[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Sorry, but that's only our wishful thinking. Usually to be considered as an innovator in the public eye you need to have either big bucks or already established popularity behind you. Especially in an industry that's been going for so many years, and in todays oversaturated market.

As far as I know, Dune II is nowadays still considered the one that spawned the RTS, despite Command & Conquer being a lot more successful back in the day.
But, yes, granted, Dune II didn't do badly at all, which is why it got "copied" in the first place.
And the two biggest adventure innovators (to the public eye) of the last couple of years are the big-budget cannons Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire. Their impact will most likely be a lot larger than that of for instance Ghost Trick.
Especially Heavy Rain (Telltale already tried the same with Jurassic Park).
L.A. Noire, I consider that to be more of a hybrid. But I've said before that hybrids are going to be a big part of future gaming.

It appears that games in other genres are more and more looking for adventure elements to be "innovative" in their genre. Adventure games aren't going mainstream again, mainstream games are slowly going more towards the adventure genre, imo.

You're oversimplifying. CK was an expensive Hollywood studio production and a huge controversy upon release. It has quickly become, if not famous, then infamous, and Welles remained one of the major celebrities of those times - one of the enfant terribles. A good measure of how popular he was is that after a few years his (then) controversial films and actions led RKO to cut their ties from him and coin the slogan "Showmanship instead of genius" as a PR move. That seems pretty influential to me.

If Citizen Kane was actually ignored and of no interest to the public at the time of release, it would probably never be re-evaluated later on.

Yes, I did oversimplify, but it was to make a point.
Even when unsuccessful, a lot of inherently *good* movies (and the same goes for games) get a die-hard cult following. Cult hits tend to have a very long life cycle... up to the point where they're pretty widely known.

So were the sales horrible or just below expectations? It was a new IP experiment from the designer of a hit series and making it probably didn't come cheap. I'd say it had to sell a lot of copies to make even, but regardless it's definitely far more popular than Grey Matter or any of the less mainstream adventure games of recent years.

See below.

Originally Posted by Mikekelly

Ghost Trick has sold over 167,000 copies worldwide. It actually sold quite well in the states although sales did drop off after week three in Japan.

...

Should Ghost Trick have had Prof Layton or Ace Attorney level of sales? Obviously Gamespot thought so - giving the game the "Best Game Nobody Ever Played" award.

Now that the game has won so many major awards like "Best Handheld Game of the Year" - I'm certain that "Ghost Trick" will have a very long shelf life and copies will continue to sell.

I read an interview with designer Shu Takumi a few months back, where he said that they (i.e. Capcom) had expected less sales for Ghost Trick than they did for the Phoenix Wright games (because it was an original IP), but that the initial sales numbers were a lot lower than the expectations - about a third, IIRC.
I don't know if they were only referring to sales in Japan or not...

[Henke]

Innovation is great. If a game can offer something new in any way it's a good thing. May it be story, controls, setting, graphics or whatever. I never cared much about genres (in games, movies, music ect.) because then you tend to get stuck with a certain well-tried formula. I certainly don't believe that you have to make an economically successful game in order for it to be called innovating. The game just has to try something new (big or small).

As for PC vs Consoles, I thought that the PC market had the most innovating titles 10-20 years ago. But now that seems to have shifted. The explanation to this is probably simply because more companys are developing for consoles nowadays. But, as has already been pointed out, the indiegames on PC have come up with some really interesting titles in recent years (that goes for indietitles on consoles as well). You can often take bigger chances with something unproven if you don't have a huge budget to gamble with.

[Stuart]

I'm surprised there isn't more choice and consequence in adventure games by now. Blade Runner from 1997, one of my top few all-time AGs, has an incredible amount of C&C that affects the storyline, characters, and outcome. Yet most AGs are still very linear, at most we might get an alternate ending or two.

[Mikekelly]

I loved "Bladerunner" - I was a Mac gamer - ("Myst" got me hooked on the Mac) and I bought a PC just to play that game. For the next 8 years all I did was play adventure games like "Bladerunner" on the PC - what a happy time. I got three different endings in Bladrunner and there are more than that to be had. I thought the game was better than the movie actually.

999 is very similar to Bladerunner in that there is six different endings and depending on how you play the game you'll get a different ending. I have only got one ending so far - but I will get the other 5 though additional playings.

FYI - I found up to date sales figures for Ghost Trick - 280,000 units sold worldwide and 999 has 220,000 units sold world wide as of today.

Ace Attorney releases average 600,000 units sold world wide each so Ghost Trick's sales are actually pretty good at 280,000.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I'm surprised there isn't more choice and consequence in adventure games by now. Blade Runner from 1997, one of my top few all-time AGs, has an incredible amount of C&C that affects the storyline, characters, and outcome. Yet most AGs are still very linear, at most we might get an alternate ending or two.

That's a bit like saying "I'm surprised that after so many years books are still rarely 1000 pages or more long."

Simply there's not enough demand for products like that - instead the game market is going in the direction of shorter but "better quality" offerings. For example the newest cRPGs limit the amount of text, storyline choices and dialog responses primarily to lower the costs of the (now obligatory) voice acting. "Obligatory" in the sense that a larger amount of players value having it over having a greater range of choices.

Still, every now and then you get some Heavy Rain.

@TimovieMan and @Mikekelly: Thanks for the Ghost Trick data (indeed doesn't look so bad ).

[Siddhi]

I think an important point is also how immersive the game is.

In the early days of adventures, you really felt that you were there in the game world and you were exploring a strange setting and you were a part of it. There was no other genre that provided that. It was either adventures, or mario/space invaders/pacman

Today, shooters and RPGs have become just as immersive where you feel you are exploring and participating in an alternate world.

Many adventure games nowdays are just a sequence of locations with a puzzle at each step. Its mechanical: Click everywhere on screen, pick up everything, talk to everyone, choose all dialog options, combine all inventory items, try out every item, move on to next location. I'm exaggerating a little of course, but you get the point.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

What I meant is that some people might expect a game to be influential outside a particular niche and accessible to a larger number of gamers, if it is to be considered to be innovative. I'm curious if that could be someone's prerequisite, especially since all of the listed games seem to have been targeted at fans of storytelling in general rather than of particular genre and it seems have largely succeeded at reaching that audience.

In contrast to that Grim Fandango and Gabriel Knight games (just examples) could be considered too demanding in terms of puzzles and the genre's traditions for todays general public.

Sorry for the late reply. Well, it still seems to me like almost the same question, just rephrased a bit, so the answer would be more or less the same Sorry, but that's how I see it

But to contribute a bit to the discussion, and maybe touch upon some of the stuff you are thinking about - I know some reviewers on mainstream sites complained about the interface in Heavy Rain. They thought it was hard to decode what the icons and icon animations meant (example below). So innovation aside, maybe that particular game could/should have been a bit more accessible.



EDIT: Maybe the innovation-thing has been discussed/clarified further in the newest comments - I've only read them partly, I don't have the time for a long thread at the moment, sorry.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Mikekelly

I thought the game was better than the movie actually.

This just made me bump Blade Runner from its current place on my list to where Discworld Noir used to be (about 15 places higher).

999 is very similar to Bladerunner in that there is six different endings and depending on how you play the game you'll get a different ending. I have only got one ending so far - but I will get the other 5 though additional playings.

The second I got an ending, I replayed the thing (you can skip all the text you've read already to speed things up a bit) again and again until I had all the endings. 999 was too good to put down.
Granted, after getting two of the same endings, I consulted a spoiler-free walkthrough that just listed the doors you had to choose to get the different endings. That way I could get through all the bad endings first, before I got the obligatory ending and then the good ending (without having redundant playthroughs).
If you're calling it a contender for your 2011 game of the year, wait until you see the mindfuck that is the good ending.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

That's a bit like saying "I'm surprised that after so many years books are still rarely 1000 pages or more long.

Simply there's not enough demand for products like that - instead the game market is going in the direction of shorter but "better quality" offerings. For example you probably heard that newest cRPGs limit the amount of text, storyline choices and dialog responses primarily to lower the costs of the (now obligatory) voice acting. It's obligatory in the sense that a larger amount of players value having it over having a greater range of choices.

Still, every now and then you get some Heavy Rain.
"

I don't agree with this at all.
Games where you have choices to make and where those choices have consequences throughout the rest of the game are abundant in other genres. Practically every RPG uses this, for instance. It's one of the main reasons why I play RPGs in the first place (that and the fact that out of all the actiony games, they're the closest to adventures because they're the most story-driven).
Given the success of RPGs in general, and the success of Heavy Rain, I think there's plenty of demand for this.

We don't get more of them in the adventure genre, not because there's no demand, but because implementing choices and consequences in an adventure game makes the development process a lot longer and thus more expensive. And adventures rarely have Heavy Rain or L.A. Noire-type budgets...

Originally Posted by Siddhi

I think an important point is also how immersive the game is.

In the early days of adventures, you really felt that you were there in the game world and you were exploring a strange setting and you were a part of it. There was no other genre that provided that. It was either adventures, or mario/space invaders/pacman

Today, shooters and RPGs have become just as immersive where you feel you are exploring and participating in an alternate world.

Many adventure games nowdays are just a sequence of locations with a puzzle at each step. Its mechanical: Click everywhere on screen, pick up everything, talk to everyone, choose all dialog options, combine all inventory items, try out every item, move on to next location. I'm exaggerating a little of course, but you get the point.

Innovation, when done right, can change the way the games are played for years to come.
But with quality writing and good puzzle integration, you can be just as successful with a tried-and-proven formula like point-and-click.
Innovation is good and important, but it's not the most important aspect, imo.

[Monolith]

Now I need to play Blade Runner......*Agent Cooper gives you all a thumbs up*

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Jannik

Sorry for the late reply. Well, it still seems to me like almost the same question, just rephrased a bit, so the answer would be more or less the same Sorry, but that's how I see it

Oh, no need to be sorry - I asked to see what people feel about the possibility, that the select few adventure games most discussed as innovative get the greater amount of attention in part because of their mainstream appeal and accessibility. Not purely on the basis of being such innovative games.

I'm not in favor of either agreeing or disagreeing responses to that (it's either true, or not, regardless) - just thought it's an interesting thing to ponder about.

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

I don't agree with this at all.

I'm not sure what you are not agreeing with because you pretty much repeated what I said.

If you mean that you don't see modern cRPGs as getting greatly simplified in terms of storyline/dialog/character choices to better cater to the modern mass audience - well that's what their designers and players have been complaining all around the net in recent years.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I'm not sure what you are not agreeing with because you pretty much repeated what I said.

I was disagreeing with your statement that there isn't enough demand for a choice & consequences type of game. I think it's quite the opposite...
There's plenty of demand for those types of games (see Heavy Rain's success), they're simply not being made more often due to budget constraints...

Basically, I agree that they are not being made to lower the costs. I disagree that "lack of demand" has anything to do with this.

[Siddhi]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

Innovation, when done right, can change the way the games are played for years to come.
But with quality writing and good puzzle integration, you can be just as successful with a tried-and-proven formula like point-and-click.
Innovation is good and important, but it's not the most important aspect, imo.

Agreed. I'm not saying the every game has to be innovative. After all, the first Phoenix Wright was followed by 4 more games on the exact same formula (and I loved them too ).

You would expect one or two innovative games every few years.

Its just that on the PC I dont see any adventure game breaking new ground, while on the consoles there have a lot of innovative adventures in the last few years.

I can also understand following up one blockbuster formula with more of the same, but with adventure sales declining for most of a decade, you'd think companies might try something different.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

I was disagreeing with your statement that there isn't enough demand for a choice & consequences type of game. I think it's quite the opposite...
There's plenty of demand for those types of games (see Heavy Rain's success), they're simply not being made more often due to budget constraints...

Basically, I agree that they are not being made to lower the costs. I disagree that "lack of demand" has anything to do with this.

Think about it, does Heavy Rain have voice acting or lines of text? That is the difference. Heavy Rain immerses and does not remove the player from the game. The point is that Voice Acting is always wanted moreso over choice with lines of text.

Not to mention that HR is a big budgeted game.

[Siddhi]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Think about it, does Heavy Rain have voice acting or lines of text? That is the difference. Heavy Rain immerses and removes the player from the game. The point is that Voice Acting is always wanted moreso over choice with lines of text.

Not to mention that HR is a big budgeted game.

I disagree that you need big budgets. Look at the DS games - Phoenix Wright, Ghost Trick etc. All text dialog, 2D flat colour graphics, minimal animation. But its still very immersive, the mechanics are fun and the story is very will written.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Siddhi

I disagree that you need big budgets. Look at the DS games - Phoenix Wright, Ghost Trick etc. All text dialog, 2D flat colour graphics, minimal animation. But its still very immersive, the mechanics are fun and the story is very will written.

Did I say you need to be big budgeted? No I just said that the complexity of dialogue all accompanied by Voice Acting requires a lot of money. You missed my point entirely.

People prefer voice acting and choice, and Heavy Rain offered that as best it could and did a great job.

EDIT: Holy crap my earlier post read so badly. I fixed it up.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Siddhi

I disagree that you need big budgets. Look at the DS games - Phoenix Wright, Ghost Trick etc. All text dialog, 2D flat colour graphics, minimal animation. But its still very immersive, the mechanics are fun and the story is very will written.

I'm not so sure that these DS games are all that cheap to make. I think they too have fairly big budgets...

Originally Posted by Monolith

People prefer voice acting and choice, and Heavy Rain offered that as best it could and did a great job.

If people prefer voice acting so much, then how come DS titles sell so well?
Then how come To the Moon got such rave reviews everywhere (and rightfully so)?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

I'm not so sure that these DS games are all that cheap to make. I think they too have fairly big budgets...

If people prefer voice acting so much, then how come DS titles sell so well?
Then how come To the Moon got such rave reviews everywhere (and rightfully so)?

What do people expect from a mobile device? To the Moon was an indie game. I'm talking about AAA titles/big budget games. People prefer Voice Acting to complement an already immersive experience.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

I was disagreeing with your statement that there isn't enough demand for a choice & consequences type of game. I think it's quite the opposite...
There's plenty of demand for those types of games (see Heavy Rain's success), they're simply not being made more often due to budget constraints...

I meant that there's not enough demand for those kind of games, to make developers invest money in them on a regular basis (Heavy Rain was a very difficult production). Such titles have become much more expensive to make due to the huge demand for games having full voice acting and minimal text narration (what Monolith said about immersion).

So for instance you won't ever see a new RPG with the amount of text, interactive dialogs and choices that affect the storyline as Planescape Torment. On the other hand, you'll keep seeing RPGs with complex procedurally generated worlds like Bethesda makes, as well as more interactive movie like RPGs.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Oh, no need to be sorry - I asked to see what people feel about the possibility, that the select few adventure games most discussed as innovative get the greater amount of attention in part because of their mainstream appeal and accessibility. Not purely on the basis of being such innovative games.

I'm not in favor of either agreeing or disagreeing responses to that (it's either true, or not, regardless) - just thought it's an interesting thing to ponder about.

I was using "sorry" with a different meaning - more the way it is sometimes used in the English language to express politeness; I'm definitely also in favor of different opinions.

Actually I think your point is much clearer in the above comment. And yes, there's probably some truth to it.

[Mikekelly]

"I'm not so sure that these DS games are all that cheap to make. I think they too have fairly big budgets...

If people prefer voice acting so much, then how come DS titles sell so well?"

DS games run the extremes - some have a small budget (almost indie) - while other big name titles have a very large budget (Prof Layton and the Last Spectre).

I myself much prefer Voice Acting to text. The limited size of the DS cart makes text necessary. One reason the the DS games sell so well is the touch screen interaction - which is quite fun. 3DS games have larger capacity carts and have voice acting throughout.