[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

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.

Some of the best games released in recent years didn't give a damn about genre conventions, restrictions, whatsoever. All they can be filed under is: Great game™. It's all about implementation. There are quite many things you could do with a slow paced narrative-driven game that doesn't rely on finger-twitchy challenges.... We're running in circles here.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Here is the rift. The adventure genre would greatly benefit from new fans, new players. And many of those new players may not care WHAT GENRE IT IS, so long as it's fun to play. But even they have their requirements for what consitutes a good game, a fun game. Would they enjoy pointing-&-clicking all over the place on a static screen? Would they enjoy combining a bunch of inventory items?

The adventure game fans (us) know exactly what they want and how it should be done, which is why they play only adventure games. Potentially new players don't, and may not want to. To them it's not categorically an adventure game, it's just a game, and if it's good and fun they'll buy it. Who knows what their criteria are, maybe they want more things happening on the screen, maybe they want real time 3D all the way, maybe they want A.I. as an integral part of the puzzle solving process. Maybe they've played many adventure games and want a new one, but one that gives something they've never experienced before. If the game doesn't give them that they'll look elsewhere.

[Brian]

I think the Gamespot review is a fair one as I just recently completed Still Life and have to say it started off very well but the ending cost it points. I know it might be sacreligious to say this but the start of the game gave me Sins of the Fathers type excitement, which I consider to be the best adventure game produced however by the end it reminded me of last year's Jack the Ripper, which I would put among the bottom 3rd of games I've played (to date I think I've played over 80 adventure titles).

[Fairygdmther]

Trep - read back to my previous post - you posted right after me and may not have seen it.

How many times have we seen people come to the forum and say - I want a game like "XYZ..." I don't want a Myst game - I want one that's a horror, or a detective, or a sci-fi, or some other "style" of game. Whatever flavor they like is what sells them on the game - not the fact that it breaks new ground. They've learned what they want and want others like that and not like the ones they don't like. If you haven't played THAT particular game, then it isn't trite to you! Maybe it is to reviewers who play so many, but not to Joe average gamer.

FGM-Lyn

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

To them it's not categorically an adventure game, it's just a game, and if it's good and fun they'll buy it. Who knows what their criteria are, maybe they want more things happening on the screen, maybe they want real time 3D all the way, ...

They want a game that's an exciting gaming experience. I can't say that many recent adventure games delievered something that fits in here. They're all too often just a test of patience, with all the boooooring back tracking, awful pixel hunting straight out of 1987, arbitrary puzzle solutions, lack of drama, pacing, suspense, emotion ... There's enough going on elsewhere not to bother.

[gillyruless]

I don't feel like getting dragged into this topic again, so I will just say this. I've played Still Life and loved it. I didn't find it boring, formulaic, or trashy so I personally think that the Game Spot score is too low. No conspiracies, I just disagree with the review.

@Wormsie

Trashy Penguin Books, Wormsie! I read Crime and Punishment when I was 13 and count great writters like John Updike as a favorite author and I still liked Still Life. If I didn't find you so attractive and think you are a great person, I would be hating you right now.

@samIamsad

I did read the PM you sent me. I didn't get a chance to reply but I got the sentiment contained in your PM and appreciate it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

They want a game that's an exciting gaming experience. I can't say that about many current adventure games. It's often just a test of patience, with all the boooooring back tracking, awful pixel hunting straight out of 1987, arbitrary puzzle solutions, lack of drama, pacing, suspense, emotion ... There's enough going on elsewhere not to bother.

Which, I think, is a good part of the reason why adventure games have declined in popularity. It's very possible to create an exciting game without the requisite action, violence, etc., but it doesn't seem to be happening just yet. Maybe there are lots of people out there waiting for it to happen. I for one, would love for it to happen.

Also, we should remember that conventions like point-&-click were products of the technological limitations of years ago. What would have happened if direct control interfaces were already available in 1987? What if Myst had taken advantage of it? How would that have informed our preferences as gamers?

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

lack of drama, pacing, suspense, emotion ... There's enough going on elsewhere not to bother.

You should really give Still Life a chance. The drama, pacing, suspense, and emotion are exactly who I liked Still Life. It didn't have the best of puzzles and it doesn't have any new exciting developments but what the game has going is a great story and a wonderful atmosphere. I was on the edge of my seat playing the last few chapters and when an event that I dreaded about took place, I felt heart broken. I replayed the cut scene more than a few times, each time vainly hoping somehow the story will change and I won't experience the heart break. I haven't done this playing a game in a long time.

[squarejawhero]

There was pixel hunting in 1987?

Originally Posted by fairsie

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.

There is an attraction, but those are now being filled out through surival horror in this style of game. Adventure games don't actually consist of much in the gameplay department - puzzles don't have a "feel", moving a cursor around is just that - which probably makes them easier to criticise for narrative or gameplay weaknesses. Which is probably why it's hard to get them right if you rely on "traditional" routes.

As such, the game might be "fresh" to someone who's never played them before. But if they want an equivalent, in the genre there's not really anything even up to scratch over years of gaming that actually compares to Still Life, which is sad. Other than the usual suspects, and more recently TMOS, there's very little.

As such, I personally believe that there is still a market for non-action adventure games if only the standards and quality goes up. The problem is with these kind of games, the bar really needs to be set quite high if the genre is to be hailed in modern times as the true story-led game experience. True, puzzles are important too, but puzzle-led adventures without a strong hook, as in Mysts worlds and high-concept, generally fail as they rely on niche players who want to test their heads to the limit. What's to stop the average joe from just turning to a game of su-doku instead in their newspaper?

And unfortunately, it's now a matter of fact that the majority of gamers DO want their hardware at least tested to their limits. Even games like Syberia 2 and Still Life, due to their 2D nature, still suffer the limits of 2D background technology. The locked-off camera approach is also limiting in terms of visual direction - we're not playing books, after all! If you look back, there were many attempts in older titles to create a 3D illusion by parallax scrolling and copy basic animation techniques to make the game feel bigger. Even TMOS makes concessions to trying to move the camera around in-game, although it's often just a sudden, underused effect similar to Oddworld.

The thing would be, in order to create a real possible great adventure, is to create a 3D adventure with narrative, proper and coherent camera direction and neat animation, no action whatsoever and a clean, easy interface. The only game I know recently that attempted it but failed was The Westerner, and the only game being released that doesn't attempt to do more than one gameplay option is Kings Quest IX.

I personally feel it'd be possible to make a p'n'c adventure within a GTA style 3D world, attempting an almost Police Quest style in plotting with a wide range of environments and a case to uncover. The interface would only require a mouse, using an RTS style cursor, and clear, concise clues in the linear narrative ensure the gamer continues to uncover the linear mystery bit by bit using a wide variety of investigative techniques. This is rather than using the CSI style "levelling" approach. Time wouldn't affect the case, rather the attitudes, location and availability of characters on which the player is dependent. Call a suspect late on discovering their address, for example, would make them irate and not willing to talk.

Given other options available to the player as to how to deal with suspects, and possible outcomes (suspects goes on the run, initiating a sidequest to find them using another linear branch which eventually segues back into the plot), it could be quite an interesting exercise in games design. Steve Ince's pushing of interactive density could be extended to such a game. You character's been to bed, wakes up, it's too early for that meeting. How about some character development in the local café?

It's also worth noting that Still Life wasn't meant to be a sequel, it's more happenstance.

How many times have we seen people come to the forum and say - I want a game like "XYZ..." I don't want a Myst game - I want one that's a horror, or a detective, or a sci-fi, or some other "style" of game. Whatever flavor they like is what sells them on the game - not the fact that it breaks new ground. They've learned what they want and want others like that and not like the ones they don't like. If you haven't played THAT particular game, then it isn't trite to you! Maybe it is to reviewers who play so many, but not to Joe average gamer.

I'd argue if the game isn't good enough, then it wouldn't make any difference on the flavour. Ooh, some of you guys are sooo american. Flavor. Teehee!

[gillyruless]

Curse you, SJH, for metioning sudoku as I'm currently batting a bad case of sudoku addition problem. Still haven't been able to finish today's.

http://www.griffiths-jones.co.uk/sudoku/

[squarejawhero]

Then you'd hate this -

http://www.sudoku.com/download.htm

Infinite sudoku!

[Agustin]

I'm sorry but that's one big biased and rather pointless review. "Still devoted to this style of gaming..." says it all for me - the reviewer is clearly a person who sees adventures as some sort of primal form of gaming. Which brings the crucial point here: should people who doesn't like/care about adventures try reviewing them? It's like asking your grandfather his thoughts about the latest Blink 182 record.

And I havn't even played Still Life. Maybe I don't like the game anyway... but I think this reviewer didn't for the wrong reasons. If I had to review Still Life I wouldn't bother trying to discern what the game is doing so wrong that it can't lure new players. But give me Halo, and even though I'm an avid FPS player, I'll say it's more of the same shooting and jumping and won't play its sequel because I know what to expect. People should review games according to their tastes. And if the argument is "we need mainstream reviewers to tell us what's wrong with adventure games", sorry, I already know their reasoning and couldn't care less.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Curt

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

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.

...

There are many routes out of this padded cell apparently.

Originally Posted by Jackal

The difference is that Doom 3 and many other games are not generally penalized for it by mainstream press.

That's a very good point Jack (and Curt, too, later in the thread), and I think it happens because many PC games writers are in fact fans of that genre of game, so it doesn't even cross their mind. "I like Doom, I am paid to write about Doom, Doom is a known brand from 10 years ago with a large budget. This game is for me, therefore it is for everybody."*

Clearly not fair, but I don't think it's anything intentional on their part. Like, AG-site writers are quick to caution AG-site readers that games with action moments might not be to their taste unless they're fans of more action oriented titles, and that's very intentional on their part because it's clearly labeled as an AG-centered site, but aside from some unaddressed generalizations, glossed over preconceptions, and a small dash of unquestioned personal-opinion-as-the-norm, I think that's exactly what goes on when remarks like that appear in "mainstream" PC reviews of other niche genres.

I don't think it's deliberate on anyones part. If you look at the most extreme examples of this, I guess you'd be looking at PC-only games magazines... I do think the readers of PC-only games mags at this point constitute a pretty hardcore specific niche group, which has mistaken its own views with that of the general game-playing public. Any magazine with its entire back section dedicated to "tricking out your rig" and rating top shelf extremely high cost high performance parts, for instance, is not a magazine that is realistically targeted at the "general gamer." Though that isn't as much of an issue at a site like Gamespot which has a staff which rotates from genre to genre and platform to platform, I think that it still exists.

With that in mind, it rarely surprises me when a PC review of a game like Doom 3 (retro/legacy heritage, hardware-pushing graphics, high adrenaline gameplay) is treated as if it appeals by default, but an adventure game is marginalized as something "for fans." I don't think it's right - I think adventure games have as much a claim in PC games heritage and development as FPS, RTS, or PC RPG - but it's not remotely surprising that a writer with personal preferences in one genre would label a game that doesn't appeal to them as "more for fans of that game's genre." Again, if some writer for AG got hired by Gamespot, and was asked to review Doom 3, would anyone here be surprised if something along the lines of "if you're not a fan of PC FPS games, or have a weak stomach for repeat mindless gore and "me too" weapons, you might want to steer clear of this title."? I wouldn't.

And, just for the record, Jack and Curt, though things like specific PC/Hardcore Gamer magazines (and some of the larger hubs like Gamespot) were pretty kind and open to Doom 3, it did have its share of reviews which called it nothing but a cosmetic update to ten year old gameplay, which will appeal only to hardcore fans of hardcore (and some would say outdated) old-style FPS gameplay.


--------------

* "This game is for me, therefore it is for everybody" is an attitude seen in these parts as well. Adventure games aren't for everybody any more than FPS games are, yet we all sometimes get deluded and act like they are some untapped experience that every man woman and child in existence would love and cherish, if only they were promoted better/got better reviews/had higher budgets/were covertly slipped onto everyone's PCs one night/were forced on them in weak emotional moments.

The relative potentials for mass appeal of something like a hardcore FPS vs something like a well made adventure game is surely up for debate or research, but I think the basic attitude expresssed above is largely shared between the two (and between a lot of other niche things in the world of gaming, and popular entertainment in general).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Agustin

the reviewer is clearly a person who sees adventures as some sort of primal form of gaming. Which brings the crucial point here: should people who doesn't like/care about adventures try reviewing them?

How do you know this? That the reviewer doesn't like or care about adventure games? Is this a fact?

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

Trashy Penguin Books, Wormsie! I read Crime and Punishment when I was 13 and count great writters like John Updike as a favorite author and I still liked Still Life. If I didn't find you so attractive and think you are a great person, I would be hating you right now.

I was a bit too harsh, wasn't I...

And actually, to be fair, the Still Life demo was promising. I was talking about things in general, and forgot that I had no reason to think that Still Life was that bad. Sorry, sorry!

[fov]

Originally Posted by Jake

I think it happens because many PC games writers are in fact fans of that genre of game, so it doesn't even cross their mind. Clearly not fair, but I don't think it's anything intentional on their part. Like, AG-site writers are quick to caution AG-site readers that games with action moments might not be to their taste unless they're fans of more action oriented titles, and that's very intentional on their part because it's clearly labeled as an AG-centered site, but aside from some unaddressed generalizations, glossed over preconceptions, and a small dash of unquestioned personal-opinion-as-the-norm, I think that's exactly what goes on when remarks like that appear in "mainstream" PC reviews of other niche genres.

Very well said.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by fov

Very well said.

In a tremendous run-on, no less.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Jake

In a tremendous run-on, no less.

But grammatically correct!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jake

"This game is for me, therefore it is for everybody" is an attitude seen in these parts as well. Adventure games aren't for everybody any more than FPS games are, yet we all sometimes get deluded and act like they are some untapped experience that every man woman and child in existence would love and cherish, if only they were promoted better/got better reviews/had higher budgets/were covertly slipped onto everyone's PCs one night/were forced on them in weak emotional moments.

We adventure gamers are ultimately no different in our attitudes from many other kinds of gamers.

[SoccerDude28]

I don't have any clue what PC Gamers giving DOOM 3 a high score has anything to do with it. Please take a look at gamerankings.com. The XBOX version of DOOM 3 got a higher score, so XBOX reviewers also thought the game was pretty darn good. It is NOT PC vs XBOX. DOOM has a legacy, and maybe you didn't like it, but a ton of PC AND XBOX gamers like the creepy feel of the game. Actually it is the most selling XBOX game for last month. So yeah PC reviewers give DOOM 3 high scores to appease their "hard core" fan base.