SkoubyDoo Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Hey guys, its been awhile since I've been on the adventure forums, and have only recently became interested in adventure gaming again. After hours of failing to get older adventures to run adequently on XP, I resorted to playing more recent games, namely The Longest Journey. I've played 40% of this game before, and wondered why I stopped in the middle. Life issues? Probably. But when I restarted the game again it hit me: the perspective the designers chose for this game wasn't striking me emotionally. The game has great dialouge, but we see no facial expressions or even believable body movement. Generally we see two choppy characters moving back and forth, and the dialouge is more of a voice over than two characters interacting. True, most older games used this method, but the dialouge wasn't so narrative. Typically dialouge was used to develop the story and lead the gamer in the right direction. TLJ takes that and doubles the dialouge and includes massive amounts of background information on these characters. Great I say, but when you want to pull the player in emotionally, you have to do more than add dialouge. You have to push the perspective in, let us feel for these characters, let us put images with these words. In GK Sins of the Fathers they had talking heads and it worked for me. In other games similar in style to TLJ, the dialouge was used to advance the story, not to delay it. I'm sure everyone would agree that TLJ would be better if you saw the characters facial expressions when they talked. That's not the issue. The issue is where the ideal line between length and engagement should be placed. TLJ is indeed a long adventure, as any adventure should be, but would it have been better if the designers cut the game shorter and concentrated on not just the emotions of these characters but conveying these emotions? Closer backgrounds, better rendered characters, and more realistic facial and body movement? This is something all my favorite adventures (GK series, MI series, Tex Murphy Series) have done well. What do you guys think about this? PS Maybe the story isn't engaging to me, afterall, I did enjoy FF7's story and it was long and had no voice or facial expressions. But RPGs aren't solely based on plot development like adventures are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 To be exact when i first plaied gabriel 1, the dialogue got me by surpise and scared me a little 2 heads with no bodies talking (well amost ) But after the first dialogue i couldn't play the game without them... But i believe that The Longest Journey wouldn't be able to add this kind of dialogue or something closer. You could understood just perfect without seeing straight the face how the chars felt...well i felt i was in there .... I found the dialogue perfect...and also the size of them. Many disliked the long, but i see them as what they are... nothing that is said has no reason to be there. Maybe they could be smaller but they are just as in reality... I wouldn't want a shorter version of Journey... NO WAY... edit : Personally i really like big games...if they are made correctly then the length is absolutely not bad... The ability of the creator will make even a 120 hour long adventure a masterpiece...It's just how you look it and welcome to the forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Trust me, I ADORE epics. I can't think of anything I love better then covering so much ground in a game to look back and reminisce about where I started, especially when there are many changes of locale. I'm just venting my personal frustration with TLJ. I guess I'm spoiled because GK2 was such a perfect gaming experience for me that it's hard for anything else to measure up emotionally. I do enjoy games like TLJ, but these similar games just feel more alive, maybe it's the art direction or the music or the story, but something isn't snagging me like I hear it should. I realize the massive amount of work it takes to show character's emotions and such. The developers decided to make an epic and let the dialouge "speak" for itself . Obviously many love that decision, and I'm stuck here wondering how to love it too, or if I can. By comparision, Grim Fandango ingeniously used its graphic style to implement simple but effective facial expressions, and that was by no means a short game. This effect was later copied in Zelda: The Wind Waker, and it worked fabuously. More realistic games like GK3 and the upcoming BS3 also have that level of intimacy I've been trying to explain. No graphics today can completely emulate the emotional range of a live actor (like in Tex Murphy or GK2), but the technology is (and was) there to allow 2D/3D graphics to effectively convey emotions to the gamer. TLJ's dialouge is great, but we're not listening to an audio book while playing a puzzle game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattsius Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by pleto4_ryan You could understood just perfect without seeing straight the face how the chars felt...well i felt i was in there .... I found the dialogue perfect...and also the size of them. Many disliked the long, but i see them as what they are... nothing that is said has no reason to be there. Maybe they could be smaller but they are just as in reality... I wouldn't want a shorter version of Journey... I totally agree that you didn't need facial expressions to understand how the characters felt, although it wouldn't have hurt I guess, but the character graphics is pretty lame in TLJ so therefore they would have needed pre-rendered sequences which, as it was pointed out in this thread (not about TLJ, just in general), would make it less immersive. The length of the dialogue was, in my opinion, a bit too long in certain places, like when you talked to Captain Nebeve (I think that that was his name, the guy on the pier anyway), but in most places the length of the dialogue was just right, because there wasn't anything in the dialogue that I felt like shouldn't be there. Everything that is said in the game has a reason to be there and gives depth to the story, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 I love better then covering so much ground in a game to look back and reminisce about where I started ah....that feeling..... from what i can understand you REALLY prefer FMV adventures e? I can unhderstand your wanting for expressions... but look at the games you speak of. (personally i LOVE grim...my best, but that's another story ) All these games are in 3D, meaning the creators had many more flexibilitites. Zelda has also used cel-shaded (my best videogame ) thus the expressions were some kind of easy made... but we're not listening to an audio book while playing a puzzle game. actually no. Myst and Myst-clones are the puzzle-games. The Longest journey could be said like.... playing a book (my opinion of course ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinnyW Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Originally posted by pleto4_ryan (personally i LOVE grim...my best, but that's another story ) You and me both! Actually when I read the first post I thought of Grim and how it was done (always nice to compare games with my favorite hehe) and I remembered that in many parts the game would switch to a closer view of the characters when they talked. Like with Nick, Carla, Max(I think?), Meche in El Marrow, Olivia, Charlie, etc.. Ah, yes, thinking back of previous parts in games is great... *feels nostalgic* Anyway, as for TLJ, it didn't feel very long to me at all, I finished quite quickly compared to other games. And despite not seeing facial expressions (which I agree could improve the game even more if done well), I cared for the characters and shared their emotions. I shed a tear in certain spots (*ahem*) and felt pleased when April was pleased. The voice acting was great which is probably the reason, and the fact that the characters themselves are very well written and it makes it hard not to care for them. More than any character (even April) I loved Crow, his voice acting, attitude, and character were wonderful, and he is just so sweet! hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Yep, the acting was superb at the english version... But i have heard that in some others, i think duch(?) it was so awful that people couldn't play the game I remembered that in many parts the game would switch to a closer view of the characters when they talked. Like with Nick, Carla, Max(I think?), Meche in El Marrow, Olivia, Charlie, etc.. Apart from those moments (like when manny asks meche of her crimes, manny with olivia, manny and max etc ) the game mostly gaved us a camera close to the faces. We could see the eyes and the movement of theirs just perfect.... Ahhhh...what a perfect I shed a tear in certain spots (*ahem*) i was ready to get up and scream "EMMAAAAA!!!!" (etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Am I the only one who got the wrong idea from the topic title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted July 31, 2003 Author Share Posted July 31, 2003 haha, typical sign of immaturity and/or sexual deprivation . Maybe I'll just keep playing till I hopefully find something I like about the game. I just wanted to explain the tradeoff between the length of the game and the details. TLJ chooses to put the detail in the voice acting, while ignoring other visuals. I'm sure if they tried to implement these visuals, the game would either be a lot shorter or have taken too long to publish. Either way, it's a theoretical question related to (adventure) gaming in general, not just a rant on TLJ. Longer game but less detail, or shorter game but more detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by SkoubyDoo haha, typical sign of immaturity and/or sexual deprivation . Thank you, Sigmund! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by SkoubyDoo Longer game but less detail, or shorter game but more detail? *raises hand I choose very big length and very good detail.... (em....*ahem* Fable not an adventure but.... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinnyW Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Hehe, I second that! I love long games, but they've gotta keep me interested throughout the whole length. I say no more because I've been writing huge replies in the AGS forums just now, discussing something, and I'm tired . If I must choose between the two options you gave, it's somewhat like asking "Would you rather be a lion's tail, or a fox's head?" meaning would you rather be a leader of something small, or an insignificant "tail" to something big. The answer depends on the person. Me, I'd prefer to be a fox's head. Bah, this was unconnected. I'm just saying this question is in a similar style if you know what I mean. To answer it though, could you be more specific about what you mean by 'details' ? If you mean quality, then I think I'd prefer a short high-quality game to a long low-quality game. If you mean something else, please clarify. For example I prefer Apprentice (a short AGS game done brilliantly) to umm, say, Pompei (it's lying on my desk so it came to mind right now) which is relatively long (much much longer than Apprentice) but isn't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted July 31, 2003 Author Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Curt Thank you, Sigmund! Hey you're closer to Austria than I am! Actually your comment is more akin to Freud than mine was. To answer it though, could you be more specific about what you mean by 'details' ? If you mean quality, then I think I'd prefer a short high-quality game to a long low-quality game. If you mean something else, please clarify. For example I prefer Apprentice (a short AGS game done brilliantly) to umm, say, Pompei (it's lying on my desk so it came to mind right now) which is relatively long (much much longer than Apprentice) but isn't very good. Good question. I'm thinking about interactivity both physically and mentally. For example: In the 3 Tex Murphy 3D games, you can physically move around, open drawers, move items, and manipulate items. You can also mentally identify with character's movements and facial expressions. These are two completely seperate areas but both work to make the game more immersive. As we have seen, this is done best in a 3D environment (Tex Murphy, GK3). What we haven't seen in adventures is more action-oriented puzzles. Not like Tomb Raider, but puzzles that use action to better the story. Like in GK2 when you're in the forest. To actually walk through the trees instead of clicking on the screen. And is it so bad to pull out a gun and use it instead of taking an icon of a gun out of your inventory? The more I play 3D action games and RPGs, the more I yearn for more adventures to take advantage of a 3D engine. This isn't the answer to my original question, but it is my idea of where adventure games should go. And although many will disagree with me, I believe a first person adventure would be better than a third person 3D game. Just because the game is 3D in technology doesn't mean the gameplay changes, it just adds depth to the world. Tex Murphy, and to a lesser extent GK3, did it right. Put the camera with the gamer so they can experience the game themselves. Both games still had very strong lead characters even though it was a first person perspective. I recently got hold of Overseer and have remembered how great the Tex Murphy games really were. If only some adventure game companies can catch on to this kind of gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleto4_ryan Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Gabriel Knight 3 had THE revolutionary gameplay.....i LOVED IT I hoped most adventures used that idea that gave the gamer great freedom.....but.....i don't think anyone will use it. I hope to some better engine of GK3 at the new game of Jane Jensen....who knows...that incridible woman always used something truly new....i wonder... I believe a first person adventure would be better than a third person 3D game. Persoanlly i have a major "crush" on third person perpectives adventures. I find it better to see the protagonist...and also till 2-3 years before, the first persons weren't giving too much of a freedom. Click there, wait...go there..... so annoying.... But if you see RealMyst...oh mine...if only the first person adventures used this technique. You go anywhere you want....everywhere on your own, there aren't hotspots and pathaways etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkoubyDoo Posted July 31, 2003 Author Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by pleto4_ryan Gabriel Knight 3 had THE revolutionary gameplay.....i LOVED IT I hoped most adventures used that idea that gave the gamer great freedom.....but.....i don't think anyone will use it. I hope to some better engine of GK3 at the new game of Jane Jensen....who knows...that incridible woman always used something truly new....i wonder... If the genre has any hope to survive and prosper, it has to follow the lead of games like GK3 and Tex Murphy. Persoanlly i have a major "crush" on third person perpectives adventures. I find it better to see the protagonist...and also till 2-3 years before, the first persons weren't giving too much of a freedom. Click there, wait...go there..... so annoying.... But if you see RealMyst...oh mine...if only the first person adventures used this technique. You go anywhere you want....everywhere on your own, there aren't hotspots and pathaways etc.... A lot of games used that pre-rendered move trick. T7G used it first, and a lot of puzzle (not adventure) games used it. Black Dahlia was one of the few real adventures that used it as well. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about 3D gameplay NOT just 3D graphics. T7G had 3D graphics, but not 3D gameplay. Like GK3 and Tex Murphy (or Deus Ex), the gameplay is first-person, and the interviews/cutscenes are standard third person. GK3 was a little different because you were a camera, not actually Gabriel. I prefer not seeing the main character (like tex), but actually being him/her during gameplay. All other sequences would be third person though. I do think, however, a completely first person adventure could work, but that would mean the main character would most likely be you, the player. Half-Life had you as Gordon Freeman, and his character is merely a name--no development. Spycraft is the one first person adventure game I feel worked very well. Yea it wasn't 3D at all, but it showed that the perspective could work. It's kind of like how virtual reality will be: YOU get to be a secret operative for the CIA! You lose some of the narrative and connection with a main character, but that character is now you. Total Recall isn't that far away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.