[subbi]

Is that really a big surprise?
I downloaded the demo for XBOX360 and was terribly dissappointed by the cheap, low budget, comic book style introduction.

It was the absolute mirror opposite of a cinematic experience.

Perhaps it was ok to deliver such intro's in the early nineties, but nowadays amids huge productions like Red Dead Redemption, this is simply not acceptable.

Unless ofcourse it was released as a cheap iPad game for 5 bucks. Then at least there would be some value for money.

[donatelli]

Originally Posted by subbi

Is that really a big surprise?
I downloaded the demo for XBOX360 and was terribly dissappointed by the cheap, low budget, comic book style introduction.

It was the absolute mirror opposite of a cinematic experience.

Perhaps it was ok to deliver such intro's in the early nineties, but nowadays amids huge productions like Red Dead Redemption, this is simply not acceptable.

Unless ofcourse it was released as a cheap iPad game for 5 bucks. Then at least there would be some value for money.

You new to adventure games? Gray Matter was never an attempt at a "cinematic experience;" just the opposite in fact. It was a low-key, intimate story woven intricately. It had an older sentiment in mind yes, but I can see why it wouldn't do all that great on the 360. The audience just isn't there. As you put it, you can't see past cheap "comic book" visuals because it didn't blow you away. I can guarantee you this game didn't have 1/3 the budget RDR had. A lot of work went into it and the PC adventure crowd knows how where it stands.

[UPtimist]

Originally Posted by orient

In regards to Gray Matter sales, if the 13,000 predicted by VGChartz (which is probably an estimate based on copies shipped to retailers) is even remotely close, then things don't look so good.

Even if you double it to compensate for the (assumed) lack of online retail numbers, I'd still say it would need to sell double that again (50,000) minimum, for dtp to break even, assuming they were paying Wizarbox to make the game for around 2 years, with a small team on average wages. I mean, that's not even taking into account marketing, but it doesn't seem the game got much of that anyway.

Budget-price adventure games do tend to have a long shelf life, however, so I wouldn't count it out. I guess we'll never really know until the creator, developer or publisher comments on it.

How is this in relation to other AGs?

I mean, I can't believe that this would've had greatly inferior sales to something like Secret Files or Memento Mori or whatever the recent slightly more high profile AGs have been. The budget must be more, though, so it would have to sell more to be worthwile, but even that can't be too high, right? And if those have been profitable (considering they have / are getting sequels), I just can't believe that Grey Matter wouldn't be on that level.

And at least they should be able to make Gray Matter 2 with a bit less hassle, so the costs wouldn't go way up there.

[Tiocfaidh]

man, this "genre definition" discussions are boring as hell

[subbi]

I'm not at all new to the genre and have been playing them since the early 1990's.
Back in those days they did blow me away visually and adventure games were regarded as games with high production values compared to the other games out there.

That unfortunately never happens again, simply because they did not evolve over time to accomodate for a larger audience and therefore justifying bigger budgets.

I think Dreamfall was probably the very best attempt in making such a game and it would have probably worked out better if the action sequences were implemented better. It would also have helped to have actual puzzles in there for real adventure fans aswel ;-)

But I applaud them for their attempt. At least it had a somewhat polished feel to it and could be described as a cinematic experience.
Whether you like it or not, that is what most people at least expect nowadays when they pay 30-50 bucks for a game.

That does not mean there is no market for indie low budget initiates, but price them appropriately (10 bucks or so) and release them for the right devices such as an iPad. I would have paid this amount if they released an iPad version initially aswel.

[UPtimist]

Still, I think the reference to Red Dead Redemption was out of place. Not everything can have such high production values. Like with movies, not everything can be a new Avatar-level megabudget feature with futuristic visuals to still be appealing. Some have to do with less money but they work around it, cut some corners and sometimes that might even make for something more appealing, especially if it's not just eye-candy you're looking for.

And what you're saying about what the audience expects - well, that's just the problem. It's not so much that AGs didn't evolve as the masses started wanting different things. When the medium becomes mass market, the demand simplifies, focuses on more surface-like things (the afore-mentioned "cinematic experience") and the businesses more or less happily follow, they're just in for the money. AGs require too much and don't have enough change for the average attention span so they never had much chance against the flashy new 3D action etc.

Now the market, demand and whatever has however evolved slightly and there might be hopes for more intellectual content in addition to the same old FPS that has been going on for the last 10 or so years, but things change slowly in that area, and it is a new kind of target audience that these games should be, well, targeting. And it's difficult for a game like Gray Matter (or rather the developers and publishers and whoever) to just make an investment enough to be noted enough in the right channels and more importantly, making the visuals so top-notch would either mean their budget would greatly go over the expected gains, or they'd have to cut so much of the content it would be worthless.

And unfortunately a 10$/€/£ games are a risky move if you're really investing in it, like a game of this magnitude requires. In that price range, Gray Matter would've been a much slimmer experience. The payoff might be great, but there's an even larger risk that the game will be a catastrophe, unless the whole thing is well calculated, usually meaning low production values and easy content (casual stuff like Angry Birds and all that).

The cutscenes in GM were appealing to some, the opposite for others, and while I thought they could be handled better, at least they got the hob done and left some money and work to deliver a more meaningful content.



As for my point, well, I hope there's some somewhere in there

[aaroncarney]

Actually most 3D games these days are beautiful. But Gray Matters 3D was unfortunately very ugly. The faces, the animations. EURGH. I'm not surprised by the low sales. Overall, for me it was a bad game. A good story, maybe. (I can't quite remember, it was forgettable) What I can remember is the main characters awful voice. I love the Gabriel Knight series, but this was horrific. Sorry Jane Jensen. Whomp Whomp.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I downloaded the demo on the Xbox and although I was taken back by the rather dated intro, I enjoyed the demo and bought the game second hand on ebay.

It is in no way horrific as described. The soundtrack is beautiful, the storyline compelling and the game playing experience satisfying.

I would complain the puzzles were perhaps too easy - I was never stuck and it was a bit of a let down some answers were on the same screen.

However it did not spoil my enjoyment of the game, hell I even took to the graphical interludes - they fitted the game in a strange way.

I would say one of the most enjoyable games I have played in many a year, I'm not saying the best, but it was enjoyable and it had me hooked until I completed it.

I wish there is a second installment but given the rumoured low sales it seems doubtful. I hope we do not have to wait long for another Jane game.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I should download the demo tonight on the 360 and get a taste for myself. I plan to buy the full game eventually.

Originally Posted by UPtimist

And what you're saying about what the audience expects - well, that's just the problem. It's not so much that AGs didn't evolve as the masses started wanting different things. When the medium becomes mass market, the demand simplifies, focuses on more surface-like things (the afore-mentioned "cinematic experience") and the businesses more or less happily follow, they're just in for the money. AGs require too much and don't have enough change for the average attention span so they never had much chance against the flashy new 3D action etc.

Remember, the average age of the gamer today is mid to late 30s, with the average age of the most frequent purchaser of games being early 40s. Yep, WE are the ones who grew up on Atari and Intellivision consoles, Pacman and Space Invaders at a quarter a shot at the arcade, and the original Nintendo. We have lots of disposable income and can afford to be choosy and demanding in what we want in our games. And what we want, especially as we grow older, are games that challenge us more intellectually, psychologically and emotionally as well as physically.

We are SICK of cookie cutter FPSs, cookie cutter RPGs, cookie cutter action/adventures, and cookie cutter adventure games.

Many of us also want a variety of games, from arcade to RPGs, action/adventures, strategy, casual, and adventure games. Also some of us are pretty much over the typical types of adventure games that often feature flat 2D surfaces and hotspots to click on.

Now the market, demand and whatever has however evolved slightly and there might be hopes for more intellectual content in addition to the same old FPS that has been going on for the last 10 or so years, but things change slowly in that area, and it is a new kind of target audience that these games should be, well, targeting.

Sometimes the market needs to be nudged forward. That's the only way it can change, other than outside influences that may not have anything to do with games. Game developers with vision are necessary here. For example, thatgamecompany with its visionary concepts realized in its titles like Flower and the upcoming Journey.

It's through innovative thinking, unique creativity, advancing technology, AND strong, intelligent marketing that the games industry can evolve and grow, and for the market to evolve and grow.

And it's difficult for a game like Gray Matter (or rather the developers and publishers and whoever) to just make an investment enough to be noted enough in the right channels and more importantly, making the visuals so top-notch would either mean their budget would greatly go over the expected gains, or they'd have to cut so much of the content it would be worthless.

Yep, it's difficult because the money isn't there to buy better technology and talent. However, there are alternate channels that don't demand a huge budget. They can always channel the game through online stores like XBL Marketplace and PSN Network.

And unfortunately a 10$/€/£ games are a risky move if you're really investing in it, like a game of this magnitude requires. In that price range, Gray Matter would've been a much slimmer experience. The payoff might be great, but there's an even larger risk that the game will be a catastrophe, unless the whole thing is well calculated, usually meaning low production values and easy content (casual stuff like Angry Birds and all that).

The cutscenes in GM were appealing to some, the opposite for others, and while I thought they could be handled better, at least they got the hob done and left some money and work to deliver a more meaningful content.

It's sad that Gray Matter didn't receive similar treatment like Jane Jensen's last critically acclaimed title Gabriel Knight III (publisher Sierra, iirc, was generous to Jensen and her team). I honestly think it could've been executed and publicized far, far better (based on my watching the trailer, gameplay clips, and screenshots). But the money, talent, and marketing simply weren't there. It's ironic, given that there's a huge market out there (as I explained in part above) that would love to have played this game - if they only KNEW about it, and if the game had been buttressed with much better production values.

[subbi]

Yes, I donot argue with you on those points.

And perhaps I'm more drawn to the story and character driven aspects of Adventure games than the "puzzles" bit.
Which also explains why I liked Red Dead Redemption so much. Fortunately these days even action games are very forgiving and you can make them as easy or difficult as you'd like them to be...

Ever since the days of Conquest of the Longbow and Gabriel Knight 2 adventuregames were the showcase of story and character driven games that made you feel as being part of an interactive movie.

Convincing production values are quite important to create that immersiveness.
And yes, in those days, both games were really top notch visually and very impressive.

And whereas those games created the "cinematic" experience for me, with Gray Matter it was like flipping through a comic book.

Being also in the age range of +30, I have quite surpassed the age of appreciating comic books ;-)

So either Gray Matter was marketed towards the guys of the Big Bang Theory or either they are taking the average gamer (as you said who are +30 years old) not very seriously.

And I do fully agree, I think there is massive potential also for non-FPS
games.
This is also the reason why Rockstar tried it with LA Noire. They would simply not invest so much if the gaming audience were mostly consisting of pimple faced adolescants who like to kill as many foes as possible.

[UPtimist]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I should download the demo tonight on the 360 and get a taste for myself. I plan to buy the full game eventually.

You still haven't? Well go, my good man, buy! It really is good. And even on the XBox you get used to the interface soon enough. At first I was completely frustrated with it myself, but it wasn't long before I almost forgot how unusual it is.

Remember, the average age of the gamer today is mid to late 30s, with the average age of the most frequent purchaser of games being early 40s. Yep, WE are the ones who grew up on Atari and Intellivision consoles, Pacman and Space Invaders at a quarter a shot at the arcade, and the original Nintendo. We have lots of disposable income and can afford to be choosy and demanding in what we want in our games. And what we want, especially as we grow older, are games that challenge us more intellectually, psychologically and emotionally as well as physically.

We are SICK of cookie cutter FPSs, cookie cutter RPGs, cookie cutter action/adventures, and cookie cutter adventure games.

Indeed, that's why I said that the market is changing towards more intellectual content. Although, unfortunately, just 'cause you and many others are sick of the aforementioned, it still doesn't mean that the majority is... But we're getting there, I hope.

Sometimes the market needs to be nudged forward. That's the only way it can change, other than outside influences that may not have anything to do with games. Game developers with vision are necessary here. For example, thatgamecompany with its visionary concepts realized in its titles like Flower and the upcoming Journey.

It's through innovative thinking, unique creativity, advancing technology, AND strong, intelligent marketing that the games industry can evolve and grow, and for the market to evolve and grow.

Again, very true. Of course, a proper nudge requires proper investment, but luckily we've seen that recently in Heavy Rain and LA Noire, though I haven't played them myself (and am hoping for something a bit different in the future)

Yep, it's difficult because the money isn't there to buy better technology and talent. However, there are alternate channels that don't demand a huge budget. They can always channel the game through online stores like XBL Marketplace and PSN Network.

But it's still hard to make a full game in these channels. And I think that Jane Jensen has done enough of casual games already

It's sad that Gray Matter didn't receive similar treatment like Jane Jensen's last critically acclaimed title Gabriel Knight III (publisher Sierra, iirc, was generous to Jensen and her team). I honestly think it could've been executed and publicized far, far better (based on my watching the trailer, gameplay clips, and screenshots). But the money, talent, and marketing simply weren't there. It's ironic, given that there's a huge market out there (as I explained in part above) that would love to have played this game - if they only KNEW about it, and if the game had been buttressed with much better production values.

Yep, "if they only knew". I'm not sure where the marketing should go, really. It's not the usual game channels, those people are usually not the target AGs (in our sense here) should be looking for (or then they are already aware), but rather people who don't yet know that they could be playing these games. Or very casual gamers.

As for the GK3 treatment, well, I'm sure we all know why GM didn't get that. I doubt they even would've had the resources Sierra had back at the time. And as for Gray Matter's publishing, well, I think the matter has already been resolved: anybody with half a mind would've done a superior job to the publishing Gray Matter got. But there was infinite discussions about that from way before Gray Matter was released until after. If I remember correctly, there was once one person in their marketing team who knew his job, then he left and basically monkeys were left to do the job.

Originally Posted by subbi

Being also in the age range of +30, I have quite surpassed the age of appreciating comic books ;-)

I know this is a joke but I just have to say that it has nothing to do with age. Were I a comic book fan I might take offense at this, but luckily I'm not...

So either Gray Matter was marketed towards the guys of the Big Bang Theory or either they are taking the average gamer (as you said who are +30 years old) not very seriously.

Or maybe, as has been said many times, the companies that made and published Gray Matter simply do not have that much money. You can't invest what you don't have. That's that, it's not that they were thinking "ooh, let's make this game inferior in quality so those 'pimple faced adolescants' who can't get enough of comic books will be all over it".

Jane Jensen herself said that the cutscene thing was simply a budget decision. It was either go with comic book cutscenes or cut much of the content in them (and probably in the game too), basically meaning the game would've been a dud compared to what it is now, storywise. And again, which is more important? I for one am very glad they didn't decide to just go for the gloss.

But wait, I'm nowhere near over 30, so I must be into mindless FPS and comic books, oh, what a dilemma!



Not every company is Rockstar or EA or Activision or even Quantic Dream or whoever it was who made Heavy Rain.

[subbi]

"But wait, I'm nowhere near over 30, so I must be into mindless FPS and comic books, oh, what a dilemma!"

Well, I was not implying than anyone under thirty is into mindless FPS and comic books!
Just the fact that I am over thirty does not make it very likely that I would be into them. (Although some may be....to each his own... as they say!)

From a marketing perspective that is important.
No matter how low your budget it, it does not excuse for ignoring the very basics: You do need to sell the game to broadest possible audience you can to justify your costs and make some profit.

What it boils down to I guess is if they would have put a little more effort in making the cinematic scene's a bit more animated and professional, it would have reached a far broader audience and sold better.

The figures sofar prove at least that it's not selling well in it's current "packaging".

The argument about money is also not fully applicable here, because a lot of money has been lost with such a long production time due to change of creative teams, mismanagement, politics and god knows what.

If only a small part of that loss would have been utilized properly to create some decent animations, they wouldn't be in this mess.
It does not have to uphold to the standards of Rockstar, but somewhere in the middle of the spectrum would be more than OK.

Telltale shows us it can be done almost every year!

[DustyShinigami]

I did download and play the demo for both PC and 360 and I thought it was okay; the PC version more-so than the 360 version.

The cut scenes didn't do anything for me, I felt Samantha's voice acting was off, the character's portraits were ugly...

However, I did think the graphics and background art were nice, I thought David's voice actor was fine, and the music was good (but re-loops too much)...

After I do complete it, I don't think it'll be a game that I'd replay in the future, though. We'll see... I highly doubt it, though. Lately, I've been finding loads of movies and games where I've felt that way.

I think the best thing to do (especially with titles you're not sure about), like I've started to do, is to just rent them.

EDIT: And what's wrong with comic books? I know there are plenty of people over the age of 30 who still enjoy them. After all, they're just another means of storytelling!

[noknowncure]

Originally Posted by subbi

What it boils down to I guess is if they would have put a little more effort in making the cinematic scene's a bit more animated and professional, it would have reached a far broader audience and sold better.

What are you basing this assumption on? Comic book panel cutscenes aren't particularly unusual in videogames these days. For example, game developer Sucker Punch used this stylised approach for their critically acclaimed and commercially succesful 'inFAMOUS' series.

[Annoymous Broccoli]

13k sales worldwide? That's pretty fucking disastrous no matter what their budget was. Never mind a sequel, hell I'd be surprised if they don't fold.

[Stuart]

If the sales were really so bad, I'm a bit sad. I know opinion is split, but I loved Gray Matter and found it very unique plot-wise for an adventure game - and I always like a unique concept within this genre (15 Days was another with a great idea but the execution wasn't nearly as good as Gray Matter).

What is even more alarming is, compared to many traditional adventure games, Gray Matter got quite a bit of attention on mainstream review sites. It really can't be good for the traditional style of adventure game if one of the most hyped titles in years, the latest poster boy/girl of the genre, bombs so hard.

It may drive the genre more towards a Dreamfall/Indigo Prophecy/L.A. Noire type direction, a hybrid of action and adventure. Now I love those sort of games too but I also love the more relaxing, play-at-your-own pace traditional adventure game like Gray Matter, Black Mirror, Still Life, Secret Files, etc., and hope it always has its place in the gaming world.

One question - was it the game itself that failed or the poor marketing of said game?

[UPtimist]

The marketing at least failed miserably. No denying that.

But I still wouldn't read too much into those statistics, they seem really unrealistic, as many have already explained.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by UPtimist

The marketing at least failed miserably. No denying that.

What does it mean "failed"? Marketing is one of the most costly elements of game production and it's very dependent on the pace of the actual game development and what assets are available and if things are late or not. If the game is so much delayed as Gray Matter there might be no funds to market it consistently all the way through.

For example, did Duke Nukem Forever have great marketing with its 10+ years of appearing on the covers of magazines and countless demos and trailers prepared for annual game industry fairs? Imagine how much that cost.

That said, I'm neither denying nor confirming that the marketing for Gray Matter was a failure - I'm just saying it's difficult to judge without any data on the budget. In my opinion there were ways to use the incredibly strong Gabriel Knight and Sierra fanbase to help out promoting a new Jane Jensen project. It just required a more creative approach to marketing.

[millenia]

Well releasing the game only in Germany half a year before anywhere else made a bad impact no matter how you look at it. I doubt many people waited that half a year but instead tried out the pirated version. And while I am sure some of them bought the game afterwards, it is still very easy not to after many months, especially if you're low on cash or not particularly feeling you'd like to replay the game (yet).

But anyway, I think the game is still selling and people are interested buying it. Digital sales are a huge chunk now, especially with the discounts (it's been rather cheap in Adventure Shop and Impulse at least). But the game has hardly been visible. Feels like all the hype has been done by GK fans through the internet.

[orient]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

In my opinion there were ways to use the incredibly strong Gabriel Knight and Sierra fanbase to help out promoting a new Jane Jensen project. It just required a more creative approach to marketing.

I imagine dtp were scared to even mention Gabriel Knight in promotional material with Activision owning the rights, but I agree -- using the power of Jane Jensen's dedicated fan base would've been a smart move. A Facebook campaign, mini-game or something along those lines; something that spreads the word beyond adventure game forums.

It's no good just selling the game to adventure game enthusiasts because chances are they're going to buy it anyway.