| 23 JUL 2006 at 10:59pm |
ShanyGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 19 JUN 2003
Status : Online | I think you're reading too much into this.
Press Releases of new adventure games will either call the game 'revolutionary' or 'classic', and since most indie developers don't have the means of making something revolutionary, or don't want to take that risk, they have to call them 'classic', 'traditional', etc.
It doesn't mean anything about the game, it's only thrown in to attract people into finding out more about the game.
|
| 23 JUL 2006 at 11:10pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
I tend to agree that most small indie AG developers play it too safe when it comes to graphics and most other technological aspects of building a game for today's market.
The classic elements that make AGs so appealing to me however will never become obsolete. These include well-written, original stories with interesting dialog, characters and settings, a strong sense of narrative, dramatic pacing and/or good comedic timing, well conceived puzzles and situational problems to solve with intriguing, properly-placed clues, good music and sound effects that enhance atmosphere and immersion, solid voice acting, and high production values in terms of both artistic design and execution - regardless of the era, format or style.
However none of those components have anything at all to do with specific graphical formats, interfaces or game engines. They were essential to good AGs a decade ago and they are equally important today.
As the tools and technology have expanded so much in recent times and the average, modest, off-the-shelf home PC specs are now amazingly high compared to even the best custom gaming machines of just five years ago, there is no reason to stick with such antiquated tech standards. There is now a complete set of DirectX 9 tools for highly advanced audio and video along with several generations of games that boast far better physics and AI.
Now, the cost of the very latest pro-level tools for cutting-edge, full 3D games that employ the most advanced physics and AI is prohibitive for small startups. But there are many slightly older game engines that would serve new AGs very well with just a few basic adjustments. Of course, a good grasp of coding is required but that's always been the heart and soul of digital entertainment products. They are code-based and game designers had better know a lot about it or they really should find another line of work.
This is not to say that everyone working on a project needs to be an expert coder or a whiz with the latest tech tools. But at least one of them needs to be and the rest must be comfortably conversant with the language in order to collaborate efficiently with that person. Even the writer should have a better than average understanding of the impact his work has on the coding and testing process.
Third person games in general are always harder to create because character design and animation skills are so specialized. They take real talent to pull off even in old 2D point & click formats (as well as passive forms) and they require a lot of imagination as well as extra time to render. So my advice to anyone wanting to become an indie developer is choose your perspective carefully and don't try to overerach your talents / skills. And if you personally are not a great character designer and still want to make a third person title, find someone who is. Find a great coder too!
Cheers, Terry
|
| 23 JUL 2006 at 11:54pm |
alkis21Schattenjger
Posts : 2112
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: GR
Status : Offline | I can't speak for every independent developer out there, but here's where I stand.
First of all, it's not the 3rd person perspective that I consider as "traditional". Some of the greatest classics had 1st person view. 3PP did not enter the genre until 1986 IIRC (King's Quest), and as far as I'm concerned it never left the building; sure, it became less frequent after the mid-90s, but as you (Ivinia) said we've had a whole lot of 3rd person games come out over the years.
The traditional aspects we're going for are:
-Multiple cursors instead of an all-purpose one
-Descriptions for everything you can see on the screen
-Focus on character interaction and inventory-based puzzles
The absence of the above is what I miss the most in today's titles. That may not be true for other gamers, but it is to me.
Second, you make it sound like it's a cheap marketing trick trying to lure more people. All I had in mind was to describe the game. I can only create games *I* would enjoy playing; I have no idea what *most people* find attractive, and neither does anyone else; if anyone ever finds out, he'll become rich. I'm good at playing adventure games, and I'm just beginning to try and figure out whether I'm good at creating adventure games. I have no skills whatsoever at *selling* adventure games, and even if a fortune teller whispered the secret of success of adventure games to me, I wouldn't succeed in making it if it was something I wouldn't enjoy myself.
Third, I do describe what I think is different or unique in our upcoming title (no point repeating it here).
Fourth, it is just your opinion that the only old school gamers will like the traditional aspects. The feedback I got from OW was that a great number of player who had not played any adventures in the last century were fond of the above elements. Those features succeded in attracting new people to the genre back then; it just might work again.
Fifth, I of course agree that the classics are really big shoes to fill. But I never said I'll give you the new Monkey Island on my first try; I said I'd try to make a good game by implementing the features I like the most on a good story.
Sixth, I find it sad (although it's not your fault) that we have come to assume that every discussion will turn into a fight and start new topics in the Hot Spot.
|
| 24 JUL 2006 at 1:01am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By alkis21 (23 JUL 2006 11:53pm)
First of all, it's not the 3rd person perspective that I consider as "traditional". Some of the greatest classics had 1st person view.
Neither do I.
Second, you make it sound like it's a cheap marketing trick trying to lure more people. All I had in mind was to describe the game.
That wasn't my intention and I apologize if you thought I was singling you out or making it sound like a cheap marketing stunt. I was just going through some indie sites that make the 3rd person games and they kept bringing up traditional and classic, etc. which I thought was a little odd. I visited your site, Himalaya, and Tears of Betrayal. You three are pretty much the only indies doing 3rd person. Tell Tale and Autumn Moon aren't really 'indie' in the sense that you guys are. If there are some others that you can think of out there (non-freeware) that you can think of, let me know. You guys are a rare breed.
On the other side of the coin, going to some of the other indie sites that do first person games, I didn't see things that hinted at the 'old days'. The big commercial sites that do 3rd person AGs don't say it either. Again, it just seemed a bit odd.
Fourth, it is just your opinion that the only old school gamers will like the traditional aspects. The feedback I got from OW was that a great number of player who had not played any adventures in the last century were fond of the above elements. Those features succeded in attracting new people to the genre back then; it just might work again.
I hope it does. I've said several times in other parts of the forums that I think all formats and styles are valid. I get a bit tweaked when people dismiss a game for using a format that has been around for many years and saying AGs should 'advance' and point and click is dead. I don't think that's true at all. None of those formats and styles every really died. Comments like that generally come from people who have moved on to other genres.
Fifth, I of course agree that the classics are really big shoes to fill. But I never said I'll give you the new Monkey Island on my first try; I said I'd try to make a good game by implementing the features I like the most on a good story.
Again, I wasn't singling you out. I don't really expect an indie title to blow the doors off the hinges - limited resources and all that. Which is why I scratched my head at developers making that comparison with the classic games. They're almost putting themselves on the spot for people to have high expectations.
Things like intriguing, scary, and funny are subjective and can be easy to cover. Making that classic comparison is something concrete that people can relate to which elevates their assumptions if that makes any sense.
Sixth, I find it sad (although it's not your fault) that we have come to assume that every discussion will turn into a fight and start new topics in the Hot Spot.
Agreed, but when I thought about this, I assumed some people might be offended and take it a bit personal. These are just observations and my opinion anyway. I could easily be wrong on this.
Lately it seems like you can't make an observation without getting into a fighting contest anyway with everying taking their positions on their side of the field.
|
| 24 JUL 2006 at 5:50am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Like many other longtime PC adventure fans, I would dearly love to see a whole new generation of genuine, classic-style, third person, point & click games using the EXACT same interface as Monkey Island 3 and various other LucasArts masterpieces. Maybe they could support today's higher screen resolutions with some ambient 3D effects (like Syberia and Runaway did over 2D backgrounds) and better sound. Otherwise, I wouldn't change a single thing about the basic presentation or controls.
Now, these new games would not all have to share a similar cartoon style or theme. They could range from chilling horror stories and tense detective yarns with realistic artwork to totally over-the-top wackiness. They could be 2D + 3D or even full 3D, I really don't care. As long as they remained faithful to the traditional formula and had superbly crafted "classic" elements in every department from writing to art to voice acting to music to puzzle design.
Heck, I'd buy those games by the dozens at full retail price - just like I did ten to fifteen years ago when that kind of AG was the leading edge of this whole new entertainment medium. I'd buy old-style RPGs and Turn-Based Strategies like that as well - assuming they too were as good as the classics... where it really counts.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 24 JUL 2006 at 7:06am |
alkis21Schattenjger
Posts : 2112
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: GR
Status : Offline | One more thing I wanted to tell you, Ivi... Are you watching Lost? There is an amazing chacter in the series (John Locke) who keeps repeating this phrase:
"on't tell me what I can't do".
Keep telling me things like
Originally Posted By Ivinia (24 JUL 2006 1:00am)
I don't really expect an indie title to blow the doors off the hinges - limited resources and all that.
say, 5 times a day, and I'll give you the best adventure game ever. (just kidding)
There are some fish that live their whole lives in extremely deep waters, under amazing pressure. If any of those fish accidentally rise to the surface, they explode due to the pressure difference. That is how I am in my work; I perform my absolute best when pressure really kicks in.
The moment I decided to go pro in game making, it has ceased to be a hobby for me; it has become a job. As a potential customer, you have the right to expect the best. I can't spend half a million in graphics and sound, but you may demand nothing but exceptional quality when it comes to story, dialogues, puzzles etc. In other words, give me pressure; I like it.
Bottom line is, my friends, I really believe I can make something happen here. I wouldn't venture my investment in the company if I didn't.
P.S. I totally agree with Terry's post.
|
| 24 JUL 2006 at 11:52pm |
buni1161Intergalactic Janitor
Posts : 77
Joined: 16 JUL 2006
Status : Online | What I expect out of an AG is and easy to follow story - with maybe a few surprises- and good solid puzzles- one of the reasons Sierra games are my favorites is because they do this- they don't have top of the line graphics or even good acting- but they deliver on story and puzzles- my favorite AG of all time will always be Shivers- for the same reason new horror films just don't do it for me- but older ones do- too much emphasis on the wrong thing- if you can deliver on puzzles and story- I'm happy-
[IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/buni1161/sigred-1.jpg[/IMG]
|
| 25 JUL 2006 at 10:56am |
MarkGuild Master
Posts : 3803
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Location: US, Georgia
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By buni1161 (24 JUL 2006 11:51pm)
...my favorite AG of all time will always be Shivers- for the same reason new horror films just don't do it for me- but older ones do- too much emphasis on the wrong thing- if you can deliver on puzzles and story- I'm happy.
Happy birthday, bunny![img]http://www.mindspring.com/~markparrish/Bunny.jpg[/img]
Yeah, Shivers is one of my favorite old-time point 'n' clickers, too. The colors. The museum. The art. The puzzles (although some were hair-pullers and "repeaters". And needless to say - the simple story: get those critters back in their respective pots, seal 'em up, and get the heck outta there.
I really don't know enough about how it is done, but for better or worse, all I know is what I like - and I am not crazy about the latest Third-Person Adventure games. I've said this before so please excuse my personal taste: I didn't like Still Life; the Syberias were beautiful but found very little to really play with; The Longest Journey was a magnificent work but I wanted it to end.
I never thought I would ever think this, but I really enjoyed uh, "performing" Uru: Complete Chronicles. Why? Mainly because I had the option to switch between a First-Person viewpoint or a Third-Person viewpoint. I wanted to see those lovely enormous worlds of fantasy through *my* eyes - not look at my character's butt. Of course, in the jumping and leaping parts - it was advantagous to see my character perform them.
Yet I cannot explain nor rationalize why I adore these two Third-Person games: Sanitarium and Gabriel Knight 3. Is it the story? Is it the puzzles? Maybe it's that I really have to think for myself and the game doesn't try and explain away the story through lengthy dialogue trees and disrupting cut-scenes.
To their much-deserved credit, I have found that I have enjoyed privately-produced, independent Third-Person Adventure games much more than bigger-budgeted Third-Person Adventure games. The stories are more original, better written, and strike a level of comfort in me that larger Third-Person Adventure games do not. A lot of large Third-Person Adventure games feel cold and impersonal.
Try as I may, oftimes I cannot empathize with my character in the Third-Person. If I cannot put myself in the character I am playing onscreen, I have a difficult time mustering the urge to play on. If I'm a Good Guy, great. If I'm a Bad Guy, great. If I'm a bystander, fine. If I'm scary, good. If I'm funny, excellent. It doesn't matter how or what I play. It doesn't matter much if the avatar(s) look incredible or realistic. It's what they say and how they act - even if they just stand there motionless.
And that empathy - the ability and willingness to become your character - is so dependent on a cognitive storyline, and from there, a well-written script.
Please proofread your posts carefully to see if you any words out.
|
