[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Because that other person is David Cage and you can't argue with the person who made those games can you? Of course it's also a possibility Hannes manipulated his words to make us believe he said that. But I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Same answer applies here as well. If David Cage says it's not an AG it's not.

I think the designer has the right to decide whether his game is an AG or not

And yet Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit are both listed on this site. Which again illustrates my point. Evidently there are enough elements in both games that merit them to be included among other adventure games on this site.

Of course, if you ran a site that only features and reviews games that are, say, 2D and point-&-click and only appear on the PC, and you insist that only those games are adventure games in the true sense, then David Cage's games won't make it to that site, yes?

Conversely a developer can make a game that has many features usually associated with the adventure game genre - 2D, point-&-click, heavily story driven, puzzles, and with tiny bits of RPG elements - and refuse to call it an adventure game. To him it would be an RPG/adventure. But a site like Adventure Gamers would still feature and review it. What then?

Would someone who considers himself a strict adventure gamer who plays only 2D point-&-click puzzle heavy games still play that game because Adventure Gamers featured it? Or would he not want to play it because the developer insists it's not really an adventure game?

Very wise words, I wish our world leaders were like that

LOL! Don't get me started, buddy.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Because that other person is David Cage and you can't argue with the person who made those games can you? Of course it's also a possibility Hannes manipulated his words to make us believe he said that. But I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Um I guess but I don't see the point in doing so, as he comes here (or used to), and can always deny ever saying that if I made shit up. It's not a big deal though, I'm sure he's said it somewhere else too.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Certainly if I were a developer with a vision the last thing I'd want is to be forced by a small group to compromise that vision. To me that's just utterly stupid.

Of course, but that's just the other extremety.

Let the developers do what they want and if we don't like it we have the choice to play something else.

Now this I agree with !!!

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And yet Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit are both listed on this site. Which again illustrates my point. Evidently there are enough elements in both games that merit them to be included among other adventure games on this site.

Of course, if you ran a site that only features and reviews games that are, say, 2D and point-&-click and only appear on the PC, and you insist that only those games are adventure games in the true sense, then David Cage's games won't make it to that site, yes?

Conversely a developer can make a game that has many features usually associated with the adventure game genre - 2D, point-&-click, heavily story driven, puzzles, and with tiny bits of RPG elements - and refuse to call it an adventure game. To him it would be an RPG/adventure. But a site like Adventure Gamers would still feature and review it. What then?

Would someone who considers himself a strict adventure gamer who plays only 2D point-&-click puzzle heavy games still play that game because Adventure Gamers featured it? Or would he not want to play it because the developer insists it's not really an adventure game?

All good points. I think it best to say Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain feature AG elements and obviously enough to be listed on this site. As to the final (retorical) question I think a 2D traditionalist would never play Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain whether they're listed on Adventure Gamers or not.

[Hannes]

The problem with Heavy Rain & Fahrenheit is that they both mix genres, and because both of them are very story driven games, it's hard to put them in any category. Fahrenheit looks like an action game but it features a few puzzles. I wouldn't call either of them an adventure game, though, not in a million years. Even Dreamfall is so-so.. Altho it's one of my favs.

I'm curious.. How long has this 2D/3D + Point n Click/Action Hybrid argument been going on for? Did Fahrenheit start it?

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Hannes

The problem with Heavy Rain & Fahrenheit is that they both mix genres, and because both of them are very story driven games, it's hard to put them in any category. Fahrenheit looks like an action game but it features a few puzzles. I wouldn't call either of them an adventure game, though, not in a million years. Even Dreamfall is so-so.. Altho it's one of my favs.

I'm curious.. How long has this 2D/3D + Point n Click/Action Hybrid argument been going on for? Did Fahrenheit start it?

No way! If I am to believe Intrepid Homulus the discussion was allready going on with the release of GK3 (honestly these people were just nagging) and if that doesn't count then it must be the release of BS3 wich was still two years before Fahrenheit was released.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

No way! If I am to believe Intrepid Homulus the discussion was allready going on with the release of GK3 (honestly these people were just nagging) and if that doesn't count then it must be the release of BS3 wich was still two years before Fahrenheit was released.

Ah ok. But BS3 was actually an adventure game, tough. I wouldn't mind most games being similar.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

No way! If I am to believe Intrepid Homulus the discussion was allready going on with the release of GK3 (honestly these people were just nagging) and if that doesn't count then it must be the release of BS3 wich was still two years before Fahrenheit was released.

The nitpicking and nagging has gone on for at least ten years. GK3 was originally released in October 1999, so if I guess correctly there were probably discussions on it before the release date and based on previews. But of course at least a year after release there were pretty much no other real time 3D adventure games released, and definitely no sea change in terms of adventure game developers switching to 3D.

There were also discussions involving The Longest Journey, which was first released in Europe (France) in 1999, then in North American in 2000. Many gamers here looked forward to a big budget traditional 2D point-&-click adventure, even so much as claiming that TLJ will be the 'savior' of the genre. It didn't save anything. Well, subsequent adventures after TLJ were done in real time 3D, like realMyst (2000) and Broken Sword 3 (2003). With those two games the 2D stalwarts began complaining again on the forums, claiming once more that the genre was 'doomed'.

And yeah, I was in the middle of it all, part of the crowd that stated that 3D should be at least one direction that the adventure genre should take. But naturally some of those complainers pegged me (and others who shared my view) as someone who wants to kill the genre by 'dumbing it down' with action sequences.

In 2005 I was approached by the editor at AdventureDevelopers.com and asked to write an editorial about the state of adventure games. The Cold Hotspot ended up being quite long, in 4 parts, lol!

Regardless, the discussion we're having here is the very same discussion that happened over a decade ago, five years ago, etc. You tell me, has there been a sea change yet that adventure games are being taken over by real time 3D or by consoles or by new distribution methods? From what I see it's actually diversification of all the above that's now happening, yet the loudmouths among us continue complaining. LOL!

[Hannes]

^You make some excellent points!

I agree with everything you just said, and all I've got to add is this: My opinion is that whether a game is in 2D or 3D is irrelevant, and certainly does not mean dumbing it down. But at the same time, I feel that a few releases that happened to be in 3D were dumbed down to the extreme, and I wish not to see this happen to the whole genre.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

The nitpicking and nagging has gone on for at least ten years. GK3 was originally released in October 1999, so if I guess correctly there were probably discussions on it before the release date and based on previews. But of course at least a year after release there were pretty much no other real time 3D adventure games released, and definitely no sea change in terms of adventure game developers switching to 3D.

There were also discussions involving The Longest Journey, which was first released in Europe (France) in 1999, then in North American in 2000. Many gamers here looked forward to a big budget traditional 2D point-&-click adventure, even so much as claiming that TLJ will be the 'savior' of the genre. It didn't save anything. Well, subsequent adventures after TLJ were done in real time 3D, like realMyst (2000) and Broken Sword 3 (2003). With those two games the 2D stalwarts began complaining again on the forums, claiming once more that the genre was 'doomed'.

And yeah, I was in the middle of it all, part of the crowd that stated that 3D should be at least one direction that the adventure genre should take. But naturally some of those complainers pegged me (and others who shared my view) as someone who wants to kill the genre by 'dumbing it down' with action sequences.

In 2005 I was approached by the editor at AdventureDevelopers.com and asked to write an editorial about the state of adventure games. The Cold Hotspot ended up being quite long, in 4 parts, lol!

Regardless, the discussion we're having here is the very same discussion that happened over a decade ago, five years ago, etc. You tell me, has there been a sea change yet that adventure games are being taken over by real time 3D or by consoles or by new distribution methods? From what I see it's actually diversification of all the above that's now happening, yet the loudmouths among us continue complaining. LOL!

I think an AG can be real time 3D and traditional at the same time. And I think I've made it very clear by now I do not resent games like Hevay Rain. However I do indeed see the very, very, very early signs of AGs becoming taken over by consoles and new distribution methods. Wich still needn't be a bad thing as long as there's still room for the traditional AG. Mind you I'm not saying there isn't just giving my opinion.

Originally Posted by Hannes

^You make some excellent points!

I agree with everything you just said, and all I've got to add is this: My opinion is that whether a game is in 2D or 3D is irrelevant, and certainly does not mean dumbing it down. But at the same time, I feel that a few releases that happened to be in 3D were dumbed down to the extreme, and I wish not to see this happen to the whole genre.

This I agree with, the day graphics decide the quality of a game is the day the world stops spinning around it's axis. Also I do not disagree with you but wich 3D games are your refering to?

[Bon]

Originally Posted by darthmaul

I don't feel the medium is capable of telling a story even a fraction as good.

Sure it can, it's just that those adventures are rare.. Have you played Discworld Noir, for example?

Besides, if I want a story, i would prefer watching or reading one to having to do menial tasks to unlock more, as in dreamfall.

There are no menial tasks in Heavy Rain, and from what I heard it's got a great story...

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

I wonder why they don't implement two modes, "classic" and normal.

Bioware managed to do it with Dragon Age. Dragon Age is a full 3D game but a small portion of the players is very attached to the oldschool isometric view, which the Infinity engine provided (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment).

It's much harder to make an adventure that features both 2D and 3D modes, than to simply make another camera view.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

In the end it did very nicely not because it was a good adventure game, but because it was a good game, period.

Since you can only compare games within their own genre, every good adventure game is also a good game.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Who has the absolute authority to arbitrate what an adventure game is supposed to be, period?

New genres are made when a game that is unlike anything else already on the market comes up. So, any game which doesn't feature features that are fundamental to the first game (in this case, puzzles and dialogues) is not of the same genre.

[Sughly]

I'd just like to point out that a lot of people bring up this notion of how adventures appeal to mainstream as an aspect of how successful adventures are. I don't think it's really the measure of success, how well documented and covered an adventure is in the so called mainstream.

I think titles like the ones mentioned at the beginning of the thread have been considerably successful. I don't have figures, so it is hard to tell, but I go by what I find in pre-sales selling out, of indie developers growing from title to title, etc. Even the fact that new adventure titles are actually getting reviewed by mainstream sites and magazines now (even if they are extremely narrow minded and biased). This is what I think is a great measurement of success. While there are titles like Heavy Rain that people will hold up on a pedastal and say 'this is how adventures become successful', I like to perceive success in these other ways. I think what Jacques mentioned with the increase in people asking him about adventures following casuals is another one of those measures.

And before people attack on the notion that the reviews have been biased, I'd like to defend myself by saying they attack the genre for all the things that a lot of others admire it for. That's what's biased about it. It's like me giving Halo a negative opinion because you shoot aliens most of the time instead of having more dialogue and character development. It's like showing a David Lynch film to someone who's favourite film is Twilight. They will almost always not get it, and that's fine with me. I do, and a lot of others do and more are starting to (I'm talking about adventures again now ).

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Sughly

I'd just like to point out that a lot of people bring up this notion of how adventures appeal to mainstream as an aspect of how successful adventures are. I don't think it's really the measure of success, how well documented and covered an adventure is in the so called mainstream.

I think titles like the ones mentioned at the beginning of the thread have been considerably successful. I don't have figures, so it is hard to tell, but I go by what I find in pre-sales selling out, of indie developers growing from title to title, etc. Even the fact that new adventure titles are actually getting reviewed by mainstream sites and magazines now (even if they are extremely narrow minded and biased). This is what I think is a great measurement of success. While there are titles like Heavy Rain that people will hold up on a pedastal and say 'this is how adventures become successful', I like to perceive success in these other ways. I think what Jacques mentioned with the increase in people asking him about adventures following casuals is another one of those measures.

And before people attack on the notion that the reviews have been biased, I'd like to defend myself by saying they attack the genre for all the things that a lot of others admire it for. That's what's biased about it. It's like me giving Halo a negative opinion because you shoot aliens most of the time instead of having more dialogue and character development. It's like showing a David Lynch film to someone who's favourite film is Twilight. They will almost always not get it, and that's fine with me. I do, and a lot of others do and more are starting to (I'm talking about adventures again now ).

Twillight? Is that like Twin Peaks?

No seriously, I agree with you. Maybe indeed both types of AGs can become succesfull

[Sketch]

It is a shame that these sort of games don't get more mainstream coverage, though if Gray Matter does pop up on the Xbox, this may help change things. Debate about what specifically defines a game as an adventure is pretty moot really...all across the board, game genres are blending and merging to create odd hybrids. Some games are becoming increasingly harder to classify...titles from Beautiful Katamari to even Little Big Planet 2, which many are arguing isn't really a game anymore but rather a game construction kit are good examples.

As someone who found this site only recently and has been lurking on and off, I have to say that I had stepped away from the genre long ago, drifting into being primarily a console gamer in the throes of gaming apathy. Having a sibling who is a devout adventure gamer, I would hear (and get nagged about) various titles but never really settled down to one, unless you could the revamped version of Monkey Island released for XBLA.

However, I now write for a gaming site called GamingLives, run by my partner and co-edited by myself, and on scanning the release schedules for interesting games to contact PRs about, my eye fell on Black Mirror 2. I 'hmmed' over it, thinking it sounded both interesting and like one of the adventures that my sister had long nagged me start playing again. In a rushed decision, we got hold of a copy and I took on the task of reviewing a game in a genre that I hadn't been near for years, which was trickier that I thought...since being primarily story driven, adequately covering it without spoiling much, or indeed, the first game, was difficult, but ultimately rewarding.

I very much enjoyed it and found the visuals simply stunning. It reignited an interest in the genre and we hope to be covering more games like it on the site - it makes a healthy balance between the usual mainstream and console titles that our readers and writers are predominantly focussed on. If it draws more interest back to the genre, then it is a good thing. Similarly, regardless of thoughts on Machinarium, it got a hell of a lot of mainstream press, and positive press at that...if it also turns gamers heads towards a genre that has been somewhat forgotten, then again, a good thing methinks.

Looking forward to catching up on some of the gems that I may have missed - this site's lists have been helpful. I've already been ordered to play Lost Crown by my, now rather smug, sister and have Machinarium drifting closer to the top of my list.

Hello btw

[Fien]

Welcome to the forums, Sketch. Machinarium is a wonderful indie game and The Lost Crown is very atmospheric and quite good, as long as you don't expect details etc. to make sense. Have you played any non-PC adventures, like Time Hollow, Trace Memory, Phoenix Wright?

[Sketch]

Hi Fien

Thanks to a prolonged bout of apathy, Phoenix Wright is still on my teetering DS play pile which usually plays second fiddle to my 360. This month and next will be tricky to get much PC gaming in, (or much else) largely thanks to the packed release schedule - Red Dead Redemption especially promising to be time consuming.

I already have Lost Crown perched on my shelf in the wrap and I plan on snagging Return To Mysterious Island though as soon as I can and am hoping to review Machinarium before I get stuck into the end of month titles, though that is looking unlikely as time marches on!

What is Time's Hollow? Is it a DS title? I have also yet to play Broken Sword for the DS and am languishing halfway through Lost In BLue 2.

[Fien]

Yep, all those titles are for the DS.

Return to Mysterious Island was fun. A light snack in between meals.

[Twizman]

Uh oh, the Lucasarts President who was really high on Adventure games just resigned 10 days ago. I think he was one of the main reasons we got a remake of Monkey Island with another on the way. The guy before him I think only seemed to promote Star Wars.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Twizman

Uh oh, the Lucasarts President who was really high on Adventure games just resigned 10 days ago. I think he was one of the main reasons we got a remake of Monkey Island with another on the way. The guy before him I think only seemed to promote Star Wars.

I was never convinced there would be more than the remake coming out of lucasarts adventure-wise anyhoo. But yeah I suppose it is sad that the glimmer of hope fades away somewhat.

EDIT: welcome to the forums sketch! If you are serious about forming a game critics website then please, for the love of god, give adventures some attention. I'm sick of the unjust reviews, if they are even ever given. There are great adventures coming out at the moment, but according to many gaming sites they are already "dead". Pffft.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Sughly

I was never convinced there would be more than the remake coming out of lucasarts adventure-wise anyhoo. But yeah I suppose it is sad that the glimmer of hope fades away somewhat.

Err... they also licensed Monkey Island to Telltale to make Tales of Monkey Island. A better, more sensible move than if they tried making a new adventure game internally, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Twizman

Uh oh, the Lucasarts President who was really high on Adventure games just resigned 10 days ago. I think he was one of the main reasons we got a remake of Monkey Island with another on the way. The guy before him I think only seemed to promote Star Wars.

Thankfully, during his short term Rodriguez managed to prove that LucasArt's old properties can make a lot of money, which will probably allow this new direction continue. Unless the new president will be another one that has his own agenda, like Jim Ward...

Speaking of which I've put a small joke about Jim Ward's returning to LucasArts into my own adventure game before even knowing Rodriguez is leaving. Now I get goosebumps thinking about it. I really hope this will never happen in reality.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Err... they also licensed Monkey Island to Telltale to make Tales of Monkey Island. A better, more sensible move than if they tried making a new adventure game internally, I'd say.

Yeah fair enough, it was a sensible idea, but also somewhat an easy one - not as much risk as doing something themselves. I did mean more along the lines of them making something internally to be slim.