[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Yes, but I still have a problem with the whole comparison, which you have not addressed. To repeat:

"As you know, the discomfort that comes from reading a computer screen vs. reading a book is based on the technology you are using to view your literature, not the literature itself. Computer games, amateur or not, are all played on a computer; therefore, the above does not apply."

What is it you're criticizing, exactly? The content, or the packaging?

The content. The experience.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by Dasilva

Online books/web based books can be better than most books out there, how the heck do you think people actually start writing masterpieces? They don't just fall out of the sky when you write your very first pieaces.

So you'd rather read a book online as your eyes cringe?

[Legolas813]

Online books are horrible. Not necessarily because of the content, but because people aren't used to reading entire novels off of a computer screen.

I don't see how this relates to adventure games.

[Dasilva]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

So you'd rather read a book online as your eyes cringe?

*cough* printer *cough*

[Legolas813]

It's not exactly easy to print out 500 pages on a home printer.

[Dasilva]

Originally Posted by Legolas813

It's not exactly easy to print out 500 pages on a home printer.

For me it is.

Besides JUST because a novel is on the internet does not make it a bad novel, it may not be as confortable but you can take it to a printing place and get it done quite cheeply if done in black in white, if your that desperate. Or Just read it on the PC like you would read a review or anything that you'd read on your pc. lol

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

The content. The experience.

Well, in that case, your comparison of amateur games to online novels has failed to demonstrate its point. When you mention the discomfort of reading an online novel, you are not saying anything about the novel's content. Many classic texts are available on the Internet to the public domain; their content is identical to the text you find in the bookstore. The only thing you really get out of buying the book is the ability to curl up with it on your couch in a comfortable manner.

With games, there is no such distinction. Your argument would only have weight if it stated that commercial games are better because they come in a box.

[JohnGreenArt]

The "reading a book online" analogy makes no sense.

Someone could just as easily illegally download a book that's available in stores. That doesn't change the actual content of the book.

You might as well say playing a commercial game while in a comfy chair is more enjoyable than playing an amatuer game while sitting on shards of broken glass.

Unless your into that shards of broken glass thing, I guess.

[bigjko]

Please, Dasilva. Don't start talking about online books, as AudioSoldier's comparison between fan games and online books was ridiculous to begin with.

You're not making any sense. We can talk all we want about the state of fan games, and their lack of quality content, but that has nothing to with anyone's inability to read novels off a computer screen.

Now. Moving on. For fun, let's make an example: Let's say there were two games of equal quality. One of them costs 50$, the other is absolutely free of cost and available for download. Would you only play the first one, because that's the one that has a price on it?

[Squinky]

I'd play whatever game seemed most appealing to me, free or not.

However, I hardly ever buy $50 games these days. The last game I bought from a store was Psychonauts (at thirtysomething dollars), and the last game I bought online was Out from Boneville (at twenty dollars).

That being said, I'm pretty picky with the games I choose to play these days, amateur or commercial. I'm a busy student making a game of my own, after all. Oddly, I have a preference for short games, because being able to get through one in a day is much more feasible than spending months on it. (I still haven't finished Psychonauts, after all, and I've kind of given up on it for the time being.)

The point I'm getting at is that most $50 games either don't interest me or require more of a time investment than I can manage at the moment. Assuming that the free game and the $50 game are of the same standard (i.e. hours of gameplay, really nice graphics, etc.) I'd probably play neither of them. Well, actually, I MIGHT take a peek at the free one.

[inflikkt]

fan games are bad?!


I love the fact that fans are revitalizing the old classics!!.. and even creating full blown new games of their own!

ADGi is great <3
KQ 1 + 2 were so much fun to replay in full VGA glory with added cutscenes.. i cant wait for QFG II !!!

I think there was a certain higher level of innovation and creativity in the old 2D adventure game days.. and it is great that fans are trying to keep that alive!
Honestly, I do not find newer games which are all snazzed out with high production levels and flashy 3D graphics to be nearly as engrossing as their 90s 2D precursors.

Yay for *new* games inspired and based upon that golden era of adventure gaming.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I'm a busy student making a game of my own, after all.

Checked your profile. You made Cubert Badbone?! (wo)Man, it's the game that opened my eyes on the amateur adventure scene almost three years ago... You ought to go and work on your game instead of wasting your time in this thread.

Er, that supposed to be a compliment, not a way to make you leave.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by bigjko

Please, Dasilva. Don't start talking about online books, as AudioSoldier's comparison between fan games and online books was ridiculous to begin with.

You're not making any sense. We can talk all we want about the state of fan games, and their lack of quality content, but that has nothing to with anyone's inability to read novels off a computer screen.

Now. Moving on. For fun, let's make an example: Let's say there were two games of equal quality. One of them costs 50$, the other is absolutely free of cost and available for download. Would you only play the first one, because that's the one that has a price on it?

I don't even see how fangames can be compared to commercial titles since they're so obviously lacking in technological refinement and make use of gameplay conventions that commercial adventures have moved on from. I just don't enjoy dabbling in a fan creation. Admittedly, it has something to do with the production values, and the fact that it must be downloaded. But to be more specific, fan games simply fail to engage me. Again, I'm possibly aware all the time that this is a little homemade creation. Does this put me off? Somewhat, yet my reservations are always justified in the end as I quit the joyless experience.

My analogy, albeit ludicrous, was attempting to demonstrate that being free over something that costs money doesn't automatically make it better.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by Dasilva

For me it is.

Besides JUST because a novel is on the internet does not make it a bad novel, it may not be as confortable but you can take it to a printing place and get it done quite cheeply if done in black in white, if your that desperate. Or Just read it on the PC like you would read a review or anything that you'd read on your pc. lol

Well done for missing the point.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Well, in that case, your comparison of amateur games to online novels has failed to demonstrate its point. When you mention the discomfort of reading an online novel, you are not saying anything about the novel's content. Many classic texts are available on the Internet to the public domain; their content is identical to the text you find in the bookstore. The only thing you really get out of buying the book is the ability to curl up with it on your couch in a comfortable manner.

With games, there is no such distinction. Your argument would only have weight if it stated that commercial games are better because they come in a box.

Oh, thanks for reminding me. One of the reasons commercial games are better is the fact a box (DVD case, whatever you want to call 'em) accompanies them

[Lucien21]

Just because you wrap something in a few pence worth of gaudy cardboard or plastic doesn't automatically make it better.

[Giligan]

Audio Soldier, sounds like you have been suckered into the advertising game.

any fan game maker could buy a cheap dvd case and make a box cover but there simply no point in it. you buy a game to play, not to have a fancy box to sit on your shelf.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

I don't even see how fangames can be compared to commercial titles since they're so obviously lacking in technological refinement and make use of gameplay conventions that commercial adventures have moved on from. I just don't enjoy dabbling in a fan creation. Admittedly, it has something to do with the production values, and the fact that it must be downloaded. But to be more specific, fan games simply fail to engage me. Again, I'm possibly aware all the time that this is a little homemade creation. Does this put me off? Somewhat, yet my reservations are always justified in the end as I quit the joyless experience.

I don't like fan games, at least the ones released so far, any more than you do. But you seem to have something personal against them, posting in newly started fan game threads things that, despite what you may think, starts flame wars. I don't disagree with you there.

But I stop agreeing with you when you say that games made with no, or minimum, budget can't be as good as games made with a million dollar budget. I strongly disagree with you, because I've played any number of small, indie games that have given me vastly superior gameplay, enjoyment and in some cases even the presentation (i.e. quality) was actually pretty darn good. Some of these are free, some of these are very inexpensive shareware games.

But then again, this is coming from someone who thinks the production values in games like Day of the Tentacle and Yoshi's Island is much better, and has more soul to it, than something like Doom 3 or Syberia.

Hey, we all have different values..

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

My analogy, albeit ludicrous, was attempting to demonstrate that being free over something that costs money doesn't automatically make it better.

Of course it doesn't. I don't think anybody's been arguing that. I think what people said was that you lose nothing by trying out these free games. You're not wasting money on them if they're crap. You can't possibly tell me you've never spent money on a commercial game that ended up being total horse sh*t?

But being free doesn't automatically make is worse.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by bigjko

I don't like fan games, at least the ones released so far, any more than you do. But you seem to have something personal against them, posting in newly started fan game threads things that, despite what you may think, starts flame wars. I don't disagree with you there.

But I stop agreeing with you when you say that games made with no, or minimum, budget can't be as good as games made with a million dollar budget. I strongly disagree with you, because I've played any number of small, indie games that have given me vastly superior gameplay, enjoyment and in some cases even the presentation (i.e. quality) was actually pretty darn good. Some of these are free, some of these are very inexpensive shareware games.

But then again, this is coming from someone who thinks the production values in games like Day of the Tentacle and Yoshi's Island is much better, and has more soul to it, than something like Doom 3 or Syberia.

Hey, we all have different values..



Of course it doesn't. I don't think anybody's been arguing that. I think what people said was that you lose nothing by trying out these free games. You're not wasting money on them if they're crap. You can't possibly tell me you've never spent money on a commercial game that ended up being total horse sh*t?

But being free doesn't automatically make is worse.

No I never have, because websites like GameSpot ensure I don't spend my money on crap.

[Dasilva]

So if game spot says its good then it must be good? And visa versa.