[rtrooney]

As much as all the options would play a role in the purchase decision, I would have to initially say "none of the above." My primary reason for buying a game, sight unseen, is the game's designer. Have I played his/her games before? Did I like them? Did I like the style, and the way the poll options were integrated into the game?

[Stuart]

Story for me. Originality is nice but there are so few adventure releases nowadays, I will pretty much buy a clone type game as long as it looks promising. God knows how many conspiracy/cult-based adventure games I've played now like Secret Files series, Chronicles of Mystery series, Memento Mori, and Broken Sword series, and I love them all!

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Intense Degree

Agree.

If developers don't learn from their mistakes or take into account target audience opinion on at least some things we may be stuck with (e.g.) confusing and cumbersome verb-coin interfaces which detract from the story etc. "The heart" will (or should) shine through in a game but it will not always give you everything you need to know to make the game as good as it can be in the practical sense.

I suppose you're right to the extent that not all parts of a game are artistic. I just think a developer should not defer to the audience the parts that are, which is the bulk of the game. The game has to be user-friendly, but asking what aspects of a game the audience looks at when buying a game sounds like more than finding out which interface is easiest to use or which graphics style is the most appealing.

Of course when I say 'should not' I am only saying I wouldn't buy it. Others are welcome to, but I like some 'soul' in a game, which I want to come from the developer and not a cross-section of consumers.

Originally Posted by rtrooney

As much as all the options would play a role in the purchase decision, I would have to initially say "none of the above." My primary reason for buying a game, sight unseen, is the game's designer. Have I played his/her games before? Did I like them? Did I like the style, and the way the poll options were integrated into the game?

Good reply, unfortunately of absolutely no help to the original poster The only problem with that attitude is you'd never buy anything from a new developer. I guess that's what demos are for.

[Intense Degree]

Originally Posted by Oscar

I suppose you're right to the extent that not all parts of a game are artistic. I just think a developer should not defer to the audience the parts that are, which is the bulk of the game.

That's a good way of putting it and I agree with you!

The game has to be user-friendly, but asking what aspects of a game the audience looks at when buying a game sounds like more than finding out which interface is easiest to use or which graphics style is the most appealing.

Yes, there is more to it than that and hence my "opinion on at least some things". I know a fair few people won't play first person adventures but nearly all will play third person. Clearly this is not a good enough reason to make Dark Fall or Scratches in third person. This, or art style, or narrative style, will divide people and there will always be people who don't like it, but something like a rubbish control system usually unites everyone against it! Therefore I say take on board some of the opinion but stand firm on the "artistic" nature of the project so we can all enjoy "soulful" projects from developers which are not diluted but refined by some consumer opinion.

[Origami]

Originally Posted by Pyke

Story is pretty difficult, cos you don't know it's a good story until after you've played it....

Personally I rely on reviews and reading people's opinions and discussions on gaming forums. Ill also admit that I'm a bit of a graphics whore. A pretty game is easily sold to me.

Well....if you say you read reviews you CAN know to a certain extent whether it's going to be a good story or not.

[Lucky Strike]

The game's setting/theme is what gets my attention first. I'll give any game a chance regardless of its environment but if it doesn't appeal to me then I'll be putting it off for a long time before actually picking it up. The Dig for example, I must've had that game for about six or seven years before I decided to have a proper go at it, simply because the premise of the game was uninteresting to me...

I prefer games set in the modern world (or alternative worlds who draw inspiration from our own, like the Land of the Dead), 20th and 21st centuries. I don't mind a bit of fantasy and I like all sorts of stories but sometimes I can be really picky.

I can decide whether I pass up on a game or not based on a set of screenshots. However, it has nothing to do with graphics, I've noticed that I tend to prefer pixelated games... Usually if I feel attracted toward a certain game's world then I'll give it a shot, otherwise I won't. Again, there's always exceptions here and there, games that appear to have innovative qualities will often have me overlook the setting.

I also tend to steer clear of games that are adaptations of TV shows, movies or books... I don't mind some like Discworld but CSI, Nancy Drew, Jurassic Park and Back to the Future have never made me want to play them. Yeah, Telltale's been disappointing me lately...

[shezcrafti]

Originally Posted by Lucky Strike

The game's setting/theme is what gets my attention first.

I totally agree.

Cast my vote for "Story", but I may instead have chosen "Setting/Environment" if that were an option. For example, I love adventure games that have big old mansions or haunted castles to explore, even if the story is rather weak (e.g. Phantasmagoria). Story is obviously very important, but I think the overall setting & atmosphere plays a big role too.

[shezcrafti]

Originally Posted by rtrooney

As much as all the options would play a role in the purchase decision, I would have to initially say "none of the above." My primary reason for buying a game, sight unseen, is the game's designer. Have I played his/her games before? Did I like them? Did I like the style, and the way the poll options were integrated into the game?

This is a good point too. For example, how Jane Jensen & Jonathan Boakes games are for me.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Oscar

Good reply, unfortunately of absolutely no help to the original poster The only problem with that attitude is you'd never buy anything from a new developer. I guess that's what demos are for.

Unfortunately the question was: "What do you most consider before paying for an adventure game?"

I think my answer was totally relevant to that question, even though the poll didn't allow that option.

"Excluding the game's designer, what do you most consider before paying for an adventure game?" is a totally different question, and more appropos to the poll. And yes, if the designer is an "unkown", I will need a lot more input from a demo and other players before making that buying decision.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by rtrooney

Unfortunately the question was: "What do you most consider before paying for an adventure game?"

I think my answer was totally relevant to that question, even though the poll didn't allow that option.

"Excluding the game's designer, what do you most consider before paying for an adventure game?" is a totally different question, and more appropos to the poll. And yes, if the designer is an "unkown", I will need a lot more input from a demo and other players before making that buying decision.

So what would you reply to a designer who said we're going to take the results of the poll along to a pitch we're doing to try and get investment for a 2D point and click adventure we're making?

[mimisdutch]

I'd say that puzzles seem to be the most important aspect for me.

They need to be logical and always into the game's context. I don't care if they are hard or easy, as long as they feel logical and there is somehow a rational reason for the player to solve them in order to progress the story.

Graphics and sound always have to support the game's setting and provide the necessary immersion for keeping the player excited. Of course, the technology of these aspects is nearly always irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I'm talking about the aesthetic side and how this is applied to enhance the player's experience. By keeping these aspects in a decent level, you'll have a solid adventure game, regardless its story or its setting.

But then again, this is a highly subjective opinion. I certainly like some settings more than others, but I can say that I am always positive to try any game which plays well puzzlewise.

How can I say that a game is good in terms of puzzle design?
Only by reviews from trusted reviewers and by personal experience, that is by playing their demos or watching the entire development process from a blog.

[Dara100]

Originally Posted by crabapple

What I consider first is whether the gameworld is one I want to spend time in -- and whether the story is one I want to follow. If it's 100% a puzzle game, then these things don't matter as much ---

So I'd say environment would come first, though that's not something on the list. Perhaps "graphics" would come closest, as long as graphics meant more than high or low resolution or fancy visual effects.

My feelings exactly, and I see crabapple is a Myst series fan as well - some of the most beautiful environments ever. Would that all games called "Myst clones" actually were.

Another point in a game's favor for me is first person perspective. "I" want to be the one having the adventure, not that I shun well-done games in the third person. I'm also a "wait for the reviews" type.

[CoyoteAG]

Originally Posted by Dara100

My feelings exactly, and I see crabapple is a Myst series fan as well - some of the most beautiful environments ever. Would that all games called "Myst clones" actually were.

Another point in a game's favor for me is first person perspective. "I" want to be the one having the adventure, not that I shun well-done games in the third person. I'm also a "wait for the reviews" type.

So interesting to me because I'm the exact opposite. I generally dislike 1st person games. A game would have to get really good reviews in order to get me to play a 1st person game. I would much rather a third person game.

[ohyesIdid]

Well, I haven't really been able to find any proper adventure games these days. The last one I played was A New Beginning, and I also started Black Mirror III and The next big thing, but neither interest me enough to keep me playing them on daily basis.

If I were to find an adventure game (which is really hard to do, even on this website), I'd look at....

1) Is it a traditional adventure, puzzle-solver, action/adventure or just a hot mess? I only have interest in traditional ones, unless there's something that really appeals to me in it...

2) The story. Comedy can sometimes be fun to play (ie. A Vampyre Story) but I prefer something a little more serious, but not too serious.

3) If it's 1st person or 3rd person.

But yeah... Not many of those games left, really. The genre has died almost completely. These days, even the biggest adventure-focused websites post and promote casual, and action games, cos let's face it; otherwise there wouldn't be much to promote. It does make finding something to play very confusing though. Maybe it'd be a good idea to categorize the news/previews/reviews into their own little labels?