[Spiwak]

There are plenty of classic-style adventure games coming out every year from independent and smaller developers. Just because Dreamfall went in a new direction doesn't mean adventure games as whole are. Moreover, it seems like a narrow-minded opinion to automatically rule out action elements from adventure games because it's not part of the classic tradition. A lot of RPGs are becoming faster-paced and losing the slow, strict turn-based system of old...but no one's complaining about that from what I've seen.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by RLacey

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...

I don't find it strange at all, really. It gives you an insight into the psychology of the gamer (not just adventurers, but most gamers). For me personally, games like Dreamfall and Fahrenheit represent the diversification of adventuring in terms of idea and content. What Ragnar Tornquist and David Cage, and even Tim Schafer, mean to do is play with and expand on the conceptual strengths to go beyond 'genre-ism', creating experiences for us that, in their essence, feel adventurous, without resorting to the easy way out of sticking with the expected trappings (expected by adventure fans, etc.).

On a VERY realistic commercial level, they are creating games that can draw many people in by way of personality, story, character, exploration, and comprehensible challenges (as opposed to elitist obscurities). A game like Psychonauts is NOT a 'dumbed down' game like Madden (but even Madden is very demanding in terms of strategy and skill), but presents challenges to the player in a way different from Schafer's past games. David Cage's idea for Fahrenheit centers not on the 'solve-puzzle-get-cutscene' formula that runs rampant within the self-constrained adventure 'genre', but more on the idea of emotional, visceral, AND intellectual involvement - often times you feel all three at once, and that is where much of challenge for the player lies.

'Classic' adventure games seem to be in this trend of detached involvement, with few instances of that feeling of immediacy or being 'in the moment'. Cage and Tornquist are decidely not about that any more, they're exploring the terrain where the player's emotions and visceral nature play a vital role in the challenges, but in ways different from typical action games.

[AFGNCAAP]

I can't fathom why developers who don't want to make "pure" adventures, or adventures altogether, should apologize for the quality of the games that others are making (Not that I agree with the conclusion that there are few quality releases among the "pure" adventures, but never mind.). I'm sure that a point'n'click made by Rockstar would bring a lot of attention to old school adventures, solely because of the developer's hot reputation. Shouldn't we complain about Rockstar's reluctance to develop it, then?

That said, it gets a bit more complicated with sequels. Genre is perhaps an abstract and vague idea, but series isn't. While I believe Funcom owes precisely nothing to anybody on the grounds of having made a "classic" adventure game in the past, I'd argue that making a sequel to TLJ should put certain restraints on the makers in order to be fair towards the fans of the original (although they shouldn't become fans' slaves, obviously). If you think that's a ridiculous notion, remember what you felt when your favourite show ended with a cliffhanger and then was cancelled.

Therefore, I understand the disappointment with Dreamfall following a path of its own. I had been initially very sad about it as well (at the same time drooling over upcoming Fahrenheit, so I don't think my feelings can be attributed to a die-hard conservatism). The most devoted fans will usually be the first to oppose to substantial changes introduced to the new part of the series, because those changes may destroy whatever made them love it to begin with. And let's face it, people: this fear is not ungrounded. It's the "Let's milk the successful franchise, but having made it catch up with the times thus more accesible" mindset that gave birth to - widely considered as letdowns* - King's Quest 8: Mask of Eternity, Magna cum Laude, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, Worms 3D or Alone in the Dark: the New Nightmare . Yes, sure, without the boldness to stir the well-known ingredients we also wouldn't have Gabriel Knight sequels or Prince of Persia: Sands of Time as we know them today, but my point is that negative examples abound as well.

And that said, I'll make a possibly controversial statement. (I suppose I've already angered purists and progressits alike, so what the heck ). I doubt all I wrote applies to Dreamfall in particular. From early reviews I'm pretty sure Dreamfall is actually very similar to its predecessor. And I don't necessarily mean it in a good way, because we should perhaps finally stop referring to it as a revolutionary game the marketing made it to be. It basically looks like Ragnar remained an extraordinary storyteller who has little clue how to fill in the actual gameplay parts. The difficulty of the puzzles (which weren't exactly hard in TLJ anyway; I'm not sure at which point in time the "contrived" label was stuck to them) seems to be the main difference.

And yes, I make this claim not having played the game. So sue me.

*Please don't argue if you disagree with any individual title - for every game there is someone who loves it. I'm sure you could easily replace those listed by me with more suitable examples if that's the case here.

[Litrick]

Just because one might be of the opinion that it wasnt necessary to "improve" the longest journey 2, by including a crap fighting system, and stealth system. Doesnt mean you are a "die-hard conservative", come on...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I honestly don't think Tornquist was out to improve TLJ. Instead it looks to be that he meant to create 'from scratch' the kind of experience he wanted us to have of the TLJ world beyond the constraints he felt that the original TLJ imposed on us - and on him.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I don't find it strange at all, really. It gives you an insight into the psychology of the gamer (not just adventurers, but most gamers). For me personally, games like Dreamfall and Fahrenheit represent the diversification of adventuring in terms of idea and content. What Ragnar Tornquist and David Cage, and even Tim Schafer, mean to do is play with and expand on the conceptual strengths to go beyond 'genre-ism', creating experiences for us that, in their essence, feel adventurous, without resorting to the easy way out of sticking with the expected trappings (expected by adventure fans, etc.).

On a VERY realistic commercial level, they are creating games that can draw many people in by way of personality, story, character, exploration, and comprehensible challenges (as opposed to elitist obscurities). A game like Psychonauts is NOT a 'dumbed down' game like Madden (but even Madden is very demanding in terms of strategy and skill), but presents challenges to the player in a way different from Schafer's past games. David Cage's idea for Fahrenheit centers not on the 'solve-puzzle-get-cutscene' formula that runs rampant within the self-constrained adventure 'genre', but more on the idea of emotional, visceral, AND intellectual involvement - often times you feel all three at once, and that is where much of challenge for the player lies.

'Classic' adventure games seem to be in this trend of detached involvement, with few instances of that feeling of immediacy or being 'in the moment'. Cage and Tornquist are decidely not about that any more, they're exploring the terrain where the player's emotions and visceral nature play a vital role in the challenges, but in ways different from typical action games.

You really think creating an adventure game, Which is a pure adventure in every way, except you have added in a terrible fighting system, is to as you put it "play with and expand on the conceptual strengths to go beyond 'genre-ism', creating experiences for us that, in their essence, feel adventurous, without resorting to the easy way out of sticking with the expected trappings".. you must have low expectations of what is possible then...

Personally i think the decision to make this part action was intended to appeal to a wider audience, and i cant blame them, money makes the world go round...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Are you sniffing glue or something? I meant that a game in a 'purely' adventure way means a game that has story, character, and exploration as its core. Now, Dreamfall seems to have messed up its optional fighting sequences, but that does not mean that ANY optional fighting system is bad just because one game happened to not do it well. And what if Dreamfall did manage to incorporate a beautifully designed fighting system, one that appealed to both mainstream audiences and 'hardcore' adventurers? Would you still be saying that any and all optional fighting systems in adventure games should be outright banned?

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Are you sniffing glue or something? I meant that a game in a 'purely' adventure way means a game that has story, character, and exploration as its core. Now, Dreamfall seems to have messed up its optional fighting sequences, but that does not mean that ANY optional fighting system is bad just because one game happened to not do it well. And what if Dreamfall did manage to incorporate a beautifully designed fighting system, one that appealed to both mainstream audiences and 'hardcore' adventurers? Would you still be saying that any and all optional fighting systems in adventure games should be outright banned?

I dont see anything wrong with included a fighting system that would somehow enhance the gameplay. I just dont think that alone would be that much of a progression, as it has been done before. I dont buy that Ragnar is some kind of magical genius creating some new amazing type of game and breaking Genre boundaries... all he did is put some fighting into an otherwise straight forward adventure...

[jjacob]

Besides, TLJ wasn't perfect, it had its flaws, although those were easily forgotten with the other parts that did work well. I'm guessing Dreamfall is pretty much the same in that regard.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Litrick

I dont see anything wrong with included a fighting system that would somehow enhance the gameplay. I just dont think that alone would be that much of a progression, as it has been done before. I dont by that Ragnar is some kind of magical genius creating some new amazing type of game and breaking Genre boundaries... all he did is put some fighting into an otherwise straight forward adventure...

If you think that's *all* he did then you must be either incredibly trollish or you are suffering from an extreme case of tunnelvision to make your point.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Litrick

I dont see anything wrong with included a fighting system that would somehow enhance the gameplay. I just dont think that alone would be that much of a progression, as it has been done before. I dont buy that Ragnar is some kind of magical genius creating some new amazing type of game and breaking Genre boundaries... all he did is put some fighting into an otherwise straight forward adventure...

Why don't you ask Ragnar himself how he thinks about this? Personally I think he's trying to balance his own artistic vision with commercial viability. And he himself would probably be the last person to think he's some kind of magical genius, thus it seems you're simply projecting your own pressures unto him. The man is simply trying something new - new to HIM, and possibly new to many others out there who may appreciate the effort. I appreciate his effort, though I do also expect the game to not be perfect as well.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by jjacob

If you think that's *all* he did then you must be either incredibly trollish or you are suffering from an extreme case of tunnelvision to make your point.

you tell me what amazing new features over and above other adventures he invented for this game then?

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Why don't you ask Ragnar himself how he thinks about this? Personally I think he's trying to balance his own artistic vision with commercial viability. And he himself would probably be the last person to think he's some kind of magical genius, thus it seems you're simply projecting your own pressures unto him. The man is simply trying something new - new to HIM, and possibly new to many others out there who may appreciate the effort. I appreciate his effort, though I do also expect the game to not be perfect as well.

Im the one projecting onto him?, i wasnt the one that said:
"What Ragnar Tornquist and David Cage, and even Tim Schafer, mean to do is play with and expand on the conceptual strengths to go beyond 'genre-ism', creating experiences for us that, in their essence, feel adventurous, without resorting to the easy way out of sticking with the expected trappings (expected by adventure fans, etc.)."

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yes, you're projecting. Aren't you the one who's frustrated with the current state of adventure games? You seem to have singled out Tornquist. I based what I had to say on observation, on what Tornquist, Cage, and Schafer themselves said. And they said they're moving on, beyond Adventure games (capital A). Why vilify them just because they want to go their own way? You have tons of other adventure games to play now anyway, ones that work the way you want them to work.

[Litrick]

It can be broken down like this:

1.) The adventure side of Dreamfall is reportedly incredible
2.) the action side of dreamfall is reportedly bad

I dont think they should have included the fighting... most of you do...

Lets just agree to disagree...

regardless im sure the game will be great despite any floors it may or may not have

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Oh, I don't mind the fighting. But I do mind a bad fighting system, one that hampers any player, regardless of skill. I can't, of course, expand on this until I'm actually experiencing the fighting system first hand.

Besides, Tornquist had specifically stated that he wanted things like combat and stealth to emerge organically from the narrative - as part of the emotional and visceral experience OF the story, as part of the challenge - as if it were perfectly natural to experience that alongside the characters you play. That is his idea of immersing the player in the depths of the story. But most of it is also optional. And that is part of the design of the game to bring in as many people as possible INTO the story, into the suspense and tension the characters feel. In that way he looks to be on the same level as David Cage.

Most adventure games work in a very detached 'solve-puzzle-get-non-interactive-cutscene' fashion. Tornquist and Cage wanted to get away from that because they probably felt it's not dynamic enough, not immersive enough, not emotional enough, according to their idea. That's why they wanted to try new things.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Oh, I don't mind the fighting. But I do mind a bad fighting system, one that hampers any player, regardless of skill. I can't, of course, expand on this until I'm actually experiencing the fighting system first hand.

Besides, Tornquist had specifically stated that he wanted things like combat and stealth to emerge organically from the narrative - as part of the emotional and visceral experience OF the story, as part of the challenge - as if it were perfectly natural to experience that alongside the characters you play. That is his idea of immersing the player in the depths of the story. But most of it is also optional. And that is part of the design of the game to bring in as many people as possible INTO the story, into the suspense and tension the characters feel. In that way he looks to be on the same level as David Cage.

Most adventure games work in a very detached 'solve-puzzle-get-non-interactive-cutscene' fashion. Tornquist and Cage wanted to get away from that because they probably felt it's not dynamic enough, not immersive enough, not emotional enough, according to their idea. That's why they wanted to try new things.

Or was that spin for "we want the action gamers money too"?
If they really wanted to make it enhance the game in the way they stated, why not make it do so? instead of having some lackluster system which actually detracts from the game...

Funcom is not a charity creating games for everyone purely for fun, they are after the almighty dollar just like the rest of us

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yes, it was. But even you have to admit that that is a substantial part of the creation of a game. Let's face it, it has become a serious business. You can't accuse Tornquist, Cage, and others of selling out, because they really are trying to balance their own artistic vision with commercial viability.

I'm actually even surprised that a narratively deep and substantial game like Dreamfall is getting so much press, in this time when very shallow action games, war shooters, sports games, and cute kiddie games are the hottest draws.

[Litrick]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Yes, it was. But even you have to admit that that is a substantial part of the creation of a game. Let's face it, it has become a serious business. You can't accuse Tornquist, Cage, and others of selling out, because they really are trying to balance their own artistic vision with commercial viability.

I'm actually even surprised that a narratively deep and substantial game like Dreamfall is getting so much press, in this time when very shallow action games, war shooters, sports games, and cute kiddie games are the hottest draws.

Yeah, it is suprising, hopefully it can show other developers that adventure games are commercially viable

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Litrick

If they really wanted to make it enhance the game in the way they stated, why not make it do so? instead of having some lackluster system which actually detracts from the game...

They tried. But of course, they are not psychic and can't magically see that the system they implemented may not be the best. I don't think it's so much a lackluster system as it is simply not very good, but naturally they couldn't truly know that until later. And now that the game is out and is being reviewed, they'll be learning from the experience and will either scrap the fighting system altogether or redesign it to be far better for their next game (if that game calls for a fighting system).

And really, this goes for ANY other designers trying something new to THEM. It's a learning process. In this case where Tornquist excels is in storytelling, character, and atmosphere. He's not very good at things like action because he's never done it before, but now he knows what he can improve and we of course expect him to get better at it if he can.

Funcom is not a charity creating games for everyone purely for fun, they are after the almighty dollar just like the rest of us

Like I said, it's a business. You gotta make money. But at least with very creative people like Tornquist you can expect a level of quality and artistic substance.