[LimpingFish]

Art of Murder reader review. Interesting read.

It again raises my oft posted opinion that adventure fans are far more forgiving towards sub-standard product than the mainstream gaming media. PC Zone (UK edition) recently reviewed AoM and awarded it 11%. It's a damning review, read in it's entirety (I have it open here in front of me) and they even awarded it a little symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump, indicating...well, you get the idea.

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100 3.5/5, and Just Adventure gave it 58/100 a C+.

I know different people will find different pros and cons within a game, and my point isn't absolute (eg. PC Gamer awarded AoM 57%, despite a fairly negative review: "Art of Murder gets most of the fundamentals right, but after spending an hour or so with its grating characters, banal dialogue, and inept plot, you probably won't care"), but it always strikes me as odd.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100, and Just Adventure gave it 58/100.

Those are not the scores they gave AoM, just some flawed interpretations of them from sites like metacritic and gamerankings.

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

It again raises my oft posted opinion that adventure fans are far more forgiving towards sub-standard product than the mainstream gaming media. PC Zone (UK edition) recently reviewed AoM and awarded it 11 out of 100. It's a damning review, read in it's entirety (I have it open here in front of me) and they even awarded it a little symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump, indicating...well, you get the idea.

11 out of 100 is way below rating something as just sub-standard. I would only rate a game like that if it was practicly unplayable or sickening for some reason. Similarly, the mentioned usage of a symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump creates in me an inclination to view PC Zone (mainstream media or not) as a crappy magazine.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100..

As Ascovel already said, the reviews here aren't percentage based. It was 3.5 stars out of 5.

I would be interested in the sort of reasons given for the 11 out of 100 score. Scores are all very well but the reasoning is often the most telling as to whether a game is being judged on its merits or whether personal preferences are skewing a score (either positively or negatively).

This is not to say that any reviewer is being dishonest. I'll always assume a reviewer is calling it exactly as they see it. Just that the reasons why they think a game is good or bad are more informative depending on whether you agree with their views on particular aspects.

[LimpingFish]

It was Terramax's original review and my own reading of the PC Zone magazine review that led me to look up Metacritic, just to cross-reference the other AoM reviews. In all honesty, I take all reviews of adventure games by adventure-gaming sites with a pinch of salt, which is the crux of my point. But apologies if my original post seemed misleading. I've corrected the errors.

As to the quality of PC Zone magazine, I'm not here to defend their integrity; it's arguably one of UK's two premier PC gaming magazines (the other being PC Gamer), and, since I first started reading it, I've not had much reason to dismiss their opinions before. Having said that, I'm also not claiming their opinion is infallible.

But they have generally given positive reviews to, for instance, the Sam and Max series, and rank Grim Fandango as one of the best PC games ever made. Even games such as Sherlock Holmes: Nemesis (66%), and Dracula 3 (65%) receive favorable, if not glowingly positive, reviews. So the age old adventure fan lament of "They just don't get adventure games!" isn't the issue here.

The review of AoM basically describes the game as lazily amateurish in design and execution, in all areas. Maybe 11% is a little harsh. Or maybe 3.5 out of 5 is a little generous. Who can say? It's the fact that, in my experience, there is something inherently skewed in how adventure fans perceive commercial adventure games, as opposed to how the "mainstream" gaming media do. I'm not claiming one is more or less valid than the other, but I think it's interesting to investigate the anomalies between the two.

Of course, the bigger question may be: Is this behavior contributing to the lack of innovation (by and large) in the commercial adventure game?

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Maybe 11% is a little harsh. Or maybe 3.5 out of 5 is a little generous. Who can say? It's the fact that, in my experience, there is something inherently skewed in how adventure fans perceive commercial adventure games, as opposed to how the "mainstream" gaming media do.

Cold you talk more in detail about your experiences? It's difficult to comment otherwise. And maybe it's better to start a separate thread about it, because this one doesn't seem to fit the topic very well.

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Of course, the bigger question may be: Is this behavior contributing to the lack of innovation (by and large) in the commercial adventure game?

Let me answer you with another question.

Psychonauts was lauded by mainstream media as a very innovative game and got spectacular reviews. In reality, as far as gameplay goes, it's just a typical platformer. It also didn't sell well. Now the question: Did those reviews of Psychonauts contribute in some extent to the lack of innovation in the gaming industry in general?

Maybe one more question: Is an unusual story and wacky art design synonymous with game innovation in mainstream media?

[Sik]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

In all honesty, I take all reviews of adventure games by adventure-gaming sites with a pinch of salt, which is the crux of my point.

I find it strange that you can say that after mentioning an 11% score review of a game that for fans of the genre is at least above average. I'm sure someone who thinks Doom 3 deserved a score close to 100% would agree completely with 11% for Art of Murder, but that's not really an interesting comparison. For someone who likes adventure games, and is reading reviews of adventure games, the only thing that matters is how it compares to other adventure games. For that purpose, reviews from adventure gaming sites will usually be more helpful. It doesn't matter if the average scores are higher, since the scores won't be compared with those of other games.

PS: I only chose Doom 3 as an example because that was an, in my opinion, mediocre game that no major gaming site would give less than 90% even if the reviewer didn't like it.

[AndreaDraco83]

The Italian Giochi per il mio computer (Games for my PC), one of the two prevalent PC games' magazines, reviewed Art of Murder and gave it a rate of 6,5/10, stating that it is a not-too-difficult adventure, with an extremely simplified interface and forced progression. Graphically well done and with a good storyline, it will be interesting only for genre newbies. The roughly translation is obviously mine.

I can't comment on the quality of the game since I didn't play it. But, for give you an idea of what the general press thinks, at least here in Italy, about adventures, I'll post the five Parameters from the same magazine: the journalists state that "GMC's Parameters point out the five best titles for each genre", and here's the Adventure's parameters:

1) The Longest Journey
2) Culpa Innata
3) The Moment of Silence
4) Syberia II ( why not also the first one?)
5) Jack Keane

So, I have to agree with Sik: when it comes to adventures, I can only trust specialized sites or magazines, 'cause the general press often completely miss the point of what is really important in an adventure (Jack Keane the fifth best adventure out there? They're crazy!)

[Lucien21]

I'm not sure it's a case of missing the point, but more a case of comparison.

Mainstream sites and magazines have to compare games to the industry as a whole. As such placing something like Grand Theft Auto 4 next to Art of Murder and it's just laughable in terms of graphics, design, gameplay etc etc. Of course there is a massive budget difference, but that shouldn't affect the final score if the gameplay is up to it.

Adventure game sites are reviewing the game in context with other adventures and rated it as an average game in comaprison to similar titles.

Of course the lack of innovation or advancement in most adventure games doesn't help with the final scores.

Most adventure games that have shown some kind of advancement are usually scored reasonably (Dreamfall, Sam and Max, Fahrenheit, Broken Sword 3/4 all scored well in the mainstream)

[Sik]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

I'm not sure it's a case of missing the point, but more a case of comparison.

Mainstream sites and magazines have to compare games to the industry as a whole. As such placing something like Grand Theft Auto 4 next to Art of Murder and it's just laughable in terms of graphics, design, gameplay etc etc. Of course there is a massive budget difference, but that shouldn't affect the final score if the gameplay is up to it.

Adventure game sites are reviewing the game in context with other adventures and rated it as an average game in comaprison to similar titles.

Of course the lack of innovation or advancement in most adventure games doesn't help with the final scores.

Most adventure games that have shown some kind of advancement are usually scored reasonably (Dreamfall, Sam and Max, Fahrenheit, Broken Sword 3/4 all scored well in the mainstream)

I agree that comparison becomes more difficult when you review games of all genres. I do think mainstream sites and magazines are too forgiving when it comes to reviewing graphically impressive games, though.

That aside, a lot of reviewers reserve, say, 60-70% for games that are good for "fans of the genre", and higher scores for games they can recommend to everyone. That's not bad in itself, but I have a feeling it means a decent adventure game will get a 65% score since most people don't like adventure games, while a decent FPS shooter will get 85% since everyone likes those.

Give the same two games to a site that specializes in adventure games, and you'll probably see the scores reversed. They're both decent games, but it will take more for an adventure game site to recommend an FPS shooter, since they can assume most readers won't like them. A mainstream gaming site might recommend an innovative (mini games, action and stealth elements?) adventure game with great graphics over a classic with mediocre graphics, while an adventure game site might recommend a shooter with a great story and lots of exploration over a high tech one that's pure action.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Of course the lack of innovation or advancement in most adventure games doesn't help with the final scores.

Most adventure games that have shown some kind of advancement are usually scored reasonably (Dreamfall, Sam and Max, Fahrenheit, Broken Sword 3/4 all scored well in the mainstream)

Personally, I strongly disagree with this. I don't think advanture games lack in innovation any more than other game genres.

However, what I find really surprising are the examples of advancement you give. Some of these games are rather instances of degeneration than advancement.

Is pushing crates instead of solving real puzzles in Broken Sword 3 an innovation? Or is going back to the gameplay from interactive movies in Fahrenheit something fresh and exciting?

[Sik]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Is pushing crates instead of solving real puzzles in Broken Sword 3 an innovation? Or is going back to the gameplay from interactive movies in Fahrenheit something fresh and exciting?

They are good examples of what mainstream reviewers see as innovative. Especially when backed up by up to date graphics. Apparently "most" adventure gamers think otherwise, and that's reflected in review scores.

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Personally, I strongly disagree with this. I don't think advanture games lack in innovation any more than other game genres.

Really the vast leaps in AI and graphics that most other genres have made compared to the majority of adventure games which look like they could have been made in 1990's.

However, what I find really surprising are the examples of advancement you give. Some of these games are rather instances of degeneration than advancement.

Is pushing crates instead of solving real puzzles in Broken Sword 3 an innovation? Or is going back to the gameplay from interactive movies in Fahrenheit something fresh and exciting?

Well I was thinking more along the lines of the 3D interface and the graphics etc and not the block pushing.

And Fahrenheit was pretty innovative in the way the story was told and the way you interacted with the environment.

Just my opinion of course.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Adventure game sites are reviewing the game in context with other adventures and rated it as an average game in comaprison to similar titles.

This isn't true of AG at all. We may discuss comparisons to other adventures since that's what readers will most closely relate to, but we're very conscious of the larger gaming context, and adventures are rated by those broader standards. Of course, you need reviewers who play other genres to do that, but I don't think there are any staffers here who don't.

Now, that doesn't mean we place the same importance on innovation or replayability or multiplayer or some of the other things that mainstream sites might. But for the most part, a good adventure needs to a good game, period, not just good "for an adventure".

[Squinky]

If I recall correctly, my three-star review of Zack & Wiki was slammed because it was perceived as too low rather than too high. Many people said I should have rated it higher because it was excellent in comparison to the majority of crappy Wii games out there, and indeed, I get the feeling that many of the mainstream review sites rated the game highly for that reason. While I agree that Z&W is indeed better than most Wii games, I myself had tried to put it into the broader context of adventure games in general, regardless of platform. And in this way, I found it lacking, even despite the Wii-specific gameplay innovations (which I did give plenty of attention to).

Not sure why I'm mentioning this. Probably just hunting for a counterexample again.

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Jackal

This isn't true of AG at all. We may discuss comparisons to other adventures since that's what readers will most closely relate to, but we're very conscious of the larger gaming context, and adventures are rated by those broader standards. Of course, you need reviewers who play other genres to do that, but I don't think there are any staffers here who don't.

Now, that doesn't mean we place the same importance on innovation or replayability or multiplayer or some of the other things that mainstream sites might. But for the most part, a good adventure needs to a good game, period, not just good "for an adventure".

Now you are just playing with semantics.

You are reviewing against the broader standards, but not placing the same importance on certain things so that brings us back to reviewing against the yardstick of what makes a good adventure game.

I wasn't suggesting anything wrong with reviewing adventures against a yardstick of adventure gaming goodness.

People who come here like adventures and want to know if the new releases are good based on the same criteria of liking adventure games not how they stack up against the latest FPS or RPG game.

[kadji-kun]

The thing is, like most reviews, when adventure games leave the realm of point and click and old school mechanics. It then becomes an action/adventure game. Almost every mainstream review of adventure games has always offended me. Its not the fact that it doesn't stack up against an RPG or FPS. Its how the game works with its genre, not others. Its like comparing HL2 to Madden 09.


Then again, PC Gamer is obviously going to end up just like the failure of Games for Windows magazine (which recently went under).

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Really the vast leaps in AI and graphics that most other genres have made compared to the majority of adventure games which look like they could have been made in 1990's.

Maybe graphics and AI (especially graphics) do get more complex as time goes, but it's all just bells and whistles to me. There are no new, interesting gameplay uses found for those technical possibilities. In fact, the main game mechanics themselves often drown under the large amounts of flair and secondary elements in the current bunch of games.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Now you are just playing with semantics.

You are reviewing against the broader standards, but not placing the same importance on certain things so that brings us back to reviewing against the yardstick of what makes a good adventure game.

I wasn't suggesting anything wrong with reviewing adventures against a yardstick of adventure gaming goodness.

Ah, well, if that's what you mean, it shows why semantics can be important. Since the thread topic is about adventure sites being favourably biased towards adventures, such a statement could easily be misinterpreted to mean we hold adventures to lower standards (and therefore easier to meet for better scores) since we don't have to take other genres into consideration. And we don't do that. They may be different standards, but not lower.

But now that you've clarified, I don't necessarily agree that mainstream sites do otherwise. Or at least, not by policy. Maybe some sites or poor reviewers in particular* let biases creep in unintentionally, but no decent reviewer would review all games through some basic generic "game" criteria. Any review site worth its salt is reviewing adventures as adventures, RPGs as RPGs, shooters as shooters, etc. There really IS no way to judge one genre against another.

* Of course, there are far more of these than there should be.

[Lee in Limbo]

I don't think Adventure Game-centric review sites are unfairly disposed towards giving less-than-perfect Adventure Games favourable reviews. I've often read numerous reviews here and elsewhere (thought not as often as I used to... I must admit, I like it here), and found that the coverage by and large is very even-handed, discussing the pros and cons in terms of playability, aesthetics and degree of comprehensibility.

Even where a particular reviewer might make disparaging remarks about a game I was quite fond of, I usually find that it's by degrees, merely showing a preference for certain conventions I'm not as fond of. Anyone who has read more than five of my comments here knows I'm not as puzzle-centric as many AGers, but I do recognize that it is a strong attractor for many players of this genre, whether I like it or not.

As such, if I were reviewing such games, I'd feel bound to comment on the degree of puzzle difficulty or lack thereof, keeping my personal feelings relatively muted (though not completely silenced; to thine own self be true).

As it works out, many of my favourite reviews do exactly that, and it is those reviews that most often guide me toward or away from games I'm more strongly disposed towards, regardless of overall rating. I still might play something outside of my comfort zone for other reasons, but I am keenly aware that ratings alone don't tell me much about which games I'm going to enjoy, even on an Adventure-centric site.

I think folks who taking ratings as gospel are doing themselves, the reviewers, and many fine games a disservice, and would advise anyone looking for specific kinds of AGs to actually read the reviews and use some critical thinking about what the reviewer is actually saying about the game. Somewhere in that 2-star/D- game might be something that actually appeals to you, even if your ultimate conclusion is that it's a pretty mediocre game.

I guess what I'm really saying is, take reviews with a grain of salt. They're really only meant to be a guide, after all, to be used as a source of educated information and nothing more. Consumer advocacy is an important public service these days, but not every consumer advocate (aka The Reviewer) knows what works best for you personally.

More importantly, don't let review ratings throw you. Especially when checking out the mainstream gaming (now there's an oxymoron) sites. There might still be a diamond in the rough there. Use your own judgement.

[Jadefalcon]

Regarding the Broken Sword 3 reference, I actually found that game a step backwards and didn't like the crate shoving nonsense at all enjoyable, as well as one or two reaction parts.

Broken Sword 4 while still flawed was taking a step back to the genres roots, though I'll confess I find the direct control interface for a character annoying. Dead Reef's methods of control are particularly frustrating. A bog standard point and click is far prefereable for me.