What killed it?

[urluckyday]

What do you think killed the adventure game industry. I mean, there are still a few companies making them, but I mean that since like after Grim Fandango was made, I saw very few adventure titles (especially ones that were worthwile).

 

Personally, I think that over the years, when the PC began evolving, and better graphics became more possible, people also evolved with the feeling that they wanted to enjoy (and play) a true cinematic experience. This meant that (even though they still had quite good graphics) adventure games were pushed to the back of the line in development.

 

One final note, when Sam and Max Freelance Police and the new Full Throttle were cancled, I pretty much gave up all hope on great adventure games. If Lucasarts felt that they had to cancel a game though, it was probably for a good reason, "cough", no more talent "cough".

 

I mean, I'd be very very happy to see Lucasarts try again to get back into the adventure genre, but I would hope they could still make quality games.

 

[VampireNaomi]

Nothing killed it, it's still alive and kicking. Good adventure games are being made all the time. People need to take a wider look at things. LucasArts and Sierra may not be making adventure games anymore, but there are others.

 

I myself am extremely interested in Bill Tiller's A Vampyre Story and Revolution's Beneath A Steel Sky II. Oh, and in Nintendo's Another Code and someone's And Then There Were None. There are so many promising titles in production.

 

I doubt AGs will ever be as popular as they were, but we need to be positive.

[urluckyday]

Yeah, what I meant by I gave up hope was that, I gave up hope on Lucasarts ever making a quality adventure game again. I know that other companies are out there makin' them, but (personally) they just don't feel the same.

[Thrik]

The adventure game genre is still alive on a "being produced" level, but sadly it has been pushed into a niche community. Whereas adventure games used to be the dominant genre, and everyone played them, nowadays there are very few people who even try them out.

 

The main issues are simply supply and demand. Gamers at the moment are intertwined with the hardware race which is pushing graphics to whole new levels of realism by the year. Because so much focus is being put on technology and emulated reality, gamers are craving more.

 

Unfortunately, gameplay takes a sideline with a lot of these games. There are some which offer excellent gameplay, but far too many games simply aren't having the effort put into characters, locations, and producing a fully realised and "alive" universe.

 

They look realistic, and in the coming years they'll probably start looking photo relaistic, but what's a body without a soul? What's a shell without a pearl? They have all of the looks, and some acceptable gameplay, but nothing truly special other than how pretty it looks.

 

Without something to truly immerse the player, all of these pseudo-reality games will simply provide them with 7-15 hours of fun, and then never get played again. Adventure games make the simplest things such as talking to some random guy truly memorable and fun.

 

Most new games just don't bother. "He's there to advance the plot, and nothing more -- what's the point in spending too much time on making him believable?" is the attitude that too many seem to take on. The characters in them may look realistic, they may sound realistic, but they just don't seem alive. They don't have a personality.

 

I think it was Schafer or Gilbert who was saying how all of the principles, lessons and errors that were learnt in the 80s and 90s from adventure game development have somehow been forgotten amongst the race for reality. All of the techniques that were developed to craft unforgettable characters and worlds that you'd never get bored of interacting with just.. aren't used anymore.

 

It's truly a shame, and I hope that games which try to merge the adventure game principles (other than the puzzles!) with other genres, like Schafer is doing with Psychonauts, manage to inject a little of the past into modern game development. It's like the dark ages of gaming or something.

[urluckyday]

Amen Thrik! Amen!

[VampireNaomi]

I second that, legowar. Call me an optimist if you want, but I think that sooner or later making ultra cool graphics will become so expesive/impossible that developers are forced to fleshen the games with better plots and character.

 

Or perhaps it's just a dream...

[El Virus]

I must say I don't completely agree. Games like Mafia, Godfather, Halo 2, GTA, Sims, and the like are having amazingly good graphics, and this industry will keep developing graphics very day. the fact that they'll become expensive, doesn't really matter, for as far as the people buy, it will create a profit. This is commonly known as an "Investment".

But let's analyse graphics. What's their point?

I mean, what would a game be without the graphics?

Pretty much the same, wouldn't it?

Games don't depend on how good their graphics really are, but on how enjoyable the game is. For instance, Empire Earth hasn't got good graphics, but Age Of Empire does; so what? I still think that EE is much better than the latter, as it has more options and it's much more playable than it.

What would be the point on having great graphics, which will make the game only able to run on a realy expensive computer, only affordable for those who have the money.

Also, the fact that characters and situations in games are being made only to give people 7 1/2 hours of fun, is up to each person. Games are not to be ranked by the features they have or how complex or realistic, etc. it is.

When I play a game, I don't play it to win it, I play it for the images doing so gives me. i.e. when I play Ghost Recon, I don't care about wining each and every mission on the game, but to have a good time doing so, by imagining situations and conversations between the soldiers, etc. Call me crazy, that I have Visions while playing a game, or that I'm disturbed by having day dreams, but these are the benefits of Imagination the one purpose games were created for. You see when games were created, they were done, so that people who didn't have this wonderful ability, to be able and explore it on a different way. But now, games are only done to fulfil our gore, our ego or just for the fun of wining and bragging about it; this of course is not bad, as it only depends on the person who is playing it.

The fun in a game is not determined by the games themselves, but by how far we are able of letting our imagination flow. If we learn how to master this one, will be able to never get bored, and or be pretencious about a game any more.

Whenever I read a book, play a game or even watch TV, I do it for the "Images" I get from them. (If by adding my example this seems as an egocentric post, too damn bad)

As for Adventure Games, they are not dead. As a matter fact, I have just bought a new adventure game called "Moment of Silence", recently released in US. The fact that it isn't nearly as popular as it was before, relies on the fact that people don't want games in which they need to think too much, simply because we live in a world full of ignorants.

 

Get my point, is it too confusing?

As for the rest said in this forum, I agree.

[JofaGuht]

Whoah, Thrik, you gotta write for a magazine or something. That's some deep stuff.

 

It does seem to be dead for the time being, but I think that is going to change. It's obvious that games are beginning to change from being just "games" to being accepted as a storytelling medium. Just last year, the film school in Vancouver I'm looking into started a full-length game design course. You don't need a technology degree or an ACT score or even a high school diploma (but it helps). It's all about teaching the politics of interactive storytelling.

 

Games right now do suck, but every week I'm reading about someone or something creative being started. Even Majesco: it's a newer distributor, and now they're publishing a game where Orson Scott Card wrote the interactive script for. Five years ago, a respected novelist like Orson Scott Card wouldn't have even thought about writing an XBox game...now he's doing a whole trilogy of them. Sure, games currently suck, but it's just an ebb (an unbearably long ebb). I assure that gaming WILL get better.

[VampireNaomi]

Originally posted by El Virus

I must say I don't completely agree. Games like Mafia, Godfather, Halo 2, GTA, Sims, and the like are having amazingly good graphics, and this industry will keep developing graphics very day. the fact that they'll become expensive, doesn't really matter, for as far as the people buy, it will create a profit. This is commonly known as an "Investment".

 

Not every company can afford a huge budget for graphics. EA can, but unless we want a world with only a handful of developers, something has to change.

 

Your post was very deep and thoughtful, and not at all as confusing as you probably think.

 

And I definitely agree with JofaGuht.

[El Virus]

Originally posted by VampireNaomi

Not every company can afford a huge budget for graphics. EA can, but unless we want a world with only a handful of developers, something has to change.

 

Your post was very deep and thoughtful, and not at all as confusing as you probably think.

 

And I definitely agree with JofaGuht.

 

Well, thanks.

You are right on the fact that not everyone can afford it, but sometimes, even if it's not the best, small companies can spend some of the budget on simple but still good graphics. But you are mostly right.

[Manila Envélope]

With network and multi player games invading anywhere and everywhere, 3D engines pumping up shooters and the like, few people hang on to the adventure games...

I ask my friends but they say sticking on adv. genre is cracking heads on irrelevant puzzles...

yes Myst series seems to have left a bad impression...no offence...