[Hannes]

1. Do you think Dreamfall will ever get a sequel? Honestly?

2. Do you think Ragnar Tørnquist a) destroyed, b) resurrected, or c) raped the TLJ franchise?

Beating a dead horse, I know, but curious to know what people really think. I've seen comments from both sides.

[rayvio]

1: yes. eventually. key word being "eventually" and as impatient as I am, I'd much rather wait until Ragnar's ready to make it instead of having something half-thought out and rushed

2: resurrected would imply that it was dead. despite the long gap between games TLJ was still very much alive in my opinion, it's a game that I still think about long after the last time I played it. but b is closest
as flawed as some parts of Dreamfall were, it's a great game which dared to try something different, and while that didn't always pay off it didn't hurt it too badly either

[Luna Sevithiainen]

1: Yes, eventually. But it may take a long time. And I'm not certain in what form the sequel will be. I remember reading somewhere that Ragnar said that he wanted to finish the story anyway, but that if there wasn't much interest for it being an adventure game, he might do it in book-form or something. I can also imagine the sequel to Dreamfall being an RPG, which wouldn't surprise me given the interest of the mass in RPGs instead of adventure games, and the direction Dreamfall was already heading a bit, with more action than I would prefer to see in an adventure game.

2: none of the above. He didn't completely rape/destroy it. He made (at least in my opinion) some mistakes in the game design (action sequences, lack of interactability) which made it a sequel worse than TLJ. On the other hand, he kept the story alive in a magnificent way. The story (in my view at least) saved the game, and kept the TLJ franchise alive.

[Lee in Limbo]

1. Yes
2. No
3. Who's telling this story, anyway? Have a little faith. Ragnar's got his day job to think about, the same as all of us. Patience, please.

[Hannes]

^Just interested in people's opinions, that's all. By resurrecting, I mean resurrected the interest and popularity of the TLJ franchise

[L-Jazz]

1. Yes

2.
a) No
b) Yes
c) No

[gray pierce]

1: Yes but it might take a while say eh...10 years?

2: None of the above. In my opinion he improved the formula of TLJ

[booB]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

1: Yes but it might take a while say eh...10 years?

2: None of the above. In my opinion he improved the formula of TLJ

This!!!!!!

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by booB

This!!!!!!

Er...that?

Seriously what do you mean?

[booB]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Er...that?

Seriously what do you mean?

I was agreeing with you.

[RxBandits123]

yes and I predict 2014 release date.

I believe both games have a great story. Dreamfall had more flaws in the gameplay department then TLJ but that is because it was more ambitious.

I mean picture if Dreamfall ended up being just a traditional point and click game and played it safe....do you think it would of made it a lot better?

[booB]

Originally Posted by RxBandits123

I mean picture if Dreamfall ended up being just a traditional point and click game and played it safe....do you think it would of made it a lot better?

If you ask me, no. I think it would have relegated it to the status of Broken Sword 2 (ie, "just like the original, but a step down in quality"). One of the biggest reasons I loved Dreamfall so much was BECAUSE it wasn't a 2D point-and-click game. It was more like my beloved third-person action-adventures, which greatly improves the immersive qualities. The people who disagree with this point are typically the anti-technology and anti-action types.

Anti-technology: It's no secret that the majority of AG-ers are living in the 90s; it's a discussion we've had time and time again. The raging popularity of the SOMI SEs -- old games which have not been remade in any way other than being dressed up in modern clothes -- is proof of that. Me, I'm through with nostalgia; I want AGs to take advantage of modern technology. In the time I've been reading this forum/website, it has become crystal clear that the number of AGs that attempt to do this is miniscule, and that most of those are reviled by fans of the genre (I'm referring specifically to Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3 here; I'd love to hear some examples that would prove me wrong).

Anti-action: I realize that most action-capable gamers hated the fight scenes, but, taken in the proper context (an interactive cut-scene, of sorts), they were just fine. They weren't meant to be true fight scenes; it's not a fighting game. Same with the stealth scenes; they were simply a way to immerse the gamer into the "clandestine" atmosphere of the task -- not to recreate scenes from Thief: The Dark Project. All the same, I know there were a lot of AGers who thought the fight scenes were too hard (even though all you had to do was repeatedly attack), and that's a detriment to progress as well.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by booB

If you ask me, no. I think it would have relegated it to the status of Broken Sword 2 (ie, "just like the original, but a step down in quality"). One of the biggest reasons I loved Dreamfall so much was BECAUSE it wasn't a 2D point-and-click game. It was more like my beloved third-person action-adventures, which greatly improves the immersive qualities. The people who disagree with this point are typically the anti-technology and anti-action types.

Anti-technology: It's no secret that the majority of AG-ers are living in the 90s; it's a discussion we've had time and time again. The raging popularity of the SOMI SEs -- old games which have not been remade in any way other than being dressed up in modern clothes -- is proof of that. Me, I'm through with nostalgia; I want AGs to take advantage of modern technology. In the time I've been reading this forum/website, it has become crystal clear that the number of AGs that attempt to do this is miniscule, and that most of those are reviled by fans of the genre (I'm referring specifically to Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3 here; I'd love to hear some examples that would prove me wrong).

Anti-action: I realize that most action-capable gamers hated the fight scenes, but, taken in the proper context (an interactive cut-scene, of sorts), they were just fine. They weren't meant to be true fight scenes; it's not a fighting game. Same with the stealth scenes; they were simply a way to immerse the gamer into the "clandestine" atmosphere of the task -- not to recreate scenes from Thief: The Dark Project. All the same, I know there were a lot of AGers who thought the fight scenes were too hard (even though all you had to do was repeatedly attack), and that's a detriment to progress as well.

You took the words out of my mouth! I'm so thrilled I finally meet someone who feels the same way about Dreamfall, BS3 and the likes! I'm a hundred percent with ya all the way! I love Dreamfall exactly because of the fight scenes and the stealth! I love it because it's not a game that you can place in a genre. It's a game that elevates itself above that! I felt that it is a "story game" everything you need to do as a character is to help the narrative further. Thus all the gameplay is integrated. I mean why would you waste a fight on a cutscene while you might just as well put in the gameplay? And finally too hard? I suck at all fight scenes in all games. Even had trouble with the ones in "The Last Express" but these I finished in one or two runs. Didn't someone here once say that the most important part of an AG is the story? So what's with all the fuss then? Why didn't this game become an instant classic? I'm at a loss here

[imisssunwell]

1. Dreamfall chapters (the sequel) is unfortunately on hold at the moment. Funcom's director claims it's an indefinite hold, while Ragnar (a couple of days later) said the hold is not indefinite. Personally it is one of the Games I wish to see, along with Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age III, Diablo III and Baldur's Gate III (ok, the last one is probably just wishful thinking).

2. I think what he did with Dreamfall was great. I loved the game, have beaten it 5 times, bought the x-box version, the collector's edition on pc as well. It was great to see a great story in a non point & click adventure, it felt much nicer & simple, I hope Dreamfall: Chapters is a proper 3D game as well. Personally, I'd love to see the genre move to a modern UI, a modern grahpics and a modern development philosophy, just like dreamfall did.

Dreamfall Chapters will be episodic (funcom was hit by piracy and their evaluation is that episodic releases do better on that department) and will likely be available on many platforms (not just windows) -love this as my main computer is a mac-. The development is most likely to happen after the secret world mmo is out, but these days, with the global meltdown, who really knows

Also note that according to Ragnar, there is also going to be another TLJ/Dreamfall game, besides Dreamfall: chapters.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by booB

Anti-technology: It's no secret that the majority of AG-ers are living in the 90s; it's a discussion we've had time and time again. The raging popularity of the SOMI SEs -- old games which have not been remade in any way other than being dressed up in modern clothes -- is proof of that. Me, I'm through with nostalgia; I want AGs to take advantage of modern technology. In the time I've been reading this forum/website, it has become crystal clear that the number of AGs that attempt to do this is miniscule, and that most of those are reviled by fans of the genre (I'm referring specifically to Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3 here; I'd love to hear some examples that would prove me wrong).

You're generalizing and not taking other things into consideration. Especially small developers do not have the budget for a full 3D-game, and some just prefer making the game graphs by hand. It looks beautiful, like art (which it is). The situation is most likely the opposite to what you said. AG fans may live in the 90's, but the 90's was a golden era for adventure games, so why is that a surprise? Very few great ags have been released within ten years.

The developers are in fact lucky that we are the way we are, as they can continue releasing 2D/2,5D games with a lower budget, without getting shot down for not keeping up with the technology. That's what the genre is, and I'm fine with it.

IF the genre ever becomes mainstream again, THEN you can set your expectations graphics-wise higher. Atm it's not realistic.

Speaking in general, I'm not suprised if there indeed is a group of people against new technology (in theory that is). It seems to be moving forward too fast, and soon everything will look like real life, and in-game characters like real people. Ok, it's cool that they can do that. But is that what you really want? Me, no. I look for escapism from the real world, good stories, fantasy and art. If I want realism, I will turn on the TV news, or go out to have a look around. To me games are entertainment and art, not more of reality. The same reason I watch movies or read books.

At one point it will and has to stop. People can't keep upgrading their systems all the time for better and better graphics, there comes a limit, when it's too much and not what people want. I truly believe that in ten years from now the table will be turning, and instead of complaining about how the games don't look realistic & cool enough, people will actually be demanding less realistic graphics and artistic approach to them.

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by Hannes

At one point it will and has to stop. People can't keep upgrading their systems all the time for better and better graphics, there comes a limit, when it's too much and not what people want. I truly believe that in ten years from now the table will be turning, and instead of complaining about how the games don't look realistic & cool enough, people will actually be demanding less realistic graphics and artistic approach to them.

Actually, after having owned several home computers over the last decade, I can very safely say that the only thing you are guaranteed about the life of your computer is that you will have to upgrade it over and over, as bits of gear die and need not only to be replaced but upgraded because they don't make your parts anymore.

As well, with every new bit of software that comes out, you're being nudged further along on the graphics/processor track whether you like it or not. Really, the only way you can live in the world and still keep one foot in the past effectively is to absolutely baby your old beige box and do all of your other computing on something new, and when you really get down to it, you'll be spending more money on the beige box than you will on the new one, because tracking down distributors who still have parts for your old box will get harder and spendier all the time.

And if you only plan on owning the beige box, all I can say is, wait until your hard drive or your motherboard finally gives up the ghost, and then see how easy it is to avoid upgrading.

Meanwhile, those of us who have been moving with the times have noticed that the games that take the most chances usually prove to be the most interesting, even if they fail critically or financially. Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy was a rather flawed game that took lots of chances and made an indelible impression, dividing the fandom quite strongly.

And Dreamfall. Dreamfall Dreamfall Dreamfall. The game that challenged us, but not too much, really only had one flaw, and it wasn't those loopy cliffhanger endings. The problem was, the stealth and the combat controls were a bit too clunky. I'm not talking about being able to roll combos or play like you do in WoW, but I actually noticed that the controls were a little exhausting and laggy.

Now, that wasn't really a problem for me (the only bit that really bothered me was the cavern), but this was a game I was planning on sharing with my mother when I was done, and I realized she wasn't going to be able to play it very well. My suspicions have borne out. My mom still hasn't finished that game. Arthritic hands mean, holding down multiple buttons to perform a simple task is not nearly as much fun as it might seem for those of us without health issues.

I complained about this a great deal back in the day, and got quite a reputation for my stance. However, I was never anti-tech or anti-progress. I simply felt that Dreamfall had made a critical fail on the ease of use meter. That's something I'll be watching for in Chapters, when they finally arrive.

Meanwhile, I have to finally make some time to go over and play Dreamfall for my Mom, so she can at least see how the story comes out.

[Hannes]

Well, of course. You eventually have to either replace or upgrade any electronic devices. And I don't think anyone actually thinks they can use the same laptop or pc for the rest of their lives, that's just silly. But the way things are atm, you have to upgrade every other month if you want to play any new games on full settings. And that's a lil crazy. I mainly discussed the graphics and all that, though, this is a lil off topic.

I loved Dreamfall btw Fahrenheit... No.

[imisssunwell]

Originally Posted by Hannes

I truly believe that in ten years from now the table will be turning, and instead of complaining about how the games don't look realistic & cool enough, people will actually be demanding less realistic graphics and artistic approach to them.

Not all games go for realism, eg the most successful game, World of Warcraft, has a cartoony feel. That being said, my hopes for future graphics are *real* 3D, that is games with (semi-)holographic graphics, much like the Avatar 3D film but in games. Seeing the first 3D TVs coming out and PS3 updating its firmware to support *real* 3D, I can't wait to see games using this technology, be it photorealistic games or cartoony ones.

[booB]

Originally Posted by Hannes

You're generalizing and not taking other things into consideration. Especially small developers do not have the budget for a full 3D-game, and some just prefer making the game graphs by hand. It looks beautiful, like art (which it is). The situation is most likely the opposite to what you said. AG fans may live in the 90's, but the 90's was a golden era for adventure games, so why is that a surprise? Very few great ags have been released within ten years.

The developers are in fact lucky that we are the way we are, as they can continue releasing 2D/2,5D games with a lower budget, without getting shot down for not keeping up with the technology. That's what the genre is, and I'm fine with it.

I'm not. And there are far more people in my camp than yours, I can guarantee that. The biggest reason why the genre has been losing popularity for so long is because it failed to adapt to modern-day gaming standards. This community can blame the rise of FPSs, or the lack of "intellectual" gamers nowadays, or whatever, but it's AGs that made their own fate what it is today.

IF the genre ever becomes mainstream again, THEN you can set your expectations graphics-wise higher. Atm it's not realistic.

I believe the exact opposite is true. The genre will never become mainstream until developers start making games that the mainstream gamer is actually willing to look twice at. Until then, mainstream gamers will get their deep stories and character development from RPGs and other games.

I've never played Heavy Rain, but from what I've heard about it, it sounds like a major step in the right direction for the AG genre, as it has a very deep story line AND a lot of mainstream appeal.

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

As well, with every new bit of software that comes out, you're being nudged further along on the graphics/processor track whether you like it or not. Really, the only way you can live in the world and still keep one foot in the past effectively is to absolutely baby your old beige box and do all of your other computing on something new, and when you really get down to it, you'll be spending more money on the beige box than you will on the new one, because tracking down distributors who still have parts for your old box will get harder and spendier all the time.

I only have one computer. It runs the newest games at pretty close to max settings (certainly better than console settings, but not as good as if I had put it together last month). It can also play virtually any PC game ever made. You don't need to keep your old x86 computer around. It takes a little bit of knowledge and research to run old games on a new PC, but it's not so difficult as to be prohibitive. Plus, no tracking down ancient hardware! (Although, if this really IS your chosen method, then old hardware can always be found. You'll just have to look deeper than your local electronics superstore, and you'll probably pay close to the same money as you would for newer stuff, anyway.)

Now, that wasn't really a problem for me (the only bit that really bothered me was the cavern), but this was a game I was planning on sharing with my mother when I was done, and I realized she wasn't going to be able to play it very well. My suspicions have borne out. My mom still hasn't finished that game. Arthritic hands mean, holding down multiple buttons to perform a simple task is not nearly as much fun as it might seem for those of us without health issues.

Clearly your mom isn't the target audience for a game such as Dreamfall. Still, 80% of games of its type would probably be even harder for her to play.

I complained about this a great deal back in the day, and got quite a reputation for my stance. However, I was never anti-tech or anti-progress. I simply felt that Dreamfall had made a critical fail on the ease of use meter.

Don't take any of this the wrong way. Point-and-click AGs are, difficulty-wise, essentially "casual games". Dreamfall actually employs a little bit of skill-challenge, which is something most AGs don't do. It also employs a new control scheme (and a decent one), which is absolutely essential for the type of third-person action-adventure gameplay in Dreamfall. It isn't a failing of the game itself if one is not good at playing it. I'm not suggesting you have to enjoy it; just don't blame the game for your own (or your mom's) inability to play it.

It would be like a FPS gamer saying that "AGs suck, because you have to figure out what to do, and that's too hard." It's not AGs that are at fault; it's the gamer. See?

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by booB

I'm not. And there are far more people in my camp than yours, I can guarantee that. The biggest reason why the genre has been losing popularity for so long is because it failed to adapt to modern-day gaming standards. This community can blame the rise of FPSs, or the lack of "intellectual" gamers nowadays, or whatever, but it's AGs that made their own fate what it is today.



I believe the exact opposite is true. The genre will never become mainstream until developers start making games that the mainstream gamer is actually willing to look twice at. Until then, mainstream gamers will get their deep stories and character development from RPGs and other games.

That's just nonsense. If you ask people who play fps games, then yes, you're right. But those people do not want adventure games, no matter what the graphics are like. If you ask adventure gamers they will give you an opposite answer. What you want is to change the genre, and did that happen, adventure wouldn't be adventure anymore. If pushing buttons by command to reveal more of the story is your idea of an adventure game, then so be it. I can guarantee that it isn't most of our definition.

And if people truly didn't want the ags as they are, they wouldn't be buying them, and so, the companies wouldn't keep making them. But they are and we are. Going forward with the times is a completely different matter from what you're suggesting. And going forward is something I totally support. Changing the whole genre to something else is not.