| 27 OCT 2004 at 1:11am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Games like this are formally referred to as Action Adventures (because they include some form of timed / jumping puzzles and similar elements that require more than just running / sneaking around shooting stuff. They also tend to have playable in-game stories with strong, identifiable lead characters and interactive NPCs with some meaningful dialog.
Tomb Raider was most definitely an Action Adventure and so was Nocturne. The only real difference is in the degree of action, percentage of "puzzles" and amount of dialog. Some titles obviously can fit in several categories technically but mostly they are still called Action Adventures.
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 1:28am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Just as a follow-up, what would you people call Twinsen's Odyssey (a.k.a. The Lillte Big Adventure 2) or its predecessor The Little Big Adventure (a.k.a. Relentless)?
It was definitely an adventure title but it also had quite a bit of action including some timed jumping sequences and even some combat. It also had a controllable dune buggy and a jetpack that required action game skills as well as item hunting segments and all sorts of traditional adventure game stuff.
To me, it was a true Action Adventure in the purest terms.
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 3:51am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
Ya know - we all have our opinions on WHAT genre a game belongs in.
What an "RPG" is, or what a "First Person Shooter" is.
I go by the catagory that Gamespot puts it in - it's one of the most popular Gaming sites on the internet today.
These games (BloodRayne, etc.) are catagorised as:
"Shooter - Third Person - Fantasy."
There's already several threads on putting the right game in the right bucket.
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 5:30am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By Mikekelly (27 OCT 2004 3:50am)
Ya know - we all have our opinions on WHAT genre a game belongs in.
What an "RPG" is, or what a "First Person Shooter" is.
I go by the catagory that Gamespot puts it in - it's one of the most popular Gaming sites on the internet today.
These games (BloodRayne, etc.) are catagorised as:
"Shooter - Third Person - Fantasy."
There's already several threads on putting the right game in the right bucket.
That may be true Mike but I never commented specifically about what category BloodRayne 1 or 2 belonged in. I just said that Nocturne was considered an Action Adventure by most people. Even Terminal Reality describes it as a "3rd person adventure" with plenty of action.
http://www.terminalreality.com/games/index.html
That's how they marketed the game when it was first released and it's how developers and publishers have described similar titles like Tomb Raider for many years now. So the term "Action Adventure" is very well established and used frequently by all the better web sites and magazines to describe this particular type of game. They have also coined the term "Survival Horror Adventures" to describe a certain type of sub-genre.
All that aside, I also said that there are many games that can easily fit into several different genres. So I go with whatever the creators say they are and then add any special notes about features that stretch those defintions.
Same goes for RPG sub-categories. There are traditional, isometric D& titles like Baldur's Gate and distinctly different action-oriented RPGs like Diablo. There are also MMORPGs like EverQuest and newer 3D SP offerings that have cross-genre qualities like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. But in every case, the people who made the games use the term RPG or Action RPG to distinguish them. It is only when they are true hybrids that they use different terms like FPS - RPG.
So in my mind, we already have a very solid set of basic game genres to describe most titles and most of them just aren't that confusing. When an oddball mix of genres does come out, we just need to apply the most accurate term in the established industry lexicon and then add a little extra descriptive text about whatever other qualities they may have that makes them unique or harder to categorize.
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 7:36am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
"BloodRayne" and "BloodRayne 2" are spinoff's from "Nocturne".
But then again, why don't we put "oom 3" in the action-adventure catagory?
After all, it has a cool story too.
"Nocturne is really just an action game at its core, and the difference between acts is the difference between fighting constantly versus fighting most of the time."
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 8:30am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By Mikekelly (27 OCT 2004 7:36am)
"BloodRayne" and "BloodRayne 2" are spinoff's from "Nocturne".
But then again, why don't we put "oom 3" in the action-adventure catagory?
After all, it has a cool story too.
"Nocturne is really just an action game at its core, and the difference between acts is the difference between fighting constantly versus fighting most of the time."
This has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal opinion or mine Mike. It is what the official web site currently and always has said that Nocturne is - a third person ADVENTURE game period. So who cares if it is more about combat than even most titles that are marketed as Action Adventures? It is still categorized formally by the original developer and publisher exactly that way. If you want to argue with someone about it, I suggest you speak directly to them, not me. Frankly, I couldn't care less one way or the other.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 4:23pm |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline | Hey Terry - why don't you go click on the "adventure" tab at Gamespot and see what games are listed.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS ONE GAME NOT LISTED:
"NOCTURNE!"
Terry if you WANT TO ARGUE about what bucket a game is placed in - please post your comments in that thread.
I came to this thread to comment on other subjects far more interesting.
I don't CARE what bucket a game is in - as long as it's fun to play.
|
| 27 OCT 2004 at 11:37pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
As I said Mike, I simply don't care what category you or Gamespot put Nocturne in. Only that the people who developed and published it call the game an adventure on their own web site and that I defer to them.
Besides, my initial reply about this subject was addressed to Navaros, who had already made a big deal about it.
On the bigger topic of why some game magazines and web sites seem to shun adventure games or even have a bias against them, I have already contributed some specific thoughts on the matter earlier in this thread. But the primary focus of this discussion was interrupted when Navaros insisted that Nocturne was the best adventure game ever made. This sparked comments by several forum members and it has dominated the subject ever since.
So if you're looking for a reason why this thread got off track, look no futher than that.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 28 OCT 2004 at 2:58am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | At this point I think action-adventure hybrids have become popular enough to warrant the creation of a new "major" genre to be listed alongside action, adventure, RPG, and the like. Games like Beyond Good & Evil and Silent Hill have clear distinctions from both traditional PC action and adventure games.
Just my 2 cents.
|
| 28 OCT 2004 at 3:37am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By jujigatame (28 OCT 2004 2:58am)
At this point I think action-adventure hybrids have become popular enough to warrant the creation of a new "major" genre to be listed alongside action, adventure, RPG, and the like. Games like Beyond Good & Evil and Silent Hill have clear distinctions from both traditional PC action and adventure games.
Just my 2 cents.
I couldn't agree more and feel the same way about Action-RPGs. These are quite different from classic D& style games regardless of whether they use an isometric 2D pov, a combo 2D/3D executon, full 3D, first vs. third person, real time vs. turn-based (or an optional combination of both) or even which platform/s they were designed for. It is a basic difference in GAMEPLAY and depth that separates these two distinct categories.
True cross-genre hybrids are still pretty a rare though and they deserve a few extra descriptive words to help better define each one.
But so this does not extend the discussion even further away from its original topic, it may be this very confusion over proper categorization of new games - in many instances by both the fans and the reviewers as well as the developers / publishers - that has contributed to some rather iffy coverage of adventures by the mainstream media and even fuzzier marketing by gamecos.
A more accurate and complete set of up-to-date genre definitions would help alleviate that confusion for all parties and it would lead to a better understanding of the subtle differences between classic PC adventures, action-adventures, etc.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 28 OCT 2004 at 3:50am |
NavarosIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 25
Joined: 17 OCT 2004
Status : Online | sorry for having this thread go "off-track". that was not my intention. however, when i read here of certain posters defending uncredible, biased anti-adventure game, slanderous magazines such as CGW i felt it was my moral duty to "set the record straight"; which my empirical evidence with "the Nocturne exhibit" has done.
as for whether Nocturne should be called "adventure" or "action/adventure" - that's just pointless semantics. Nocturne is an adventure game no matter what it is "labelled" as. it has very prevalent adventure elements all throughout the game. therefore it is an adventure game. what one "calls" Nocturne in no way can detract from the fact that Nocturne is indeed an adventure game since it has prevalent adventure elements.
|
| 28 OCT 2004 at 4:18am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
The botttom line is:
Nocturne is a great game.
The half-vampire character in that game spawned TWO big hits.
I just bought "BloodRayne 2" - it's a rocker!!!!
Great story, great characters, great action.
Is it an "adventure" game to me?
Maybe..........
Anyway, Gamespot does slag many TAC adventure games.
And I buy and play those very games.
Some of them deserve the poor reviews too.
But they don't cost much - 19.95 full retail, $9.95 after it's been released for a while.
Gamespot LOVED Myst 4 - gave it an 8.5.
Then again, Myst is $39.95 - it BETTER be good!
|
| 29 OCT 2004 at 2:41am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | in no way can detract from the fact that Nocturne is indeed an adventure game since it has prevalent adventure elements
LOL at you still not getting it. Gamespy, who you point to as giving Nocturne the praise it is due, lists it as an ACTION game. Also, your attempt to use it as an example to prove CGW's "bias" is garbage. They've given good grades to many adventure games recently. Perhaps Nocturne did deserve a better score from them (when it was released 5 FREAKING YEARS AGO), but the claim that it had something to do with anti-adventure bias is so absurd on so many levels that it's laughable.
|
| 3 NOV 2004 at 10:11pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Well, as someone who reviews quite a few adventure games at PC Gamer, I can say without reservation that I am not biased against adventures. These charges against PC Gamer usually get started by people who don't even read the magazine on a regular basis. All they need to see is one review they don't agree with, and there are accusations of "bias" and "corruption."
Of course, my favorite accusation that's supposed to be "common knowledge" is that there's a correlation between advertising and coverage. Or, that there's some type of payola scam, and adventure game publishers just don't have enough money to buy us off. I laugh about that one every morning on my bus ride to work.
The truth is that reviewers aren't privvy to how much advertising any game company places with us, nor do "the suits" have any control over review scores. I've been playing adventure games since 1982, and typically ask to review them when I'm available. During my time with PC Gamer, I've given adventure games scores ranging from the teens into the '90s. And trust me, I'd much rather give high scores than low ones.
Chuck Osborn
Senior Editor, Features & Previews
PC Gamer
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 1:29am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
"uring my time with PC Gamer, I've given adventure games scores ranging from the teens into the '90s. And trust me, I'd much rather give high scores than low ones."
Yea - I bought an adventure game once EVERYONE slagged - "Necromicon".
It was sssssso bad it was almost funny.
I did make it through to the end - which was an achievement.
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 1:44am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (3 NOV 2004 10:10pm)
Well, as someone who reviews quite a few adventure games at PC Gamer, I can say without reservation that I am not biased against adventures. These charges against PC Gamer usually get started by people who don't even read the magazine on a regular basis. All they need to see is one review they don't agree with, and there are accusations of "bias" and "corruption."
Of course, my favorite accusation that's supposed to be "common knowledge" is that there's a correlation between advertising and coverage. Or, that there's some type of payola scam, and adventure game publishers just don't have enough money to buy us off. I laugh about that one every morning on my bus ride to work.
The truth is that reviewers aren't privvy to how much advertising any game company places with us, nor do "the suits" have any control over review scores. I've been playing adventure games since 1982, and typically ask to review them when I'm available. During my time with PC Gamer, I've given adventure games scores ranging from the teens into the '90s. And trust me, I'd much rather give high scores than low ones.
Chuck Osborn
Senior Editor, Features & Previews
PC Gamer
Hi Chuck. Have been a PC Gamer subscriber for years and have always respected the fact that you, specifically, have appeared to make sure that some of the adventure games still get reviewed and you have been reasonably fair on the whole. However, it is unfortunately true that your magazine & its main competitor are coming up with scores for some AGs that are, to put it mildly, off the wall. I don't for a minute think this has to do with something as nefarious as corruption, but I do think it has to do with the fact that, increasingly, people who review games for the major PC magazines either don't like or don't understand adventure games or both. The sad thing is that if readers were to go by the scores given by your magazine to the 2 games below, they wouldn't bother buying them!
Take PC Gamer's review of Aura (Dec 2004, p89). Your reviewer gave it only 17%. How can that be when the following reviews by people who know & play these games all the time gave the equivalent of 60%-95%?
http://www.justadventure.com/reviews/Aura/AuraReview.shtm
http://www.gameboomers.com/reviews/Aa/Aurabygatorlaw.htm
http://www.mrbillsadventureland.com/reviews/a-b/auraR/auraR.htm
http://www.quandaryland.com/jsp/dispArticle.jsp?index=645
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=aurafta&page=1
http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=405
And then there's your magazine's review of Alida that gave it, again, only 25%. All the reviews below give it the equivalent of 60-90%! Who am I to believe? Your reviewers or all those below.
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=alida
http://www.gameboomers.com/reviews/Aa/Alidabyjenny100.htm
http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,422
http://www.justadventure.com/reviews/Alida/Alida.shtm
http://www.quandaryland.com/jsp/dispArticle.jsp?index=543
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 3:08am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | SirDave, thanks for your comments. I guess there's two main issues at work here. One, different individuals have different opinions, and two, genre-specific websites tend to be more forgiving towards games in that genre, especially a genre that is perceived as being (forgive me) a niche market.
An example is Runaway. Now, this was not a good game, adventure or otherwise. And yet Adventure Gamers gave it a 90%. Perhaps they really liked it that much. Perhaps some of the people who frequent Just Adventure really liked it. But, I didn't...and can't really understand how anyone who loves and is a hardcore fan of the adventure genre could say they love it, unless it's because they're trying to champion the genre.
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 3:21am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (4 NOV 2004 3:08am)
SirDave, thanks for your comments. I guess there's two main issues at work here. One, different individuals have different opinions, and two, genre-specific websites tend to be more forgiving towards games in that genre, especially a genre that is perceived as being (forgive me) a niche market.
An example is Runaway. Now, this was not a good game, adventure or otherwise. And yet Adventure Gamers gave it a 90%. Perhaps they really liked it that much. Perhaps some of the people who frequent Just Adventure really liked it. But, I didn't...and can't really understand how anyone who loves and is a hardcore fan of the adventure genre could say they love it, unless it's because they're trying to champion the genre.
Point taken, but you've got to know that when your magazine gives ratings as low as 17% & 25% it is essentially suggesting that the game go, figuratively, into the trash which these 2 games do not deserve. I can't help but think that the fellows that reviewed Aura & Alida for your magazine ran a mile when they realized they would have to solve several puzzles!
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 4:02am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Aura is not remotely my cup of tea, but a 17% seems a little bit brutal.
|
| 4 NOV 2004 at 4:33am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
"An example is Runaway. Now, this was not a good game, adventure or otherwise. And yet Adventure Gamers gave it a 90%. Perhaps they really liked it that much. Perhaps some of the people who frequent Just Adventure really liked it. But, I didn't...and can't really understand how anyone who loves and is a hardcore fan of the adventure genre could say they love it."
Runaway - I loved that game -- it was simply great!
Ya -- even "Necromicon" got 30% - and it's bad - really bad.
I can't understand any game getting a 17% when others give it pure praise.
I read several reviews, so if one or two are out of whack with the rest - I throw them out.
|
| 5 NOV 2004 at 11:55am |
MarkGuild Master
Posts : 3839
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Location: US, Georgia
Status : Offline | I apologize to all for bringing my responses in this thread up so late, but there were items I wanted to address.
Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (28 AUG 2004 8:16am)
Yes, perhaps my obloquy did go a tad too far. I'm afraid I found it impossible to come up with a more appropriate response to Mark's pointless niggling.
As if your niggling has a point. Your posts are predominately created by right-click copying other writers, coming across as retorts without direct, to-the-point, or original thoughts.
Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (28 AUG 2004 8:16am)
Still, the necessary modifications have been made.
Yes, I've noticed that 99% of your posts have been edited - only to become increasingly more snobbish, vitriolic and mean-spirited than your original plagarisms. It would more honest of you to just speak your mind; your heart; rather than resort to elaborate and erudite insults.
I question the reason you are posting in this Forum, anyway. From what I can glean from your posts, I have the feeling you even haven't played or even like (what we here at JA+ Forums consider) any contemporary Adventure Games produced in the last six or so years.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But don't come posting here acting like you have actually kept up with and played the latest games of the Adventure genre. Yes, some are "pretty puzzlers", "hybrids", "pre-rendered point 'n' clickers" - but those are what we here consider (or, at least I consider) Adventure Games.
Have you have played any of these recent (last six years or so) Adventure Games?- Amerzone
- Aztec
- Beyond Atlantis (A.K.A. Atlantis II)
- Beyond Atlantis II (A.K.A. Atlantis III: The New World)
- Black Mirror
- Blackstone Chronicles: An Adventure in Terror
- Blair Witch series (Rustin Parr, The Legend of Coffin Rock, The Elly Kedward Story)
- Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon (A.K.A. Broken Sword III)
- The Cameron Files series (Secret of Loch Ness, Pharaoh's Curse)
- Clue Chronicles: Fatal Illusion
- Comer
- Dark Fall series (Dark Fall, Dark Fall: Lights Out)
- Dark Side of the Moon
- Dracula Resurrection
- Dracula: The Last Sanctuary
- Egypt II: The Heliopolis Prophecy
- Egyptian Prophecy (A.K.A. Egypt III)
- Faust (A.K.A. Seven Games of the Soul)
- Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned
- Gilbert Goodmate and the Mushroom of Phungoria
- In Cold Blood
- In Memoriam
- Inherent Evil: The Haunted Hotel
- Lighthouse
- The Longest Journey
- The Messenger (A.K.A. Louvre)
- Midnight Nowhere
- Myst series (Riven, Exile, Revelation)
- Mystery of the Druids
- Mystery of the Mummy
- Mystery of the Nautilus
- Nancy Drew series (Secrets Can Kill, Stay Tuned For Danger, Message In A Haunted Mansion, Treasure In The Royal Tower, The Final Scene, Secret Of The Scarlet Hand, Ghost Dogs Of Moon Lake, The Haunted Carousel, Danger on Deception Island, The Secret of Shadow Ranch, Curse of Blackmoor Manor)
- Necronomicon
- The New Adventures of the Time Machine
- Nightlong: Union City Conspiracy
- Odyssey: The Search for Ulysses
- Post Mortem
- Reah
- RHEM
- Riddle of the Sphinx
- Riddle of the Sphinx II: The Omega Stone
- Road to India
- Schizm (A.K.A. Mysterious Journey)
- Schizm II (A.K.A. Mysterious Journey II: Chameleon)
- Syberia
- Syberia 2
This is absolutely not a complete list of all Adventure games produced in the last six years. Some are not entirely definitive of the Adventure genre (especially the Adventure games of earlier years - the LucasArts, the Sierras, the Infocoms, etc.), but I imagine most people here have played at least two or three of them.
I wonder if you can honestly claim you have played any of them. Apparently the Adventure Game genre died for you (and maybe many others here) after The Curse of Monkey Island. If so, why do you come here? To reminisce?
Perhaps it is just to let some of us know that if we play any pure Adventure Game made after 1997, we are "feeble-minded" and wouldn't know a good Adventure game from diddly-squat.
Please proofread your posts carefully to see if you any words out.
|
| 5 NOV 2004 at 2:15pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (4 NOV 2004 3:08am)
An example is Runaway. Now, this was not a good game, adventure or otherwise. And yet Adventure Gamers gave it a 90%. Perhaps they really liked it that much. Perhaps some of the people who frequent Just Adventure really liked it. But, I didn't...and can't really understand how anyone who loves and is a hardcore fan of the adventure genre could say they love it, unless it's because they're trying to champion the genre.
BLASPHEMY!!! How dare you say Runaway is a bad game.. it is one of the best 5 adventures released during the last 3 years! And I mean that!
It is one of the rare games I would give something like 85-90 percent and yes the other two examples might have been a bit extreme but both games are really bad and magazines tend to give lower ratings than necessary when rating low or vice versa. On the other hand people who gave those titles 90 percent are pretty out of their mind (or just haven't played any other games) or were paid or whatever.
|
| 6 NOV 2004 at 1:38am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Mark (5 NOV 2004 11:55am)
As if your niggling has a point. Your posts are predominately created by right-click copying other writers, coming across as retorts without direct, to-the-point, or original thoughts.
Though I do indeed tend to go on sometimes, I believe that my posts in this thread did have a very valid point, namely that the elements I most admire in classic adventure games have now been gratifyingly incorporated into other forms, be it Action-Adventure or RPG, while the "pure" Adventure game genre has become stagnant and lifeless.
As you weren’t there in the beginning, I doubt you understand. You don’t know how good the Sierra and LucasArts games used to be, how important. The world will never weary of great narratives and puzzles, but your precious pre-rendered slideshows are the pest of the age, nothing more and nothing less.
The last "contemporary" adventure game I played all the way through was Discworld Noir, and yes, I do come here to reminice. What's the last classic adventure game you played?
Incidentially, this is what I mean by "pointless niggling":
Originally Posted By Mark (25 AUG 2004 9:43am)
Usually, when a question (or statement) is put into quotation marks, it indicates the statement (or question) has been written "verbatim" (i.e, the actual words used in the original statement) and quoted as such. I never mentioned the statement "the latest thing". Implied, yes.
Originally Posted By Mark (25 AUG 2004 9:43am)
That's funny, Mr. Dietrich. I clicked and clicked on your underlined word "research", and it never showed me a darn thing. Fooled me. I thought it was an active link to some informative, topical, and lucid treatise about "killing" and its extensive history.
Originally Posted By Mark (25 AUG 2004 9:43am)
Your posts' credibility factor, Mr. Dietrich? 2/10. You misspelled "fascinating".
Originally Posted By Mark (5 NOV 2004 11:55am)
Yes, I've noticed that 99% of your posts have been edited - only to become increasingly more snobbish, vitriolic and mean-spirited than your original plagarisms.
That's niggling. Point made.
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 6 NOV 2004 at 2:29am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Ogre (5 NOV 2004 2:14pm)
BLASPHEMY!!! How dare you say Runaway is a bad game.. it is one of the best 5 adventures released during the last 3 years!
If that's true, then it must be the reason so many people are worried about the future of adventure gaming!
Seriously, I'm not going to dis anyone for liking a game that I didn't. It's not like I think you're on Tri Synergy's payroll for saying so.
In Runaway's case, I thought it embodied some of the very worst aspects of adventure gaming: Non-sensical puzzles that relied on trial-and-error to solve instead of logic; hotspot pixel-hunting; and bad writing. Still, it had its highlights. I couldn't get that stupid theme song out of my head for days.
|
