• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Games Database
  • Game Discovery
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Forums
continue reading below
Advertisement

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Post Marker Legend:

  • New Topic New posts
  • Old Topic No new posts

Currently online

chrissiecrowdancejackDaphoenyxmattaukamp

Support us, by purchasing through these affiliate links

   

Most improved game companies

Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2005-12-06

PM

Zifnab - 26 June 2013 01:31 AM

Should I play the rest of Blackwell #3 and #4? Maybe, but if you had read 2 books by an author and don’t like them, would you keep going hoping for a massive sudden boost of talent? I doubt it.

No you don’t need to play them as you obvisouly don’t like them. But then you are not the best person to evaluate if the series improves. Very simple.

I don’t like some TV series and I don’t watch them. Then again I don’t go on around stating that the series is crap from start to finish and doesn’t improve at all. It might get better, I believe it probably does if ratings, fans and critics say so. But I’m still not going to watch it because I don’t like the whole premise. I failed to see the reason behind you going against a fan in this issue in the first place.

And I wasn’t aware that this thread had so tight rules. Some kind of meter how improved the company must be. And apparently Publishing Company is not a game company, just the developing company is. I didn’t know that either.

     

Currently playing: Requiescence, Divinity II
Recently finished: The Silent Age, Overland, Before We Leave, Demonheart, SoulSet, Quantum Consciense, Amnesia: Memories
My game reviews and other stuff: Lux Atarnia

Avatar

Total Posts: 3933

Joined 2011-03-14

PM

Regarding Wadjet Eye then it is a bit confusing, as they are both a studio that make games themselves and a publisher that publish games made by others.

Games like Gemini Rue, Resonance and Primordia are all made by different studio’s (perhaps with a bit of help from Wadjet) and published by Wadjet, whereas The Shiva, Emerald City Confidential and the Blackwell series are made by Dave Gilbert and Wadjet Eye Games themselves.

Even if we only look at the games made by Dave Gilbert and Wadjet, then i still think they have shown a lot of improvement, i haven’t played The Shiva and ECC myself, but i have played the Blackwell series, and there is a lot of improvements between the first and the 3th and 4th, not only in the graphics but also in the story and the puzzles.

     

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

Avatar

Total Posts: 4011

Joined 2011-04-01

PM

millenia - 26 June 2013 05:47 AM

And I wasn’t aware that this thread had so tight rules.

It doesn’t. You can talk about whichever companies you like. Wadjet Eye is a company too and it doesn’t matter that some of the games are by different people. We can still talk about the best Disney movie even though they are made by different people.  Smile

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 25

Joined 2013-05-13

PM

Zifnab - 24 June 2013 08:20 PM

Telltale started with games like Bone and Sam & Max Season 1 and has declined from there.

Really? The Walking Dead included?

     

Simon (the Sorcerer) doesn’t appreciate that you’re not following the news of his upcoming adventure!
http://www.storybeasts.com is the place to go for updates and such.

Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2012-09-28

PM

WrongTarget - 27 June 2013 05:56 AM
Zifnab - 24 June 2013 08:20 PM

Telltale started with games like Bone and Sam & Max Season 1 and has declined from there.

Really? The Walking Dead included?

Yes, and Jurassic Park. Absolutely. Remember we are talking about adventure games. Telltale might have improved as an action company, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that their adventuring has improved.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 25

Joined 2013-05-13

PM

I claim it. At least with TWD, and not only do I think that it favored Telltale itself but also modern adventure as we’ve known it in the last 10 years.
It was for me an organic evolution of the genre that managed to include a broader audience who previously didn’t find it as compelling as hardcore adventure gamers as us.
It was a huge step forward, IMO. Yes, a different kind of game than Sam & Max, but by no means inferior.

     

Simon (the Sorcerer) doesn’t appreciate that you’re not following the news of his upcoming adventure!
http://www.storybeasts.com is the place to go for updates and such.

Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2012-09-28

PM

I have heard the “step forward” claim before but no one says why. I can think of a few things the game did differently:
-Quick-time action elements: Not a step forward. We had those in Alone in the Dark and they are in almost every action game.
-Quick-choice dialogue choices: Might have been a step forward if they had consequences other than killing you if you say the wrong thing. They didn’t even offer alternate endings, from what I’ve heard.

I can think of many more things the game did that were a “step back”:
-Very limited exploration
-Almost no puzzles requiring intelligent thought
-Quick keyboard/mouse skills required
-Very linear, step-by-step game offering little freedom

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 25

Joined 2013-05-13

PM

QTE has been in several adventure games too in the past.
In any case, I think it has to do very little with the mechanics, which were just trying to make the game more “mainstream”, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I believe your listed step backs are arguable. The quick keyboard/mouse skills couldn’t possibly been that difficult considering how well this game did with such a diverse audience.
I agree, the exploration and freedom was sacrificed but for what’s probably the most acclaimed thing about the game: it’s compelling story and emotional experience. It allowed to maintain a steady rhythm that otherwise would’ve been impossible. That’s a huge step forward.

Not every adventure game (or rpg, or action) has to be non-linear, and I don’t think that makes them either better or worse. It’s all about the payback in the end.
The consensus seems to be that a huge amount of players got involved in a way that rarely has occurred before and that’s amazing.

     

Simon (the Sorcerer) doesn’t appreciate that you’re not following the news of his upcoming adventure!
http://www.storybeasts.com is the place to go for updates and such.

Total Posts: 132

Joined 2007-02-10

PM

WrongTarget - 27 June 2013 07:50 AM

Not every adventure game (or rpg, or action) has to be non-linear, and I don’t think that makes them either better or worse. It’s all about the payback in the end.
The consensus seems to be that a huge players got involved in a way that rarely has occurred before and that’s amazing.

I can imagine it being quite an overrated game, given its crossover appeal, but I’d agree it’s not really a step backwards. 

Freedom doesn’t mean much when it just gives you the ability to be stuck wandering over 50+ different backgrounds because you missed one minute item.  And QTEs are a more engaging of selecting different actions than having to go through an elaborate verb menu or a generic ‘click to act’ button.

 

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 278

Joined 2008-07-11

PM

Zifnab - 27 June 2013 06:05 AM

Remember we are talking about adventure games. Telltale might have improved as an action company, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that their adventuring has improved.

Interesting characters are the cornerstone of third-person adventures, right? The Walking Dead has great characters. They talk to each other, they have their own motives, they like/dislike things, they react to the current situation, they do unpredictable things, they sometimes die.

Compare that to your average adventure game NPC that stands in a corner by themselves for an entire game and you start to see the successes of The Walking Dead.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2012-09-28

PM

orient - 27 June 2013 09:41 PM

Interesting characters are the cornerstone of third-person adventures, right?

In Keepsake, you don’t meet any characters and that is one of my favorite games. Riven too but you don’t want to talk about 1st person games because they refute your argument, right?

No, I don’t see characters being the cornerstone. They are possibly the cornerstone of movies, but that is a passive medium. Games are called games because you play them. And I felt that the way TWD was played was not a step forward for adventure games. Interactive movies, QTE games? Possibly, but I’m not into those. I enjoy intellectual challenge, which TWD didn’t provide me.

orient - 27 June 2013 09:41 PM

The Walking Dead has great characters. They talk to each other, they have their own motives, they like/dislike things, they react to the current situation, they do unpredictable things, they sometimes die.

Compare that to your average adventure game NPC that stands in a corner by themselves for an entire game and you start to see the successes of The Walking Dead.

Are you telling me Stan is a bad character because he stands in a corner?

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 278

Joined 2008-07-11

PM

Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:03 PM
orient - 27 June 2013 09:41 PM

Interesting characters are the cornerstone of third-person adventures, right?

In Keepsake, you don’t meet any characters and that is one of my favorite games. Riven too but you don’t want to talk about 1st person games because they refute your argument, right?

I’m not trying to outline what an adventure game should or shouldn’t be—we all judge them based on different criteria. All I’m saying is that, typically (and obviously there are exceptions), interesting characters are something that people look for in third-person adventures. I don’t think that’s a very controversial statement.

Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:03 PM

Interactive movies, QTE games? Possibly, but I’m not into those. I enjoy intellectual challenge, which TWD didn’t provide me.

That’s fair enough, but realise that there are plenty of people that play adventure games for the characters. For those people (me included), the characters in TWD were a step forward for the genre.

Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:03 PM

Are you telling me Stan is a bad character because he stands in a corner?

No, surprisingly I’m not, but feel free to take everything I say 100% literally.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2012-09-28

PM

orient - 27 June 2013 10:26 PM
Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:03 PM
orient - 27 June 2013 09:41 PM

Interesting characters are the cornerstone of third-person adventures, right?

In Keepsake, you don’t meet any characters and that is one of my favorite games. Riven too but you don’t want to talk about 1st person games because they refute your argument, right?

I’m not trying to outline what an adventure game should or shouldn’t be—we all judge them based on different criteria. All I’m saying is that, typically (and obviously there are exceptions), interesting characters are something that people look for in third-person adventures. I don’t think that’s a very controversial statement.

No, I suppose it’s not. I enjoy interesting characters too.

That’s fair enough, but realise that there are plenty of people that play adventure games for the characters. For those people (me included), the characters in TWD were a step forward for the genre.

See, it’s these words “for the genre” that i’m interested in. Why adventure games specifically? Couldn’t your argument be used in the same way if TWD was a role-playing game? Characters are important in every type of game.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 278

Joined 2008-07-11

PM

Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:35 PM

See, it’s these words “for the genre” that i’m interested in. Why adventure games specifically? Couldn’t your argument be used in the same way if TWD was a role-playing game? Characters are important in every type of game.

TWD had great characters irrespective of genre. I think it was a step forward for the medium—it just so happens to be an adventure game, or at least closer to an adventure game than any other genre.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1368

Joined 2012-09-28

PM

orient - 27 June 2013 11:14 PM
Zifnab - 27 June 2013 10:35 PM

See, it’s these words “for the genre” that i’m interested in. Why adventure games specifically? Couldn’t your argument be used in the same way if TWD was a role-playing game? Characters are important in every type of game.

TWD had great characters irrespective of genre. I think it was a step forward for the medium—it just so happens to be an adventure game, or at least closer to an adventure game than any other genre.

You’re missing my point. Here, I’ll try and make it simpler: Let’s say a new game is released with brilliant characters like TWD. The gameplay consists of running around chopping people’s heads off with a chainsaw. Now I say: “This game is an incredible leap forward for adventure games”. When you ask “why?” I say “the characters”.

You can’t see anything wrong with that? Characters aren’t what is distinctive about adventure games. I’m fine with you telling me the characters in TWD is a step forward for gaming, but when having movie-like characters entails replacing puzzles with QTEs you can’t tell me it’s a step forward for adventure games specifically, a genre centered around puzzles in a story context.

     

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!