[Monolith]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Are you aware how many people it takes to make a game like Uncharted. I was watching the behind the scenes for God of War 3 for example, and at one point in time, 80 people were working on that game. Now the game took 2+ years, and assume on average, with health insurance and benefits and all, an employee costs around 60,000 in LA. That is around 9 million only in salaries. Let's not forget the office space cost, utilities, hardware and software costs, etc... and you get an idea how much it costs to make a big budget game like Uncharted. Then you'll have to add marketing costs and ad spend, production and distribution costs, and the number can go up to around 20 million.

Unfortunately, making games on consoles and high end PC's these days is a very pricey business, and if you strip away the emotion and love that we all have for this beautiful genre, will you green light a 20 million dollar budget for an adventure game that will probably not break even?

But now people are reaching the same quality as these games in mods by working for free. It's all about how you run your project. Even million dollar games can still end up like shit.

Lets be honest though. The economy is pretty bad and there are plenty of quality artists out there. It won't cost much to snatch up a more than decent designer.

[Henke]

Huge open games in full 3D with multiple choices can be great but costs alot of money to develope (like many have already pointed out).

But that doesn't make simpler games any less good. They can in fact be better IMO. The main reason for this is simple. When there are alot of money at stake people won't take chances, instead they like to play it safe. This often results in a boring game. When there is less money involved the developers have a bigger chance of implementing their ideas without compromises.

I would also like to point out one more time that cutting edge technology in itself doesn't make a good game and is not something that every developer should aim for.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Henke

But that doesn't make simpler games any less good. They can in fact be better IMO. The main reason for this is simple. When there are alot of money at stake people won't take chances, instead they like to play it safe. This often results in a boring game. When there is less money involved the developers have a bigger chance of implementing their ideas without compromises.

Nah, no matter how much money you invest in a game project you want it to be the best it can be given the budget. Money is money and you wouldn't want to waste $10,000 any less than $10 million. So as long as there's any amount of time and money involved there will always be compromises and decisions on whether to take risks here or there. No one really wants to make a huge effort just to make a lousy game, do they?

I would also like to point out one more time that cutting edge technology in itself doesn't make a good game and is not something that every developer should aim for.

Conversely, low tech doesn't guarantee a good game, either. And it can definitely stifle creativity sometimes because you have far fewer choices on how to design it. With cutting edge tech you get to play around more because there are less walls around you, thanks to better technology and resources. With low tech you're forced to be more resourceful and particularly creative.

[Idrisguitar]

Originally Posted by Henke

Huge open games in full 3D with multiple choices can be great but costs alot of money to develope (like many have already pointed out).

But that doesn't make simpler games any less good. They can in fact be better IMO. The main reason for this is simple. When there are alot of money at stake people won't take chances, instead they like to play it safe. This often results in a boring game. When there is less money involved the developers have a bigger chance of implementing their ideas without compromises.

I would also like to point out one more time that cutting edge technology in itself doesn't make a good game and is not something that every developer should aim for.

this.

2d point and click games are always my favourite, great art, story, music, atmsosohere, writing, and puzzles make a perfect game for me. theres no need for 3d tech and uncharted 2 style cutscenes.

i would say this is especially so for jane jensen, as she is such a great writer that trying something too complicated and making the game clunky and slightly odd looking (animation wise) is a dissapointment, however im sure the game will be great, im just making a point of the seemingly over-ambitious design choice.

i would have much rathered the 2d styling of GK1 with hi def art.

it's my opinion, but people looking for an oblivion/uncharted/gabriel knight from Ms(or mrs?) Jensen are in a pipe dream that will never approach reality.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Idrisguitar

it's my opinion, but people looking for an oblivion/uncharted/gabriel knight from Ms(or mrs?) Jensen are in a pipe dream that will never approach reality.

That's rather presumptuous of you, isn't it?

If you're going to presume that about me and others who feel similarly, I'll then presume this about you: Where is it written in stone, Idrisguitar, that an adventure game, even one by Ms. Jensen, MUST ONLY BE 2D and point-&-click?

The reason you feel that way about adventure games is that you are oblivious of examples of great high budget, high quality real time 3D games with a very strong story, strong characters, and challenges for the brain instead of the thumbs. I don't think you have the imagination to envision a such a game, so I'll give you this:

Heavy Rain: The Taxidermist (part 1)

With the technology and vision today that's the closest we've gotten so far, but it's David Cage's version of one direction a contemporary adventure game could go. Watch the clip to refresh yourselves.

Wanna see another one? Here you go:

Dreamfall: The longest Journey Walkthrough Part 2 (HD)

Want one more example of a high caliber 3D game that focuses on story and cerebral challenges? No problem:

Myst 5: End of Ages Walkthrough - Level 2 - The Lake Puzzle (SPOILER)

Wanna bet that if a large company like Sony, Electronic Arts, or Ubisoft approached Ms. Jensen and offered her the chance to make GK4 with a very generous budget and talented staff she would jump at it? Because that's essentially what Sierra did for her with Gabriel Knight 3. It's really a matter of vision and scope - and reality. A 3D GK4 is far more marketable to a larger audience than a 2D point-&-click, especially on consoles and upcoming platforms like the iPad.

So in summary it may not be possible to have a GK4 on the same level as GK3 was in the late 90s. A GK4 today, given the same luxury of resources and funding that Ms. Jensen and her team enjoyed under Sierra for GK3, would probably approach the level of quality of Uncharted 2 or Heavy Rain. But that entails conditions - the game must be in real time 3D because that's what most gamers demand, thus it's most marketable; it must have some of the best voice actors available; it must be strategically marketed, etc. Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon enjoyed some those perks, remember?

[Roper Klacks]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Wanna bet that if a large company like Sony, Electronic Arts, or Ubisoft approached Ms. Jensen and offered her the chance to make GK4 with a very generous budget and talented staff she would jump at it? Because that's essentially what Sierra did for her with Gabriel Knight 3.

You are absolutely right. All Gabriel Knight games were big budget productions, and all of them used the latest technologies available at the time. Dispite GK3 serious technical problems, that game had a huge budget for its time and was very ambitious. If it was today, a Gabriel Knight game would be closer to a Heavy Rain than a Gray Matter in terms of technology, ambition and investment (not in gameplay mechanics, obviously). People tend to forget that the adventure genre was mainstream and moved a lot of money in the 90's.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Roper Klacks

You are absolutely right. All Gabriel Knight games were big budget productions, and all of them used the latest technologies available at the time...

Don't mean to depress you guys, but for old time's sake...

Gabriel Knight 3: Day 1 (10am - 12 noon): part 1/4 (playing as Gabriel) *SPOILER*
Gabriel Knight 3: Day 2 (7am - 10am): part 1/4 (playing as Grace) *SPOILER*

*sigh* I miss playing with SIDNEY.

[Monolith]

based on your replies, I think it is my right to complain that graphics detract from the story and we should just rely on Text Adventures. lol

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Nah, no matter how much money you invest in a game project you want it to be the best it can be given the budget. Money is money and you wouldn't want to waste $10,000 any less than $10 million. So as long as there's any amount of time and money involved there will always be compromises and decisions on whether to take risks here or there. No one really wants to make a huge effort just to make a lousy game, do they?

Obviously, the thing is that people have different opinions of what makes a game good. When there are alot of money and alot of investors involved they tend to make a dull game (not always though). According to me, true art often makes half the audience love it and the other half hate it. If you try and please everybody you risk to be left with something whose best scenario is that everybody think it's all right but nobody think it's truly great. Of course everybody wants to make as much profit as possible but it's difficult (if not impossible) to know how an audience is going to react in advance. Therefore if there is less money involved they often feel that they can take bigger chances because even if it doesn't sell millions of copies they can still make money out of it.

[DustCropper]

Originally Posted by Roper Klacks

You are absolutely right. All Gabriel Knight games were big budget productions, and all of them used the latest technologies available at the time. Dispite GK3 serious technical problems, that game had a huge budget for its time and was very ambitious. If it was today, a Gabriel Knight game would be closer to a Heavy Rain than a Gray Matter in terms of technology, ambition and investment (not in gameplay mechanics, obviously). People tend to forget that the adventure genre was mainstream and moved a lot of money in the 90's.

Yes, definitely. I miss playing big-budget adventure games that were polished with high production values and cutting edge technology. Modern AGs definitely don't have the same polish and I always get a sense that developers are cutting corners left and right, and obviously that's because there's a lot less money involved.

Anyways, this discussion made me think of the video interviews that Adventure Gamers did with JJ last year. When asked about the debate between 2D vs 3D, she had this to say:

GK3 was such a complicated game to stage because you always, you know... in terms of an adventure game, it doesn't really add so much that it's worth all the time and effort that you have to put into it to make the camera move... it's just overkill. Personally I'd rather spend that production budget on more story and more puzzles, because I think what an adventure gamer really wants is just a beautiful environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAgyoYenJE8#t=5m11s

[Idrisguitar]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That's rather presumptuous of you, isn't it?

If you're going to presume that about me and others who feel similarly, I'll then presume this about you: Where is it written in stone, Idrisguitar, that an adventure game, even one by Ms. Jensen, MUST ONLY BE 2D and point-&-click?

The reason you feel that way about adventure games is that you are oblivious of examples of great high budget, high quality real time 3D games with a very strong story, strong characters, and challenges for the brain instead of the thumbs. I don't think you have the imagination to envision a such a game, so I'll give you this:

Heavy Rain: The Taxidermist (part 1)

With the technology and vision today that's the closest we've gotten so far, but it's David Cage's version of one direction a contemporary adventure game could go. Watch the clip to refresh yourselves.

Wanna see another one? Here you go:

Dreamfall: The longest Journey Walkthrough Part 2 (HD)

Want one more example of a high caliber 3D game that focuses on story and cerebral challenges? No problem:

Myst 5: End of Ages Walkthrough - Level 2 - The Lake Puzzle (SPOILER)

Wanna bet that if a large company like Sony, Electronic Arts, or Ubisoft approached Ms. Jensen and offered her the chance to make GK4 with a very generous budget and talented staff she would jump at it? Because that's essentially what Sierra did for her with Gabriel Knight 3. It's really a matter of vision and scope - and reality. A 3D GK4 is far more marketable to a larger audience than a 2D point-&-click, especially on consoles and upcoming platforms like the iPad.

So in summary it may not be possible to have a GK4 on the same level as GK3 was in the late 90s. A GK4 today, given the same luxury of resources and funding that Ms. Jensen and her team enjoyed under Sierra for GK3, would probably approach the level of quality of Uncharted 2 or Heavy Rain. But that entails conditions - the game must be in real time 3D because that's what most gamers demand, thus it's most marketable; it must have some of the best voice actors available; it must be strategically marketed, etc. Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon enjoyed some those perks, remember?

Fair enough, thats a good post. But i feel like you are targeting my post liked i called you out in the first place. (which was not the case)

I wasn't really addressing anyone in my post so there was no need to be defensive, i was just picking up on all the posts showing heavy rain and uncharted and thought it was a bit unfair to ask that of Ms Jensen.

I only mentioned that i prefer 2d games. MY personal preference. I would be happy if it was simple 2d with sprites and great art. As the quote above say from the lady herself, 2d allows for more of the budget to be spent on other facets of the game. Although i do agree, in order for this game to make money it needs to crack open a wider market and can only do that by being in 3d.

Then again games like braid and limbo have done pretty well. But of course then she wouldn't be able to charge full price going into that category i guess.

Anyway i apologise if i offended though as that was never my intent, i truly was just airing a general thought, and not aiming any criticism at any person in particular.

[UPtimist]

Originally Posted by Roper Klacks

People tend to forget that the adventure genre was mainstream and moved a lot of money in the 90's.

(first of all, sorry if I misunderstood your point. But anyways...)
But, lest we forget, that was a very different time and AGs just don't move that much money anymore. You'll need something not much short of a revolution in the gaming business to get AGs back in the big league (or even mid-league). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but with things the way they are, I doubt any of those with the capabilities would invest in something that is almost certainly not give as much back as something already mainstream. With the risk that it'll actually be a financial fiasco (critical and financial success are two very different things, after all).

Again, I'm not saying I don't wish for it to be so again, it's just that because AGs had a big market and budgets was because the gaming market overall was very different. The supply was much more narrow. You can't draw any conclusions about the plausibility of the same today.

Personally I'm slightly bored with 2.5D. However, I think it has much to do with, as others said, with the amount of polish these games are given though. Many games feel just like repetition, the surroundings are just stages and the puzzles glued on. You (or I) don't get immersed at all that well in a static (or semi-static) 2(.5)D environment. Whereas GK3 had that beautiful world that you were a part of. With the smallish budget and the team that Gray Matter has, I'm awaiting great things from the story and characters, but something that's just above average from the rest. I doubt that GM will be close in the greatness that GKs had, as Jane isn't at all as involved with the actual (day-to-day or whatever) process. Too much is left to others. Still, I haven't got much doubt that it will be amongst the best AGs in quite a while (even this millenium, I dare suggest).

[Fien]

Well, it's official. Lace Mamba has confirmed the new release date: 25 February.

Who cares. Shrug.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by UPtimist

But, lest we forget, that was a very different time and AGs just don't move that much money anymore.

Conversely, lest we forget, today is a very different time - thus a different state of mind - from the 90s but AGs in general never made the attempt to adapt to the change, to advancing technologies, market shifts and fluctuations, and the general zeitgeist of how games can be presented and experienced.

This is why we rarely ever see an adventure game covered, much less reviewed, on a continuous basis by sites like The New York Times, Slate, and BBC News. The world of gaming is all pervasive and ubiquitous in the 21st century, and you know it is because those sites reporting it aren't dedicated to gaming but have been including gaming reportage in their technology or art or culture pages for the past decade.

You'll need something not much short of a revolution in the gaming business to get AGs back in the big league (or even mid-league). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but with things the way they are, I doubt any of those with the capabilities would invest in something that is almost certainly not give as much back as something already mainstream. With the risk that it'll actually be a financial fiasco (critical and financial success are two very different things, after all).

The questions I'm curious to ask many AG developers and publishers that once thrived in the 90s is - Why didn't you guys adapt to the changes? Why didn't you embrace consoles like Playstation and XBox when they were becoming big? Why did you stop experimenting and innovating and re-conceptualizing?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Gray Matter slips to February 2011 | Joystiq, Oct 11th 2010

UK-based adventure game publisher Lace Mamba Global has announced another unfortunate "slippage" of Gray Matter. As developer WizarBox and co-publisher dtp entertainment work to get the hard-to-handle contents of Jane Jensen's game in order, Lace Mamba has "no alternative but to delay the release until the chosen date," according to an announcement. (Prior to today's delay, the game was scheduled for release this month.)

The latest chosen date for both the PC and Xbox 360 versions? February 25, 2011 in the UK (which, by the standard retail calendar, would put Gray Matter in North America on February 22.) "[W]e now know for certain that the date we have is the date Gray Matter will be available," declared Lace Mamba's Jason Codd, perhaps jinxing the project again.

"[D]ue to the tight time frames, and the need for more polishing of the game we had no alternative but to make a quick decision and delay the product until February," Codd explained. "This will give the development team more time in ensuring that the game measures up to the standards that have been set" -- now, are those the original 2004 standards, or ...?

Six years in development and limbo, eh? What kind of "polishing" does it need? Have the standards been re-set to reflect 2010, thus pushing the game back further for release?

From a May 3, 2004 news report at JA+ :

Asked for specifics as to why Gray Matter has been placed on hold, Jane said, “Dreamcatcher’s big adventure game titles like Broken Sword: Sleeping Dragon and Syberia have not been very profitable and they could not justify putting a large budget into the title so the game was put on hold.”

Why weren't BS:SD and Syberia profitable?

[Luther10]

And comes February 2011, we'll have another delay... NICE

[DustyShinigami]

For anyone who cares... the 360 achievements list is available.

The bulk of them are secret.

[Roper Klacks]

So its delayed also in Germany right?

Originally Posted by Luther10

And comes February 2011, we'll have another delay... NICE

Yeah pretty much. At this point i simply don't trust anyone over there.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Roper Klacks

So its delayed also in Germany right?

Why should it? The game discs have been already pressed and are ready for distribution.

[Roper Klacks]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Why should it? The game discs have been already pressed and are ready for distribution.

Reading the press release they state that the delay is to "give the development team more time in ensuring that the game measures up to the standards that have been set". If the game is finished what will they improve?