believe they'll sell better to people who aren't adventure gamers. After all, adventure gamers will buy almost anything as long as it's a good game. But someone who's never played an adventure game before will recognize the name Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes or CSI or whatever and be more apt to buy it than something they never heard of.

[Melanie68]

As for the Kheops' games, Voyage (a.k.a. Journey to the Moon) and Return to Mysterious Island, they are loosely based on those stories. I quite enjoyed those games and while they were inspired by Verne, I thought they were well done and a lot of fun*.




*this woman's opinion, of course.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by crabapple

Weren't the Tex Murphy games Under a Killing Moon and Pandora Directive 1st person? Did you not like those either?

I loved them. Which just shows that I prefer 3rd-person games not out of some idiotic sense of allegiance to one particular camera perspective, but because the characteristics of a typical 3rd-person game appeal to me more than those of a typical 1st-person game.

Most of the things I mentioned that put me off 1st-person games don't apply to the Tex Murphy games. They're full-movement 3D rather than node-based, they're full of character interaction and dialog (Tex is one of the most distinctive and likeable player personalities of any adventure game), thoroughly story-driven, and the puzzles are cleverly and plausibly integrated into the games (even the stand-alone jigsaw, slider, recognition, etc. puzzles are usually rationalized quite well). If 1st-person games were generally like that, I'm sure I'd play them all the time.

[crabapple]

That was a very good explanation.
I couldn't agree more. There's a big difference between games like Tex Murphy and games like those Kheops puts out. Even if you leave out the difference in the interface, the characters you play in the Kheops games just don't have anywhere near as much personality as Tex. IMO that's a pretty major problem in current adventure games, not just with 1st person games but with most 3rd person games as well.

[Risingson]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Why? Personally, I do like Leone westerns but not Ford ones. I don't see how enjoying one thing imposes a duty on me to like something else.

Oh shit, DISCUSSION ENDED!!!

I actually agree with all you said after this. And this is not against what the article said. And if in the previous posts it is said that it is a matter of adventure, not perspective, then why blaming the perspective?


[edit: and better take care of that ford westerns. He has real people, real drama, real acting and real emotion behind his shots, unlike leone, which is fun, but nothing else]