Style vs. Innovation
 

I brought up a point in another thread that I'd like to expand upon. When new people come to the forum, they frequently ask, "What's another game like_______ ?"(fill in the blank) They've played a few games and want one that appeals to them, whether it's a noir style or sci-fi, horror or detective, fantasy or cartoon. Not once have I seen anyone new come in and say "I want something that discards the traditions of adv games and breaks new ground." Nope - not once! Why? Because they come here looking to find more of a style that appeals to them, and that they want to play more of. This isn't saying that they won't enjoy better graphics or a better told story, or better character development. What it's saying is that people simply look for the style that appeals to them, whether or not it is innovative.

For many in this forum this means the MI series, Sam & Max, DOTT, and Grim Fandango. For others it means the GK series or the Tex Murphy or Laura Bow. When someone comes in asking for something a bit different - a Myst clone type of game, for instance - they're either put down, or told that all of those are stale, trite, derivative, boring rehashes. This is only true if you dislike that style. If you do like them, then each is a new experience. MJII, which wasn't the greatest, tried a new engine, and gave us an easy-to-use real-time 3D experience in a Myst-clone game. I assume that Sentinel is similar since it uses the same engine. Even though they did it much better than Ubisoft with URU, they get no props in this forum, because it's not the style that most here like.

On the basis of what I've seen here, I will predict that Steve Ince's Juniper Crescent will be a huge hit here - why? Because it's the style that many of the forum members view as the best. And this is even if there is not one innovative bit about it! No one will criticize it for lack of innovation, simply because they will be into enjoying the game - just like those of us who like other styles of adv games do with what is out on the market now.

Just because a game is not the style you prefer, saying it is "old, used, and how could anyone enjoy this when they've already seen this kind of thing", is itself getting old here. There are many different tastes in games and each game is different, and an experience in itself. Please stop putting down games you've never played, and never will play (because you don't like the style), saying they are subpar games. They certainly aren't subpar if you like that style and are enjoying them. Innovation is coming and will continue to come, like it or not. Good games and bad games will continue to be made. But recognize that not all good games are going to look like DOTT or MI or GF. Nor does everyone else want that.

FGM-Lyn

I don't think that's quite true. I love 3rd person humorous adventures, but if it won't feel fresh in some way, if it won't be that good (not that I have any doubts, but we'll see in the end), I will criticize it, as many others will. What you're basically saying is that we're all fanboys (and fangirls :)) of some types of adventures. I disagree, some of us are just fanboys of good games.

For instance, I dislike 1st person adventures, but I'm really enjoying Zork Grand Inquisitor (currently playing it for the first time). I'm content with the games of established styles if they're truly good, but I want innovation and new approaches to gaming despite of that.

Anyway, I thought this thread was going to be about something else...

Who says Juniper Crescent won't be innovative? Steve's been winking and skirting around gameplay issues, but one thing's for sure from the previews, it's certainly going to be a little different. Only in a good way. :D

I think the main problem is people are going to come in asking about a new game similar to Still Life only to find that many of the similar games in this genre are years old and incredibly outdated. Only someone with any kind of passion for the genre will even now look to something like Post Mortem to try to eke out the good bits, and the same goes for stuff like Black Mirror where its horrendous voiceovers (if you're English) are going to put them off.

Something like Still Life (depending on who you ask) has a high level of quality in its presentation only really found in games like Syberia. Even TMOS is a game where you've got gameplay and presentation issues in the way. If you're not used to how the genre is, or have come away from other games where the presentational quality, for whatever reason, is so much higher (and the narratives are getting stronger with each new release), then it's incredibly off-putting.

Not many people are willing to put up with 640X480 resolutions, ad-lib boinkly-boinkly sound or grainy FMV. Some older, maybe inexperienced, gamers will if there's a strong core grounding in narrative or gameplay values, like Bad Mojo, Space Quest, Monkey Island or Last Express just to name a few. But anyone who's tasted what else games have to offer outside of adventures will just see outdated graphics, poor sound, often difficult gameplay and even if the game is good, might find it just a little too hard to keep going. There needs to be more new, at least high quality, games like Runaway 2 and Still Life to appease the general gamers, some might say shallow but I say justified given that games run with technology, requirements as to standards in gaming.

I think the main problem in these boards is letting personal preference and enjoyment get in the way of larger, more open, discussion. "They're not subpar if me and x gamers enjoyed them" isn't an arguement, its a statement of personal subjectivity. Certainly no-one else in any other genre would expect the same kind of level of presentation of ten years ago, and if there IS going to be a reliance on it, lets at least see the "style" being evolved into something glossier.

Foundations are meant to be built upon, not left alone to build identical foundations again on the sandy beach plot next to it.

edit - most of these issues in recent games eke out of publisher impatience and inability to comprehend values in presentation. Just thought I'd point that out.

What if we put down games we have played and consider them to be more of the same, but of lesser quality?

I don't like most Myst clones, but I do like the Myst series. Why? Quality. Riven is a fantastic, polished game, but I'm not going to say the same about Aura even though it's almost essentially the same game. Likewise, I picked up Still Life recently and haven't been able to force myself to finish it. To me it feels like a faithful immitation of the adventures of yesteryear, but with less polish and detail. It's like a Taiwanese bootleg of the genre... everything's there, but just a bit "off."

...and in comes the "personal enjoyment" argument... nnnnow...

:D

Sure, playing games is all about that, but there's also the fact that games aren't produced for personal enjoyment, they're produced for MASS enjoyment. Otherwise there wouldn't be any other titles. Whether or not pandering to the masses (especially all of the time *cof* EA *cof*) is a quality indicator (certainly not originality) is a moot point, developers and publishers need money. There's no need to "sell out" for it, but there is a need to aim for a high level of quality equivalent to modern games within the genre and to jostle for the average joes attention too.

Insane cobra - "What you're basically saying is that we're all fanboys (and fangirls ) of some types of adventures. I disagree, some of us are just fanboys of good games."

Some maybe just like good games, but most of what I see is the fanboyism here.

sethsez - "What if we put down games we have played and consider them to be more of the same, but of lesser quality?"

I have no problem with knowledgable criticism, but many of the more vocal ones here don't even play adv games anymore, but that doesn't stop them from criticizing everything that comes out in the genre, and that makes me angry.

SJH - I never said Juniper Crescent wouldn't be innovative, only that even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be criticized for that. Otherwise I feel you've entirely missed my point, or are ignoring it to further your own. (I don't mean this as an insult - you seem to be saying the same thing over and over in different threads.)

My point is that when someone looks for a new game to play - in most cases innovation isn't the first thing that comes to mind - style of the game is. Secondly - in this forum, anyone who doesn't like the DOTT, MI, GF kinds of games is in the minority, and their opinions are essentially trashed - "why would you want more of the same old rehashed crap", for instance. What is not seen, somehow, is that a different game, by possibly different developers, even if it is the same style, is simply NOT the same as the previous games, and may be enjoyed as an entity of its own. Alida, for instance is a Myst-clone that is markedly different from Myst, even though it is an empty world with mechanical puzzles. It was really quite interesting. Rhem, on the other hand, which fits the same description, sucked in my book, though I usually do like these games, although not exclusively. I can trash Rhem and praise Alida because I played them, not because I'm ranting about all games in the genre.
Thirdly - my point was that we need to stop trashing what others like simply because we don't like the style of the game. I posted in another thread that Obsidian was my all time favorite game, and the response was negative - how could it be anything other than Sam & Max or DOTT or MI? To me Obsidian was light years ahead of them. Although I've played some of each of them, I don't trash them, I just don't like them, and prefer others. There is room for others' opinions on different styles of games. There is no need for putting down either the games or the people who like them, especially by those who haven't played them. (and here I'm not pointing this at you, SJH)

FGM-Lyn

I'm all against trashing people just because their tastes are different. BUT there's nothing wrong with saying "I think this game is crap" if that's how you feel. Some people just take things too personally, if I put down a game/film/song/whatever, it doesn't mean I'm also putting down the person who likes it, I'm just saying I think it sucks. Also, if I don't agree with your oppinion, doesn't mean I don't like you as a person. Hell, I don't agree about many things with some of my closest friends, the people I love the most. That's what forums are for, expressing different oppinions. But they have to be based on something.

I agree completely.

FGM-Lyn

I'd also like to point out that if Juniper Crescent gets praise, it'll be because it's high quality, not because it just happens to be in a style we like. Remember, those DOTT fans you're talking about also generally hated Escape From Monkey Island and Gilbert Goodmate for being sub-standard rehashes as well. :)

Oh, yawn! Aesthetics (and this narrow definition thereof) are simply not the only determinant of people's enjoyment of games, as you yourself admit in your discussion of games like Bad Mojo, etc.

And before you leap all over me for mentioning "enjoyment" as a subjective category, may I point out that you frequently (in other contexts) cite sales figures and popularity as relevant to determinations of quality? In other words, there doesn't appear (in things like your discussions of the best films) to be a set of objective criteria for high quality. (Market share is objective, but it's not an objective set of predetermined criteria; it's an outcome of aggregate individual preferences. :shifty: ). Either there is no such similar set of criteria in the area of games (and all we should care about is how well a game sells); or else (as I think this post indicates), you do at times have such criteria, but they're your own, personal set of preferences, distinct from others'. Excuse me if I have your argument wrong; I haven't been following your extensive posts as much as I should of late. (I also apologize for the tone of this rant; it sounds like it's directed at you, but it's more frustration at a strain of recent argumentation.)

First of all, when FGM was talking about "style," she wasn't (necessarily) talking about visual style at all. Clearly, she's also distinguishing among things like gameplay elements (1/p v. 3/p, puzzle types, and so on.) Obviously, this is all within the general adventure game genre . . . but still, as we know, there are sub-types of games (not unlike going to see an action film and choosing among a disaster flick, a crime movie, a thriller, a cops-and-robbers type film, a spy story, and so on. Those are more content-based, but anyway.)

Second, I don't see why "style," even if we are talking visual style, needs to become "glossier." People still make cartoons. Madagascar came out last week. Yes, they are now making cartoons in 3-D, using digital technology. But people also still love cartoons like the Simpsons. I didn't hear the many Looney Tunes (or South Park, or Family Guy, or . . . ) fans complaining about their favorite cartoons on THAT thread that "oh, it's that same old, 2-D, flat, cartoon-like style! When will it evolve!?!?!"

Third, one reason it doesn't "evolve" in the AG context is the same reason it doesn't "evolve" on TV: money. Few people on the forums (besides the staff and our friendly devs, all of whom know a great deal about these things) bother to think about financial constraints on companies. You all must have heard devs discussing finances about a million times, but it doesn't seem to sink in at all. Do you even notice when someone like Martin mentions yet again that Dreamfall has a budget subsidized by a national film fund. Think about that. Matter of fact, why don't you dash off an email to Tony Blair right now and see if he'll toss a few bob in Steve Ince's direction; I'm sure the PM'll propose it in Parliament at the next possible opportunity. (I'd do it, but as a non-voter, I'm afraid I have less clout.)

Finally, the idea that people who like other genres are soooooo much more sophisticated (graphically or any other way) than AGers is getting quite dull as well. Having loved the KOTORs, I loaded up Morrowind last week, which is as most RPG-ers would tell you one of the classics of the genre. The graphics are stunning, lovely. I got bored five minutes in, at the character-selection screen. :shifty: Did I want to be a lizard, an elf, or a . . . something? I had no freakin' clue, and wasn't about to start a million-hour game without a sense of how things worked in this world. But RPGers love that. Same thing with Baldur's Gate 2, which STILL makes all the "must have" lists on Amazon among RPGers (and here, I might add). Its graphics are so goofy they make something like Last Express look absolutely elegant to me (actually I thought Last Express WAS elegant, so that's a bad example.) But the game is (supposedly) good, so . . .

(I couldn't play it. Bored me to death. Managed to attack my own party members in the tutorial. Had no clue how to walk down stairs. NPCs yelling at me left right and center for taking too long. How is that fun? Talk about boring. Geez.)

The point is that every genre is going to have its adherents, and the number of games with cross-genre appeal, or games that are so good that everyone loves them, is actually going to be quite small. Moreover, the idea that graphics alone have anything to do with this just seems to me . . . odd. :crazy: Yes, they are an important element, but they can be handled in a variety of ways, as can good storytelling, intriguing gameplay, and a number of other factors.

Could we just let the games be the games, and let the people who actually come to AdventureGamers because they like (*gasp*) adventures enjoy themselves on the forums discussing them without always having to defend themselves? That would be really dandy.

And when they show up here asking for a game like X, we could actually recommend one, instead of all piling on to say how much we hated X and how X really is a perfect example of all that is wrong with AGs and so on and so forth and . . . :Z

FGM, I agree with you about the 'style' of games. I'll always pick that over innovation. My preferences have me looking forward to any 1st person type game. Not all will be great, but I know I'll have some fun with them.
Hype about 3D, graphics, engines, etc. doesn't get me interested in a game as much as the words 1st person, exploration and puzzlefest. :) I never tire of jigsaws; and how innovative can you get with them? ;)

The nice thing about having a definitive style preference, is that you can enjoy games of all vintages. I'm always on the lookout for older games that fit the bill. I couldn't care less if they don't have panning or if they are pixellated.

When innovation comes along in the style of game that I like, I definitely wait for reviews and comments from the forums. The best example of this was Uru. I loved all the basic Myst-like experience (solitary exploration), but hated the innovation ( action heavy movement and challenges). Unlike many gamers, I can't really appreciate a decreased quality of graphics in 2D vs 3D, so that wasn't a factor in my enjoyment of the game. I've already said that I don't really care how a game looks or how you move in it. What I do hate is action/timed/stealth or keyboard controls. Unfortunately, these things seem to accompany the foray into 3D innovation, which is why it has a negative connotation for me.

As a side point, the reverse is true - no amount of innovation could entice me to get a game in the style that I don't like - in general 3rd person, dialogue heavy with multilpe characters and only inventory based puzzles.
As such, I'll likely be passing on Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy.

@FGM - sorry if I took you out of context, but it just read a specific way. Thanks for correcting me. As for repetition, if we get pedantic we can accuse everyone for doing so! It's really not relevant.

I can see your point, but there's none in rehashing older games over and over without bringing anything new to the table EVER. People DO come looking for a style, but there isn't much that can easily be given unless the gamer is willing to forgive the fact that this genres other options often end up being over ten years old, with all the technological, interface and aesthetic problems that comes with.

What do you recommend to the person who liked Still Life? Truth is there isn't anything like it. In terms of narrative, Post Mortem, but it's an entirely different game. In terms of gameplay, Syberia, but that's probably not the kind of game they'll enjoy. It's up to them, naturally, and everyone's tastes are different. But my point is there's not even enough games to the standard of a Still Life because of the inherent size of the genre, and even the best that this game offers has a mixed opinion surrounding it on these very boards.

Unfortunately, reality proves that aesthetics, down to design of whatever it is we're talking about - cars, games, Macs - is very important. A game can have a very simple design ethos yet be extraordinarily effective, such as the recent Darwinia. If you've ever worked in marketing, you'd know that when out BUYING anything, people are looking first with their eyes.

I never have. Where? Sales figures don't mean quality at all and I'd never admit it. HOWEVER, people are often harsh at the mainstream for selling out, but looking at, for example, NFSU2, GTA:SA and Splinter Cell's latest you can hardly argue that they HAVE quality. True, there's repetition (they're all sequels) but I'd never compare San Andreas to GTA3 in terms of scope and play experience and SC:SC is an incredibly high-quality game all-round.

Ubi and EA do actually strive for some kind of bar in the games we produce. Could you say the same for The Adventure Company? And before we talk about EA's nefarious business practices lets remember Johnathon Boakes own recent admission that's he's not published for TAC ever again.

Completely wrong, but thanks for being nice! I think you're more set on the type of character you THINK I am and the arguments I possibly represent rather than the fact I'm humanly fallible and admit to being wrong when shown. I do have a high bar of quality I expect for the money I pay over, but I'm also apprecative of people like Colpet who, to be honest to my mind, deserve a better choice of top-class gaming.

Hopefully Myst V will provide that! ;)

I know that and I think I dealt with it, but as usual I'm prone to digressing. That said there's not much recent worthwhile output that actually compares to someone coming in saying they enjoyed Still Life. I wouldn't call Sherlock anything like it, TMOS might be close. Even amongst those who some find have a high level of quality are rare. People don't play games JUST for content. Its worth remembering that, otherwise these games would just be visual books.

I'm currently working on boarding a beautiful 2D/3D 1/2 hour shows with another series to go. I know what animation in both 2D and 3D is like to get right and the differences in each media.

And to be honest, 2D is expensive and very, very hard to get right on a professional level unless you have a high degree of control over quality from script to finished output.

The only games so far to come even CLOSE to animation quality (as I see it) are Psychonauts, Sam and Max and Grim Fandango. DOTT had timing issues. :D Insofar as voiceovers Steve Inces' work on Broken Sword was great, but nowadays the level of animation would need to be higher to compete with the rise in quality. Despite that, for something I believe was outsourced and the cost of animation at the time it was made, plus the comparative budget compared to Lucasarts, it was pretty good.

Anyway, the problem is evolution. And you've dealt with your own argument here, although to be frank if you think all of us in TV animation have "money" for the shows we develop, you've got another thing coming -

Point is, I've said time and time again it's not the developers fault but in the main, publisher attitudes to both budget AND applicable time for completion.

I don't see why Steve shouldn't actually. There's more money floating around in York and oop north for creative development than there's ever been. It's not the case for all countries, for sure, but many governments might be willing to back up a good creative proposal. The key is to try in the first place. Hell, I did last year and won money for a short film! Problem was, something better came along, I needed the cash, and it never got made. But another one I boared on, financed by the government, did.

I think I probably know more than you give me credit for.

You hardly gave it a chance! That said, I never finished it... but it was worth playing nonetheless. And I agree on The Last Express. Beautiful.

Ditto. :D

Well, if the genre is to gain more players, it's got to look better overall. And it is, thankfully, though it took a while. I find it crazy that people think that ANY game that relies on a visual narrative should look rubbish, but that's my job.

That'd be me too. Don't discredit those who don't always agree with you. I don't want to let the genre "be" because I don't like it as it stands. Thankfully there's a load of developers that agree, so I'm looking forward to Ankh, 80 Days, Juniper Crescent and Dreamfall, spankyouverymuch.

THAT I can agree on. ;)

I'd just like to point out that comparing cartoons with games does not make as much sense as it may seem. Migrating to 3D in games has less to do with things looking different and more with opening up to new gameplay possibilities, things that are impossible or nearly impossible to pull out in 2D. Not that 2D should die out entirely (and I think what happened to 2D feature length animated films is a damn shame), but there are definitely new exciting areas to explore, why shouldn't we do it? I just hope this thread won't be another to fall into the depths of 2D vs. 3D hell.

Hi all,
I distinguish between a description of a game and a game review. I also distinguish between what I might call an "amateur" game review and a more "professional" game review, whether or not the reviewer is getting paid. Finally, I distinguish between what I might all a "genre" review and a more studious game review. I like all of these kinds of discussions about games. I like people gushing over games, I like the "I want more games like that" discussions, I like silly talk about games. I also like more critical game reviews. I want it all.

I want to know what a game is about, and if someone likes it, why they like it. I also want to know how the game stacks up, with regards to games in general. I want a discussion of how the game looks and sounds, the story, the editing, the style, the gameplay. I want comparisons to the best games around, apart from genre. This is in addition to general adventure game chit-chat, which I also enjoy.

I also agree with SJH in that I think it will be difficult to get new people into playing the genre unless you start to make games that don't look and play like games of "yesteryear". At least we should warn people. This happens on the Myst 5 and Myst 4 forums I moderate over at Ubisoft. (volunteer, unpaid forum moderator - I just happen to do it on a game company forum). People sometimes stop by and say that they are thinking about playing the Myst series games - what order should they play them in? Some people recommend starting with Myst and working your way up to the newer games. I always recommend that people start with the newer games. I usually recommend starting with Myst IV. Personally I prefer 3D but I like the story and gameplay of Myst IV, and I think the visuals are fine. I do this because the older games, no matter how great they were, look and play like older games (and I love the original Myst, well, Myst Masterpiece Edition, actually). If you are used to the latest technology and advances in how games look and play, playing those older games is going to be a shock. Incidentally, I'm just one voice over there and someone always recommends playing the games in their original release order.

Now, in all fairness, people can understand that an eight year old game is going to look and "feel" and play differently from a newer game - for one thing it's going to be a heck of a lot more static. But, it's a tougher sell on how a brand new game looks and "feels" like a game, from, oh, let's say 5 years ago, in another genre.

My opinion.

FGM, as always I find myself at east partly in agreement with you. When I decided a few years back to start actively seeking out AG, I did so for one reason, I like the style. I enjoy AG games like the Borken Sword seires, which even in the older games i still find enjoyable, particularly the well done voice working for Stobbard.

I will continue to enjoy games like Syberia and Still Life as long as they feature the style and for me the storylines that I enjoy being a part of. Shoot I still nejoy my text based games and have tried a few from the Adrift engine folks. I am likely in the minority, but as long as they continue to make AG games that appeal to my sense of style and taste, I will keep buying them. I am not nearly as interested in innovation in AG games as I am AG games that have the right types of stories in the genres I enjoy.

They are? :confused:

Can you point to old threads to back this up? I read pretty near every post that's made on this forum, and this isn't my impression at all. In fact, time and again I have seen AG members bend over backwards to try to recommend games that the poster will enjoy, based on what s/he has enjoyed in the past.

Actually, I think that you and FGM are both right. It seems like every time this kind of thread is posted we have to usual recommendation posts, and the good old "recent AGs suck" posts. Note that sometimes the "recent AGs suck" are posing as recommendation posts (as in "You should try Monkey Island 2, because recent AGs suck").

Discussion is fine, but systematic criticism gets old quick. An exemple of this would be when some who haven't played Still Life hear about a puzzle (the access card thing) and without asking for more details jump on the occasion to bash the game. It's not that Still Life is beyond criticism, just that criticising it for the wrong reasons, just to feed some theories about adventure gaming, is not achieving anything.
I really don't see how the huge amount of negativity one can find in this forum regarding recent AGs can do any good.

Note that I'm not really targeting you, SJH, there are a bunch of people here who are much more negative toward recent AGs than you are.

fov, Ninth basically answered correctly for me. If you want examples - look in the 65 page thread for Colpet's first post and follow along for a while - you'll see how she was put down for her choices. And as Ninth said, look for any of the recommended games posts. What bothers me the most in those is that the most vocal are also the one who haven't even played the games. If you've played them and have valid criticism, even if I don't agree, I respect your position, but when you choose not to play, to me you forfeit your credibility by commenting on them.

And as Ninth said, and I did earlier - the blanket trashing of adv games is getting old real quick here. No one is saying they don't need work and some innovation would be good, but dismissing them out of hand, simply because of the style they are is counter-productive and uninformed.

FGM-Lyn

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