Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:37pm)

Originally Posted By ILoveYou (3 APR 2009 5:28pm)

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 2:52pm)

Originally Posted By ILoveYou (3 APR 2009 2:20pm)
Lol, I can name one game in the past two years that I've enjoyed from the ag genre.

That is not what I asked.  You claimed indies had those problems.  I named some that don't and asked you to name some highly reviewed indies that had your supposed problems.

I never said those were the only problems. I've played Dark Fall and it was too boring for me to continue. And yeah, you can totally see the difference if you compare it to professionally made ones. It's common sense, not a claim.

Common sense meaning your opinion?

How many here would agree that you can "totally see the difference" if you compare Dark Fall to a big budget game in terms of gameplay?

JA:
Dark Fall A by Ray Ivey
Dark Fall: Lights Out A by Ray Ivey
Dark Fall: Lights Out A- by Robert Washburne

1 and 2 got an A-, B+ on gameboomers.

4.5/5 and 4/5 for both on metzomagic.

3.5/5 for both on adventuregamers, which doesn't often give high scores to 1st person games.

You found it "boring".. maybe so, but you are in the minority.and you didn't state that you found indies boring.  You stated that their "Bad voice acting, glitches, poor controls and inventory functions turn me off instantly."

This was nonsense and you knew it.. you just didn't feel like saying the truth, which is just that you found them "boring" and prefer big budget glitzier games.  That is fine, but don't exaggerate and make things up to support yourself.

Originally Posted By ILoveYou (3 APR 2009 10:15pm)

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:37pm)

Originally Posted By ILoveYou (3 APR 2009 5:28pm)

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 2:52pm)

Originally Posted By ILoveYou (3 APR 2009 2:20pm)
Lol, I can name one game in the past two years that I've enjoyed from the ag genre.

That is not what I asked.  You claimed indies had those problems.  I named some that don't and asked you to name some highly reviewed indies that had your supposed problems.

I never said those were the only problems. I've played Dark Fall and it was too boring for me to continue. And yeah, you can totally see the difference if you compare it to professionally made ones. It's common sense, not a claim.

Common sense meaning your opinion?

How many here would agree that you can "totally see the difference" if you compare Dark Fall to a big budget game in terms of gameplay?

JA:
Dark Fall A by Ray Ivey
Dark Fall: Lights Out A by Ray Ivey
Dark Fall: Lights Out A- by Robert Washburne

1 and 2 got an A-, B+ on gameboomers.

4.5/5 and 4/5 for both on metzomagic.

3.5/5 for both on adventuregamers, which doesn't often give high scores to 1st person games.

You found it "boring".. maybe so, but you are in the minority.and you didn't state that you found indies boring.  You stated that their "Bad voice acting, glitches, poor controls and inventory functions turn me off instantly."

This was nonsense and you knew it.. you just didn't feel like saying the truth, which is just that you found them "boring" and prefer big budget glitzier games.  That is fine, but don't exaggerate and make things up to support yourself.

I'm sorry but you need to step away from your PC for a good while. You clearly enjoy "misunderstanding" comments and getting attention. It's very transparent. I'm sorry your mind functions in such a black and white way and you can't see other colors. If you had actually read what I said you wouldn't be making such statements now and claiming you know what I meant and what I didn't. It's childish and quite frankly I'd love to offer you a reply but I know it'd just lead to another excuse and attack from your side.  :

80 Days,
Post Mortem,
Barrow Hill.....................

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (3 APR 2009 10:11pm)
.

I tend to agree Ivinia that too many AG fans still resist significant changes to the basic format / style established back in the 1990's when relatively small, static, 2D game worlds were the norm. There are other elements like action / combat / stealth that IMO could be used far, far better in the genre than they have to date and nobody has really taken advantage of the opportunities that full 3D graphics, modern physics and AI provide.

For many years now, we have seen all sorts of wonderful, little, real-time touches in action games like playable pool tables in seedy bars; breakable items that reveal secret, hidden areas; vending machines that actually "work", TV sets and projectors you can turn on and off, and every imaginable mode of transportation that allow the player to travel through the game environment.

The possibilities for using newer technology to create completely, fresh, fun, new kinds of integrated puzzles are nearly infinite.

For instance, why couldn't we truly interact with a machine in various ways that cause different sets of reactions in the game world to unlock secrets or to advance stories? Why does the game world have to feel so artificial and lifeless? Why can't we have day / night cycles and active NPC AI like in other genres? Why can't we actually shovel the coal, start that engine and drive the train in Syberia?

None of those things need to require any special physical skills like speed / timing / coordination. They don't have to involve combat either. Instead, the very same technology and design techniques already established in several other genres could be employed to create any type of non-violent game world interaction and there don't have to be any time limits.

In terms of using physics, why couldn't we mentally calculate things like size, weight, pressure, heat, angle and velocity to get a desired reaction in the game world? Why couldn't we actually build a custom machine from parts and diagrams found around the environment to accomplish a goal? The designers could even stay with a simple point and click interface, but at least we would be actively changing things in the game world and that world would feel so much more real.

Cheers, Terry

I'd be curious to see any sales figures of the "big" adventure games of the early 90s and compare them to sales of FPS at the SAME time.  If the FPS were more EVEN in the early "glory" days, I would submit that adventure was NEVER big... but was simply the only genre for a time for the PC.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:56pm)
 
There isn't the money in the genre for such innovations.  This is, IMO, because the genre is niche and always will be.  

I submit that it was only "big" in the early 90s because it was relatively the only known genre on the pc, hence very little competition.  As shooters and others showed up, newcomers came and bought these up... choosing them and their immediate gratification over thinking games.

Since this new market was easier to create for and more lucrative(better graphics to sell a fps, and mass market appeal), the big companies abandoned the genre.

Simple as that.

I'd be curious to see any sales figures of the "big" adventure games of the early 90s and compare them to sales of FPS at the SAME time.  If the FPS were more EVEN in the early "glory" days, I would submit that adventure was NEVER big... but was simply the only genre for a time for the PC.

Would I enjoy some of the innovations you pointed out?  Sure, if it is done well.  But I accept that, like sci fi, fantasy, and euro board games, it doesn't appeal to the mainstream enough to justify big budgets anymore.  My argument is that making it more mainstream will dumb down the genre in an attempt to capture a greater audience.

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (3 APR 2009 11:32pm)

So it would take a real risk taker with plenty of money, talent, vision and marketing savvy to traverse the gap between old-style, static AGs and the kind of new-age, technologically advanced AG hybrid I described above. Is that likely to happen any time soon? No, but I can dream can't I?

Originally Posted By Ivinia (3 APR 2009 11:17pm)

I'd be curious to see any sales figures of the "big" adventure games of the early 90s and compare them to sales of FPS at the SAME time.  If the FPS were more EVEN in the early "glory" days, I would submit that adventure was NEVER big... but was simply the only genre for a time for the PC.

Ummm...about Myst...
"By the end of 1994, it was the most popular game in the world and would hold the number one spot for years. As late as the week ending January 11, 1998, PC Data (now NPD Market Tracking) reported that Myst had sold more than any other game, including Quake II and Tomb Raider II..

Originally Posted By Mikekelly (3 APR 2009 11:55pm)

PC gaming in general is WAY DOWN from what it once was. I myself - out of the last 38 adventure games I have bought, only 4 of them were on the PC.

The other 34 were on the Nintendo DS. And yes, they are very good too. Adventure games on the DS in Japan have been known to sell millions of copies too.

Right now in fact, I'm playing Broken Sword DC on my Nintendo DS and it is simply fabulous.

So, will PC gaming disappear, no - not at all -- but it has shrunk in recent years - and there are advantages to consoles - the games always boot up - and I can't say the same for PC games. Compatability has always been iffy on the PC.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 1:22am)

Originally Posted By Ivinia (3 APR 2009 11:17pm)

I'd be curious to see any sales figures of the "big" adventure games of the early 90s and compare them to sales of FPS at the SAME time.  If the FPS were more EVEN in the early "glory" days, I would submit that adventure was NEVER big... but was simply the only genre for a time for the PC.

Ummm...about Myst...
"By the end of 1994, it was the most popular game in the world and would hold the number one spot for years. As late as the week ending January 11, 1998, PC Data (now NPD Market Tracking) reported that Myst had sold more than any other game, including Quake II and Tomb Raider II..

Myst's graphics sold cd-rom drives... so the numbers don't represent anything to me...

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

1. The initial response of mine was in response to rpgs that have come out since 2000.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

2.  1 last half of darkness came out in 2007...  
Secrets of the Da Vinci is 2006...

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

3.  I explained what games I preferred and therefore, why I have found that there have been MUCH more and better adventures than games.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

4.  Two Worlds has a gamerankings score of 65, universally trounced.  Gothic 1 was ok, but the rest were the exact same gameplay.. just too repetitive to me.  Gothic 3 got a 65% overall rating.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

5.  Many of the other "rpgs" just listed were pure action games or panned universally like two worlds.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

It wasn't great, but there is much much worse out there...  try al emmo or keepsake.  Again, however, I couldn't care less about voice acting and I do not desire them in my games.  

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

7.  Again, I still state that besides for the bioware and morrowind clones and 3-4 good rpgs, the genre has been very very sparse for the last 8 years or so....

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

and since adventures get ZERO exposure, while rpgs get tons of exposures, people should be thrilled that there are STILL so many good games coming out in quantity and quality for all the types of adventure games.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)
mean, you couldn't pay me to play Sacred or to play NWN1 again with better graphics, or as I like to call it, D&

done for the 10000th time.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 7:29pm)

besides for the bioware and morrowind clones

It's quite possible there are more AGs being made than RPGs (though far from certain) and some other genres, but the overall production values are of a lower standard. A reason why such a niche genre still gets quite a few games made for it, even though they don't sell particularly well, is because AGs are comparitively simple to make. They are often quite short, have few interactable elements, static worlds and stories, dated graphics and low quality audio. They can quite easily be churned out by small teams, at low cost, and many are essentially indie games. I do not think this is necessarily indicative of genre health, though it is good that they're being made. RPGs, certainly at the upper end, are having far greater success in the market than AGs and receiving greater backing from publishers. Now, the kind of game I'd most like to play: turn-based, character driven RPGs, is a game type that is truly dead outside of indies.

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (3 APR 2009 10:11pm)
.
For many years now, we have seen all sorts of wonderful, little, real-time touches in action games like playable pool tables in seedy bars;

breakable items that reveal secret, hidden areas; vending machines that actually "work",

TV sets and projectors you can turn on and off,

and every imaginable mode of transportation that allow the player to travel through the game environment.

For instance, why couldn't we truly interact with a machine in various ways that cause different sets of reactions in the game world to unlock secrets or to advance stories?

Why does the game world have to feel so artificial and lifeless? Why can't we have day / night cycles and active NPC AI like in other genres?

Why can't we actually shovel the coal, start that engine and drive the train in Syberia?

In terms of using physics, why couldn't we mentally calculate things like size, weight, pressure, heat, angle and velocity to get a desired reaction in the game world?

Why couldn't we actually build a custom machine from parts and diagrams found around the environment to accomplish a goal?

The designers could even stay with a simple point and click interface, but at least we would be actively changing things in the game world and that world would feel so much more real.  

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)
Hammer and Sickle got a 3.6/10 at gamespot!

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

But I guess you are right.  Never heard of them!

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Making assumptions as arguments are silly.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Last Half of Darkness was in 2007, not 2000, like was claimed.  I don't understand the necessity to make up numbers, and then change the argument when they are found false.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

I shot down his argument when I challenged him to name his "problems" in a list of games and 4 times he chose not to answer it, until finally he admitted they had no problems, he just found them "boring", which did not meet his poor generalizations.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Most of the adventures I listed were panned?  I only named 3.5-5 star games in my list from adventuregamers(a fairly harsh reviewer), and were rated B+ to A similarly everywhere else.  More assumptions?

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Hammer and Sickle got a 3.6/10 at gamespot!

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Two Worlds, as I mentioned was universally panned.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Come on now.  You threw action games and the kitchen sink of rpgs, including TERRIBLE games.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

None were actions?  Not Dungeon siege 2, Diablo 3, Silverfall, Hellgate london, and Fable?  Hmm...

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

"Not playing NWN2"
NWN2 is NWN1 with better graphics.  Planescape, icewind dale, bg 1-2, nwn 1, d&d online... how many times can I play the same system before I go insane?  If you don't mind the repetition, good on you.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Bioware and Morrowind clones are the exact same engine with better graphics over and over.  You claim there are adventure clones.  Could you name a single 3rd person adventure clone of another game?

Interesting. You are able to notice clones in the RPG genre, but seem oblivious to the fact that the AG genre is one of the least various in terms of gameplay. Yes, you have more puzzle focused games, and some that have a small action element, but by and large its very homogenous. There's certainly been little change in it over the past 10-15 years. FPSs and RPGs have both undergone significant change in that time, not all of it positive, but it is far from the AG stagnation. A genre where the major difference between the bulk of its games is setting and story. Morrowind and Fallout 3 are far more distinctive than most AGs to each other. As are Jade Empire and Mass Effect. It seems your standard of differentiation is higher for RPGs than AGs.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)
 
Last Half of Darkness was in 2007, not 2000, like was claimed.  I don't understand the necessity to make up numbers, and then change the argument when they are found false.

A search for 'Last Half of Darkness ' found the following results:

Games :  

1. Last Half of Darkness: Shadows of the Servants
by WRF Studios -- 2005
Windows
a.k.a. Last Half of Darkness 2


2. William R. Fisher's Beyond the Spirit's Eye
by WRF Studios -- 2007
Windows
a.k.a. Last Half of Darkness: [ch1042][ch1088][ch1077][ch1084][ch1103] [ch1074][ch1072][ch1084][ch1087][ch1080][ch1088][ch1086][ch1074]
Last Half of Darkness: Beyond the Spirit's Eye


[highlight]3. Last Half of Darkness
by SoftLab Laboratories -- 1989
DOS
a.k.a. LHOD [/highlight]

4. Last Half of Darkness
by WRF Studios -- 2000
Windows
a.k.a. LHOD

Hammer and Sickle got a 3.6/10 at gamespot!

Two Worlds, as I mentioned was universally panned.

Come on now.  You threw action games and the kitchen sink of rpgs, including TERRIBLE games.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
If you can't answer and are caught in a lie, deny deny deny... you'd make a good politician!

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
There is no misunderstanding.  You keep repeating that big budget games are the only good games and the others are bad because of your reasoning.  When asked to show these problems in the aforementioned games, you can't.  Pretty clear to me!

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
Post Mortem was indie?  They went on to make Still Life, a bigger production and acclaimed, no?

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
Barrow Hill was fantastic.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
I've asked 4 times where your problems showed up in those A rated indies that I listed and 4 times you have DODGED it.

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (3 APR 2009 10:52pm)
That is why the internet is useless.  People just ignore challenges to their claims and act as if they are still right!

Originally Posted By Jenny100 (4 APR 2009 3:02am)

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (3 APR 2009 10:11pm)

For many years now, we have seen all sorts of wonderful, little, real-time touches in action games like playable pool tables in seedy bars;

Remember playing the Rock Hopper arcade game in Cracking the Conspiracy?

breakable items that reveal secret, hidden areas; vending machines that actually "work",

We've seen those -- usually part of a puzzle rather than an extra though.

TV sets and projectors you can turn on and off,

I've definitely seen those. Remember the ghost hunting equipment in The Lost Crown? You weren't always able to access it throughout the game though.

and every imaginable mode of transportation that allow the player to travel through the game environment.

Not a huge variety in the same game, though several games do offer you a choice of two, or you had to use different transports for different parts of the game. Schizm, Riven, Day of the Tentacle, and Lighthouse are a few adventure games that had unique modes of transportation which you'd use in different parts of the game. But it seems like a lot of people prefer a map screen instead, so they can have instant transportation. So we see that more often.

For instance, why couldn't we truly interact with a machine in various ways that cause different sets of reactions in the game world to unlock secrets or to advance stories?

Didn't Riven have that?

Why does the game world have to feel so artificial and lifeless? Why can't we have day / night cycles and active NPC AI like in other genres?

They had them in RealMyst and Uru. It seems to be difficult to pull off cycles in a 2.5D game -- at least I don't remember seeing it. However Myst IV had real time lighting effects and animations that made it look lively.

Why can't we actually shovel the coal, start that engine and drive the train in Syberia?

Because there was no need to go down there...

In terms of using physics, why couldn't we mentally calculate things like size, weight, pressure, heat, angle and velocity to get a desired reaction in the game world?

I shudder at the memory of a certain arrow puzzle in timelapse, where you had to take into account the size of the arrow and the speed of the wind.

Why couldn't we actually build a custom machine from parts and diagrams found around the environment to accomplish a goal?

Kind of what you did in Return to Mysterious Island with the lemon juice battery. I would definitely like to see more of that.

The designers could even stay with a simple point and click interface, but at least we would be actively changing things in the game world and that world would feel so much more real.  

I don't think these ideas are new to adventures. Some of them first appeared back in the '90's. Most of these things don't even require 3D. They just aren't standard with today's adventure games, and I don't think we'll see them all in the same game any time soon. However I do think we'll see some of them in some adventure games.

Originally Posted By An_Inkling (4 APR 2009 8:06am)

Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (4 APR 2009 2:42am)

Bioware and Morrowind clones are the exact same engine with better graphics over and over.  You claim there are adventure clones.  Could you name a single 3rd person adventure clone of another game?

Well, firstly your statement is incorrect. Bioware have used a few different engines for their games - Infinty (BG and BG2), Unreal 3 (Mass Effect), Aurora (NWN), Odyssey (KOTOR), Eclipse (Dragon Age), unsure about Jade Empire. You won't find a massive amount of games on the same engine. There was a time where the Infinity engine was quite popular, being utilised for BGs, Icewind Dales and PST, but anyone who considers these games clones is using the term in a strange way. Bethesda have used Gameybro for their last three games, and you could maybe call Oblivion a Morrowind clone, though most would call it a sequel

. Sequels are not specific to the RPG genre you know. Fallout 3 on the other hand, uses a different roleplaying system than Oblivion or Morrowind, yet you still refer to it as a clone, it seems you have quite a broad definition. Certainly, it does share a similar open world game design, and I would contend that such aspects are more important in determining whether a game is a clone. The game engine is pretty much irrelevant, the rolepalying system is not overly important either. There are very different types of games that use the same engine. Civilization 4 for instance uses the same engine as Oblivion.

If you'll look again at what I said, I did not claim a large number of AGs to be "clones". I certainly did not use the term in the same elastic and ill-defined manner as you did:

Interesting. You are able to notice clones in the RPG genre, but seem oblivious to the fact that the AG genre is one of the least various in terms of gameplay. Yes, you have more puzzle focused games, and some that have a small action element, but by and large its very homogenous. There's certainly been little change in it over the past 10-15 years. FPSs and RPGs have both undergone significant change in that time, not all of it positive, but it is far from the AG stagnation. A genre where the major difference between the bulk of its games is setting and story. Morrowind and Fallout 3 are far more distinctive than most AGs to each other. As are Jade Empire and Mass Effect. It seems your standard of differentiation is higher for RPGs than AGs.

As you can see, rather than just use a loose label, I specifically said that AGs by and large vary less in gameplay than most other genres, with little evolution over the last decade. You balk at playing several very different RPGs, with very different aims, simply because they have the same roleplaying system, yet are fine with the fact that the vast majority of AGs share a gameplay "system" (follow a linear story with inventory puzzles as the main gameplay element), with only differences in control scheme between them. The other main type of AGs being Myst-likes, which are certainly close enough to each other, to be called clones. There is a real lack of elasticity in the genre, something you'll not find in the RPG genre. A genre so elastic, that there are clear RPGs that you want to pretend are not part of it (not that I'm a fan of most of these either). It is this sameness of AGs, and lack of evolution that sees them savaged in mainstream reviews (not saying I agree with all these). Again, I've played plenty of point and click Adventures in my time, so many, that a simply mediocre or pretty decent new release (even the best of the new AGs are no better than this for me) is simply not worth my time.

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (4 APR 2009 2:21pm)
. Yes, we have seen a few isolated cases of similar elements spread across a large number of individual, unrelated AGs over a long period of time. But we have never once seen a healthy amount of this kind of interactivity in a single PC AG title. URU probably came the closest though. Too bad it failed to launch a new breed of games in the genre.

Given the relatively large budget and level of 3D technology used, Funcom could also have integrated a number of ideas like this in Dreamfall. Instead, they chose to spend a lot of resources on some rather poorly implemented action / stealth elements.

They could have used the full 3D environment along with a more advanced physics engine to develop some very cool, highly interactive puzzles. In the stealth sequences, they could also have borrowed the directional surround-sound techniques from titles like Thief and the level designs could have been far more open to allow for additional freedom to explore as in Deus Ex.

My main point is that AG makers generally don't think in those terms. Most have no experience designing full 3D titles with open game worlds and a high degree of interactivity. So even when they do have a decent budget, a large team and all the necessary tools, they miss a lot of opportunities to take advantage of those assets.

In Dreamfall's case, I was really disappointed because Funcom has developed a full 3D MMORPG. I thought that experience would have given them a better feeling for how to properly implement action / combat / stealth. I also thought they would find a way to better integrate physics, AI and surround sound into the general gameplay and puzzles. I was wrong. They missed many opportunities to redefine what can be done in the genre.