[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Litrick

No, i just dont like the direction adventure games are going, they seem to be mutating into action games with a few puzzles.

And so? What are you going to do about it? No one is forcing you to shell out $50 for Dreamfall any more than no one is forcing me to buy the latest 'typical' adventure game I have no interest in whatsoever.

If you're not interested in Dreamfall there are MANY other adventure games out there for you, including indies and underground. Why get hung up over one game?

And in doing so, leaving those who enjoy classic adventures (even though i know its a crime to like them, im sure there must be a few of us left) with very few games to play... then again its not like that hasnt been the case for ages anyway (the lack of good adventures that is)

Very few games to play? How many 'classic' adventure games have come out in the past couple years? FAR more than the one Dreamfall or Fahrenheit is what it seems.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And so? What are you going to do about it? No one is forcing you to shell out $50 for Dreamfall any more than no one is forcing me to buy the latest 'typical' adventure game I have no interest in whatsoever.

If you're not interested in Dreamfall there are MANY other adventure games out there for you, including indies and underground. Why get hung up over one game?



Very few games to play? How many 'classic' adventure games have come out in the past couple years? FAR more than the one Dreamfall or Fahrenheit is what it seems.

Not many with high production values though.

From the initial reports i am hearing about dreamfall, it seems it would have been better of without the fighting, which i guess would just make it a pure adventure in 3d (not too uncommon). anyway, this thread wasnt intended to be very serious... each to their own.

[insane_cobra]

Not many with high production values though.

So how is that Funcom's fault? They've never been an adventure-exclusive company.

From the initial reports i am hearing about dreamfall, it seems it would have been better of without the fighting, which i guess would just make it a pure adventure in 3d (not too uncommon).

It doesn't seem to me it would be better off without fighting, but with better implemented fighting. It could be that the story still calls for fighting, only it's not that fun to play.

I guess everyone reads those reports the way they want to... Wish I could just play the game instead.

[jjacob]

Exactly, it's not their fault. 'Classic' adventure gaming fell behind and got less and less popular, other genres succesfully lent aspects like storytelling, exploration and puzzle solving and publishers lost faith (amongst other reasons). Out of that situation comes experimentation, not the other way around.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Litrick

Not many with high production values though.

Then blame the makers and publishers of those games. I would fall over myself if a bunch of brand new adventure games came out that were incredibly original - no stupid ass predictable puzzle concepts, no Templars, Egypt, or monkeys, no rehashed story, none of the above.

And the best quality writing, imaginative art direction, and all that good stuff. But that is, of course, a pipe dream. So naturally I personally gravitate towards other games that have incorporated some of the best elements of adventure games and often times outdid them - Beyond Good & Evil, Knights Of The Old Republic, Jade Empire, ICO, Silent Hill 2, Psychonauts.

From the initial reports i am hearing about dreamfall, it seems it would have been better of without the fighting, which i guess would just make it a pure adventure in 3d (not too uncommon).

No, it would've been better without the allegedly lousy fighting system. I'm fine with fighting, but I'm not fine with a crappy implementation of it.

anyway, this thread wasnt intended to be very serious... each to their own.

To each their own rant.

[Hammerite]

Has anyone heard anything about the stealth parts, I expect they'll be quite good.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

Has anyone heard anything about the stealth parts, I expect they'll be quite good.

If you believe the reviews, they're just as bad as fighting.

[NcroManiac]

Let's talk about stealth baby
Let's talk about Longest Journey
Let's talk about all the fighting, and the bad things that may be
Let's talk aaabouut stealth!

[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

If you believe the reviews, they're just as bad as fighting.

I'll probably find that both aren't as bad as I've been led to believe when I play it myself.

[UPtimist]

Woah, I didn't know there was a Grim Fandango 2 in the makes! I hope they'll still keep the style of the old game.

I'm a bit discouraged by the changes though, if it will keep any of the things that made the original game so good and, well, Grim Fandango, so that this will actually be worthy of being called Grim Fandango 2. I like the subtitle though, even though it does go off off the feel of the original GF.

But I really like the 4D news, I wonder how they're going to manage that... Maybe something with actually moving in time, not just rewinding it. I mean, if that's the 4th D, why wouldn't anyone have mentioned it earlier?

And it can't go too bad if they still have somewhat the same team on it... Do they, actually?

Wait, this is in Chit Chat? Heh, even though I guess it might sound unbelievable, it is still gaming related. Wrong forum dude! I guess a mod'll do their thing soon...

Any hopes of screenshots or anything any time soon?

[Jeysie]

Well, now I feel crappy, because I pretty much agree with Litrick.

When I first discovered adventures 5 years ago, it was like discovering a genre tailor-made to my gameplay abilities/style. Lots of emphasis on exploring a story and characters and problem-solving, and little to no reflexes necessary.

I seldom play games with action elements not because I'm biased or a Luddite, but because I literally can't... I'm just so bad at them that unless there's a "So Easy You Could Do It While Sleeping" setting, I'll never pass it.

So, the fact that the commercial adventure genre seems to be trending towards becoming action-adventures, it means that yet again I finally find at least rare one thing that fits my "needs" perfectly... only to find it's slowly no longer existing. I've only bought *one* new game in *years*, because almost everything is multiplayer or action or something other thing I can't play.

</end rant>

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Hammerite]

That was no true rant, this is because there was no <start rant>.

[Karmillo]

maybe she forgot to end a previouse rant and it carried over?

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

That was no true rant, this is because there was no <start rant>.

Exactly... it was more a sardonic nod to Trep's apparent classification of disliking action elements in your adventures as being a rant.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Hammerite]

The thing is, how is the whole adventure games with action in something new?
Quest For Glory did it.
BOTH Indiana Jones games did it.
And I am sure that there are more games that have had action elements and in my opinion this is what Dreamfall is, an adventure game with action elements.

[RLacey]

Except that, in the case of the Indiana Jones games, all combat can either be avoided by solving puzzles instead or can be won instantly using a specific keyboard key, while Dreamfall features action elements that can't always be avoided.

Now, I happen to be in favour of diversity within games, but everything that I've read about the fighting and sneaking in Dreamfall suggests that these are actually to the detriment of the gameplay. And my opinion remains that, if fighting and sneaking aren't going to be well implemented, then they shouldn't be implemented at all, or should at least be avoidable. One of the reasons the Indy games are so great is that the puzzling, thought-requiring activities most commonly associated with adventure games can be ignored, but can also be highlighted. And, on a purely personal note, I got a much greater feeling of satisfaction from making my way round the castle in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade without ever getting into a fight than by fighting my way through, which seemed to me like something of a lame, cop-out way to progress.

[Jeysie]

Hammerite: True... but most of the older adventure games I've played the action elements were completely skippable/bypassable, and there was generally only one or two "sequences" in the whole game.

Edit: Never mind, the esteemable Lacey beat me to it.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[RLacey]

It's a changing design philosophy. In my opinion what is commonly presented as "diversity" and "choice" is actually a case of forcing the player to go down a different path. Which wouldn't be bad if the different path were well designed, but I struggle to think of games in which it actually is .

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, you and Jeysie and others can always rely on the many 'classical' adventures coming out, AND the wealth of free downloadable amateur adventure games. It's not like Dreamfall will singlehandedly obliterate the entire adventure genre as you know it, huh?

Like I said, you want quality? Go write the developers and publishers.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Well, you and Jeysie and others can always rely on the many 'classical' adventures coming out, AND the wealth of free downloadable amateur adventure games. It's not like Dreamfall will singlehandedly obliterate the entire adventure genre as you know it, huh?

And I don't actually have a problem with games like Dreamfall either. In fact, I find it rather strange that so many people have such polarised views on the issue...