Actually, a number of credible reviewers have described Doom 3 as repetitive and mediocre, and players too. The fact that a large number of reviewers chose to overlook derivative gameplay in favour of (surprisingly unimpressive) visuals says more about the quality of the reviewers than of the game. And, look at Quake 4. Again, the developers went for graphics over real substance, and look at the mixed reviews that the title has pulled in. Visuals will only ever save any game the first time.

Besides which, if "few adventure games are saved by great visuals" then why are you using it as an argument? If it doesn't hold, how can it be used to justify any conclusion?

Whether you've played the game or not, the point comes across.

I don't know about you, but at some point, I get tired of having to play things over and over again, no matter how good they are.

I never meant to automatically equate "cartoon adventures" with "innovation". What I have been arguing, however, is the point you made that any amateur developer good enough to be working in the game industry would be working in the game industry, because everyone's dream is to work in the game industry, la dee da dee da. That is a naïve and ultimately erroneous sentiment altogether.

Did I imply that the goal even was to "pave the way for innovative, well-made commercial titles released on a large scale" for the "mainstream eye"? Tut-tut! Go back and read the Scratchware Manifesto. Specifically, read Phase 3.

What I'm thinking about is something akin to the independent film industry rather than the mainstream.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing at the moment. Studying. Getting industry experience. A few years down the line, I'll have developed the talent and ability to produce commercial-quality games, and the work I've done up to this point will make me cringe in horror.

Just out of curiousity, what do you plan on doing when you grow up, AudioSoldier? Do you plan on working in the game industry professionally, or just writing about it? Or something else altogether? I don't mean to ask in an insulting tone; I'm genuinely curious.

So basically your saying commercial AND amateur games are derivative and lacking innovation, and you'd rather play a shiny, pretty, derivative commercial game that you paid upwards of $50 for, than the not-so-shiny or pretty, derivative amateur game that was free.

In my opinion, the resources that commercial games have does not in this case make them better GAMES as a whole. It might make certain aspects of those games better, like music or graphics or sounds, so if you were to say "In general, it is my opinion that commercial games have better graphics and sounds than amatuer games do" I think many people would agree with such a statement.

Unlimited resources can certainly result in a better looking and sounding product, but that doesn't neccesarily mean it's by default better than something that had a low budget. You said it yourself that DOOM 3 looked beautiful, but there's no substance to the gameplay. Does that mean that DOOM 3's graphics and hype and marketing make it a good game just because it looks pretty? Or does it just make it a pretty looking game?

George Lucas had unlimited resources for the Star Wars prequels, and sure a lot of effects are shinier and prettier in the new films, but I find the originals far better movies.

Yup, that's what he said. And that's actually somewhat understandable.

I have an affinity for writing - so, in the future, I'd like to say I'm still writing about games, novels and films.

Few adventure games even retail at fifty dollars.

Edit: Not to sound like an arrogant prick -- although I doubtlessly am one -- I don't actually buy many of games nowadays (or, very few) since they're sent to me (especially the adventure games I review). So, as you can expect, I'm not in an ideal position to comment on game pricing, and so forth, since I rarely shell out any money for the things.

Doom 3 is shamefacedly repetitive and mediocre. Same thing goes to Quake 4 and all the other plastic carbon coppies. Graphics didn't save it at all. Thats like saying Half Life 2 was saved by its graphics, it doesnt work that way. Games need to have all the right elements for a good game. So you're saying that advevnture games with bad graphics have a major disadvantage? Darwinia anyone?

What are you talking about? There are only FEW adventure games. :shifty:

Look at Doom 3's press scores. Bloated things - bloated because of the impact the visuals had.

If Half-Life 2 looked like a dog's backside, it'd be much less appealing.

And since when is Darwinia an adventure?

Audiosoldier, on page one you said this:

By your examples of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, the excellent technical abilities these established companies have put on display is solely in graphics. You said it yourself, if they didn't look as good as they are they would be far less appealing. You mention adventure games being idea-defunct and the same boring stuff we've already seen. But are not Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 just as idea-defunct and redundant? Sure, the masses eat stuff like that up, but are you counting youself among the cattle?

Shouldn't you be more upset over the idea that these giant companies that have millions to spend on game development are giving us recycled ideas that are just packaged in new shiny graphics?

Perhaps. What I'm saying is that a game can make a significantly bigger impact simply because of its visuals.

So in short, you're a graphics whore?

Not everyone is that. Some people can enjoy games with simple graphics, because the primary element they cherish is still there; gameplay.

Not to mention that some people (like myself) prefer so-called "simple" graphics to the so-called "sophisicated" graphics of most modern games, anyway.

I mean, I'll agree that Half-Life 2 looks nice, for instance, but it's still realistic-looking, not artistic-looking (which I like much better).

Peace & Luv, Liz

Fan games are lacking in good gameplay too. Gameplay is a sickeningly broad term too.

Your just creating a deeper argument... So you think ALL fan games look bad and play bad?

But what do you mean by "good gameplay"? Good meaning NEW? If so, that's an invalid point, because it's already been established that commercial games also recycle the same types of gameplay.

What I'm trying to do is establish a control, so to speak, in this not-so-scientific experiment of determining why you have this prejudice against fan games and what we can do about it.

You've complained that fan/amateur games have recycled storylines. We've established that commercial games can suffer from this, as well.

You've complained that fan/amateur games have the same old gameplay. We've established that commercial games can suffer from this, as well.

You've complained that fan/amateur games mostly consist of crappy sequels to far superior games. We've established that commercial games can suffer from this, as well.

You've complained that fan/amateur games have poor production values (ie, graphics and sounds.) And we all seem to agree that with bigger budgets, games will always looks and sound better, so it's safe to say that yes, commercial games that cost big money to produce will look and sound a lot better than games that were made for free.

We've also all seemed to agree that the LOOK of a game does not by default make something a GOOD game.

So, if it's been established that the biggest difference between fan/amateur games and commercial games is in the graphics department, AND it's been established that graphics alone do not make a game good, HOW can you praise a crappy commercial game because it looks good and at the same time condemn all fan games because they don't look as good?

I think he's doing it just to piss us off. :P

You think?:P

A few thoughts:

Why are we comparing amateur adventure games to top sellers at retailers?

When you ask "What amateur games are worth 50$?", can you also look at your local retailers shelf and honestly say to yourself that every one of those games are better than the best of the amateur games?

The reason amateur games usually suffer of lesser quality in some areas than commercial games is that the developers aren't being paid. They may do it (when they feel like it) for fun, or to have some extra juice on their CV.

Your personal opinion of a game does not make the game bad or good for somebody else, it is an expression of your own impression of the game.

Stop feeding the troll. ;)