[Jackal]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Isn't that what the reviewer's saying? "Still Life as a game doesn't live fully up to its premise, but still may be worth a look." Plus, he's talking about "Slavish dedication to (genre) convention". From what I've read and seen about Still Life thus far, that *might* be true. There's a difference between that and "making the best out of a genre's potential". It's just his opinion, there's still plenty of pretty good scores on the web.

Overall, that MAY be what he's saying, though I think that's a stretch. But as I said earlier, I have no real issues with this review, or its fairness. My point was simply that by repeatedly bringing up the "slavish devotion" angle, it sure looked like the game was being criticized for doing so. Which would be dumb, as tons of games are slavishly devoted to convention. If that WASN'T part of his criteria, then it was counter-productive to bring it up so often.

Bottom line for me is that, take that one point away, and I'm not sure I really understand why it got a 6.7. I have no issue with the score; I just want to understand it better.

[fov]

Originally Posted by sethsez

In that case I probably missed the point you were making, so sorry for that.

My only point (at the moment, anyway ) was that the reviewer's statement that "it's hard to believe that anyone who is still devoted to this style of gaming will find a lot in Still Life that they haven't experienced already" does not jive the reality that plenty of people devoted to this style of gaming HAVE found a lot in Still Life that they haven't experienced already.

I'm not saying the reviewer's opinion isn't valid, just misinformed. Which is fine. He's under no obligation to go read forums and then work other people's opinions into his review. But since the review closes with that remark, it leaves a (somewhat false) impression, and my hope is that someone who is interested in the game (a self-proclaimed adventure gamer or not) will know enough to read more than one review before making a purchase decision.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Its slavish dedication to convention will scratch the methodical, cerebral itch all diehard adventure game fans have. As a genre exercise, though, it exerts little energy to draw in new players.

Most of the interaction you have with other characters is in service of the game's puzzles, which are all pure boilerplate adventure game fodder.

Despite the constant sense of dĂ©jĂ* vu brought on by these familiar puzzle types, they work within the context of the game more often than not. The puzzles are usually spelled out pretty clearly, cutting out some of the frustration brought on by the deliberate vagueness that passes for challenge in so many adventure games.

Either way, though, it's a pretty brief experience that doesn't lend itself to multiple plays. Adventure game fans will be more willing to forgive the game's technical shortcomings than anyone else, but it's hard to believe that anyone who is still devoted to this style of gaming will find a lot in Still Life that they haven't experienced already.

One of the tangibly nagging things he hints at is that, however this game engages the dedicated adventure game fan in conventional ways, there seems to be very little to intrigue any other kind of gamer, however serious or casual. If anything I get the feeling he has smote Still Life because he feels it's trite, tired, formulaic, too typical of too many other adventures - all too familiar to fans who want nothing new, and totally uninteresting to others who would otherwise want a new experience to grab them.

Which, for me personally, could be fine to an adventure game that refines the conventions - offer nothing new but do the old formula in the best way possible. And that in itself may never garner attention from new, other kinds of gamers.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Jake

WHAT?

WHAT?

Holy shit. Christ on a crutch.

"Show me a non-FPS fan who liked Doom 3 and you'll be showing me someone who has escaped his padded cell."

Most twisted stupid argument to make... ever!

See, Doom 3 was a supremely inbred, retro-throwback gore-ridden (and in my opinion, subpar) FPS designed for the core FPS players who have been at it since Doom 1. But, how about this: "Show me a non-FPS fan who liked Halo, or Half Life?" Let me tell you: There are a goddamn ton of them.

Or, how about: "Show me a non-adventure fan who liked Myst, or who liked Grim Fandango?" Again, a f*ucking heap of them.

The best games in any given genre aren't "just for fans," they make new fans. Saying a reviewer should be slapped for making a remark like that is one of the most stupid things I've read on these boards in a while. Good god.

When the reviewer said that fans will like it but others won't, what they meant was that the game wasn't the kind that will attract new gamers to the genre - they were saying that Still Life is not going to make many new adventure fans. That's a pretty reasonable (and, in my opinion, pretty damning) statement to put in a review. For more on the subject of "adventure games for adventure gamers" versus "making new fans," see the 65 page thread from last month.



A new slogan for PC gaming: "All genres are niche genres. Get the f*ck off my lawn."

Wow, that's quite the over-reaction, Jake. You've outdone yourself this time.

I shouldn't really bother replying but, hey, I'm in a generous mood. I take it you're telling me that ID made Doom 3 to appeal only to Doom fans with no intention whatsoever of capturing non-fans to the fold. If you believe this then you've escaped your padded cell. Add to this the fact that the media scored Doom 3 extremely high and it only encourages non-fans to give it a go - how disappointed many must have been. This would never happen with an adventure game because the media, and certainly the mainstream, always seem to work on the assumption that the only gamers that will enjoy adventures are adventure gamers. This is never hidden.

Halo and Half-Life aren't even part of the equation so it was a pretty weak argument on your part to even raise them - neither are out-and-out FPS games, just like Tomb Raider isn't an out-and-out adventure. I haven't played Halo but Half-Life had a story - hey, whadyaknow, that makes it an Action- Adventure if we're going to put games in genres.

I haven't seen anyone claim that Still Life is the best in the genre. But I wouldn't mind betting that a proportion of those gamers that have rated the game so highly at gamespot aren't what we would call adventure fans, and yet they seem to like it. They probably couldn't even give a flying s**t what a genre is for all we know. So maybe what the reviewer said is crap. And maybe you're just agreeing with crap. Maybe ...................

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

One of the tangibly nagging things he hints at is that, however this game engages the dedicated adventure game fan in conventional ways, there seems to be very little to intrigue any other kind of gamer, however serious or casual. If anything I get the feeling he has smote Still Life because he feels it's trite, tired, formulaic, too typical of too many other adventures - all too familiar to fans who want nothing new, and totally uninteresting to others who would otherwise want a new experience to grab them.

Which, for me personally, could be fine to an adventure game that refines the conventions - offer nothing new but do the old formula in the best way possible. And that in itself may never garner attention from new, other kinds of gamers.

Hey, Trep, get a load of this - if someone has never played an adventure game before then there is no such thing as trite, tired, formulaic and too typical of too many other adventures to them - and therefore unlikely to stop them trying it. By all means claim that these games are responsible for driving some adventure fans away from them because they feel they've seen it all before. But don't anyone go claiming that so called non-adventure gamers wouldn't be drawn to the game just because it's an adventure and maybe repeats some things adventures in the past has done. That's crap.

In fact, I'm making crap my official word of the day today.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Curt

I take it you're telling me that ID made Doom 3 to appeal only to Doom fans with no intention whatsoever of capturing non-fans to the fold. If you believe this then you've escaped your padded cell. Add to this the fact that the media scored Doom 3 extremely high and it only encourages non-fans to give it a go - how disappointed many must have been. This would never happen with an adventure game because the media, and certainly the mainstream, always seem to work on the assumption that the only gamers that will enjoy adventures are adventure gamers. This is never hidden.

But wouldn't it not matter what kind of game it is? If it merited very high scores then surely many more people would notice that and be naturally curious enough to investigate it. Many publications lauded Grim Fandango, but it was never Tim Schafer's intention to make it a game ONLY for adventure game fans.

And as far as "the media, and certainly the mainstream, always seem to work on the assumption that the only gamers that will enjoy adventures are adventure gamers", isn't it also true of real time strategy games, flight sims, and MMORPGs (which practically demand you give up your life for them)?

I haven't seen anyone claim that Still Life is the best in the genre. But I wouldn't mind betting that a proportion of those gamers that have rated the game so highly at gamespot aren't what we would call adventure fans, and yet they seem to like it. They probably couldn't even give a flying s**t what a genre is for all we know. So maybe what the reviewer said is crap. And maybe you're just agreeing with crap. Maybe ...................

And maybe Still Life really did deserve its 6.7 score from Gamespot.

Maybe.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

But wouldn't it not matter what kind of game it is? If it merited very high scores then surely many more people would notice that and be naturally curious enough to investigate it. Many publications lauded Grim Fandango, but it was never Tim Schafer's intention to make it a game ONLY for adventure game fans.

And as far as "the media, and certainly the mainstream, always seem to work on the assumption that the only gamers that will enjoy adventures are adventure gamers", isn't it also true of real time strategy games, flight sims, and MMORPGs (which practically demand you give up your life for them)?

In my experience reviewers come up with the "only for adventure gamers" far more often than in any other genre. Maybe technically that is factually true but nobody ever showed me numbers to confirm it. So I say maybe.............

And maybe Still Life really did deserve it's 6.7 score from Gamespot.

Maybe.

Maybe it did but nearly all of the games players that have voted at Gamespot appear to disagree with the reviewer. So MAYBE the reviewer got it wrong (they're only human you know). Both you and I are yet to play the game so I guess time will back one of us up. And who know, if we both have different tastes, time may back BOTH of us up. MAYBE............



I will say this, there are quite a few people around here who appear to want every conventional adventure to fail and things to evolve so that their own tastes can be satisfied. It shows a narrow-mindedness to be unable to accept that while some adventures may not be to their tastes or standards, there are gamers (old and new) who just may like what is released.

What I or anyone else thinks is ultimately unimportant. The only important factors are units sold and profits made. That's what determines what types of games are coming out. It's very rare that a completely new direction is taken with any game in any genre and many try and fail (credit to them for trying). The few that succeed become classics. While some of us play the games of our choice between the release of the rare classics, others only seem happy to sit around bemoaning the fact that there isn't a classic or revolutionary game (of any type) and that so much is stagnant. I find that sad personally. There are far more important things in the world worth bemoaning than how average an adventure game apparently is. It's all relative to the gamer playing it and their tastes, mood, patience, tolerance, etc, etc, ad infinitum.......................

To each their own. If someone doesn't like something, move along, there has to be something out their your energies are far better spent on. As John and Paul wrote, "Let it be".

(btw, Trep, much of this isn't aimed at you personally. But some of it is. )

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by Curt

Halo and Half-Life aren't even part of the equation so it was a pretty weak argument on your part to even raise them - neither are out-and-out FPS games, just like Tomb Raider isn't an out-and-out adventure. I haven't played Halo but Half-Life had a story - hey, whadyaknow, that makes it an Action- Adventure if we're going to put games in genres.

This... kinda baffles me. If a game has a story then it immediately gets "adventure" as a suffix?

And I don't think anyone here wants adventures to disappear or whatever. I'm just a bit confused by the "anti-adventure conspiracy" that people seem to trot out after every negative review despite the fact that most Still Life reviews (including the one in PC Gamer ) have been quite positive.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by sethsez

This... kinda baffles me. If a game has a story then it immediately gets "adventure" as a suffix?

Exactly not. That wasn't my point. My point is this is why this whole genre stuff is so stifling. Pretty much any game can be called an adventure if you've never experienced it before or are going to places you've never been (real or fictional) - experiencing it is the adventure. Just what is it that makes Still Life an Adventure and Half-Life not? What is it that makes Tomb Raider an Action-Adventure and Half-Life not? Why was Broken Sword 3 an Adventure and not an Action-Adventure? Who decides all this. Much of it is nonsense. Categorizing is only done so that we know roughly what type of game it is, but this then brings with it prejudices. The use of "only for adventure gamers" is a prejudice in itself which is why I disagree with its use.

We had all this negativity before with the whole Moment of Silence thread - I ignored the negativity, I read up plenty, I decided it sounded to my liking, I bought it, I played it, I enjoyed it. If I'd listened to certain reviewers I'd have missed out on the enjoyment I got out of that game. I'm fortunate enough to know pretty much what I like. Some gamers, especially newer ones, may not and such comments as those made by the gamespot reviewer could turn people away who otherwise may enjoy Still Life.

I'm still undecided on whether to buy it but I know which people I will take my cue from - and I'm carefully reviewing what those people have to say after playing the game. Gamespots User Reviews score makes me fairly positive though - not easy amongst so much negativity around here sometimes.

[sethsez]

Adventure games are typically low on action and (relatively) high on puzzles and non-violent interaction. Categorizing is useful because someone who enjoys this type of game might not enjoy Half-Life 2 due to its heavy reliance on action. It's just shorthand for a game description, and without genre labels it would be incredibly difficult to discuss games.

I do think that "adventure" is a useless label, however, and have always felt that way. It doesn't really say anything about how the game actually plays, while first-person shooter and racer are to-the-point about it. Nothing in "adventure" tells me anything about solving puzzles.

As for the Gamespot review, there are always going to be negative reviews for any game (or movie, or book, or album) unless it's an absolute genre-redefining blockbuster from the gods. That's just reality. Most reviews have been positive, so I don't get all the hoopla over this one. It's not like it got a 1.4 or anything.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by sethsez

As for the Gamespot review, there are always going to be negative reviews for any game (or movie, or book, or album) unless it's an absolute genre-redefining blockbuster from the gods. That's just reality. Most reviews have been positive, so I don't get all the hoopla over this one. It's not like it got a 1.4 or anything.

Exactly.

Anyway, I've said my bit now. There's nothing else for me to add. I'll just have to learn to avoid reading the compulsive naysayers.

[SoccerDude28]

I agree with SamNMax, I am tired of these types of threads. There is no conspiration theories against adventure games and no favorism. Different people enjoy different types of games, and the same PC gamer that gave TMOS a 14% and had people willing to boycott it gave Still Life an 83% so obviously, they are not trying to put the genre down. Maybe just that one single guy did not like Still Life for his own reasons.

For example, if I personally reviewed Halo, I would give it in the 70 percentile, because I personally found it rather boring, but Jake and Chris and the several million people who bought it love it. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or they are wrong. We just have different tastes. The problem with adventures is that there are very few "big" ones coming out, so everyone of them is perceived as sacred, and no one can think ill of it. That's a natural reaction when a genre is very niche. But it's really not healthy to complain about every reviewer that does not like game X or game Y. Even Bastich and a lot of the others here have voiced that they did not like Still Life, so it's not that wholy grail that has to be universally liked by everyone.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Curt

I will say this, there are quite a few people around here who appear to want every conventional adventure to fail and things to evolve so that their own tastes can be satisfied. It shows a narrow-mindedness to be unable to accept that while some adventures may not be to their tastes or standards, there are gamers (old and new) who just may like what is released.

Partly, I want things to evolve so that my own tastes can be satisfied. Only partly, though - why didn't I think that Gabriel Knight 3 sucked, or that Grim Fandango sucked? Because they were good. The new games are oh-so-conventional, desperately TRYING to mimic what the great adventures had and failing miserably in it by trying to copy the outside of those games instead of the inside. Meaning that the puzzles are very idiotic and simple with no interesting factors, challenge or realism or wit in them whatsoever and the story is often also quite boring and lacks any real character or even a hint of uniqueness, instead what we get is very "serious" stories that are copied from crappy graphic novels or trying-to-be-artistic-and-edgy films... There's no reason for me to be interested in Still Life because I'd get a similar run-of-the-mill kind of experience by watching television for one day.

I don't want every conventional adventure to fail, I just think that they suck. Most games are by Microids or House Of Tales, and they tend to follow the same formula. But some people love TV series like CSI or crappy Penguin Books trash literature or crappy romance movies or the Matrix or whatever, and they will probably LOVE the current adventure games released. Each their own, but I'm sick of the status of the adventure genre being the equivalent to that of crappy paperback books.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

You have to admit, though, that many reviews of adventure games over the past several years usually begin and end with lines like "...death of adventure games...", "...saving the genre....", "...enjoyed by fans but offers nothing new to others...". Where do you think all this come from? We as adventure gamers would naturally come to our genre's defense, it's not dead. But, to many others, it could be dead or it's nowhere near as interesting and fun as it used to be. And we can do nothing about that, just keep enjoying what we enjoy.

Non-adventure fans would be more willing to try out games - any game - REGARDLESS of what genre they're arbitrarily placed in, which could mean that they might as well place adventure games on par with other game types. So, they will use that criteria to judge whatever games they might notice. I myself do this, and for me it's liberating on many levels. Silent Hill 2 for me is a much better adventure game than, say, The Messenger, in terms of story, challenges, atmosphere, and overall quality.

In the end a review like this hurts potential sales and interest in the genre at large, but it is also VERY telling of how the genre doesn't seem to be doing much to give itself a very hard look and re-assessment, primarily in how it could attract more people, those who don't necessarily hang out at adventure gaming forums every day and play ONLY adventure games. Fine, we fans like it the way it is. But that doesn't necessarily always entail better games, new concepts, and new ideas - things that could draw [outside] attention to the genre. I think this review and others that are similar touch on this.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

The new games are oh-so-conventional, desperately TRYING to mimic what the great adventures had and failing miserably in it by trying to copy the outside of those games instead of the inside. Meaning that the puzzles are very idiotic and simple with no interesting factors, challenge or realism or wit in them whatsoever and the story is often also quite boring and lacks any real character or even a hint of uniqueness, instead what we get is very "serious" stories that are copied from crappy graphic novels or trying-to-be-artistic-and-edgy films... There's no reason for me to be interested in Still Life because I'd get a similar run-of-the-mill kind of experience by watching television for one day.

Many adventures today ARE NOT FRESH. That's pretty much it.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

In the end a review like this hurts potential sales and interest in the genre at large, but it is also VERY telling of how the genre doesn't seem to be doing much to give itself a very hard look and re-assessment, primarily in how it could attract more people, those who don't necessarily hang out at adventure gaming forums every day and play ONLY adventure games. Fine, we fans like it the way it is. But that doesn't necessarily always entail better games, new concepts, and new ideas - things that could draw [outside] attention to the genre. I think this review and others that are similar touch on this.

I totally agree with you trepsie. I really am amazed of how other genres are trying to get out and grab a wider audience all the time. I especially like the way RTS'es are heading. I saw an RTS game this year, where you don't just control little units, but you can also zoom into first person and do a little hack and slash. DragonShard, allows you to play at 2 levels, above the ground where you play normal RTS style, but then you can go below ground where you play RPG style. And some of the RTS'es released by Micro$oft are more gorgeous than first person shooters. It's small changes in gameplay that results in such a wider fanbase, and making the RTS the most selling genre on the PC.

In the same manner, traditional RPG maker Bioware is now tapping into the consoles. They did not go and dump everything they have built before to make console games. In Jade Empire, they retained everything the original fans loved about their RPG's (like deep story, choice, replayability, and character build up) but then added a real time fighting "action" element that is more fit to console gamers. That way, they maintained their current base fans, and tapped into new potential fans. That's what adventures need to start doing to garner more press interest and regain some of that missing potential.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yep. It's really a matter of re-design, re-conceptualizing. If it's possible for a team like Bioware to reach out to new audiences without alienating its fanbase, why can't more adventure devs do the same? For example, a difficulty setting where the easy mode offers some kind of in-game tutorial for newbies that will train them to think like a seasoned adventure gamer. It's good that games like Moment Of Silence already offer a hint system, but it's not enough. Some puzzles enjoyed by hardcore adventurers may not be interesting and engaging for other gamers who might like playing the game for its stories. Puzzles could also be re-thought to be more attractive to solve in ways beyond 'traditional' puzzles.

Adventure games are no more special than any other kinds of games. Therefore they should never be excempt from being critiqued and re-considered accordingly. Again, I think many reviews of adventures have hinted at this.

[squarejawhero]

Some of the main differences between us all derive from the fact we care about the genre in different ways. Some care that the genre isn't cutting edge or popular, some care that the genre sticks to "traditional" roots. Some care that the genre is losing appeal, some don't care as long as the games they enjoy keep getting made.

Certainly there are even huge differences in site attitudes - look at a recent Myst V discussion at JA+ and then find a similar column here to witness the variety of opinion. Although it'd be nice if we had a thread dedicated to such arguement, I fear that this kind of thing crops up as OT content all the time because we all care about different things. The thing to bear in mind is that everyone cares for the genre regardless.

[Fairygdmther]

Post Mortem wasn't that great a game, but it was an interesting noir-ish approach, and it garnered enough attention that it induced a spin-off - Still Life. There must be an attraction out there for it to encourage the redo of this idea, even if "it isn't fresh" to some of you. There must have been enough buyers of Post Mortem to make the developers believe that there is a market for this story-line in adv gaming. I bought it (though I can't play it till my XP is fixed) because I did enjoy the concept of Post Mortem, even if it did need work.

I buy books by an author I've enjoyed - does that mean they are all the same? No, it means I like his/her style, and I can assure you I will never read Penguin romance novels or any other bodice rippers. If I choose a game by those whose previous game was enjoyable for me, does that mean I'll be playing the same game? No more than reading a second book by the same author. Nor do I expect this author to break new ground with each new book. Sometimes the relative predictability is the draw - ie. I know what I'll be getting and whether I'll like it, book or game. This is not limiting in my eyes - I think there is room for growth, but I look for certain styles of games, as I do in books, and I don't want rampant change for the sake of change. If there is a need in the story for an action sequence, but this developer hasn't used that before, then I trust that he/she will do it in a way that doesn't betray their style as I've come to know it. In this manner - I am definitely looking forward to Dreamfall, action or no - I want this game.

FGM-Lyn

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Adventure games are no more special than any other kinds of games. Therefore they should never be excempt from being critiqued and re-considered accordingly. Again, I think many reviews of adventures have hinted at this.

And I need to add that these kinds of reviews should not necessarily be taken as an 'attack' on or 'put down' of the genre, but more as a constructive look at it. No one so far has taken into consideration a couple of emphases in the review:

As a genre exercise, though, it exerts little energy to draw in new players.

...it's hard to believe that anyone who is still devoted to this style of gaming will find a lot in Still Life that they haven't experienced already.

What would these 'new' players be interested in? What haven't devotees of this style of gaming not experienced already?