I hate KQ7's art style. Is there any workers who worked on it will admit that they hated it as well? I know the game critics have given it a poor grade with the art.
Icedan, what I am saying regardless if this king's quest title is being done in either 2D or 3D it would probably good anyways. Besides I could name a whole bunch of video games that are 2D as well as cel-shaded video games(if your counting those games). Besides, am I the only one who dislikes how the 7th King's quest game had animation similar to likeness of Disney as well as Don Bluth? I always imagined if they were going to do a 2D game of King's quest they do their own style for it.
Who knows, maybe if the first episode does well enough Telltale might consider the idea for it.
THIS. King's Quest was always about innovating new technology and, failing that, pushing the boundaries of technologies that already existed.
Most people who talks about retro games always say that graphics doesn't matter and all, but back in the time most people cared a lot about the graphics in games, since great looking games weren't as common as today, and even sometimes (wrongly) equated good graphics = good game.
In fact, I think point and click adventure games in the 90s were so popular mainly because of their graphics. Adventure games were the ones with the best graphics of all genres (unlike now), so that was one of the most important factors as to why they sold so much at that time. Of course good stories also helped a lot, but I think it wasn't the most important factor.
Most people who talks about retro games always say that graphics doesn't matter and all, but back in the time most people cared a lot about the graphics in games, since great looking games weren't as common as today, and even sometimes (wrongly) equated good graphics = good game.
In fact, I think point and click adventure games in the 90s were so popular mainly because of their graphics. Adventure games were the ones with the best graphics of all genres (unlike now), so that was one of the most important factors as to why they sold so much at that time. Of course good stories also helped a lot, but I think it wasn't the most important factor.
Yeah. Adventures were the better looking AAA blockbuster games in those days. Even over FPS's.
Yep, absolutely right. Great post OMA. I've been planning for a while now to write a blog post going into more detail about basically what you guys said here. Sierra and other adventure games were THE games you used to show off your new 86/286/486/Pentium. The people who insist that "characters" and "story" were all the genre ever had and needed to be successful have no idea what they're talking about.
You would never accept a new FPS with Halo 1 graphics, or a new GTA game with the PS2 graphics engine. So why can adventure games get away with it?
As for 2D - other genres do still use 2D, and in fact there's been a resurgence of 2D sidescrollers this generation. However, this does not mean that you can keep making games with 1991 King's Quest graphics and gameplay and expect to be relevant. The better 2D games generally have innovative new mechanics. Braid, Limbo, Trine, the Nintendo sidescrollers, etc., all bring something new to the table. We're not playing dozens of new clones of Super Mario World.
You would never accept a new FPS with Halo 1 graphics, or a new GTA game with the PS2 graphics engine. So why can adventure games get away with it?
Because the market for adventure games is smaller than for FPS games, and adventure game makers don't want to further reduce their potential customer base by cutting out those with older hardware.
While I, too, would love to play adventure games with state-of-the-art 3D graphics, I just can't get worked up about the fact that doesn't happen because I think adventure games work with any number of graphics styles. I'm glad there are still small companies that make 2D adventure games. And I'm glad there are game companies, like Telltale, who are making adventure games with 3D graphics.
What I appreciate more than the technical aspects of graphics is how artistic they are, whether 2D, 3D, or something in between. I hope that Telltale comes up with an artistic style that is both unique and fitting of KQ. I fully expect it to be 3D (but I wouldn't complain if it was 2D or 2D-looking ). I believe they're more than capable of this, if they choose to devote their creative time and attention to it.
You would never accept a new FPS with Halo 1 graphics, or a new GTA game with the PS2 graphics engine. So why can adventure games get away with it?
I would. That's when 3D-graphics finally got good enough to no longer hurt my eyes (I did not like 3D for years because the graphics really did hurt my eyes). And I am not a graphic whore. The important thing is that the game is good. Have you ever turned everything off in Oblivion that is eyecandy? I have. I have seen how ugly this game can get underneath all the effects and without grass and trees. And it was still a really good game. Even for the 70 hours I played it like that.
But that doesn't mean that everyone would accept that nowadays.
Because the market for adventure games is smaller than for FPS games, and adventure game makers don't want to further reduce their potential customer base by cutting out those with older hardware.
That, and also adventure games being somewhat of a niche genre, meaning their budgets are smaller than big, mainstream titles.
But whatever the reasons are, adventure games using 3D graphics these days always tend to look much less impressive than mainstream titles, and as such - I'm not a big fan of it.
Maybe if they could have 3D graphics rivalling those of really nice looking, modern games in other genres... then I'd be more accepting of it.
But the way things are, I really don't think 3D graphics in adventure games can rival really nice looking 2D backgrounds.
Of course this doesn't mean the game in question can't be highly enjoyable if it's great in other aspects, but I do think I'd enjoy many games more if they had richly detailed 2D backgrounds rather than mediocre 3D.
Not because I'm a graphics whore, but because I think the way an adventure game looks can greatly affect how immersive it feels.
And of course I'm not talking about 'technically' impressive graphics, I mean the artistic direction in general... and I feel 2D allows for more artistic and expressive graphics than mediocre 3D does, generally speaking.
The one thing about 3D graphics, which applies to mediocre 3D as well, is that it does allow for more freedom when it comes to framing shots, and makes it easier to create a somewhat dynamic world.
But personally I don't feel this is necessary at all to create a great atmosphere, and I certainly don't think it's worth the cost of having mediocre 3D instead of great looking 2D backdrops.
But this is of course highly subjective, depending on how important you feel these things are.
Though I do think these are valid points and I can see how for many people, this might very well be important enough to prefer 3D graphics, even when they're quite mediocre.
But whatever the reasons are, adventure games using 3D graphics these days always tend to look much less impressive than mainstream titles, and as such - I'm not a big fan of it.
Maybe if they could have 3D graphics rivalling those of really nice looking, modern games in other genres... then I'd be more accepting of it.
I have heard similar argument often and it always surprises me. Several times it has happened that I play some adventure game and I really like it's graphics and animation, and then I read from reviews and forums that this game is so ugly and outdated that watching it makes your eyes bleed. But like they say the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are plenty of mainstream games which I dislike because of their graphic style.
Because the market for adventure games is smaller than for FPS games, and adventure game makers don't want to further reduce their potential customer base by cutting out those with older hardware.
Yea this is one of the arguments people make to defend mediocre graphics in adventure games, but I don't think it's accurate. The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around. Sierra spent a ton on Phantasmagoria and it was their biggest selling adventure game ever because of the graphics, at a time when the genre was fading. Console RPGs in the U.S. had been a small market, until the expensive-to-make FF7 came around with its gorgeous (at the time) graphics and changed everything. Heavy Rain sold like hot cakes. Do you think the quick-time events are what makes that game popular? No. If they beefed up the adventure game elements such as the investigations and toned down QTEs, I doubt there would have been much less sales, if at all. So there you'd have a successful mainstream adventure game.
As I've said, if somebody makes a new Leisure Suit Larry game as a pure adventure with graphics on par with Heavy Rain, it will be a massive seller. I'm sure new IPs would sell as well if they were any good.
Yea this is one of the arguments people make to defend mediocre graphics in adventure games, but I don't think it's accurate. The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around.
Sorry, but that just doesn't square with economic logic. If there was a sufficient market for big-budget adventure games with state-of-the-art graphics, the game industry would have moved to fill that demand by now. But it was not better graphics alone that led to shooters and other genres eclipsing the popularity of adventures among video gamers.
Incidentally, how is it you see an explanation, which is what I offered whether accurate and not, as somehow a "defense of mediocre graphics"? (If someone explains the political and economic reasons for why the healthcare system sucks, do you conclude that they are defending poor healthcare?)
I believe that adventure gamers in general are very much in favor of high-quality graphics, but some define that differently than you do (and each other for that matter). It's not really fair to equate those views as "defending mediocrity".
Sorry, but that just doesn't square with economic logic. If there was a sufficient market for big-budget adventure games with state-of-the-art graphics, the game industry would have moved to fill that demand by now. But it was not better graphics alone that led to shooters and other genres eclipsing the popularity of adventures among video gamers.
Incidentally, how is it you see an explanation, which is what I offered whether accurate and not, as somehow a "defense of mediocre graphics"? (If someone explains the political and economic reasons for why the healthcare system sucks, do you conclude that they are defending poor healthcare?)
I believe that adventure gamers in general are very much in favor of high-quality graphics, but some define that differently than you do (and each other for that matter). It's not really fair to equate those views as "defending mediocrity".
Every played Heavy Rain? Solid straight adventure game with excellent graphics. Sold extremely well.
Every played Heavy Rain? Solid straight adventure game with excellent graphics. Sold extremely well.
I can say that I haven't because I don't think there's PC version. And I'm not certain if I would buy it even if there was PC version, because based on my experience PC versions of console games are bit clumsy and awkward. For example Resident Evil 2 wasn't a bad action-adventure, but it suffered from limited saves (which makes sense with consoles, but not on PC) and clumsy keyboard controls. Console adventures are their own genre and not the same as PC's adventure games.
If console adventures are their own genre than how do you explain Telltale's games? Almost all of them are available on consoles.
Personally, I think the Heavy Rain style is what Telltale should be doing (Jurassic Park doesn't count, you can't even walk).
Some PC games are ported also to the consoles and vice versa, it's nothing new, even some of the older adventures were available on consoles (IIRC even some King's Quest games were ported). However console adventure games seem to have their own tradition, which has very little to do with the PC's adventure games.
Telltale's games are conformed to console standards. They aren't just "ported." They're developed with consoles in mind and that changes the way they are developed than if they were developing only for the PC. That makes them console games. Like directional controls. That's a console scheme. Jurassic Park seems to be even more heavily influenced by console game design (despite the fact that you can't walk).
Yeah my point wasn't so much aimed at consoles specifically, just that there is still plenty of market interest in a good adventure game with good graphics.
Every played Heavy Rain? Solid straight adventure game with excellent graphics. Sold extremely well.
The success of one platform-exclusive game hardly refutes my point (which covers more than a decade). Besides, given that traditional adventure game mechanics are heavily supplanted with something borrowed from the action genre makes it a weak counter-example.
I do think Heavy Rain is an example of something else for which there is a growing market -- the "interactive entertainment experience". I would not be surprised to see an avalanche of Heavy Rain clones; time will tell whether it's a fad or something sustainable. I think many adventure fans will see these games as meeting their adventure-gaming desires and be pleased to see more of them and with top-notch graphics; others, like myself who have a different idea about what's important in an adventure game, might not.
Telltale's games are conformed to console standards. They aren't just "ported." They're developed with consoles in mind and that changes the way they are developed than if they were developing only for the PC. That makes them console games. Like directional controls. That's a console scheme. Jurassic Park seems to be even more heavily influenced by console game design (despite the fact that you can't walk).
Yes, but most of TTG's games follow PC adventure game traditions. I'm not very familiar with console gaming as whole, but to me it seems that consoles have their own traditions which are different than PC's traditions. It doesn't just apply to adventures, but also to console RPGs etc. What I have read about Heavy Rain gives me impression that it's more a console game than traditonal computer adventure game.
Yes, but most of TTG's games follow PC adventure game traditions.
Not remotely. That's actually the main complaint that people who are concerned about what Telltale's KQ game will look like have. PC adventure games let you walk around and explore and stumble into deaths and get stuck. Telltale is against all of those things.
Sorry, but that just doesn't square with economic logic. If there was a sufficient market for big-budget adventure games with state-of-the-art graphics, the game industry would have moved to fill that demand by now. But it was not better graphics alone that led to shooters and other genres eclipsing the popularity of adventures among video gamers.
We're not talking about widgets here, we're talking about works of art. There was a sufficient market for more seasons of Sopranos and Seinfeld, why didn't that happen?
Nobody in a position to do so has any strong desire to make a AAA adventure game at the moment (that we know of), economics is not the only factor. There is also a bit of chicken and egg here, as there has never been a 3D AAA adventure game failure to base anything on, at least in the last 11 years.
You can pooh-pooh the Heavy Rain example all you want, but it's valid. Is your position that there would have been a precipitous drop in sales had there been less QTEs and more traditional adventure game elements?
Incidentally, how is it you see an explanation, which is what I offered whether accurate and not, as somehow a "defense of mediocre graphics"? (If someone explains the political and economic reasons for why the healthcare system sucks, do you conclude that they are defending poor healthcare?)
I believe that adventure gamers in general are very much in favor of high-quality graphics, but some define that differently than you do (and each other for that matter). It's not really fair to equate those views as "defending mediocrity".
Semantics? Obviously I don't believe that you are a huge fan of sub-par graphics.
Not remotely. That's actually the main complaint that people who are concerned about what Telltale's KQ game will look like have. PC adventure games let you walk around and explore and stumble into deaths and get stuck. Telltale is against all of those things.
I have more than 50 adventure games and with the exception of early Sierra adventures constant dying is rare. Most adventure games either don't have deaths or those can happen only in specific places in the game (for example fist fighting in Fate of Atlantis or end sequence of Gabriel Knight 3). Also TTG's seasons have offered at least as many game hours and places to explore as many recent full adventure games have offered. Individual episode naturally offers less to explore, but lately they have linked the episodes better with each other and they feel more like one game than collection of minigames (I compare here first two seasons of Sam & Max and Wallace & Gromit to Tales and Devil's Playhouse).
While it's true that their previous games aren't like Sierra games of 80's and early 90's, their games aren't very different from rest of the adventures of 2000's. While it's true that TTG's games have been easier than early Sierra games, I have played several recent adventures and IMO many of those weren't more difficult than TTG's games, but had much worse story and jokes than what TTG's games had. TTG has made enjoyable games, so I will give them chance to prove themselves with KQ.
Yes, but most of TTG's games follow PC adventure game traditions. I'm not very familiar with console gaming as whole, but to me it seems that consoles have their own traditions which are different than PC's traditions. It doesn't just apply to adventures, but also to console RPGs etc. What I have read about Heavy Rain gives me impression that it's more a console game than traditonal computer adventure game.
You can't make an opinion about a game just by reading about it. And what about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit? (Quantic's first game) That had a non-ported PC release as well as console (just like Telltale's games) and it has just as many if not more QTE's which are actually a lot more comprehensive and complex than Heavy Rain's. I don't think the differences you're pointing out here are "PC vs Console" based but rather "developer vs developer."
I have more than 50 adventure games and with the exception of early Sierra adventures constant dying is rare. Most adventure games either don't have deaths...
That is not true. Maybe half. But not "most." And he said more than just 'deaths.' He listed quite a few things that Telltale have no intention of improving on, based on official statements.
Also TTG's seasons have offered at least as many game hours and places to explore as many recent full adventure games have offered.
:rolleyes: I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. Not even close. Yes, even with all 5 episodes of a season together. There's no way they can match up to a full-length Sierra or LucasArts adventure. They concentrate too much on a 'cinematic experience' and as a result the actual gameplay suffers enormously.
While it's true that their previous games aren't like Sierra games of 80's and early 90's, their games aren't very different from rest of the adventures of 2000's. While it's true that TTG's games have been easier than early Sierra games, I have played several recent adventures and IMO many of those weren't more difficult than TTG's games, but had much worse story and jokes than what TTG's games had.
Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage. I won't even give those Adventure Company games the time of day. I bought a couple recent ones because I was hopeful, they were on sale, and they looked good. But as soon as I started the game frustration ensued. Adventure Company games are utter trash and completely miss the mark of what and adventure is supposed to be. Telltale have come the closest since the golden age itself, but that's not saying much, especially with how their latest games are/have been turning out.
TTG has made enjoyable games, so I will give them chance to prove themselves with KQ.
As am I. But if they screw it up that's the last straw for me.
You can pooh-pooh the Heavy Rain example all you want, but it's valid. Is your position that there would have been a precipitous drop in sales had there been less QTEs and more traditional adventure game elements?
Yes. I see Heavy Rain's sales as a product of growth in the market for casual games, not a resurgence of interest in adventure games. That is absolutely not intended as an insult to Heavy Rain, btw -- you can't argue with success and they've clearly found an exemplary combination of strong story, stellar graphics, and accessible gameplay. (I think TTG's BTTF represents the same phenomenon, except there you have strong story, accessible gameplay, and not-so-stellar graphics, though they're much better than the crap cranked out by casual game publishers.) Nor am I saying that it only appeals to casual players; it clearly draws fans from segments of the adventure gaming community as well as video-gamers in general. But I just don't see how Heavy Rain's success tells us much about the market for adventure games as they're more traditionally defined, or the impact better graphics might have on its size.
You can't make an opinion about a game just by reading about it. And what about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit? (Quantic's first game) That had a non-ported PC release as well as console (just like Telltale's games) and it has just as many if not more QTE's which are actually a lot more comprehensive and complex than Heavy Rain's. I don't think the differences you're pointing out here are "PC vs Console" based but rather "developer vs developer."
Then I can't really comment Fahrenheit either as I haven't played it, but it doesn't really sound traditional adventure game. It sounds more like action-adventure.
That is not true. Maybe half. But not "most." And he said more than just 'deaths.' He listed quite a few things that Telltale have no intention of improving on, based on official statements.
Dying in adventures has became more and more rare since mid-90's.
And we know almost nothing yet about the future KQ as they haven't revealed much. Based on my understanding they try to get old Sierra stuff to help them, so at least they are trying to do something to keep the game loyal to the franchise.
:rolleyes: I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. Not even close. Yes, even with all 5 episodes of a season together. There's no way they can match up to a full-length Sierra or LucasArts adventure. They concentrate too much on a 'cinematic experience' and as a result the actual gameplay suffers enormously.
It seems that we define word recent differently. I compared TTG's season to recent adventures. By that I meant games published in last few years, not to games which were published over decade ago. Only recent Sierra or LucasArts adventures I have played were Monkey Island Special Editions, which didn't last more than few hours, because I already knew every puzzle and I spent that time listening dialogue and watching new graphics. It's rare than solving new adventure game takes more than a week (with casual playing, max two or three hours per evening)
Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage. I won't even give those Adventure Company games the time of day. I bought a couple recent ones because I was hopeful, they were on sale, and they looked good. But as soon as I started the game frustration ensued. Adventure Company games are utter trash and completely miss the mark of what and adventure is supposed to be. Telltale have come the closest since the golden age itself, but that's not saying much, especially with how their latest games are/have been turning out.
I don't think that modern games are absolute garbage, but I think that games could have little more difficulty. Many games have good stories, but puzzles are bit on the easy side. For example, Gray Matter (most recent game which I have bought) offered a nice story and characters, but unfortunately this time Jane Jensen failed to make game as challenging as GK1 & GK3 (Personally I find GK2 easier than the other two). I still enjoy new games, but I miss difficulty of old classics.
I believe the games are easier because designers make puzzles more logical and you don't have to use Sierra logic à la use weird doohickey to random thingamabob without any specific reason. And if you forgot to pick up doohickey two hours ago you're dead.
As am I. But if they screw it up that's the last straw for me.
Yes. I see Heavy Rain's sales as a product of growth in the market for casual games, not a resurgence of interest in adventure games. That is absolutely not intended as an insult to Heavy Rain, btw -- you can't argue with success and they've clearly found an exemplary combination of strong story, stellar graphics, and accessible gameplay. (I think TTG's BTTF represents the same phenomenon, except there you have strong story, accessible gameplay, and not-so-stellar graphics, though they're much better than the crap cranked out by casual game publishers.) Nor am I saying that it only appeals to casual players; it clearly draws fans from segments of the adventure gaming community as well as video-gamers in general. But I just don't see how Heavy Rain's success tells us much about the market for adventure games as they're more traditionally defined, or the impact better graphics might have on its size.
Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.
Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.
Wilco is right. Heavy Rain is a full-length AAA game title. It is no casual game! Unless you somehow consider all console games to be "casual?" Which I can't see anything being further from the truth...
Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.
Call it whatever you'd like. Heavy Rain was not targeted solely at the hardcore of any particular genre. I believe its success was due in part to the changing demographics and demand patterns of the video game market that the industry has been talking about for several years now. (That's how it relates to BTTF; I did not compare the two games in any other way -- and in fact I totally understand the negative reaction to even mentioning the two in the same paragraph ) The pertinent point is that I don't believe Heavy Rain's success can be taken as an indicator of a strong relationship between better 3D graphics and sales of traditional adventure games. But time will tell, as I doubt the success of HR has gone unnoticed in the industry.
At the same time, I would be thrilled if the new KQ game tested JuntMonkey's original hypothesis to which I was responding ("The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around."). That is, make a kickass KQ-style adventure game with a state-of-the-art graphics engine and see how many players it attracts from beyond the current adventure game market. I could certainly see it attracting enough to offset the loss of that segment of the current market who either dislike 3D or don't have the hardware to run it. But would it attract enough to offset the additional development costs? History suggests the game industry doesn't think so. I'd be interested to find out, though, and wouldn't complain if it turns out JuntMonkey is right.
I haven't played Heavy Rain, so I can't comment on that game in particular, but when it comes to casual games... they usually are small, simplistic games... not the impression I've gotten from what I know about Heavy Rain.
But I suspect what the poster calling Heavy Rain a casual game intended to say might have been that Heavy Rain is an example of a full blown, large retail game only with gameplay inspired by casual games.
I know I've played a few of those, big games that don't qualify as casual games in the traditional sense as they're just as big as any normal retail game, but where the gameplay itself seems to resemble casual games more than what I'd expect from games generally.
Again, I have no idea if this applies to Heavy Rain at all, just got the impression that might have been what the poster intended to say.
To get back on topic, I've been disappointed that Telltale hasn't cell-shaded more of their games. It's a relatively inexpensive way to add style to a game and there are quite a few games in their catalog it would fit well with.
Tales of Monkey Island lost a bit of its feel when it went into 3D. A large part of the games charm came from the water colored art in the second and third games. When Telltale moved it to 3D, the art got sanitized and we lost that dirty wet feel that added so much to the 2D MI games. For the second season I'd like to see ToMI cell shaded with water colored textures (especially in the environment).
Same for Kings Quest. No reason Telltale can't stylistically cell shade the game to give it a "Disney hand drawn feel." Many modern games like Street Fighter IV and the new Zelda game use creative shading to give their games a drawn or painted style.
I understand Telltale has to do these games on the cheap, but I'd like to see Telltale do a bit of art R&D and add some variety to the style of their games. 3D "shiny" models work for games like Wallace and Grommit, BttF, and Jurassic Park, but ToMI, KQ, and even Sam and Max could benefit from some more creative styling.
I hate 3D cel-shading. Except for Strong Bad because it actually works there as that's the original style. Telltale's 3D is fine, though. I enjoy the details. I don't like the absence of details in cel-shading. They're more than fine now. During the TMI days they hadn't added real-time shadows or normals yet. When they started that with S&M3 the quality took a jump. And now Jurassic Park looks absolutely fantastic. No cel-shading.
I still have no idea what concept artwork you're referring to. Telltale hasn't released any concept art for their KQ game so I'd assume you're referring to one of the others.
Not necessarily with the very first games, though - that is, "to begin with" (like Leplaya said). In those days there were so few pixels to play around with that many game makers drew straight on the screen. Not sure if this was the case with early KQ, though.
Comments
Cel-shaded still looks 3D.
Most people who talks about retro games always say that graphics doesn't matter and all, but back in the time most people cared a lot about the graphics in games, since great looking games weren't as common as today, and even sometimes (wrongly) equated good graphics = good game.
In fact, I think point and click adventure games in the 90s were so popular mainly because of their graphics. Adventure games were the ones with the best graphics of all genres (unlike now), so that was one of the most important factors as to why they sold so much at that time. Of course good stories also helped a lot, but I think it wasn't the most important factor.
Yep, absolutely right. Great post OMA. I've been planning for a while now to write a blog post going into more detail about basically what you guys said here. Sierra and other adventure games were THE games you used to show off your new 86/286/486/Pentium. The people who insist that "characters" and "story" were all the genre ever had and needed to be successful have no idea what they're talking about.
You would never accept a new FPS with Halo 1 graphics, or a new GTA game with the PS2 graphics engine. So why can adventure games get away with it?
As for 2D - other genres do still use 2D, and in fact there's been a resurgence of 2D sidescrollers this generation. However, this does not mean that you can keep making games with 1991 King's Quest graphics and gameplay and expect to be relevant. The better 2D games generally have innovative new mechanics. Braid, Limbo, Trine, the Nintendo sidescrollers, etc., all bring something new to the table. We're not playing dozens of new clones of Super Mario World.
Because the market for adventure games is smaller than for FPS games, and adventure game makers don't want to further reduce their potential customer base by cutting out those with older hardware.
While I, too, would love to play adventure games with state-of-the-art 3D graphics, I just can't get worked up about the fact that doesn't happen because I think adventure games work with any number of graphics styles. I'm glad there are still small companies that make 2D adventure games. And I'm glad there are game companies, like Telltale, who are making adventure games with 3D graphics.
What I appreciate more than the technical aspects of graphics is how artistic they are, whether 2D, 3D, or something in between. I hope that Telltale comes up with an artistic style that is both unique and fitting of KQ. I fully expect it to be 3D (but I wouldn't complain if it was 2D or 2D-looking
I would. That's when 3D-graphics finally got good enough to no longer hurt my eyes (I did not like 3D for years because the graphics really did hurt my eyes). And I am not a graphic whore. The important thing is that the game is good. Have you ever turned everything off in Oblivion that is eyecandy? I have. I have seen how ugly this game can get underneath all the effects and without grass and trees. And it was still a really good game. Even for the 70 hours I played it like that.
But that doesn't mean that everyone would accept that nowadays.
But whatever the reasons are, adventure games using 3D graphics these days always tend to look much less impressive than mainstream titles, and as such - I'm not a big fan of it.
Maybe if they could have 3D graphics rivalling those of really nice looking, modern games in other genres... then I'd be more accepting of it.
But the way things are, I really don't think 3D graphics in adventure games can rival really nice looking 2D backgrounds.
Of course this doesn't mean the game in question can't be highly enjoyable if it's great in other aspects, but I do think I'd enjoy many games more if they had richly detailed 2D backgrounds rather than mediocre 3D.
Not because I'm a graphics whore, but because I think the way an adventure game looks can greatly affect how immersive it feels.
And of course I'm not talking about 'technically' impressive graphics, I mean the artistic direction in general... and I feel 2D allows for more artistic and expressive graphics than mediocre 3D does, generally speaking.
The one thing about 3D graphics, which applies to mediocre 3D as well, is that it does allow for more freedom when it comes to framing shots, and makes it easier to create a somewhat dynamic world.
But personally I don't feel this is necessary at all to create a great atmosphere, and I certainly don't think it's worth the cost of having mediocre 3D instead of great looking 2D backdrops.
But this is of course highly subjective, depending on how important you feel these things are.
Though I do think these are valid points and I can see how for many people, this might very well be important enough to prefer 3D graphics, even when they're quite mediocre.
I have heard similar argument often and it always surprises me. Several times it has happened that I play some adventure game and I really like it's graphics and animation, and then I read from reviews and forums that this game is so ugly and outdated that watching it makes your eyes bleed. But like they say the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are plenty of mainstream games which I dislike because of their graphic style.
Yea this is one of the arguments people make to defend mediocre graphics in adventure games, but I don't think it's accurate. The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around. Sierra spent a ton on Phantasmagoria and it was their biggest selling adventure game ever because of the graphics, at a time when the genre was fading. Console RPGs in the U.S. had been a small market, until the expensive-to-make FF7 came around with its gorgeous (at the time) graphics and changed everything. Heavy Rain sold like hot cakes. Do you think the quick-time events are what makes that game popular? No. If they beefed up the adventure game elements such as the investigations and toned down QTEs, I doubt there would have been much less sales, if at all. So there you'd have a successful mainstream adventure game.
As I've said, if somebody makes a new Leisure Suit Larry game as a pure adventure with graphics on par with Heavy Rain, it will be a massive seller. I'm sure new IPs would sell as well if they were any good.
Sorry, but that just doesn't square with economic logic. If there was a sufficient market for big-budget adventure games with state-of-the-art graphics, the game industry would have moved to fill that demand by now. But it was not better graphics alone that led to shooters and other genres eclipsing the popularity of adventures among video gamers.
Incidentally, how is it you see an explanation, which is what I offered whether accurate and not, as somehow a "defense of mediocre graphics"? (If someone explains the political and economic reasons for why the healthcare system sucks, do you conclude that they are defending poor healthcare?)
I believe that adventure gamers in general are very much in favor of high-quality graphics, but some define that differently than you do (and each other for that matter). It's not really fair to equate those views as "defending mediocrity".
Every played Heavy Rain? Solid straight adventure game with excellent graphics. Sold extremely well.
I can say that I haven't because I don't think there's PC version. And I'm not certain if I would buy it even if there was PC version, because based on my experience PC versions of console games are bit clumsy and awkward. For example Resident Evil 2 wasn't a bad action-adventure, but it suffered from limited saves (which makes sense with consoles, but not on PC) and clumsy keyboard controls. Console adventures are their own genre and not the same as PC's adventure games.
Personally, I think the Heavy Rain style is what Telltale should be doing (Jurassic Park doesn't count, you can't even walk).
Some PC games are ported also to the consoles and vice versa, it's nothing new, even some of the older adventures were available on consoles (IIRC even some King's Quest games were ported). However console adventure games seem to have their own tradition, which has very little to do with the PC's adventure games.
The success of one platform-exclusive game hardly refutes my point (which covers more than a decade). Besides, given that traditional adventure game mechanics are heavily supplanted with something borrowed from the action genre makes it a weak counter-example.
I do think Heavy Rain is an example of something else for which there is a growing market -- the "interactive entertainment experience". I would not be surprised to see an avalanche of Heavy Rain clones; time will tell whether it's a fad or something sustainable. I think many adventure fans will see these games as meeting their adventure-gaming desires and be pleased to see more of them and with top-notch graphics; others, like myself who have a different idea about what's important in an adventure game, might not.
Yes, but most of TTG's games follow PC adventure game traditions. I'm not very familiar with console gaming as whole, but to me it seems that consoles have their own traditions which are different than PC's traditions. It doesn't just apply to adventures, but also to console RPGs etc. What I have read about Heavy Rain gives me impression that it's more a console game than traditonal computer adventure game.
Not remotely. That's actually the main complaint that people who are concerned about what Telltale's KQ game will look like have. PC adventure games let you walk around and explore and stumble into deaths and get stuck. Telltale is against all of those things.
We're not talking about widgets here, we're talking about works of art. There was a sufficient market for more seasons of Sopranos and Seinfeld, why didn't that happen?
Nobody in a position to do so has any strong desire to make a AAA adventure game at the moment (that we know of), economics is not the only factor. There is also a bit of chicken and egg here, as there has never been a 3D AAA adventure game failure to base anything on, at least in the last 11 years.
You can pooh-pooh the Heavy Rain example all you want, but it's valid. Is your position that there would have been a precipitous drop in sales had there been less QTEs and more traditional adventure game elements?
Semantics? Obviously I don't believe that you are a huge fan of sub-par graphics.
I have more than 50 adventure games and with the exception of early Sierra adventures constant dying is rare. Most adventure games either don't have deaths or those can happen only in specific places in the game (for example fist fighting in Fate of Atlantis or end sequence of Gabriel Knight 3). Also TTG's seasons have offered at least as many game hours and places to explore as many recent full adventure games have offered. Individual episode naturally offers less to explore, but lately they have linked the episodes better with each other and they feel more like one game than collection of minigames (I compare here first two seasons of Sam & Max and Wallace & Gromit to Tales and Devil's Playhouse).
While it's true that their previous games aren't like Sierra games of 80's and early 90's, their games aren't very different from rest of the adventures of 2000's. While it's true that TTG's games have been easier than early Sierra games, I have played several recent adventures and IMO many of those weren't more difficult than TTG's games, but had much worse story and jokes than what TTG's games had. TTG has made enjoyable games, so I will give them chance to prove themselves with KQ.
You can't make an opinion about a game just by reading about it. And what about Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit? (Quantic's first game) That had a non-ported PC release as well as console (just like Telltale's games) and it has just as many if not more QTE's which are actually a lot more comprehensive and complex than Heavy Rain's. I don't think the differences you're pointing out here are "PC vs Console" based but rather "developer vs developer."
That is not true. Maybe half. But not "most." And he said more than just 'deaths.' He listed quite a few things that Telltale have no intention of improving on, based on official statements.
:rolleyes: I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. Not even close. Yes, even with all 5 episodes of a season together. There's no way they can match up to a full-length Sierra or LucasArts adventure. They concentrate too much on a 'cinematic experience' and as a result the actual gameplay suffers enormously.
Any adventure game created since 2000 (with the exception of the Myst games) has all been absolute garbage. I won't even give those Adventure Company games the time of day. I bought a couple recent ones because I was hopeful, they were on sale, and they looked good. But as soon as I started the game frustration ensued. Adventure Company games are utter trash and completely miss the mark of what and adventure is supposed to be. Telltale have come the closest since the golden age itself, but that's not saying much, especially with how their latest games are/have been turning out.
As am I. But if they screw it up that's the last straw for me.
Yes. I see Heavy Rain's sales as a product of growth in the market for casual games, not a resurgence of interest in adventure games. That is absolutely not intended as an insult to Heavy Rain, btw -- you can't argue with success and they've clearly found an exemplary combination of strong story, stellar graphics, and accessible gameplay. (I think TTG's BTTF represents the same phenomenon, except there you have strong story, accessible gameplay, and not-so-stellar graphics, though they're much better than the crap cranked out by casual game publishers.) Nor am I saying that it only appeals to casual players; it clearly draws fans from segments of the adventure gaming community as well as video-gamers in general. But I just don't see how Heavy Rain's success tells us much about the market for adventure games as they're more traditionally defined, or the impact better graphics might have on its size.
Then I can't really comment Fahrenheit either as I haven't played it, but it doesn't really sound traditional adventure game. It sounds more like action-adventure.
Dying in adventures has became more and more rare since mid-90's.
And we know almost nothing yet about the future KQ as they haven't revealed much. Based on my understanding they try to get old Sierra stuff to help them, so at least they are trying to do something to keep the game loyal to the franchise.
It seems that we define word recent differently. I compared TTG's season to recent adventures. By that I meant games published in last few years, not to games which were published over decade ago. Only recent Sierra
I don't think that modern games are absolute garbage, but I think that games could have little more difficulty. Many games have good stories, but puzzles are bit on the easy side. For example, Gray Matter (most recent game which I have bought) offered a nice story and characters, but unfortunately this time Jane Jensen failed to make game as challenging as GK1 & GK3 (Personally I find GK2 easier than the other two). I still enjoy new games, but I miss difficulty of old classics.
I believe the games are easier because designers make puzzles more logical and you don't have to use Sierra logic à la use weird doohickey to random thingamabob without any specific reason. And if you forgot to pick up doohickey two hours ago you're dead.
Then let's hope that it will be a good game.
... ... ...
<checks Wikipedia>
<finds The Longest Journey was first published in 1999>
Okay, you dodged a bullet there, MI.
Heavy Rain is both not a casual game and not anything like Telltale's products. I don't understand the comparison there at all. Comparing Heavy Rain to BttF is like saying that a 747 and a paper airplane are the same thing.
Wilco is right. Heavy Rain is a full-length AAA game title. It is no casual game! Unless you somehow consider all console games to be "casual?" Which I can't see anything being further from the truth...
Call it whatever you'd like. Heavy Rain was not targeted solely at the hardcore of any particular genre. I believe its success was due in part to the changing demographics and demand patterns of the video game market that the industry has been talking about for several years now. (That's how it relates to BTTF; I did not compare the two games in any other way -- and in fact I totally understand the negative reaction to even mentioning the two in the same paragraph
At the same time, I would be thrilled if the new KQ game tested JuntMonkey's original hypothesis to which I was responding ("The adventure game market is small because the games are mediocre with bad graphics, not the other way around."). That is, make a kickass KQ-style adventure game with a state-of-the-art graphics engine and see how many players it attracts from beyond the current adventure game market. I could certainly see it attracting enough to offset the loss of that segment of the current market who either dislike 3D or don't have the hardware to run it. But would it attract enough to offset the additional development costs? History suggests the game industry doesn't think so. I'd be interested to find out, though, and wouldn't complain if it turns out JuntMonkey is right.
But I suspect what the poster calling Heavy Rain a casual game intended to say might have been that Heavy Rain is an example of a full blown, large retail game only with gameplay inspired by casual games.
I know I've played a few of those, big games that don't qualify as casual games in the traditional sense as they're just as big as any normal retail game, but where the gameplay itself seems to resemble casual games more than what I'd expect from games generally.
Again, I have no idea if this applies to Heavy Rain at all, just got the impression that might have been what the poster intended to say.
Tales of Monkey Island lost a bit of its feel when it went into 3D. A large part of the games charm came from the water colored art in the second and third games. When Telltale moved it to 3D, the art got sanitized and we lost that dirty wet feel that added so much to the 2D MI games. For the second season I'd like to see ToMI cell shaded with water colored textures (especially in the environment).
Same for Kings Quest. No reason Telltale can't stylistically cell shade the game to give it a "Disney hand drawn feel." Many modern games like Street Fighter IV and the new Zelda game use creative shading to give their games a drawn or painted style.
I understand Telltale has to do these games on the cheap, but I'd like to see Telltale do a bit of art R&D and add some variety to the style of their games. 3D "shiny" models work for games like Wallace and Grommit, BttF, and Jurassic Park, but ToMI, KQ, and even Sam and Max could benefit from some more creative styling.
The concept artwork of what game?
Of course it did. Any visual medium, be it graphic novels, video or computer games, movies...they all have concept art.