Adventure Gamers - Forums

Not only “not as good”, they’re actually the worst we’ve seen from them.

Let’s start with the most obvious one - Moebius is hardly as good as even Gray Matter, let alone Gabriel Knight. And Gabriel Knight 1 remake is not exactly a dream remake either.

Broken Age. Average. Hardly a material to be compared with Day of The Tentacle or Full Throttle.

Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure - haven’t played the Tex games yet, but I’m still to see Tex fans confirming that Tesla Effect is as good as Under a Killing Moon, Pandora Directive or Overseer.

The same goes for Dreamfall Chapters - somehow I can hardly believe that someone will favor Dreamfall Chapters to The Longest Journey/Dreamfall (unless Dreamfall Chapters is the only installment he/she played).

Only Broken Sword 5 could bring discussion, because I see many BS fans favoring it over BS3/BS4, and that’s fine, though it could also be discussed that BS5 is a “rehash” of BS1, not really original.

Are we wrong to expect good games only because it’s from a famous designer?! Thimbleweed Park is the most expected game on this site, but the several cases above teaches us that it will “most probably” be the worst Ron Gilbert game?! Does Syberia 3 stand a chance against Syberia 1/2?!

I can see several explanations for this phenomena - first of all, Sierra, LucasArts… and adventure companies back then were quite differently organized - they were large companies (especially Sierra), and even when they were small business (Legend Entertainment, Presto, Access Software…) they had filled positions on each department that is crucial for a final product - writer, producers, musicians… Today, with the rise of the indie technology (hardly a bad thing on many other aspects) it’s usually one-two guy acting as a “company”, with a little help from their friends along the way, and the risk is too big. The final game is also in most cases “rushed”, or developed in a hectic manner. Are we actually wrong to invest in Kickstarter?! Are we really saving the genre by investing to one man + his friends, instead of forcing people to join strengths in a traditional company?! Monkey Island was great not only because of Gilbert/Grossman/Schafer teamwork, but because working in a big company they actually were in position to “use” the brilliant drawings of Peter Chan and Steve Purcell, music of Michael Land….

Another potential reason is the obvious one - 90s were the heyday of adventures, and it was probably easier, more wiser and economically justified to invest in such games. Today, it’s an unknown territory, adventures did make a step forward but it’s still far from the golden age, and it’s definitely more easier and smarter for a legendary designers to create something “on their own” instead of going the big company/big budget route. Not that big budget is crucial (especially for our genre), but is it a coincidence that when Jane Jensen was working with a stable, existing company on Gray Matter, it still turned out better then when trying to “improvise” with an “own company”? Also, is it a coincidence that the most “constant” and quality work in last couple of years we’re seeing from the positioned German relatively big (in adventure terms) companies Daedalic and King Art Games?

I’m just guessing here, and perhaps the next game of the famous designer will turn out to be their absolutely best, and I’d really like some of your opinions on the matter.

diego - 17 July 2016 07:26 AM

Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure - haven’t played the Tex games yet, but I’m still to see Tex fans confirming that Tesla Effect is as good as Under a Killing Moon, Pandora Directive or Overseer.

Actually, The Tesla Effect won the readers Aggie for best game in 2014 - So I would say that is exactly what the Tex fans have done!
(Also I don’t think that “working with a stable, existing company on Gray Matter” is a accurate description of the turmoil that was the development of GM.)

My point is that the picture is not nearly as uniform as you are painting it.

But yes, just because it is a famous designer from the past, then it doesn’t mean that they are able to repeat or surpass their previous work, especially not when working on a much lower budget and having to do everything by themselves.

I think the problem here is more, that people simply expect too much from them.

And yes, (relative) big companies like Daedalic, are better able to deliver work of a constant high quality, and offer a lot of advantages to the designers working for them.

Edit:

wilco - 17 July 2016 07:46 AM

Why does Indy 4 by Spielberg and the Star Wars prequel trilogy sequel suck so bad?

FYP

And the answer to that question is I believe, that they are stuck in their own past, trying to recreate past successes instead of doing something new.

They used to be young and full of ideas. Today they are old and useless, just like most of the popular movie directors - their later films almost always suck compared to their earlier works. Plus the atmosphere of times. There was this rise of enthusiasm during the 1980-90s when the industry hasn’t been overtaking by multicorporations yet. XXI century killed the spirit and dumbed down the industry completely. All those pseudo-intellectual games of today have in fact nothing intelligent to say, and it’s even sadder watching how old-time devs are trying to adapt to newer times.

That said, I really enjoyed Broken Sword 5 and Tesla Effect Those guys still have balls to do whatever they like to do. And, hopefully, Ron Gilbert too. After all, he made only 3 adventure games in 30 years (not counting those kids games), so he probably has some ideas left, with his constant adventure games-related talk. If he fails, I’ll lost my hope in adventure genre completely and switch to strategies.

wilco - 17 July 2016 08:56 AM

Oscar - 17 July 2016 08:28 AM

wilco - 17 July 2016 07:46 AM

Why does Coldplay and U2 suck now compared to the beginning?

There was a time when Coldplay and U2 didn’t suck? News to me.

Good example that when you become too famous you start to be only as good as your last work.
Parachutes is good, Joshua Tree is amazing.

 

 

i might also add, it have been always due to the publishers interference (or the producers)

at (1990) Jane Lane of Warrant (glamour rock band) had been releasing the 2nd album Cherry Pie, the album was to be called ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ which is a hit of the album, the guys were surprised that album was released under the title ‘Cherry Pie’ which was also another hit BUT pushed (and demanded) by the producer (Columbia Records) to give something similar to ‘Love in Elevator’ that was booming at the time, but no one ever thought it will be the major hit song of the album (title and cover) and above all the curse* that will haunt Jane Lane until the day he dies (young).

at one interview before Jane died he had been screaming “i could shoot myself in the head for writing Cherry Pie”

It’s a very complicated question that probably has a ton of reasons.

Familiarity breeds contempt - Early works are exciting and new both for designers and audience however as more products are released the more mundane and familiar they seem. Both sides know the patterns and expectations of the medium and find it hard not to spot the similarities of that first time. It’s like first love that you are always comparing everything too and nothing quite hits those highs again.

Budget and manpower - Games are a collaboration and not just from one person. It may be the same writer and you can see the hallmarks of that talent, but the artist and programmers etc may not be the same level of skill.

Art is fickle thing - Nobody can get it right every time, what worked in the 90’s might not work now. Tastes change and some artists can move with the times and some can’t. Even Spielberg can’t make great films all the time.

Rose coloured glasses - Do People view the old games too highly and put them on a pedestal that few can reach.

“Not as good” - is a personal view. Gray Matter was generally hailed for it’s story and characters and isn’t that what Jane Jensen did for Gabriel Knight, if she to blame for the poor animation etc

I dont think there is an easy answer.

I have to disagree a bit, because in my mind old school developers have been pretty succesfull with teir latest games.

Ok, I admit that Jensen`s Moebius wasn`t very good game, but its problems were mainly technical. I think Jensen`s writing and script for the game was still pretty solid. I would also count Gray Matter for recent titles because it was released only five years ago and it is one of my favorite point & clicks. It was one of those games that hooked me back to the genre after some silent years.

Broken Sword V is gorgeous, good continuation and definitely better than BS 3 or 4.

Broken Age was one of my favorite games from last year and I enjoyed a lot to play it with my girlfriend who loved it too. I might be a bit silly and simple-minded, but I really dont understand all the critics Broken Age got I played it and enjoyed it: high production values, nice story, guaranteed Schaefer humour and unique beautiful graphics.

Tex: Tesla Effect was excellent game too. A little bit outdated graphics maybe but spot on acting scenes and pretty solid story. Tesla Effect might not be as good as Pandora Directive is but its pretty insane to demand that Tesla should surpass that masterpiece. It was still solid, enjoyable adventure and good continuation to the saga, if you ask me. Good effort and nice results with limited resources.

Thimbleweed Park looks good and I`m pretty sure I will like it a lot.

Syberia III looks gorgeous too and it seems to me that Microids is really trying to make its best efforts here. We`ll see is it enough or not..

I`m playing Dreamfall Chapters right now (Book 2) and guess what… I like it so far My old computer is too weak to run it with really good resolutions but I like the story and the world so far. Good actors and some nice easy light puzzles too here and there. I like the slow burning style and how the game has no hurry to reveal all immediately.

I wont say anything about the Hero-U because it`s not released but let`s say, I`m not too hopeful. SpaceVenture is a question mark too, but I have still hope there, it might end up to be a good funny point & click.

It would be nice if old school developers had more money and resources to make adventure games but I have been pleasantly surprised more than once. Good games, good times, white knight saves the day

zane - 17 July 2016 06:17 PM

I think the answer is very simple: our favorite classics were not made by one person and its wrong to look at it that way.

Unfortunately, someone in the food chain thinks it is a good idea to market a game based on the designer’s past successes. It may be the backer, the producer, or maybe the designer himself, or herself. Or, as in the case of Jensen, it may be that the same person is playing all three roles and more.

As I write this, I’m looking at the box art for Syberia. Right up there at the top, above the game’s title, is “B. Sokal”. An about halfway down the box, on the right-hand side, it says “By the creator of ‘AMERZONE’” It’s not difficult to imagine the wheels spinning in the Microids corporate boardroom. In this case things worked out quite well.

But in the case of most of the people in the original post…not so much.

Then there is the third category. Those that made it big, and quit while they were ahead. They turned from being “the guy” to being the muse of the next “the guy” in a consulting capacity. I can’t think of anybody who exemplifies this more than Josh Mandel. He pretty much disappeared as a designer of his own games after CCS. But his fingerprint is on everything from Al Emmo to Asylum. And he is hard at work helping other game designers make their games better.