[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

To answer Jake's question, I was 10 y/o when I became a Monkey Island junkie. And like Jake, I still like those games. Figures.

It's an interesting topic, though. Somehow Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle, etc. were the game equivalents of Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies - something that looked like it was meant for a more mature audience yet found its most devoted fans in the boys entering their teen years. I think the "speaking down to" issue is important and that's something that these games avoided. Why? I dunno, perhaps because they were created by game enthusiasts who wanted to do something they loved and liked to see on the computer screen, rather than studying an assumed market segment and demographics of what might be marketable.

These thoughts just from the top of my head, I'll give it some time and get back if I think of something profound.

Hey, same here, I was also around 9-10 years old when I played Monkey Island for the first time and got hooked immediately.

There was one weird time when I was on my first year of english lessons in the third grade. I went to ask the teacher if skull means pääkallo in finnish... she was a bit amazed why did I come to ask her about such "strange" words... heh heh.

Thank you Ron Gilbert for teaching me english.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by RLacey

And why does a Vampyre Story appeal more?

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to work out what it is. The setting? The graphical style? The fact that it doesn't feel the need to deal with 'adult' themes in a sexual/violent way? I suspect that it's a mixture of all of those, along with the comic potential where appropriate. Perhaps we're going the wrong way about making adventure games, then, and shouldn't be feeling the need to commit to the kind of themes prominent in other genres, thus alienating a large target audience?

I think those are all good points about why that game seems likely to appeal.

I wouldn't go overboard here--no offense, but I like some of the other games on the list too! I mean, what Carolyn Goodwin was talking about in that thread--and let's please not lose sight of that--was the success they had had at NICHE marketing. I know, I know, the idea of marketing games makes some people here want to be sick.

But their point in the article was that yes, there should be some games that those gamers can play, because as those developers said, they are (at least half of them ) potentially the AGers of the future. That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to put away our adult-themed games forever and only play funny games, because (though I love humor as much as the next person), that's not all there is in the world.

As for kids, my personal view is that they hate being talked down to. But I don't have any, so what do I know. And also, the definition of what "talking down to them" means is different for different people . . . what is condescension? Is it when you try to be cute? Definitely. They can pick up trying too hard a mile away. Hard again to put your finger on what it is. Hm. I have no idea what the BK Kids Club is and now is not the day for me to look it up, but I have a sense of what Jake means, and I think he's probably right.

Thank you Ron Gilbert for teaching me english.

This is AWESOME.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Why would companies have been designing games for consumers that didn't even own computers?

What I was trying to communicate was that those games reached the 8-13 year old boys even though they had been mainly designed (?) for adult gamers. I'm not sure whether the attendees in the Ask the Designer feature were talking about consciously creating games that appealed first and foremost to that demographic group or games that appealed also to that group, but my personal opinion is that Monkey Island et cetera didn't try to be too cool or adult in their own right, and that is why they succeeded. Kids can smell wooing.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Suggesting that game companies and designers have somehow "lost" the 8-13 year old consumer demographic market is like saying that sales of vodka are suffering because companies aren't targeting more Mormons.


Despite the experiences of the members of this forum, when the concept of adventure gaming evolved, very few 8-13 year olds owned computers. Kids went to the arcade in the late 70's, then had Nintendo in the 80's. Home computers were owned almost exclusively by upper-middle class adults. Thus, that's who adventure games were designed for. It has only been in the last decade that this has changed, with half of all homes now having a PC. (I am speaking only of America; I simply don't know the European statistics.)

Why would companies have been designing games for consumers that didn't even own computers? Why try to sell vodka to people that don't drink.

It is true (as evidenced repeatedly in this forum) that the last 10 years have seen a huge shift in the PC marketplace. I have addressed this before in my oft-castigated editorial about how Nintendo did more than any other single factor to "kill" adventure games. But laying that aside for the moment, I will agree that relatively few companies have attempted to re-think adventure games and design them specifically for today's new younger consumer. Offhand, only HER Interactive, Tivola (Physicus et al) and Infogrames/Humongous (the Freddi Fish series) come to mind.

Of course, that might partly be because adventure games, at least those constructed using the traditional paradigm, simply don't appeal to the great majority of 8-13 year olds. Just maybe.

From those games you listed, you completely missed the point of the thread, and, as proven by earlier bits in your post, you have no real point of reference. Almost everything in your post could be construed as correct, but only from a point of view that is completely irrellevant to this discussion.

Real quick:

Originally Posted by Jim

Home computers were owned almost exclusively by upper-middle class adults. Thus, that's who adventure games were designed for.

That is the most idiotic assumption I have ever heard. Your point of reference is so skewed... I can't even put my thoughts on this into words. The idiocy at work here in your "logical reasoning" is actually hurting me physically.

[Marek]

Err, BacardiJim ... are you saying that all those many people who played adventure games when they were kids (like me, and clearly many others) are some kind of statistical error? Maybe you should ask around with some 18-25 year old gamers and ask what they know about adventure games. You might be surprised (or not, since you'd deny it apparently). It's beyond doubt that a bigpart of that demographic played adventure games when they were kids. Yeah, so they're not the people you necesserily hang out with, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in our shared universe. It seems to me you are once again trying to construct arguments around your personal beliefs on this issue and are, in the process, being a giant troll.

You also completely miss Jake's point by mentioning a string of "made for kids" edutainment titles that are the polar opposite of what Jake is talking about in this thread. What is your contribution to this thread?

Whatever. You're not making much sense at all, and I wish you'd post more constructive material when other people are having a real conversation.

[BacardiJim]

That is the most idiotic assumption I have ever heard. Your point of reference is so skewed... I can't even put my thoughts on this into words. The idiocy at work here in your "logical reasoning" is actually hurting me physically

And I'm the "troll?" I'm the one being personally insulted while two youngsters from Scandanavia inform me that despite my managing a retail outlet that sold PC adventure games, I didn't know who was buying them here in the USA? That I'm an "idiot" with no frame of reference? That despite my years writing for an online AG, I had no clue as to who was playing it?

And I'm the troll.

Hell, if either of you bothered to actually read the last half of what I said, I was, in effect, agreeing in part with Jake's original comment. I was merely questioning the underlying reasoning... from a historical (and Americentric) point of view.

I freely admitted that I couldn't speak about European trends, only those in the USA. But about those, I think my experience and point of reference is possibly more informed than that of two Scandanavian youths.

[Wormsie]

Everybody of my age knows LucasArts adventure games in Finland - at least they've tried some of them because a friend has recommended them those games. Many people born in 1985, including me, got their first PC in 1991 or 1992, around the time MI was released, and pirated copies were distributed with diskettes. Before that Amigas were very popular. And if you didn't own a PC, your friend did. Then again, Finland has always been a total tech-nerd country.

[fov]

Despite the experiences of the members of this forum, when the concept of adventure gaming evolved, very few 8-13 year olds owned computers. Kids went to the arcade in the late 70's, then had Nintendo in the 80's. Home computers were owned almost exclusively by upper-middle class adults. Thus, that's who adventure games were designed for. It has only been in the last decade that this has changed, with half of all homes now having a PC. (I am speaking only of America; I simply don't know the European statistics.)

Why would companies have been designing games for consumers that didn't even own computers? Why try to sell vodka to people that don't drink?

I'll agree that, for the most part, 15-20 years ago the demographic of who owned computers was very different than it is now (although I think it's ridiculous to assume that the kids were only playing Nintendo and never touched their "parents'" computers... having been a kid at the time, I can tell you that's not how it worked in my house!) But what does the demographic of 15 years ago have to do with the market being untapped today? Whether or not games were being designed for 8-13 year old boys in the 80s (and apparently it didn't matter, because plenty of boys in that age group were happy with the games being developed "for adults"), it is still an untapped market today... maybe even more so because the adult games have gotten more adult and nothing has moved in to fill the void for the kids.

We always had a computer in my house. This may not have been the norm (and I did grow up in an upper-middle class household), but it's shortsighted to ignore the fact that there were computers in the schools, which is where many people were first introduced to adventure games, and that even if someone didn't have a computer at their house, a friend of theirs probably did. I can think of three or four different people, at different points in my childhood, who came over *exclusively* to play adventure games. I'd go to their houses to play Nintendo (because we didn't have one); they'd come to mine to play King's Quest or 7th Guest.

I'm getting off topic though. It's absolutely true that more homes have computers now than ever before. Shouldn't that be even more of a reason to try to make games for an untapped market?

-emily

[Jake]

Yes Jim, I stand by what I said. Maybe with the exception of the Nancy Drew games, which you seem to have listed by accident with a handful of edutainment/early learning titles, you really don't seem to understand what this thread is trying to say.

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

I'm the one being personally insulted while two youngsters from Scandanavia inform me that despite my managing a retail outlet that sold PC adventure games, I didn't know who was buying them here in the USA?

I'm not sure who the other "youngster from Scandanavia[sic]" is, but I wasn't judging the validity of your post - I was simply clarifying my own point. Having said that, I don't think there's a one-to-one connection between who buys a game and who plays a game. Most of my friends as a kid had played a Leisure Suit Larry game before they hit their teens, and I doubt many of them had bought the game from a store. My own adventure games as a teen, from Monkey Island 2 up to Sam & Max Hit the Road, were bought from game stores by my parents or other relatives.

[BacardiJim]

My apologies: Jake isn't Scandanavian. I screwed up and confused his location with Deadsie's. My apologies to you both.

[rio]

Ensuing flamewar notwithsnding, IMO, the key to the 8-13 boy demographic is the characters. This is at a time where kids are exercising their last little bits of imagination before they become boring, self-aware teenagers. Kids at that age still feel helpless and identify with the underdog, putting themselves into the situations, which is why movies like Star Wars, Indy or POTC are popular in that age group. When I played the Monkey Island games for the first time, I loved Guybrush because he had no real talent but still ended up saving the day.

The other factor at work is the badass factor, but thats more prevalent in action games.

[fov]

Originally Posted by rio

This is at a time where kids are exercising their last little bits of imagination before they become boring, self-aware teenagers.

Puberty --> boring self-awareness. So true.

[Marek]

BJ: you can make a point about historical perspective or whatever you please but can you do it without taking a dump on the whole spirit of this thread? If you really do have a some real points to offer then do so in a wording and phrasing that doesn't make me think that you secretly wished that we (that is to say people of my age group and history with adventure games) didn't in fact sit in front of personal computers in the late 80ies or early 90ies, were never acknowledged on internet forums and have no right to express their ideas and wishes for these games. In case you hadn't figured this out yet (you've had a lot of time on this forum to find out) this hardly leads to productive discussions.

[BacardiJim]

While allowing staff members to call people "idiots" is contructive?

[BacardiJim]

I wasn't suggesting (or certainly didn't mean to suggest) that there weren't kids playing adventure games in the 80's, I was suggesting that, at least in the USA, such kids made up a small minority of the American adventure game marketplace. This fact is commonly overlooked in this forum whenever there are age-related marketing issues discussed, and I feel it appropriate to point it out from time to time to give a wider "historical" perspective. This seemed like one of those times. I had no intention of starting a flamewar. I didn't expected the Spanish Inquisition.

[rio]

I didn't expected the Spanish Inquisition.

Of course you didn't, nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion.






Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

I wasn't suggesting (or certainly didn't mean to suggest) that there weren't kids playing adventure games in the 80's.

I think the focus here has been more on the 1990s, not 1980s... (Monkey Island was released in 1990).

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by rio

Ensuing flamewar notwithsnding, IMO, the key to the 8-13 boy demographic is the characters. This is at a time where kids are exercising their last little bits of imagination before they become boring, self-aware teenagers. Kids at that age still feel helpless and identify with the underdog, putting themselves into the situations, which is why movies like Star Wars, Indy or POTC are popular in that age group. When I played the Monkey Island games for the first time, I loved Guybrush because he had no real talent but still ended up saving the day.

The other factor at work is the badass factor, but thats more prevalent in action games.

Back ON topic, I wonder if this is the same for boys as for girls. I don't think I identified with underdogs . . . that is, anymore than I do now. It seems to me that a compelling character really is one at any age. I mean, if you look at classics of children's literature (which is what I know best, sorry), the characters there tend to be sort of quirky outsiders, and perhaps that's what you mean. But they're not necessarily underdogs--they're actually pretty empowered, in the sense that they overcome obstacles through the course of the story (the adventure game is for that reason a really good format for a story like this). And adults and children find appeal in the Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, books by Roald Dahl, fairy tales, and on and on.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

such kids made up a small minority of the American adventure game marketplace. This fact is commonly overlooked in this forum whenever there are age-related marketing issues discussed,

That "fact" is overlooked because it's not a fact. Where is your proof? All I have to go by personally is my memories of being a kid when these games were new, and many if not most of my friends having played and enjoyed at least one adventure game, of not a heaping handful of current releases.

The things you're quoting as "facts" -- without any proof aside from your insisting louder and louder -- go 100% against what I actually remembered, did and experienced personally with adventure games at the age in question, so I'm going to have to side with myself more than your unsubstantiated, repeated insisting.



PS: And stop playing the sad-eyed puppy "how dare a staff member make a comment like that" card. You were a huge wanker when you were on staff, too. We're posting in a public forum, this isn't an article I'm writing for Adventure Gamers. If I'm not mistaken there's even a disclaimer at the bottom stating as much, so maybe you can shut up about that once and for all.