| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 2 of 2 : « ‹ |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 2:59pm | |
HalcyonSchattenjger  Posts : 1652 Joined: 17 NOV 2006 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 JAN 2009 4:52am) If all that were true, we'd see a bunch of downloadable episodes. Pay as you play, develop on demand. From what I've read here, most people don't even like downloading, they like to hold and stroke the box. Or, what about social interaction online with games? There are still---after 4 years since the first URU Live -- hundreds of adventure gamers in the forums, waiting for a shared world. Why don't they have a game? Now, they have Open Source URU and have to build the game themselves, god save us. I was just over at Gamespot looking at the trailers for various games. Dayum! Those took huge amounts of time and money, and they look drop-dead gorgeous -- with storylines, too. And blood and guts and killing and explosions, of course, which I avoid. But they have hundreds of thousands of buyers, compared to adventure games which has the thirteen of us. So are our expectations too high to expect developers and publishers to invest so much time and effort for so little return? Tastes vary, too, which is a big problem. Me, I can't play cartoony games. I don't care how good you say they are, I can't get around them on any level. I've tried Grim Fandango so many times, I can't tell you, but it ain't happening. So that limits the field for me. I know you guys have your quirks, as well. Just rambling here. It's Sunday morning, I've played through TLJ last week and loved it. I'm thinking of Dreamfall, but I remember too much of it still. Sigh. I might have to reload Keepsake and see if I can crawl my way through another chapter. :-/ _________________ |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 4:13pm | |
Steve VSorcerer Apprentice Posts : 265 Joined: 16 MAR 2008 Status : Online | Maybe I'm not such a hard-core player as most of you here, but really I'm never dissapointed by any AG. The reason is I don't have any expectations before I load the CD, every game I have never played before is an individual experience, I don't immediately take control of my character in the very first scene and think ' Christ, this looks nothing like Syberia/TLJ/GK3' or relate any of the gameplay options to something else I played previously. If you do that then eventually you will become irritated with every deviation from the games that you consider 'the best', even if its something as fundamental as first person or third person perspective or 'cartoon' graphics vs photo-realism. My personal favourite gane ever was Black Dahlia, but I don't hold everything I play nowadays up to the standards of a game that shipped on 8 CD's, had 3 hours of FMV, 70 or 80 discreet puzzles, voice acting by Dennis Hopper, Teri Garr and a bunch of other professional actors and probably 100 + hours of actual gameplay. Terry is right, you couldn't make Black Dahlia now, or at least you couldn't expect to make any money out of it. I don't ever expect to see anything as lavish as that again, but who cares? Shakespeare and Dickens havent released anything new for a while but lots of people still appreciate modern literature without going 'yeah, but its not King Lear or David Copperfield'.. |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 6:24pm | |
HalcyonSchattenjgerPosts : 1652 Joined: 17 NOV 2006 Status : Offline | No no no. I don't think anyone is saying they want Syberia's look and feel every single game. Quality takes many forms, some you don't even see. Quality is as Quality does, regardless of the genre or type of game. One hopes for a rewarding experience from every game. For me, I'm not comparing one good game to the next. I don't think you have to compare ANYTHING to know that the game you're playing is lacking. If you're riding in a 1969 pickup truck, you don't have to ride in a Mercedes to know that you don't want an old pickup truck. Experience is what tells you how great a game could/should/hopefully will be. I didn't have to finish the Lost Crown to know immediately that the character's movement would drive me nuts and ultimately disappoint. Knowing that had nothing at all to do with Syberia or any other game by comparison. I know good movement when I see it. _________________ |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 6:59pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor  Posts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Originally Posted By TAS (11 JAN 2009 2:58pm) But all of that is true. The average age of gamers has risen. Big corporations do control the industry these days and above all else, profit is their motive not originality or artistry. In general, the pace of life has increased. Attention spans have shortened and people want instant gratification. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 7:17pm | |
HalcyonSchattenjgerPosts : 1652 Joined: 17 NOV 2006 Status : Offline | Sure that's the truth, but not the whole truth. A changing marketplace is to be taken advantage of, not surrendered to. If the gamers are getting older, why don't we, for instance, have a bunch of Boomer generation-targeted mysteries instead of cartoons? Doesn't make sense. Also, a shrinking, aging market doesn't mean shorter, crappier games. It usually means less games. Last year was a good year for the number of games. Also, no business expects the same profits from each customer channel. In publishing, the mid-list gets a lot of attention because the readers are very particular in their requirements. There's great writing going on down the list. The same could be true for games. I'd like to hear a roundtable of developers and publishers talk on this subject and their plans (not reasons) for the length and quality of games they publish today. I guess I am just disappointed (again) to hear specious and inomplete ecuses being made for terrible games. We've been over this in threads before. Developers and publishers aren't victims, any more than bad or lazy writers are. _________________ |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 9:00pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Originally Posted By TAS (11 JAN 2009 7:16pm) Yes we have discussed this before. But we usually see comments from the AG niche perspective with a lot of them vs. us attitude - as opposed to a broader view of the industry and marketplace. IMO, we tend to make too many excuses for this genre and don't offer enough honest criticism. It's always something like, "We can't expect AG studios to compete with the big boys. They have lots of money and..." Of course we can't make direct financial comparisons between major publishers of mass-market games and small AG developers / indies. But we can and should offer legitimate criticism about lack of creative originality, poor animation, sloppy coding and other basic mistakes that collectively add to the perception that AGs are now just a poor distant cousin of "real" games. That aside, my above remarks were more about consumer tastes / habits and what sells these days. Action sells. Slick presentations sell. Coolness sells. Slow-paced games with a high degree of difficulty don't sell - especially when they lack the latest graphic sizzle. So again, most people want big spashy, flashy games with lots of action and they want instant gratification - not a steep learning curve or core gameplay that presents a tough mental challenge. The big publishers know this and they produce products that meet those consumer demands / expectations. But for quality of writing, originality of artistic design, attention to detail, atmosphere, dramatic pacing / tension and depth, like art-house films, AGs "should" excel in those areas. Most of them do not and that is my main criticism. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 10:04pm | |
Steve VSorcerer ApprenticePosts : 265 Joined: 16 MAR 2008 Status : Online | Originally Posted By TAS (11 JAN 2009 7:16pm) The problem is, we (as the AG playing market) can't even agree on what constitutes 'terrible' in terms of a game. Some people can't get to grips with the movement controls for a game - its 'terrible'. Some people hate the voice acting in a game - its 'terrible', some people don't like how the characters are drawn, - its 'terrible'. I think 'disappointing' is probably a better word than 'terrible' or 'bad'. A good example of this is the recent CSI: NY game which has been panned remorselessly. As a 'hidden object' casual game its probably the best ever made, but if you expected it to take forward the CSI series to a new level its a horrible letdown. Sometimes a game does not have very interesting characters or an involving story but even then it may be technically a tremendous piece of programming with great graphics and well-designed puzzles but in the end it isn't as good as it could have been because of the script. You couldn't in all fairness say it's a bad game though, but its perfectly reasonable to say that you didn't like it! 'One mans meat is another mans poison' as they say.. |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 11:12pm | |
Jenny100Guild Master  Posts : 3510 Joined: 12 OCT 2002 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Steve_V (11 JAN 2009 10:04pm) Actually it's not even close to being the "best ever" casual game. If you check out casual game forums, you can see it's generally considered mediocre or worse. Originally Posted By TAS (11 JAN 2009 7:16pm) It's harder to advertise to older people. They tend to be more advertisement-resistant to start with, and the people who advertise games don't seem to know how to reach them. |
| Profile Search | |
| 11 JAN 2009 at 11:47pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Hey Steve, who said anything about baby boomers? I was talking about the natural aging of the original gamer community that started our as kids playing at arcades and on early systems "way" back in the 1980's. There were also a number of college students playing D&, etc. during that decade, but they were all born well after the post WW2 population boom. The people who grew up taking PCs for granted simply aren't that old. However, the technology exploded again in the 1990's with the massive dotcom boom. So (some) older people also started playing interactive games while a whole new generation of Pokemon-loving gamers arose. Combined with the original core consumer group, the market expanded from a geeky hobby for kids to a full-blown global industry. That however didn't happen until the mid to late 1990's when several big corporate publishers emerged who have since bought up most of the smaller studios and taken complete control of the mass market. Here's my point - Most of the avid gamers in the world today are still relatively young. They never really knew a time before PCs, cell phones and the Internet, and it is they who the biggest developers / publishers must please. Moreover, the vast majority of those consumers prefer lots of fast action and glitzy graphics. They also like MP gaming - none of which is offered by traditional PC AGs. Some of the same people may have also played and enjoyed the LucasArts and Sierra classics during their heyday. But numbers don't lie and what sells now are graphic-intense, real-time 3D titles that feature plenty of action online and off. They also like big blockbuster movies with tons of action and special effects. The tastes of the current masses determine how most games are made and that unfortunately no longer includes slow-paced, puzzle-heavy AGs. I contend it never did. It's just that geeks comprised a very large portion of all home PC owners for the first decade or two and many of them do like solving complex puzzles. But as the market grew and the technology advanced, it became possible to add real-time action, 3D, MP, etc. Once those things all took hold, the industry shifted very quickly away from 2D point & click puzzlers to what it is today. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 12:36am | |
HalcyonSchattenjgerPosts : 1652 Joined: 17 NOV 2006 Status : Offline | Well, I agree with a lot of what you folks said, but you're generalizing and sterotyping rather freely. I've been playing games since Atari 2600 (still have a few sets) and I'm well over 50. Us "old folks" don't sit around befuddled and confused and invulnerable to persuasion. Remember, you're talking about gamers here -- lovers of escape and fantasy and all those childish things. Time for me to generalize: I think you're trying to explain the adventure gaming industry, rather than holding them responsible. I seems that some of them are completely off-target (befuddled, if you will). Others are trying to appeal to all gamers all the time. Others have their heads and hearts in the right place, but don't value little things like story and acting. Why can't adventure games be more like the big action games in quality? Why can't they be more like motion pictures, rather than comic books? One big complaint of the new "2008 Game of the Year" Gears of War was that it was too much like a film and gamers were watching it instead of playing. Nice problem. Meanwhile, we get purple cartoons. Let's hear from pros. Terry said: The tastes of the current masses determine how most games are made and that unfortunately no longer includes slow-paced, puzzle-heavy AGs. I just can't believe this. There are niche publishers to fill all gaps in the market. Just look at all the games on the remainder shelves -- and on your own bookshelf. AG is a sub-category, small genre. If I want to read a British cozy mystery novel, I'd really have to look for one today. But they are there, and the writers and publishers do them very very well. Why can't adventure developers do the same? If there are only ten games a year (instead of 46), why can't they all be of high quality? _________________ |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 1:05am | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Originally Posted By TAS (12 JAN 2009 12:35am) As a longtime marketing professional that works with target demographics for a full range of products every day, I'm telling you why PC AGs can not be big-budget cinematic affairs. The audience simply isn't large enough to justify the investment. Most game consumers these days (of all ages) want ACTION along with cutting-edge 3D graphics and all the rest. Traditional PC AGs by design are action-less or very close to it. They are by nature slower paced and have a relatively high degree of difficulty - which does not appeal to the majority of today's players. That's why developers like Funcom tried to simplify the puzzles and add some action segments to Dreamfall. The problem there is that they did a poor job of implementing the action elements and by adding them (as well as simplifying the puzzles), they alienated the original fans of TLJ. Proving once again that you can not be all things to all people. You MUST decide to create a game that appeals to one group or the other - or you have to balance those components much better. The studios that really understand how to do that are the ones making true action-adventures like Tomb Raider. The Tomb Raider franchise uses all the latest technology and employs it extremely well to tell an exciting story in a way that entertains players while also offering them enough action and a reasonable degree of difficulty for broad appeal. The basic formula works in today's marketplace and either a studio knows how to get it right or they don't. Dreamfall missed the mark on both main gameplay fronts - as a traditional puzzle-adventure and as an action-adventure. So it ultimately didn't sell as well as the more successful titles that follow the "Tomb-Raider Formula". The lesson I suppose is DO NOT deviate too far from what works and what sells - unless you are purposefully blazing new trails and willing to take a huge risk. Otherwise stick to the proven formula. Cheers, Terry P.S. Books do not require nearly the same amount of investment in terms of money or team talent as big-budget interactive games. Book publishing is also a very mature industry with lots of well developed outlets for niche markets. There are small publishing houses and now, e-books, etc. that make it even easier to publish books in all categories on a shoestring budget. Perhaps one day the game industry will also be able to better accomodate niche genres. But for now, traditional PC AGs are just getting lost in the clutter of 3D action titles. |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 1:22am | |
An_InklingSpace Cadet  Posts : 171 Joined: 20 JUN 2008 Status : Online | Originally Posted By TAS (12 JAN 2009 12:35am) Pretty much a necessity when talking about shifts in the market. Originally Posted By TAS (12 JAN 2009 12:35am) Not at all. The "too much like a film" complaint is not usually about the look of a game necessarily (can't speak about GoW, not played it), but the lack of interactivity. A valid complaint, seeing as it is interactivity that separates games from movies. Originally Posted By TAS (12 JAN 2009 12:35am) Nothing wrong with a "cartoony" visual style. Many movies have it too you know . Some people may have a personal dislike of such a style, but that's there problem, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. There is no reason a game with such a visual style cannot be a great game. Originally Posted By TAS (12 JAN 2009 12:35am) A number of reasons: - smaller developers - much lower production values - usually shorter development time - a conservative fanbase making innovation difficult - less games being made across a genre makes it less likely for a great game to come through, not more. Finally, most games in other genres are just not that great anyway. Sure, they have much better production values and look and sound a hell of alot better, but most are shallow, simple and a complete bore to play. The problems with modern Adventure games are not confined to the genre. Poor writing for instance is found in all genres. The reasons may be different (lack of talent and money in AGs, lack of focus and weight afforded in others. Market focus is one they have in common - non-AGs on mainstream and largely non-readers, usually young males. Modern AGs often on female gamers, particularly young females), but the outcome is the same. Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i]) |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 4:22am | |
avatar_58Private Detective  Posts : 403 Joined: 27 MAY 2008 Status : Online | Originally Posted By An_Inkling (12 JAN 2009 1:21am) That may be your opinion, but as I see it the other genres aren't hurting nearly as bad as the adventure genre. It's very easy to find a quality shooter, puzzle or action game. It's far harder to find a modern adventure worth a damn. :-/ The only other genre that's up and down this much is the RPG. Many argue todays RPGs just aren't as complex or interesting and I tend to agree (with the exception of few amazing examples like The Witcher). Even still it's easier to find at least a 'good' RPG when compared to the old days. |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 7:27am | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By An_Inkling (12 JAN 2009 1:21am) Slightly off-topic, I know; (been following this thread with interest), but cannot help commenting on this little point. Do you really think that young (or older) females do not like action and excitement? Think again. There are a lot of female gamers on mainstream gaming sites who pretend to be male, or at least conceal their gender, as for some reason, male mainstream gamers seem to be very sexist, always slamming "gamergirlz" and women who "pretend to" ( [smiley=furious.gif] to what end would we pretend, I ask you?) enjoy action gaming. Heck, these males even take exception to women developing action games, such as the hate campaign against Jade Raymond, (producer of Assassin's creed), a hate which I simply cannot "get". Sorry - I know the above rant is not quite on topic, but I've been needing to vent for a while now. (Tired of having to pretend I'm a man, you know). Back on topic : From all my time spent on gaming sites, I have come to the conclusion that pleasing all gamers is virtually impossible, and pleasing a lot of them, is a very fine art indeed, that goes with a lot of luck. They have, in the last decade or so, become a finicky, fickle, petulant bunch indeed. I'll probably be shot down for saying this, but I believe that an excellent, fresh and original story conveyed through good writing, brought to a satisfying conclusion, coupled with fairly good production values and intuitive, user-friendly gameplay, -which nevertheless presents a reasonable challenge, goes a long, long way to pleasing a lot of people in the gaming community. |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 9:21am | |
An_InklingSpace CadetPosts : 171 Joined: 20 JUN 2008 Status : Online | Originally Posted By TheTraveler (12 JAN 2009 7:26am)Originally Posted By An_Inkling (12 JAN 2009 1:21am) No. And I completely agree with the point you've made. Just as I do not think all young males want fast-paced action and great graphics over all else (I do not and never have). My comment was about the perceptions of developers/publishers and the games they consequently produce, and came from the differences I see in games largely marketed at one gender over another. Such generalisations are not entirely without merit, even if they'll never be accurate at a more specific level. On the abstracted, general level, there are differences between the sexes. We see this very clearly in the books and movies that are produced largely for a specific gender. As a hypothetical, made up on the spot by me, example: It is possible, even likely, that female gamers in general, will value a good story more highly than their male counterparts, be more amenable to a moderate level of reading in a game and almost certainly of dialogue. I have no real idea whether these generalisations are valid, but given the much higher rates of reading among females, and their higher sociability, it would seem to make sense. On the male side: they are generally seen as more aggressive, more goal oriented and less nurturing. I, as you do, find such generalisations odious, but can see how they may be useful for a publisher or developer looking to target certain market segments (many more generalisations based on age, console vs PC players, etc). It's important to understand your audience, and in the case of mass produced entertainment, this can really only be achieved in generalities. I am definitely not suggesting this is a good thing, or makes for a quality end product. I am just as frustrated with the perception of the "male", or even general gamer, and the games that result, as you are with perceptions of the female gamer. An example (probably an unfair one, as it comes from one isolated quote, but anyway) of developers being slaves to gross generalisations or stereotypes - the lead designer of Fallout 3, Emil, said during development, that he worries every day that Fallout 3 will be too hardcore for console players, as it contains so much reading :. The simplistic "core" writing of Fallout 3, to me, flows from this, likely mistaken, belief that his audience could not handle more complex and involved text. Personally, I could not see myself enjoying games with such a basis in generalities and focus on market demographics. It seems a recipe for a shallow and uninspired product. But, I do believe it does happen. Especially with modern developers/publishers where corporatisation has been taken to new levels. Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i]) |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 9:55am | |
| Deleted User | Yes, I completely understand your point, An Inkling, I just find it frustrating that people tend to carry general trends through to every single individual. I'm fine with the truth that action, and especially violence-based games are more popular amongst say, young males than amongst females. When it becomes frustrating to me as a gamer, is when this trend is read as that this preference is EXCLUSIVELY so. It irks me that people seem to be forced into little pigeonholes just because of general trends, and no leeway is left for the individuality of people. To take your very example, you and I merely need to read posts on this site, and interpret them with reference to age and gender, to realise that there are indeed, many females who do not enjoy a lot of dialogue (for various reasons), and males who do not mind a lot of dialogue/reading. In fact one or two men have expressed enjoyment of reading in games. Also, you will find (even on this very site) men of over Fifty, who needs action in their games, and young men in their early twenties, who enjoy adventure games, and do not mind a slower pace. My point is that the gaming community is generally a diverse bunch, and cannot be that easily pigeonholed into strata of age, gender, education, income, nationality, and the like, as much as specific personalities account for certain tastes. So what I'm saying is that my feeling is that one group should preferably not be targeted to the exclusion of another group. It can also become a self-fulfilling cycle. Because certain games are purely marketed to one group only (because of these market perceptions) and not to other groups as well, such games remain in the domain of that exclusive group, and does not spread in popularity to other groups. People like to be "in" with what they perceive to be their peer group (or people that are "cool", and marketing has the power to manipulate this - in fact, clever marketers more manipulate the market, than allow themselves to be completely manipulated by the market. |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 11:15am | |
An_InklingSpace CadetPosts : 171 Joined: 20 JUN 2008 Status : Online | It seems we are in furious agreement then.Originally Posted By TheTraveler (12 JAN 2009 9:55am) Yes. And this also goes for general gaming trends. Text is seen as inaccessible, turn-based combat as archaic, bleeding-edge graphics a necessity, first-person view as most immersive and anything else as not an option. Again, these are generalities, and certainly not universal. Such assumptions, usually made by the bigger developers, go unchallenged and flow down to the smaller developers, until they are exploded by a successful game or games. Even more insidiously, they condition a generation of gamers to holding the same views. They'll see turn-based combat as boring, and a legacy of technical limitations which no longer exist; descriptive text as unnecessary in the wonderous age of real-time rendered 3D graphics; 2D graphics as entirely unbearable; a game's quality strongly linked to its graphical quality, etc. Even if their experience of the alternatives is limited or non-existent. This has always been a problem, but there's no doubt that with higher production costs, and less creative freedom, it is greater than ever before. Consequently, we see a greatly reduced diversity in the industry, which is never a good thing, no matter what type of game you enjoy. This lack of diversity is producing a generation of gamers with a narrow view of what makes up a good game (yet another generalisation, sorry ), who reinforce the publishers/developers assumptions. More than ever before games are being produced as products, and are increasingly lacking in a coherent vision from their principle creator(s). As I've said before, I certainly see this changing in the future. Gaming is a new medium, and even newer in its mainstream appeal. It will take time to develop a mature and strong mix of genres, games of mass/niche appeal, and games as products vs "artistic" expression. With the current publisher/developer model, it is almost impossible to have a good selection of strong niche or "artistic" developers. Note: I have ""ed artistic, as I don't literally mean "games as art", though they could be. I simply mean developers who have a strong vision, and whose first and foremost concern is to create quality games. Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i]) |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 1:57pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By An_Inkling (12 JAN 2009 11:14am) Agreed. I like the wisdom you have just spouted forth, Inkling. I think it is certainly true that gamers are being conditioned to believe in a certain set of rules, but sadly it seems that this very situation is controlling the way developers act, in a perfect vicious cycle. Let's hope there are enough rebels who break out of the mold soon, which is bound to happen sooner or later. I'm hoping for sooner. On the other hand, one has to grant the fact that the RPG/RTS genres are becoming more blurred and hybrid, which can only be a good thing as far as diversity is concerned. Let's hope Adventure gamers also realise that it will only benefit them not to either cling to the past, or not to be afraid to go back to it, but to embrace all possibilities as potentially good possibilities. In short, I'd feel very happy if people would let go, ever so slightly, of what they are used to, and be open to new experiences, whether they be lovers of "old games" or "next-gen" games. |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 3:03pm | |
JKingSchattenjger Posts : 2349 Joined: 4 MAY 2008 Location: 0 Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TheTraveler (12 JAN 2009 1:56pm) I'm unconvinced, though, that people (and adventure gamers in particular) aren't open to new possibilities. I'm sure you'll find that a gas coming from me, but I suspect the problem (assuming there is one) is rather more with the producers. Those who make a pure adventure game can't get the support they need. Those who try and make something different either don't understand what is important in an adventure game (puzzles, story), or understand the adventure game but do not understand the ramifications of the changes they are making. Both result in a poor game which appeals to no one. Adventure gamers may be stubborn or may be open-minded, but either way they want a good game which appeals to them; that much is obvious. Keep in mind that in the primordial days of computer gaming it was largely the same people who played adventure games who drove the sale of titles such as Wolfenstein 3D and whatnot; a market for action-oriented computer games didn't simply appear out of nowhere, and adventure gamers certainly have and have had interests in other genres. I used to play a whole ton of shooters, for example, and I still play some. You, as everyone should know, enjoy among other things roleplaying games. Others enjoy pure puzzle games. Others still enjoy genres too numerous to list here. That all of us also enjoy adventure games is perhaps something of a happy accident, but for whatever reason we play them I think we can all agree that the demands on one's brain and the rewards provided by proper actions tend to be very different in adventure games than other genres. As Terry suggests the latter is not intrinsic, but the former is; the combination of the two is ultimately limiting. As my brain is wont to do, I keep thinking back to Myst, in this case specifically to Uru and Myst V. Both games were constructed with modern technologies by people who were well versed in the requirements of a good adventure game. The graphics did catch the attention of friends of mine, but the challenges in figuring ot the puzzles eventually drove them away. Would they have been more interested were the puzzles integrated with some action? Probably. Would they have been better games? Debatable. Is it my fault my friends didn't like them while I did? Not a chance. In the end adventures are to gaming what documentaries are to teleivison: there used to be lots more, as a percentage of the whole, when television itself was more of a niche, and people will still watch, but there's limited mass appeal. We all know this, but many of us seem to think this can or needs to change. I've often thought the same myself, but am coming to realise that the genre is what it is and that adventure games, like all forms of expressions, go through phases. We may have a bad crop now and may have had a better crop in the past, but the same could be argued for other genres of games, or for film (which has gone through many waxing and wanings over the decades) or what have you. I'll just be patient and wait for things to bounce back. Nothing to see here, really. You can't kill someone in a studio. |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 3:34pm | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By JKing (12 JAN 2009 3:02pm)Originally Posted By TheTraveler (12 JAN 2009 1:56pm) Please note that I said "people" very specifically to include developers and publishers. I very deliberately did not say "gamers", because I did not want to limit my comment to gamers only. Remember that developers are also people, and they also have their pet loves and hates. Although publishers tend to have a say in what direction the devs should be taking, devs are not mute, they could argue back and try to convince publishers of their own convictions too, especially if they have already made a name for themselves. Much as JK Rowling is probably given a lot of leeway in her artistic expression by her publishers, now that she has achieved fame and fortune. You, as everyone should know, enjoy among other things roleplaying games. You talking about me there? Strategy of all sorts (RTS, TBS and City-builders in particular) were actually my first love, and I still need my fix of at least one those, every now and then. |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 6:59pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . I'm pleased that several others here are expressing their opinions about games, gamers, developers, publishers, marketing trends, consumer perceptions, and the general industry in broader terms. As great as this little forum community is, we often tend to restrict discussions to (primarily) the PC adventure fan's POV and take a combative position against other types of games and other groups of players. I feel it's helpful to examine the whole industry, it's complete history and all gamers to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these trends - to explain why certain shifts in the market occur and to identify exceptions to the generally accepted prevailing rules. For instance, comparing traditional-style PC adventures in today's marketplace to art films or documentaries is spot on IMO. It makes sense plus it puts things into proper perspective. Given that perceptive point made by others above, I ask again - Shouldn't we hold AG makers to a higher standard in the areas of story writing, dialog and (basic) artistic design? Along with puzzles, those are after all the centerpieces or foundations of the genre and they do not require big budgets, huge teams or the latest, greatest technological tools to do well. What separates a good film or game from a masterpiece? Talent, imagination / vision / originality and creative artistry that's what. Not big-budget special effects or splashy cinematics, but great storytelling, immersive atmosphere, and in the case of interactive titles - clever puzzles and other gameplay elements that both challenge and entertain the player. Those things CAN be done and done very well by small studios with small budgets and that describes the current crop of AG developers to a tee. So, beyond a higher standard for the core elements that define AGs what is missing? Proper packaging, marketing and distribution for games that by nature are similar to art house films and other niche products. Now the question is, how do we accomplish those things? How do we convince bigger piblishers to diversify their portfolios to include some well-made niche games that appeal to niche audiences? How do they reach those consumers efficiently to still make a decent profit? Well, one idea I touched upon a couple of years back is to target heavy book readers and puzzle fans in general - especially in demographic / psychographic groups that share similarities with avid AG players. And to do that, they must conduct some in-depth consumer research and make an investment to test the market, fine tune their products and sharpen the focus of their marketing methods. If this doesn't happen, then IMO the genre will continue to decline in both sales and quality. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 8:52pm | |
avatar_58Private DetectivePosts : 403 Joined: 27 MAY 2008 Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (12 JAN 2009 6:58pm) No kidding, games like Sanitarium were created by very few people on what looks to be a small budget company/publisher. I don't think it's a matter of budget - it's a lack of talent. Without a god writer or designer it doesn't matter whether it's a supposed 'AAA' release or a casual web game - it's not going to be very good. |
| Profile Search | |
| 12 JAN 2009 at 10:44pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand InquisitorPosts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . Exactly Avatar. Talent (along with hard work, attention to detail and generally high artistic / literary standards) is what makes great games or movies great. All the rest - the special effects, technological wizardry, etc. - are just embellishments. However, as some of us have also been pointing out lately, even the smallest AG studios can apply the same high standards to everything from menus and load screens to box art, websites and other ancillary items to make the entire presentation as artfully pleasing, polished and tasteful as possible. Together with a well written, well designed game, all those things make an even more positive impression on reviewers and players alike. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 13 JAN 2009 at 12:10am | |
HalcyonSchattenjgerPosts : 1652 Joined: 17 NOV 2006 Status : Offline | Just to add some texture to the broad strokes here: I've met some very dispassionate, lazy, and unintelligent talented people. We all have, or we've seen them on TV. It takes more than talent to create an artful game. Marketplace research, desire, passion, artistry, commitment....etc. etc. etc. It takes all the same components of, say, creating a stage play--script, acting, set, direction, concept, commercial spin, etc. Special effects and technological wizardry can be a great differentiator. Puzzles fall into the script arena, since they are story-integrated and the author is knowledgeable about AG construction. Puzzles are not the game--they define the genre, perhaps. Again, we're talking idealistically here. It takes more than high standards and wishful thinking to create a quality AG. If we're talking about a small shop with a handful of people or less, then there are challenges. Then, the developers better have a FIRM idea of concept and gaming. They better know how to outsource and multitask and market. They better know how to get loans. This is a good thread, begging for an experienced developer to give us the hard truths. _________________ |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 2 of 2 : « ‹ |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
