If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 27 APR 2003 at 12:16am |
SCiVPrivate Detective
Posts : 671
Joined: 22 OCT 2002
Status : Online | And that's where you're right. It's better to have 90 games which suck and 10 interesting ones then to have no adventure games at all.
Playing: World of Warcraft / Monkey Island SE&&Reading: Worldwar: Upsetting the Balance - Harry Turtledove&&Watching: Repo! The Genetic Opera
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 1:00am |
Monsey_JoeIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 58
Joined: 2 FEB 2003
Status : Online | To a large extent this really goes under the Myst thread. Dreamcatcher publishes large numbers of Myst Clones, If you don't like Myst you won't like dreamcatcher. Theay also tend to put more emphasis on "eye-candy" than on story again a matter of taste.
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 1:03am |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | So let's leave it at this, Dreamcatcher is good because it produces tons of adventure games but there aren't that many games that are of high quality.
What do I like about Dreamcatcher? They produced a few good games and they help game developers get into the business
What is bad about Dreamcatcher? Once again, a lot of their games are bad and you usually have to see a couple reviews before buying one of their games.
What could they do to be better? They could always help the developer out by pointing out flaws in the game, maybe try to avoid publishing games that are more of the same (how many games did they publish that take place in ancient history?), and advertise their games (I've barely seen any advertisements for their games).
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 5:05am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | dimi, I must be touching a nerve because your posts are getting more and more personal. Let me break it down for you:
For a gamerankings rating to be reliable, it must have a solid base of reviews. This means 5-10 reviews at the very least to be significant. When I ran my search on Dreamcatcher games, I set the minimum quantity of reviews at 5, which eliminated Nancy Drew and others which hadn't recieved many reviews. To go ahead and tell me "gamerankings is insignificant beause they say Dark Fall is the greatest adventure ever" is just silly and assumes nobody uses their head. Dark Fall has 1 review, which is from JA and is an A. No way you can take that alone as any sort of consensus. Gamerankings.com is a great tool, but you have to use your head when using it.
Also, I don't see what your listing of scores is supposed to prove. Do scores in the mid-high 70s mean great games? I find it hysterical that the best examples you can find besides Syberia are games getting mid-70s scores, because sorry, those just aren't very good. How can you be so proud of C+ grades? I'm sure Omega Stone is a good adventure (I'm not sure why you think I said it sucks, despite my distaste for Myst-style adventures), but it's not a great one, and it's the 2nd best Dreamcatcher has to offer. Also, I'm not sure why you think 6 or 9 points are insignificant margins. 1 or 2 points is insignificant. 6 or 9 most certainly are significant.
To address your specific point on Post Mortem, first of all, a 40 is a very bad score and will affect the average, but with around 30 total reviews, one bad review cannot change the average THAT much. Also, I'd just like to note that adventuregamers.com, a site entirely based around adventure games, just like JA, gave Post Mortem a 2 out of 5. What does that come to? 40 percent.
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 8:57am |
| Deleted User | SCiV - my problem with the oold Dreamcatcher was that there appeared to be no discernable quality control. Investing in cheaper, poor quality adventure titles so early on in their development seems to me to be a way of getting a market foothold. That the more recent releases seem to be more, well, developed tells us that the quality output may well be around the corner.
We'll see.
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 9:20am |
dimidimidimiSchattenjger
Posts : 1784
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Jujigata so according to you all games that are below 80 in gamerankings suck big time. MAn good luck. You're going to be really pissed off in your life, that's for sure.
Is this why you made all this fuss in this thread, for 6,7 points difference with the greatest adventures of all time? As for your adventure gamers review example, in the beginning I had written it as well as a bad review along with PC-gamer's but before I clicked post I took it away so that I didn't cause another flame war...but since you mentioned it, well.
Read the cons of the review. Stinger thought that the voice overs were hideous and that ....drum roll.... it shouldn't have been a 1st person adventure, which is as wrong as someone expecting it to be a survivor horror game.
If you don't like 1st person adventures, quite simply don't review them, and let them stand a fair chance. To see how futile the point you are trying to make with gamerankings is that Post Mortem got 2 stars from AG and has 72 in gamerankings, but Sherlock Holmes that got 2.5 stars from AG has 60 in gamerankings.
What else can I say, if you think gamerankings is a reliable source prepare to miss out on lots of great adventure games...
PDF adventure magazine - The Inventory&&http://www.justadventure.com/TheInventory/TheInventory.shtm&&&&What would you give to know the truth?&&http://www.brokensaints.com
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 11:47am |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By monkeybone (27 APR 2003 8:56am)
SCiV - my problem with the oold Dreamcatcher was that there appeared to be no discernable quality control. Investing in cheaper, poor quality adventure titles so early on in their development seems to me to be a way of getting a market foothold. That the more recent releases seem to be more, well, developed tells us that the quality output may well be around the corner.
We'll see.
THAT is what annoyed me about Dreamcatcher. Up until 2000, they produced a lot of bad games and around releases of Dracula and Traitor's gate, they started to get better. They still release some bad games but they're releasing some good games too.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 12:22pm |
| Deleted User | I don't know why I even post here anymore but here goes:
If you want to have a serious, heated discussion about Dreamcatcher then fine. If you want to sling personal insults at each other and repeat yourself six times then count me out. I'm sure other people on this board have better things to do than get into infantile arguments, complete with swearing and name-calling. So much for the cultured, intellectual adventure gamer!
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 8:43pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | according to you all games that are below 80 in gamerankings suck big time
Good lord, do you even read my posts? I didn't say this anywhere. What I said that scores around the mid 70s are nothing to be boasting about. I said that Omega Stone, which is currently rated at a 77, is probably a pretty good game (even though I dislike Myst-like adventures), just not a great one, and certainly not one to be that proud of when it's the 2nd best game you've released. Jeez, take the time to read my posts before responding, man.
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 9:22pm |
| Deleted User | MMMMM
I__ ---- I
--[o]-[o]--
< I >
<->
We are intellectual, dude!
|
| 27 APR 2003 at 11:26pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By monkeybone (27 APR 2003 8:56am)
SCiV - my problem with the oold Dreamcatcher was that there appeared to be no discernable quality control. Investing in cheaper, poor quality adventure titles so early on in their development seems to me to be a way of getting a market foothold. That the more recent releases seem to be more, well, developed tells us that the quality output may well be around the corner.
We'll see.
I don't see any indication that they're publishing better games at all.
What are you considering old anyway? I think the most recent adventure games they've published are Omega Stone, Post Mortem, Mystery of the Mummy, and Pharaoh's Curse - not really better games than Riddle of the Sphinx, the Dracula games, Beyond Atlantis, and Traitors Gate.
|
| 28 APR 2003 at 12:07am |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | Old was when they made games like the Crystal Key and that game with the safes.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 1 MAY 2003 at 3:15am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Crystal Key and Safecracker were published in 2000.
I think the Microids games and Schizm are better quality than most of their earlier games, but I don't see any general trend toward better quality - no more than improved graphics can give anyway. The Cryo games they republished varied considerably in quality and Cryo was their major source of adventure games starting from when they partnered with Dreamcatcher in 2000.
|
| 1 MAY 2003 at 3:35am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | On a related note, Randy posted this on another thread:
Dreamcatcher has no in-house developers per se, like Sierra used to have, but they do now fund the development of games are do influence the content, plot, music, etc. in a very hands-on approach. This was the case with Cameron Files 2. If you read the game credits at the end of the game you will see that numerous DC personnal were involved with the developement.
The same is now true for every game on the list that was released today.
This means DC now plays an integral role in the development of the games they release, so I don't want to hear the same "they're the publishers, they're not responsible for game quality" argument any more.
|
| 1 MAY 2003 at 5:35pm |
FrogmortonIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 26 APR 2003
Status : Online | Have been following this post and have finally broken down to respond.
The orignal question was "oes DC just suck?". My OPINION is no. They are a business. They produce computer games. If the product sells, they become rich. If the product is bad, sales fall and the company flounders. This is a free market society, they have the right to sell what they want and we have the right to not buy it. They have no moral obligation to produce a product to a specific person's desire.
Maybe the problem here is that there are very few game producers in NA so DC gets the brunt of unhappy gamers since we don't have a huge pool of games.
I have LOVED games from DC that others didn't like at all. I have seen other people laud games that I sold the minute I was done with them. So who decides which games are "sucky"?
Loved these games:
The Legend of the Prophet and the Assassin
Nancy Drew Ghost Dogs of Moon Lake
Nancy Drew Message in a Haunted Mansion
Nancy Drew Treasure in a Royal Tower
Amerzone
Safecracker
Dracula Resurreciton
Jekyll and Hyde
Arabian Nights
In Cold Blood
Atlantis the Lost Tales
Nightlong
Games that I didn't really care for:
Traitor's Gate
Messenger
Lightbringer
Nancy Drew Secrets Can Kill
Nancy Drew Stay Tuned for Danger
Crystal Key
Nautilus
Games that were pretty good:
Syberia
ROTS
Schizm
Forgotten
Loch Ness
Beyond Atlantis 1 & 2
I have another bunch I've yet to play. Who liked which games? Which of these games is "sucky" to you all? Did anyone like any of the games that I did? Looking at my list, I seem to have liked most of the games that DC has produced. I'm soooo happy that they are in business
|
| 3 MAY 2003 at 3:13am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By jujigatame (1 MAY 2003 3:35am)
On a related note, Randy posted this on another thread:
Quote:
Dreamcatcher has no in-house developers per se, like Sierra used to have, but they do now fund the development of games are do influence the content, plot, music, etc. in a very hands-on approach. This was the case with Cameron Files 2. If you read the game credits at the end of the game you will see that numerous DC personnal were involved with the developement.
The same is now true for every game on the list that was released today.
end Randy quote
------------------------
begin jujification
This means DC now plays an integral role in the development of the games they release, so I don't want to hear the same "they're the publishers, they're not responsible for game quality" argument any more.
As far as I know this is a very recent development. But it does explain the recent rash of Egypt-based games they seem to be coming up with. Why put Cameron Files 2 in Egypt? It would have been more interesting to have had a more unusual location.
I wonder if Dreamcatcher's new "hands-on" approach was why HerInteractive moved the Nancy Drew games to Infogrames. Maybe they didn't want to make a "Nancy Drew and the Egyptian Murder" or "Nancy Drew and the Mystery of Atlantis" game.
|
| 3 MAY 2003 at 3:30am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | LOL at Nancy Drew traveling to Egypt and Atlantis. You heard it here first!
|
| 3 MAY 2003 at 7:40pm |
Speaker4DeadIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 53
Joined: 6 APR 2003
Status : Online | Juji, with all due respect, I agree with you 100% (and I think to compare Dreamcatcher games with classic adventures is to spit in the face of all the great classic games), but you're preaching to a stone. Dimi's set in his ways and his replies just take your posts, misinterpret them, and then argue that misinterpretation with vigor. Give it up, man.
|
| 3 MAY 2003 at 8:30pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Juji, with all due respect, I agree with you 100% (and I think to compare Dreamcatcher games with classic adventures is to spit in the face of all the great classic games), but you're preaching to a stone. Dimi's set in his ways and his replies just take your posts, misinterpret them, and then argue that misinterpretation with vigor. Give it up, man.
Believe me, I'm well aware of all this. imi and I have "clashed" on a few other threads as well, and he even took the time to write me an inflammatory PM. On this thread, he stopped responding, so I followed suit. I think Dreamcatcher puts out subpar product, he doesn't. Leave it at that, no need to beat a dead horse.
|
| 4 MAY 2003 at 6:33am |
FrogmortonIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 26 APR 2003
Status : Online | Speaker and Jugi, how about answering some of my questions. I bet neither one of you has played half of these games and if you have, why are they "sucky"? Also, Speaker, please define "classic" and explain to me what games you consider classic. Are they classic just because they are older? Please also explain why Dreamcatcher should be required to produce "classics".
Truly just curious.
|
| 4 MAY 2003 at 6:43am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | I bet neither one of you has played half of these games
You're correct there, at least for me. I only play 6-8 games a year tops, so I'm not in the habit of picking up mediocre titles, or ones that aren't a style I enjoy (Myst style adventures, for example).
As for what games I consider classic adventures, Grim Fandango, GK 1 and 2, TLJ, Sam and Max, and Indy 4 immediately come to mind. They are timeless games that remain playable years after their release and are remembered by many as excellence in gaming.
Dreamcatcher should not be "required" to produce classics. They can produce whatever they want. The purpose of this thread was to point out I believe many people here give somewhat undue praise to DC and that we are overlooking the somewhat shoddy quality of many of their titles because we have resigned ourselves to it, because they are basically the only major adventure game distributor left. In short, we are lowering our standards, and I don't like it.
|
| 4 MAY 2003 at 5:45pm |
FrogmortonIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 26 APR 2003
Status : Online | Point understood Jugi. Some of your earlier posts had me believing that you thought they were responsible for making better games but the words in this post I agree with. I would enjoy hearing which of their games you thought was "shoddy" and why (and what could have made it better).
I have only played 4 of the games that you mention as classics, but I would only consider 2 of them classics. Many people would disagree with me, but that's the point, we all like something different. TLJ is my 2nd favorite game of all time but there's a long list of people that couldn't get past all the gabbing and never finished it. It's a classic to me but only because I liked, the next guy says it isn't.
|
| 4 MAY 2003 at 6:29pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Some of your earlier posts had me believing that you thought they were responsible for making better games
Well, I think you actually may have interpreted me correctly. A publisher's role should not be so hands-off as to buy titles and then release them with no hand in the process besides burning the CDs and making the packaging. They are the ones making the profits, so they need to have a stake in quality control. This is my firm belief.
As for which games were shoddy, I'll just give you a few of the most poorly rated DC games and why they were rated so poorly:
Legend of Prophet and Assassin - Short, restrictive gameplay, trial and error gadget puzzles, mediocre storyline.
Dune - Poorly designed action/adventure (frustrating difficulty, poor controls and save scheme, etc), little to do with the source material.
Arthur's Knights - Heavily guided and linear with pixel hunting o plenty. Lots to do without much of it being very compelling.
Arthur's Knights 2 - Extreme linearity and lack of control, little interaction with environment. Tedious quantities of travel and backtracking between locations.
Beyond Atlantis - Bewildering gameplay, nonsensical conversations and puzzles throughout.
I could list more if you like. The point is, of the 20-something adventures DC has released, more than half have been cited by most sources as mediocre to poor games with serious gameplay or design problems, and only 1 (Syberia) has recieved widespread acclaim. This suspect track record is the crux of my argument.
|
| 4 MAY 2003 at 10:43pm |
Speaker4DeadIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 53
Joined: 6 APR 2003
Status : Online | I certainly don't consider them classics simply because they're old. Many many old adventure games are as bad as current DC stuff. On the other hand, the ones that were really good, the Grim Fandangos, the Gabriel Knights, the TLJs are so much better than anything DC has ever put out that it's staggering. Their plots, their character development, the intelligence of their puzzles, the originality, detail, and depth of their game worlds is on such a different level than DC games that to compare them is almost insulting.
|
