| 6 NOV 2004 at 4:26am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
I loved Runaway on several levels for the fresh, original story, characters, settings, dialog, voice acting, music and colorful artwork. However, it was VERY linear and the puzzles really were lacking in some areas. Not all but some. The plot was also pretty predictable most of the time and the game was fairly short.
All-in-all, it was a good game but IMO, not worthy of true GOTY honors. At least it wouldn't be in a good year for PC adventures.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 6 NOV 2004 at 9:40pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (6 NOV 2004 1:38am)
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.
I don't know about action/adventures in general, but RPG's have had stories and adventure-like elements for as long as adventures (at least the graphical ones have - I don't know about text-based RPG's). And weren't Alone in the Dark (1992) and Realms of the Haunting (1997) action/adventures that were full of adventure elements besides the action? You act like incorporating adventure into other forms is a new thing.
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.
They're a different subgenre which you don't happen to enjoy. That doesn't mean they're all bad (though some are). Too bad you can't appreciate both types of gameplay, but there are people with a distinct preference for the type you don't like and who are you to tell them what they're supposed to like?
If more adventures of both subgenres were made, there wouldn't be all this "pest of the age" bellyaching. Somehow there seems to be this idea that if a game developer hadn't made a first person puzzler he'd have made a 3rd person Lucasarts/Sierra type game and that we're getting one instead of the other.
|
| 7 NOV 2004 at 5:50am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Getting away from the whole Action-Adventure sub-genre for a moment, there is in fact still a relatively small but viable and very devoted fan base for classic style PC adventures (meaning little or no required action / combat). These games are very much focused on various types of puzzle / situation solving and exploration - generally along with a healthy dose of well developed characters, meaningful dialog, interesting stories, beautiful artwork and great sound tracks.
There are of course many games that blur the lines between classic adventure puzzlers and the more action oriented genres but they are not the specific focus of this thread. It is the traditional, non-action based games we are discussing here.
Many of us enjoy all forms of adventures and many cross genre hybrids as well as games that clearly fall into other categories like RPGs, shooters, strategies and sims. So we not only read all the reviews but we play all the games too. Being one of those people, I see a trend by many "mainstream" game reviewers to single-out the classic adventure genre and its avid fans in a negative light - simply because it / they do not conform to the prevailing standards used in the more popular, better selling kinds of games (generally focused on action these days).
IMO, this attitude is unjustified and unfair. It is no different than movie reviewers who regualrly ignore or even openly diminish the value of slower, quieter, more thoughtful and intellectually challenging films that harken back to a less action packed Hollywood before special effects and huge budgets took over. Call them art films if you will - usually made on much smaller budgets with limited distribution, little if any advertising and a decidely different audience than movies made for the general masses.
To me, it takes a special kind of writer to properly review this type of film and the exact same thing is true of classic style / puzzle adventures. If you don't personally like them and do not play them all avidly, you are simply not qualified to judge them or the core audience that obviously adores them.
Therein lies the problem as I see it.
It is a new generation of game reviewers who lack the experience and/or the interest to fully explore and appreciate this type of game in order to do them justice and speak to the special audience for which they are made. It is simply unfair (not to mention pointless) to compare them directly to most other genres or even related sub-genres - especially those with big budgets for huge audiences. It is also why many knowledgable PC adventure game fans rely on specialty web sites and forums like this one to disucss the merits of the titles they love.
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 7 NOV 2004 at 3:52pm |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Jenny100 (6 NOV 2004 9:40pm)
You act like incorporating adventure into other forms is a new thing.
I apologize for phrasing my previous post a bit poorly. As you correctly point out, these hybrids have always existed in some form, but never, in my humble opinion, to the degree that they do now. Alone in the Dark's style used to be a novelty; now it has become the rule.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Again, though I consider myself a purist, I'll play a good Action-Adventure over a slideshow puzzler any day.
Originally Posted By Jenny100 (6 NOV 2004 9:40pm)
They're a different subgenre which you don't happen to enjoy [...] who are you to tell them what they're supposed to like?
If they were a mere subgenre, I wouldn’t dream of complaining. For some reason, though, they appear to have become the dominant form of the "pure" Adventure game. I don’t mean to tell anyone what to enjoy or not enjoy, but could we please have some balance?
Originally Posted By Jenny100 (6 NOV 2004 9:40pm)
If more adventures of both subgenres were made, there wouldn't be all this "pest of the age" bellyaching.
Precisely.
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 7 NOV 2004 at 10:19pm |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 618
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
"Alone in the Dark's style used to be a novelty; now it has become the rule."
For console's at least, this is true. Younger audiance and all that.
However, on PC's, it's more a mixed bag, with lot's of everything.
I checked eb's PC release schedule, a new PC game is released every day!
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 4:02am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
In the broadest definition of the term, "Adventure Games" now covers a very wide range of types that represent practically every combination of gameplay style imaginable on all systems. However, in this thread we are still talking about a relatively small sub-category specifically made for the PC - games that either do not rely on any action elements at all or have very few of them. They are not Action-Adventures nor Survival Horror Adventures nor true hybrids.
These particular games are simply not created for most younger players. They are also not made for the console systems that dominate sales and they are not intended to appeal to action fans of any age on any system. They truly are specialty games for a very specific audience.
So I fail to see why they are EVER compared directly to other kinds of games. They're not apples and oranges. They are apples and exotic truffles. Which brings me back to the point that reviewers who enjoy a steady diet of action-oriented titles and dislike this particular type of game, have no business reviewing them in the first place.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 6:51am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (8 NOV 2004 4:01am)
Which brings me back to the point that reviewers who enjoy a steady diet of action-oriented titles and dislike this particular type of game, have no business reviewing them in the first place.
There is something in what you say, but not everything -- in many points you are unjust. I will attempt to tell you why, and perhaps I can tell you best by definite example. For instance, I happen to enjoy a steady diet of action oriented titles (last played: Fable, Sly 2: Band of Thieves, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Ratchet and Clank 3: Up Your Arsenal and The Bard's Tale) but that doesn't make me any less of an adventure game fan that you. I grew up on Maniac Mansion, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Loom, Monkey Island, Leisure Suit Larry etc. and still consider the Adventure genre to be the greatest ever created.
Indeed, few things give me greater pleasure than a good adventure game. It's just that, well, quality-wise pretty much none of the games created these days even come close to the ones I grew up with, not even much-admired titles like Runaway or The Longest Journey. Sorry about all the general oversimplification, but I think PCG_Chuck is absolutely correct in pointing out that genre-fans "tend to be more forgiving towards games in that genre". You've become so desperate for even halfway decent games, you'll tolerate pretty much anything. As I pointed out ages ago in this thread:
Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (27 AUG 2004 9:59am)
Well, of course today’s gaming magazines feature less adventure games -- there’s simply less quality adventure games being made today. Duh!
Sorry about the flamebait, but I frankly don’t know how else to counter the excessive semantic-based lines of reasoning now dominating this thread. Perhaps I should just shut up.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 11:33am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
To each his own J. E. but it is hard to imagine any fan of the classic PC adventures you listed above not also enjoying The Longest Journey. I think that it compares very favorably to the very best games ever created in any genre at any time.
That detail aside, my last two posts in this thread were not addressed to you personally nor were you or your publication in any way refered to in them. My point was about a general lack of experience and/or interest in classic PC adventures by many of today's younger mainstream game reviewers. Frankly, I have no reason to read or respect their opinions regarding this particular kind of game.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 3:08pm |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (8 NOV 2004 11:32am)
I think that [The Longest Journey] compares very favorably to the very best games ever created in any genre at any time.
Please don't get me wrong: The Longest Journey is a more than satisfactory adventure game, undeniably one of the finest released in the last few years, but I still don't think it belongs quite up there with the unforgettably and enduring classics of the olden days. Then again, perhaps this is simply a matter of taste.
Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (8 NOV 2004 11:32am)
That detail aside, my last two posts in this thread were not addressed to you personally nor were you or your publication in any way refered to in them.
I know. Sorry. I thought it merely an admirable illustration of the point I was striving to make: an all-embracing appreciation of gaming types does not automatically negate impartiality -- I just don’t buy all this supposed prejudice against traditional adventure games. The difficulty that I should fancy the reviewers feel is the difficulty of sustaining any standard.
Peace, love, and all that jazz.
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 9:48pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (8 NOV 2004 6:51am)
Indeed, few things give me greater pleasure than a good adventure game. It's just that, well, quality-wise pretty much none of the games created these days even come close to the ones I grew up with, not even much-admired titles like Runaway or The Longest Journey. Sorry about all the general oversimplification, but I think PCG_Chuck is absolutely correct in pointing out that genre-fans "tend to be more forgiving towards games in that genre". You've become so desperate for even halfway decent games, you'll tolerate pretty much anything. As I pointed out ages ago in this thread.
Well here's another slant: Perhaps the nature of adventure games and the things we enjoy in them has changed somewhat & you just haven't noticed. This isn't the mid-1990s anymore. I have a major problem with the implication that we rabid adventure game players are somehow brain-dead enough that we don't know a good game when we see it while at the same it just may be more likely that we're better able to know a good adventure game when we see it.
Runaway is the exception and it doesn't prove the rule. Sure, there are people who liked Runaway but in many ways it dropped right off the map on this forum after it was released. On the other hand that wasn't true of Aura & interest in it still continues strong. The fact is, as you know from your other game experiences, there is always someone who likes even bad games. Heck there are even Jazz & Faust aficiandos out there! But, on the whole, people on this & similiar forums are pretty astute when it comes to AGs. Unfortunately the mainstream game magazines are not giving adventure games a fair shake. There are exceptions but the recent grades like 25% & 17% for Alida & Aura is simply beyond the pale (they need to have that Stapleton guy give me call).
I should add however, (since those reviews are from PC Gamer), PCG is in every (other) way a quality magazine & as a long time subscriber I enjoy reading it cover to cover and I understand that AGs are not bringing billions & billions ( ) of advertising revenue now & are providing a very small percentage of reader interest. I'm almost wondering if the game-mags couldn't do a little out-sourcing when it came to reviewing these games....
(Okay Chuck do I have a shot at getting the next gaming computer you guys review after yer done with it? Huh? Huh?)
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 10:14pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (8 NOV 2004 4:01am)
.
These particular games are simply not created for most younger players. They are also not made for the console systems that dominate sales and they are not intended to appeal to action fans of any age on any system. They truly are specialty games for a very specific audience.
This isn't entirely true. Myst appeared on just about every console in the '90s except the Gameboy, and Myst III is available on Xbox and PS2. Broken Sword III, Syberia, and Syberia 2 are all available on the Xbox. And I even played all the way through Broken Sword 1 on my GBA.
Quite a few adventure games are made for the kid's market, including the Nancy Drew mysteries -- one of which is on the GBA.
Your point about adventure games being specialty products could apply to any genre. FPS players don't necessarily play RTS games or sports titles. I know a guy who loves both shooters and adventure games, but won't play RPGs. You'll never see me reviewing a hardcore turn-based wargame or a flight sim for PC Gamer, for example.
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 11:12pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SirDave (8 NOV 2004 9:48pm)
Runaway is the exception and it doesn't prove the rule. Sure, there are people who liked Runaway but in many ways it dropped right off the map on this forum after it was released. On the other hand that wasn't true of Aura & interest in it still continues strong. The fact is, as you know from your other game experiences, there is always someone who likes even bad games. Heck there are even Jazz & Faust aficiandos out there! But, on the whole, people on this & similiar forums are pretty astute when it comes to AGs. Unfortunately the mainstream game magazines are not giving adventure games a fair shake. There are exceptions but the recent grades like 25% & 17% for Alida & Aura is simply beyond the pale (they need to have that Stapleton guy give me call).
I should add however, (since those reviews are from PC Gamer), PCG is in every (other) way a quality magazine & as a long time subscriber I enjoy reading it cover to cover and I understand that AGs are not bringing billions & billions ( ) of advertising revenue now & are providing a very small percentage of reader interest. I'm almost wondering if the game-mags couldn't do a little out-sourcing when it came to reviewing these games....
(Okay Chuck do I have a shot at getting the next gaming computer you guys review after yer done with it? Huh? Huh?)
Most of those are sent back to the manufacturer so I don't even have a shot at getting one of those babies!
I admit that PC Gamer can be tough in our scoring. Again, a low score has nothing to do with advertising. I don't pay any attention to it myself, and there are plenty of games that have had multi-page advertising campaigns and still received a low score.
As for Alida and Aura, I didn't play them (although I did play some of a beta build of Aura -- and wasn't exactly blown away.) But, I do sit right next to DJ Stapleton, and watched him review Aura. His complaints about the game weren't that the game had puzzles -- he likes puzzles, and is a pretty smart guy -- but it was the quality of the puzzles and the game's overall inaccessibility.
Since we aren't a single-focus gaming magazine, we do have to review games with all PC gamers in mind. So, an issue like a max resolution of 640x480 and no install program (like in Alida) does become an issue. It's the same for an FPS, RTS, RPG, MMO, etc.
|
| 8 NOV 2004 at 11:41pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (8 NOV 2004 11:11pm)
I admit that PC Gamer can be tough in our scoring. Again, a low score has nothing to do with advertising. I don't pay any attention to it myself, and there are plenty of games that have had multi-page advertising campaigns and still received a low score.
Just a point of clarification to avoid confusion justifiably raised by the way I phrased my comments: I didn't mean to infer that the Aura/Alida ratings at PCG were related to their lack of advertising clout; I've read PCG long enough to appreciate that it is very good at not letting advertising affect reviews (within reasonable limits). What I was really getting at was the inference that adventure games are given much less space & attention when it comes to reviewing because readership interest in them is so much less than the 'bigger games'. Thus the fact that perhaps reviewers don't have adequate time to play them through in view of the fact that the final review will only account for a quarter page or so. After all, having played Aura all the way through- it does take considerable time to play thru those puzzles.
I have clear memories for the several page preview stories followed by subsequent multi-page reviews for games like Riven etc. Ah, the good ole adventure game days!
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 12:00am |
| Deleted User | Hey, Chuck. Long time no see.
Just thought I'd chime in on this thread and at least congratulate you for at least giving the games a fair go. Here in the UK PC Zone (of Future Publishing) barely even warrant mentioning adventure games only to completely slag them off. Just go to the CVG/Gamesradar website and look up Aura.
Ouch. :-/
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 12:01am |
Lucien21Guild Master
Posts : 4876
Joined: 9 JUL 2003
Location: 0
Status : Offline | I would guess that most reviewers of Adventure Games in the mainstream press play though the entire game with a walkthrough.
This probably gives an unfair indication of puzzles and lenght of game as there is little effort involved.
There is no feeling of elation from figuring it out for themselves etc.
Time pressure probably doesn't allow for anything else.
But, maybe they do try some of the puzzles [smiley=shrug.gif]
Dear Diary, My teenage angst bullsh*t now has a bodycount.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 12:59am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Lucien21 (9 NOV 2004 12:01am)
I would guess that most reviewers of Adventure Games in the mainstream press play though the entire game with a walkthrough.
Ah! now you are flippant. Disbelieve this at your own leisure, but there are those of us who can get through these games fairly quickly, and without the use of a walkthrough. Why would professional reviewers be any different?
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 1:16am |
Lucien21Guild Master
Posts : 4876
Joined: 9 JUL 2003
Location: 0
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (9 NOV 2004 12:59am)
Ah! now you are flippant. Disbelieve this at your own leisure, but there are those of us who can get through these games fairly quickly, and without the use of a walkthrough. Why would professional reviewers be any different?
Maybe they do , Maybe they don't just posted an observation.
Dear Diary, My teenage angst bullsh*t now has a bodycount.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 1:24am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Lucien21 (9 NOV 2004 1:16am)
Maybe they do , Maybe they don't just posted an observation.
Perhaps PCG_Chuck can shed some light on this matter?
[smiley=detective.gif]
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 2:09am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (9 NOV 2004 1:24am)
Perhaps PCG_Chuck can shed some light on this matter?
I don't see how they could possibly play a game like Aura all the way thru without a walkthru especially taking into account the small amount of magazine copy the review is going to occupy. There just isn't the time.
Being a 'professional' reviewer doesn't make one any better at solving puzzles than someone like, say.....moi! And it took me a good while to solve them all.
I would add that I don't consider it unfair or unrealistic to use a walkthru for a puzzle-laden AG as long as enough time is taken to get a real feel for the game.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 2:40am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (8 NOV 2004 10:14pm)
This isn't entirely true. Myst appeared on just about every console in the '90s except the Gameboy, and Myst III is available on Xbox and PS2. Broken Sword III, Syberia, and Syberia 2 are all available on the Xbox. And I even played all the way through Broken Sword 1 on my GBA.
Quite a few adventure games are made for the kid's market, including the Nancy Drew mysteries -- one of which is on the GBA.
Your point about adventure games being specialty products could apply to any genre. FPS players don't necessarily play RTS games or sports titles. I know a guy who loves both shooters and adventure games, but won't play RPGs. You'll never see me reviewing a hardcore turn-based wargame or a flight sim for PC Gamer, for example.
But Chuck, of the rare, classic style PC adventure games that are both ported to and sell well on consoles, they too represent just a small slice of that pie and that slice does tend to be older than the norm.
So it does not matter what system they are played on. They are still made for a small niche audience in today's marketplace and should not be reviewed by people who have little experience with them or lack the basic desire to play them.
FYI - To futher clarify, my previous, very generalized statements above apply more to web based reviewers than print magazine reviewers. They are much more prolific these days as it seems that every Tom, D-i-c-k (God how I hate sophomoric language filters) and Harry thinks he can write and the web offers unlimited opportunities to express opinions (compared to formal, paid positions as professional reviewers for the print media).
But I have also seen indications on major game sites of the same disinterest in and even dislike for ALL games like this. It is as if the terms 2D, Point & Click and Puzzles automatically garner a very negative response before any details about the actual games are written. So I can only conclude that the people who write reviews with that kind of preface simply do not like this particlular type of game. If so, then why in the world would we care what they think about them?
Cheers, Terry
.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 7:40am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SirDave (8 NOV 2004 11:41pm)
Just a point of clarification to avoid confusion justifiably raised by the way I phrased my comments: I didn't mean to infer that the Aura/Alida ratings at PCG were related to their lack of advertising clout; I've read PCG long enough to appreciate that it is very good at not letting advertising affect reviews (within reasonable limits). What I was really getting at was the inference that adventure games are given much less space & attention when it comes to reviewing because readership interest in them is so much less than the 'bigger games'. Thus the fact that perhaps reviewers don't have adequate time to play them through in view of the fact that the final review will only account for a quarter page or so. After all, having played Aura all the way through- it does take considerable time to play thru those puzzles.
I have clear memories for the several page preview stories followed by subsequent multi-page reviews for games like Riven etc. Ah, the good ole adventure game days!
Well, you may also remember that the size of PC Gamer (and, in fact, almost all of the gaming mags) was much larger back then so we had more space to devote to each review. One main reason that an adventure game gets a 1/2 page review these days is because most are at the $19.99 price point, making it essentially a budget title. Therefore, our editorial weight is dedicated towards the higher-priced games that require more of an investment from the reader. That's not a hard rule or anything, but it is an important consideration.
You'll also notice that bigger budget adventure games like Uru, Syberia 2, and Myst IV got full-page reviews.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 7:47am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By J. Eric Dietrich (9 NOV 2004 1:24am)
Perhaps PCG_Chuck can shed some light on this matter?
[smiley=detective.gif]
I can't speak for every reviewer, but we are expected to finish a game before reviewing it (if it's a game that can be finished.)
I'll go for a hint if I'm hopelessly stumped, but I won't sit there with a walkthrough and just follow the directions. That doesn't give an accurate depiction of what the typical play experience will be like.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 7:57am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 NOV 2004 2:40am)
.
So it does not matter what system they are played on. They are still made for a small niche audience in today's marketplace and should not be reviewed by people who have little experience with them or lack the basic desire to play them.
I agree, however this sentiment goes for any gaming genre, not just adventure games. Part of my job is to have at least some experience with a wide variety of games; that said, there are some game types that I know I'm not suited to review because I have no interest in them.
If your basic point is that a person who is reviewing an adventure game should have experience with, and affection for, the genre, then I agree. On the other hand, you don't want someone reviewing a game who's such a fanboy of a particular genre that they can't be impartial. That helps nobody...except maybe the game's publisher.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 9:10am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Of course Chuck but we must assume basic fairness, impartiality and professionalism across the board if we are to compare the relative merit of game reviews in all genres on all systems. We can not guarantee those things but for the sake of argument we can accept them as givens.
We can not however assume that all game reviewers are (the most) suitable to judge every kind of game. My point being in this case, that classic style PC adventures are a niche category for a very special type if audience these days. One that simply does not appeal to the majority of all game fans.
The longer that the total fan base for all games continues to be so heavily tilted in favor of action titles, the smaller the pool of good, potential PC adventure game reviewers will be. By good I mean highly experienced players with a genuine interest in this small, specialized genre who have real talent as writers and can remain unbiased. Like I said, it takes a fairly rare type of person to even want to do that.
Cheers, Terry
|
