[QFG]

Originally Posted by MasterLoo

That's a good quote, and true too.

Agreed completely.

[Ariel Type]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Casual adventure?
Naturally I'd like to know your definition of an adventure game. Don't skimp on the details!

I gave it somewhere above:

At least for me an adventure game involve progressing storyline and puzzles that make you think.

One element might predominate over the other, of course. But both of them are reduced to minimum in S&M.

Squinky
I see that, and that doesn't make adventure genre any good. Half of the adventure projects are developed as "interactive episodes" nowdays. Wait for a year or so, and ALL the games will turn to episodic and casual scheme

[Udvarnoky]

At least for me an adventure game involve progressing storyline and puzzles that make you think.

Not only is that exceedingly vague, but it's also not a definition. Unless those are the only things that your idea of an adventure game involves, in which case every game under the sun could arguably be considered an adventure game. "Progressive storyline" is the same thing as saying "storyline" if you can't describe what you mean, and puzzles that "make you think" is obviously a subjective thing.

Since you made the comment that Sam & Max creates the "illusion" of an adventure game, and that you can't get inside the head of those who call it a classic adventure, I figured you had a pretty strong idea of what a classic adventure is to you.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

Half of the adventure projects are developed as "interactive episodes" nowdays. Wait for a year or so, and ALL the games will turn to episodic and casual scheme

Your reasoning is rather flawed, here. First of all, where is your data to support your claim that half of all adventure games today are episodic? Furthermore, even if they are, what makes you suggest that all games will turn episodic in the next year? Sounds suspiciously like a slippery slope fallacy to me.

Also, not all episodic games are "casual", as you put it. Victi: Blood Bitterness is part of a series of episodes, and I found it very difficult.

[Wormsie]

Where exactly is the point in this debate? If you don't like a game, no amount of reasoning will make you like it more.

[Udvarnoky]

Except no one here is trying to convince another to change their opinion of the game. Thanks for looking out for us, though.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Except no one here is trying to convince another to change their opinion of the game.

You're being generally bitchy just for the fun of it?

Thanks for looking out for us, though.

Yes, apparently.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

You're being generally bitchy just for the fun of it?

Since it isn't your place to decide if or when a thread might be getting out of hand, please refrain from making judgement calls on the perceived intent of others posts.

Also, if a thread or a poster bothers you, you can always contact one of the moderators.

[Ariel Type]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Not only is that exceedingly vague, but it's also not a definition. Unless those are the only things that your idea of an adventure game involves, in which case every game under the sun could arguably be considered an adventure game.

There is no such thing as objective definition of "adventure game", there were many, many debates on this subject. I just wrote what a good adventure game means to me. And yes, a good classical adventure game in my eyes involves reach storyline and puzzles that make you think. And in S&M I just click through series of dialogs or make some clear decision which is hardly "a puzzle" for me. Interactive cartoon, at its best (or worst).

Squinky
I'm not making any conclusions. I just see how the thing turned out. About two years ago there were hardly any talks about massive "episodisation" of adventure games. Agon or The Forgotten didn't gain much popularity. Today lots of companies turn to such method.
There are plenty of episodic adventures, out or in production: Bone, Sam & Max, Exchange Student, Agon, Penumbra, Dreamfall episodes, Carte Blanche.. It's obvious that episodes become more and more popular. It's not necessary a bad thing, it's a bad tendency.

[MasterLoo]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

It's not necessary a bad thing, it's a bad tendency.

If it is a bad or a good tendency depends on how it is used. If episodic games make it possible to release more adventure games, that's a good thing. But if games that would normally be released as one long adventure game, it is a bad thing for those who don't like episodic game.

My take on this is that: How can it possible be a bad thing that there now are another way to publish games? That just gives room for more adventure games to be made and published. Many of the "problems" related to episodic games are typical child sicknesses, and will probably get better as more episodic games are released. Even though I'm not that happy with episodic games, I think it's a good alternative.

[Udvarnoky]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

And yes, a good classical adventure game in my eyes involves reach storyline and puzzles that make you think. And in S&M I just click through series of dialogs or make some clear decision which is hardly "a puzzle" for me. Interactive cartoon, at its best (or worst).

So basically what you're saying is that even though Sam & Max is ostensibly a classic adventure game in structure, you'd prefer to exclude it from the genre due to your preference for much harder puzzles than it offers and instead put it in a new genre, "interactive cartoon."

Hey, nothing wrong with that. If anything, I think Telltale likes to see it that way too. (I've seen more than one occasion where they've stated that they're not necessarily creating adventure games and they have used the term interactive cartoon affectionately to describe their own products.) And we all have our own opinions about what an adventure game "really" is, as you said. Personally, I just can't understand people who call Myst an adventure game but Psychonauts fits very comfortably under my definition. So hey.

But what I was trying to get at - and I was just pointing it out because I thought it was interesting, not to ridicule you and not to change your opinion of the game - was that despite Sam & Max being a point 'n click, story-driven game with traditional inventory based puzzle solving and dialog trees and all that, you can't include it in the genre because you didn't like the difficulty of the puzzles. (And something about a "reach storyline" as well, but I still never figured out what you meant by that.) I think that's pretty refreshing actually, because it's one of the few times I've seen someone define an adventure game without making any stipulations about the interface or gameplay mechanic at all.

But what about a game like Pajama Sam? That is a point 'n click adventure game aimed at kids. It is most definitely designed as a classic adventure game, though it is heavily streamlined and the puzzles are of course catered to the intended age group. Would you not consider it an adventure game because the puzzles won't make you think? Maybe you'd call it an interactive cartoon too? Or would the genre change depending on the age of the person playing it? Or, as I look at it, is it in fact an adventure game but simply with a different puzzle design philosophy than what we normally see?

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

I think what he means is that 2D cartoon graphics are better at establishing suspension of disbelief than 3D graphics. I can't comment on that since I haven't played Season 1.

Well, you can call it that, but I don't think it really explains anything. The things that suspend my disbelief are still different than the things that suspend Masterloo's disbelief.

For me, the 3D graphics don't look more "real" than 2D cartoons and I have no problems accepting the wacky world of Season 1, even if I hate 3D puppets, even if I winced a few times when confronted with a close-up of Max and it's just bland, empty whiteness and black outlines. In fact, it's usually the attempt to make those puppets resemble human beings as much as possible, and the implicit claim that we're dealing with reality that takes me right out of a game for a moment or two. Like that idiotic French policeman with hands the size of his head in Still Life.

[MasterLoo]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Well, you can call it that, but I don't think it really explains anything. The things that suspend my disbelief are still different than the things that suspend Masterloo's disbelief.

I never claimed to know what suspend your disbelief either.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Since it isn't your place to decide if or when a thread might be getting out of hand, please refrain from making judgement calls on the perceived intent of others posts.

I've experienced that people in general tend to comment on the subject matter of threads (e.g. you commented on the infamous clothing thread) and the direction the thread or an individual discussion in it is taking, whether they are mods or not. I think it's more like participating in a discussion, not looking out for others as Udvarnoky thought I meant it.

Also, if a thread or a poster bothers you, you can always contact one of the moderators.

If I ever feel like that, I will.

[Nelza]

Originally Posted by noknowncure

On an entirely unrelated note, Squinky's quote from Gaston in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, has caused some unresolved issues to resurface within me: When I first saw the movie, my child's brain* was enraged by the fact that - despite Gaston's bold and arrogant claims - we'd just seen that Belle's book did have pictures; when she was singing to some sheep by a fountain! I'll have my revenge on you yet, Disney!

It's "Raja-the-Tiger-having-heart-patterned-boxer-short-fabric-in-his-mouth,-despite-having-only-torn-the-visiting-prince's-outer-trousers" all over again.

*Just to stress, I was entirely a child at that point, not just the brain.

Ha ha ha! What did you think of the Priest getting a boner in 'The Little Mermaid', Aladdin whispering to Jasmine 'take off your clothes', and Simba laying on the flowers which spelled 'SEX' when they whooshed up into the sky. LOL!

[Udvarnoky]

Aren't all three of those urban legends?

[RLacey]

I believe so. In the case of The Lion King, the letters "SFX" were added by the SFX team (and the "F" can be read as an "E"), but it was removed from later prints.

Now the pornography in The Rescuers... that was real (and again removed from later prints).

[Squinky]

Snopes.com is your friend.

Anyway, uh, isn't Sam & Max great or what?

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Snopes.com is your friend.

Anyway, uh, isn't Sam & Max great or what?

If you do want to have a discussion about the funky stuff in Disney movies, you can start a thread in chit chat (or I could move the posts).

But we should probably get back to Sam&Max though.

[Erwin_Br]

Did I mention that I like Sam and Max?

--Erwin