[Squinky]

Personally, I'd rather support the false artists.

[The Mutajon]

It seems to me it shouldn't be much of a problem to include an in-game option between difficulty levels (the harder one will include additional puzzles and/or harder versions of existing puzzles), that way the game could appeal to both the general public and the AGs fans...

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by The Mutajon

It seems to me it shouldn't be much of a problem to include an in-game option between difficulty levels (the harder one will include additional puzzles and/or harder versions of existing puzzles), that way the game could appeal to both the general public and the AGs fans...

Of course it's not much of a problem, particularly as my keyboard has a "make puzzle harder for fans" key.

[jacog]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Personally, I'd rather support the false artists.

Care to elaborate?

False artists being corporate engines that churn out completely unoriginal content based on focus groups and trends and what happened to make money before? Or did I read into Crapstorm's statement about true artists a bit too deeply?

[Ksandra]

Originally Posted by Terramax

If I realise that a game has obnoxiously illogical puzzles, I don't 'think out of the box' I just resort to a player's guide.

I don't think there's any intelligence or skill involved in figuring out illogical puzzles, just a test of patience. It's not dumbing down, it's giving the player a fair chance. Although I will keep on playing past the illogical puzzles if there's a good story, dialog or graphics worth progressing for.

'Difficult' doesn't have to mean 'illogical'. It's perfectly possible to have puzzles that are challenging but still make sense (Riven, for example, had extremely difficult puzzles that were nevertheless, with a few minor exceptions, entirely fair and logical). This is one of the reasons why I prefer Myst-style games to inventory-based in general, as it is harder to come up with inventory puzzles that are both hard and logical - though certainly not impossible.

I argue the reason why adventures were the rage back ithen was simply because the graphics were mind blowing compared to the other genres. As soon as other genres like FPS games caught up, the 1st person adventure nose dived into oblivion within about 2 years.

Almost nobody played Myst and its clones for the puzzles. If there were a fair few, they'd probably all still be playing adventures and not Resident Evil. The ones that did play for puzzles are on these forums. The ones that didn't are on IGN, and the way it seems to me, there's a heck of a lot more on IGN than adventure gamers, Justadventure, etc.

In the case of the first couple of Myst games it's probably true that the main reason for their popularity was the graphics, but that doesn't mean no one enjoyed the gameplay as well. People might buy one or two games solely for the graphics, but there's no way the market could have supported so many Myst-style games for so long if that were the only reason people were buying them. Hardly anyone buys games just for the graphics unless they're absolutely cutting-edge; that was the case for Myst and Riven, but those sorts of graphics had become the standard by a few years after their release.

As for how the 1st-person adventure 'nose-dived into oblivion', games like Aura still seem to be doing well enough. The impression I get is not that 1st-person AGs stopped selling, but that publishers turned away from them the same way they did from 3rd-person AGs in the late 90s. Certainly Detalion (developers of the Schizm games and Sentinel) stated outright that the reason they closed down was because they couldn't find a publisher, not because their games weren't selling.

That's true. Lets compare Sam & Max to Myst IV & V. I may be wrong but S & M is probably doing better overall and Myst IV & V are from what was for about a decade the most successful franchise in the world.

Would you like to provide any sort of evidence for that? Yes, anecdotal evidence suggests S&M is doing fairly well, but people said the same thing about Dreamfall and it turned out that it had actually sold pretty poorly - hence Tornquist's rather pathetic excuses about 'pirates' destroying the sales. Plus, it's still not a fair comparison - how successful do you imagine the Sam & Max franchise will be in a decade's time?

Originally Posted by Giligan

For the sake of the comparison, detract hype and the established fan base, and you'll find that the games still succeeded on their own. The people who were playing AG's back in the early 90's are the kind of people on here - the older gamers who aren't into the newer market so much. It's a pretty small "fan base". S&M: S1 succeeded because newcomers to the genre saw a good review for the games on Gamestop, IGN, and said, "Wow, those look cool. I'll try them." Heck, a lot of the AG players on here never played Hit the Road. Fans of Hit the Road were not, repeat, were not, enough to make S1 as much of a hit as it was.

I never said the only people buying S&M were people who played the original. The point I was trying to make was that it already had an established fanbase on its release, which gave it an automatic advantage over a game like Safecracker - meaning that it simply isn't fair to try and compare the sales of the two. (And come to that, I still haven't seen any concrete sales figures for either game - for all we know, Safecracker could actually have done better!)

[Crapstorm]

I just want to jump in here with an ill-timed comment. I definitely want to see more smart games (i.e., games that stimulate logical thought), but "smart" does not equal "hard." For example, the game Myst 3: Exile was very logical with completely fair, self-contained puzzles that did not require pixel-hunting, ridiculous combinations or guesswork. It was also really easy. I breezed through it in one weekend, and it was a freaking great weekend!

Edit: Oops! Ksandra beat me to it.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by jacog

Care to elaborate?

False artists being corporate engines that churn out completely unoriginal content based on focus groups and trends and what happened to make money before? Or did I read into Crapstorm's statement about true artists a bit too deeply?

No, no, I meant false artists being underfed, underwashed people who wear berets, write meaningless nonsense in notebooks in cafés, and snobbishly turn up their noses to the masses, all the while without ever creating any actual art.

In truth, however, I was being sarcastic in protest of Sam & Max's developers being lumped in with corporate engines rather than "true artists". Anyone who has actually met and had a conversation with a member the Telltale staff would know that exactly the opposite is the case. Plus, if they were just pandering to a licence, then why are people still buying Season One and eagerly awaiting Season Two even after the former's been out for a while? Surely, if it were your garden-variety licenced crap, people would have realised this by now and the series would have died a slow and painful death?

The point is, Telltale made the games they wanted to make, and they did a good enough job that a lot of people like what they did and wish to support them. Perhaps it didn't appeal to the hardcore Puzzle Gamers™ in the audience, but hey, given that none of the developers really seem to be huge fans of extremely difficult puzzles*, that's not what they were shooting for. I agree, however, that if some developer wants to create an adventure game full of hard puzzles, then they have every right to do so. In fact, the more diversity that exists in games, the better.

* Well, actually, that's not true. Armadillo Run was quite popular in the office last year, and it's got puzzles more difficult than those found in most adventure games, and none of that stupid "story" bullshit! Still, when it comes to games they appear to want to develop as opposed to games they want to just play, there's definitely a skew towards interactive narrative over all things.

[jacog]

Ahh, gotcha...

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

As for how the 1st-person adventure 'nose-dived into oblivion', games like Aura still seem to be doing well enough. The impression I get is not that 1st-person AGs stopped selling, but that publishers turned away from them the same way they did from 3rd-person AGs in the late 90s. Certainly Detalion (developers of the Schizm games and Sentinel) stated outright that the reason they closed down was because they couldn't find a publisher, not because their games weren't selling.

In terms of sales figures they did nose-dive. That's why back in the 80's and 90's adventures were the mainstream whilst now they're niche. That's why they sell less, generally get worse production value, less advertisement and less profit now. That's why in the early 90's everyone knew what Myst was whilst in late in the decade, and now even, you mention Aura to the average gamer and they're likely to respond with eh?

Compared to the average game on the market, which I was referring to, adventures don't even scratch the sales figures of other games. At least not in countries out of European one's where they're somehow rising above. Probably the only AG worth mentioning selling significantly world-wide is Syberia.

And why couldn't these games find a publisher? Because these games were selling so well the publishers couldn't find anywhere to safe all the profit just piled in? I'm making a guess here so I may be wrong but I imagine it's because the profit was being made investing in other genres instead.

The point I was trying to make was that it already had an established fanbase on its release, which gave it an automatic advantage over a game like Safecracker - meaning that it simply isn't fair to try and compare the sales of the two.

I'm not talking about a decade's time. I'm talking about now. Yes, I would like to think S & M is selling better, that's why I wrote 'I may be wrong'

Agreed, comparing Safecracker to S & M was illogical as you're perfectly right.

This is why I compared S & M to THE most established adventure, Myst, which as far as I can see, the final two sold rubbishly despite being big budget, from a well known brand and, you'd think, quite a big fanbase.

Both being well known franchises within the AG community and beyond, I think comparing the two is most fair.

[Dayspring]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I was being sarcastic in protest of Sam & Max's developers being lumped in with corporate engines rather than "true artists". Anyone who has actually met and had a conversation with a member the Telltale staff would know that exactly the opposite is the case...The point is, Telltale made the games they wanted to make, and they did a good enough job that a lot of people like what they did and wish to support them.

Hey yaw,

This is the first time I've ever joined any kind of internet chat-o-blog or whatever, and I did so just to respond to the above comment: Amen.

S&M season one is a great f*cking game and that's all there is to it. Logical puzzles in an illogical/whimsical/wonderful context. Good story, graphics and voice acting. And oh what's that other thing FUN. Lots and lots of fun.

Now I don't know if I'm a 'hardcore puzzle gamer' or not...I did play every single classic Sierra and Lucas Arts game, beat them all on my own, and I check sites like this one for recs on which new games to buy, so in my book that makes me pretty hardcore. To be honest, any more hard core and your core might start to turn soft...

And all I'm saying is, in terms of overall enjoyableosity, S&M is perhaps the most refreshing adventure game to come along since...well, since I can't remember, really.

And is there a thread about how Grim Fandango is the greatest game of any genre ever? 'Cause it is.

-1

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Dayspring

This is the first time I've ever joined any kind of internet chat-o-blog or whatever, and I did so just to respond to the above comment.

Whee! Go me.

[Ksandra]

Originally Posted by Terramax

In terms of sales figures they did nose-dive. That's why back in the 80's and 90's adventures were the mainstream whilst now they're niche. That's why they sell less, generally get worse production value, less advertisement and less profit now. That's why in the early 90's everyone knew what Myst was whilst in late in the decade, and now even, you mention Aura to the average gamer and they're likely to respond with eh?

Compared to the average game on the market, which I was referring to, adventures don't even scratch the sales figures of other games. At least not in countries out of European one's where they're somehow rising above. Probably the only AG worth mentioning selling significantly world-wide is Syberia.

And why couldn't these games find a publisher? Because these games were selling so well the publishers couldn't find anywhere to safe all the profit just piled in? I'm making a guess here so I may be wrong but I imagine it's because the profit was being made investing in other genres instead.

Actually, pretty much every time I read an interview with AG developers who were around in the 'golden age', they say that sales of adventures have remained fairly static since that time - it's the market share of adventures that has 'nosedived', not the actual sales. And yes, of course most games from other genres sell better than adventures - that's not in question. We're discussing which types of game sell better within the adventure genre, not outside of it.

I'm not talking about a decade's time. I'm talking about now. Yes, I would like to think S & M is selling better, that's why I wrote 'I may be wrong'

Agreed, comparing Safecracker to S & M was illogical as you're perfectly right.

This is why I compared S & M to THE most established adventure, Myst, which as far as I can see, the final two sold rubbishly despite being big budget, from a well known brand and, you'd think, quite a big fanbase.

Both being well known franchises within the AG community and beyond, I think comparing the two is most fair.

The point of my comment about 'a decade's time' is that even the most successful franchise is likely to run out of steam eventually. Certainly S&M vs. Myst is a much better comparison than S&M vs. Safecracker, but that still doesn't make it a good one. What's more, even if you could give concrete proof that a) S&M actually sold better than the last couple of Myst games and b) this had nothing to do with the relative age of each franchise, that still wouldn't prove that the difference in sales was caused by the difficulty of the puzzles. They're such different types of game that there could be all sorts of other factors at work.

[SnorkleCat]

I do hope puzzles won't get any easier...but I do hope they become a bit more logical. I feel very little triumph or satisfaction when I solve something by just thinking to myself, "Okay. What random, ridiculous device is this developer attempting to employ here? What does he/she think would be the wackiest combination of objects to achieve the goal?" So then I "give gorilla canned beans" then "use match on gorilla's gassy butt" then I am able to light up my signal fire and get rescued from the island. I just made that one up, but you see what I mean.
We just picked up Safecracker, and so far I'm enjoying it a great deal.