Adventure Gamers - Forums

The worst part about FMV games was often the editing, not the acting (though that was also usually pretty bad.)  Gabriel Knight 2, for example, has passable acting throughout, but is made utterly cringe-worthy by absolutely atrocious editing.  Way too much time spent on shots of the characters breathing, looking around awkwardly (or not appearing to be aware they are on camera), stepping forward, milling around, fishing through their pockets, etc.  It really ruins the pacing of what would otherwise be decent scenes and storytelling.  That’s probably my biggest complaint with the game, from a presentation standpoint.  And that type of problem was present in pretty much every FMV game that came out at that time.

So, if they can get a real film editor that actually knows what they’re doing—it might turn out decently.  Who knows?

Lambonius - 14 April 2013 01:29 PM

So, if they can get a real film editor that actually knows what they’re doing—it might turn out decently.  Who knows?

Have you ever played the Tex games? They (the last two anyway) were already edited and directed by an established Hollywood director and crew. They avoid many of the pitfalls other FMV games suffer from.

But therein lies the problem for Tex. There’s generally an assumption with FMV games that it will fall into certain pitfalls that the series never has; namely using FMV in gameplay bits, featuring simplified gameplay in general, or generally being a poor attempt at film making by an untrained crew, and none of these things are true of that series.

Tex Murphy is not Gabriel Knight 2 or Phantasmagoria. There is no attempt to integrate FMV into the gameplay. It’s ONLY used in cut-scenes and dialog. The gameplay itself is all real-time 3D, and it’s some of the best in the adventure genre.

Frogacuda - 14 April 2013 02:25 PM

Lambonius - 14 April 2013 01:29 PM

So, if they can get a real film editor that actually knows what they’re doing—it might turn out decently.  Who knows?

Have you ever played the Tex games? They (the last two anyway) were already edited and directed by an established Hollywood director and crew. They avoid many of the pitfalls other FMV games suffer from.

No, I definitely haven’t.   

I was speaking, of course, of the stigma of FMV games in general.  All of the FMV games I have  played have suffered from pretty bad editing, which has been a big part of making the experience of playing them a painful slog.

I’ll have to check Tex Murphy out.

Yeah, definitely check them, out. Pandora Directive and UAKM are both All-Time Top 5 material in my humble opinion. The new one looks to be shaping up great too.

The Tex games used FMV to establish a really cinematic presentation, basically using it in place of special-case animations and cut scenes the way a normal adventure game would. It’s the sort of thing games are still doing (albeit with in-engine or pre-rendered visuals instead of live actors), but it was pretty innovative at the time.

It’s also an area that adventure games have, oddly enough, really lagged behind. While RPGs and other genres always have a lot of scripted highly cinematic cut scenes interspersed, adventure games still have a lot of stiff characters and talking heads jabbering at each other or at the camera.

tomimt - 14 April 2013 03:16 PM

Another title that did FMV pretty well IMO was the 3rd Journeyman game. It was integrated nicely to the game world and the acting and direction of FMV scenes was pretty good. Black Dahlia was also well directed and the cast is very strong.

Yeah, you’re right, although usually games like Journeyman 3 and the Myst series skirt the FMV label by just not having much in the way of on-screen characters at all. It’s different than a game like Tex where there’s tons of dialog and cut-scenes.

The problem with old FMV is though, that it’s shows through that the casting budgets weren’t that big, so despite there’s a couple of games that used Hollywood actors, most of had to make do with amateur theare dropouts. In many cases there definetly was more enthustiasim than actual skill.

Bad acting is not really a problem specific to FMV games, though. They just get called out for it more because the comparison to other media is easier to make.

The Tex games had this issue for sure, although they kind of embraced it by being intentionally cheesy. It got worse in Overseer when they started taking themselves too seriously. I’m relieved to see Project Fedora seems to be returning to their trademark mix of campy humor and drama.

Iznogood - 14 April 2013 07:28 PM

And of course if they make enough money to finance the next game themselves, and sell the 2nd game in an equal amount of copies, then they will have even more money to finance the 3rd game, because they don’t have to “give away” copies to the backers.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here. KS is generally allowing (on average) for a much higher “per unit” profit than a normal sale. They are not “giving away” copies, they are selling them, often a premium.

My whole point here is, that Kickstarter is not only a way to finance development of a single game, but it is an opportunity to get something rolling, to quite literary Kickstart a studio

This is absolutely true, and it’s very important. It’s also why I don’t like how quickly adventure game fans have accepted KS as the “new normal.” I think one Kickstarter campaign is a big win for any company, and asking for a second seems greedy, especially if it’s not a complete last resort. Once you’ve been Kickstarted, I feel like it’s on you to keep it going.

That’s the hope; that you can “kickstart” you game and parlay that game into success enough to make another game.  I know that’s the hope with Infamous Quests and “Quest For Infamy”.  We have a couple of games in the pipe-line with concept art, basic demos, etc… I’m hoping that we can continue to make games based on how our first game performs.

Bt

My whole point here is, that Kickstarter is not only a way to finance development of a single game, but it is an opportunity to get something rolling, to quite literary Kickstart a studio

This is absolutely true, and it’s very important. It’s also why I don’t like how quickly adventure game fans have accepted KS as the “new normal.” I think one Kickstarter campaign is a big win for any company, and asking for a second seems greedy, especially if it’s not a complete last resort. Once you’ve been Kickstarted, I feel like it’s on you to keep it going.

Why shouldn’t a company continue to make use of Kickstarter and benefit from the generosity of fans? They’d be crazy not to. Look at the attention you get and how well you can establish a stronger bond with your backers/customers.  Where you make a value judgement and call it “greedy”, I call it not being stupid. Why should anyone be expected to follow these arbitrary rules, such as, “only use KS once or as a last resort”? Who says Kickstarter should only be used in a limited way? No one is forcing anyone to participate as backers in the funding campaigns, which often provide one-of-a-kind rewards and behind the scenes access to the development process. Look at the Torment campaign, for example. Repeat Kickstarter backers seem to be among the more intense fans, and the funding campaigns have sometimes almost become as fun as the games themselves; the campaigns are games/adventures in a sense.

It is definitely worthwhile and interesting to discuss all these things, but let’s not get too caught up in looking for problems and expecting failure. Kickstarter has been the greatest thing to happen to adventure games in years, and whoever thought a few years ago that we’d be seeing this revival today? I hope that Kickstarter and things like it become a more permanent part of adventure game development. I never want to go back to the days of having to beg big publishers to please, please consider funding the kinds of games we love. You can always use more money to make bigger and more complex games, so I don’t think the question of, “do they really need the money?” will be too big a problem for repeat Kickstarter users.

Quest1 - 14 April 2013 08:57 PM

Why shouldn’t a company continue to make use of Kickstarter and benefit from the generosity of fans?

Because they value and respect their fans, presumably. I get that going to the KS well over and over could be good for a developer, but it’s bad for us.

Kickstarter is a place where people willingly trade their rights as a consumer away in exchange for the opportunity to make something happen that wouldn’t otherwise. That sounds negative, but there are many times where that can be a great trade.

But a company that doesn’t need KS and is using it opportunistically because they like free money is stealing away our end of that bargain, leaving us with just an overpriced, shitty store that takes a year and a half to ship our game.

I think Kickstarter is a great tool for creating new opportunities for people that don’t have other options. I’m a big supporter of it for that reason, but ONLY that reason. It’s useless to me otherwise, and I don’t know why anyone would back for any other reason. If the game is getting made either way, just buy it when it’s out, and you can read reviews and watch videos and make a better decision.

No one is forcing anyone to participate as backers in the funding campaigns, which often provide one-of-a-kind rewards and behind the scenes access to the development process.

Repeat Kickstarters are often predicated on the lie that the money is needed when it is not, which I have a problem with right off the bat. Also, those unique rewards are not worth what people are paying for them any more than the PBS Tote bag you got from their pledge drive. They’re incentives to motivate fundraising; they’re by nature designed to be worth much less than what people are paying for them.

Nobody backs $100 for a physical copy of a $20 game because they think that’s worth $100. They do it because they want to help out. And if they don’t actually need the help, then fuck them.

If all this sounds anti-KS, it shouldn’t. I’ve backed dozens of Kickstarters and I’m a big believer in it. But it can still be abused or used in ways that don’t benefit the consumer.

Repeat Kickstarters are often predicated on the lie that the money is needed when it is not, which I have a problem with right off the bat. Also, those unique rewards are not worth what people are paying for them any more than the PBS Tote bag you got from their pledge drive. They’re incentives to motivate fundraising; they’re by nature designed to be worth much less than what people are paying for them.

Nobody backs $100 for a physical copy of a $20 game because they think that’s worth $100. They do it because they want to help out. And if they don’t actually need the help, then fuck them.

Who are you to say whether or not anyone “needs” more money for their project? As I said earlier, you can never have too much money, since games can always be made bigger and more complex. Why should any developer settle for a certain low budget and never aim higher? Because Frogacuda determined they don’t need more?

And how do you know why people are backing projects? Did you conduct a psychological and behavioral survey of tens of thousands of people to determine their motivations? Maybe they find it fun and otherwise emotionally rewarding. Maybe they like the physical and digital rewards. Maybe they like the access. Maybe they like the thrill of the campaign and the sense of community among backers that it fosters. It’s our money, and we will spend it as we like. As for the rewards, if people are backing the projects at certain amounts in order to get certain rewards, then obviously the rewards ARE worth it. They’re only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, after all.

With regard to your offensive suggestion that project managers are “lying” about needing the money, you seem to to be insulting the intelligence of backers. You are suggesting that backers are easily duped? Of course backers should do their due diligence, but it is ultimately our decision on how to proceed. Why do you second guess how other people choose to spend their money?

I don’t think Frogacuda is alone in his feelings; I’ve heard the argument from other people as well.

Some people/companies are comfortable with the crowd-funding model.  Others want to get away from it - Replay, for example, I think wants to move away from it.  Paul Trowe said he thinks that LSL1 reloaded may be their last crowd-funded game.

It’s definitely a great platform - it’s given tremendous opportunities to both larger and smaller indie developers.  We’ll see how it works as a funding/selling platform in years to come. I’m interested to see how it fairs once these games that were funded with it are released.  We’ve seen a few come out - but in the next year or two, we’ll see a lot more.  It’s an interesting time, for sure, to be an adventure game fan. (And producer!)

Bt