A Vampyre Story - Playable demo available.

[Snarky]

I keep forgetting that your personal preference is the benchmark of objective quality, while other people's opinions are worthless.

And I seem to remember from the Adventure Gamers discussion that a closer investigation found that the difference between mainstream and niche reviews was not all that great, far from consistent, and that the outliers tended to be on the mainstream side. Besides, the notion that even a systematic difference between two sets of reviews, when they're written by different people, for different audiences (with different tastes, prior knowledge and priorities), with different ratings scales, means that either group is doing something wrong is, well, stupid.

By the way, back then we were arguing over whether the "mental inventory" innovation of Discworld Noir was picked up by other games. I thought there was another example I was forgetting (in addition to Dave Gilbert's games, Diamonds in the Rough, Resonance and Mata Hari). It was, of course, A Vampyre Story.

[Misj']

Was there ever any good - truly good - adventure game? - Commercial or not...? - Grimm Fandango may come close, since it had at least character development, a good story, good graphics (although the real-time-3D wasn't up to yesterday's standards either), and music..but it too had many flaws (apart from compatibility issues with my current computer). Curse of Monkey Island is one of my personal favourites, but is it flawless? - Definitely not (and that has nothing to do with Ron Gilbert not being involved, because let's face it: when it comes down to character development/progression or story, Monkey I and II aren't that good either. And since neither story nor character development have to be affected by limited resources, we can't blame that). Sam & Max and DOTT had no character development throughout the story at all. Full Throttle actually did have character development (Ben and Mo feel like they have grown during the game), but it was short...and the action sequences could have been done a lot better.

So back to a Vampyre Story...I received it yesterday, started playing it, and liked it (sure, it was only like fifteen minutes since I didn't have more time, but hay, in fifteen minutes you know whether you like a game or not). Is it perfect? - No. Do I like the 3D? - Not really (but then again, I also don't like all those 3D movies in the theatre, let alone 3D jump-n-run games...I just happen to be a 2D guy), but I can look past that. I feel that the integration of 2D and 3D could have been done better, but I think it was a bold try that seems to work well enough. Ok...so I can see which objects were made in 3D, but that is also true for many 2D games (or cartoons), where the objects are not well integrated in the background...it may not be perfect, but it won't reduce my fun with it. Mona's voice has actually grown on me a little...but I don't really like the fact that she giggles when Frodrick makes a joke. On the other hand...if she hadn't they wouldn't have had a healthy relationship. The jokes may not be all to my taste...but many of the Monkey Island or Sam & Max jokes weren't either...particularly not nowadays that I have grown a few inches.

So...best adventure game ever? - No. Worse than the classics? - I don't really think so (yet).

Ps. You can't look at a game outside of it's genre. Bejeweled would have failed as a first person shooter (at least I think so). The requirements are different per genre, and for an adventure game I like to wander around in a lively world that is not boring to watch even though I have to walk in the same three rooms for a long time (basically because I'm a terrible puzzle-solver ). I will have fun playing a Vampyre Story, and I'm glad it has been made. There is plenty of room for improvement...and hopefully they will, but until that time...

[LimpingFish]

Speaking of attacks...

I'm not getting into semantics again, as I made my point a number of times in the AG thread for the benefit of those that seem to have the attention span of a goldfish. I thought I provided some numbers to back up my opinion in that case, maybe you feel otherwise.

"when they're written by different people, for different audiences (with different tastes, prior knowledge and priorities)"

I have one priority. I have one taste. I want to enjoy my chosen pastime. I have no allegiance to any one genre, and I don't want to be part of a user base that considers itself some sort of special needs class. You do a great disservice to anyone outside the scene, who may sometimes call these games as they honestly see them, without what you call "prior knowledge" and what I call "fanboy baggage", claiming they are somehow misguided in their use of the criteria they use to rate these games. Despite numerous cases of positive mainstream opinions in the past. It seems we can all agree on the good games, but only those qualified can finger the bad.

Some of the fans on AG were very clear in their dismissal of negative opinions from outside the scene, and very vocal about the fact the it takes an adventure fan to offer an acceptable opinion on the quality of an adventure game. I simply chose to question that opinion.

And it baffles me that, yet again, I'm being chastised for simply not agreeing with the majority. This sense of objective quality you speak of doesn't seem to extend to those who express it in the negative.

I have never, on AG or here, said people are wrong for playing and enjoying these games, and, as far as I can recall, I've never expressed an overt wish that people would stop playing them.

I'm just relating how I see the situation. No matter how I package it, though, you're never going to agree with it. I have no problem with that. Why should you?

[Snarky]

I have one priority. I have one taste. I want to enjoy my chosen pastime. I have no allegiance to any one genre, and I don't want to be part of a user base that considers itself some sort of special needs class. You do a great disservice to anyone outside the scene, who may sometimes call these games as they honestly see them, without what you call "prior knowledge" and what I call "fanboy baggage", claiming they are somehow misguided in their use of the criteria they use to rate these games. Despite numerous cases of positive mainstream opinions in the past. It seems we can all agree on the good games, but only those qualified can finger the bad.

I never claimed they were misguided in how they rate the games. I just said that I don't think they're superior. You seem caught in the notion that if one side is right, then the other side must be wrong. For example, if mainstream sites don't like a game, then it must be "sub-standard", and adventure-oriented reviewers are wrong to support it.

Some of the fans on AG were very clear in their dismissal of negative opinions from outside the scene, and very vocal about the fact the it takes an adventure fan to offer an acceptable opinion on the quality of an adventure game.

And I very strongly and very clearly disagreed with that view, as did several others, including the editor of Adventure Gamers.

And it baffles me that, yet again, I'm being chastised for simply not agreeing with the majority. This sense of objective quality you speak of doesn't seem to extend to those who express it in the negative.

I have never, on AG or here, said people are wrong for playing and enjoying these games, and, as far as I can recall, I've never expressed an overt wish that people would stop playing them.

If that's honestly all you think you've been saying, I suggest you take a look at your previous posts and consider what could make someone read it differently. You've gone way further than just expressing your own preference; you're attacking fans and reviewers, blaming them for causing games you don't like to be made. You don't just disagree with the "majority" (I think the idea that commercial adventure games are pretty lacklustre is actually the majority view on this forum), you complain about the fans and reviewers who disagree with you.

[LimpingFish]

I never claimed they were misguided in how they rate the games. I just said that I don't think they're superior. You seem caught in the notion that if one side is right, then the other side must be wrong. For example, if mainstream sites don't like a game, then it must be "sub-standard", and adventure-oriented reviewers are wrong to support it.

I never claimed any superiority was in effect, and I never claimed anybody was "wrong". You said...

"when they're written by different people, for different audiences (with different tastes, prior knowledge and priorities), with different ratings scales"

You never mentioned anything about superiority. You're calling me out on a reply to a statement you have now changed the meaning of. And you're attributing a point of view to me that I have never made statements supporting. You don't agree with me, I get it. But you can disagree with my opinions without the need to attempt to invalidate them.

And I very strongly and very clearly disagreed with that view, as did several others, including the editor of Adventure Gamers.

Again, where did I claim that you didn't? I also never denied that some people agreed with other things I said in that thread. And I was not making myself out to be the lone voice of sense and reason on the AdventureGamers forum, which you seem to believe I have been claiming to be. You also overlook that some (and I used that word previously) people did indeed express their distrust of "outside" opinions.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't start that AG thread, I left a comment on an Art of Murder review. Somebody at AG deemed it necessary to turn my comment into a thread. The fact is, I wasn't putting my opinion forward for debate, as it exists as what it is. An opinion.

If that's honestly all you think you've been saying, I suggest you take a look at your previous posts and consider what could make someone read it differently. You've gone way further than just expressing your own preference; you're attacking fans and reviewers, blaming them for causing games you don't like to be made. You don't just disagree with the "majority" (I think the idea that commercial adventure games are pretty lacklustre is actually the majority view on this forum), you complain about the fans and reviewers who disagree with you.

To be honest, I don't care how people take it. I'm perfectly aware of what I've said and how I've stated my views. How you or others choose to interpret them isn't my concern. If you feel I'm attacking people, that's your prerogative. If you see my opinions as boiling down to "This game is bad, and you're wrong for not admiting it's bad." that's also up to you.

You're ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly said, on both AG and here, that I don't expect people not to play or not enjoy these games, or that I wanted people to stop playing them, or that they should stop playing them. I'm tired of pointing this out. You've chosen to bring the problems of that AG thread to this one, and again blamed me for some overt attack. You seem to fixate on the fact that a lot of people like playing these games, and that because I (ie. the minority) don't, and I express that fact, it's a slight against all those who do. If the consensus is that the commercial scene is, by and large, lacklustre, then where's the problem? I attribute this to a largely lacklustre fanbase, who I feel have settled for what they get. You don't see it this way. Again, I don't have a problem with that.

Again, why should you?

Here's a new thread on AG, which I have had no input into, in which people again raise the possibility that the mainstream is somehow unqualified to rate adventures. Both sides are represented.

[Snarky]

I never claimed any superiority was in effect, and I never claimed anybody was "wrong".

Bullshit:

The fact that some people enjoy them is largely irrelevant [...]. They're still shit.

I regularly see adventure fans and the adventure media supporting sub-standard products that mainstream gaming outlets rate much lower. Maybe this is because the mainstream tends to rate them not as a genre but as individual games. If you treat the adventure game as though it exists in a gaming vacuum, separate from the criteria that other genres are routinely judged on, is it any wonder we constantly end up with nothing more than the mundanely average?

I don't want to be part of a user base that considers itself some sort of special needs class. You do a great disservice to anyone outside the scene, who may sometimes call these games as they honestly see them, without what you call "prior knowledge" and what I call "fanboy baggage"

The clear implication, especially of the highlighted bits, is that the opinions of mainstream reviewers (and yourself) are more valid than those of other adventure gamers and reviewers.

You never mentioned anything about superiority.

So what do you call this?

the notion that [...] a systematic difference between two sets of reviews [...] means that either group is doing something wrong is, well, stupid.

Neither group (mainstream reviewers and adventure game reviewers + fans) is doing anything wrong, neither side has superior judgment, neither side is (in general) inappropriately biased. They just like different things.

You're calling me out on a reply to a statement you have now changed the meaning of. And you're attributing a point of view to me that I have never made statements supporting. You don't agree with me, I get it. But you can disagree with my opinions without the need to attempt to invalidate them.

Funny, I could say exactly the same thing to you. In fact, that's exactly what I have been saying.

Again, where did I claim that you didn't? I also never denied that some people agreed with other things I said in that thread. And I was not making myself out to be the lone voice of sense and reason on the AdventureGamers forum, which you seem to believe I have been claiming to be. You also overlook that some (and I used that word previously) people did indeed express their distrust of "outside" opinions.

You were clearly associating me with those opinions. In fact, you as much as attributed them to me in the preceding paragraph. ("You do a great disservice to anyone outside the scene [...] claiming they are somehow misguided in their use of the criteria they use to rate these games. [...] It seems we can all agree on the good games, but only those qualified can finger the bad.") So I think it's quite disingenuous of you to say that you didn't "claim" I said otherwise.

And what's the relevance of some stupid stuff someone else said, anyway? Just because some people make a close-minded argument one way and are wrong, doesn't mean that turning it around and making the same argument the other way makes you right. Complaints about the bias of mainstream reviewers against adventures and complaints against the bias of adventure reviewers for adventures are equally flawed.

You're ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly said, on both AG and here, that I don't expect people not to play or not enjoy these games, or that I wanted people to stop playing them, or that they should stop playing them. I'm tired of pointing this out.

You can keep denying that you're saying people shouldn't do it, but as long as you keep complaining about people doing it, that's just a quibble. As I said, you're attacking fans and reviewers, blaming them for causing games you don't like to be made ("I largely blame 'adventure fans' and the adventure media for this situation [bad games]").

You've chosen to bring the problems of that AG thread to this one, and again blamed me for some overt attack. You seem to fixate on the fact that a lot of people like playing these games, and that because I (ie. the minority) don't, and I express that fact, it's a slight against all those who do.

That's exactly what I have not been "fixating on", so I'll just copy-paste the last line from my last post: You don't just disagree with the "majority", you complain about the fans and reviewers who disagree with you.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well, not to take the wind out of the sails of this two-man argument here, but:

Just because YOU don't personally enjoy or appreciate something doesn't mean others cannot honestly do so.

Is something I can make a qualified agreement with, Snarky; qualified because, as I stated earlier, I think adventure gamers these days (and I honestly believe this) are quite starved for games of any quality and will, like a parched man in a desert, drink dirty water from an old boot and love it because that's all there is.  I'm not exactly saying that Vampyre Story is quite that awful, but it has some obvious, glaring flaws that in a more competitive age would've seen it in the bargain bin.

I fully admit that I just did not like the game; I absolutely did not find the humor to be witty or up to par, nor did the puzzles seem particularly well thought out for the most part (I even broke the game twice), and I believe this problem to be worsened by the memory inventory scenario.  The memory concept is one thing that infuriated me because it seems created for padding purposes, to make Mona go back to one area to pick something up, then pop somewhere else to get another thing, and so on.  Some of these events are brief, and thankfully you can skip them, but it still begs the question, 'why?'.  And I've already discussed her superhuman inconsistencies, so I won't go into that again.

And yeah, I'm bringing this topic back on track since it is about Vampyre Story specifically and not adventure games in general.

[Snarky]

I watched the trailer for A Vampyre Story and pretty much determined that it wasn't for me. The intended comedy didn't raise a hint of a smile, and other than Bill Tiller's nice-looking backdrops, there seemed to be little else to recommend the purchase. Word has been decidedly mixed on the final product, too. If there are dead ends, that's indeed something I'd find pretty underwhelming (I'm holding out the possibility that there was some alternate solution or other way out that you didn't discover).

I guess it's plausible that some people really are that desperate for new, good adventures, but I really see no reason why they should be. To refer again to AG, they've reviewed 25 games from 2008 (and several games from 2007 and earlier that only got their English release this year). Of those 25, 14 got 3.5 stars or higher, 7 got 4 stars or higher. That's a lot of games with very respectable scores. Now, you could of course argue that the grades are inflated (3 of those 4-star games are Sam & Max titles, which the regular AG reviewer likes quite a lot more than I--for one--do), but among these there seems to be at least a handful of enjoyable games (I haven't heard a bad word against Perry Rhodan, for example). How many full-length adventures does one person consume per year, anyway?

I've always felt, rather, that the vast back catalogue of classic games, as well as the constant output of AGS titles, is more than enough to keep me occupied from here to eternity. Starved for adventures? No, stuffed! I bought Tales of Bingwood a few weeks ago (there's also a demo), and I still have no idea when I'll get around to playing it.

[Ozzie]

A patch was released today, by the way. Supposedly it removes the dead ends and fixes some other bugs. I have no idea if it works with the english version.

[MrColossal]

I had never heard of Bingwood even though I read indiegames blog regularly... It looks [visually] totally cute! Tell how it is when you get around to it

[LimpingFish]

I seem to be spending the majority of this thread defending my right to be a cynical opinionated pessimistic snob!

The clear implication, especially of the highlighted bits, is that the opinions of mainstream reviewers (and yourself) are more valid than those of other adventure gamers and reviewers.

The clear implication is that I consider a number of outside negative adventure reviews, of games that may have received positive ones within the scene, are sometimes treated as misinformed opinions without any proof beyond "I wouldn't trust them because they aren't adventure fans/don't 'like' adventure games". This is the crux of my argument. My problem is that some fans (that's some, just to be clear) use this to dismiss opinions they don't agree with. I think you agreed with me that, if this is the case, an adventure fan who holds this opinion would be in the wrong. Where we disagree is in the extent such opinions influence the scene, and the potential damage it does. And you're accusing me of using a mirror argument to justify my own opinions. Which is, of course, your right.

I don't inherently think there is a right side, which you seem to feel I consider myself part of. I consider myself to be the sum of my parts and trust my own criteria regarding the quality of commercial adventures. I not saying I'm the only person who thinks this way, or that I've uncovered some sort of heinous conspiracy. I'm just making an observation, based on my own experiences. You seem to be angry that I hold these opinions, or angry that I've put them in writing, I'm not sure which.

The fact that some people enjoy them is largely irrelevant [...]. They're still shit.

Yes. I do consider hunt-the-junk games to be nothing but a rancid tramp's cock pus. You may feel this is unfair. You may also extrapolate from this my supposed disdain for the people who play them, which is inconsequential as far as I see. And why should you care, anyway? But you've used my specific opinion towards these games to help validate your disagreement concerning my unwarranted "attack" on the adventure scene as a whole.

I regularly see adventure fans and the adventure media supporting sub-standard products that mainstream gaming outlets rate much lower. Maybe this is because the mainstream tends to rate them not as a genre but as individual games. If you treat the adventure game as though it exists in a gaming vacuum, separate from the criteria that other genres are routinely judged on, is it any wonder we constantly end up with nothing more than the mundanely average?

Yep, that's my opinion alright. I don't think I'm portraying this opinion as a scene-encompassing fact. It might be a bit of a generalization, sure, if indeed the adventure media treats the adventure game in this way. You hold that it doesn't, I think. I get to why I formed this opinion further along.

I don't want to be part of a user base that considers itself some sort of special needs class. You do a great disservice to anyone outside the scene, who may sometimes call these games as they honestly see them, without what you call "prior knowledge" and what I call "fanboy baggage"

Who may sometimes call these games as they honestly see them...By this I mean if somebody (ie. an Adventure Fan) says that it takes a special kind of understanding of the adventure game (as some have said in the past), as an entity, to offer an honest informed opinion on one. Which to me is akin to applying a handicap before judging a game based on it's merits, as it begins from a point seemingly beyond the need to address the inherent problems repeated in a number of commercial titles (what I see as problems, anyway) because, as far as I see, these genre foibles (as I've referred to them in the past) have been accepted as par-for-the-course. And an adventure fan is indeed doing a disservice to these outside opinions, if they attempt to invalidate them using this particular argument, in my opinion. I'm not saying all adventure media reviews are thus void, just as I'm not saying all outside reviews are thus validated. It's just an opinion based on a theory.

the notion that [...] a systematic difference between two sets of reviews [...] means that either group is doing something wrong is, well, stupid.

Yes. It is. That's why I have a problem with those adventure fans who claim otherwise. I don't think I said a positive scene review vs a negative outside review automatically means someone is misinformed. Just that we might question why, if we choose to rule out personal preference, such situations arise. The whole crux thing again. And the mirror thing too, I guess.

They just like different things.

I honestly don't think it's as simple as differing opinions, when it comes to some adventure fans objections to an outside negative review.

You were clearly associating me with those opinions.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My "you do a disservice" should have really been "one does a disservice", as that's how it was meant, to avoid this misunderstanding.

Now, you could of course argue that the grades are inflated (3 of those 4-star games are Sam & Max titles, which the regular AG reviewer likes quite a lot more than I--for one--do), but among these there seems to be at least a handful of enjoyable games (I haven't heard a bad word against Perry Rhodan, for example). How many full-length adventures does one person consume per year, anyway?

So you agree with me in theory. Only I'm more pessimistic: "...but among these there seems to be at least a handful of average titles, that might pass the time." As to how many I could play, I'd be happy with one game that I could say really impressed me, as opposed to a few that were mundanely passable. Though this is of course a case of horses, courses, potato, tomato, etc.

I've always felt, rather, that the vast back catalogue of classic games, as well as the constant output of AGS titles, is more than enough to keep me occupied from here to eternity.

Which leads us out of "The Problems with Commercial Adventures" and into "Why Rely on Commercial Adventures". I wholeheartedly agree that the amatuer and indie scene gives use a multitude of quality games to play. Which is why the commercial side is largely such a disappointment to me. The past was great, and I could replay games like Full Throttle and Hit the Road, among others, every year or so and still enjoy them. But that doesn't really have any bearing on my problems with current commercial titles, or my opinions regarding why these problems exist. Opinions that you clearly disagree with.

So there you have it. Whether any of this is a fact, an opinion, or just an attack, is up to the individual.

Snarky, you don't seem to like how I choose to interpret, justly or unjustly, my experiences within the scene. It's not something I intend to continue arguing indefinitely, as I also tend to lose track of my reasons for arguing the longer something goes on. I don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference whether you feel I'm being unfair or not, as I've said what I said and people can take whatever they want from it. It's just how I see things, flawed or otherwise.

I apologise to Misj' for helping hijack this thread. Further insanity will be kept to the topic at hand.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Wow, that Tales of Bingwood game is pretty cool, Snarky!  The voices are good (so far), the backgrounds are delicious, and it even uses a standard interface.  The character art isn't all that great, but it's not bad by any means.  Hopefully the full game lets you skip the tutorial though since it's pretty safe to say that people could easily figure out the icons by their appearance.

I might just have to buy it, depending on the cost (looks like the price is right at about 10.30 US).

Edit:  Yay, I bought it! 

[SSH]

I bought Tales of Bingwood a few weeks ago (there's also a demo), and I still have no idea when I'll get around to playing it.

I've played it through and will be writing up my review for AG soon. Beware that there's a patch (v1.01) that fixes a bug in saving games in Vista (i.e. v1.00 can't save your game at all in Vista!)

[GarageGothic]

Personally I found A Vampyre Story quite dull. The jokes didn't make me laugh, gameplay was painfully tedious, and while the idea and setting was interesting, nothing really original or surprising came out of that regurgitation of horror movie cliches and on-the-nose references.  I mean, how hilarious is it that the two policemen are called Bud and Lou?

The idea of adding concepts to the inventory is pretty obvious but nevertheless a welcome addition. However, they totally overuse it, to the extent that items that would make perfect sense to pick up must be retrieved later. And why the hell do we have to see the character retrieving the item? Sure, as ProgZ said you can skip the animations - but you still have to wait for the room to load, which we didn't even need to see - we know that the item is there, why not just have the characters fly offscreen and return with the item?

Another thing that really bothers me is the idea that progress doesn't give new possibilities as much as it just adds more obstacles. For crying out loud, the first half of the game is pretty much an extended "escape my house" puzzle. And every time you think you've succeeded, something gets in the way and adds yet another stage to the same bloody puzzle. This seems to be the trend also in other game genres, for instance shooters like F.E.A.R or the original Half-Life for that matter. Whenever you seem to the brink of escape, something explodes, your helicopter gets shot down, the elevator doors close a second before you get there, and you're sent on yet another expedition through the research complex or whatnot.
There's never any real sense of achievement, you don't feel like you're progressing as much as being redirected. And exactly for this reason, what ultimately convinced me not to buy any of the sequels to A Vampyre Story, was the ending:

Spoiler

Yay, I'm thinking as the carriage with grave dirt speeds down the cemetery hill, we're finally getting away from this bloody place.  I know that this is a series and there won't be any neat conclusion to the plot this time around. But at least I'm heading for the harbor where the ship that will take me to Paris is docked. I start imagining walking the streets of Paris in the sequel, maybe meeting some parodies of Anne Rice's foppish vampires while charming my way into the Paris opera circles. That could be pretty fun. Then, another cutscene, a plot twist, and suddenly - Coming Soon: Further Adventures in Draxylvania. Apparently they can't do a horror parody without also revisiting the Frankenstein/mad scientist stereotype, so no leaving Draxylvania until that's been milked for whatever jokes Mel Brooks didn't already use in Young Frankenstein. Sigh.

[close]

Sam & Max: Night of the Raving Dead was SO much better than this.

[Vel]

Even if I hesitated whether to replay The Last Express or try A Vampyre Story, your post made me choose the former, GG. It's about time adventure games became something else than mundane.

[LimpingFish]

Downloaded Bingwood demo. Never heard of it before. Looks nice. The main characters voice doesn't annoy, which is always a plus. Some of the NPC voices might begin to grate if exposed to them for a long time, but they suit well enough. I liked the tutorial at the beginning, since it managed to sum up everything quite well. Backgrounds were nice too, though the character art is a bit generic. I don't seem to be able to tolerate the old "I can't do that/that won't work" way of telling the player something they are attempting to do can't be done (I tried using the shovel on the lock at the shed, and I would've liked a specific reply, rather than "I can't combine these things") but that's just me being picky. Good use of music, too.

It does seem to be another rescue-the-princess ye olde fantasy affair, with stock character types, but, judging from the demo, it's all very nicely put together.

Comparing the demos, I'd see myself playing this over A Vampyre Story, simply because AVS strikes me as having no arse in it's, admittedly pretty, trousers.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well having bought Bingwood I have to say it's quite reasonably priced, though I will also add that I don't think it's worth any more than what they're charging.  It is a pretty standard fare adventure in all respects, and yeah, the characters are rather drab compared to the backgrounds, but I think the retro charm is something that makes it so appealing to me.  It does very much play like an old 90's adventure game (including the stock interaction replies) and so far I feel it's worth the price. 

The same couldn't be said for my first few minutes with the demo of Vampyre Story and then the entire game.

And yeah, I think the music in Bingwood ranges from brilliant to very Monkey Islandish (especially the music when you're about to do something sneaky, which was a nice touch).

[HillBilly]

Was there ever any good - truly good - adventure game? - Commercial or not...? [...] Curse of Monkey Island is one of my personal favourites, but is it flawless?

Was there ever a flawless game ever? I can't think of one. The ones that actually entertain me are considered mediocre by most.

I bought Tales of Bingwood a few weeks ago (there's also a demo)

Thanks for this. I really like the voice-acting, especially the main character.

On-Topic: I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. Jokes doesn't make me laugh and the main character annoys me. I have no idea why they chose to have shitty 3D-characters instead of 2D art. The character art in the book during the intro had so much more, well, character than the actual game!

[Misj']

I bought Tales of Bingwood a few weeks ago (there's also a demo)

Looked at the demo...threw it away again after a few minutes. Definitely not my kind of game. But then again,  I don't like retro graphics, so that should have been a hint. I got bored quite soon so I stopped playing. Decided to give it another go, found that I couldn't skip the annoying (and unfunny) intro-dream-sequence (since I hadn't saved), and decided that I wouldn't play it if it were free, so let alone if I had to pay money for it. I'll stick to a Vampyre Story...at least I find that amusing and wanting me to continue playing (apparently I'm one of the few people here who does). This I just wanted to remove from my computer as soon as possible.

To everyone his own taste.

Ps. Had I listened to the people here I might have decided that aVS would have been a waste of money, and I would not have been playing it right now...well...now that would have been a real waste.

[Frodo]

Just tried the demo.

The demo itself is okay - not great, just okay.  I like the 'remember things for later' idea, and the puzzle was quite clever. 
Her vampire strength was mentioned before.  If she can pull the cart, why can't she break the door. 

But her high-pitched, squeaky voice is SO irritating.