[Melanie68]

It's amusing to watch debates like this. It's 2008 (almost 2009) but it still ends up being a LucasArts vs. Sierra debate. Sierra fans never seem to find LA games all that great. LA fans never seem to like Sierra games (of course there are those who like both). But then personal preference ends up getting packaged into a reasoned argument why one game is better than the other. Just my opinion.

I also feel healthy skepticism in the midst of excitement is good too.

[Kazmajik]

Originally Posted by sodapoplives

Sierra put out a lot of decent games, but the production values were never as good as Lucas Arts. The only game on your top ten list that I enjoyed was LSL3. Everthing else, especially GK, was boring due to soddy story lines.

Do you mean shoddy or sodding or something else entirely?

I suppose you also think Boston's not a big college town.

[Udvarnoky]

Originally Posted by Jackal

And some people are skeptical for equally good reason.

I agree. AndreaDraco83 wasn’t one of them, based on what I've read.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Nothing you've said changes the fact that Autumn Moon is an unknown as a studio designing its first game from the ground up,

I daresay it’s a good thing nothing I’ve said was an attempt, either implicitly or explicitly, to dispute that.

Originally Posted by Jackal

with no experienced lead writers/designers at the helm.

Define “experienced.” Does it mean they had to have Grim Fandango on their resume? Incidentally, are incredibly seasoned writers a widespread commonality in the games industry that their absence ought to arouse such suspicion? (Strategic use of “Lead,” by the way.) I don’t know specifically everyone who was involved in the design of this game and to what degree, because to my knowledge that information has never been released, but I do know that a number of team members have had their hands in this game’s design, not the least of which was Bill Eaken (who has many years of experience – and yes I’m aware he’s best known as an artist) and Bill Tiller (not his first rodeo either, though certainly it’s the first game he’s helmed). Perhaps the game’s end credits will cause you to appreciate it more than what led up to it, but the content will speak for itself. Having association with ex-LEC employees doesn’t guarantee a game of anything, but considering the track record of such projects, the high level of anticipation that this game has enjoyed is pretty appropriate I think, and that's really all I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Having reservations about the result is hardly hoping it will fail or expecting it to be bad, as you seem to be wrongly implying.

I’ll fully admit to drawing intentionally stretched conclusions, reflective of what I felt was a wrongheaded mentality of the post in question. Reservations about a game is not what I’m arguing about (this thread is about what merits this game's hype), but rather AndreaDraco83’s reasons for feeling the way he does. It might be best to just let him speak for himself though.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Telltale's first games were hardly masterpieces, if you're going to hold up them as a standard. They got better fast, but it took a while. Personally I wouldn't be at all surprised if AVS shows similar signs of growing pains.

I don’t disagree with you in any way here (though the differences between Telltale and Autumn Moon are not minor in terms of their missions and approaches to production), but I think you and I are ultimately arguing about two different things.

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

A very mediocre game, if you want my opinion. Nothing Bill Tiller touched turned into pure gold, if you want my opinion once again so I'm not holding my breath.

That you consider CMI a mediocre game helps an awful lot in understanding your perception of AVS. To each his own!

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

I daresay it’s a good thing nothing I’ve said was an attempt, either implicitly or explicitly, to dispute that.

Maybe not, but since virtually everything you argued was in response to little more than that simple assertion (Tiller = great artist, not a proven writer/designer), it seemed worth pointing out.

Incidentally, are incredibly seasoned writers a widespread commonality in the games industry that their absence ought to arouse such suspicion?

No, but nor are most games given the attention of AVS based largely on the design team's pedigree to make the question relevant.

Having association with ex-LEC employees doesn’t guarantee a game of anything, but considering the track record of such projects, the high level of anticipation that this game has enjoyed is pretty appropriate I think, and that's really all I was trying to say.

Of course it is. I'm the one who keeps putting it at #1 in the HoM, after all. But I think the skepticism is equally valid, and I'd rather see people measure their expectations a bit than expect immediate greatness rivalling LEC's best (which you know people will with such a heavily hyped game). Having seen the game myself, I already know there will certainly be that LEC influence evident. But if nothing else, its designers are stepping outside of their comfort zones, and it does remain to be seen how well they're able to stand on their own.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

That you consider CMI a mediocre game helps an awful lot in understanding your perception of AVS. To each his own!

I'm pretty sick of being considered a blind Sierra fan who can't be impartial! If tomorrow Darlou Gams - given that you know who he is - would announce that he's working on his own adventure, I'd be as skeptic as I am toward Bill Tiller, considering the both of them are at their first experience as designers. On the other hand, when I heard of Mata Hari, I was immediately happy, because I think that Falstein and Barwood are two of the greatest game designer of that "golden age".

So, first of all, I'm not partial to AVS because I hate LucasArts. Second, I loved the first Monkey Island, and thought that the Le Chuck's Revenge was a very good game, but Curse of Monkey Island is just mediocre in my opinion. What does this mean?

Moreover, if you read what I previously stated on the game (AVS), I said:

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I was interested then quickly became uninterested as the informations began to spread out. That's it. But I'll wait for a review to make a proper judgment.

You think that my skepticism is not fair. I don't think so, but to each his own - I guess...

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Reservations about a game is not what I’m arguing about (this thread is about what merits this game's hype), but rather AndreaDraco83’s reasons for feeling the way he does. It might be best to just let him speak for himself though.

I don't know what else to say: I was intrigued by the game, than the trailer really damped down my enthusiasm. Partly because of the characters, which I think don't match the quality of the backgrounds; partly because I'm more for serious games; partly because, from what I've read, I quickly became uninterested in the story.

My consideration of Bill Tiller is another argument. I think that he is a very talented artist, but - since AVS is his first adventure - I was arguing against the statement that he was one of those people who make our beloved genre great, back in the Golden Age (). He was the lead artist of The Dig, which is perhaps my favorite Lucas games, but I wouldn't say that he is one of the big names, back then. If AVS will turn out to be a masterpiece, I will say that, in the end, he is a talented designer (and not only a talented artist/animator). Until then I still have my doubts.

Now, on a different subject:

Originally Posted by Kazmajik

Do you mean shoddy or sodding or something else entirely?
I suppose you also think Boston's not a big college town.

Eheheheh. As always, I totally agree with you.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Jackal

No, but nor are most games given the attention of AVS based largely on the design team's pedigree to make the question relevant.

In my opinion AVS popularity comes not so much from the design team's pedigree, but from the game's visual look and the classic interface it uses. For example, Insecticide had theoretically much more remarkable team with, among others, Larry Ahern as co-designer, Peter Chan and Peter McConnell responsible for the audio visual aspect, and even Josh Mandel of Space Quest 6 and Freddy Pharkas fame responsible for parts of the adventure gameplay. Yet it never gathers much discussion on adventure gaming websites - probably because it is 3D, doesn't look so polished, has different kinds of gameplay, and wasn't able to show so much eye-catching footage in the trailers, screenshots and such.

And the most attention Mata Hari got so far was thanks to the controversial box art...

[Udvarnoky]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Maybe not, but since virtually everything you argued was in response to little more than that simple assertion (Tiller = great artist, not a proven writer/designer), it seemed worth pointing out.

It was not in response to the assertion of Tiller not being an experienced writer/designer, but on the effect that will/ought to have on the anticipation level. The original sentiment of this thread definitely seemed to be "Why should anyone care this much about the game?" rather than simply "I'm not interested in this game." If it was just the latter, which is someone's entitled opinion, I wouldn't have cared enough to have written anything.

Originally Posted by Jackal

No, but nor are most games given the attention of AVS based largely on the design team's pedigree to make the question relevant.

I'm still not sure how relevant a question it is, at least on a new franchise. I haven't heard of too many people writing off a non-sequel adventure game because they never heard of the Lead Writer, or at least anything they've worked on prior. That's a new one to me.

That some people take things on faith might be a dangerous way for them to set their expectations, but again, I'm only really talking about the game's appeal. We are talking about its potential (what the HOM is based on) rather than the final product.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Of course it is. I'm the one who keeps putting it at #1 in the HoM, after all. But I think the skepticism is equally valid, and I'd rather see people measure their expectations a bit than expect immediate greatness rivalling LEC's best (which you know people will with such a heavily hyped game). Having seen the game myself, I already know there will certainly be that LEC influence evident. But if nothing else, its designers are stepping outside of their comfort zones, and it does remain to be seen how well they're able to stand on their own.

Again, I think you may be talking to some imaginary person who disagrees with you on those points.

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I'm pretty sick of being considered a blind Sierra fan who can't be impartial! If tomorrow Darlou Gams - given that you know who he is - would announce that he's working on his own adventure, I'd be as skeptic as I am toward Bill Tiller, considering the both of them are at their first experience as designers. On the other hand, when I heard of Mata Hari, I was immediately happy, because I think that Falstein and Barwood are two of the greatest game designer of that "golden age".

Woah now, take it easy. I never brought up Sierra. However, if you do have a general "meh" attitude toward LEC adventure games, it can't be that surprising that you'd feel the same way toward a game that's being made to clearly be a lot like an LEC game by a lot of the same people who made them. Furthermore, a lot of people, including me, consider CMI to be on the short list of the greatest adventure games ever, and as stoked as I am for AVS I don't see it being close to CMI. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the consensus view on CMI is that it's a more than "mediocre" game, and thus that you aren't any more inclined toward AVS, which is a heavily anticipated game by consensus view (the only thing the HOM can really attempt to measure, after all) makes complete sense. That hardly makes you wrong or not impartial, but it certainly makes your incredulity at the game's hype easier to understand.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

In my opinion AVS popularity comes not so much from the design team's pedigree, but from the game's visual look and the classic interface it uses.

Well, it's a combination of both. Other games are drop-dead gorgeous visually and don't get nearly the same attention. But yeah, the graphics are huge in this case, no question.

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

I'm still not sure how relevant a question it is, at least on a new franchise. I haven't heard of too many people writing off a non-sequel adventure game because they never heard of the Lead Writer, or at least anything they've worked on prior. That's a new one to me.

Speaking of imaginary people, who's "writing off" AVS? You're right, we really aren't arguing each other's individual points, but it's these backhanded strawman remarks that makes me keep defending the skeptics. All anyone has said (and only one or two people at that) is that they aren't sold on this game warranting all the hype because its developers haven't proven themselves in their expanded roles. Which is true, they haven't. If you're inclined to be optimistic, great (as am I personally and AG as a site, obviously) but some people clearly choose to wait and see. I'm really not sure why you have any issue with that.

People aren't debating the props of other game's writers, but nor are those games sitting #1 in the HoM (serving as the token hype measurement for discussion). I'm sure if Memento Mori were plugged in at #1, people would wonder why it was there as well, and the experience of its design team would indeed come into question. This level of scrutiny comes with the territory of being hyped.

[sodapoplives]

Originally Posted by Kazmajik

Do you mean shoddy or sodding or something else entirely?

I suppose you also think Boston's not a big college town.

Thanks for the spell-check. I meant shoddy, but that isn't really the right word, so I guess I meant crappy.

I felt like I was being made to watch all 1,225 episodes of Dark Shadows.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by sodapoplives

I felt like I was being made to watch all 1,225 episodes of Dark Shadows.

Which is by the way an all-time classic.

Maybe the dark, adult-themed storyline Jane Jensen masterfully crafted weren't your cup of tea, since - maybe - you're more for light-hearted, humorous adventures, but defining them "crappy" I think it's a huge overstatement (I'm being extremely politically correct ).

On a personal note, I may also add that Dark Shadows and Gabriel Knight share the same similarities as Buffy, X-Files, Twin Peaks, Millenium, Henry James' ghost tales and Edith Wharton's one... they deal with supernatural. End of similarities.

[sodapoplives]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I'm pretty sick of being considered a blind Sierra fan who can't be impartial!

At least 7 of your top ten are Sierra games. I'd say that makes you partial.

While I'm VERY grateful to Sierra for producing so many great games, their production value was never the equal of Lucus Arts. George Lucas had a large talent pool to draw from, and the money to pay for it. He understood pacing, storyline and dialogue.

Sierra made some fine games, and made a lot of them. I really loved the entire LSL and SQ series, but while they were very funny, they weren't as polished.

Let's get back on track:

Because Bill Tiller comes with a Lucas Arts pedigree there’s reason to believe he understands the value of pacing, storyline and dialogue, and that he'll surround himself with good talent. He does appear to be trying to capture the old Lucas Arts flavor.

This thread isn't about the right to be skeptical. It's about being highly anticipated.

There have been a lot of games that got a lot of attention, before release, that turned out to be dudes. So when a game comes around that actually might deliver the goods people are going to pay attention to it.

[sodapoplives]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Which is by the way an all-time classic.

Maybe the dark, adult-themed storyline Jane Jensen masterfully crafted weren't your cup of tea, since - maybe - you're more for light-hearted, humorous adventures, but defining them "crappy" I think it's a huge overstatement (I'm being extremely politically correct ).

On a personal note, I may also add that Dark Shadows and Gabriel Knight share the same similarities as Buffy, X-Files, Twin Peaks, Millenium, Henry James' ghost tales and Edith Wharton's one... they deal with supernatural. End of similarities.

Actually I meant that they were both horribly melodramatic and extremely boring. Kind of Ann Rice meets Ed Wood stuff.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by sodapoplives

At least 7 of your top ten are Sierra games. I'd say that makes you partial.

I'm glad that you aren't even considering that those seven games are there for a reason except my partiality.

Originally Posted by sodapoplives

Actually I meant that they were both horribly melodramatic and extremely boring. Kind of Ann Rice meets Ed Wood stuff.

Since Anne Rice is one of my favorite author, I guess that me and you simply just can't get along: tastes too much different. Aside from this, I'm confirmed that you're more a comedy person, since you cite LSL and SQ as Sierra's top series.

Originally Posted by sodapoplives

While I'm VERY grateful to Sierra for producing so many great games, their production value was never the equal of Lucus Arts. George Lucas had a large talent pool to draw from, and the money to pay for it. He understood pacing, storyline and dialogue.

Storyline, dialogues and - foremost - characters are the exact reason why love Sierra more than Lucas. Once again, a matter of tastes.

Oh, since you mention my Top10. I'm working on a full-Sierra Top10 (or, at least, games made by ex-Sierra's members, like the wonderful Josh Mandel's Callahan's Crosstime Saloon)

EDIT: Wait! There are already eight Sierra games, not seven!

[sodapoplives]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Maybe the dark, adult-themed storyline Jane Jensen masterfully crafted weren't your cup of tea, since - maybe - you're more for light-hearted, humorous adventures, but defining them "crappy" I think it's a huge overstatement (I'm being extremely politically correct ).

You're right. I was being a smart ass.

[AndreaDraco83]

You malicious Lucas fan!

[Udvarnoky]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Speaking of imaginary people, who's "writing off" AVS? You're right, we really aren't arguing each other's individual points, but it's these backhanded strawman remarks that makes me keep defending the skeptics.

Are you sure you even read what I said?

Originally Posted by Jackal

All anyone has said (and only one or two people at that) is that they aren't sold on this game warranting all the hype because its developers haven't proven themselves in their expanded roles. Which is true, they haven't. If you're inclined to be optimistic, great (as am I personally and AG as a site, obviously) but some people clearly choose to wait and see. I'm really not sure why you have any issue with that.

I don't. Second time I've had to say that. I guess I should just accept that you see in my posts what you want rather than what's actually there, and there's nothing I can do about it. I suspect though that our feelings on the subject are more similar than different. In any case, I'm out.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Udvarnoky

Are you sure you even read what I said?

Indeed I did. I'm just struggling to make sense of why your arguments don't seem to show an understanding of what others have actually said. But we're clearly both tired of going around in circles, so I'll join you in bowing out.

[Thello]

The game looks beautiful, but I found the humor in the trailer (at least the one I recall seeing) pretty hackneyed as far as adventure games go. I'm really hoping this turns out great, but I'm keeping my expectations low.

[SoccerDude28]

How can the game be overhyped if I barely read about it in any mainstream website? Maybe a little overhyped in the adventure community, but judging by how small that community is right now, that's not saying much.

[chapter11studios]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

It's amusing to watch debates like this. It's 2008 (almost 2009) but it still ends up being a LucasArts vs. Sierra debate. Sierra fans never seem to find LA games all that great. LA fans never seem to like Sierra games (of course there are those who like both). But then personal preference ends up getting packaged into a reasoned argument why one game is better than the other. I also feel healthy skepticism in the midst of excitement is good too.

Wow, this thread really did turn into nasty little Sierra vs. LucasArts argument. I think Melanie makes a great point. Can't we all just get along? I grew up on King's Quest and Space Quest, but how can you not also love Monkey Island, Fate of Atlantis, etc. They're all awesome!

Oh, and to keep this on topic: Vampyre may be massively hyped within the adventure game community, but "mainstream" game sites are barely noticing it. It is a very attractive looking game that should appeal to those of us who like that lush "cartoony" graphics style. That said, I do agree that until we see the final product we really won't know if the gameplay is as good as the graphics.

Personally, I'm just happy that the genre has come so far in the last few years that we're no longer looking at every exciting new entry as the one that needs to "save" the adventure game genre! (Consider the level of hype and expectations around Broken Sword 3, for example.)

I think we can safely say that, by and large, the adventure genre has already been saved.