[Fairygdmther]

Okay, then I've misunderstood you. You're reference to "Mainstream" referred to mainstream gamers, not mainstream adv gamers. And your reference to what games others know didn't mean non-gamers. Assuming the wrong group is what put our discussion out in left field, sorry.

FGM-Lyn

[Fairygdmther]

Okay, then, if it will be on the idea of a MI, GF, or Full Throttle, then I can see where you're going with this and why you feel it would appeal to the non-adv gamer.

I haven't played Full Throttle, am not very impressed with MI (I know that's anathema here), and GF, though it looked fantastic, I couldn't get through it with the navigation, even using a gamepad. So you may have lost me as a customer already, sorry. Just not my cup of tea, I guess. Good luck to you anyway, and I won't rule it out yet, but...

FGM-Lyn

[EvoG]

If you like stylized cartoony, with high quality animation, you'll buy my game. If the only thing about Grim Fandango is the control scheme, again, I wouldn't worry as mine is point and click at the very least, at the very most I'll have a variety of control schemes from point and click to character/camera relative direct-control.

On that note though, GF has THE most satisfying stories like evAr, so though I don't know you, I assume you'd be one for story-first, especially with regards to this game, and overlook the control. As for Full Throttle, well, I'd hurry over to that one if I were you.

How come you didn't like MI? Series or your first particular exposure to it(perhaps it was an issue with a specific one)?


Cheers

[Jake]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Hm. But wasn't "The Longest Journey" successful in the US even though it was brought to the states by the same company that brought you "Runaway"? <Trep>Why is that?</Trep> Okay, it's a much better game, but...

Because Randy Sluganski brought the game here himself, didn't you hear? Legend has it Randy swam the Atlantic with the GM disc strapped to his back. Without Randy's efforts TLJ wouldn't be the success it is today - hell, it might not have appeared here in the States at all.

[Fairygdmther]

I have played about 1/4 of the first one, and when I got pulled away, I didn't like it enough to go back - it just didn't pique my interest enough, I guess. I am a story person, definitely, but the story has to grab me. For instance, I've played some of all three GK games, but didn't like them either. My favorite games are:

1. Obsidian
2. Faust
3. Timelapse
4. Sanatarium
5. TLJ
6. Riven
7. Alida
8. Syberia I & II
9. Amerzone
10. Beyond Atlantis (sentimental favorite - 1st real adv game, and I played it with my now-dead roommate)

I don't favor 1st over 3rd person, nor empty environments over a lot of interaction with NPC's. I like good stories and lots of exploration.

FGM-Lyn

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jake

Because Randy Sluganski brought the game here himself, didn't you hear? Legend has it Randy swam the Atlantic with the GM disc strapped to his back. Without Randy's efforts TLJ wouldn't be the success it is today - hell, it might not have appeared here in the States at all.

Jake

[RLacey]

To me the failure (and I do mean failure) of adventure games in recent years has been not the lack of quality marketing - though this will always play a role - but the generally poor quality of most of the games released in recent times. I can count the number of games that have been released in recent years of a comparable quality as a game with those of the 1990s on the fingers of one hand. I'm not talking about the production values, but rather of such fundamental basics as storyline, characterisation and implementation.

Forget marketing, forget innovation, forget genre merging. The former is only worthwhile if you have games of a sufficient quality, whilst the others distract developers, already on a tight budget, from dedicating the time required to sort out the fundamentals of design within the genre. The adventure game can be popular, but only if there is a consistant stream of good adventure games. And we simply don't get that.

When I'm forced to play yet another game which, whilst graphically interesting, is totally and utterly hollow, I'm not exactly able to be enthusiastic about the genre. If I walk through another room in which I can look at only one object, or - even worse - if I don't even get a response, then I begin to get bored. If puzzles are badly thought out, don't make sense and aren't even hinted at, I get frustrated. If developers don't stop and think about how they're designing the games we play, rather than simply making cookie-cutter versions of their previous, flawed titles, then the genre is going to die.

The sad thing is that I'm not joking.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by RLacey

To me the failure (and I do mean failure) of adventure games in recent years has been not the lack of quality marketing - though this will always play a role - but the generally poor quality of most of the games released in recent times....

Forget marketing, forget innovation, forget genre merging. The former is only worthwhile if you have games of a sufficient quality, whilst the others distract developers, already on a tight budget, from dedicating the time required to sort out the fundamentals of design within the genre. The adventure game can be popular, but only if there is a consistant stream of good adventure games. And we simply don't get that.

That does not make sense. High quality and good marketing go hand in hand, get real! You can create the best game in the history of mankind and it wouldn't sell because nobody's heard of it, just as you can invest millions in clever marketing but the game is utter excrement and your reputation as a designer is stained.

[Jake]

I think the fact that you need to market good games - that good games and good marketing need to go hand in hand to succeed - was implied in what he said. I think what he's saying is that whether you throw money into marketing or not, it isn't going to help the fact that in his opinion, these days there are hardly any adventure games worth marketing to begin with.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

I think the fact that you need to market good games - that good games and good marketing need to go hand in hand to succeed - was implied in what he said. I think what he's saying is that whether you throw money into marketing or not, it isn't going to help the fact that in his opinion, these days there are hardly any adventure games worth marketing to begin with.

But there are still the odd successful AG, like Runaway. How do you explain Runaway's european success? I mean, it goes to show that no matter how good a game is, if it's properly marketed (and of course decent) it will work, and people will like it.
My point is that the genre will not die because there aren't any more good games (which I disagree with, of course ), because success and quality don't go hand in hand. If it ever dies, it will be because of poor marketing or business decision.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ninth

But there are still the odd successful AG, like Runaway. How do you explain Runaway's european success? I mean, it goes to show that no matter how good a game is, if it's properly marketed (and of course decent) it will work, and people will like it.

Differences. In. Gaming. Culture. Plus marketing. I think it's not that nice to live in the US these days. As an admirer of adventure games, that is.

Oh, and what's that mentioned Justadventure-Sluganski incident about? I'm curious. I. Really. Am.

np: FIFA soccer manager 2003.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Differences. In. Gaming. Culture.

Then maybe adventure genre is dead in the US and alive in Europe?

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Then maybe adventure genre is dead in the US and alive in Europe?

I don't think the genre touches mainstream audiences even in Europe. Overall, it's still a niche. But a stronger one than in the States.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

I don't think the genre touches mainstream audiences even in Europe. Overall, it's still a niche. But a stronger one than in the States.

Well, I know that Runaway got rave reviews in some magazines, and there were a heap of Runaway games in the biggest computer store I know, and a friend of mine who know nothing about AGs told me he wanted to try it.
I call it touching mainstream audiences.

[Aj_]

A lot of adventures have got excellent reviews across all mainstream websites and magazines, but they still haven't sold well. Since when was Runaway a success? I doubt it had that much shelf space, because that costs money, and individual experiences don't show the big picture.

[EvoG]

Here's a little something thats pretty interesting; I was told that psychologically, when a person is exposed to a particular advertisement 6 - 10 times, it becomes 'familiar' , that in his brain, he immediately associates 'good feelings' with it, thus increasing the chances he/she will buy the product, even if indirectly if said product is happened upon.

Either way you just cannot overlook the significance of marketing, but marketing can cost just as much as development of a game...well at least they choose to spend that much, nevertheless, if thats what they feel(the publishers) they need to do to sell a game, thats a cost. So now we're faced with publishers not wanting to front the money to make a game for a genre that doesn't generate sales as they see it, PLUS, and this is the interesting part, they of course lump marketing in with that, which just increases the cost. So if more marketing means more sales, and less marketing less sales ( generally speaking ), wouldn't it stand that almost anything could sell if marketed as carefully as any product? That by virtue of not marketing, its a self-fullfilling prophecy that AG's dont sell. Not because there is no interest, but because no one knows?

Then again, you'd like to think people who do this for a living have somewhat of a clue, as money is all they care about, they certainly know how to read trends in gaming and customer demand. I dont think we've discovered something they haven't already thought about. That and 'risk assessment' isn't black and white, so while the genre could conceivably thrive, its not worth it to them to test the waters when they could go with another game that has much less risk(but could do still do terribly, fickle as the consumer is).


Cheers

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

But there are still the odd successful AG, like Runaway. How do you explain Runaway's european success? I mean, it goes to show that no matter how good a game is, if it's properly marketed (and of course decent) it will work, and people will like it.

The problem is that the successes are isolated incidents, and they're isolated for issues of quality. We're pretty much mired in a (genre) culture of mediocrity, and the few games that rise above that are not able to pull the genre with it. I agree that good marketing is essential, but until the overall standard of quality is raised again, that marketing will always be working at a disadvantage. Each and every quality game that comes out is saying something to the effect of "This game isn't like all the other games that suck!" It may manage to sell itself decently, but it still doesn't change the gaming culture at all.

No one game will accomplish this, as it has to be genre-wide progress. That's why anyone hoping that Dreamfall or Indigo Prophecy will "revitalize" the genre is in for a disappointment. If the genre is going to succeed, it won't be the the one-off, high end successes that drive it, but the smaller games that come up behind them.

Also, of course there are all kinds of crap games in other genres. The difference being, those games don't need to sell the genre they belong to, as they're already popular. Adventures have both hurdles to overcome.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Aj_

A lot of adventures have got excellent reviews across all mainstream websites and magazines, but they still haven't sold well. Since when was Runaway a success? I doubt it had that much shelf space, because that costs money, and individual experiences don't show the big picture.

Doubt all you want. I've seen it, so I don't doubt.
Also, among the three demo computer there are in the same shop (it's not a shop really, it's much bigger, but I can't find the right name), Wanted featured for quite a long time. I doubt it sold well, though, because the reviews were quite bad.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The problem is that the successes are isolated incidents, and they're isolated for issues of quality. We're pretty much mired in a (genre) culture of mediocrity, and the few games that rise above that are not able to pull the genre with it. I agree that good marketing is essential, but until the overall standard of quality is raised again, that marketing will always be working at a disadvantage. Each and every quality game that comes out is saying something to the effect of "This game isn't like all the other games that suck!" It may manage to sell itself decently, but it still doesn't change the gaming culture at all.

Runaway's marketing was like "finding back the true spirit of adventure". I'm sure a bunch of games could have followed, had they tried to use the same reasoning. But they didn't.
How do you know that the reason why the successful adventures don't manage to pull the genre with them as the rise, is jsut because the other adventures (the small ones you were referring to) are very badly marketed.
Also, there's still the inherent problem of AGs being too peaceful for most gamers. I don't think many people would want to play even excellent AGs on a regular basis, when Unreal Tournament is just around the virtual corner.
So in a way, I agree with you, only I'd say that to make the genre flourishing again, we would need only masterpieces. And that cannot happen today, not any more than it could 10 years ago.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Runaway's marketing was like "finding back the true spirit of adventure". I'm sure a bunch of games could have followed, had they tried to use the same reasoning. But they didn't.

They could have followed the marketing strategy, yes. But which games are you referring to that were good enough to make it work?

How do you know that the reason why the successful adventures don't manage to pull the genre with them as the rise, is jsut because the other adventures (the small ones you were referring to) are very badly marketed.

Well, I know it's not "just because" because I played a lot of the games that followed. Many simply weren't good enough. Better marketing would have sold more copies, sure, but it wouldn't have changed the gaming landscape at all, because the quality isn't there (consistently there).

So in a way, I agree with you, only I'd say that to make the genre flourishing again, we would need only masterpieces. And that cannot happen today, not any more than it could 10 years ago.

I think "masterpieces" is overstating. But looking at other niche genres, the quality seems to be consistently better than adventures, and DON'T bother to try penetrating the mainstream. Flight sims and war games, for example. Sure, they both produce some lesser titles, but more often than not, the games that ARE released in those genres are not only higher quality, but offer a dedicated community where patches and updates are released, user mods are created, etc. Adventures offer... mediocre games and pretty much nothing else. The genre is neither big and popular (and wealthy) enough to be mainstream, nor small and focused enough to be a successful niche (successful meaning more than simply selling enough copies to survive).