Few days ago I went to a game store and asked for the adventure games shelves. The guy offered me games like "Tomb Rider", "Larry 8: Magna Cum Laude" and other similar games. Then I asked for a Black Mirror 1. And he said: "Ooh you mean "classic adventure games". That term "classic" is sending my favorite games in the past.
I think that in nowadays the term "game" is different. Today people understand "the game" as "jumping", "running", "shooting", "driving" and etc. All these actions are far from the "games" that we all like. And I think that we are losing from the fact that our projects are called "games".
What we do when we play a classic adventure game? We read, we think, we enjoy the atmosphere. We go to another world. Just like the book readers do.
So isn't it better the term "classic adventure game" to be changed for example to "interactive story" or something like this? Because in nowadays for the gamers we are "in the past", but for the book readers we can be "a future".
Ps: Sorry for my bad english or for the sassy idea :)
Well Tomb Raider games are "adventure" games, they've been called that forever - albeit often under the name "Action adventure".
However, you roll through caves, shoot wolves and find treasure - that's pretty much an adventure by the book. They also have puzzles in them. The genre also includes "survival horror" like Resident Evil and Alone in the Dark games, and a whole bunch of other genres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action-adventure_game#Sub-genres).
You probably need to specify "point and click" or "graphical interactive fiction" (although this one is a bit out there, really). "Adventure" is a very broad term, and can encompass a huge range of styles.
The question is: "How the term game is related to the games that we all like?". Try to offer your favorite classic adventure game to a kid. The kid will say "This is not a game" :)
I like running and jumping and driving...
I was surprised and a little pleased to see Skyrim described as an ambitious 'adventure game' on the posters which are all over the London Underground at the moment. And I think the term is probably appropriate. You talk to characters, they give you a quest, you try to complete the quest. That sounds like an adventure to me.
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 09:45:04
The question is: "How the term game is related to the games that we all like?". Try to offer your favorite classic adventure game to a kid. The kid will say "This is not a game" :)
I don't have a kid to test it on, but I'm not sure.
Casual puzzle games, Professor Layton and his ilk and the expanding platforms for indie games mean that kids today probably have a much broader idea of what makes a video game than we did in the 80s and 90s. If that marginalises adventure games a bit, it's not so bad. They're still being produced and played.
It's certainly not as bad as the turn of the century when a game struggled to get published if it didn't have blocky 3d graphics and guns.
Fun fact: According to some wiki entries "adventure games" are not adventurous at all: In "classic" interactive fiction and point-and-click you get a story which may be adventurous, but the gameplay is slow, usually not time-critical, so while Graham and Guybrush will go through dangerous and "adventurey" situation, you as the player don't. All you do is think and click a bit.
As for Tomb Raider, Skyrim and the like: I think the "classic adventure game" has simply been absorbed into all sorts of other genres, and these days a "modern player" who doesn't know about the old classics MUST think that Lara's acrobatics are the epitome of adventure gaming: TR has been around for a while, it has the setting and it has the action for both protagonist and player. Two generations from today, who knows where "common knowledge" will see the origins. Heck, Uncharted and Arcam Asylum, that's some fine adventures! But not classic adventure games (well... "use Batarang on froody clown thug" doesn't sound that bad...)
I like the term Interactive Story a lot- it describes what I think of as adventure games very well. Fixed plot, pretty much on rails, but I set my own pace and can try to stray a little from the path. That's what I'd call classic and what I find in our game pages. But even "our" classic AGS games have started to change. A couple of years ago SCUMM was the thing to have; these days we see more BASS-style interfaces; genres that were strong a couple of years ago are now seldom used. It's a funny thing, time. It can change a lot ;)
Interesting. I'd certainly ask for "point and click adventures" in a games shop, although in GAME I know they would just laugh at me, or point me to a bunch of hidden object games. Adventure is definitely too broad, action-adventure certainly says to me a game like Tomb Raider. "Classic adventure" is a cool way to define them, but I'd assume most people would just see that as a popular adventure game from yesteryear (which could include Tomb Raider etc). Interesting topic though. I guess it's like asking for a burger at MacDonalds, you kind of need to be more specific - single, big mac, bacon cheeseburger, etc. Only kids could consider adventure/point and clicks to NOT be games... Oh and me, if someone's talking about IF :P
Check out Dave Gilbert's post in his nygamedev blog: http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2011/11/graphics-and-budget.html
It's about graphics and budget.
I was shocked by some of the comments that he received:
"Wow - are the graphics really as bad as those screenshots depict?"
"I couldn't stand playing this for even 10 minutes ... the graphics are terrible! Looks like it was written over 20 years ago."
"It is like giving yourself crossed eyes for the fun of it. HORRID. My eye sight is still blurry."
"I can't see a game developer releasing a game that looks this bad and is so hard on the eyes"
"HORRIBLE!!!! I wouldn't take this game if it were FREE." .
Why is this happening? Are these comments comming from classic adventure games fans? I don't think so. And of course we don't care if they don't like classic adventure games. But these comments are ugly thing.
I don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people. They are giving their comments, because we say that we create "games". No! We create stories!
True, but we occasionally hear people on this forum say "3D graphics are always ugly and terrible". Which is equally ridiculous, if less unkind.
The fact that Dave Gilbert is making a living from un-flashy narrative-based adventure games is a sign that adventure games have a higher profile now than they had when I joined the AGS forums and played 'Bestowers of Eternity'. They're still the underdog, but what does that matter?
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 11:07:33
I don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people.
People will judge, and we can't stop them. Surely we'd do better by trying to engage with people who share our interests? Dave Gilbert's article was about just that, the fact that he was wasting money by not focusing on what his fans wanted most.
I found this to be a very insightful and thought provoking thread. I just added a post about it to the AGS Blog.
I think those graphics are simply gorgeous, and that Iliya is right... The people judging the games are not the audience we have in mind when we create them. It is, however unfortunate, a necessary evil. The games are games, and there are gamers who think the be all, end all of gaming is throwing a grenade into a bunch of toons, screaming profanity and griefing others. If the graphics don't look like reality, it is crap. We just shake it off and move on. As long as the people who want to play these kinds of games find and play them, that is all we can ask.
-Bill
It strikes me that players appreciating low resolution graphics is much like people still enjoying Ray Harryhausen's amazing stop-motion animation in the age of amazing computer visuals. Sure, they're not as advanced and in a way don't look as "good" as CGI, but there's an amazing artistry to Harryhausen's work that goes far beyond its the simple visual impact of the animation itself.
I think "adventure games" is a term understood very differently by adventure game fans (ie the AGS community) and the more mainstream / hardcore game players (who mainly seem to like blowing things up :o). "Classic adventure games" tends to make me think of late 80s / early 90s adventure games. But again "classic" is such a subjective term - I would say that TellTale's Sam & Max adventure games are classics, but they're not all that old. Also, where does, for instance, adventure end and action adventure / arcade adventure start? What about RPGs, which often have similar elements to adventure games?
Game developers have been having a lot of fun mixing up genres in the last decade, so perhaps genre classification is itself outdated?
Well wasn't the term coined when the other games were basically either shooters, fighter games, racing games etc. The range and mix of genres and gameplay (and the fact that you can put more stuff in games, in fact it's expected) has grown over the years. It has grown so much that you actually can "adventure" like for example a shooter like say Dead space or even Mass effect do offer adventure (an even in terms of solving puzzles, story, dialog choosing) but also shooting action and some rpg elements.
There's just too many stuff these days that you can put in a single game that I think the term "adventure" has rightfully been made obsolete and just kind of entered the original dictionary definition, like mentioned Skyrim, it will actually offer a world, action, story, hero's journey etc. which makes it and adventure...maybe action adventure to be specific.
Maybe "point-and-click (even though it is not perfect) adventure game" might be a more suitable description these days.
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 11:07:33
I was shocked by some of the comments that he received:
"Wow - are the graphics really as bad as those screenshots depict?"
"I couldn't stand playing this for even 10 minutes ... the graphics are terrible! Looks like it was written over 20 years ago."
"It is like giving yourself crossed eyes for the fun of it. HORRID. My eye sight is still blurry."
"I can't see a game developer releasing a game that looks this bad and is so hard on the eyes"
"HORRIBLE!!!! I wouldn't take this game if it were FREE." .
Why is this happening? Are these comments comming from classic adventure games fans? I don't think so. And of course we don't care if they don't like classic adventure games. But these comments are ugly thing.
No great mystery there. The comments are from people who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art.
QuoteI don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people. They are giving their comments, because we say that we create "games". No! We create stories!
First of all, you create games. Games with stories. Second, complaints about the graphics have nothing to do with whether you call them "games" or "stories."
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 09/11/2011 12:25:04
First of all, you create games. Games with stories. Second, complaints about the graphics have nothing to do with whether you call them "games" or "stories."
Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books. They download games. And when they download our games the conflict starts. There is no author who wants to read comments like these.
The problem is that the definition of the term "computer game" has changed.
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 12:31:47
Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books.
I find that statement to be as nonsensical as, for example: "People who don't like Jazz music don't go to sporting events or the gym."
There is no reason to assume that an appreciation for retro-style graphics has anything to do with enjoying stories, or even story-based games (except to the extent that people now in their 30s and older who have been playing story-based games since childhood probably have fond memories of games with pixel graphics, though that doesn't mean they would necessarily appreciate similar graphics today).
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 09/11/2011 12:52:39
I find that statement to be as nonsensical as, for example: "People who don't like Jazz music don't go to sporting events or the gym."
I'm sorry, Snarky. My English is not very good. In my native language the statement is not nonsensual. But nevermind. I'm just giving an example how to get rid of those ugly comments from people who play other type of games. I think that we should stress on the term "story" not "game". For example: XXX Quest: An Interactive Adventure Story :)
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 12:31:47
Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books. They download games. And when they download our games the conflict starts. There is no author who wants to read comments like these.
The problem is that the definition of the term "computer game" has changed.
I think this is a little naive. Retro styled graphics do have a niche appeal, and there is a cutoff point for people as to how primitive they can stand graphics to be. Even though I love old graphics, I'd have to say that if someone released a game with Atari 2600 level graphics, I wouldn't appreciate it properly.
For some people, low resolution graphics are something that they can't get into. The fact that the pixels are as big as your head breaks their immersion from the game and stops them from enjoying the narrative since they're not used to playing like that. People who grew up with low resolution graphics can go upward to higher resolutions without a problem, but you can't expect people to go backwards before their time. Could you, for example, play an adventure game with NES quality graphics? Dithered Hercules graphics? Atari 2600? It would be harder, and out of your comfort zone (presumably), especially if it was a modern release.
Low resolution stuff has nothing,
nothing to do with story. (I love to play platformers with low res, low colour graphics!) You don't magically get a better story if you half the number of pixels on the screen. People will still complain, just like people complain about black and white films not being in colour. Films are stories and they still get bashed on sometimes. Imagine watching a film with early CGI effects released nowadays. Regardless of what the story was, people will still go "Huh? What is this? Why bad CGI?".
Scavenger, that is a VERY good point in my opinion.
I never thought about it, but I guess it is a forward and backward compatibility question. I have no problem playing games with SVGA graphics, and if the reviews are good enough, I'll go back to EGA even. But beyond that, I just don't bother. It does pull from the game experience if the graphics are too bare boned.
I went back a while ago and replayed all my favorite point-and-click games of my childhood, Space Quests, Kings Quests, Quest for Glories, Police Quests, etc, and even the old EGA versions were amazingly fun because of nostalgia. I remember being a 8-10 year old kid in the mid 1980s and LOVING those games. But playing new content with 4-8 colors, well... Probably not, since it isn't like visiting an old friend as the old Sierra titles are.
-Bill
If I can make sense of what you're saying, Iliya, it seems to be that "gamers" as a market are hostile to adventure games, but that "story fans" would enjoy them, so we should try to target them to a story-oriented audience, for example to readers.
I don't think any of that is necessarily true. Certainly there's an extent to which non-traditional gamers can be interested in adventure games by emphasizing the story, for example science fiction games to science fiction readers, or mystery games to mystery readers. And I think Wadjet Eye specifically has in fact tried to look beyond the traditional gamer markets. But let's not underestimate the barrier that a change in medium represents; probably many of those readers aren't even interested in comics within their preferred genre, and that's a much smaller leap than the switch from written narrative to graphic interaction.
And there clearly is a gamer market for low-resolution adventure games. The success of titles like Gemini Rue and The Blackwell Deception demonstrates that. Within the indie-gaming niche (and the indie-adventure niche), there's probably a pretty high level of appreciation for retro graphics, while in the wider market you have a large group of people who don't see any merit to that art style at all.
But even if you were able to exchange the gamer audience for a "story audience," I don't see why that would change. You're assuming that people who have little experience with computer games would be more positive to graphics that look like they're from 20 years ago, but unless they are completely unaware of the increase in computer graphics capabilities in the last 20 years, that doesn't sound plausible to me. They certainly wouldn't understand the nostalgia factor or likely appreciate pixel art for its own sake.
Regarding the term "adventure game" - strangely enough, in Russia the term "Quest"(or "kvest" if you want the correct pronounciation ;D) is more common, and it's used to describe specifically "classic" adventure games. And they have their own shelf in the stores, usually next to the casual games and audio books. So, at least here, they are definitely already targeted at a different audience than the mainstream action games.
But they are still games, maybe much more passive, but games. Monopoly is a game too, even though it's not as action-oriented as, for example, football. :D And although the story is a big part of adventure games, interaction is what defines them. And what is more interactive than pointing and clicking? :)
I'd also have to agree with Snarky that low-res graphics might be even a bigger turn-off for the non-gaming, story-oriented audience, than for the hardcore gamers. Indie-gamers as a rule love pixels, book readers don't. I wouldn't write off the appeal of low-res graphics purely on nostalgia, but it's sort of an acquired taste. Personally, I dislike high-res adventure games - they usually seem lifeless, static and empty to me, and I hated the Special edition of Monkey Island, but that's almost exactly the same thing as hating the low-res pixelly stuff, only the other way around. It's just a matter of taste. :)
Calling adventure games "quests" doesn't feel strange to me. "Quest" and "adventure game" as the genre's names share the same history.
Quote from: Ilyich on Wed 09/11/2011 15:29:47
And they have their own shelf in the stores, usually next to the casual games and audio books.
Pretty similar situation in Poland and Germany. Though here in Poland casual games and audio books never got very popular enough in retail, so usually you either get an adventure game or nothing cool at all. :)
"Interactive Story" would be a somewhat troublesome name to use, because it is already in use for something else...those....errr......experiences (I guess you can't always call them games), where you have a story going (usually through video or animation or something), and then it stops at certain points, requiring you to click, or maybe make a story-forking dialogue choice or something...my father got me two of those (I think they were some Batman and some Aquaman story thingos) when I was a kid and they were....somewhat disappointing for me :D.
I would also say that the graphics don't REALLY have anything to do with the story, although I agree with Scavvy on that point that people have a cut-off point (usually dictated by what era they grew up in :D). I enjoy good VGA pixel-art in many games, but...stuff older than that (like some of the AGI games that were made), are....troublesome for me to plod through, although I can appreciate the artwork.
I would suspect that the sort of people who made those comments would probably be...fairly young (again going with the graphical cut-off thing). Possibly having parents who are victim to (or are victims themselves to) the idea that "game" means "something for a young person to play"- while I am pretty sure you'd want to be....I dunno...at least a late teenager to properly and fully enjoy Dave's games?
Many (non-advanture) games back when didn't focus on the story at all, thus the classification was kinda important. I am happy that most genres (I've even seen storyish racers :D) today take that lesson from adventure games- so I am happy when I see the "adventure" label attached to such stuff...it means (if it was properly applied), I am in for a more immersive experience.
I just thought of something....Can someone think of an adventure game that WASN'T story driven? Or to put it better, one where the story was non-existent, or played no significant part (like those old platformers that may have had some words in the manual about the backstory, but never really needed to do more than that)?
As a separate point to most of this thread, I find it sad that 2D art has somewhat fallen out of favour as part of the "new technology craze" in games, except for in niche markets, especially now that mobile phones are getting more and more powerful so that they will soon not need to be restricted to it. There is vectory/flash type art, but that is about it, and that most of the time seems to be used as an excuse to make "easy" art that can be quickly animated. It doesn't have to be "pixel-art" either, of course- it would've been nice to see 2D art that takes advantage of or advances along with technology (like how Trine was, although I think it used 3D graphics)- but I guess most graphics cards are optimised for 3D graphics? I brought this up in a conversation I had with Nemo in IRC, comparing it to the stylistic use of black and white film in movies still used today.
EDIT: DAMNATION, HELL AND MAJOR IRRITATION! It seems I have severely atrophied as a writer...I keep using the exact same phrases again and again, and the same words several times, even sometimes within the same sentence :(. I keep going back and edited out an "although" and replacing it with something else, and even after all these years, WHY ARE MY ELLIPSES STILL SO NUMEROUS?!
...Sorry (DAMN!), had to vent.
I find it pretty annoying to see that HOG games are listed as adventure games.... >:(
And yet they're closer in play style to 'classic point and clicks' than a lot of the more entertaining spiritual successors of the old adventure games.
Maybe we should just leave genre-labelling to the marketing teams and play what we like playing.
Concerning graphics, that actually is a sore point for me. People are forgetting that "classic point-and-click-adventures" paved the path for a lot of the graphic capabilities we have today. It's quite depressing that adventure games were once THE cutting edge, the most resource-hungry and advanced games around... that they have to take flak these days because their makers stick to old school really is strange.
I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:
(http://i.imgur.com/4cR6P.jpg)
without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".
That's a perfectly nice backdrop, but I must say I don't find it beautiful. I'm not sure adventure games really paved the way for today's graphical capabilities (except insofar as 'graphics' is a capability). Today's graphical capabilities are built on 3D, and adventure games did not really pave the way for 3D.
I also think cutting-edgeness is irrelevant. In 2003 when I joined these forums, we all thought 2D was dead and that you couldn't make adventure games in 3D. Since then I've played dozens of independent adventure games in 2D and 3D. Some of them with as much style and atmosphere as this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Sm3Ofl.jpg)
I'm surprised at the resentment a lot of you seem to feel about this issue. As far as I'm concerned, we're living in a golden age for adventure games! The internet has allowed small developers to make high-quality games to delight and entertain people like us. I'm not conscious of adventure games being looked down upon or their designers taking flak, probably because it's not relevant to my enjoyment of niche games.
I also think we ought not to put 'classic' adventure games on too high a pedestal. Among them there are many instances of ugly graphics, poor writing and bad design.
Quote from: Ali on Thu 10/11/2011 00:44:29
I'm not sure adventure games really paved the way for today's graphical capabilities (except insofar as 'graphics' is a capability). Today's graphical capabilities are built on 3D, and adventure games did not really pave the way for 3D.
I may have been generalizing a bit there, but I think the point is valid: They were among the first games that would actually convince people to buy new hardware to play them, and were a huge motivational factor for people to think of getting even better graphics. So yes, Larry Laffer is NOT responsible for us being able to play Crysis... but still.
I think what I'm trying to get to is that it's very mean of youngsters to dis the games I once loved. I feel I should wriggle my creaking finger at them, or maybe wave my stick. 320x240 graphics are a medium. I can make very bad graphics in that resolution, or very nice ones. Just dismissing the stuff because it's no longer a STANDARD, that's what nags me.
Just wanted to make that clear- on with the actual discussion! ;)
See Ali, that photo you show looks really sterile and unimaginative to me, while Ghost's is colorful, vibrant, and engaging.
I will just make a quick point about graphics AND adventure games: Far more people find them accessible and fun than any of you realize. I've received more encouraging, positive comments and emails about the most retro of my adventure games (c-64 style, no less!) on sites like tigsource and many others who cater to a very broad spectrum of gamers than I have received here, or indeed, from any self-proclaimed 'purist' adventure game sites.
It's something for you to think about, and maybe it comes down to your perceptions getting in the way of the truth.
A fun, accessible game, I have learned, still remains a fun, accessible game. You just have to know how to advertise your product and open minds to give it a try.
Want proof? Check out some of the wildly successful RPGMAKER games out there that sell like hotcakes, and many of them use baked artwork!
I think Progz has posted a really well said opinion, and extremely versatile. I completely agree with the first part, though the rest of his post finds me a bit maneuvering in the dark.
I think mostly people judge on 3d graphics. 3d graphics beat anything. Also most people like Farmville, why do you even care on most people in the first place.
Quote from: Ghost on Thu 10/11/2011 00:26:32
I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:
without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".
*loves Ghost*
Quote from: qptain Nemo on Thu 10/11/2011 10:10:05
Quote from: Ghost on Thu 10/11/2011 00:26:32
I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:
without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".
*loves Ghost*
I literally expected this reaction <3 <3 <3.
I don't understand why this adventure game debate is centered around graphics. Do I enjoy lowres pixel games? Yes! Do I enjoy highres games? Yes! If I had to choose between those two screenshots I'd probably choose Machinarium even though the other one has sheep and I love sheep (but I'm severly put off by those medieval fantasy settings). I absolutely loved the rich and detailed backgrounds of Whispered World but also the backgrounds of FOA or FOY. Beautiful graphics are beautiful graphics, no matter which style is used. Take a painting by van Gogh and one by Jan Brueghel - there is no better style, just different preferences.
Does the graphic make a lot of difference gameplay-wise? I'd say no. So my suggestion for the genre naming conflict would be "Point and click adventures" like mentioned before.
Quote from: cat on Thu 10/11/2011 13:35:06
I don't understand why this adventure game debate is centered around graphics.
I think that's mostly because games are so often rated by their graphics. Some people will really say things like "This looks blocky and not at all like EyeCandy2000, so it MUST BE A BAD GAME." It's a stupid thing to say, but there we are.
You are absolutely right in saying that graphics have no impact on game mechanics. Day of the Tentacle would still play like a traditional point-and-click if it was remade in a modern graphic's engine. But such a makeover could be a selling argument, together with the fact that it would play on modern hardware without the need for ScummVM.
Quote from: Ghost on Thu 10/11/2011 13:43:21
I think that's mostly because games are so often rated by their graphics. Some people will really say things like "This looks blocky and not at all like EyeCandy2000, so it MUST BE A BAD GAME." It's a stupid thing to say, but there we are.
Graphics are an important part of Point&Click AGs. Otherwise it would be just IF. You can't blame people for not liking a certain style. Of course, they could choose not-offensive words to express their opinion about a game, but hey - there are always a lot of a**h***s around...
QuoteImagine watching a film with early CGI effects released nowadays. Regardless of what the story was, people will still go "Huh? What is this? Why bad CGI?".
Y THEY NO USE BETTER CGI!?! SHITTY! *spit*
IMHO, I'd like to see them stay as far away from any sort of CGI at all. But that's just me.
/me goes to play
Pitfall II: Lost Caverns
Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 10/11/2011 02:43:18
See Ali, that photo you show looks really sterile and unimaginative to me, while Ghost's is colorful, vibrant, and engaging.
I will just make a quick point about graphics AND adventure games: Far more people find them accessible and fun than any of you realize.
I agree completely! (Apart from the bit about me being wrong.) What I was trying to draw attention to was a touch of persecution complex on our part, but you made the point in a less contentious way.
First off, thanks for plugging my blog. :)
Just a quick disclaimer: I wrote the article to explain why I made the choices I did, as they pertain to my particular needs and experience. I wasn't dissing "nice" graphics, or even advocating not putting effort into graphics at all. Art is definitely important in adventure games, but gameplay and narrative are also important so you need to strike a balance between the three.
Being an indie with limited means, I have to make choices about where to direct my time, energy and money. By putting more effort into the graphics (for Convergence), I put less effort into the actual game and it suffered for it. The same reviews that praise Convergence's graphics also say that the gameplay was very weak, and I agree. The graphics and narrative were strong, but I failed to create a compelling game. That's why the game didn't sell as well as it could have. Not because a lot of gamers get turned off by pixel art (although that's a factor). It was a lesson I haven't forgotten. As progz said: gameplay trumps graphics, but graphics can't be ignored entirely.
My hypothesis is that for a given adventure game (with VGA-style graphics), the relationship of art quality to sales is almost the opposite of an S-curve: it stays low for a bit (graphics that are too crappy to be acceptable to the indie-adventure audience), then once they become "good enough" it rises to a plateau where any additional improvement has only a small effect on sales, until (perhaps!) at the very right-hand end where they become beautiful enough to attract retro-gamer and pixel-art fans for their own sake, almost irrespective of the quality of the gameplay, so you see an additional jump.
For example, you probably couldn't have sold a game that looked like Bestowers of Eternity and expected it to do as well as the other Blackwell titles, no matter how good the gameplay was. But apparently Blackwell Unbound and The Blackwell Convergence both fall in that range of "good (enough)" graphics, where most people who would ever buy a 320x200 adventure game are satisfied with how they look, and are willing to buy if the gameplay is any good.
To blow the graphics question out of the water, I just saw this recent article where 1,000 game developers were asked what their favorite games were. Third place is certainly worth taking note of :D
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114127-Game-Devs-Vote-Baldurs-Gate-Best-Game-of-All-Time
What devs find nice and what players find nice are, unfortunately, two very different things. :(
But when those people are outdated by the lastest tech themselves, they will be more likely to try retro games. It's just technology naivity, IMO. The same with films, and food etc - you open up to different things after a while. When you appreciate/understand how it works you become more responsive to it. That or everyone is doomed, because whatever we play at a younger age defines what we'll like in terms of games for the rest of eternity..
Quote from: Iliya on Wed 09/11/2011 09:22:34
So isn't it better the term "classic adventure game" to be changed for example to "interactive story" or something like this? Because in nowadays for the gamers we are "in the past", but for the book readers we can be "a future".
I'm not so keen on "interactive story". I think it has the reputation (in my little head at least) of being ironically mainly non-interactive, and there has been the perception that adding story kills gameplay because it can only be done with cutscenes - which is obviously nonsense. That's mainly why I like (point and click) adventure games: they bleed story from every pore without even trying :)
I tend to just call them "adventure games", but when people look at me confused I call them "point and click adventure games" to distinguish them from "action adventures" like Tombraider. I still have a hard time explaining them to anyone who hasn't played any of the classic 2D adventures though, and not much luck finding them in stores except as bargain titles buried under all the Hidden Object Games. Not so keen on those tbh, although they do look lovely. There is definitely cross over: I loved games like Oblivion and Mass Effect 2 which I consider "action adventures" rather than RPGs as they're described.
Quote from: Ghost on Thu 10/11/2011 00:26:32
I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!"
Drool...
Quote from: Ali on Thu 10/11/2011 00:44:29
As far as I'm concerned, we're living in a golden age for adventure games! The internet has allowed small developers to make high-quality games to delight and entertain people like us.
Absolutely! I'm a relative newcomer to adventure games so I still have a lot of classics to catch up on, but it seems we're swimming in new offerings these days. My tastes have changed - I barely look at mainstream titles these days - but i'm not exactly short of new experiences to enjoy.
Personally I don't think graphics matter so much. I'll happily play blocky low-res titles if the concept appeals. The indie scene seems to be doing very well with low-res graphics imho.
Quote from: Babar on Wed 09/11/2011 16:53:49
and even after all these years, WHY ARE MY ELLIPSES STILL SO NUMEROUS?!
Haha, i'm still trying to kick my addiction to commas..