[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Then could you please explain what he means?

Surely he's just highlighting the budget implications of graphical improvements, rather than any fundamental change to gameplay? His point isn't that the game needs changing, but that certain aspects of text-based games can't be repeated because of the required artwork.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Ah, okay. That explains it. Thanks for clarifying.

Jake, you are not allowed to yell at Tim because you're supposed to be one of his biggest whores, remember?

[Jake]

Okay I was a butt in the old thread (which has apparently vanished without a trace? which I somehow suddenly didn't notice despite it going nowhere ), but there is actually some pretty decent discussion of the issue going on over in their forum. There is some stupid stuff, as I rudely pointed out a second ago in my post, but (partly thanks to Erwin attempting to steer the discussion out of muckrakeville, and also thanks to Sluganski himself of all people for discussing the troubles faced by games writers trying to badger people for "the facts"), there is some half-decent chat in there. After I got all mad at it in the old thread I actually sat down and read the thread, and I recommend you all do the same. And then come back here of course.

[qrious]

i wonder what would you say if that was said by someone else, not Tim Schafer.
would you react in the same way? just curious...

[Jake]

If someone that wasn't Schafer had said all that stuff about adventure games being dead because of graphics, I would have probably reacted differently, yes, especially if it was someone whose games I didn't know and whose opinion I didn't trust.

The fact that it is coming from the mouth of one of the better graphic adventure designers we've seen makes me think that maybe he didn't mean it quite as literally as it sounded, and especially not as literally as Randy is implying.

What Erwin was saying in the JA thread is important - I don't think Tim literally meant that graphics made interactivity possible and killed adventure games, but he was referring to the fact that the more emphesis you put on graphics, the less space you have to be spontaneous as a designer, and the less your budget will allow you to make the game appear more interactive. Syberia is probably the epitome of this - it's one of the most beautiful looking adventure games ever, but that's all. Where is the gameplay? Where is the interactivity? Did the artwork steal all the budget? Was immersive interactivity deemed unnecessary because the atmosphere of the backgrounds would surely be more than enough to immerse the gamer in the world? Did they just not care anymore about skillful interactive storytelling? I think that's at least part of what Tim was talking about. Though he probably wouldn't use Syberia as an example because he has probably never had any desire to play Syberia.

[Fairygdmther]

Gonna stick my neck out here -

For two guys who admittedly don't even PLAY adventure games anymore, you're awfully opinionated about the demise of adv games.

1. There have been some very good games released in the last six months - Revelation, Sentinel, Aura, Alida, Return to Mysterious Island, etc.
2. MJ II and Sentinel are using 3D technology, and Revelation and URU used another form of this.
3. No, adv games haven't required the state of the art PC's to play - why?
Their MAIN audience, the 35+ female would be shut out of their favorite games. Most of these women don't own gaming PC's, though their sons may.
4. Yes, they've been slow to use the newest technology - but you know what? The 35+ women who are buying them don't care about that. They want their stories, lots of exploration and puzzles: all the stuff that AVault claims is boring!
5. You know what they DON'T want? They don't want games that use keyboard or gamepads to play with. They don't want fighting, or actiony scenes, especially timed ones.
6. You guys are a niche within a niche - you are NOT the mainstream adv gamers. You need to go to the other forums and see what is being said by those who DO still play adventure games.
7. Not only is adv gaming NOT dead, it has been growing for the last couple of years - both in numbers of games and numbers of gamers.

You can attack if you like, but I belong to 7 gaming sites and visit 3 others that I lurk at. Perhaps you need to see the bigger picture.

FGM

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

For two guys who admittedly don't even PLAY adventure games anymore, you're awfully opinionated about the demise of adv games.

Which two guys are you referring to? Is it safe to assume that I'm not one of them, despite your post appearing directly beneath mine? (I still play adventure games...)

[Wormsie]

5. You know what they DON'T want? They don't want games that use keyboard or gamepads to play with. They don't want fighting, or actiony scenes, especially timed ones.
6. You guys are a niche within a niche - you are NOT the mainstream adv gamers. You need to go to the other forums and see what is being said by those who DO still play adventure games.

I don't care what they want. I know what I want, and it's not what's on the market now. Where are the commercial Apprentice II's, 7 Days a Stranger's, Two of a Kind's, Enclosure's?! (I'm talking more about the style of those games than any superficial aspects like resolution etc.)

Maybe it is true that 35+ women are the adventure game fanatics of today, and that I will never see the kind of games I'd want to see just because there's not enough people like me.

Well. As it's been said, other genres uphold the spirit of the adventure games of old these days. ...In fact, those games sell better than the adventure games developed for the 35+ female audience.

[Jake]

Lets please not go into the 35+ female audience stuff! I know there are plenty of 35 y/o + females who buy plenty of adventure games, but the fact that there is unrest amongst adventure fans who aren't in that demographic means that, well, that there is unrest There are very big adventure game fans out there who aren't "35 y/o+ females who don't like using the keyboard to game." Maybe the reason they don't buy as many games as the 35 y/o+ females is because all the games out there are being made for 35 y/o + females! Ever think of that?

Anyway!

That's not got anything to do with this thread though, which is about Schafer!!!

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Jake

There are fans out there who aren't 35+ females who don't like using the keyboard to game.

Amen.* I hate the mystical 35+ female classification myself, and was using it more to irritate.

*And sorry.

[Jake]

This discussion is moving into "split into separate thread" territory. I suggest the 35+ female thing be dropped in the context of this discussion, as it's already been discussed ad nauseum in these forums.

[Fairygdmther]

Sorry for my rant - it just erupted out of me after reading that crap at AVault, and reading Trep's agreement with Tim Schafer on adv games being dead, and it's their own fault for not adapting. And no, Jake, you hadn't posted when I started writing it, so it wasn't aimed at you. It wasn't really off topic if you read all the links above.

FGM

[AFGNCAAP]

I stumbled across the said editorial yesterday, but decided against posting about it, with all that supposed "anti-other-sites" attitude in the thread about GameBoomers. But, since it was brought up by someone else... there's little to say - Schafer's words were way misinterpreted quite clearly. But who are we to judge? None of us had a successful game in years...

[SoccerDude28]

Did Tim mean by his post that teams spend more time on graphics than gameplay or did he mean that adding graphics to the adventure genre cut its interactivity because you were limited with the options you had.

The first point really applies to every genre out there today. I mean look at DOOM 3. I've heard so many people refer to it as a tech demo. The second point does make lots of sense, because how much can you vary in terms of gameplay when all you can do is have 3 or 4 actions to drive a static story. But for most of the people here, those were the kinds of games that made us fall in love with adventures in the first place.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

The first point really applies to every genre out there today. I mean look at DOOM 3. I've heard so many people refer to it as a tech demo. The second point does make lots of sense, because how much can you vary in terms of gameplay when all you can do is have 3 or 4 actions to drive a static story. But for most of the people here, those were the kinds of games that made us fall in love with adventures in the first place.

Which is fine, but doesn't make sense as a rule written in stone that keeps the genre from progressing and diversifying, IMO.

[Aj_]

Saying the Adventure game genre is dead isn't constructive, it is condescending to developers, and probably influencial to publishers. Tim has given his honest opinion, and in some context, sales and investment, maybe it is true. Reminds me of politics or religion... crying judas, inciting riot, and spewing rhetoric. Bring the tar and feathers! Get the heathens and heretics!

The graphics thing, I tend to agree, it is possible to emulate the freedom and gameplay of text adventures in graphics, but words cost less in many respects.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Aj_

The graphics thing, I tend to agree, it is possible to emulate the freedom and gameplay of text adventures in graphics, but words cost less in many respects.

Which makes sense if you're either a cheap ass publisher who refuses to fund even brilliant ideas, or if you're a poor starving developer who has a brilliant idea but can't afford the technology to realize it.

[Kero]

I've read this entire thread and I'm a little confused. Is adventure gaming "dead" because of too much graphics and not enough interactivity? If so, I guess I need to know what this forum's definition of interactivity is. To me interactivity is being able to pick up things, use things, explore nooks and crannies, solve puzzels, etc. etc.

For me Syberia had just as much "interactivity" as many of the text based adventure games I've played over the decades - yet with a much deeper story line and characters I could truely relate to. The graphics didn't hurt the story but added to it. The puzzel solving required was also story driven. I thought that from begining to end I was having a great adventure. That's the whole point of "adventure" gaming - isn't it?

Now - I don't mind dying if it is because I made a stupid choice. Neither do I mind story driven blood and guts - as long as it furthers the story. What I don't like is having to kill everthing in site just to get from point A to point B. If I wanted to get into fights and kill people I'd buy "Prince of Persia". Thanks, but no thanks. ('sides - my eye/hand coordination ain't what it used to be - lol)

As for this Shafer dude. As great a graphic artist as you all say he is - could it be he is claiming that adventure gaming is dead because he can't come up with a good adventure game? If he can point to all the things that are supposidly wrong with today's "adventure" games - the reasons why adventure gaming is dying - he should put his money where his mouth is and make an "adventure" game with all the right elements. Then sit back and let the gamers decide if what he thinks is supposed to make a "good" adventure game actually does.

Well - this +something female has given you her two cents - take it for what it is worth - and LONG LIVE ADVENTURE GAMING!

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Saying the Adventure game genre is dead isn't constructive, it is condescending to developers, and probably influencial to publishers. Tim has given his honest opinion, and in some context, sales and investment, maybe it is true. Reminds me of politics or religion... crying judas, inciting riot, and spewing rhetoric.

You're right about one thing. The phrase "adventures are dead" is definitely rhetoric. It does not mean "there are no more adventures." It means they no longer belong to a viable mainstream gaming genre. Which is undeniably true.

But suggesting it's rhetoric spewed maliciously to insult the genre is ridiculous. He used the phrase in a very particular context to make a point about the genre's failure to withstand the industry's dependence on graphic advancements. If it's inciting riots, that's only because some can't be bothered to understand what he meant.

And for those that feel adventures are being singled out, this IS an overriding industry problem, and it WILL impact on all genres in time. In fact, it already is. Look at the horrifying lack of original IP's these days. It's because games requite top-notch graphics to compete, and as those are too costly to make, publishers can't afford to invest in anything but a guaranteed winner. It's not just graphics, of course, but largely that.

At some point, this trend has to level out and let creativity start ruling over technology again.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jackal

At some point, this trend has to level out and let creativity start ruling over technology again.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I've already been seeing tiny little signals that this will transpire, from developers, publishers, and yes, gamers themselves. It may reach that level of saturation where the graphics will be so advanced (and drop dead gorgeous), at the cost of substance elsewhere in the game's design, that the market will get bored of it and demand something else. What's left? Content, execution, fresh ideas in gameplay and themes, I think, powered by technology other than graphics.