[Mohlin]

Originally Posted by Agustin

I'm not sure why the backlash - I think this is a terrific idea that could bring some very needed depth and complexity to adventures. Leveling to solve special situations sounds like a brilliant concept IMO.

It's not like Jonathan said that it will be an RPG anyway, just bring in a few elements from that genre.

I don't think that AG are in need of "depth and complexity" at all. If I want to play a RPG I will buy one. I want to explore dirty kitchens, look for keys an clues and find hidden passages. I have no needs whatsoever to infiltrate groups.

Oh. I have no need for sliders though.

[Agustin]

Well, look at this way - when it comes to the basic gameplay, the adventure genre has been stagnant for years whereas other genres have brought some sort of innovation. Compare a modern FPS to one from 10 years ago and you'll see what I mean. Adventures remain - all in all - basically the same since point & click was discovered.

Of course, this would in no way mean that traditional adventures would be abandoned in favor of this new "breed". Both could coexist just perfectly fine. If you ask me though, an adventure game that plays like GTA without the minigames nonsense and actual *good* storyline with challenging puzzles, would be a dream come true.

In any case, infiltrating groups could involve great puzzles, even in typical adventures

[Mohlin]

What's GTA?

And so what if AG has been more or less stagnat? Why is that wrong? I love point-and-click. I love the "slowness" of the game. I love puzzles.

Chess, Mahjong and Domino to name a few have not changed either. Do we call them stagnant? Does everything have to keep changing just because we have the technical possibility to do so?

[ZeframCochrane]

Originally Posted by Mohlin

What's GTA?

In the gaming world, GTA usually refers to the Grand Theft Auto series. Rather than its intrinsic violent nature, I think Augustin was referring to its "sandbox" approach, where the player is often free to roam the streets in a nonlinear way. Judging by the interview, this seems to be the direction Boakes is taking his game. Hopefully we won't have to run over grannies crossing the street after having jacked a car in The Last Crown.

Originally Posted by Mohlin

And so what if AG has been more or less stagnat? Why is that wrong? I love point-and-click. I love the "slowness" of the game. I love puzzles.
Chess, Mahjong and Domino to name a few have not changed either. Do we call them stagnant? Does everything have to keep changing just because we have the technical possibility to do so?

Now, that's something I can completely relate to. Although I can understand the desire of a developer to create something new (isn't it part of the concept of "developing"?), the classic approach shouldn't be abandoned. Especially for a sequel! For me, a sequel means "more and better of the same thing". For The Last Crown, I would've settled for a technically speaking less-quirky version of The Lost Crown (better 3D models for characters both in terms of texture quality and animation, better voice acting, no frustrating unskippable dialogues, consistent use of ghost hunting tools instead of the "let's try all of them and see which one is supposed to work" approach, etc.) but otherwise unaltered gameplay.

Therefore, in the case of a sequel like The Last Crown, I sincerely hope Boakes will tread the new ground carefully.

[zobraks]

Originally Posted by Mohlin

And so what if AG has been more or less stagnat? Why is that wrong? I love point-and-click. I love the "slowness" of the game. I love puzzles.

Chess, Mahjong and Domino to name a few have not changed either. Do we call them stagnant? Does everything have to keep changing just because we have the technical possibility to do so?

Exactly. I would have written the same if my English were better.

Why do people always want to change the "boring" and "out of date" adventures by slipping in action/RPG/I-don't-know-what elements? I would like to see the face of some FPS fan if some clever dick had put a couple of puzzles in his favo(u)rite shooter. Something tells me that the average FPS fan wouldn't be thrilled at all.


People watch porn because they want to watch porn (and they don't expect anything else but sex in porn movies), people play adventures because they want to play adventures (and they don't expect killing, shooting, driving, jumping,...). If I want some action or I would like to die, there are the FPSs. A lot of them.

[MoP]

I agree with all that, but the elements mentioned here have nothing to do with action, killing, shooting, driving and jumping.

If you take a look at the BlackIsle/Troika games (Fallout 1&2, Arcanum and most notably Planescape: Torment), RPGs and adventures can have a lot in common (not only in the story-department). The gameplay in those games is very adventure-like (albeit puzzle-lite), fighting is largely optional.
It wasn't perfect, but it was a prominent feature, which I'm disappointed wasn't developed further in the genre (this is why I don't play RPGs anymore, as much story-driven as they sometimes are, there's no way of getting around the boring combat-filler... alternatives solutions are there, but rarely is a non-combat path developed for the whole game, with the rare, indie exception).

I think the non-combative RPG elements can compliment the adventure elements very well. I wouldn't mind seeing this 'depth', and don't see how this 'complexity' would interfere with exploring dirty kitchens

But honestly, I'd prefer if it was the RPG devs that took this route and started implementing fleshed out non-combat, diplomatic, 'pacifistic' paths in their games.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by ZeframCochrane

Now, that's something I can completely relate to. Although I can understand the desire of a developer to create something new (isn't it part of the concept of "developing"?), the classic approach shouldn't be abandoned. Especially for a sequel! For me, a sequel means "more and better of the same thing". For The Last Crown, I would've settled for a technically speaking less-quirky version of The Lost Crown (better 3D models for characters both in terms of texture quality and animation, better voice acting, no frustrating unskippable dialogues, consistent use of ghost hunting tools instead of the "let's try all of them and see which one is supposed to work" approach, etc.) but otherwise unaltered gameplay.

Therefore, in the case of a sequel like The Last Crown, I sincerely hope Boakes will tread the new ground carefully.

But isn't that the point? You don't want it to be exactly the same; you just want him to change the aspects you didn't like in the first game! I liked the voice acting and would be happy for more of the same there. But you want him to 'develop' it. Isn't it just a matter of perspective?

"Change the bits i didn't like but save the bits i did"

[ZeframCochrane]

Originally Posted by cbman

"Change the bits i didn't like but save the bits i did"

Yes, that would seem indeed a very subjective approach on my part.. but still, haven't the problems I mentioned been more or less objective for The Lost Crown? Haven't we all felt funny at seeing Nigel "reverse-moonwalk" around the landscape? Haven't we all a bit cringed at sentences uttered like "That's .... very .... odd!" or ""Symbolic images or ancient graffiti"? And heven't we all felt a bit frustrated when, having selected the same dialogue tree twice by accident, we had to sit through the entire thing again?

For me (yup, for me. As of now, I'm still unable to offer truly objective and unadulterated points of view ) The Lost Crown would've been borderline perfect without those quirks.

That's the point I was making in my other post: although in general I'd expect a developer to "develop", in the case of someone who had already a winning product with just a few minor quirks, I wouldn't have demanded any further development out of him, just a bit of polishing.

"Don't change a winning team"

[Mohlin]

It is probably the old "if I change this-and-that maybe more people will buy it" - virus. Unfortunately it will (most often) back lash, the old players will be careful and maybe not buy, and some of the new will not like it. So the game after that will fail, because suddenly it is a bad mix of genres.

I agree - dont change a winning team. By all means - do a RPG adventure game Jonathan, but not The Last Crown.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Mohlin

It is probably the old "if I change this-and-that maybe more people will buy it" - virus. Unfortunately it will (most often) back lash, the old players will be careful and maybe not buy, and some of the new will not like it. So the game after that will fail, because suddenly it is a bad mix of genres.

All that based on WHAT exactly...? Two or three lines from an interview!
I'd say this thread is turning into a great example of the We-Already-Hate-Your-Game phenomenon, eloquently described by former editor-in-chief Evan Dickens.

http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,135

[Fantasysci5]

I just responded with some concern, but I am in no means condemning this game before I've played it.

And actually, I wasn't bothered by a lot of the "faults" many people list for "The Lost Crown". I enjoyed (most of) the voice acting, and I liked how he glided, it made me wonder if this is all just a dream or something. The inability to skip through dialogue, however, was my biggest pet peeve.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by ZeframCochrane

Yes, that would seem indeed a very subjective approach on my part.. but still, haven't the problems I mentioned been more or less objective for The Lost Crown? Haven't we all felt funny at seeing Nigel "reverse-moonwalk" around the landscape? Haven't we all a bit cringed at sentences uttered like "That's .... very .... odd!" or ""Symbolic images or ancient graffiti"? And heven't we all felt a bit frustrated when, having selected the same dialogue tree twice by accident, we had to sit through the entire thing again?

For me (yup, for me. As of now, I'm still unable to offer truly objective and unadulterated points of view ) The Lost Crown would've been borderline perfect without those quirks.

That's the point I was making in my other post: although in general I'd expect a developer to "develop", in the case of someone who had already a winning product with just a few minor quirks, I wouldn't have demanded any further development out of him, just a bit of polishing.

"Don't change a winning team"

i'm sure that Boakes will keep the same winning voice acting team, don't worry

Seriously though, aren't the quirks part of the charm too? The voice acting isn't typical but it was one of the things that initially helped draw me into the game and supplemented the surreal atmosphere. When on holiday recently the phrase 'A fall from these rocks could smash... a body... to pieces' leapt into my head every time i made my way along the clifftop escarpment overlooking the beach. It was memorable. A bit of individuality is a good thing. It sounds like you're suggesting (and apologies if i'm misunderstanding) that Boakes should homogonize the presentation of the game and then it would be perfect. But personally I think that kind of development would be more detrimental to the series than adding in a few new gameplay ideas.

I like girls who don't straighten their curls.

Atmopshere really is the most important part of Jonathan Boakes' games. Gameplay-wise they are fine but nothing special; there's always the odd badly designed puzzle in his games that i am happy to ignore and the ones that work well are nothing more than stanard Adventure game fare; perhaps if he could come up with something special on the gameplay front too then that would make the perfect game? Who knows? It's worth trying. After all, the first game will still be intact; a 'bad' sequel wouldn't hurt it. why should he rest on his laurels if he feels there's things he can improve? Besides, as an independant developer i'm sure he would get pretty bored creating another game of that epic scope that is exactly the same as the previous one.

I say go for it.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by Fantasysci5

I just responded with some concern, but I am in no means condemning this game before I've played it.

And actually, I wasn't bothered by a lot of the "faults" many people list for "The Lost Crown". I enjoyed (most of) the voice acting, and I liked how he glided, it made me wonder if this is all just a dream or something. The inability to skip through dialogue, however, was my biggest pet peeve.

Yes, that is a design flaw and can be objectively criticized. The quality of the voice acting though is a subjective qualm and it does irritate me at times hearing people constantly state AS A FACT that it is terrible.

I'm not trying to dismiss people's opinions here; of course they are perfectly entitled to dislike and to criticize any aspect of the game they don't like, but it's when those subjective criticisms are wrapped up as objective ones that it irks me slighly.

People seem to take the approach that if enough people agree with a subjective opinion it ceases to become an opinion at all and can be stated as a fact. That is fallacious.

Again, there is nothing wrong with subjective criticism; it plays an important role in the review process, but it should be clearly defined from objective criticism (pointing out plot holes or picking up poor puzzle design for example) and certainly shouldn't be glibly assigned the staus of being something to be 'polished' in a sequel.

A change in approach to the voice acting constitutes an artistic design change (or 'development'), not a correction of a fault. So for one to say they want it changing is a design suggestion. Nothing at all wrong with that in itself but to make such a suggestion on the one hand, whilst saying that nothing should be changed on the other hand is not very coherent.

I agree - dont change a winning team. By all means - do a RPG adventure game Jonathan, but not The Last Crown.

But he hasn't said it's going to be an RPG game!

[Mohlin]

Originally Posted by cbman

But he hasn't said it's going to be an RPG game!

No but its a hint. A hint can scare me very much.