I was hard on Still Life, but was astounded on reading some of the design decisions made by the developers and still stand by that reaction. I have played the demo, but being in the UK haven't bought the game and based on peoples views and the demo itself, won't. Am I doing myself a disservice? No. Are my opinions based on the demo and what I've read any less valid? Maybe compared to someone who's played it all the way through. But if anything, my opinion is based on the material I've read and been given to go on by the reviewers, forumites, developers and publishers... and it says it looks like a solid, decent, if flawed, adventure which is probably worth a go if I ever find it for cheap.

So... I was guilty of bashing it at first, I'll admit that. But I'm willing to listen to others to be proved wrong. I'm not someone who says it's a "crap game", because evidently it isn't, but neither is it overwhelmingly demanding of attention as a consumer. And that's a shared view by some of us, who have a history of playing AG's for a long time and experience in different styles.

I had great fun in The Colonel's Bequest over, what 13 years ago? Wow! But I felt more strength of individual character in that game than what I've played, read and watched of Still Life. Thematically they're very similar, visually they're very different, but Still Life actually sounds like the weaker game compared to something 13 years old.

That's nothing to do with visuals and should also show that I respect AG heritage and gameplay mechanics. But I don't want to be playing The Colonels Bequest now - I've been there, done that. Still Life, to me, looks at least decent for a presentation that should by now be taking more advantage of resolutions a bit beyond 1024X768, but I'm still waiting for a game that takes a traditional approach to truly push the boat out. Innovative products are fantastic, I really want Dreamfall and Farenheit to succeed, but I'm nowadays more willing to concede that at least some kind of genre convention needs to be stuck to.

Funnily enough, Kings quest IX, a freeware title, might actually be that game which shows that you can do a 3D adventure using older gameplay mechanics and make it easy and fun to use. Personally I think you could make an ASTOUNDING 3rd person game using 3D technology and locked-off cameras with reliance on directorial nous and an intuitive interface. I haven't seen many movements to that other than BS3 though, which had its own problems.

That thread was an anomaly and you know it. ;)

I won't disagree that people around here tend to have a bias for a certain type of game, and that they tend to be vocal about it. The part I'm having trouble with is the accusation that community members jump all over newbies asking for recommendations. It's just not true. I did go back and read a year's worth of recommended games threads, and I'm not seeing it. The posts are respectful and helpful.

Obviously this is just a small part of what you're trying to say in this thread. But I take generalizations about the community -- especially when they're not true -- somewhat personally.

Apparently we're all getting sick of these sweeping "state of the genre" threads. Fine. All it takes to make them go away is to stop participating in them.

Well said.

Although I'm trying attempting to analyse how to transfer what people see as being "traditional" elements and putting them into practice in a way where other people might find a game more interesting from outside, to break away without breaking away as it were...

Still Life, the latest game to be bashed by some for sticking to old styles - 213 gamers rated at Gamespot, average rating 8.8. Seems a LOT of them still like old styles. Maybe even to many of them it isn't an old style because they've never experienced an Adventure game before.

I'm with all those fed up of the innovation-mongers knocking anything that doesn't try something new. Still Life has great graphics, as does TMOS, as does Black Mirror - nobody would have seen such detailed graphics in ANY game in ANY genre released 5 years ago. And most of todays games still aren't capable of the detail in these games today because they've switched to 3D and computers just can't handle that detail in 3D yet (that's still a good 2 or 3 years away yet I guess). Graphics are an essential part of gameplay, especially in an Adventure, and when they are combined with a good story and good puzzles, make for an enjoyable game.

I'll gladly embrace innovation when it is well done. More choice is always good. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for the Still Life's, TMOS's or Black Mirror's. So if any of you are waiting for something new, please try not to take it out on the more formulaic just because you're bored waiting. Get on the backs of the developers with your ideas of how they can evolve one arm of the adventure genre instead of getting on the nerves of those who actually enjoy something you don't.

SJH - more 3D adventures are undoubtedly going to come along, just be patient. But don't expect the old, 2d style to just die off. It won't happen. It offers a different type of gameplay to that which 3D offers, and many people still like it. By all means put your energies into pushing for innovation in 3D, but don't do so at the expense of those who like games such as those I've mentioned above. It serves no purpose other than to irritate. There's clearly room for both. The adventure genre can have as many arms as developers are able to attach, and each one will appeal to different types of gamers (with some liking more than one of course). Let's not keep hitting each other with these different arms, it all does harm to the same body.

Wow, you've totally got the wrong end of the stick - I'm not sure you even read my post. I think you just like being angry and insulted sometimes! ;)

edit - and if you think graphics are just about detail, think again.

edit - come to think of it, no, actually I'm kind of insulted. I've never done anything to anyone insofar as pushing for things people don't want. I respect people who want things done a "certain way". I just don't believe that to continue to do that really does anything other than harm - repetition is never the lifeblood of anything. That's why even sequels in other genres nowadays, the successful ones at least, might tow a line to what people expect but push forwards in at least several areas.

There should be some flexible set of criteria established somehow, perhaps not by developers or publishers, but by games critics. This isn't a far fetched idea, either, as other arenas - film, fashion, advertising, etc. - show. In the fashion world, an outfit may look magnificent on the runway, but up close, if the buyer or journalist sees a badly made piece of clothing that does not stay on the model's shoulders and has shoddy workmanship inside, you WILL hear about it in the news. Why should games - any game - be treated differently from ANY other product?

It could be a matter of personal taste influencing what a given criteria would be, but remember, quality may also influence personal taste as well. And I think that's healthy.

Well, I for one have always been aware of this. Working in the clothing industry for years, I can carry the knowledge over. A game can only be as good as the people afforded to work on it. But also remember that things like ingenuity, originality, creativity, and sheer resourcefulness don't have to cost extra. However, when you have a little more in your budget, better technology and staff are more within reach. I remember a tagline from a Gap CEO years ago: Style shouldn't have to cost extra.

In some cases it isn't necessarily a matter of sophistication, but more a matter of being able to discern a well made game.

Morrowind is similar to, say, Myst, in how it plays out. Both games are high quality, both demand a level of patience before you begin seeing results, both are slow in their progress of gameplay and story. The variance is that in Myst, a lot of the work - and time - takes place in your mind; in Morrowind, your progress depends on how you customize your character in the gameworld, and that takes time as well. Some people could be bored to death by Myst and be thrilled by Morrowind, and vice versa. :)

This I agree with. And again, a well made game will have a much better chance of being liked by people beyond whatever genre it's 'assigned' to.

Odd thing is, I'm not angry or insulted. In fact, I've only been angry and insulted in one particular thread and by one particular person since my return to AG, and that was some time ago now and I've vowed not to let myself sink to that level here again.

I don't want anything new as such. Psychonauts had lots of "new" things in it and I didn't like it either, the best parts were the parts where the game reminded me of AGs. As I said in another thread "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 [modern games] because I'd get a similar run-of-the-mill kind of experience by watching television for one day."

In fact, modern AGs remind me of cargo cults. "Let's put in a give-x-to-y puzzle, an ancient interface and a whimsical main character, let's call him Throbewob Thrigdmood, and we surely have created a classic!" the developers might think, but it takes more than that. I mean, an ancient interface can be good, but when the game is marketed mainly on the basis of its interface, the situation is quite clearly sick. The games have nothing else to show but the ancient interface. No interesting characters, no good puzzles, no good stories, nothing. The interface CAN be a PnC one, of course. It also appears to be so that all the good writers seem to work for hybrid games these days and all that we AG fans get are these cargo cult games...

Let me give you an example. Respectable FPS players respect Wolfenstein, but thanks be the FPS has moved forward since then. They enjoyed Quake. Or Hexen. But now there's so much more to them in terms of content, even if the interface has remained the same.

I believe you can keep the basics together of what people expect as a core, but can build up on it without serving up games that rely on one particular playstyle. AG's are very similar no matter their narrative. I think there's room for other ways of doing things that have been otherwise unexplored, if anything games like GK3, Last Express and Bad Mojo proved it years ago. But until recently I didn't see anything building on those foundations of keeping a core but not simply sticking to it as a design sheet. Thanks be for Cyan, Quantic Dream, Funcom etc. for trying something new whilst keeping that core intact.

I actually think you can stay quite close to the core but produce a totally different and fresh game, without even deviating to the point of merely containing action elements as optional. AG's rely on a filmic sense of narrative, I personally want to see more filmic sense!

Christ, if I had the time, money and skill I'd make what I can see in my head... rofl!

@Wormsie - cargo cults are fascinating. You learn a knew thing every day!

... now I'm hoping that a cargo of X-boxes will land on my new back garden airstrip. Hopefully my cat wearing my headphones will fool one of the planes flying over to Heathrow!

Well like others have said, Innovation is great, but to me not at the expense of not releasing any ag games at all. I for one would love to play The Colonel's Bequest again today, the same game perhaps just with updated graphics. i loved the game and would have played every sequel sierra chose to make after the Dagger of Amon Ra. How many of us would gladly play a new Space Quest even if it had the graphics of Still Life or the Longest Journey? I am willing to wager that a lot of us would. I will even take a look at the new fan made King's Quest when it is released because I love the KQ series. For me its about the story and the intuitive puzzles and challenges that I face, not the graphics or the lastest inetgration of technology or gameplay ideas. Give me a new Quest for Glory identical to the first 4 or a new Police Quest game and I would be happy for months.

My criticisms of many recent adventure games are not based on playing the full game, it's true. However, there is one factor that influences this: money. I'm poor at this stage in my life and cannot afford most games coming out, adventure or otherwise. Therefore I'm forced to be severely critical and picky of where my games allowance goes. The only way I can inform myself of how good a game could be is by downloading and playing the demo. If I'm not fully satisfied with the demo, why should I buy the full game? Especially if the demo is supposed to be indicative of the full game?

I was not ultimately impressed with the demo of Moment Of Silence, for example. Technically it sucked (clipping issues, horrible voice acting, the 'floating cigarette', lack of interactivity per screen, etc.). Demos are supposed to be telling of the quality of the full game, so if this is all I have to work with, what then? People keep saying that the full game is much better, but I would have to buy the full game to find out myself, right? Meanwhile, other games like Jade Empire (from a highly reputed developer) come out, and I'm torn.

For me it's everything in harmony - innovation, style, QUALITY, creativity, level of professionalism.

And I'm saying that innovation doesn't have to cost anything. In fact, it never does. Truth is, I've played those games, I played them in my youth and they're GREAT GAMES. But I've already played them.

The commitment to quality that Sierra had considering the amount of titles they churned out was pretty amazing. For the time, it's amazing that playing through a game like Space Quest 3 is still rewarding if you're forgiving of its age, presentation and technical problems. It's far-reaching for its time as a lot of Sierra titles were in terms of variety of experience you could have within one game.

I wouldn't mind playing another continuation than a remake, but I wouldn't demand it to be a similar nor would I want it to be the same. I'd be happy if they stuck to characterisation, for sure as Roger Wilco's well established already, but I wouldn't demand a return to how the game used to be.

But I suppose that's the difference between you and me, rather than anything that could add up to any meaningful discussion...

That's actually a LOT more harsh than it sounds. Innovation is the RISKIEST path to take, so it merits a more forgiving perception precisely because it tries things that have never been done before. The results, at best, are volatile. If anything, I would be far more critical of conventional approaches, exactly because they've been done so many times before, therefore standards have already been set.

In terms of Still Life, it never tried to be innovative, that was evidently not its intent. My problem with it (from playing the demo and reading reviews) is that it seems to lack quality and polish in some areas, clearly a valid criteria in a dialogue having more to do with working within conventions than trying to innovate. I'm appreciative of Still Life's 'old school' approach, but that means that I'm that much more shrewd about it than some other game that truly wants to try something we've never seen before.

Trep - you are one of the chief offenders here. If you want to say, "I've only played the demo and I didn't like it for X, Y, or Z reasons", then I have no problem with this - you are only commenting on one game and coming from a point of experience. But when you openly say that you don't play adv games anymore because they are all derivative, stale, lack quality, etc., you are speaking from mere guesswork, yet in a very authoritative tone.

Wormsie - you, too, blanket trash all TAC games, for instance, without discrimination and that is equally wrong. TAC is the publisher on many, without having developed them. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Criticize any individual game, from a point of knowing, such as demos, trailers, etc. and state that what you saw was not to your liking, and that's fine, just don't trash them all, not unless you've played them. You hurt the games and those who do like them, especially with comments like the reference to Penguin romance novels. Come from a point of knowledge, and your opinion counts, otherwise you have no validity.


FGM-Lyn

THAT'S your catchphrase! ;)

That desreves a Story Tee, doesn't it? Jake has one, so it's only fair that Lynsie gets one too.

:D

LOL, could do. :D

Few of the many recent adventure games coming out hold no interest for me. But new of the recent RTS games hold no interest for me. Few of the recent FPSs hold no interest for me. Flight sims hold no interest for me.

My tone is no more 'authoritative' than YOURS, or anyone else's.

Now, unless you send me lots of money, I CANNOT afford to buy many of the recent adventure games. I don't understand your accusation of me, where have I ever said that I "don't play adv games anymore because they are all derivative, stale, lack quality, etc."? WHERE? I have let it be known, more than once, that I came into this genre only several years ago. I DO NOT hold the adventure genre above any other genre, mostly because there are great games out there, no matter what genre label gets slapped on them. The thing is, DO YOU HONESTLY EXPECT ME TO SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYONE ELSE HERE AND PLAYING EVERY SINGLE ADVENTURE GAME EVER MADE, REGARDLESS OF QUALITY?

If anything, it's YOU who is offending my intelligence and sensibilities as a gamer. You're also insulting my being poor, and as a result, having to be much more selective in what kinds of games I can afford to get. Sorry, but I don't have the luxury of having extra money that you apparently have to be able to enjoy more games.

Here's the list of games I'm very much looking forward to this year:

Dreamfall (adventure)
Indigo Prophecy (adventure)
Call Of Cthulhu (RPG)
From Russia With Love (action/adventure)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (RPG)
Metronome (adventure)

Here's the list of games I plan on getting after some time (my secondary list):

Still Life (adventure)
Moment Of Silence (adventure)

If I HAD MORE MONEY, that list would be longer. :frown:

Well, I'd rather have that then the "all recent AG's suck". :devil:

FGM-Lyn