[Krazy]

Sigh, I've been reading through this thread a bit and I STILL do not understand AudioSoldier's anger or point of view at all. I say if this guys gonna trash the entire amature scene, and from what it seems he's only sampled a small portion of what it has to offer, because it's not up to the higher standards of proffesional games he's really missing the entire reason for these games existance. Enjoy them for what they are, not what you WANT them to be, because they never will be.

[AudioSoldier]

It's indicative of the fact that this is an "amateur" scene by the virtue that no one can take criticism. Furthermore, I'm not “angry” at fangames or those poor souls who make them either. I do come off overly harsh sometimes but I'm sick and tired of people with high hopes for games (amateur especially) that show no signs of being any good. My harshness is in response to the sickening optimism.

It's indicative of the genre's poor state that people are overjoyed by the arrival of yet another Sam & Max and MI fan creation. For what? An hour of the same rehashed gaming convention, bundled together with a poor script and reams of clichés?

I respect the originality in a smattering of fan creations, but they’re simply never good enough to warrant the attention of any but the most desperate. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.

Edit: Also, someone mentioned earlier that KQ's animation would likely be bad; yet the script and intelligence of the puzzles would be able to pull it through. Well that's just it. I don't think fan games ever have good scripts or good puzzles. It takes a sizeable team of well-paid "deliberators" to come up with anything original that can be implemented into something like a game. And let's face it, even if one person has a brainwave, being able to discuss a game dynamic with a group of people in the same room as you helps the idea and adds cohesion.

Edit 2:One-man teams add to the length of production, add stress and add a sense of loneliness. Those who can make a – good – full-length game alone should be knighted.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

It's indicative of the fact that this is an "amateur" scene by the virtue that no one can take criticism. Furthermore, I'm not “angry” at fangames or those poor souls who make them either. I do come off overly harsh sometimes but I'm sick and tired of people with high hopes for games (amateur especially) that show no signs of being any good. My harshness is in response to the sickening optimism.

There's a difference between criticism and dismissing an entire group of games out of hand. Effectively you're implying that, as no fan game can ever be good, people are wasting their time by making them, and that is what is getting people like myself riled.

It's indicative of the genre's poor state that people are overjoyed by the arrival of yet another Sam & Max and MI fan creation. For what? An hour of the same rehashed gaming convention, bundled together with a poor script and reams of clichés?

Actually, there are an awful lot of people - myself included - who have little to no interest in fan games based on established and successful commercial properties. This is one of the reasons that I have little interest in King's Quest IX, in fact.

I respect the originality in a smattering of fan creations, but they’re simply never good enough to warrant the attention of any but the most desperate. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.

How exactly is it possible to call people "desperate" in a "nice" manner? Either way, I happen to disagree with your statement that these games are "never good enough" (emphasis mine), but this has already become a moot point.

Edit: Also, someone mentioned earlier that KQ's animation would likely be bad; yet the script and intelligence of the puzzles would be able to pull it through. Well that's just it. I don't think fan games ever have good scripts or good puzzles.

I happen to be almost entirely uninterested in the KQIX script - from what I've seen from the preview video and such it comes across as hackneyed and entirely derivative of King's Quest VI in particular. Does this mean that the game will be bad? Who knows. The animation may or may not turn out to be rubbish - I haven't seen enough of it to be comfortable commenting on it - but I choose not to entirely dismiss games until they've been released and people have had a chance to play them.

It takes a sizeable team of well-paid "deliberators" to come up with anything original that can be implemented into something like a game. And let's face it, even if one person has a brainwave, being able to discuss a game dynamic with a group of people in the same room as you helps the idea and adds cohesion.

For a lot of people that may be the case, but discussion can also dilute the potency of writing as something gets, for instance, toned down at the request of others. Also, unless I'm very mistaken, Tim Schafer insisted on writing Grim Fandango pretty much single-handedly. Given the quality of that game in particular, I'd suggest that your statement doesn't hold.

Edit 2:One-man teams add to the length of production, add stress and add a sense of loneliness. Those who can make a – good – full-length game alone should be knighted.

Apparently, in your view, they can't. I'm not quite sure where all this "loneliness" comes from in game production, mind you. It's not like underground developers lock themselves away in little padded rooms and aren't allowed out until they've finished their project, you know .

[stuboy]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

Have you played Discworld Noir? It had the worst animation ever. And it wasn't an amateur effort.

The animation was so bad that I thought for a while the characters were real time 3D running really slowly on my old computer. Yeuch.

[AudioSoldier]

Referring to Lacey's point:

It takes someone of extreme talent, such as Schafer, to be able to create an original script, plot and list of characters alone. Schafer is a rare example of someone who has the ability to give birth to a Grim Fandango alone. Sadly, he has few equals.

[Dasilva]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

Referring to Lacey's point:

It takes someone of extreme talent, such as Schafer, to be able to create an original script, plot and list of characters alone. Schafer is a rare example of someone who has the ability to give birth to a Grim Fandango alone. Sadly, he has few equals.

Few? Scott Murphy (SQ), Ron Gibert (MI), Josh Mandel (SQ,FF), Jene Jansen (GK), Roberta Williams (KQ, Phantasmas), Ragnar Tørnquist (TLJ)... The list goes on, I think you really need to review your arguments. Every hit game has a brilliant mind behind it and there have been many hit games in gaming history. So you have no proof to say only a hand full of people are good enough to make a good adventure game.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

Edit 2:One-man teams add to the length of production, add stress and add a sense of loneliness. Those who can make a – good – full-length game alone should be knighted.

Teams of more than one person also add to the length of production and add stress. It takes skill and effort to work with other people in a productive manner.

Loneliness has nothing to do with the number of people on your team. It's just as possible to be lonely when you're in the company of others than it is when you're alone.

[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by stuboy

The animation was so bad that I thought for a while the characters were real time 3D running really slowly on my old computer. Yeuch.

Still good though.
I've play'd it like 4 times.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

It's indicative of the fact that this is an "amateur" scene by the virtue that no one can take criticism.

Since you've failed to criticize specific games, and few people involved in this discussion have actually created the games under discussion, your argument seems to have little basis in fact.

Furthermore, I'm not “angry” at fangames or those poor souls who make them either. I do come off overly harsh sometimes but I'm sick and tired of people with high hopes for games (amateur especially) that show no signs of being any good. My harshness is in response to the sickening optimism.

I think, on the contrary, that people only get excited by games that show some signs of being good. Usually this means good graphics, since that's one of the few things you can judge pretty well just from a screenshot, without playing the game.

Just go to the AGS Forums and check out the threads about "Your Most Anticipated Game for 2006/2005/2004".

It's indicative of the genre's poor state that people are overjoyed by the arrival of yet another Sam & Max and MI fan creation. For what? An hour of the same rehashed gaming convention, bundled together with a poor script and reams of clichés?

I agree that a promising (or even not-so-promising) fan game based on an established property tends to generate more interest than an original game of similar potential. I don't think that says anything about the state of the genre, though. It's a universal human trait. Do you think George Lucas's latest film would have been the biggest earner of last year if it wasn't a Star Wars movie? Why do you think Gregory Maguire just wrote a sequel to Wicked? Why does Ultimate Spider-Man, written by Brian Michael Bendis, sell many times as many copies as Powers, also written by Bendis? Why do so many bands reform after their solo careers have failed?

The attention lavished on yet another fan game based on a Sierra or LucasArts classic may be annoying, but it has nothing to do with the adventure game genre or the amateur game community. It just means that name-recognition goes a long way. People like to get more of what they liked the first time around.

Besides, I don't think your description of what we can hope to get from a fan-game captures their potential. KQ2VGA had a very good script, was reasonably fresh in its gameplay, and subverted more clichés than it relied on. It probably wasn't as good as the best Sierra games, but I think it was as good as the average Sierra game. When people look forward to a new fangame, I think they hope it will be as good as KQ2VGA.

I respect the originality in a smattering of fan creations, but they’re simply never good enough to warrant the attention of any but the most desperate. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.

*sigh*
I wish you would stop talking as if your personal opinion was the objective truth.
I wish you would respond to the people who have listed amateur games we think are good enough to warrant attention with specific criticisms of those games.

Like, what's wrong with KQ2VGA, 5 Days a Stranger, or Two of a Kind, just to name three?

I have a big list of commercial adventure games (old and new) that I own but haven't played. For instance, I bought Return to Mysterious Island but never got around to installing it. I started Still Life, but lost interest in it after about half an hour. I got a hold of Sherlock Holmes: Case of the Serrated Scalpel, and will play it one day when I have time.

When I play amateur adventure games, it's not because I'm desperate. It's because I genuinely enjoy them. I choose to play them rather than play one of the many well-regarded commercial games I could play. Depending on what mood I'm in, I prefer a professional product or a home-made effort.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Since you've failed to criticize specific games, and few people involved in this discussion have actually created the games under discussion, your argument seems to have little basis in fact.

I think, on the contrary, that people only get excited by games that show some signs of being good. Usually this means good graphics, since that's one of the few things you can judge pretty well just from a screenshot, without playing the game.

Just go to the AGS Forums and check out the threads about "Your Most Anticipated Game for 2006/2005/2004".

I agree that a promising (or even not-so-promising) fan game based on an established property tends to generate more interest than an original game of similar potential. I don't think that says anything about the state of the genre, though. It's a universal human trait. Do you think George Lucas's latest film would have been the biggest earner of last year if it wasn't a Star Wars movie? Why do you think Gregory Maguire just wrote a sequel to Wicked? Why does Ultimate Spider-Man, written by Brian Michael Bendis, sell many times as many copies as Powers, also written by Bendis? Why do so many bands reform after their solo careers have failed?

The attention lavished on yet another fan game based on a Sierra or LucasArts classic may be annoying, but it has nothing to do with the adventure game genre or the amateur game community. It just means that name-recognition goes a long way. People like to get more of what they liked the first time around.

Besides, I don't think your description of what we can hope to get from a fan-game captures their potential. KQ2VGA had a very good script, was reasonably fresh in its gameplay, and subverted more clichés than it relied on. It probably wasn't as good as the best Sierra games, but I think it was as good as the average Sierra game. When people look forward to a new fangame, I think they hope it will be as good as KQ2VGA.

*sigh*
I wish you would stop talking as if your personal opinion was the objective truth.
I wish you would respond to the people who have listed amateur games we think are good enough to warrant attention with specific criticisms of those games.

Like, what's wrong with KQ2VGA, 5 Days a Stranger, or Two of a Kind, just to name three?

I have a big list of commercial adventure games (old and new) that I own but haven't played. For instance, I bought Return to Mysterious Island but never got around to installing it. I started Still Life, but lost interest in it after about half an hour. I got a hold of Sherlock Holmes: Case of the Serrated Scalpel, and will play it one day when I have time.

When I play amateur adventure games, it's not because I'm desperate. It's because I genuinely enjoy them. I choose to play them rather than play one of the many well-regarded commercial games I could play. Depending on what mood I'm in, I prefer a professional product or a home-made effort.

Let me ask this: Why do you prefer an amateur creation over a commercial one?

[Maquisard]

One reason could be that they don't take as long to complete. Some people don't have a lot of time for gaming.

[Dasilva]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

Let me ask this: Why do you prefer an amateur creation over a commercial one?

That’s already been answered. Try answering the questions.

[After a brisk nap]

Yes, time definitely has a lot to do with it. I often like playing a game I can complete in just a couple of hours, instead of investing weeks in something that might not be worth it.

It does depend on my mood, or whatever impulse makes you choose one thing over another when you don't know enough about them to tell which one is going to be better. the white chamber or Bad Mojo? Runaway or Apprentice?

Also, the home-made games are current, while most of the commercial games I have are years old. Playing something new means I can be part of the ongoing discussion of the game, I can offer feedback and compliments to the creator(s), I can vote in the AGS Awards, and I can see the strides made by different designers and the community as a whole. You know, I'll get to all those classic games some day, but these are games I would like to play now.

As for the modern games, I do usually play those when I find one I like. I played Fahrenheit. I gave Still Life a spin. I messed around in Beyond Good & Evil for a while. There are only a few I haven't got around to play at all, and usually it's because for some reason I feel like I won't like it. Oftentimes I'll abandon modern games because I just don't find them much fun to play. They don't have the wit or the single-minded dedication to entertain that attract me to older games and home-made games. The controls are often finicky. And I'm not much of a fan of the 3D-generated graphics.

But I think ultimately the answer is that I've played many home-made adventures I've liked, and by following people's recommendations I have a pretty good chance of finding good ones. They're good games, and they make up what they sometimes lack in polish in sheer spirit. That's why I play them. Because I enjoy them.

Now will you answer my questions?

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

Let me ask this: Why do you prefer an amateur creation over a commercial one?

Hmmm, let's see. Because commercial developers have less creative freedom because managers and publishers only want to make money?

I think that's the most important one I can think of. I'm not someone who always prefers an amateur creation over a commercial one, though.

--Erwin

[Dasilva]

And Erwim, just to say that your adventure game bad timing looks wonderful.

[big brother]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

It's indicative of the fact that this is an "amateur" scene by the virtue that no one can take criticism.

But you aren't giving criticism. You are simply making blanket statements.

An hour of the same rehashed gaming convention, bundled together with a poor script and reams of clichés?

Why do you think a lot of bands jumpstart their popularity through covers? A lot of the time it's just the same 80s song with nothing more added. Nowadays we have bands like "The Darkness" that simply imitate the golden years of rock and roll. I have yet to hear a current mainstream band that has an original sound (not heard in past decades). OMG, how can this be? But...but...they're PROFESSIONALS! Yes, but they're just slaves to the recording industry's marketing department. If people want nostalgic songs, that's what they'll get.

The closer you look at the media around you, you'll find less creativity than you think.

I respect the originality in a smattering of fan creations, but they’re simply never good enough to warrant the attention of any but the most desperate. And I mean that in the nicest possible sense.

I don't think fan games ever have good scripts or good puzzles.

And there are no game reviewers that can write well or follow a logical argument. See the fallacy?

It takes a sizeable team of well-paid "deliberators" to come up with anything original that can be implemented into something like a game. And let's face it, even if one person has a brainwave, being able to discuss a game dynamic with a group of people in the same room as you helps the idea and adds cohesion.

This is total bullshit. That's just not how most games are made. In the industry, you will find very little crossover between hired roles. A game project will have one chief designer. She can get input from other people if she wants, but typically she makes all the decisions subject to the scrutiny of the producer.

Let's try something AudioSoldier. It's obvious you're just a kid, and you're trying to think beyond your years. That's a good start. When you feel the need to critisize something (whether its a particular game or an entire genre) USE specific examples and specific terms. Don't call something "good" or "bad". These terms really don't mean anything in the context. Instead try to describe it (SHOW don't TELL). Instead say that "Apprentice" is "short with only an hour of gameplay" or that the graphics are "cartoony". Keep in mind that your opinion ISN'T representative. A game that's too short for you might be perfect for someone else (who doesn't like to spend 100 hours beating some RPG). Sound good?

[Squinky]

Big Brother wins the conversation.

[Krazy]

I'm just waiting for AudioSoldier to give his auto-rehased reply he gives to every other post

[stuboy]

Originally Posted by AudioSoldier

Let me ask this: Why do you prefer an amateur creation over a commercial one?

Same reasons many people prefer independent, grass-roots music.

[AudioSoldier]

Originally Posted by big brother

But you aren't giving criticism. You are simply making blanket statements.



Why do you think a lot of bands jumpstart their popularity through covers? A lot of the time it's just the same 80s song with nothing more added. Nowadays we have bands like "The Darkness" that simply imitate the golden years of rock and roll. I have yet to hear a current mainstream band that has an original sound (not heard in past decades). OMG, how can this be? But...but...they're PROFESSIONALS! Yes, but they're just slaves to the recording industry's marketing department. If people want nostalgic songs, that's what they'll get.

The closer you look at the media around you, you'll find less creativity than you think.




And there are no game reviewers that can write well or follow a logical argument. See the fallacy?



This is total bullshit. That's just not how most games are made. In the industry, you will find very little crossover between hired roles. A game project will have one chief designer. She can get input from other people if she wants, but typically she makes all the decisions subject to the scrutiny of the producer.

Let's try something AudioSoldier. It's obvious you're just a kid, and you're trying to think beyond your years. That's a good start. When you feel the need to critisize something (whether its a particular game or an entire genre) USE specific examples and specific terms. Don't call something "good" or "bad". These terms really don't mean anything in the context. Instead try to describe it (SHOW don't TELL). Instead say that "Apprentice" is "short with only an hour of gameplay" or that the graphics are "cartoony". Keep in mind that your opinion ISN'T representative. A game that's too short for you might be perfect for someone else (who doesn't like to spend 100 hours beating some RPG). Sound good?

It's obvious I'm just a kid? You deduced this through my writing, my inane use of "lol" or my avatar, by any chance? Thanks for the fatherly pat on the shoulder and the attempt to help me. I’m touched. Well, no.

I'm not hoisting my opinion onto anyone else either. You don't need to tell me that it's only my opinion, because I know it is.

But let's delve deeper.

I'm sick and tired of fan games with huge, golf-ball sized pixels and blood-curdling textures that cause your eyes to squirm and dilate in pure agony. I'm sick and tired of text that's too ******* blocky to read and that blends in so conveniently with the background art that you can't read a damn word of the poorly-conceived, hackneyed script littered with spelling errors and forced humour.

I'm yet to play a fan game that's made me so much as chuckle, and there are many of these "home made" titles that play host to music so terrible, I feel the need to fling my speakers onto the nearby train tracks.

The point about length only demonstrates the fact one-man teams don't work. Are you telling me these people go into a game thinking of creating a one hour experience? A few perhaps (but then again, I am the master of generalization) but many will likely think big, only to find, having wallowed away in a dingy basement room for three weeks that A) no one will want to play their game for more than a half-hour and B) they don't have the energy, ability and down-right resources to make anything longer than a piddling TV show, or anything remotely worth an admission price.

Let's face it, your average grocery-bagger turned wannabe adventure creator has the skills of a nutcracker; a far cry from the highly demanding world of game creating.

Oh, and if I feel my hands flex in a way that cries out for more to be added to this post, I'll duly respond.