If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 1 FEB 2005 at 3:46am |
CrapstormJourneyman
Posts : 829
Joined: 18 FEB 2004
Status : Online | They should give serious consideration to increasing the breast sizes, as well.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:20am |
Goddess of All Things MagicalSchattenjger
Posts : 1565
Joined: 27 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Not Microids now-CRAP!
Why can't action be action AND adventure be adventure?
Will not any company stand up for us anymore?
We are mighty indeed and may they take heed.
&&&&Listening to XM Radio Starbucks Cafe Channel 45&&[IMG]http://img227.echo.cx/img227/8458/dancelikenooneiswatching6ld.png[/IMG]
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 12:47pm |
SyberianSpace Cadet
Posts : 134
Joined: 22 OCT 2004
Status : Online | Will not any company stand up for us anymore?
Speak for yourself This adventure gamer likes action in games.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 1:55pm |
VladiIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 18
Joined: 26 APR 2003
Status : Online | Let them do it!
Maybe it will turn out to be profitable.
Personaly I belive that you can sell any kind of the game if you know how and if you have how. That "have" is what most of the adventure game publishers don't have.
Putting action elements seems like an easy way out but it is not. It's not easy at all. In order to be competitive they have to put out with the best in action genre otherwise it will be pure mediocrity which leads to nothing.
In other words they have to match or overcome let's say RE4 when it comes to action. And for company that never did action games it will be one hell of a ride. It can be done but not as easy as some might think
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 2:09pm |
| Deleted User | As long as it's not action "sequences", then fine.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 3:31pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | Oh, what a surprise. You see now why I'm concerned about the line between the adventure and action-adventure genres becoming increasingly blurred?
I appreciate what Microids are trying to do, but I just don't think it will work. I truly, honestly don't. If anyone could show me just one piece of evidence that adding action to a 'pure' adventure game tends to increase sales, I could understand why developers seem so keen to jump on the 'action' bandwagon - but so far, if anything, the evidence I've seen appears to indicate the opposite. Yes, I'm well aware that action-adventures sell better, but what these developers seem to be ignoring is that adventure games with 'action elements' are still not action-adventures - they're just a messy hybrid. Does it really not occur to them that by trying to please everyone, they could well end up pleasing virtually no one?
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 3:50pm |
| Deleted User | Perhaps they have an idea that encompasses that element and can't do it any other way? Why must you decry other peoples creativity purely because it steps on your own inability? Perhaps they've been reading all these boards that cry out for implementation? Believe me, a LOT of developers follow what people say here.
I'm getting sick reading peoples opinions based on titles THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. > > >
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:04pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (1 FEB 2005 3:50pm)
Perhaps they have an idea that encompasses that element and can't do it any other way? Why must you decry other peoples creativity purely because it steps on your own inability? Perhaps they've been reading all these boards that cry out for implementation? Believe me, a LOT of developers follow what people say here.
I'm getting sick reading peoples opinions based on titles THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. > > >
Bollocks. If they thought that pure adventures were where the money is then believe me, they would find a way to implement this idea without including action. And it has nothing to do with my own 'inability' - I'm perfectly capable of handling most types of action, I just don't LIKE it. And it doesn't matter in the slightest that I know nothing about the game; I am 150% certain that whatever these 'action elements' consist of, I won't enjoy playing them.
Deep breaths, deep breaths... No, of course I'm not going to immediately dismiss these games just because they'll contain some action. I'm just disappointed, that's all.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:18pm |
Goddess of All Things MagicalSchattenjger
Posts : 1565
Joined: 27 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Me too, Kasandra! Very, very disappointed.
Once again, hang on to your oldies my friends.
&&&&Listening to XM Radio Starbucks Cafe Channel 45&&[IMG]http://img227.echo.cx/img227/8458/dancelikenooneiswatching6ld.png[/IMG]
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:32pm |
Randy-JAJourneyman
Posts : 1351
Joined: 11 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | If Microids is adding action elements to their future games, then believe me when I say it is not their first decision to do so.
Fact - adventure games on pc are not selling in big numbers. This is thanks in large part to adventure gamers who won't even pay $20 for a new game and are instead content to wait for the price to drop.
Fact - Sony & Nintendo will not publish a pure adventure game on console. Xbox will do so if you pay tons of money upfront, ie Ubisoft and Myst IV on Xobx. Also, Xbox games sales are not even half of PS2 game sales, so Xbox has been publishing genres usually not on console in an attempt to attract new gamers
Fact - Sony (PS2) has told developers/companies that the only way they will allow their adventure games to be on PS2 is if they include action elements. on't beleive me, ask the heads of Dreamcatcher, Quantic Dreams, Microids and numerous others I have spoken to.
Fact - a well-known company with some clout, after much haggling, was finally given the green light to put their adventure game on PS2 (if they added some 'action' elements). The company rethought their decision and decided to NOT put their adventure game on PS2. Why? Because Sony wanted so much money upfront, that they would of had to have Grand Theft Auto type sales figures to recoup their investment. This is another way that the consoles are keeping adventure games from joining their library of games.
Microids is trying to keep afloat, if the only way to do so is to add action elements, well would you rather seem them add a few action elements or close shop?
Btw, I am not advocating the addition of action elements to a pure adventure game as I don't believe it helps the game sell even one extra copy, but there are some games that are meant to be pure adventure and some games that benefit from the action elements.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:34pm |
| Deleted User | @Ksandra - But you just did. ???
I appreciate what Microids are trying to do, but I just don't think it will work.
You have NO idea what they mean by this statement. No idea at all, and you're saying, and it IS in context, is it "won't work". That's what I've been getting at all this time.
You haven't got a CLUE what their idea is, perhaps they HAVE to include action for purposes of their gameplay idea. YOU'RE the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid, and believe me... I didn't think our conversation on these forums would reach such a low.
Your opinions are based on a limited idea of what action can offer, and MEAN, and you dismiss games you've barely played entirely offhand then need to backtrack when you realise it. That's just unfair.
I can take the fact you don't like action. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. What I CAN'T understand is the need to chime in with "facts" with regards to games like Dreamfall, and these which we know nothing about, purely based on one or two recent titles which - and lets not cut corners here - weren't up to snuff. Why? Because they tried to mix adventure with action?
NO! Because they just weren't THAT GREAT! Uru was rubbish not because of what it TRIED to do. But because of the way they went about it. Same with BS3.
And then, hilariously, people proclaim it's because they're "selling out", or "going for the mainstream". Ksandra, they know what's happened to other titles in the past, and they can learn from previous mistakes. They're experimenting, it's hardly mainstream. Microids, if they wanted to, could create an FPS and bugger the genre altogether. Who are YOU to say that the decisions of Funcom or Microids or Revolution or WHATEVER are based purely on monetary value?
They have got a design document. They design these games from the ground up based on what they want to do and the ideas they have, you're saying - "let's restrict these people into one corner of the gaming market". These are CREATIVE people. They don't want to inhibit their ideas, they sure as hell want to make money, so if what you're saying is true... that these types of game aren't proven, that they're trying to please everybody but may end up pleasing no-one... why do you personally think they're bothering?
Do you think they're stupid? Or perhaps... and here's a "crazy thought"... that they've got ideas beyond what a few people in a niché market want from them, and they want to try them out to see if they work. That they still have a love for the adventure genre, it's what they know, but need to find out and CHALLENGE themselves outside of the box they've grown comfortable in. OR if they've come up with an idea so stupendous in a meeting, they've convinced their backers and can just goddamn go for it.
They might fail - they might succeed. I want and hope they succeed purely because then, there'll be a game that'll shut up the critics that decry them purely on a line in an interview. I WANT someone to make an adventure game with action elements SO GOOD... that the TWO past mistakes fade to black.
I can handle disappointment, but I can't handle this blatant type of overreaction I now unfortunately expect from certain elements of the community. LET'S SUPPORT new ideas until we know how they're going to work. If they're crap, THEN fine, it's justified. But I can't justify nor understand proclaiming that these kind of titles are going to sound the death knell for ALL adventures EVER with no action in. THEY WON'T.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:37pm |
| Deleted User | Btw, I am not advocating the addition of action elements to a pure adventure game as I don't believe it helps the game sell even one extra copy, but there are some games that are meant to be pure adventure and some games that benefit from the action elements.
It totally depends what the basis for the design is. I trust Microids as they have passion for the genre as it is anyway, and a strong commitment to quality. Syberia 2 may have been a misfire, but it was still a gorgeous misfire. Then we've also got Still Life.
I've said it before - if a studio wants to "throw in" an action "sequence" then a game is bound to get people frustrated. IF the design is to include from the beginning the controls needed to play the game from beginning to end, and they don't change and players build on the skills they learn - take Sands of Time - then I don't see how it won't work.
edit - ICO apparently successfully does it, according to lots at Adventure Gamers. So I'm wrong too - one does exist that apparently gets it right. Haven't played it as I don't have a PS2... ah well...
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:52pm |
Randy-JAJourneyman
Posts : 1351
Joined: 11 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | SJH
I'm more or less parroting what you just said. Basically, games that are developed from the beginning to incorporate action elements usually succeed (though this wasn't always the case) gameplay wise.
Games that add action elements simply to meet a need, well, for the most part suck.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 4:53pm |
| Deleted User | Hey, that's my view.
Sorry, I'm just getting overblown and belligerent. Excuse me.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 5:03pm |
Agustín CordesGuild Master
Posts : 5696
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: AR, Buenos Aires
Status : Offline | As long as they're marketed as Action/Adventure, they have green light
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 5:10pm |
| Deleted User |
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 6:45pm |
MereteIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 17
Joined: 4 MAY 2004
Status : Online | NOOOOOOOOOOO!! No, but... no, that can't be true. How can they get all our hopes up like that and then just... just... Oh dammit! :'(
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 6:47pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | SJH - what I meant was that I thought they were hoping to increase sales by adding action (as other developers have done in the past). Having heard Randy's explanation about consoles, however, that makes a lot more sense. I think it's pathetic that they're being forced to do that, and I still don't believe it'll increase sales in the slightest.
As for 'having' to include action for the purposes of their idea, that's the feeblest excuse I've ever heard. There is ALWAYS a way round including action if you really want to find one - you can stick it in a cutscene, make it impossible to fail (as in Grim Fandango or TLJ, for example) find a way to turn it into a puzzle, or whatever. A non-action solution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than pissing off a large proportion of your fanbase without compensation in the form of increased sales. If these games really do require so much action that it can't possibly be left out, they should just go ahead and produce a full-blown action-adventure.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 6:50pm |
CrapstormJourneyman
Posts : 829
Joined: 18 FEB 2004
Status : Online | Up until the mid-80s, Infocom enjoyed a great deal of success publishing adventure games. Along came faster computers with better graphics capabilities, and interest shifted away from pure text adventures. Infocom fell on hard times and was forced to make concessions. First, it sold itself to Activision. Then, it released its first game with a graphical user interface (and even some role-playing elements): Beyond Zork. This was followed shortly by another graphical adventure, Zork Zero.
The programmers at Infocom didn't have much experience with graphics. Their new products only alienated hardcore fans and failed to attract any new ones. They still wrote great adventure games, but no one was buying. After a round or two of layoffs, the company was dead.
Such is the computer game business, and history inexorably repeats itself. Revolution Software seems to have gone down the same road as Infocom, only instead of falling victim to the sudden shift towards graphics, they succumbed to the sudden shift towards action. They put some action elements into Broken Sword 3 thinking it would suit a new demand. But inexperienced as they were with action games, they did it poorly and the game bombed.
Now Microids will vie to tackle the action beast. I don't think they'll survive, but best of luck to them.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 6:51pm |
VladiIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 18
Joined: 26 APR 2003
Status : Online | I support them 100%
Profit is what matters and if they thought trough that "adding action" strategy will get them to it they have my support ...
..as long the game is good of course!
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 7:01pm |
| Deleted User | I don't think I can say anything other than - thanks for glossing over my post.
Why is it a "feeble excuse"? Huh? Do you even understand what I'm writing? ??? You don't even know what they're planning, or if what Randy's written the only reason for their decision. Microids have proved time and time again that they're a visual, creative company - I don't think it's wise to inhibit their ability to please a minority of players.
I can understand why people might be disappointed by that decision, but that's no reason to decry it as you've no idea what "action" entails, nor even KNOW until the game is in a playable state.
You're very good at making demands of developers, I'll give you that. Being a creative myself I hate being tied down - I've got things I have to stick to in my current job and it's very irritating. I'm dealing with a religious and geographical context, which is extremely inhibiting - even worse, for a place and era that people know little about but has major landmarks that have shifted over the years. I have to tread lightly but still work imaginitively. How hard is that? VERY hard.
I feel sorry for ANYONE that feels that have to tie themselves down to one way of doing things just to please others, be it forced to include action in a game that doesn't need it, or bow down to people with strict ideas about definitions. If I have an idea and can go with it, then I'd rather go with it - who are you to say that Microids has a choice when for all you know they're happy to make that decision?
Well, even if it's just me, I'm looking forward to seeing what this classy, vibrant developer have got sizzling in the pan. Their track record is good and it'd be nice to see them "off the leash" to see how they do.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 7:04pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | But this is what I'm trying to say - I don't believe that the 'adding action' strategy will bring them extra profits. No, not even if the action is implemented reasonably well. And this is because, for all sorts of reasons, I believe that the market for adventures with action is smaller than both that for 'pure' adventures, and that for full-blown action-adventures. Yes, perhaps I'm wrong, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence to the contrary.
It may be that eventually all companies will be forced to add action elements to their games in order to survive, but I really hope that isn't the case. And I really, really hope that they aren't pressured into adding more and more action until all adventure games become indistunguishable from action-adventures. Unfortunately, it seems that this may well be the way things are heading. [smiley=furious.gif] [smiley=furious.gif] [smiley=furious.gif]
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 7:05pm |
| Deleted User | BTW people also forget that nowadays different freelancers and teams are brought in on a per-project basis. Much different to the old Infocom days where the same teams moved from title to title.
Someone with an action track-record might be involved for all we know, so whilst it's easy to say "the developer isn't experienced" who's to say that someone is involved down the line that is. Revolution were rare by keeping pretty much the same people involved from the beginning - independent developers. Now people move about, like our good friend Steve, who's to say that they won't be affecting development with their knowledge of previous titles?
Steve's already said he's working outside of the genre. I'd love to see what narrative experience he brings to an action or strategy title. Just an example.
|
| 1 FEB 2005 at 7:14pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | SJH - I understand what you're writing, I just don't believe you. I honestly can't imagine how any story idea could be impossible to implement without action, unless that idea goes along the lines of 'girl runs around caves and fights monsters' - in which case I think you might as well just make an action-based game. Neither do I believe the crap about designers having some passionate, unquenchable urge to include action in their games, even in Tornquist's case; I think it's about money, pure and simple. And even if designers really do feel this way, they have to remember that they are producing games for people to play, not just to satisfy their own creative impulses - and if people don't enjoy playing something, they won't buy it.
|
