CGW is viciously biased against adventure games, and so is PC Gamer.  if you see a few adventure games get good scores, those scores were just put there to help "pull the wool over our eyes" about their vicious anti-adventure game bias

to prove my case, i cite the best adventure game ever made:  Nocturne

Originally Posted By Ogre (18 OCT 2004 10:10am)
Uh my...
Noctorne is NOT an adventure... it is a so called Survival-Horror game a sub-genre of the Action Adventures. If one considers Noctorne to be an Adventure also Doom 3 is an adventure then...
Btw I did buy Nocturne when the price dropped and played it for a while because of the story. The game itself was horrible, bad controls, unfair sequences, not really great graphics at that time, either... I stopped not even half through

Originally Posted By Navaros (18 OCT 2004 3:48pm)


everything quoted here is entirely untrue

the controls are great.  

the graphics are EASILY the best graphics from any game released in 1999, and they still look great today even in 2004!  i'd like to see you tell me any game released in 1999 with better graphics than Nocturne, especially an adventure game.

Nocturne is nothing like Doom 3, thank God!  

 

i am sorry that you didn't have the skills to be able to handle Nocturne.  it does indeed require some manual dexterity and good reflexes.

however, just because you can't handle having those things in an adventure game, it does not mean that game is bad

Nocturne is still an adventure, it just innovated the genre with some action.

that's no reason to slam the game, tho.

Originally Posted By humorguy (18 OCT 2004 11:09pm)
Hi guys,

I have read through this thread, and I think I can put it to bed.

Quite simply, it's is about income.  When large publishers (LucasArts, Sierra, etc) were releasing adventures they advertised them bigtime. That's how magazines make money. Advertising.

As the big companies moved away from publishing adventures, smaller publishers moved in. They did NOT have advertising budgets.

Magazines need to attract advertising to make money. They also have to show they are "fair-minded" when it comes to reviewing games.

Therefore the sums add up: Adventures don't get million £/$  advertising budgets, so don't provide income for the mags. The mags needs to slag some games/genres off, and that's easier to do with products with little/no advertising, because what do the mags lose? It's easier to be rude to a bum than your boss!

(No insult intended!)

If Funcom don't have a budget for big advertising, Dreamfall better be as good as TLJ. Because I think it is reasonable to think that printed mags will give a maximum of 80% to an adventure game, how ever good it is and 70% if it is pretty good!!.

Thats what happened with The Longest Journey, but due to it's quality TLJ got great reviews from adventure websites and got lots of good word of mouth, which eventually made it a hit. (Took 3 years that way though!)

Games magazines circulations are way down on 5-10 years ago. The web, TV games shows, etc have hurt them. This means they are less and less likely to give space to a game or genre that is not likely to generate advertising revenues for them.

That's why (see my thread on Dreamfall!

) adventure publishers really need to pay attention to adventure gamers. We are better salesmen for them than any printed game magazine!

I mean, I think I have sold about 8 or 12 copies of TLJ, based on telling friends and chatting about it on  the web over the years. I bet you can say the same about that title or another yourself!

Of course publishers still look to printed press and retail chains to move their product - things move slowly in the adventure market!

If I was going to publish an adventure I think I would send review copies to regular newpapers rather than gaming magazines. If you got coverage it would be more likely to be "fair" and would reach a lot more people!

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (19 OCT 2004 12:02am)
.


Yes HG, it IS all about money and has little to do with fair, unbiased, comprehensive reporting. So what else is new?

Originally Posted By humorguy (19 OCT 2004 1:55am)


Well thanks Terry, but hey - did you notice we are on Page four of this thread, and I did not notice what I said mentioned in any fashion on the pages before! So not so obvious as you and I think!?

Nocturne is still an adventure, it just innovated the genre with some action.

Originally Posted By jujigatame (19 OCT 2004 2:35am)


There are at least 2 things wrong with this sentence, and I ain't talking about grammar.

Originally Posted By Navaros (18 OCT 2004 3:48pm)


everything quoted here is entirely untrue

the controls are great.

the graphics are EASILY the best graphics from any game released in 1999, and they still look great today even in 2004!  i'd like to see you tell me any game released in 1999 with better graphics than Nocturne, especially an adventure game.

Nocturne is nothing like Doom 3, thank God!  

i am sorry that you didn't have the skills to be able to handle Nocturne.  it does indeed require some manual dexterity and good reflexes.

however, just because you can't handle having those things in an adventure game, it does not mean that game is bad

Nocturne is still an adventure, it just innovated the genre with some action.
that's no reason to slam the game, tho.  

Originally Posted By Ogre (19 OCT 2004 1:02pm)
Err... the worst problem of all Survival Horror game are the controls.

I mean, the Grim Fandango controls were nowhere near as bad.

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (19 OCT 2004 2:33am)


I always read every prior reply in a thread before joining in HG, especially in forums I am new to.

But yes, it is evident that some of the people who have previously posted in this thread seem to be unaware of these facts - or they are simply trying to ignore reality and cling to an old pre dotcom bust / pre economic stall paradigm. As we know, that was all smoke and mirrors to begin with and the harsh light of fiscal responsibility has come down hard on many formerly successful sectors.

Nevertheless, it is still incumbent upon editors and reporters to uphold a certain standard of ethics - regardless of the topic, the media or the current economic conditions. If they fail to do so, they lose all credibility and serve no purpose whatsover. We already have plenty of marketing, advertising and PR experts to handle the more direct commercial promotion of products / services. We don't also need supposedly unbiased news organs to adopt their blatantly profit-motivated priorities.

Sadly, that too is a fading ideal in this world and one I am certain will carry grave consequences that far exceed the harm that a few biased game mags and web sites can do. It is an attitude that has become all too pervasive in many news organizations around the world. Many have adopted a profit-at-all-costs policy and others have married their mission to extremely biased political views. The worst of the lot has commited both attrocities knowingly and with malice.

It is they I fear the most.

Cheers,  Terry

Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (18 OCT 2004 11:45pm)



First off, the system requirements for Nocturne at the time it came out (and the time it was fully reviewed) were WAY too high. It literally chugged along even on Gamespot's top PC gaming rigs and was basically unplayable on most average machines in 1999. This made reviewing the game and recommending it to a wide reader base (at that time) very hard for any responsible reviewer.

Secondly, the main reviewers all complained specifically about awkward controls (no doubt made worse by the low, uneven framerates) and even more awkward camera angles in many of the scenes.

On a more subjective basis, many reviewers also commented that the game was simply not that scary compared to other 3D SP-only, third person Survival Horror Action-Adventures - which is how the developer and publisher described the game and how it is correctly listed on most major game sites to this day.

NONE of these reviews were the least bit biased when they were first posted and IMO they described the game precisely as it existed when I tried to play it on my old gaming PC back then. The system requirements were very high and the performance was lousy despite the fact that I had a very good system for the day. The controls were awkward and the camera angles were confusing in many places and yes, I agree that the scare factor just wasn't nearly as high as it should have been when compared directly to other top titles in the same sub-genre up to that date.

Now, the last statement may be subjective but it is one that many reliable, experienced reviewers agreed with as did the majority of other avid, knowledgable players that I talked to on several good game forums at that time.

I will admit though that giving the Nocturne CDs the shameful title of Coaster Set of the Year was a bit harsh. But not really that far off-base given the circumstances. In 1999, it was a highly anticipated new PC game that generated a lot of hype. It was also heavily marketed as THE scariest game ever made by the publisher and even had a Halloween launch date if I recall correctly. Plus, the performance issues were a real stopper at the time it came out.

Last but not least, it is patently UNtrue that the same game mags and web sites that panned Nocturne in 1999 had any hidden agendas, ulterior motives or biases against PC adventures. They all applauded Grim Fandango and Sanitarium the year before and many (including ZDnet's Gamespot - prior to the Cnet takeover) gave it THE top award of the year as Best Overall PC Game of 1998 with Sanitarium also getting high overall marks and winning several awards.

Furthermore, the following year in 1999, Gabriel Knight 3: BOTS. BOTD won top PC adventure game of the year and Nocturne was not even nominated. That's because it was simply not good enough, it had some major performance issues at the time and frankly did not deserve the recognition.

Cheers,  Terry

P.S.

Here is a link to Greg Kasavin's original Gamespot review of Nocturne. It pominently mentions the very same problems that most good reviewers pointed out at the time (Halloween 1999) and IMO was a perfectly fair assessment of the game when it was first released.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/nocturne/review.html

.

Originally Posted By Navaros (24 OCT 2004 6:04am)
@Anne:  yes i do get mad when even adventure fans slam the best adventure game ever made (Nocturne) for no good reason.   granted, they may think their reasons are good, but really they're not good

the devs did an almost-perfect job with Nocturne, controls and all.   it is morally wrong to hold the game accountable for it's players' lack of skill

i'm just trying to set the record straight

The controls are easy enough to get used to, and seem to be built with efficiency in mind. There aren't very many to learn

Overall, Nocturne is a game without peer. The engine is like nothing done before, and the story is as finely crafted as any in recent history. Quite simply, it's the best game I've played this year.

regardless of how many people support my view of Nocturne, my view nonetheless remains correct.  the "popular" opinion is by no means always the correct one as i'm sure you know