[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by nonax

That's maybe because you haven't really seen a modern game on a modern machine with a modern monitor. These systems are very expensive, but you get higher resolution, higher frame rates (smoother graphics) and more complex scenes.

I have a modern machine, although it is a bit over two years old. My monitor is a 24" Samsung, which is as modern as I think I currently need.

And, as mentioned to Erwin, the games I play are not of the FPS variety. Maybe the console games I've seen on friends' 56" LCD screens just make the green-eyed-lady come to the surface.

[RockNFknRoll]

Originally Posted by UPtimist

Well, perhaps they felt that a game in the usual 2.5D would not be commercially interesting enough, and that with the modern technology a game in full 3D could be done without compromising the artistic qualities. It's not like full 3D means bad visuals.

GK3 was full 3D in 1999, and although it sure wasn't visually stunning, in my opinion it has graphics that still are very pleasing to the eye and has an interface that in my opinion is still unmatched today (and much of the problems are simply due to a rushed schedule). That was 10 years ago, things could be done in quite wonderful ways nowadays and it can look just as beautiful as the original Syberias (which I finally have the privilege to play as of yesterday), even better with the development since then.

I personally think that 3D still has much to offer to AGs, and GK3 should've been (and was - in a way) a pioneer in the way AGs could evolve, even though the interface had its problems, it (in my opinion) allowed a much more versatile and immersifying experience than the usual 2.5D.

And althogh that has nothing to do with graphics and such - that area is simply a matter of tech advancement (which nowadays is far enough to assertain the level in 3D where it was with the previous Syberias in 2.5D) and art direction, not decisions in how a game is built (I'm sure someone could say it better). Of course, I'm not saying it means things will be better, but as long as there's effort put into it (and as I said, good art direction), there's no reason in my opinion why 3D should be visually any less stunning than 2.5D (of course, I understand that you didn't say that 3D is necessarily bad, but I'm sure that if the change had to be made, it had to be made (the first paragraph is the main point here )).

totally agree about GK3. that should have spurred a renaissance in adventure games. instead it seems like the peak of the genre now. absolute masterpiece of a game.

i actually think the sherlock holmes games have a bit of the coolness of the GK3 interface. in terms of being able to really search your environments, etc.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Sughly

But could a sequel without these people be utter trash? Even more probable

Granted. But could a sequel with these people be utter trash as well? Not every LSL is a critical favorite. And the post-Syberia Sokal efforts have not been reviewed favorably. Every game needs to stand on its own merits.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

I think Benoit is a guy with a lot of interesting ideas, but his narrative sensibilities leave me a bit cold. An adventure with Kate Walker moving on from the rather disappointing ending to Syberia II would be a very welcome thing, in my books. Benoit isn't the only artist in the world who can draw interesting villages and doohickeys.

People have made comments like this before and I think it's a bit bias. Someone finds a kind of direction in a game not to their personal liking and say that the director lacks in this department or that. I personally think the same things you see as Sokal's weaknesses are his strengths, and to say that his work is about villages and doohickeys is belittling the world and themes he created for Syberia.

Sorry for being a bit direct , I just think personal preference too often clouds critical judgement.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by rtrooney

Granted. But could a sequel with these people be utter trash as well? Not every LSL is a critical favorite. And the post-Syberia Sokal efforts have not been reviewed favorably. Every game needs to stand on its own merits.

I think in some cases it's probably true, but in some of the better director's such as Al Lowe and Sokal I don't think, from my perspective, it's true. All the LSL games by Lowe were (by far) the better ones, and I've still been a fan of all the Sokal stories (despite technical flaws). I know people disagree but, again, personal opinion.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

As far as Sokal is concerned, I'd like to see his involvment mainly because the story of the first two Syberia was so tightly wrapped up at the end of Syberia 2 that, if there were one capable of writing a third chapter without failing, it's most certainly him.

I think you are wrong here. One, because you imply that you know where you would want the story to go. So, perforce, you know you can write what you would like S3 to be. And there are certainly enough artists out ther to support your vision.

[renna]

I feel like I will be let down again. I loved Still Life but all the bad reviews and I can't bring myself to play the game. I hope Syberia 3 will be a new story going in a new direction. It has to because Kate helped Hans Voralberg realize his dream and now she must pursue hers. If not, then the story dies there. Honestly, Kate got adventure out of the old story by helping Hans now she needs her own adventure just for herself. It will be interesting to see what direction they go in. I'm hoping for something new .... now I'd play that game.

[rtrooney]

I think the basic problem is that Kate fulfilled her dreams by delivering Hans to the endgame. What exactly is left for her other than to return to her law practice and listen to her mother's rantings?

[renna]

Not sure Kate fulfilled her dreams by helping Hans but rather helped someone else fulfill their own. She started off by helping him so he could help her close the deal but somehow things did not work out the way she planned them to like career or love, which gave her an excuse to run away with Oscar and Hans. Now I think her character is open to a new reality and new possibilities. And I for one am ready to explore them with her.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by renna

Not sure Kate fulfilled her dreams by helping Hans but rather helped someone else fulfill their own. She started off by helping him so he could help her close the deal but somehow things did not work out the way she planned them to like career or love, which gave her an excuse to run away with Oscar and Hans. Now I think her character is open to a new reality and new possibilities. And I for one am ready to explore them with her.

We've trayed off topic again, but anyhoo...

Spoiler:

I believe Kate wasn't escaping a life that 'didnt work out', she more or less realised that it wasnt something she wanted once she was in the world of Hans. So, in a way, following his dream gave her a chance to change herself. I don't think she's interested in going back to her old job and would most likely be looking for somewhere to begin again, something new.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by rtrooney

I think the basic problem is that Kate fulfilled her dreams by delivering Hans to the endgame. What exactly is left for her other than to return to her law practice and listen to her mother's rantings?

No, no... don't you believe it. Kate has changed so much, she can't go back to her old life. As an ambitious career woman she had hardened herself against the needs of all those around her, remember how unkind she was to that poor retarded kid (Momo or something) in Syberia 1? And isn't it remarkable how many helpless kids and adults she meets, who are not-quite-there like Hans or outright idiots like that army guy and the pilot? Those people were there for a reason. They taught her what her True Purpose in Life was and showed her she had a softer, warm, kind Inner Self. Yes! Our dear Kate is a repressed Mother. (God, I'm gonna cry in a minute...)

I will tell you what will happen. She will return to New York, where she meets an attractive, adventurous but somewhat irresponsible guy with a slight drinking problem who keeps losing his glasses and never really grows up, and she finds Total Fullfillment taking care of him and their six children...

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Fien

Kate has changed so much, she can't go back to her old life. As an ambitious career woman she had hardened herself against the needs of all those around her, remember how unkind she was to that poor retarded kid (Momo or something) in Syberia 1? And isn't it remarkable how many helpless kids and adults she meets, who are not-quite-there like Hans or outright idiots like that army guy and the pilot? Those people were there for a reason. They taught her what her True Purpose in Life was and showed her she had a softer, warm, kind Inner Self.

Like I said, but better. But without the mother of 6 housewife bit, I don't want that for Kate

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by darthmaul

GK3 looks absolutely horrid now. Syberia does not.

Furthermore, Microids clearly doesn't have the budget to make a 3D game that is on par with the pre-rendered visuals of the first two.

If it was being developed by Ubisoft Montreal (Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2) I'd sit up and watch with anticipation, but anything less isn't worth it.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Fien

...she finds Total Fullfillment taking care of him and their six children...

I like that

[RockNFknRoll]

i don't get the particular love for syberia. i mean, it was an alright game but really not that stand-out.

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by Sughly

People have made comments like this before and I think it's a bit bias. Someone finds a kind of direction in a game not to their personal liking and say that the director lacks in this department or that. I personally think the same things you see as Sokal's weaknesses are his strengths, and to say that his work is about villages and doohickeys is belittling the world and themes he created for Syberia.

Sorry for being a bit direct , I just think personal preference too often clouds critical judgement.

No apologies necessary. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think that your own bias is showing, and that you forgive Sokal too much. His more recent adventures seem to be running even further in the same esoteric, unfulfilling direction, but then, perhaps I'm just grousing because of the technical hitches in his games. Perhaps his stories might not frustrate me as much as they do if the games were a little more polished.

Actually, no, that's not true. See, I don't mind downer endings in general, but somehow, the way Sokal delivers ambiguous endings and tries to paint them as poignant strikes me as someone struggling to achieve high art and not quite getting there.

And as for the 'villages and doohickeys' thing, that's pretty much what made Syberia I&II interesting to me. Hans' character and history didn't interest me at all (as I've complained at length here before), the robot butler didn't get particularly good until near the end, and I really felt that Kate's evolution as a person wasn't particularly well-illustrated, save that she learned to tolerate some exceedingly annoying and simplistic characters in her determination to perform the ludicrous tasks set before her.

Perhaps if there had been more internal monologue, or someone sane and intelligent she could have really talked to that would allow us to see more clearly the personal growth she'd achieved, I might buy it more. In the end, all I got from it was some very nice scenery and a few attempts to pull at my heart strings, plus an ending that leaves me cold because the only person I cared about (Kate) was stranded in the fricking Tundra with no way home and nowhere to stay until she got herself sorted out. Artistically a very potent idea, but it utterly fails to touch me, because while the point inferred is that she has her whole future and all the potential in the world before her, the reality is, she's going to be dead within a few days, from starvation if not exposure. That's not magical to me. She didn't fulfill her reason for being by getting a dying man to some mythical happy hunting ground, and her very next adventure is going to be trudging through snow and ice and very cold water to see if she can reach a friendly village before hypothermia sets in. She'll be polar bear droppings within the week. The romance utterly eludes me.

So you see, it's not precisely bias putting scales before my eyes that deny me the beauty of this clever little saga. It's more that I think Sokal is a cartoonist who doesn't know how to end a story without getting poetic. You can argue all you like that I've missed the point, but frankly, it all falls down when you consider the very real implications of stranding your heroine with nowhere to go.

Every ending is a new beginning, but if you don't give your characters somewhere to go when it's over, you're dabbling in pure fantasia. This may work in cartoons, but in a story with that much real life in it, you merely show contempt for realism by refusing to acknowledge a few painful facts that the character has to face once the last page is turned. She doesn't need to go back to her old life, but you can't just pretend everything is going to be hunky dory when you give her no exits. It's a dead end. Even a sad ending has to offer some sense of purpose, rather than just running out of words and pumping up the soundtrack to make it sound like a resolution when it really isn't.

So that's it in a nutshell. I don't need a sequel to Kate's story; I just need a proper ending. I can live with the idea that she has no more noteworthy adventures. Maybe she goes home and starts a school for autistic children. Maybe she becomes a wildlife conservationist. Maybe she starts doing research into alternative fuels and becomes a champion of environmentally sustainable technologies. That's alright by me.

But if you strand her in the Tundra with no way home, all she gets is a death sentence. That's not poetry. That's laziness. Any ending you can't walk away from is a bad one.

The moral of Syberia is, you aren't truly alive until you throw your life away recklessly for someone else's mad, life-affirming quest that you yourself in all likelihood won't survive. *shrug*

Don't get me wrong: I liked the game. However, it's four fifths of a good tale that goes poof at the end. Until he explains how his protagonist survived the fix he left her in, I won't be handing out any cookies for Benoit Sokal. Sorry.

Getting back on topic, can anyone tell me if there's an interesting ending to Still Life 2 that justifies another sequel? I haven't played it, and haven't really read much more than the first few reviews of it that complained it didn't live up to the original. I've been planning to install and play it, but I just haven't had time yet. Because if there was room for another sequel, then I could potentially feel bad about the possibility of Microids not being able to continue.

[charmed23]

um somehow I couldnt find a button to edit the Thread so I have to post this news as a reply.

http://www.playfrance.com/news-ps3-psp-du-microids-risque-d-arriver-sur-playstation-587223.html

Having inherited the status of official publisher, Anum Interactive, which acquired Microïds and catalog no longer hides his desire to see some of his land titles on the consoles of the PlayStation line.

Contacted by our colleagues Game Take it, the French publisher has indeed stated bluntly:
"Our goal is to adapt our licenses on PlayStation 3 on PSN and PSP. That at least has the merit of clarity!

So expect to see one day soon landed on consoles your favorite songs from the catalog that contains Microïds including Syberia, Dracula, Still Life or Atlantis.

translated by Google.

Since I just got a PS3, Im all up for this. Just that Sony seems to not give a damn about Microids games

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

But if you strand her in the Tundra with no way home, all she gets is a death sentence. That's not poetry. That's laziness. Any ending you can't walk away from is a bad one.

LOL
I think Sokal may ascribe to the school of storytelling that believes the storytelling should end at the climax -- which in this case means when Kate sees Hans achieve his lifelong dream. The part of the story where Kate figures out how to get back to civilization (or how to survive in Syberia) isn't told because everything after the climax is considered uninteresting compared to what happened before. You could end with a cut scene showing Kate making a boat and sailing away, or building herself a hut and learning to fish, but compared to Kate watching Hans riding off with the Mammoths (inside the remains of Oscar), which is the most "poetic" ending sequence? I suspect opinions would differ on that one, but assuming the game ended as Sokal intended (and wasn't truncated due to lack of budget), Sokal seems to feel the more effective ending is the one that encompasses all three characters. And considering Amerzone ended in much the same way, I don't think lack of budget was the reason.

[orient]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

But if you strand her in the Tundra with no way home, all she gets is a death sentence. That's not poetry. That's laziness. Any ending you can't walk away from is a bad one.

You make a good point. However, if you're willing to accept that Kate would embark upon this ludicrous journey in the first place, and travel around on a wind-up train with a talking robot, who eventually ends up as...

Spoiler:

the exoskeleton that brings Hans, the mentally handicapped genius, back to life...

then why is it so hard to believe that Kate could survive on the island of Syberia, or even make her way home? The climate there seems alright, with tropical trees and green grass.

I guess that to me, not a lot of Syberia made rational sense (nor did it have to), so I can forgive the ending for neglecting Kate's intentions and plans for the future.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

No apologies necessary. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think that your own bias is showing, and that you forgive Sokal too much.

I really like your analysis. I think it is spot on for the most part. The only thing I think we might be in disagreement with is the fact that I liked the Syberia pair.

I'll agree that if you accept Kate as the protagonist, the ending was a downer. If you think of Hans as the protagonist, (granted hard to do seeing that he was hardly the main character,) and Kate as his agent, then the ending is far more acceptable.

Neither option makes Benoit a good writer.

[Hannes]

Awsome! I received an email from Microids as a response my support request that I sent last year before Christmas! So, I guess not all is lost!