[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

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

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).

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).

To me, Black Mirror, Syberia 2, Myst 4, Moment of Silence, BS3, Ni.Bi.Ru, and perhaps a few others, are very pleasant to play, and cold have sold fairly well had they been given the chance. Calling them mediocre is more than harsh.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

To me, Black Mirror, Syberia 2, Myst 4, Moment of Silence, BS3, Ni.Bi.Ru, and perhaps a few others, are very pleasant to play, and cold have sold fairly well had they been given the chance. Calling them mediocre is more than harsh.

I didn't call them mediocre. I said the genre was stuck in an overall level of mediocrity that the better games can't overcome.

But let's take Black Mirror as an example. I agree it was an enjoyable game for the most part. It was also held back by atrocious pacing, voice acting, and a plot riddled with massive holes, which significantly marred the experience. That slides it back into mediocrity to me. And clearly I DON'T dislike adventures on principle.

Overall, though, I think that if more adventures were of the same quality as the ones you've listed here (haven't played Nibiru), the genre would be doing better. Those games should be the ones that others are IMPROVING on, not be the flag bearers for the best of the genre that all the other games don't even come close to matching.

[Risingson]

[I started to write this in the "Still life" thread, but it fits here best. Sorry if I am repeating something]

I haven't played that game, but maybe, just maybe, Still Life and Moment of Silence are mediocre games. I love adventure sites like this and fourfatchicks, but I agree with another user: they overapreciate adventure games.

You don't know if you can't read in spanish, but in the site I write, Aventura y CĂ*a, we have been told a hundred times to be too harsh and "don't forgive any flaw". That is because after some years of adventure-bashing (more or less since 1997, since the graphics killed adventures, like the-man-previously-known-as-god said) this has become a kind of a niche, where we are supposed to praise every game just for being part of our genre and following the very basic patterns. And no, I didn't like Syberia much, I didn't like Schizm 2, Aura bored me to death, and I had to forgive maybe too much to enjoy Black Mirror. Only Dark Fall 2 has entertained me lately, and I find it far from perfect.

So I see it this way: the adventure games are usually not that visually appealing as racing games or shooters (remove "usually" if you want), they usually have not that care in music or sounds (Syberia 2 might be one of the few exceptions of the last months... or year), and there is no thing like level packs or multiplayer. The pace of adventure games nowadays is slower than ever, and their story and dialogues - mostly related to cliched science fiction or horror - ask to be familiar with the topic (no tutorial, no introduction with using objects...). They are just as specialized as turn-based wargames or extremely real flight simulators. And they used not to be that way not very long ago.

Oh, "mediocre" means not better and not worse than the average.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I didn't call them mediocre. I said the genre was stuck in an overall level of mediocrity that the better games can't overcome.

But let's take Black Mirror as an example. I agree it was an enjoyable game for the most part. It was also held back by atrocious pacing, voice acting, and a plot riddled with massive holes, which significantly marred the experience. That slides it back into mediocrity to me. And clearly I DON'T dislike adventures on principle.

Overall, though, I think that if more adventures were of the same quality as the ones you've listed here (haven't played Nibiru), the genre would be doing better. Those games should be the ones that others are IMPROVING on, not be the flag bearers for the best of the genre that all the other games don't even come close to matching.

There aren't any other games, really... at least no other 3rd person games. And for the sole representative of their kind, they're quite good.
As for the Black Mirror, the french voice overs were good, and the plot holes and pacing weren't so bad. Were they?

Incidentally, even though voices are a very important part of the game, bad voice overs don't make a bad game. Else Jagged Alliance sucks (in french).

[samIamsad]

I'm having trouble that devs put puzzles into games like "Nibiru" that require you to make a soup for someone. I had to laugh when I read about this. It_just_doesn't_fit the world and the characters and it's kinda crude. Not near, but akin to that moustach-cat hair-sirup thingy from ... you know what game I'm talking about.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

I'm having trouble that devs put puzzles into games like "Nibiru" that require you to make a soup for someone. I had to laugh when I read about this. It_just_doesn't_fit the world and the characters and it's kinda crude. Not near, but akin to that moustach-cat hair-sirup thingy from ... you know what game I'm talking about.

In Still Life, you mean?

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ninth

In Still Life, you mean?

Gabriel Knight 3. I solved the game without using a walkthrough and I can't remember how I did that. Only that I didn't even spent much time on this particular puzzle. I'm a little bit twisted myself, I guess.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Risingson

Oh, "mediocre" means not better and not worse than the average.

Ok, so let's say that for the average (mediocre? ) gamer, an AG is not particulary interesting unless it's very very good. There are people who read magazines and used to love AGs but get away from them who would probably get into them again if only those magazines were dedicating more space to AGs to show that "they can't appeal to just anyone, but hey, they're still alive and kicking!". I could have skipped right past the damn Still Life review, if I hadn't know what to look for!

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Gabriel Knight 3. I solved the game without using a walkthrough and I can't remember how I did that. Only that I didn't even spent much time on this particular puzzle. I'm a little bit twisted myself, I guess.

Nah, I meant the first part of your post. You said Ni.Bi.Ru, but I can't remember cooking a soup in Ni.Bi.Ru.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Nah, I meant the first part of your post. You said Ni.Bi.Ru, but I can't remember cooking a soup in Ni.Bi.Ru.

I've only read about it. It's said that you're supposed to pick up some mushrooms and then make a soup for someone. Or at least improve its taste or something. Maybe they should've called it "Spiceboy - The game".

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Risingson

I haven't played that game, but maybe, just maybe, Still Life and Moment of Silence are mediocre games. I love adventure sites like this and fourfatchicks, but I agree with another user: they overapreciate adventure games.

You don't know if you can't read in spanish, but in the site I write, Aventura y CĂ*a, we have been told a hundred times to be too harsh and "don't forgive any flaw". That is because after some years of adventure-bashing (more or less since 1997, since the graphics killed adventures, like the-man-previously-known-as-god said) this has become a kind of a niche, where we are supposed to praise every game just for being part of our genre and following the very basic patterns. And no, I didn't like Syberia much, I didn't like Schizm 2, Aura bored me to death, and I had to forgive maybe too much to enjoy Black Mirror. Only Dark Fall 2 has entertained me lately, and I find it far from perfect.

I don't mean to pick on your words, but you're highlighting the very reason I pointed out (in the other thread) the difference between liking and appreciating. Whether it's Schizm or Aura, Moment of Silence or Syberia (which often appeal to very different gamers), it's not necessary to like them to appeciate what it is they offer. AG certainly is not guilty of praising everything just because they're adventures. What we do is emphasize what there is to appeciate in each game for discerning fans of the genre AND balance that with its flaws. To me that's appreciating the game properly, rather than let positive bias outweigh other factors.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ninth

OThere are people who read magazines and used to love AGs but get away from them who would probably get into them again if only those magazines were dedicating more space to AGs to show that "they can't appeal to just anyone, but hey, they're still alive and kicking!". I could have skipped right past the damn Still Life review, if I hadn't know what to look for!

That might be an issue. But as we have discussed before, gamers are getting all the things that made AGs strong in better execution in other genres nowadays. For most gamers (me included) it's just not strictly about the puzzles. The quality of narration, the depth of characters, the world the game tries to bring to life. Sigh. There are still some worthwile AGs, of course.

[Risingson]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I don't mean to pick on your words, but you're highlighting the very reason I pointed out (in the other thread) the difference between liking and appreciating. Whether it's Schizm or Aura, Moment of Silence or Syberia (which often appeal to very different gamers), it's not necessary to like them to appeciate what it is they offer. AG certainly is not guilty of praising everything just because they're adventures. What we do is emphasize what there is to appeciate in each game for discerning fans of the genre AND balance that with its flaws. To me that's appreciating the game properly, rather than let positive bias outweigh other factors.

Sure, I agree. I also appreciate them a lot for what they are, and that is why I score them 3 or 2.5 out of 5

[Aj_]

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.

So you're going to go by one shop having boxes of a game, and computers with demos of a game. Were both these games a success?

To me, Black Mirror, Syberia 2, Myst 4, Moment of Silence, BS3, Ni.Bi.Ru, and perhaps a few others, are very pleasant to play, and cold have sold fairly well had they been given the chance. Calling them mediocre is more than harsh.

That is exactly the word I'd use to describe them, none of them are special in graphics, I don't rate the stories highly. Myst 4 has gameplay, I doubt it had poor sales, they are making another after all. When you include BS3 as one of the picks of the genre in recent times you know you have problems.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

That might be an issue. But as we have discussed before, gamers are getting all the things that made AGs strong in better execution in other genres nowadays. For most gamers (me included) it's just not strictly about the puzzles. The quality of narration, the depth of characters, the world the game tries to bring to life. Sigh. There are still some worthwile AGs, of course.

Exactly. Speaking on anecdotal evidence here I remember many discussions on the Gold Gold forums (which represent a fairly good cross section of gamers - RPG, FPS, sims, strategy, adventures) where people said how boring adventure games have gotten and that they said 'Screw this shit!' and moved on to find what the adventure game had deprived them of in other game types, like RPGs, FPSs, and 3rd person action games. They're far happier playing these games because they've found the 'adventure' elements in them. And yes, these are gamers who have played many Sierra and LA games in their day (around 25-40 years old).

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Risingson

Sure, I agree. I also appreciate them a lot for what they are, and that is why I score them 3 or 2.5 out of 5

A lot of ours have been getting those scores, too, though. In fact, there's been very little difference between our scores and mainstream sites like Gamespot or IGN for quite a while now. In fact, ours have been lower in some cases.

As I said, any particular game can be liked more by one reviewer than another without some sort of editorial policy of "over-appreciating", so I'm speaking of overall trends, not particular games that people can dispute all day.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Aj_

When you include BS3 as one of the picks of the genre in recent times you know you have problems.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. I've so far tried to avoid mentioning specific games, but here I go.

Let's take a look at two of the highest scoring adventures of recent times here at Adventure Gamers (I'm refusing to mention Myst on the grounds that I loathe that style of game) - Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon and The Moment of Silence. Both have their good points - BS3 has classic characterisation and interaction, and is the closest thing I've seen to a truly good adventure in recent times. TMOS, meanwhile, had an interesting premise and some nice ideas. However, if either game had been released in, say, the middle of the 1990s, we wouldn't be pointing to them as particularly great games. BS3 is too short, and budget restrictions led to all the proper puzzles being replaced with way too much crate shifting. TMOS, meanwhile, starts badly, features a cumbersome interface, has some unweildy dialogue and illogical puzzles.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to insult the authors of either work (and not just because they both frequent these very forums). In fact, I'd hold House of Tales up as a company that is getting better at making adventures. But I suspect that even - or perhaps especially - they would admit that their products were flawed. They might have been reasonable games, but they're weren't great games, or even necessarily good games. The genre is mired in mediocrity, with too many upstart developers totally failing to see the actual point of the adventure genre, and it simply gives the impression of us the players being behind the times, clinging to our heritage. And we are doing precisely that. Now, I love adventure games, and I desparately want them to find a mainstream audience. But what we're getting at the moment isn't enough - every recent game I play, and I mean every game - I can sit here and pick holes at, in a way that I couldn't have five or six years ago. I don't even have to try in order to come up with a list of things that games are doing wrong, and I'm certainly not an expert on game design.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Exactly. Speaking on anecdotal evidence here I remember many discussions on the Gold Gold forums (which represent a fairly good cross section of gamers - RPG, FPS, sims, strategy, adventures) where people said how boring adventure games have gotten and that they said 'Screw this shit!' and moved on to find what the adventure game had deprived them of in other game types, like RPGs, FPSs, and 3rd person action games.

I have to admit I haven't played that many adventure games during the last years. But still - Even "Rayman 2", a friggin' platformer for christ's sake (and a damn good one at that!), features more memorable characters and worlds than any adventure game I've played during that time. BS3 excluded. There's more than the marketing issue to be solved.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

I haven't played that game, but maybe, just maybe, Still Life and Moment of Silence are mediocre games. I love adventure sites like this and fourfatchicks, but I agree with another user: they overapreciate adventure games.

That's untrue, but also irrelevant, IMO. How many internationally read AG sites are there on this planet? Four, I'd say.

The major chunk of review comes comes out of the "mainstream" press -- and in my view, those reviews are on average a whole lot, siginificantly, better than, say, four years ago.

That's not because the reviewers are nicer now than four years ago, but because the games are better than four years ago. Jack's right about the genre needing to get better on an overall average - but I think this is the very thing that has been happening and is still happening, despite shrinking budgets, shrinking publishing opportunities, overwhelming cross-genre competition, exploding costs, and a general industry sweatshop-ization.

The wait for a mythical Genre Savior keeps governing the debate, and I must say that I'm actually happy to not be in the shoes of the people who have to bear this cross. I can only hope that at least one of those apparently two remaining individuals won't disappoint you, because I can see the Apocalypse breaking loose in the case of their failure.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

The wait for a mythical Genre Savior keeps governing the debate, and I must say that I'm actually happy to not be in the shoes of the people who have to bear this cross. I can only hope that at least of those appearently two remaining individuals won't disappoint you, because I can see the Apocalypse breaking loose in the case of their failure.

I can agree with you over the fallacy of this argument, though you may disagree with my reasoning; we don't need a genre saver - which would only serve to highlight the flaws in other games - we need a higher OVERALL level of quality. It's not about individuals (of which I'm sure there are way more than two that are capable of designing good games!), it's about everyone involved raising their game, and responding to the criticisms levelled at them.

Incidentally, I hope you didn't take anything I wrote about TMOS personally, because it wasn't meant to come across like that.