| 30 MAR 2009 at 6:18pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4941
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By DY (30 MAR 2009 5:21pm)
Hello,
How would you describe the current state of adventure gaming?
Do you think the curent situation is better or worse than that of 2000-2002? 1990s? Do you feel that the situation is improving or vice-versa?
Do you think there are new adventure games of comparable quality to the best games of those published in, say, 1990s?
When do you think were the hardest times for adventure gaming (or perhaps they are now)?
IMO, the worst times are now, certainly worse than 2000-2002. Very few games are comparable to the quality in the 1990s. I felt the situation was improving 3-5 years ago when games such as Aura, Alida and the Rhem games were released, but I'm far less fired up now over the more recent adventure games.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 6:25pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I think the best years for Adventure Games have been over the last few years (if you exclude the earlier years when they were a new thing). There has just been so many produced - okay they might not all be top notch games but I've certainly enjoyed playing just about all of them with only a few exceptions - I've only 'hated' about two that I've bought & there are one or two others that I just haven't got round to buying yet.
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 6:41pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Again, I agree with Dave.
Sale numbers don't lie and frankly even we avid, longtime PC AG fans have begun to turn away from the genre. So too has a whole lot of creative and technical talent gone elsewhere in recent years and no, it has never come close to being replaced. Neither have the big mainstay AG publishers from years past.
With the loss of LucasArts and Sierra as major players and the ending of the Myst franchise, what's left is a mere shadow of what was still a very popular and profitable genre just a decade ago.
Most traditional retailers have all but stopped selling PC AGs and online vendors simply don't stock nearly as many new or classic titles as the other genres.
The game media has also long since lost interest in this category because there just aren't that many paying customers who care about it any more.
However, there have been a few bright commercial spots over the last eight or nine years and a number of talented indies have emerged. But together, they can not compare to the glory days of the 1990's when dozens of new, high-quality adventures graced the shelves of retail stores and several large studios employed whole teams of talented AG makers that had healthy budgets to work with.
Sad but true...
Cheers, Terry
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 7:35pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | It's interesting to go to some place like Pagoda
http://www.pagodagamedatabase.com/years.php
and make a note of how many of the games you "really really liked" that are in each year. Then you can go through again and see how many games you thought were "definitely above average but not a favorite" are in each year.
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 7:39pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I think the problem with sales on AGs is that they just never got fair representation in publications & altogether the advertising they needed to sell better. The reason that the game media lost interest is because the outlets are/were run & staffed by a younger generation dominated by males who are typical of the target audience for the action. FPS etc genres that have developed since the AG heyday!
It has been obvious from publications, that I've wasted money on, that gaming has been seen as exclusive to themselves as a young male domain (children's game's aside) & so the handful of AGs that have been reviewed have often (if not always) met with contempt & judged in comparison to the higher budget action games without ever considering that there was still a market for those games if reviewed in context to the genre. I'm not sorry that a lot of these publications have gone bust as I never came across more ageist & sexist content in a 'media' publication. Games are for everyone!
Myst-like games aren't to everyone's taste but have to agree that it's opened up a new approach to games since & added to the variety of what's available.
I'm very optimistic about the future of AGs - if the three Sherlock Holmes have been able to notch up a (legitimate) one & a half million sales between them there's hope!
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 9:55pm |
Steve VSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 265
Joined: 16 MAR 2008
Status : Online | I honestly don't know, I mean I don't know where to find sales figures for various games so I can't tell you how 'successful' The Lost Crown (for example) has been or Perry Rhodan, which being essentially a German cultural icon, probably sold very well in German speaking countries but seemed barely to register on the radar in English speaking countries.
Because I play games across a fairly wide set of genres from AG's to Sports sims to Wargames to FPS and Busines Sims I really think the one overriding factor that holds AG's back is the lack of replay value. I have wargames and sports sims from 10-15 years ago that are still updated by online communities of 'modders' that keep the games fresh and have active forums. What can you do with even the greatest Adventure game? Play it once, maybe replay it a few months later when you've forgotten some of the solutions..
A lot of young adults (well the ones who actually pay for games) are kind of taken aback by this, 'Ok I won, what happens if I play again? Exactly the same stuff? But I payed 30 bucks for this!'
I mean see how quickly discussion threads peter out about games here - thats 'pure' AG's not The Witcher I liked it, I didn't like it..really there's not a lot you can say other than that. Its the same on most boards,a small flurry of activity when a game is released, then a month later..nothing
Some way of making a truly non-linear multi-ending game can't be beyond the bounds of possibility, and THAT would have the punters coming back for more..
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 10:28pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Couldn't agree more Steve and I've made the same point many times. AGs lack any sort of MP mode, they are not moddable and even the best studios can't find a way to sell official EPs (Expansion Packs) for them.
RPGs, shooters, strategies and other popular genres have embraced these extensions to add a tremendous amount of extra value for players and additional income for developers / publishers.
Add to those disadvantages the lack of direct action, linear nature of gameplay, high average degree of mental difficulty plus relatively low use of advanced 3D technology and you get a genre with limited replay value, limited revenue streams and little mass appeal compared to the competition.
Is there really any mystery about why PC AG sales have dropped off in recent years? The whole industry has essential lapped the category several times on several different fronts and the majority of today's game consumers demand more - a LOT more.
A decade ago, the Myst franchise was amongst the top selling all-time. But since it shut down, no other really big AG sellers have emerged. Conversely, during that time RPGs and MMORPGs have exploded. 3D action games have continued to sell like hotcakes too. RTS titles have also sold very well as have sports sims and The Sims series has set new records for total sales.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 30 MAR 2009 at 10:35pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4941
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Steve_V (30 MAR 2009 9:54pm)
Because I play games across a fairly wide set of genres from AG's to Sports sims to Wargames to FPS and Busines Sims I really think the one overriding factor that holds AG's back is the lack of replay value. I have wargames and sports sims from 10-15 years ago that are still updated by online communities of 'modders' that keep the games fresh and have active forums. What can you do with even the greatest Adventure game? Play it once, maybe replay it a few months later when you've forgotten some of the solutions..
A lot of young adults (well the ones who actually pay for games) are kind of taken aback by this, 'Ok I won, what happens if I play again? Exactly the same stuff? But I payed 30 bucks for this!'
I mean see how quickly discussion threads peter out about games here - thats 'pure' AG's not The Witcher I liked it, I didn't like it..really there's not a lot you can say other than that. Its the same on most boards,a small flurry of activity when a game is released, then a month later..nothing
I think you have point in that that might be the perspective of some, but if I were given that as a reason by someone, I would suggest to that person that they should look at adventure games in the same way they look at books rather than comparing them to various actions games. Books give you a one-time concentrated experience that has to do with fantasy, a story and the related involvement. People buy books, paying $12 to 30 for each even though it's a one-time experence. And they will do so willingly several times a year.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 12:04am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | I think now. Tons of games are and have been coming out, and plenty are great.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 12:42am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | It's pretty bad right now. I won't say there aren't any games worth trying, there certainly are. But even most of those are pretty mediocre in just about every aspect. And looking over the last few years, I have a hard time finding any game that really impressed me. Even expanding that to the last decade isn't that much better.
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 2:16am |
An_InklingSpace Cadet
Posts : 171
Joined: 20 JUN 2008
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SirDave (30 MAR 2009 10:35pm)
Originally Posted By Steve_V (30 MAR 2009 9:54pm)
Because I play games across a fairly wide set of genres from AG's to Sports sims to Wargames to FPS and Busines Sims I really think the one overriding factor that holds AG's back is the lack of replay value. I have wargames and sports sims from 10-15 years ago that are still updated by online communities of 'modders' that keep the games fresh and have active forums. What can you do with even the greatest Adventure game? Play it once, maybe replay it a few months later when you've forgotten some of the solutions..
A lot of young adults (well the ones who actually pay for games) are kind of taken aback by this, 'Ok I won, what happens if I play again? Exactly the same stuff? But I payed 30 bucks for this!'
I mean see how quickly discussion threads peter out about games here - thats 'pure' AG's not The Witcher I liked it, I didn't like it..really there's not a lot you can say other than that. Its the same on most boards,a small flurry of activity when a game is released, then a month later..nothing
I think you have point in that that might be the perspective of some, but if I were given that as a reason by someone, I would suggest to that person that they should look at adventure games in the same way they look at books rather than comparing them to various actions games. Books give you a one-time concentrated experience that has to do with fantasy, a story and the related involvement. People buy books, paying $12 to 30 for each even though it's a one-time experence. And they will do so willingly several times a year.
I don't think this is a good way to look at AGs. Games should not be books, nor should they be movies. The interactive component is crucial. Otherwise the medium's existence is questionable. If games are doing the same things as books and movies, only to a far lower standard, why do we need them?
AGs are probably the least interactive of genres, and in an objective sense, the worst game genre. Adding non-linearity in the form of different ways to complete puzzles, being able to traverse the world at will, and especially being able to alter the way the story plays out, do not go against the tenets of the genre, and could greatly enhance it.
Given that AGs essentially have two components - puzzles and story (could add exploration there), they have a great chance to push the storytelling component to higher standards than other genres. Currently they are not doing so, and have been surpassed by many other games. Story malleability is something which other genres also largely ignore, because it is difficult. It's the perfect area for the expansion of AGs - it addresses the interactivity weakness, and serves to differentiate it from other genres.
Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i])
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 2:27am |
| Deleted User | Not very encouraging thoughts here, but 'm going to have to say that even I (who ususally can find something good in almost any game) am starting to feel the blues. I'm really not all that ashamed to say that it's almost April and I've only played a single AG in 2009. I've tried a couple other types of games and although I was thoroughly entertained, it's doubtful that I'll ever feel the [s]passion[/s] appreciation for pure AG's of higher calibur that I've played in the (becoming distant) past where all I really needed (and could expect) was a compelling and original story (those where I just hated seeing them come to an end) or a mind blowing well thought out entelligent ending. In a nutshell, just simply those kinds of things in a well remembered AG that can still be foremost in my middle aged muddled brain. I realize that times are changing for all sorts of reasons, mostly beyond our immediate control and some things ultimately come and go. Yet again, if the powers that be could do it back then...
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 3:10am |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16540
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | The thing is that nothing remains static in this world. If you look at books - the way we tell a story has evolved and different types of story move in and out of favour. The same is happening with games.
Adventure games are essentially single player experiences yet the youngsters today are doing their socialising online with their multi-player games. The audience's preferences have shifted.
We sound like a bunch of oldies lamenting the closing down of the music halls as they are replaced by the new entertainment 'the flicks'.
And that's the truth of it. Change happens. The genre has moved on and even we have moved on too. How many of us here express impatience now with puzzles that take days to solve. I certainly don't want to spend weeks nutting stuff out like I once did. The internet and walk-throughs have spoiled us all. We've all become the instant generation.
[Old opinionated dinosaur shuffles off into the distance with her zimmer frame.... ]
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 2:44pm |
DYIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 29 MAR 2009
Status : Online | Originally Posted By An_Inkling (31 MAR 2009 2:15am)
Originally Posted By SirDave (30 MAR 2009 10:35pm)
Originally Posted By Steve_V (30 MAR 2009 9:54pm)
Because I play games across a fairly wide set of genres from AG's to Sports sims to Wargames to FPS and Busines Sims I really think the one overriding factor that holds AG's back is the lack of replay value. I have wargames and sports sims from 10-15 years ago that are still updated by online communities of 'modders' that keep the games fresh and have active forums. What can you do with even the greatest Adventure game? Play it once, maybe replay it a few months later when you've forgotten some of the solutions..
A lot of young adults (well the ones who actually pay for games) are kind of taken aback by this, 'Ok I won, what happens if I play again? Exactly the same stuff? But I payed 30 bucks for this!'
I mean see how quickly discussion threads peter out about games here - thats 'pure' AG's not The Witcher I liked it, I didn't like it..really there's not a lot you can say other than that. Its the same on most boards,a small flurry of activity when a game is released, then a month later..nothing
I think you have point in that that might be the perspective of some, but if I were given that as a reason by someone, I would suggest to that person that they should look at adventure games in the same way they look at books rather than comparing them to various actions games. Books give you a one-time concentrated experience that has to do with fantasy, a story and the related involvement. People buy books, paying $12 to 30 for each even though it's a one-time experence. And they will do so willingly several times a year.
I don't think this is a good way to look at AGs. Games should not be books, nor should they be movies. The interactive component is crucial. Otherwise the medium's existence is questionable. If games are doing the same things as books and movies, only to a far lower standard, why do we need them?
I agree with SirDave. The question could also be asked for example why do we need theater when it is possible to provide better product through cinema? (because of the ability to film the same many times there as well as ability to use real setting and effects and such). However still there are many theater lovers who value the qualities theater has which cinema does not (such as live actors). I think, just as a movie, a book, an animated movie, a play or a musical, adventure game is just another medium of story, and it has its qualities and setbacks - just as the other media of stories.
The specific feature of AG as a media of story include:
*Like books, they can be of varying lenght and therefore provide in-depth story (this is less so with movies, theater plays).
*They provide a very wide array of possibilities for visual display (from various styles of animation to FMV to The Dark Eye style with plaster figures to various styles of 3D graphics; 1st person or 3rd person or Sanitarium-style isomorphic and so on). Visual display style may be chosen to form atmosphere.
*They give ability to skip parts the person (player) does not want to have (i.e. talking to some characters is boring to him) and extend the parts the person likes (i.e. look at everything to hear funny comments) - that way the story can be created even more in-depth and be somewhat unique to everyone (in a book it would be boring to most if it would be described in several pages how the main protagonist looks at everything in the room he enters; not so in AG, when the choice is yours).
*They permit larger attachement between a person and a character when you are able to choose whta to say and such. You only go through somewhere when you understand what the character understands (e.g. in TLJ (spoiler) where you first meet Minstrum Tobias, you need to understand yourself that you need just to listen and say nothing; in a movie or a book if you'd just read through April's attempts to say something and then understanding that she should remain silent, it would have been different(spoiler end)).
I could probably name some more as well.
Unfortunately, there is this mainstream (now I mean mainstream people, not mainstream gamers) view towards AGs as just a type of games rather than something to compare with films or books, and the number/percentage of great AGs storywise is, perhaps because of that, far lower than numbers of great movies or novels storywise, which does not help to change that opinion.
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 3:11pm |
ILoveYouIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 56
Joined: 23 MAR 2009
Status : Offline | the current situation is horrible and to be honest I don't think it'll get any better until something seriously changes. we might need a major release based on something like a movie or a book that has a wide audience (such as Twilight) to get people interested in these kind of games again. the only games I'm looking forward to play are Gray Matter and Still life 2. The latter being just cause there's nothing better coming out.
|
| 31 MAR 2009 at 3:32pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Guys, it doesn't matter whether or not this is a "good"way of looking at AGs. It is simply the way most consumers view them these days. The majority of current game buyers don't want small, static game worlds with tightly controlled linear paths, actionless gameplay, and highly limited replay value.
More to the point, all the big game developers, publishers, retailers and review sites know this. There just isn't enough consumer interest any more to make them want to take a risk on traditional PC AGs.
As for books, they don't require an expensive machine to experience and most all titles are also available in cheap paperback form. They never become obsolete because there is no technology required to read them. They also have a much higher chance of being turned into films, TV shows and possibly even games - all of which can also lead to additional merchandising opportunities.
Stage plays and the other performing arts can easily be adapted to other media too. That aside, they are a social event and many include music that is subsequently recorded and mass merchandised.
The central focus of AGs however is puzzle solving. While they also involve stories, very few are original or popular enough to spawn movies and other profitable ventures. The one exception to date has been the Tomb Raider franchise. But as we all know, it is a 3D action-adventure series with far broader appeal than classic-style AGs.
Personally, I'd love to see an animated feature film based on the Monkey Island series, Gabriel Knight, Syberia or Grim Fandango, especially if Tim Burton made it. But given the current state of those IPs and the genre itself, there don't appear to be any backers willing to take the risk.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 8:48am |
ILoveYouIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 56
Joined: 23 MAR 2009
Status : Offline | I suppose it's time to move on. Or at least takemy distance for a while.. again. I know I've done it before, after I got frustrated with the genre ages ago, and haven't seen a decent game since The Moment Of Silence and later Overclocked, which however was a disappointment story-wise. I'd rather not play any game, or visit the old classics again than wasting my money on low-budget, incomplete and rushed releases. It doesn't matter how good the story is, if the graphics and voice acting sounds cheap, it's a turn off for most of the gamers.
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 8:54am |
ArkadiaPrivate Detective
Posts : 558
Joined: 1 JUN 2008
Status : Online | Very, very few recent (2001+) adventures have appealed to me or given me any real pleasure to play. In light of this, I have simply been slowly and methodically purchasing every supposedly good adventure that I missed back in the 'golden days'. That, and I'm always replaying favourites - I have many adventure games I've played 6-7 times each.
Adventure games will never die for me
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 11:09am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | I feel the same. The only game in recent years that seemed to have captured that feeling of magic for me was The Lost Crown. It was big and I HAD to keep playing it to find out where it was all leading to.
There were so many that looked really good on the graphical side, but beyond that there wasn't much there beyond that unfortunately. Now whenever I see new screenshots of an AG - even if they look good - I feel ho-hum about them. :-/
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 2:24pm |
DYIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 29 MAR 2009
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (31 MAR 2009 3:32pm)
.
Guys, it doesn't matter whether or not this is a "good"way of looking at AGs. It is simply the way most consumers view them these days. The majority of current game buyers don't want small, static game worlds with tightly controlled linear paths, actionless gameplay, and highly limited replay value.
In a market everything is in a place where it is positioned. There have been many products, from sudoku to frisbees, that were obscure for years or even decades only to catch up when better positioned in the market.
I don't see game genres as novel genres - they are much more different from each other and serve different purposes. AG genre can contain all the book genres in itself (i.e. sci-fi, historical, pscyhological, etc.). The purpose of action games is to provide thrill (a good action is the one which provides that thrilling entertainment - they are equivalent of real-life sports in some way), the purpose of true simulators (e.g. flight sims) is to emulate the real thing as perfectly as possible, the purpose of strategy games is to provide good and balanced oppurtunity to think (they are equivalent of real-life board games in some way). Of course, nowadays the genre is usually mixed, but some genre is dominant in most games.
One problem with adventure games I think is that even their fans would not be able to agree on their purpose. Perhaps these two should actually be considered to be two different genres, which are just mixed too often - that is one genre, story-driven adventures, which is in fact equivalent of books or films and is another medium for a story, using qualities which I have mentioned, and the other is so-called puzzle-driven adventure, where the goal is to have oppurtunity to think on solutions of various problems.
Perhaps these two would need to be separated, and story-driven adventure games could be marketed more towards non-gaming audiences, going to the position in market of mediums for story, rather than that for computer games. AGs marketed as such would have not to have hard puzzles, especially slider and such, or stealth/action elements. And, of course, a strong story would be needed (that there are few good stories now does not means good stories in adventure games are impossible; they are possible, just like in any other medium).
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 3:30pm |
| Deleted User | Perhaps these two would need to be separated, and story-driven adventure games could be marketed more towards non-gaming audiences, going to the position in market of mediums for story, rather than that for computer games. AGs marketed as such would have not to have hard puzzles, especially slider and such, or stealth/action elements. And, of course, a strong story would be needed (that there are few good stories now does not means good stories in adventure games are impossible; they are possible, just like in any other medium).
Sorry, -can't agree with you there. I want all my gaming elements AS WELL AS a strong story. Can't see why it can't be done. People who want only puzzles can use software like Braintrainer and the like. There is already a huge market for casual games. Don't water down our traditional AG's; the casual market already fills the gap that you describe as: "AGs marketed as such would have not to have hard puzzles, especially slider and such, or stealth/action elements. "
Some of the earlier posters who mentioned market exposure and advertising might also have a point. Shooters and other action games are agressively marketed and advertised in magazines, online and other media. I've NEVER seen an AG being advertised. So many people don't even know about the existence of the genre, simply because they have never been exposed to it.
I personally have enjoyed a lot of the AG's that have been released in the past 5-6 years, despite me only really having started playing AG's about 3 years ago, and having come from other genres, and still gaming other genres. It might be then, that I don't have that nostalgia for the older games that old-timers have, and that newer audiences can, like myself, enjoy the fare that is being dished out these days: If only they knew about these games, and had exposure to the genre.
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 4:14pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
The problerm goes well beyond lack of exposure, Traveler. It also involves core gameplay issues and replayabilty/ extensibility.
Moreover, commercial exposure costs a lot of money on top of increasing production expenses.
Publishers look at the ROI equation for traditional PC AGs in today's market and see a really bad investment. They simply can not justify taking such big financial risks when the possibility of a healthy, sustainable profit is so low.
Retailers in turn get far fewer Class A adventure titles and even they have puny marketing budgets compared to Class A shooters, RPGs, etc.
The major media outlets also have to look at what their readers / viewers / users actually want. They have an obligation to cover the kind of games that most consumers are interested in. Being commercial entities, they too have to make a profit and the games that publishers are willing to support with hefty marketing budgets are in other genres.
Ultimately, the talent pool in which all games of all types are born trickles away from under-exposed, unpopular, unprofitable genres and flows to greener pastures.
This I'm afraid accurately describes the current state of traditional adventure games.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 10:07pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TheTraveler (1 APR 2009 3:30pm)
Perhaps these two would need to be separated, and story-driven adventure games could be marketed more towards non-gaming audiences, going to the position in market of mediums for story, rather than that for computer games. AGs marketed as such would have not to have hard puzzles, especially slider and such, or stealth/action elements. And, of course, a strong story would be needed (that there are few good stories now does not means good stories in adventure games are impossible; they are possible, just like in any other medium).
Sorry, -can't agree with you there. I want all my gaming elements AS WELL AS a strong story. Can't see why it can't be done. People who want only puzzles can use software like Braintrainer and the like. There is already a huge market for casual games. Don't water down our traditional AG's; the casual market already fills the gap that you describe as: "AGs marketed as such would have not to have hard puzzles, especially slider and such, or stealth/action elements. "
Some of the earlier posters who mentioned market exposure and advertising might also have a point. Shooters and other action games are agressively marketed and advertised in magazines, online and other media. I've NEVER seen an AG being advertised. So many people don't even know about the existence of the genre, simply because they have never been exposed to it.
I personally have enjoyed a lot of the AG's that have been released in the past 5-6 years, despite me only really having started playing AG's about 3 years ago, and having come from other genres, and still gaming other genres. It might be then, that I don't have that nostalgia for the older games that old-timers have, and that newer audiences can, like myself, enjoy the fare that is being dished out these days: If only they knew about these games, and had exposure to the genre.
You have reflected my sentiments exactly Traveler! I think developers have been doing a pretty good job over the last few years considering their budgetary & time constraints - not every single game that turns up is going to be 'top notch' in much the same way that that for every notable film, book etc, there are many others that as entertaining as they are will never win an Oscar, Booker's prize etc, but that doesn't make them bad or insignificant. I don't agree with games being developed in 'categories' as this can only contribute to a 'dumbing down' of quality & the greater production of 'formulaic' games stifling to any creativity.
I think we need to remember that many games are developed over a long period of time & rely on the commitment of a team of talented & dedicated individuals & are the result of investment of a lot of hard work.
Posted by: Terry Penrod Posted on: Today at 6:13pm
.
The problerm goes well beyond lack of exposure, Traveler. It also involves core gameplay issues and replayabilty/ extensibility.
I disagree, the majority of the public regard games as the domain of children & young men as they don't know any different. There has never been any major exposure to belie this myth. As far as core gameplay issues & replayability/extensibility - these are all issues I would associate with other genres where there is lack of content & repetitiveness where variants & add ons have to be considered to prolong their playing life. There are many people who play an AG once but there are many others who want the option to play them again in the future otherwise there wouldn't be a whole load of 'hooha' about DRM on discs & downloads. The fact is that an AG can be replayed in the future without the need for varying gameplay & add-ons - many players forget the puzzles & plot & get just as much enjoyment out of playing them again!
Moreover, commercial exposure costs a lot of money on top of increasing production expenses.
I can't disagree with that but games publications have been very narrow as well as predjudiced in their outlook & haven't really done their job in covering the range of games available, & in a positive light when they have done.
Publishers look at the ROI equation for traditional PC AGs in today's market and see a really bad investment. They simply can not justify taking such big financial risks when the possibility of a healthy, sustainable profit is so low.
I think the potential is there you just have to look at the success of the Nancy Drew games.
The major media outlets also have to look at what their readers / viewers / users actually want. They have an obligation to cover the kind of games that most consumers are interested in.
I can't disagree that the biggest selling games fall into other genres but there are a lot of consumers being ignored!
Ultimately, the talent pool in which all games of all types are born trickles away from under-exposed, unpopular, unprofitable genres and flows to greener pastures.
I think that's very insulting to current AG developers.
This I'm afraid accurately describes the current state of traditional adventure games.
Cheers, Terry
I find it sad that so many posters on this Adventure Game site! have such a poor opinion of current games. It's a little bit like visiting the gaming equivalent of 'Bedrock'! [smiley=laughing.gif]
|
| 1 APR 2009 at 10:32pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
I agree that there is still a viable market for commercially produced, traditional-style AGs, Loobiloo - particularly ones based on popular TV shows and book franchises like CSI and Nancy Drew. Matter of fact, I've used both of those examples several times in past discussions on how the genre could reach a larger audience.
Nevertheless, none of the big publishers seem to be interested in investing in developing and properly marketing them.
Regarding replay value and profitable extensions, AGs just don't compare well to games that lend themselves to SP and MP modes as well as player-created mods and official EPs.
Along with the mass appeal of action and state-of-the-art 3D graphics, the most popular genres these days offer all those advantages to both consumers and sellers.
Cheers, Terry
|
