[RumRogerz]

Who's played it? I JUST started it, and WOW what a good job they did. I decided to throw this on the adventure threads just because of who made it, and what he made this game to be.
Its insane, i tells ya. All the dialogue is just like an adventure game, and the humor is fantastic. I don't find this game hard at all, it goes by really smoothly, kinda like silk and vasaline... TOGETHER.

[Wormsie]

There are several other Psychonauts threads... See here: http://forums.adventuregamers.com/se...earchid=209361

[fov]

I'm gonna move this thread into General Gaming - please do check out the ones Wormsie linked to, though.

emily

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It's a beautiful game, all in all. It has major platforming but seriously it's really not that hard, someone who mostly plays adventure games could easily pick it up and lose themselves for hours. This game should embarrass the hell out of most adventure games coming out today in terms of what Steve refers to as 'interaction density' - there are a huge amount of things to do, people to talk to, things to discover. An exquisite gem.

[log p]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It's a beautiful game, all in all. It has major platforming but seriously it's really not that hard, someone who mostly plays adventure games could easily pick it up and lose themselves for hours. This game should embarrass the hell out of most adventure games coming out today in terms of what Steve refers to as 'interaction density' - there are a huge amount of things to do, people to talk to, things to discover. An exquisite gem.

how does it compare to the excellent and exceedingly creative beyond good and evil?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by log p

how does it compare to the excellent and exceedingly creative beyond good and evil?

In terms of creativity this game delivers in the bucket load. The environments(levels) you play in are like an LSD trip (in a good way), and no 2 levels feel or play alike. The visuals are breath taking, and on the PC high-res or the XBOX, this game looks beautiful. But the visuals are not merely eye candy. They all draw a wonderful picture of the mind's psyche.

The levels have a deep meaning to them, and are not simply go from point A to point B. Besides the obvious plot, the minds of characters you travel in boast a deep psychological aspect you are trying to tackle, so you will sit and ponder at what everything in the level actually represents. Even some of the unlockables are there to tell you more about the characters and their psyches and why they act the way they do. Also the gameplay changes a lot from one level to the other, so although the basics are all the same, like jumping and swinging and punching and running, no 2 levels play the same.

My only gripes with the game is the platforming. Unlike Jade in Beyond Good and Evil who never misses a jump, or the prince in Prince of persia who can rewind time and give himself another shot at a jump, Raz can fall short on a jump if you are not very accurate. So you will need to repeat some sections multiple times if you are not dexterous. This is not a problem in the early levels since the platforming is very simple, but in the final levels, it becomes very annoying and sometimes frustrating.

But given what the game offers in terms of story, characters, humor, and a breath taking adventure that will change your gaming experience forever, I truly recommend Psychonauts. This is a work of genius, and I believe that everyone who loves adventure games can have a blast in this one.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It's a beautiful game, all in all. It has major platforming but seriously it's really not that hard, someone who mostly plays adventure games could easily pick it up and lose themselves for hours. This game should embarrass the hell out of most adventure games coming out today in terms of what Steve refers to as 'interaction density' - there are a huge amount of things to do, people to talk to, things to discover. An exquisite gem.

It also had (literally) twenty times the budget of most modern adventure games, and three times the development time.

[log p]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

In terms of creativity this game delivers in the bucket load. The environments(levels) you play in are like an LSD trip (in a good way), and no 2 levels feel or play alike. The visuals are breath taking, and on the PC high-res or the XBOX, this game looks beautiful. But the visuals are not merely eye candy. They all draw a wonderful picture of the mind's psyche.

The levels have a deep meaning to them, and are not simply go from point A to point B. Besides the obvious plot, the minds of characters you travel in boast a deep psychological aspect you are trying to tackle, so you will sit and ponder at what everything in the level actually represents. Even some of the unlockables are there to tell you more about the characters and their psyches and why they act the way they do. Also the gameplay changes a lot from one level to the other, so although the basics are all the same, like jumping and swinging and punching and running, no 2 levels play the same.

My only gripes with the game is the platforming. Unlike Jade in Beyond Good and Evil who never misses a jump, or the prince in Prince of persia who can rewind time and give himself another shot at a jump, Raz can fall short on a jump if you are not very accurate. So you will need to repeat some sections multiple times if you are not dexterous. This is not a problem in the early levels since the platforming is very simple, but in the final levels, it becomes very annoying and sometimes frustrating.

But given what the game offers in terms of story, characters, humor, and a breath taking adventure that will change your gaming experience forever, I truly recommend Psychonauts. This is a work of genius, and I believe that everyone who loves adventure games can have a blast in this one.

awesome...thumbs up to ya, dude...the annoying platforming elements, that seem to be the drawback according to you, i can live with...how long have i been falling off ledges in mario now and cursing my very existence?...goin' on twenty very happy years

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jake

It also had (literally) twenty times the budget of most modern adventure games, and three times the development time.

It more than deserved that budget, which is more than I can say about some modern adventure games.

[Burns11]

A large budget doesn't make a game better, it can make graphics and polish better, but story and gameplay are all on the creativity (or lack thereof) of the developers. The same can be said of development time.

[Jake]

Uh right. Because the environment and atmosphere, and immensely varied visual design had nothing to do with its appeal? "Graphics don't matter" is the most bullshit argument of all time, especially in a game trying to employ visual storytelling techniques (read: I'm talking about all graphic adventure games here, in addition to things like Psychonauts).

Trep you've basically described a retarded chicken and the egg scenario here. You're saying that Psychonauts (unlike those cookie cutter adventure games) is totally deserving of a huge budget because it is filled with insane amounts of creative detail and extra gameplay moments (that those bland cookie cutter adventure games can only dream of affording).

I was trying to say that because Psychonauts had a budget twenty times that of the average modern adventure game, it allowed them to build the game they built.

I am assuming by default that the creativity present in Psychonauts wouldn't be there without Tim and his art, programming, animating, music, and sound teams, but if they had $600,000 total or something to make their game, well, they would have had to lay off about 4/5ths of their staff and deliver the game with a turnaround time of two years max (but likely half that). How would you expect a game remotely resembling Psychonauts in scope or creative variedness to appear for that budget? How would you expect a game that even plays like Psychonauts to appear for that money? Had they been able to afford to make the game at all for some miniscule TAC-size budget, we probably would have gotten a pre-rendered 2d platformer (or a 3D platformer that was nothing but the same 30 objects recycled over and over) with horrible voice acting (and far less of it), half the cutscenes, no live instruments in the score, bad play control on the PC port etc etc.

Saying a large budget doesn't make a game better is absolutely retarded. You can make a shitty game regardless of your budget, of course, but with more money you can do more things. With more money you can do what you want, and Psychonauts is basically a gigantic exercise in Double Fine doing what they want. If they had Psychonauts' budget, do you think Moment of Silence (sorry to pick this title yet again , it was just the first one that came to mind due to The Thread) would have been the exact same game it is today? I don't.

Many story-driven games "deserve" the budget that Psychonauts has, next to none get them. Budget matters.

[Glenn Epic]

That's quotable. Check out my signature Jake.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Okay, Jake, OKAY!! Jeezus Cripes, I say something perceivably awkard and look what happens.

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by Jake

Uh right. Because the environment and atmosphere, and immensely varied visual design had nothing to do with its appeal? "Graphics don't matter" is the most bullshit argument of all time, especially in a game trying to employ visual storytelling techniques (read: I'm talking about all graphic adventure games here, in addition to things like Psychonauts).

I never said "graphics don't matter", but they also don't make a game good. All this graphical polish is for naught if the game sucks. Low budget graphics also don't have to look like shit, it's laziness not budget that makes a low budget game look bad. Lower budget graphics won't have the polish that make decent graphics great, but in no way does a low budget game have to look bad. The same can't be said of the converse, there are plenty of massively budgeted games that look and play like garbage.

Originally Posted by Jake

Trep you've basically described a retarded chicken and the egg scenario here. You're saying that Psychonauts (unlike those cookie cutter adventure games) is totally deserving of a huge budget because it is filled with insane amounts of creative detail and extra gameplay moments (that those bland cookie cutter adventure games can only dream of affording).

Sure he was, but it's not like Psychonauts didn't deserve that budget, and creating bland games without even the hint of promise isn't exactly the way to go about getting a higher budget.

Originally Posted by Jake

I was trying to say that because Psychonauts had a budget twenty times that of the average modern adventure game, it allowed them to build the game they built.

Talk about arguing "a retarded chicken and the egg scenario". Somehow games that don't have Psychonauts' budget seem to still be able to create something, anything, memorable about their experience.

Originally Posted by Jake

I am assuming by default that the creativity present in Psychonauts wouldn't be there without Tim and his art, programming, animating, music, and sound teams, but if they had $600,000 total or something to make their game, well, they would have had to lay off about 4/5ths of their staff and deliver the game with a turnaround time of two years max (but likely half that). How would you expect a game remotely resembling Psychonauts in scope or creative variedness to appear for that budget? How would you expect a game that even plays like Psychonauts to appear for that money? Had they been able to afford to make the game at all for some miniscule TAC-size budget, we probably would have gotten a pre-rendered 2d platformer (or a 3D platformer that was nothing but the same 30 objects recycled over and over) with horrible voice acting (and far less of it), half the cutscenes, no live instruments in the score, bad play control on the PC port etc etc.

A game DOESN'T have to be Psychonauts to be good. You seem to be arguing that Psychonauts had to have a large budget to be Psychonauts, well no kidding. Psychonauts had to have Tim Schafer to be Psychonauts, does that mean every game needs Tim Schafer to be good? It wouldn't hurt, but no it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Jake

Saying a large budget doesn't make a game better is absolutely retarded. You can make a shitty game regardless of your budget, of course, but with more money you can do more things. With more money you can do what you want, and Psychonauts is basically a gigantic exercise in Double Fine doing what they want. If they had Psychonauts' budget, do you think Moment of Silence (sorry to pick this title yet again , it was just the first one that came to mind due to The Thread) would have been the exact same game it is today? I don't.

A shitty game is a shitty game, no matter how much money you throw at it. Large amounts of money don't add up to a whole hell of a lot when the creativity behind the game isn't there. How large was Moment of Silence's budget anyway, wasn't it in development for 3+ years?

Originally Posted by Jake

Many story-driven games "deserve" the budget that Psychonauts has, next to none get them. Budget matters.

So, to take you own example, Moment of Silence "deserved" a larger budget. Why? Because Mystery of the Druids was such a lowsy game in every aspect? Most of what was wrong with MotD had nothing to do with budget, and the budget related problems, had they been jammed with cash, the game still would have been a turd.

[SoccerDude28]

Burns, money is as important to game making as talent is. Having talent alone without a budget will lead to a well conceived concept that utterly looks like crap. Also it might limit the creativity of the game designer a lot. There are some things that a designer would want to add, but he is limited with the technology at hand. And to get better technology, you usually need to spend more money.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that given money, you can come up with the best looking game that plays like crap. DOOM 3 is an example. These are usually tagged as tech demos, because they boast about their technology more than their gameplay. So money and talent, I believe, go hand in hand to make a great game.

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Burns, money is as important to game making as talent is. Having talent alone without a budget will lead to a well conceived concept that utterly looks like crap. Also it might limit the creativity of the game designer a lot. There are some things that a designer would want to add, but he is limited with the technology at hand. And to get better technology, you usually need to spend more money.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that given money, you can come up with the best looking game that plays like crap. DOOM 3 is an example. These are usually tagged as tech demos, because they boast about their technology more than their gameplay. So money and talent, I believe, go hand in hand to make a great game.

Whether or not a game "looks like crap" is subjective, there are ways around not having the money to create the best graphics (style).

But anyway that's not the point, no matter how much money someone has to create a game it comes down to creativity. Good dialogue, story, characters, interesting (not complex) puzzle concepts, all these cost next to nothing for someone to create. Had some of these vanilla adventure games had any of these, this whole conversation would be moot. But they didn't, and it seems to some of you that a lack of money is a valid excuse for lack of effort/crativity.

[vonpookie]

Originally Posted by Burns11

But anyway that's not the point, no matter how much money someone has to create a game it comes down to creativity. Good dialogue, story, characters, interesting (not complex) puzzle concepts, all these cost next to nothing for someone to create. Had some of these vanilla adventure games had any of these, this whole conversation would be moot. But they didn't, and it seems to some of you that a lack of money is a valid excuse for lack of effort/crativity.

On the flip-side of this, effort/creativity could be available in abundance, but if there is no budget there is the possibility of being unable to implement said creativity exactly as desired.

::shrug::

Edit: A small budget doesn't always equal a tepid game, however. For games, I think it's more or less the fate of having the "right" people (artists, musicians, writers, etc.) and the developers who can get their vision across within their restraints. People have to do this every darn day in the real world, games are not exempt. It all (unfortunately) comes down to simple business.

[MDMaster]

Originally Posted by Jake

Many story-driven games "deserve" the budget that Psychonauts has, next to none get them. Budget matters.

So you're saying that most (if not all) amateur/low budget games suck? I would gladly choose Trackmania any day of the week over GT2 or Pleurghburg Dark Ages over Still Life.
And I'm not saying I like the amateur/low budget best, just that given the right amount of creativity, one can have loads of fun even with such kinds of games. Budget matters, but the most important thing is how you 'use it'... right?

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by MDMaster

So you're saying that most (if not all) amateur/low budget games suck? I would gladly choose Trackmania any day of the week over GT2 or Pleurghburg Dark Ages over Still Life.

Still Life is a low-budget game, Pleurghburg Dark Ages is no-budget game. There's a difference. When there's no budget, the budget is actually unlimited, because you can use your free time, skills and resources to make the game and you don't have to worry at all about making profit or pleasing anyone. When you get a budget you (usually) must work within its restraints. But when the whole game is started on the basis that it is free, you can get a good professional artist or a writer to work on it for free (Igor, Yahtzee, Herculean Effort guys). If you had a budget, it would be a very low budget, and you couldn't pay those two artists to work on the project: they already have day jobs.

So in exchange of a slow work pace and freedom and flexibility, the artists will work for you for free.

I wonder how much sense that made...

[squarejawhero]

you can get a good professional artist or a writer to work on it for free

Careful now. Not all of us can or like to work for free, and it should never be assumed that writers or artists have the free time or inclination to work on someone elses project unless you're very lucky.

I've worked for free and got burnt by it early in my career, and hate seeing other young artist being cornered by it. There's a stigma attatched to creative positions throughout certain corners of the media industry which seems to say what we do "isn't work".

I can see what you're saying. But never expect it to happen. If it does, you're very lucky, know the artist involved or they're, fortunately for you, looking for another outlet. If you go after artists to work for free on your project, unless they're heavily involved and are getting something out of it, expect "free" quality.

Just a note.

Signed,

Good professional artist.