[Kolorabi]

I haven't quite learned the lesson yet, but I really should stop buying cartoony ("funny") adventure games created in continental Europe. They're never as good as they seem.

[Kolorabi]

I haven't quite learned the lesson yet, but I really should stop buying cartoony adventure games created in continental Europe. They're never as good as they seem (and though they try hard to be funny, they almost always fail).

[gray pierce]

I personally think Runaway's not that bad.

And what is it with "continental" ? I've heard not many people speak in that manner lately

Are you British perhaps ?

Just curious

[rtrooney]

There are any number of things that would cause me not to buy a game. But the number one reason would be a bad demo. (Witness my thoughts on the SL2 demo.)

The second reason would likely be price. There aren't many games I can think of that can justify a price greater than $30US. Most can't justify $20US.

Maybe the third would be if I felt "burned" by a publisher/developer that did not live up to prio expectations. Microids comes to mind.

[noknowncure]

I thought I had a thick skin when it came to things like voice acting - I was willing to let things slide. Then I attempted to play Simon the Sorcerer 4...

It gave me pause and made me realise just how many failings I'd chosen to overlook in Adventure Games generally. My tendency was to shrug and consider leniency due to the supposed poor health of the genre.

Frankly, I'm sick of compromising my standards. I've played too many disappointing AG's to put up with any more. Certain companies have demonstrated that well made, fun Adventure Games are still possible, even in lean times, so I just can't overlook sliding standards anymore. I don't do it with other genres.

I can no longer stand:
Uninspired art style and design
Boring characters
Poor writing and bad dialogue
Bad voice acting

I'm especially frustrated by AG's tendency to pass off plot holes, poor logic and general story/character inconsistencies as further mysteries for fans to endlessly speculate on. Almost as if these flaws are something we should admire the writers for.

[skeeter_93]

I'm pretty easy when it comes to games...graphics, voices etc don't bother me too much. My problem is I am completely uncoordinated so I dislike action sequences. But small amounts that aren't too hard are ok. I just play over and over until I get through (I replayed running from monsters in Bone over and over and over...). I have got Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3 and 4, but haven't got the courage to try them yet.

I don't bother with reviews too much, as I'm never bothered by the things they pick, and am turned off from games I've later tried and liked. I genereally read previews, and check reviews if I see a game and am not sure if it's an adventure.

I must admit, I hardly buy any games here in the UK because they only come in dvd cases. Back home, at least some come in small boxes. I love boxed games...

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by skeeter_93

I have got Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3 and 4, but haven't got the courage to try them yet.

Give BS3 a try I think you might like it. You can also try BS4 but don't expect to much of it as you'll surely get dissapointed

[millenia]

Dreamfall is very playable. I dislike action sequences too but it was all rather easy (didn't need walkthru anywhere) and I only lost one fight at quite beginning. Anyway even if you screw up you usually get another try and another and another. So it's just a bit of patience and/or luck to get through.

What might become a problem is the second visit to the caves (wont get any more specific so I don't spoil) but in that case you can just check a walkthru. Dreamfall never requires lightning reflexes so everything is easily doable if you just figure out what you should do. There is really only one long sequence of sneaking (that happens to be rather easy) and that one long sequence of action/running in the caves. The game is easily worth whacking some buttons to get through those.

I admit the game would be 5/5 to me without the silly action parts but it's still a solid 4.5 with them. You might need to fiddle with the settings a bit to make the controls work for you though. Inverting mouse and lowering the sensitivity made it work for me. Lots of people swear to gamepad (I didn't have the option at the time).

Action is one of the reasons I usually pass an adventure game, but if I'm expecting a great experience overall, I will tolerate some of it. I play other than slow paced point&click games too, but the problem is that most of the adventure games that have action don't just have action, they have clumsy, stupid and pointless action that only works as an irritation and doesn't add anything to the game.

[BootDiskGuy]

I have a large backlog of games yet to be finished!

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by noknowncure

I can no longer stand:
Uninspired art style and design
Boring characters
Poor writing and bad dialogue
Bad voice acting

That's one of the main reasons I've come to prefer puzzle-oriented games lately -- games where you rarely meet boring characters with bad dialogue and bad voice acting.

Originally Posted by gray pierce

I personally think Runaway's not that bad.

And what is it with "continental" ? I've heard not many people speak in that manner lately

Are you British perhaps ?

Just curious

I'm not Kolorabi, and I'm not British, but I agree with him. I enjoy most British and some American and Australian humor. But most games that aren't originally written in English seem to lose something in translation. At least I assume it's the translation that's to blame, though it could be a cultural thing too -- what's considered funny in Czechoslovakia or Germany may not necessarily be funny in the US.

[Puzzler]

I'll usually read the review. If it says anything about...

- lots of time sequence puzzles
- Annoying keyboard control
- bad story or no story
- bad graphics
- the game is really short

...Or if all the reviews, or most of them, conclude the game sucks. I probably won't bother. If one review says the game is bad it might not mean anything, if they all say it, well I should probably believe them.

I have a weak spot for horror adventures, however, especially third person horror adventure games. I love them, but they don't seem to make too many, so that sucks.

[DustyShinigami]

For me it's:

- bad reviews
- poor demos
- buggy games
- poor translations/voice acting
- poor script/writing
- poor/cliched story
- unlikeable characters
- high system requirements
- dead ends and random deaths
- too many/badly designed arcade/action sequences
- Myst-like games (i don't mind 1st person, although i do prefer 3rd, but i'm not keen on pure puzzle games)
- really dated graphics (i don't really mind dated graphics, but some are a bit too dated for my tastes - 80s era)
- text adventures
- poor controls

[Keregioz]

Bad writing is all it takes for me...

[colpet]

When reading some of the comments, I wonder how you know there are unlikable characters or a poor story unless you play the game.
Does the demo tell you all you need?
Are there certain review sites that you rely on?
How about comments from other gamers with similar tastes?
Or, like me, do you just avoid certain games on priniciple? - Myst-like, not mouse controlled, 3rd person cartoony, puzzle oriented or not, etc.

[boinky33]

-Timed sequences

-if you can die in the game or get stuck

-if the game developers have made bad games in the past

-if it is in first person

-too many action sequences

-if it is a horror game, I won't buy it

-repetitive puzzles

-expects you to write things down yourself for a puzzle much later in the game

-a bad interface and inventory system really bug me

-if they try to make the game not seem like an actual adventure game to sell more copies

-if the world is way too big and you only have a few puzzles

-live action gameplay or cutscenes

-too many loading screens

Things like graphics and voice acting aren't that important to me as long as the main character has a good voice actor. And I usually don't go by reviews. I like to see things for myself.

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

I personally think Runaway's not that bad.

And what is it with "continental" ? I've heard not many people speak in that manner lately

Are you British perhaps ?

Just curious

I'm from continental Europe, kind of. But yeah, I much prefer the British and American sense of humor, and the typical low quality translations you find in games from the European mainland doesn't exactly make things better.

[gray pierce]

So much for my guess.

I usually don't pay much attention to people's lingo by the way. I just thought the word sounded so funny and out of time (reminded me of characters in Holmes and Christie novels) I just had to ask

Thanks for clearing this up

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Are you British perhaps ?

Just curious

I've actually noticed that most complaints about continental humour come from other english speaking countries. I imagine this is because the British are a lot closer (geographically) and thus many of us have a slightly better understanding of European culture. (Saying that, I've also become quite weary, recently, if a European game has a lot of humour in it because few companies ever adapt the scripts of their games to suit the humour of other cultures. There were jokes in "Secret Files" which I hadn't even realised were jokes at all).

But being from the Netherlands I'm not sure similar comments apply to you (I wouldn't know if Kolorabi was including dutch humour).

Almost all Dutch people I’ve met have been jovial and jolly. Some of the jokes they’ve made have been quite similar to the ones you’d hear.

Originally Posted by gray pierce

I personally think Runaway's not that bad.

PLAY IT AGAIN, DAMN IT!! The puzzles in the runaway were good and the way they were done were even innovative, in some cases. Some of them made little sense to me (I should have guessed about the peanut butter, however I did know that peanut butter wasn't made by mixing, or even blending, peanuts with butter).

[Little Writer]

I like to think of myself as very open minded. Have played many different adventure games in the past and there's not much I didn't like.

I do feel an aversion to "literal puzzle" games. Where you need pen and paper to figure stuff out. I don't want to make calculations or whatever, or spend hours trying out different settings of some arcane mechanism. I'm more of the "pick up item A" - "combine item A with item B" - "use item AB to open door C" kind of gamer, or interaction with other characters - interview style - to acquire keypanel combinations or whatever.

I hate dead ends, a millions way to die, trial and error. I don't want my progress to depend on chance.

Of course, availability is a very deciding factor. When I browse the store shelves, all I see is Runaway 2 and Sherlock Holmes, neatly hidden behind all the Sims games.

[noknowncure]

Originally Posted by Little Writer

I hate dead ends, a millions way to die, trial and error. I don't want my progress to depend on chance.

Absolutely! Yes.

I do think that deaths can be done well in Adventure Games - usually they help create a particular sense of danger or excitement. It's when, in a game where you've previously been encouraged to click on everything, the designer suddenly decides to include completely arbitrary and unexpected fatalities that annoy me.

And dead ends are the ultimate sin in my opinion. It just reflects bad game design.