[Manhunter71]

Hasn't this topic exhausted itself by now?
It seems to me that we are all going round in circles, stating our points, but with no clear resolution!
I vote we abandon this topic because the answer is purely based on individual opinion

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Reality check: They don't sell.

They sold well enough back in the days. Why wouldn't they sell anymore, providing the quality was good enough?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Why don't you ask the developers, publishers, media, and other gamers that question?

[Kenoi]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Reality check: They don't sell.

That's what I was implying. They are hard to make in quality AND profit.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I don't think it's so much that stories got better. I think it's more that the AVENUES available to delivering stories in games have gotten better and more diverse. And those avenues exist because of the technology.

Yes. What I was trying to say, exactly.

At one of the panels I saw at GDC, Tim Schafer (and others) were asked about how graphics affected storytelling. (Now that I think of it, this may have been the precursor question that prompted the CGM interviewer to ask Tim Schafer about graphics killing the adventure game...) The question, which I found very interesting, was essentially "Look how advanced IF had become in its ability to tell a story -- why do you think the storytelling took a step backwards when graphics were introduced? And do you think every time a new technology is introduced (graphics, physics engine, whatever), it takes storytelling back to square one?"

It was a leading question (not phrased exactly how I just phrased it), but Tim and the others up there (Warren Spector and I forget who else) seemed to agree it was a pretty fair assessment. Every time a new technology is introduced, there's a certain learning curve required before storytellers can figure out how to use it best in their games. By the time they master it, there's a new technology being introduced. THAT is why the story of King's Quest 1 is nowhere near as complex as the stories we see in games today (and why the stories in games today still have a long way to go).

I guess the good news there is, there's always room for improvement.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Hasn't this topic exhausted itself by now?
It seems to me that we are all going round in circles, stating our points, but with no clear resolution!
I vote we abandon this topic because the answer is purely based on individual opinion

Isn't the whole point of this thread to try to force our individual opinions into others?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Hasn't this topic exhausted itself by now?
It seems to me that we are all going round in circles, stating our points, but with no clear resolution!
I vote we abandon this topic because the answer is purely based on individual opinion

We HAVE reached some kind of resolution. Some kind, that is. It's just all buried underneath conflicting details and egos.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Why don't you ask the developers, publishers, media, and other gamers that question?

Ok. Developpers, publishers, and gamers, why wouldn't quality adventure games sell now, when they did back in the days?

[Kenoi]

Originally Posted by Ninth

CYOA? WTF?

I meant a graphical CYOA.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Kenoi

I meant a graphical CYOA.

Oh.


...

What's a CYOA?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah. WTF IS a CYOA?!

Create Your Own Adventure? What does that mean?

[Kenoi]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Oh.


...

What's a CYOA?

LOL! It's a "choose-you-own-adventure" game. It's a type of adventure where you follow a story by choosing multiple paths in the game, but everything is basically preset and pre-written for you.

Edit: I find it funny how they are so unpopular nowadays that most people don't even know about them...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by fov

Every time a new technology is introduced, there's a certain learning curve required before storytellers can figure out how to use it best in their games. By the time they master it, there's a new technology being introduced. THAT is why the story of King's Quest 1 is nowhere near as complex as the stories we see in games today (and why the stories in games today still have a long way to go).

Right. When a new thing (technology or whatever) is introduced, it brings along with it a new way of thinking, a new vernacular, a new mindset.

And I think THIS is where adventure games failed. Like I said, technology now exists, better than ever, to allow stories (good or bad, up to you) to be better told. It's just that for some reason adventure games refused to take advantage of it, and in an industry and culture where technology is one of the CRUCIALLY VITAL driving forces, that's akin to suicide. Because once you jump on the ride, you have to stay on and keep at it, otherwise you fall off and get left far behind.

[Kenoi]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Right. When a new thing (technology or whatever) is introduced, it brings along with it a new way of thinking, a new vernacular, a new mindset.

And I think THIS is where adventure games failed. Like I said, technology now exists, better than ever, to allow stories (good or bad, up to you) to be better told. It's just that for some reason adventure games refused to take advantage of it, and in an industry and culture where technology is one of the CRUCIALLY VITAL driving forces, that's akin to suicide. Because once you jump on the ride, you have to stay on and keep at it, otherwise you fall off and get left far behind.

It is not true that adventure game developers have failed to involve technology and new ideas with it in their productions.

In fact they have done the opposite. But your classical definition of an adventure game - as I said - is not flexible enough to bring such a change to it. That's why they are mixing other genres with good adventures and creating a new genre: the virtual reality type of game.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It is not true that adventure game developers have failed to involve technology and new ideas with it in their productions.

In fact they have done the opposite. But your classical definition of an adventure game - as I said - is not flexible enough to bring such a change to it. That's why they are mixing other genres with good adventures and creating a new genre: the virtual reality type of game.

You tell THAT to non-adventure gaming fans who could potentially buy the game. I'm just telling you how it is. We can argue all we want that graphics circa 1990 and simple text parsers are fine for a game, but that's not gonna make enough money for developers and publishers to hire better talent and technology precisely because the games don't sell enough to make the money to afford them.

Yes, you CAN tell a better story. Yes, you CAN design a good game with ten-year-old technology. Will it sell? Sure! It'll sell, what, 5000 copies? Will that cover your $50,000 cost to make the game? Will it warrant a sequel?


Oops. We went a bit off topic.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Kenoi

LOL! It's a "choose-you-own-adventure" game. It's a type of adventure where you follow a story by choosing multiple paths in the game, but everything is basically preset and pre-written for you.

Edit: I find it funny how they are so unpopular nowadays that most people don't even know about them...

I see. It's a translation problem, I think. If I'm not mistaken, this name comes from the books, in which you choosed what you wanted to do, and depending of your choice is led you to one paragraph or another. So the games that are like that have the same name than the books.
But in french, the books are call "Books of which you're the hero", or something like that, which means it can't apply to games. So in fact we don't have any names for CYOA games. I think. Maybe.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah, I've seen those books. Never read them, they're so hokey to me, so contrived somehow.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Will it sell? Sure! It'll sell, what, 5000 copies? Will that cover your $50,000 cost to make the game? Will it warrant a sequel?

I don't get this part... If it sells 5000 copies at 30 bucks the copy, it will more than cover the $50,000 cost. So I must be missing something.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Yeah, I've seen those books. Never read them, they're so hokey to me, so contrived somehow.

They are.
I used to love them as a kid, because there were these cool Ninja stories were you could blind your ennemies and then cut their feet and...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I don't get this part... If it sells 5000 copies at 30 bucks the copy, it will more than cover the $50,000 cost. So I must be missing something.

My crummy math aside, my point was that people today place A LOT of value on technology, and many of them expect their money's worth from games that take advantage of the technology.

After all, even adventure games from 15 years ago RAN ON TECHNOLOGY, didn't they?