how much time do YOU spend?

[Captain Mostly]

Now you see, I think this is another area where we're going wrong!

gameplay ALWAYS comes first, you can't help it!

The only reason it might feel like we think about the graphics and plot before gameplay is because gameplay is pretty much handed to us on a plate. AGS is an adventure game maker, with standard interfaces, which is why it's so good when you start to make games!

Perhaps this is why there's so little innovation... Because people don't think of game-play as the fundamental underpinning factor in adventure games. It's ALL about the game-play. I can't HELP being about the game play. Sure, in an adventure game, the line between gameplay and plot is somewhat blurry, but that doesn't mean that the way an adventure game plays doesn't make most immediate impact of the game, second only to the graphics.

Also, it seems stupid that in a community that (quite justifiably) considers pleughburg one of it's crowning glories, can graphics REALLY be that important to a game? I don't want to slag P:DA off, but it didn't exactly have sophisticated visuals.  

So how come graphics come before game-play?


anyway, this thead is looking dangerously like me ranting AT people about how origionality is a good thing, when clearly none of you think so (certainly not to the extent where you would agree that promoting it is worth while) so I'm going to try and stop posting here, before anyone interprets something I've said as "offencive" again.

if the output of AGS is gonna' stay the way it is forever, it's no catastrohpy. People will still be making good games with it. I just thought it'd be nice to encourage a little bit of origionality. (for which, incidently, I don't think it's neccessary to have "mastered" regular game development because, in the words of  Shunryu Suzuki: "In the begginer's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few")

[DGMacphee]

Innovation is easy, which is why we talk about it so much, but implementing it is hard, especially when it's a genre like adventures that require so much work in plot and graphics before you even start the gameplay.

And not to mention the fact that adventure games are supposedly the "dying genre" (Personally, I don't buy it -- genres go in an out of fashion, but it sure is a disheartening thing for this community to hear time and time again -- but I think they'll bounce back very soon)


Capt Mostly:

Even if it's a rant, people here will still respect your opinion.

I very much agree with you comments on graphics vs gameplay.

I also believe that gameplay and plot are very closely linked in adventure games because the progress of the gameplay relies upon the advancement of the narrative through interaction (also the different choices of interaction within a "branching narrative").

This is what separates adventures from games like Doom (where the gameplay relies upon shooting targets, rather than plot) or Command and Conquer (where the gameplay relies upon strategy, as opposed to plot).

As for originality, Eugene Delacroix said, "Newness is in the mind of the artist who creates, and not in the object he portrays".

What I believe he means is this: Even though most of everything in the world is not really original (more so, just an advancement upon a previous advancement), we are constantly discovering originality within ourselves.

Our portrayal of this perspective adds to our multi-faceted global society -- and our ability to see this perspective brings a newness within ourselves.

For example, I'm writing Dark Hero using the theories of film writing to experiement and see if they fit with a game structure that works.

So far my testing shows that it does work, and hopefully I'll have the finished project out by this year.

However, I saw these techniques used with Grim Fandango, which had a very film-like quality to it (especially in the noirish style).

I realised why I liked Grim Fandango so much and sent out to emulate it used the techniques from film writing books.

It may not be a new concept to adventure game making as a whole (cause Grim Fandango has done it), but I have never done anything like it.

That's why I make adventure games at the moment -- not because I want to be a technical innovator and redefine the genre, but because I want to discover and my perspective on certain techniques.

This will give me the needed experience to put my ideas into practice.

When I am ready and I've gained the experience, then I'll do something different.

However, right now I'm still a beginner.

Yes, in the beginner's mind there are endless possibilities.

However, a beginner is not ready for those possibilities -- there are still a great many things to learn, which is why he's a beginner in the first place.

However, an expert is an expert because he has learnt what he can and achieved his possibilities -- and is totally comfortable with that -- and that's why we call him an 'expert'.

Note that last bit: "and is totally comfortable with that" -- In my opinion, if someone is still uncomfortable despite learning and achieving possibilities, they're not an expert yet.

They still need to overcome that lack of comfort by facing it -- which leads to achieving and learning more.

It is this transition of creation that teaches us new things, which in turn moves us from beginner to expert.

However, this is just my opinion (and it's too damn long) -- I think I'll just reply here using one or two sentences from now on.

[Las Naranjas]

Also talke note that several of us are taking into account the impacts of games not as games but as interactive literature, and how that has it's more affective than other interactive material like choose your own adventures.

But perhaps that's because we're viewing Adventure Games as games whose gameplay is brought out of the story, so one cannot be before the other because they are one and the same.


But anyway, that's how I'd see innovation going, in the exploitation of the genre as a possible art form. As games, changes will be cosmetic unless they're just post modern genre blurrings, most of which have been attempted and can't be called innovation.
And in terms of attacking Adventures for not developing, what genre is developing, besides greater ploy counts. Most Genres seem to be like the internal combustion engine. Sure it looks prettier and runs better, but the intrinsic concept has been the same for decades.

If they can't innovate with the market forces we are told stimulate change and millions, how the hell can a student do it when he is serving only a small clique and personal interest.