Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[deadworm222]

At Adventure Gamers we've been fighting over this topic for years. The Cold Hotspot, a recent feature at Adventure Developers, summerises the controversial topics pretty well. It's written by one of the progressivists.

The adventure game is not sacred or written in stone and needs to own up to it! There, I said it. Sue me, but you'll be doing so more out of spiteful denial than charges of defamation. The truth is, the adventure game genre, as we all know it, has long been suffering from obscurity, lack of progress, sheer banality, isolation (surprise!), and, simply, from the garden variety of dullness. And everyone - developers, publishers, the media, and yes, we gamers ourselves - is guilty of creating and fueling this suffering. The apparent sources of my grievances, viewed top-down, are obvious, but some are less so. As I delve deeper, I'm finding some intriguing and inherent contradictions, fallacies, and redundancies that add to this muck. As devoted supporters and partakers of the adventure game, don't we all want to see it move ahead and reach a bigger audience and be restored back to its former glory as it was during the days of Lucas Arts and Sierra and -- Stop right there!! You see? That's what I mean! You didn't catch it, did you? Read on.

(read the rest)

What do you think? I don't necessarily agree that we have to look in other genres for examples of how to make adventure games different. The adventure genre contains lots of games that are different, and I don't think redefining the genre itself is in any way necessary. But then again, I'm not a purist...

[Mnemonic]

I didn't yet get to reading the article, I just skimmed through it, but I intend to read it asap.
To answer your question, we were discussing this before with odnorf at #wme channel and I must admit it's been a long long time since I really enjoyed a (recent) commercial adventure game. I'm more and more escaping to RPGs, because IMVHO games like Knights of the Old Republic or Vampire: Bloodlines are much more adventurous than "real" adventure games of these days. I don't really know why's that, perhaps the RPG genre gives the authors wider possibilities than the fossil traditional adventures, perhaps they can afford a bigger budget due to not working on a "dead" genre, who knows...?

So all in all, I think I mostly agree with Trep on this one. I'll get back to you on this after reading the article.

[Nihil]

I am not a purist either, as long as a game is good, I don't care what genre it is ascribed to. To me the most important part of an adventure is and has always been the story, thats what differs them from other genres. A game can be fully 3d and still an adventure, it can have action parts, RPG-elements ... whatever. As long as it has a real story that is not only told but affects the gameplay strongly (not as in Max Payne for example where a story is told that has basically nothing to do with the game) I'd still call it adventure.
It's not really necessary for developers to look at other genres, as this has already happened many years ago.

[Tol]

Genre purists are incarnation of EVIL, they are slowly  killing this  genre and what it can become in future.  But on the other side I still  love point and click 2D look which need not to be hi-end technologicaly and still  provide that unique gameplay-not better or worse then other types, but for me irreplacable....Let´s have both on market and tolerate each direction. Too naive am I?  Well, maybe... Uhm, another please 

[Igorrr]

All in all I agree with most of the article. In the old days everything was innovative and new and growing. So if you want the glory of the old days back you have to come with something that has not been there before. The same as Baldur's Gate brought CRPG playing back. Also what was most important for me was the depth of the story. Deus Ex which would usually be classified as RPG/Action Shooter is one of my favourite games because of the story.
If a game is 3D or 2D, has action or not, does not matter for me as long as it fits to the games overall design.
But I still think that 2D graphics can be fun and in certain cases have advantages over 3D. For example the surrealism of an MC Escher construct or just the beauty of a hand painted environment.
What I believe is bad for Adventure games is the "stick to what was already successful" method, which is so often used in bad Hollywood sequels of good movies. But I don't believe the problem is a technical issue as in what computer is needed, which resolution, game control, 2D or 3D etc... as books have also always been printed black on white paper. But rather what the story, athmosphere and development of the game is about.

[deadworm222]

The second "Cold Hotspot" can be read here: http://www.adventuredevelopers.com/featuredetail.php?action=view&featureid=32&showpage=1