Adventure Gamers - Forums

just let not get drifted away with our Love for adventure Game (i hope am not interrupting this conversation) but The Cat lady would never appeal to any adventurer who pumped in on the genre within the last 10 years (for instance) or to be precise since after Syberia ,Still life and, Runaway and so on were out….. (*ahem that really needs a thread itself to discus the retro look against the well established) but we/ i know retro games was not appealing 5-6 year ago .. but to the fact the they started given better stories and Gameplaying and on the other side games Fenimore Fillmore’s or Art of Murder and so on ..  start to lose their magic even if their Graphics were wayyy better ..

Monolith - 11 March 2013 07:03 AM

... aesthetically impressive graphics. You can make impressive graphics with few pixels. Shaders don’t make a game beautiful. They assist in making it a reality and more dynamic.

Certainly.

Sorry to tell you though, graphics have always been the cornerstone of Adventure Games.

Possibly just a bad choice of words, but I don’t see any way in which graphics are, or ever have been, the cornerstone of adventure games.

People will continue to argue that story is better, but a story is useless if its not portrayed well. Portrayal includes direction, graphics/visuals and flow. Not one great adventure game would work without its aesthetics.

Which surely gets us no further than “graphics are a (subjective) constituent part of the presentation of a story (or a game in general).”

Not one great adventure game would work without its aesthetics.

True of course, or at least it would not work in the same way, but in the context of an argument as to which is better; graphics or story (which is what you envisage unless I am mistaken) surely the question boils down simply to: Which is better; brilliant graphics/rubbish story, or brilliant story/rubbish graphics?

Sefir - 11 March 2013 08:50 AM

simple technologically speaking.

just Quoted

Sefir - 11 March 2013 08:50 AM

And I’m not so sure that the retro gaming is just a trend that didn’t exist some years ago. Everyone was as eager to try them as now, but the games themselves were not of the same quality (IMO).

not a trend for sure but never as much successful and marketable as now.

Sefir - 11 March 2013 08:50 AM

One more reason I believe that 2012 was one of the best years in adventure gaming.

i am not sure if you mean the best year for a while or ever! ,because if its the latter it then it would be difficult for me to believe

Sefir - 11 March 2013 08:50 AM

Would Riven had the same influence to people (me too) if it’s world used the graphics from the first Myst? Of course not, despite the great story/riddles.

it speaks of the 6,000 000 budget difference

I’m not quoting anyone, but saying “graphics doesn’t matter in adventure games” wouldn’t be quite accurate and would simplify things too much - I mean, would Monkey Island be the same game if it had these kind of graphics (by yours truly ):

(do you see that “airbrush” sky effect? neat, eh? )

But I agree with everyone that the beauty (pun not intended) of adventure games is that graphics is not the most important element. However, and more precisely, since graphics is there to support/bring to life story, puzzles…, what it really needs to achieve is to be of some artistic quality in its own right, if I’m making myself clear. For example, “To the Moon”, “Resonance”, “Primordia”, “Gemini Rue”... scored very high with critics also thanks to the graphics which were of high quality in the domain of “retry-styled” graphics. We might never know if they would be the same/better games if they had different/more modern graphics, but I guess no one cares since the game critics were highly favorable anyway.

BUT - I would be hypocritical if I didn’t say that I also wish type of graphics that will amaze and blew me away in some regards, like a distinctive style in The Curse of Monkey Island, The Whispered World, amazing locales in 1st-person games… which will of course need to work with the rest of the game elements.

That said, The Inquisitor is no-less “ugly” or “prettier” than your average indie game, it’s just that Microids picked it up, which might spruce up the graphics a bit for the final release.

Sefir - 11 March 2013 10:27 AM

Somehow I like it!

Zifnab - 11 March 2013 10:34 AM

But I prefer diego’s style

Ok, I’ll be right back with a kickstarter…

Sefir - 11 March 2013 10:27 AM

I would gladly play a game with graphics hand-drawn a la 10th-year old child drawings along with riddles to emphasize the effect (for example you need a rope, the clouds are drawn like ropes, so you take the clouds instead).

Well that’s a BLOODY BRILLIA… I mean, it’s a good idea. Of course, that’s exactly what I had in mind. I can already smell the kickstarter campaign’s success.

Intense Degree - 11 March 2013 08:38 AM

Sorry to tell you though, graphics have always been the cornerstone of Adventure Games.

Possibly just a bad choice of words, but I don’t see any way in which graphics are, or ever have been, the cornerstone of adventure games.

I agree, the graphics have never been the cornerstone.

Intense Degree - 11 March 2013 08:38 AM

People will continue to argue that story is better, but a story is useless if its not portrayed well. Portrayal includes direction, graphics/visuals and flow. Not one great adventure game would work without its aesthetics.

Which surely gets us no further than “graphics are a (subjective) constituent part of the presentation of a story (or a game in general).”

Which is actually a quite good description of what the graphics mean.

Intense Degree - 11 March 2013 08:38 AM

True of course, or at least it would not work in the same way, but in the context of an argument as to which is better; graphics or story (which is what you envisage unless I am mistaken) surely the question boils down simply to: Which is better; brilliant graphics/rubbish story, or brilliant story/rubbish graphics?

Obviously neither since the best Adventure games had excellent graphics and brilliant story. lol Everyone has the need to say that such opposites are true, but it isn’t. Like I said, graphics == aesthetics. If Gabriel Knight 3 had better graphics, it would of been a better game. By better, I would say it should of been 2D as it would probably benefit better with a sustainable technology and not attempting to be bleeding edge tech.

Also Text Adventures is a terrible argument since they don’t have graphics. That’s like comparing comics to shakespeare. You don’t compare two completely different things.

Also I want to point out that practically every adventure game flaunted its ‘technological prowess’ on its boxes and promotional material. lol ‘REALISTIC 3D GRAPHICS’ (Kings Quest 4)