[Thilodius]

Here's a question for anyone with too much time on their hands-

I've been hearing a lot from people on this forum (despite my low post count I've been reading stuff on here forever, I just usually dont have anything to input that hasnt already been said) that adventure games these days a) just aint what they used to be, b) are derivative, unoriginal, behind tech-wise, cliche, etc, c) Dont have the same amount of money put into them as they used to, and d) well you should know what else, you read these forums too.

So I gotta ask, if this is true then why does AG rate modern games generally just as highly as older games? Seems like a solid half of the games rated 4+ came out since 2000. Maybe the answer is as simple as, the AG reviewers are just easier to please, or maybe its because we are still judging by a 1990's standard (but this still wouldnt answer the question, if you think older games had better design), I dunno.

Anyone got an answer to this?

[Kurufinwe]

There are many things to discuss there, so I'll just list things as they come to mind.

1) When I review games (I'm only speaking for myself here, but I think others on the staff work the same), I don't consider the score a way of placing each and every adventure game in history on some sort of absolute, universal scale, but, rather, as a recommendation (incidentally, you'll note that it's the word we use on the Editorial policies page); the question I try to answer is not "Is this game a masterpiece that outshines all others?", but "Should someone devote time and money to playing it? To playing it here and now.". To give an example I reviewed, I think The Secrets of Da Vinci was an extremely enjoyable game, one I had much more fun with than most of the often unfair, frustrating and tedious classics. It's certainly not as memorable as Grim Fandango (and I think I explained why in my review), but I definitely had a lot more fun playing it (while it lasted).

2) If you read those forums, you know I've previously argued that one of the heavy trends in current adventure games was increasing diversity, and that it's a good thing. I think this should be taken into account: you can't rate different types of games on the same scale. I don't think Fahrenheit should be bashed for not having the dozens of fetch quests and obscure inventory puzzles of Day of the Tentacle, no more than the latter should be blamed for not having the exciting pacing and story of the former (instead of a plot that doesn't move an inch during 90% of the game's length) -- they're just different games, trying to achieve different things. What the reviews need do is explain what the game tries to be, tries to do, and whether it succeeds in doing that -- and then the readers decide whether it's their cup of tea. So now you've got lots of games which are less ambitious, smaller (and often, usually, less expensive), or simply are very different in style from the classics of the Sierra-LucasArts era. That doesn't mean that they should be rated lower, just that maybe they won't appeal to the same people.

3) I completely disagree with your assessment that current games are derivative, unoriginal, etc., whereas the classics from the Sierra-LucasArts era weren't all that. Most of them were. The time referred to when discussing the "classics" is usually 1990-1994, which was not a time of innovation, but of perfecting techniques and styles. This doesn't mean those games were bad -- certainly not. But blaming current games for being unoriginal is, I feel, unfair. I'll be honest: I don't think the current state of adventure games is all that wonderful (far from it; more on this from me in a week or so), but that doesn't mean that a few gems here and there should make us forget that there also was a lot of mediocre stuff 15 years ago. And that there are some very enjoyable things now. And, to conclude on this tired argument, don't forget that Oblivion is as derivative and unoriginal as it gets, and it's still a great game that enjoyed tremendous success (and which, incidentally, has more, and better, adventure elements than most "adventure games", both past and present).

[fov]

Could be that the people who complain about these things spend more time griping about the good old days than actually playing new games.

I don't consider the score a way of placing each and every adventure game in history on some sort of absolute, universal scale, but, rather, as a recommendation ... the question I try to answer is not "Is this game a masterpiece that outshines all others?", but "Should someone devote time and money to playing it?"

This is a very important distinction.

[Jackal]

Frankly, much of that sort of forum criticism is more reflective of personal bias (whether a nostalgic fondness for games of old, an unrealistic demand for technological progress, etc.) than the quality of the games coming out now, despite often being concealed in an elaborate argument about the failings of the genre. Which is fine (if pointlessly repetitive); it's a forum, and there's no obligation to be at all objective. But the same doesn't hold true for reviews. There are a lot of mediocre games out there that we give mediocre grades to. But they aren't mediocre simply by virtue of being formulaic, low-budgeted, and modestly designed, as you're likely to hear implied (if not flat out declared) on the forums.

As for grading older games, that takes an already inexact science to a whole new level. As Kurufinwe said, we're dealing with the games here and now. We want to recognize any game's historical significance, but that doesn't mean they all survive the test of time, so they're graded accordingly, not with rose-coloured glasses. In general, though, the true classics are still regarded as such.

Overall, AG reviewers are NOT easy to please, and none of our reviewers are so new to adventures that we simply aren't aware of the genre's halcyon days.

[Jake]

I like adventure games.

[Squinky]

I like pie.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I like pie.

Let's just say that I read that as "I like pee."

I love bees.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Jake

Let's just say that I read that as "I like pee."

Yeah, that too.

[Kingzjester]

JA+ gave a higher score to Journey to the Centre of the Earth than they did to Monkey Island 2. I call that pure, raw insanity. When something like this happens, it is not a matter of taste on the part of the reviewer, it is a matter of standards gone to shit through years of lack of real quality.

On AGs, Indigo Prophecy got a higher score than Curse of Monkey Island. The difference between Indigo Prophecy and Day of the Tentacle is just one star. If the Indigo Prophecy's score is acurate, Day of the Tentacle needs a handful more stars.

[Thilodius]

This was actually very informative, thanks admins. By the way, just to make one thing clear, I dont personally have a strong opinion about modern games being derivative, unoriginal etc, I was mostly referring to what other hardcore adventure gamers have said.

Honestly I just play adventure games and try to enjoy them, not worrying so much about the market, game trends, etc. I am curious about the status of adventure games, but I dont think I would spend any time arguing about it.

Thanks again.

PS - And I do love the reviews generally. I just finished The Last Express (which was amazing), and now I'm playing Broken Sword I at the moment and freakin' loving it as well.

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by Jake

I love bees.

Really?