[Terramax]

Still Life - great for one of the best stories I've experienced in the genre, having an ending which kept people talking and one that I preferred. The only downer being not enough puzzles and being quite obscure - both reasons for being there and how to tackle some of them.

Myst IV: Revelation - Still the most beautiful game I've ever played. I'd rather play this than any 360 or PS3 game. Story that's not as emotionally involving as Shawshank but still better than just about any other 1st person adventure. Shame that the puzzles are too flippin' hard for us lesser mortals.

[Stroggy]

Hmmm, a difficult question.
If I take adventure-games to cover any game where there is an interesting story and the character goes through an actual adventure spanning different, interesting, locales - then I would surely say Tomb Raider: Legend, Thief 3 and Psychonauts are definitely on the classics list.

If, however, we define adventure games in the traditional manner, out choices become more limited. Dreamfall seems like an easy choice, but I can't say I really enjoyed it - the game was too much of an interactive story for me to label it a classic. Myst IV seems like a good contender, but I have never finished playing it, and am thus hesitant in labelling it a classic. The Black Mirror started out as a classic (great environments, loads of characters and a mysterious death) but the ending ruined it for me - the same for NI.BI.RU.

So what's left?
Syberia - definitely a classic game, the entire premise of travelling through the beauty and decay of Eastern Europe and Russia really appealed to me.
The Moment of Silence - what? Yes, I think that this game comes closest to being a classic (though it is surely not a real classic). The characters are much better than the ones in the Black Mirror or NI.BI.RU., likewise the story is not as flimsy and the locations are quite interesting and varied. (though I must stress that it is not a real classic and, unlike Syberia, I am not sure whether I will ever play it again).

[Sar]

I don't think there is any definitive answer. Those who liked the rich, detailed story of T.L.J. most likely disliked Myst they are almost opposites. Myst was great in it's own right but was not TLJ. For me TLJ meets the criteria. What I did not like about Black Mirror was partially the voice acting where the main character seemed disinterested in his lines, almost bored. I know I don't have the exact wording but did he have to end every conversation with "I think I'll go now"? The delivery almost sounded like an old partridge family song. With writing like that who can blame the character for sounding disinterested. I also have to add the first Broken Sword came close to hitting every cylinder. The game was flat out great. Syberia came close but not quite. I think the unanswered question, perhaps stretch is a better choice, made asking us to accept a high powered lady lawyer would throw it all away to satisfy the dreams of an old man? One, we players could not warm up to. Perhaps if the writers gave us a reason to care about Hans. perhaps if they created a little more credibility in why Kate would join his obsession. But they did not. Still one heck of a game.

So for me it is TLJ because of the rich detailed story with many outstanding extremely well developed engaging characters. And BS1 for the same reasons but to a lesser extent.

[Jacques l'aliéné]

Thanks for all your comments everyone.

TekPunk182, thanks for your feedback regarding Dreamfall. Interesting. I know exactly what you were getting at when you mentioned "the interface was clunky, the puzzle elements too easy or too contrived". I, also, understand where you're coming from when you say that the game as a whole can still be outstanding when some factors are, maybe, not ideal. Out of curiosity, if we accept TLJ as post-1999 (on the basis of its 2000 release in some regions), how would you rate it (assuming you've played it), in terms of game length, puzzle quality and story compared to Dreamfall? Again, try to NOT take the graphics quality of the two games into consideration.

Gonchi, Shadow Of Destiny is a good example. Very original and a game in which a lot of time and effort was seemingly invested. I wonder why so many people dislike Runaway. Didn't it have a lot of the old-fashioned, essential elements of an excellent Adventure? Perhaps it just wasn't the 'type' of Adventure that appeals to some players. I know of some players that, no matter how good the Adventure is in every other respect, simply hate 2D cartoon Adventures. Like, or dislike, by its (their), definition is a very subjective thing. For instance, here, the already differing opinions of Still Life and the 'apparent' popularity of Myst IV (not everyone's cup of tea of course).I suppose general consensus is what counts and is what developers adhere to.

Stroggy. No, I'm really after opinions on the traditional type. But I know what you mean. Your comments on Dreamfall being possibly 'dropped marks' for being more of an interactive story than story-puzzle Adventure are ones I've heard from others, and it's a valid criticism especially if it's made in comparison with some of the 'excellent' Adventures of the preceding years. I acknowledge your point about Black Mirror. You're not alone. The Moment Of Silence - Yes. I know what you mean. But, why do you not regard it a Classic? Is it just because of the look of it compared to Syberia? Was the story weaker? Were the puzzles, in fact, better? Just wondering why you reject it as a Classic, but accept Syberia. Don't worry about replayability. Few Adventures are in the way that non-Adventures can be. It's a price that Adventurers have to pay I'm afraid.

Sar. Thanks for that. I believe TLJ is one that many will mention (and already have). Strong story, interesting puzzles and good game length are some things frequently mentioned. For some players excessive dialogue is a complaint. For others, it is essential to the fulness of the story and the feel of the game. I'll give an opinion here - I agree about the voice acting on BM .... and in N.I.B.I.R.U. - a significant detraction from the overall quality. With regards Syberia, I'd ask you something. How close to non-credible can a story get before it becomes a ruinous element to a game? If it's still a darn good story does it matter how non-credible? Is it only really disastrous when the utterly non-credible, or illogical even, happens at the very end of the game? Perhaps when the game creator ran out of time, or ideas? I'll not talk about BS as it's pre-2000, other than to say "YES!".


* A question, or few, to anyone or everyone . . . . Does anyone believe that, in some (many?) instances we are being sold short in recent years when it comes to imaginative, original Adventure game design and quality of writing, puzzles, acting, originality of plot, game length, etc.? Are players sometimes 'suckered' by the WOW! AMAZING GRAPHICS! factor? Sometimes, too, reluctant to criticise a game constructively because "It looked soooo good!" or because it just isn't popular to do it? To put it plainly enough, is mainly what we're paying for graphics excellence? Are we, actually, expecting too little in the game as a whole these days compared to olden days? If so, and Adventure games with superb graphics, but relatively mediocre everything else, (unoriginal storylines, puzzles, etc.), are becoming the norm, could this lead to fewer and fewer people (newbies for want of a better word), becoming 'hooked' on Adventures just as many of us once were on the likes of Broken Sword, Gabriel Knight, Grim Fandango, TLJ or any other Adventure that got us 'hooked' on Adventures?

Note: I'm in no way insinuating that all 'recent' games are about 'look' at the expense of everything else. There are clearly outstanding Adventures that have had 21st century release. But is there a trend of less effort going into OVERALL Adventure game design and writing, and are Adventure players settling for less in terms of overall game quality, including originality and story, at the expense of outstanding graphics? Are we critical enough, or do players need to be MORE critical in the faint (perhaps), hope that game developers will take notice and put more effort into the whole instead of the (graphics), part? Do you sometimes, for instance, look forward more to a forthcoming independently produced Adventure, which may have been made by someone with a passion for his/her project, and which is unlikely to attract a big-time publisher, or the next Adventure forthcoming from a major game publishing company? The latter having, perhaps, pressured the game's developer/s into completing the project by a certain date, or having specified investment in particular game attributes (such as game-look), at the expense of other qualities.

Or .... is this "trend" only apparently so and is it merely that, in the 1990's, it may have seemed the same as now, but we only remember the the truly superb games (flaws and all!), and ignore the inferior? Does it just SEEM that overall game quality and originality was better in the 1990's, and that, in 2017, Adventure game players would regard the 2000 to 2009 years as having produced easily as high a proportion of 'near perfect' Adventures as did the 1990's?

[Sar]

Jacques, I agree with your Syberia comments. I'll clarify a bit as I have both games and both are in my top ten. I mention the credibility only because those questions were raised as I finished the first game. I didn't feel the writers satisfied that issue for me. Of course it does not take away from a beautiful game/story but in my mind because the writers did not make a better "connection" the game is slightly less than perfect. We are asking about perfection here. As for TLJ we can accept Crow, the mole people, et all without raising the same question. We can more easily suspend belief with TLJ. That is the difference I think.

[Squinky]

The Shivah is probably the closest in my opinion, if we're not allowed to count freeware games.

[After a brisk nap]

I think the Phoenix Wright games have been among the overall most enjoyable of the last few years, and they have no glaring flaws. I don't think flawlessness is a good metric for quality, though. Two other greats that come to mind, The Shivah and Fahrenheit, both have major problems, but their strengths are so impressive that they qualify for "flawed masterpiece" status. I'd rather have that than a game that there's "nothing wrong with."

[TekPunk182]

Jacques:

Now I'm curious why you're asking, heh. As to what you are saying about graphics, I think that even some of the most graphically technical adventure games today are way behind other genres, mostly because they are coming from smaller studios. I can't say if this was the case in the "glory days" of adventure gaming, being new to the genre.

If we're discounting graphics, should we also discount art direction? For me at least, this is an important distinction, since there are older games that are still "beautiful". For example, TLJ has "worse" graphics than a current game like "Secret Files: Tunguska", but I still think that the art and the landscapes in TLJ are far superior.

Speaking of TLJ, since we are counting it, I think it is a better game than Dreamfall. (And it's not nostalgia talking, since I had never played TLJ until I finished Dreamfall). I thought Zoe was a good character, but I simply identified more with the April Ryan character in TLJ. I also like that the story was much more fantasy-based, since most of it took place in Arcadia. It also had many more memorable characters (Roper Klacks, Crow, Burns Flipper, etc...). I also thought that the length and the puzzles in TLJ were much better, and seemed to fit with the game (with the exception of the inflatable duck... I had to use a few hints for that one).

It's also not a fair comparison, since TLJ is a complete story, and can stand on its own, while Dreamfall is not, and ends on a cliffhanger between chapters.

As far as the Myst series goes, I played realMyst and liked it, but hated the original Myst and Riven. People say that the story is great, but it's too subtle for my tastes. I'm slogging through Myst 4 now, and it is a very pretty game, with some (over?)challenging puzzles, but I just can't get into it. I much prefer third person point-and-click games to first person, slideshow based games. I can never seem to get my bearings, and always end up completely lost.

To answer your final question, I think nostalgia is certainly a factor in our rememberance of "near perfect" games from the mid-90s, but I don't think that's entirely the case. The problem is that there simply aren't as many adventures being produced anymore, since the single-player PC gaming market is a hard one to make money in. However, if the criteria changes to include action-adventure games (of which I am also a huge fan), then we have games like God of War, Bioshock, Prince of Persia, and Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic. These are without a doubt completely different games, but have strong storylines, which is the reason I play games.

[Jacques l'aliéné]

Hmmm! The Shivah eh! Another intriguing choice. As are the Phoenix Wright games. Almost enticing enough to make me buy a DS.

Sar - Yes. I understand your distinction regarding the two games. Clear fantasy can accommodate the fantastic more readily. It's about what our minds are conditioned to accept by any particular game I suppose.

TekPunk182, if you think it's acceptable to consider art on the grounds that there hasn't been a trend toward improved art direction as, perhaps, a direct or indirect 'selling point' then okay, I see your point in including it. But, perhaps, for relative simplicity's sake I'd rather not consider anything to do with the look of the game when choosing one or two games on the basis of the near ideal. I know what you mean though. I concur with your preference for TLJ for the reasons you mentioned. As a matter of interest though, I wonder (as I don't know), if anticipators of Dreamfall were made aware, prior to it's release, that it wouldn't be the 'complete' story, and that we'd need to purchase a sequel. If we weren't made aware then it would be a valid reason for comparison, as it could, possibly, be considered a detracting point in terms of value for money. Good point about the number of Adventures being produced, but I wonder if the PROPORTION of those being produced NOW that will be regarded as Classics will be as high in 2017 for 2000 to 2009 Adventures as we consider 1990's games to be now. Wow! I confused myself with that sentence!

All of your thoughts have been extremely useful to me and very much appreciated. Forgive me if I don't respond to some of your feedback for a bit.

I see a distant sail on the horizon and, if I'm quick with my wits, and cunning with use of flame on tinder, I can lure my prey on to the rocks where there'll be rich pickings of glorious booty to be had before the mornin'.

Forever the Adventurer,

Jacques L'Aliene

[smulan]

I'd say Syberia (Syberia one to make it clear) and Dreamfall. And these games, mind you, are every bit as classy as the classics.
Runners up would be Broken Sword lV and... yes Squinky; The Shivah.

[Harald B]

Over the past years we've watched 3d graphics become so ubiqitous that the mainstream audience is now loathe to accept a 2d game (and this holds for all game genres). I do not believe that this is a bad development any more than the shift from text-based to graphics-based or the shift from parser to point-n-click. But such a development has its growing pains and takes time to work out properly.
For an established company to change from doing 2d games to doing 3d games is a major undertaking. As a result a company's first 3d game is almost always sub-par compared to its earlier 2d games (for instance the very awkward Worms 3d, followed by the much better Worms Mayhem). But typically the games get better quickly after that until the old level of quality has been regained and succesfully combined with 3d.
Yes, there have been adventure games where for whatever reason other considerations have been sacrificed too much in favor of the graphics. And yes, I believe that in some cases good graphics have made adventure games unduly popular (for instance I feel that Keepsake and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened are vastly overrated). But these things are of a passing nature.
Now that the adventure genre has gotten accustomed to 3d more we can start to see some real advantages. Lip-synching and character animations can be more convincing then ever before. The camera angle can change arbitrarily to have the perfect cinematic viewpoint for every dialog, every action, and every cutscene. A rotating and/or moving camera can improve on side-scrolling. Large environments no longer have to be divided into 'screens'. These improvements require effort and insight and have an art of their own to them, but developers are getting there.
We are getting past the speed bump. The graphics aspect will again synergize with the other parts instead of conflicting with them. New games will be made that match the classics and reach levels they could not. Possibly sooner than you think.
Finally, look at my sig. There's a reason I use that quote here. I'm not saying the golden age of adventure gaming is not in fact in the past, but the greatness of the golden age mustn't blind us to our own capabilities. There's no reason for it to be impossible to match the classics (the people who made them aren't even dead yet!), and we have all kinds of ways to do it better. A new golden age could be right around the corner.

[Stroggy]

Originally Posted by Jacques l'aliéné

The Moment Of Silence - Yes. I know what you mean. But, why do you not regard it a Classic? Is it just because of the look of it compared to Syberia? Was the story weaker? Were the puzzles, in fact, better? Just wondering why you reject it as a Classic, but accept Syberia.

It's difficult to say why it isn't a classic, but I guess it's because sometimes the pacing was a bit off, and also the lack of memorable characters. That is to say, while there were interesting and distinct characters, there weren't any characters I can really remember. Whereas, in the case of Syberia (but not Syberia II), I can distinctly remember the important characters. This was also because the characters were not just people to help you or hinder you, but also were part of the story, part of the scenery. From the retired soviet-era diva wasting away in Aralbad (she is as much a remnant of the glorious façade of the Soviet Union as the Hotel she has retreated herself to), to the insane caretaker of the decaying Komkolzgrad (which is almost an exact copy of Magnetogorsk).

That said, Syberia has an unfair advantage as it reminds me of my own voyage to the east, where I journeyed from Berlin on through Poland and Russia and from there to the very beginning of the great Siberian expanse.

This, I find, is missing in The Moment of Silence. There is, indeed, an epic journey, but none of it 'strikes home', none of it makes you feel connected to the scenes or the people.

[Thello]

Phoenix Wright is the only adventure game since The Longest Journey that gave me that "this is a classic" feeling. Sam & Max was enjoyable, but too short and too easy. Fahrenheit was incredible up until 2/3 through in which they handed the script off to be finished by an autistic, two year old monkey. If the player ever has to

Spoiler:

kill a harmless old lady that is secretly the physical embodiment of an internet virus

and your script is not a comedy, you should be arrested and thrown into writer's prison forever.

[AdrianWerner]

Originally Posted by Stroggy

Hmmm, a difficult question.
If I take adventure-games to cover any game where there is an interesting story and the character goes through an actual adventure spanning different, interesting, locales - then I would surely say Tomb Raider: Legend, Thief 3 and Psychonauts are definitely on the classics list.

Thief 3? Really? THat dumbed down abomination?

[Stroggy]

I've always enjoyed the Thief games more for their environments than for how difficult they were. My favourite Thief game is still Thief II (despite the now outdated graphics)

[AdrianWerner]

Originally Posted by Stroggy

I've always enjoyed the Thief games more for their environments than for how difficult they were.

So you weren't bothered by petite levels that offered far less oportunities for exploration and finding diffrent pathways to objectives?

[Stroggy]

Well it did make the entire experience more like an adventure game, rather than a stealth game, but I always found a variety of ways to finish a level.

[ozzie]

I would say Black Mirror and Syberia 1.
They aren't perfect. BM has the worst ending I ever encountered in a game. It rushed past you so fast and didn't make much sense to me. You just felt very empty after playing the game and it felt pointless.
Oh, and don't forget the "twist" that was already obvious to you after playing a third of the game. And then they based even a puzzle around it before the solution came.
On the other hand, the castle looked very beautiful, detailed and realistic. It had a very interesting and believable back story. And the atmosphere...

Syberia 1 had the most beautiful story I ever experienced in a game. It's as emotional as a computer game can be.
But since the game is strictly linear, you rarely get hotspot descriptions and there is nearly nothing you can do in the game "just for fun" it gets very boring when you're stuck. And sometimes it even gets boring just by running around.
Sometimes I also missed an exit or some hotspot (for example the fridge in the bar. Grrr!)
So, basically you have to play it like an interactive movie. One with some annoying pauses.

Runner-up would be TLJ. Sadly, it has some unnecessary long-winded dialogues and some stupid puzzles.
The one thing that annoyed me about the dialogue wasn't that they were long and detailed, but sometimes the characters would start to talk about things which they wouldn't about in reality. But since this is a game and it needed some story exposition you get it even when you shouldn't.
For example, when you get the ring back, normally April shouldn't say more than thanks and how much the ring means to her. But then she starts to talk about her father and that she's glad to have moved away.
The game spoonfeeds these details to you. You can read about the difficult relationship about her father in the diary for example, but you shouldn't miss it. And since you had to get the ring back it was an ideal place to put this exposition there....except that it didn't fit.
On the other hand, TLJ had a somehow realistical portrayal of a future. People just live like today. There are some technological advancements and they change the way how you organize your life, but it's not much more to it.
It also had mature themes told in a mature way, something that was still unusual until then.
And the ending was wonderful. Also very emotional. The story was told, but it didn't work out like you thought it would. It definately left me thinking.

[sultanbadza]

Hmm... After 2000.? Is there any "adventure" game after 2000.? Well, Broken Sword 3 and 4. Escape from Monkey Island (only because their "ancestors" were good). But, only adventure game that I can admire after 2000. is Sam & Max: Season 1. Every other game is just a good try.

[thx1138]

I would choose:
Myst III(Myst IV was close but it was too hard)- great story(yes you have to read jurnals ), great graphics and sound and its game play and puzzles were balanced

Black Mirror - after some time(from TLJ(2000) to BlackM(2003)) it is the first Nearly perfect adventure - classicly made puzzles, good graphics and great story;
and also did you notice that after this game more and more ADVgames were being made...