Adventure Game Studio

We've always been fan-friendly through our magazine, The Inventory (http://www.justadventure.com/TheInventory/TheInventory.shtm) and be sure that we will continue to do so. I would appreciate it if you guys pointed out some fan-made adventures that you think are worth covering in a magazine with mass appeal.

We are mostly interested in games that have professional graphics - to give you an idea of what I mean with professional, some of the fan-made adventures that we have already covered are KQ2, Ozzie, Space Quest Prequels, Indy Foy, KQ9 and Space Quest 7- and that are quite long (i.e. we wouldn't be interested in an adventure that can be finished in half an hour) with a good gameplay and a descent interface.

You can mention both adventures that have been completed and that are 'under development'. Thanks.

Awww Dimi come on. You can't just judge games by their graphics.

m0ds

Quote from: m0ds on Wed 01/10/2003 00:41:51
Awww Dimi come on. You can't just judge games by their graphics.

You definitely can't judge a game solely on its graphics, but in my opinion it is a decisive factor on whether a game is good or not. Otherwise there would be no reason to try and create as better graphics as possible. I know many people have a personal preference when it comes to which one of a game's characteristics will play the most important role for deciding whether a game is good or not. Some will say that if the story's good, they don't mind some bad puzzles. Others say that if the puzzles are good, why do you need a good story. Some people will say that if the graphics are not good they are not even going to touch a game.

On The Inventory, when we review games, we use the following formula for coming up with the 'overall' final grade for a game

(Story x 2 + Gameplay x 2 + Graphics + Music) / 6 = Overall

With this formula we do give story and gameplay a higher importance than graphics and music, but at the same time we do not rule out music and graphics from the overall grade of the game. Now why would we want to show preference to fan made adventures with good graphics?

A) Because we can only cover X games each month on The Inventory out of Y games that exist out there. Making good graphics to accompany your game is a process that requires a lot of hard work. Especially when it comes to people who undergo such projects with no budget at all. So if we have to choose from the Y we might as well choose the X ones that are putting more effort in their projects.

B) Because we want to show through The Inventory that fan made games are as good as commercial ones. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but some people out there might disregard the whole fan-scene because they played one or two fan made adventures that were not exacly top notch. And let's not hide behind our own fingers... not all fan-made adventures are really good enough to compete with the commercial ones (recent or older ones). I think in order to promote the fan scene we have to highlight its best first of all.

I don't mean to offend the rest who create games that don't have the state-of-the-art graphics. I am sure it takes a lot of time and hard work to create those games as well, and I admire all the fans out there for spending that time. But in the end, we will have to choose and we have to choose the best. And Mark, feel free to write about any fan-made adventure you want in the Talking Dead article regardless of their graphics  ;) . I am talking more about interviews-long previews coverage.

A) Making good graphics to accompany your game is a process that requires different amounts of work depending on your background in art. I think it's safe to assume that, say, Igor can probably come up with some spectacular art in about a hundredth of the time it would take, oh, me for example.

B) People who will disregard every game based on one or two games aren't worth my time and effort as a designer of free games. Not all fan-made adventures are trying to compete with commercial games (recent or older). In order to promote the fan scene we need to show people that games can be good beyond certain expectations, be it graphically or otherwise.

Let's put it this way, Little Willy is young and used to the current crop of games. The fancy high res good graphics kind. Should he write off Monkey Island because the graphics are no good according to what he's used to?

What a shame.

dimi

Though you gotta come to an understanding that we are not trying to prove anything to anyone. I think most of us are here cause we like adventure games and like to see them continue since the gaming industry doesn't care much about them.

And assuming games with better graphics means the designer worked harder is dancing on the border of an insult. Scripting alone takes a hell of a lot more work then gets credited in many cases..

"we want to show through The Inventory that fan made games are as good as commercial ones"

I agree that "fan made games" are good but to compare them to commercial games seems wrong.

"I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but some people out there might disregard the whole fan-scene because they played one or two fan made adventures"

So why on Earth would we want a person who disregards things without giving them a chance hanging around?

Like I said before I and I hope nobody here is out to prove anything. I can't agree with recommending any games with the intentions you seem to have with them...with that in mind..

'Lassi Quest' is a great game you should definetly check out in consideration...

I agree to an extent to what dimi is saying. It is the games with good graphics that catch the eye of the reader in magagazines. Thats cool, but i think everyone agrees that it is the story and gameplay that are more important.

Take Phleahberg (however you spell it). Its a great game. One of the best in AGS, but its graphics don't really stand up to commercial games. But i love that game, and am looking foreward to the sequel.

So yeah, if you look in the Critics Lounge, there are a lot of promising artists out there. I can't really think of any recent game with great graphics and everything at the moment cos i havnt had time to download them. At least the graphics you seem to be wanting. Appretice is a great game with good graphics, but it is pretty short.

Just a suggestion. Maybe you could have a section in the inventory just fo amature games or something. You know the short but good ones. I don't know, you seem to have a lot to do already, so maybe that isn't a good idea.

Oh well, keep up the good work on The Inventory. I'm looking foreward to it. Its good to hear how adventure games are doing commecially.

Graphics really are just a measure of the technological standards for games -- better graphics don't actually contribute to the game.

Look at early adventure games such as Maniac Mansion, KQ1, etc -- They have shitty graphics yet manage to be some of the most playable games.

To a further extent, look at early Infocom games -- no graphics, just text and yet manage to be brilliantly playable.

Compare this to the Interactive Movie boom in the 90s -- Phantasmagoria, Critical Path, The Daldeus Encounter all had great graphics but shitty gameplay.

Thus, even though the technological standards inproved, the gameplaty didn't.

In reality, great graphics are used only to show off what new hardware standard can do -- they're really quite superfluous.


As for fan games: Try 'Night of the Hermit', graphically it's not brilliant (which doesn't matter, as I said in the above) but it's a great fan game and spin-off to the Monkey Island series.

QuoteLet's put it this way, Little Willy is young and used to the current crop of games. The fancy high res good graphics kind. Should he write off Monkey Island because the graphics are no good according to what he's used to?

What a shame.

I think you got me all wrong. I never said that good graphics mean the latest 3D technology with 3400x2900 resolution. I think Monkey Island has great graphics. Outdated but still great. And if you want my honest opinion it has better graphics than some recent commercial adventure games (i.e. The Watchmaker). It is just another style of representation imo...2D with low resolution.

QuoteI agree that "fan made games" are good but to compare them to commercial games seems wrong.

I strongly disagree. The best two adventures in the last 2 years were imo Syberia and King's Quest 2. Yes that's right, KQ2 beats the hell out of the most commercial adventures out there. And Ozzie would definitely rate high in my rankings as well.

Quotebetter graphics don't actually contribute to the game.

I disagree. I understand why you say that, it is your personal opinion after all, but as a reviewer it is my duty to judge each and every last one of the game's characteristics from the story to the box that it comes in.

QuoteJust a suggestion. Maybe you could have a section in the inventory just fo amature games or something. You know the short but good ones. I don't know, you seem to have a lot to do already, so maybe that isn't a good idea.

Mods writes an article in The Inventory (started last month) which is called Talking Dead, and I have given him the freedom to write whatever he wants in it. He's more than welcome to plug fan made adventures through this article if he wants to. I had also given the www.adventuredevelopers.com site as a source for 'gossip' to our adventure gossip author. And I just realised right now that I should give the ags page as well. I'll do that right away.

I hope people don't misunderstand me. I want the fan scene to grow and prosper. If you check our mag we have 2 previews each month and one of the two previews is usually a fan made adventure. We have almost 2 interviews every month and our three biggest interviews so far has been Syberia, KQ2 and Indiana Jones FoY.

Furthermore I want through our mag to pull more people in the adventure genre in general. I've posted in several non-adventure and even non-gaming forums (science fictions forums and history forums for example, and I'm soon going to invite comics fans to read our magazine ...I'll use the comic strip as a bait ;) ) inviting people to come and read the Inventory. And these people are much more likely to try out a fan made adventure if they see good looking screenshots. If you've ever browsed a magazine fast I'm sure you've noticed that you usually pay attention to the photos and you occasionally stop when you see something interesting.

And one request please. Give some links as well with the names of the adventures you are recommending.

First of all, I'd like to say it's great to see the politeness and respect shown in this thread.  Graphics can be a pretty touchy subject, especially in this community.

[/sentiment]

Dimi, there's an example I'd like to give to show why we're concerned about your graphics policy.

Pleurghburg: Dark Ages spawned one of the biggest announcement threads ever seen in this community.  It won 5 AGS awards, including Best Game.  JA+ gave it an A grade in their review.  At Home of the Underdogs, Underdogs herself described it as: "One of the best freeware adventure games I have come across", and gave it Top Dog status.  It has received positive responses from the people who played it in all three major adventure gaming forums.  We, as a community,  consider it to be one of the games that flies the flag for quality amateur adventures.

Your graphics policy would prevent this game being reviewed in The Inventory.

And that's our concern. ;)

I'm afraid KQ1, KQ2, QfG 4.5, Hermit and The Uncertainty Machine are the only completed full-length AGS-games with "professional graphics", dimidimidimi.

I completely agree with dimi. After all, the inventory covers professional games, not amateurish ones, nevermind whether they are freeware or not.

Just because something looks professional doesn't mean it is...
For example, I downloaded the demo of "Sherlock Holmes - Mystery of the Mummy" last week. Don't.
Garbage like that deserves coverage much less than, say, Zak2.
for dimi http://lucasfan.zak2project.de/ (http://lucasfan.zak2project.de/)

Steve

Cut the guy a break ~_~ I think his point is, he doesn't want games whereby people have slapped a few lines onto a background in MS Paint. While graphics don't mean a lot to a game, I think it still shows how much effort is being put into it. Even a crap artist can make a background look decent with a certain amount of time and effort.

Pleughburg would be my choice. While the graphics aren't very good, they're stylized and neat with no glitches etc.. I think this is what he means by good graphics.

Whoa.... Calm down guys!
Dim, you can check out the "game" page on the ags page if you want to look through the games listed there. Just contact the rightful owners. (There are  screenshots on most of the games listed there).

Dimi: I'd reccomend yathzee's new game. Also, try out conspiracy of songo, and by the sword: conspiracy demo when it is out.

AGS Games:
Pleurghburgh
Larry Vales 2
Night of the Hermit
The Uncertainty Machine
Conspiracy of Songo
Trials of Oddyseus Kent
5 Days a Stranger

Non-AGS games:
That Night Before
Out of Order

I think dimi is looking for fan games.

DG, apart from kq1&2 vga, there are no worthy fan games. Or am I wrong?

I thought Night of the Hermit was good.

In fact, I always thought Herman was very deserving of his own game.

When placed alongside Monkey Island, it's like what Fraser was to Cheers.

Fan-games is another name for amateur adventures in some circles.  As The Inventory reviewed Ozzie and the Quantum Playwright, I think Dimi will accept all sorts of amateur adventures.

Nellie beat me to posting what I actually meant to say.

But hats off to The Inventory if they bring some attention to all the great - not to mention finished! - amateur adventure games out there, rather than uncritically praising games in production, just because they share the name of a once-succesful game series.

Not that I mind reading about these titles (in fact, I've read the KQIX preview four times or so, and the FOY interview was great) but to be honest, that SQ7 preview read like a press release. And as somebody else pointed out, few of the technical details on pre-rendered backgrounds and characters and comparisons with EFMI made much sense.
I respect that the person who wrote the article didn't have a lot of insight into the technical side of things. But maybe someone like m0ds, who actually KNOWS how games are made, would be better suited for the job. Or at least having someone like that proofread the articles. Otherwise you'll become a publicity tool for the game designers.

I LOVE The Inventory. I've read the back issues countless times and I'm always looking forward to the next. Just beware of mindlessly quoting other people's self-praise.

I don't have much to add that hasn't been said, but I'd just like to express my displeasure with the usage of graphics as some sort of quality filter.  Anyone familiar with enough AGS games should know that's an absurd criteria, even when only a partial one.

I think graphics have to be at least partially considered when rating a game.  Saying that graphics don't matter in games is like saying cinematography doesn't matter in films.  Of course graphics matter, but great graphics won't make a bad game good and terrible graphics don't make an otherwise great game bad.

Ultimately I think the inventory should review games regardless of graphics but still consider the graphics when assigning an overall rating.

Quintaros, I disgaree with your comparison between graphics in games and cinematography in films.

Cinematography can be utilised to establish a mise-en-scene to symbolically create meaning (And for a brilliant example, see Conrad L. Hall's cinematorgraphy in Richard Brooks' In Cold Blood, especially the final scene with Robert Blake at the window.)

Graphics in adventures, on the other hand, are purely cosmetic, as I have yet to see an adventure game that creates a mise-en-scene with it's graphics.

Grim Fandango came close, utilising a mise-en-scene to satirise certain famous scenes in noir and classic films (e.g. Touch of Evil, Casablanca).

But that's a very rare example.

Besides DG's rather specific (yet valid) point, I would like to point out that amateur games must be put on an entirely different scale than commercial games, and cannot be considered analagous to movies.  Even independent movies have relative budgets that far exceed those of amateur games--and I'm sure that in 99.99% of the cases amateur games don't have any budget at all.  There is simply no comparison.

I haven't seen In Cold Blood but I gather you're referring to the scene where raindrops on a window appear like tears on the face looking out?

Yeah maybe few games attempt such symbolism but it is a visual medium so the potential for symbolism is at least there.  Maybe I'm missing the point as I'm not precisely sure of the meaning of mise-en-scene.

My comparison between films and games was only to say that they were both made up of many elements, visual included.

Yes most films have a higher budget than amateur games but amateur games don't need a budget.  I'd love to be an amateur filmmaker but it requires a lot of money and help from others.  Making games is virtually free it just requires time and patience.  Therefore anything is possible in games in my mind so why shouldn't we push the envelope a little.

i'm realllly sorry to interrupt but i just had to say...


In Cold Blood the movie sucked hardcore... compared to the book it was just a bunch of random things thrown together to get the story across..

blarg blarg...

but anway
END

Maybe it sucked as a whole but had really good cinematography.

Mise-en-scene is the composition and framing of scenes in films.

You are right to suggest that both films and games use visual elements -- However, both mediums utilise them in different ways, as I stated.

And yes, the potential is there, except very few games have done so.

Let me put it this way: If Hitchcock or Kubrick were still alive and made a game, imagine what it'd look like.


Eric: I thought In Cold Blood was great -- not sensational but it was great.

But as Quintaros said, it does have first-class cinematography done by a master of his industry (and it's a pity he died last year).


On a related note, Conrad L hall repeated his raindrops on window motif in Road to Perdition -- you'll see it in the scene after the first shooting where Tom Hanks is alone in the car with his son.

The cinematography in that film was also first-rate and practically summed up Hall's career, in my own opinion.

Okay I don't really think we're even disagreeing that much here.

Suggesting that Kubrick or Hitchcock could make a very different looking game kind of supports what I'm saying about games having the potential to be as visually evocative as films.  I don't think only filmmakers are capable of doing this but anyone with a strong visual sense.  I see a lot of people like that in this community and I think its selling their efforts short to say graphics have no impact on overall game quality.

Personally I put a great deal of effort into finding the right compostion and framing of the backgrounds for my game.  If that's all that mise-en-scene is then I'd say games are capable of it.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 02/10/2003 17:59:09The cinematography in that film was also first-rate and practically summed up Hall's career, in my own opinion.

Not to mention, in my opinion, it turned that movie from a good one into a great one.  Visually, it was absolutely stunning.  Hall really was a genius of his craft.

What about the game Apprentice?  It may be a short game, but it's strikingly good.  http://www.sonic.net/~schlae/herculeaneffort/

This game hasn't been reviewed already, has it?

Quote from: Quintaros on Thu 02/10/2003 18:39:07
Okay I don't really think we're even disagreeing that much here.

Suggesting that Kubrick or Hitchcock could make a very different looking game kind of supports what I'm saying about games having the potential to be as visually evocative as films.  I don't think only filmmakers are capable of doing this but anyone with a strong visual sense.  I see a lot of people like that in this community and I think its selling their efforts short to say graphics have no impact on overall game quality.

Personally I put a great deal of effort into finding the right compostion and framing of the backgrounds for my game.  If that's all that mise-en-scene is then I'd say games are capable of it.

But the thing is no one has really done it yet -- Most of the background I've seen are fairly plain when it comes to a meaningful composition.

Okay, let me throw you an example -- Ever see Psycho?

Remember the scene where Janet Leigh is eating bread with Anthony Perkins?

Have a good look at the background (if you haven't seen it) while you listen to their conversation.

I've never seen an adventure game that utilises backgrounds to establish meaning in that way.

Quote
Remember the scene where Janet Leigh is eating bread with Anthony Perkins?

Have a good look at the background (if you haven't seen it) while you listen to their conversation.

It's those stuffed and mounted birds!  They freaked me out, man!

Yeah I know Psycho pretty well.  But I'm not entirely certain of what you trying to illustrate with this example.  Do you mean the quiet creepiness of the mounted birds or the foreshadowing of the nature of mother?

Quote: "I've never seen an adventure game that utilises backgrounds to establish meaning in that way."

That may be true.  I've probably played fewer adventure games than most of the community here.  It's clear that you really appreciate the visual storytelling of films so why would you not support more visual meaning in games?  If few games are achieving it than there's all the more reason to promote it.

Because visuals are the main focus of films, while interactivity is the main focus of adventure games.

Since interactivity and narrative rely upon each other (i.e. the narrative advances with interactions), an adventure game can exist without graphics (i.e. text adventures).

My main point here is not to suggest graphics don't and can't contribute (obviously they do) -- However, my point is to suggest that graphics are not necessary to make a great game.

Visuals, on the other hand, are necessary to make a film.

As for Psycho, I mean both and more -- The scene's composition creates a creepy atmosphere, foreshadows the mother, and symbolises the relationship between Leigh and Perkins (i.e. at one point Perkins even comments that Leigh "eats like a bird" and then comments the phrase "eat like a bird" is a myth as birds eat rather ravenously)

Quote from: DGMacphee from work on Sat 04/10/2003 03:22:51
Because visuals are the main focus of films, while interactivity is the main focus of adventure games.

I think storytelling is the main focus of films and visuals merely play a role.  Interactivity is the main focus of games and again visuals play a role.  

Okay then, you have a story for a film and take away the visuals as a role -- what do you have?

Nothing but a story -- The visuals are needed for a film.

However, you have a story for a game and you take away the visuals -- what do you have?

A text adventure -- graphics aren't needed to relay the story.

The role of cinematography is VITAL to cinema -- That is the whole basis of cinema.

Without the visuals, you can't tell your story as a film.

Whereas, the role of graphics in an adventure is minor to the point of unnecessary.

With an adventure game, you can simply use text, and as long as it remains interactive and contains a narrative, you'll have an adventure.

Well I can't argue with that.  You take away the visuals to a film and you got a radio play; you take away the visuals to an adventure game and you've got a text adventure.    But we're not making text adventures here (at least I don't think anybody is but I could be wrong about a few).  If we're going to make graphical point and click adventure games than some emphasis should be put on the graphics.

But many famous graphical adventure games have had shocking graphics.

To name a few: Mystery House, Kings Quest, Maniac Mansion.

Like I previously said, better graphics are just a way to show off the latest hardware -- past adventures got along just fine in conveying narrative without flashy graphics.

That was the state of the industry - when people didn't have a choice.

Better graphics are nothing to do with the latest hardware. Just about any game can look stunning with 1990-ish (VGA 320x200) technology, with good artwork.

Just think how much less fun Day of the Tentacle would have been with poor artwork.

if MM is anything to go by, lots - o - fun ;)

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sun 05/10/2003 12:57:50
That was the state of the industry - when people didn't have a choice.

This just proves my two theories -- 1) They still made stunning games, even with poor graphics 2) the advancement of graphics is purely to keep up with technological standards i.e. to show off new hardware

QuoteBetter graphics are nothing to do with the latest hardware.

Then why the hell do you need a graphics accelerator to view the latest wizz-bang graphics in games?

We didn't need graphics accelerators to play Day Of The Tentacle.

However, we did need VGA cards to play Day of the Tentacle, but we didn't need them to play Kings Quest.

However, we did need EGA (or even CGA cards) to play Kings Quest, but we didn't need them to play Mystery House.

Do you see where this is going?

QuoteJust about any game can look stunning with 1990-ish (VGA 320x200) technology, with good artwork.

See above.

QuoteJust think how much less fun Day of the Tentacle would have been with poor artwork.

See above again.

Also, keep in mind that Day of the Tentacle was the sequel to a game that had such poor artwork: Maniac Mansion.

And Maniac Mansion had quite a number of advantages compared to its sequel: It had multiple endings, it had a selection of character to choose from, you could choose different methods of solving a particular puzzle, greater emphasis on teamwork, etc.



I seem to be just repeating myself over and over for the last few posts, so I'm stepping out as I think I've made my position clear.

Yeah, bear in mind that GRAPHIC adventures are the subject at hand, good graphics or bad.  They require very different writing than text adventures, or interactive fiction.  You couldn't simply remove elements from graphic adventures and have a text adventure without substantial modification.

Not really.

Text adventures use the phraser that early Sierra game do.

Remove the graphics and you have a text adventure.

For the best example of this, look at Softporn's evolution into Leisure Suit Larry -- A lot of Softporn is rehashed in Larry but only with the addition of graphics.

Why did Sierra choose to rewrite Softporn as Larry?

Because when Softporn was written, computers didn't have the same graphical standards as they did when larry was released.

Thus, they added graphics due to technological changes.

And once again, I'm repeating my theory like a broken record, so I'll shut up now.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030409/rubin_01.shtml

if you have a fast connection i recommend you watch this

it was posted before but i love it still, love it so i found a way to steal it and save it on my comp!

you need a free account to view it

Good graphics and comparing fan-made games to commercial ones? Well, some people here are able to make games every kickass adventure gamer is ready to buy. But still, no money is charged.

Dunno. For me, making an adventue game is way to present my (crazy) ideas in full effect - writing a book gives just text and drawing a picture gives just art. Same goes to music.

Now let's mix all of these and add some riddles plus user interaction. Well... there's the magic. Works well - I know I was able to share my creativity with world and positive feedback gives sufficent food for my ego, plus motivation to get even better at this stuff, learn more scripting and drawing better gfx.

And - that'll do. Why should I need someone to compare my work with commercial games? This could be handy when I'm selling my game aswell - to have more buyers, maybe.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/10/2003 13:55:41

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sun 05/10/2003 12:57:50

QuoteBetter graphics are nothing to do with the latest hardware.

Then why the hell do you need a graphics accelerator to view the latest wizz-bang graphics in games?

We didn't need graphics accelerators to play Day Of The Tentacle.

I think that was his point :) Lots of games, that need 3d accelerators, stink when it comes to graphic department. In short, they have no style. On the other hand you have a game with 320x200 2d graphics that can still blow you away. That's what i call good.
And i agree, good & appropriate graphics (note, that i didn't say "technically advanced" ;)) are very important for gaming experience- just as well as is sound. They both create atmosphere, that i find higly important when it comes to games.
And no, i never finished first Maniac Mansion- it might be good, but (non-appealing) graphics turned me away from the game.

QuoteOn the other hand you have a game with 320x200 2d graphics that can still blow you away. That's what i call good.

And you can have a text adventure with zip graphics that can blow you away.

That's what I call better -- You can do so much with so little.

In other words, I think you missed my point -- reread the words after the bit you quoted and you'll notice I look back in history even before we had 320x200x256 graphics and found adventure games existed back then (and played fucking well)

QuoteThey both create atmosphere, that i find higly important when it comes to games.

Like I said before, graphics are mainly asthetic.

They contribute, but I don't consider them highly important.

If they were so highly important, then why did adventure games once exist without them?

Technological standards, thus blah blah blah repeat myself.

QuoteAnd no, i never fiished first Maniac Mansion- it might be good, but (non-appealing) graphics turned me away from the game.

That's what I find sad -- Where we live in a world where asthetics mean everything but content means nothing.

For example, Touche: The Adventure of the Fifth Musketeer is a graphically well-made game, but it plays like shit.

I only played it for an hour, then deleted it.

The same goes for Phantasmagoria.

Same goes for Lighthouse.

Same goes for etc, etc, etc.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 09/10/2003 13:51:27

QuoteThey both create atmosphere, that i find higly important when it comes to games.

Like I said before, graphics are mainly asthetic.

They contribute, but I don't consider them highly important.

If they were so highly important, then why did adventure games once exist without them?

Technological standards, thus blah blah blah repeat myself.

Yes, and we were playing them because we didn't know better (and some still do, because they find it either a nice *diversion* from graphics games or because they are replaying them out of nostalgia. But the point is- it's nice that's not all games have to offer).

Before color TV we had black&white- and we were just fine. Before TV there was just radio- and we were just fine. Before radio there was just newspaper- and we were just fine.
.....
Before houses we had caves, and we were just fine... Ok, you see where i'm going ;)

I also can't agree that "the advancement of graphics is purely to keep up with technological standards". Nothing would be more fantastic, than playing Fifa game, where you couldn't distinguish game graphics from TV. It adds to the game experience and is more fun. Fun, that's all that is about.

Ok, you don't find graphics&sound important and that's fine. The thing is, there's lots of players who do. It's not just a matter of "aesthetic"- for example music&sound in The Dig was 50% of the game. Turn off speekers and you'll kill all the great atmosphere.


Gameplay is of course *very* important- i never said it isn't. I'm just saying that i enjoy good game with good graphics&sound much more than good game with bad graphics&sound.

Quote from: Igor on Thu 09/10/2003 14:12:08
Yes, and we were playing them because we didn't know better (and a few still do, because they find it either a nice *diversion* from graphics games or because they are replaying them out of nostalgic. But the point is- it's nice that's not all games have to offer).

We didn't know any better???

What kind of argument is that???

I know one thing: Kings Quest is a way better game than Phantasmagoria.

I think Roberta Williams knew WAY better in the past.

QuoteBefore color TV we had black&white- and we were just fine. Before TV there was just radio- and we were just fine. Before radio there was just newspaper- and we were just fine.
.....
Before houses we had caves, and we were just fine... Ok, you see where i'm going ;)

And this just proves my point -- all asthetic advancement is based upon technological change.

Doesn't mean technological advancement is necessarily better.

QuoteI also can't agree that "the advancement of graphics is purely to keep up with technological standards". Nothing would be more fantastic, than playing Fifa game, where you couldn't distinguish game graphics from TV. It adds to the game experience and is more fun. Fun, that's all that is about.

But I had as much fun playing Sensible Soccer on my Atari ST than playing most of the polygom-based Soccer games you see today -- In fact, it was even more fun.

QuoteOk, you don't find graphics important and that's fine. The thing is, there's lots of players who do. It's not just a matter of "aesthetic"- good graphics can create great atmosphere.

Once again, you speak of atmosphere without demonstrating how graphics are a part of a game's core.

Atmosphere, aethetics, graphics -- these are all things that exist around the core i.e. cosmetics

You can pretty much take the core of a game and place in an environment without these cosmetic aspects. Eg. My Larry and Softporn comparison.

QuoteGameplay is of course very important too- i never said it isn't. I'm just saying that i enjoy good game with good graphics&sound much more than good game with bad graphics&sound.

And this relates to what I said previously about today's society being based upon the stuff that's cosmetic (atmosphere, aethetics, graphics, etc).

Now I'm not arguing that graphics don't improve a game, that goes without saying.

But I am saying that adventures can exist without graphics, thus graphics are unecessary --- they're purely cosmetic.

>>But I am saying that adventures can exist without graphics, thus graphics are unecessary --- they're purely cosmetic.<<

True, true (don't agree completely with purely cosmetic bit, however i'll leave it at that), but i'm replying in context of original Dimidimidimi's post & argument.

Now we can finally let this thread fall to the nether-regions of the forum.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 09/10/2003 14:34:06
But I am saying that adventures can exist without graphics, thus graphics are unecessary --- they're purely cosmetic.

The world can exist without Australians, therefore Australians are unnecessary...

Croissants can exist without chocolate, therefore pain au chocolat are unecessary

* DG goes off to join an Interactive Fiction forum instead...

I think it s a bit problematic to consider graphical adventuregames as textadventures with cosmetics. If that would be the case it seems as if movies would simply be books with cosmetics.

While this may be the case when new mediums arrive -- thinking of the switch between radio n tv where they d practically just would take footage of the radiostudio -- once the mediums have matured they develope their own unique language.

I m not claiming that graphical adventures has succeded in this but if or once they have, the visuals will be an inseperable part of them; as visuals in movies or fps for that matter. A scene in a movie isn t the same as the same scene describes via an author in a book or in the moviescript for that matter.

Claiming that the written word is more closely connected with the 'core' of a story/adventure and therefor essential, whereas visuals n music is superfluous, is a pretty bold statement I think. Our minds consist of more than can be put into words.

QuoteBefore color TV we had black&white- and we were just fine. Before TV there was just radio- and we were just fine. Before radio there was just newspaper- and we were just fine.
Before houses we had caves, and we were just fine...

And why did we invent color tv's then? Or houses?
Why not stick to the cave and watch b&w TV's there?  ;D Better graphics will *surely* attract more downloaders/buyers. Who can argue against that fact?
But technology is at the moment in a position where we buy/download games by their minimal requirements, not the quality. At least, this goes for bigger percent of people.

Quote from: SSH on Thu 09/10/2003 14:49:53

Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 09/10/2003 14:34:06
But I am saying that adventures can exist without graphics, thus graphics are unecessary --- they're purely cosmetic.

The world can exist without Australians, therefore Australians are unnecessary...

Not only that, the world would be a happier place. :)

Honestly, though -- why are you comparing human beings to something as trivial as a computer game?

It's like reducing our existance to the point of something diversionary and insignificant, which in my opinion it is definately not.

QuoteI think it s a bit problematic to consider graphical adventuregames as textadventures with cosmetics. If that would be the case it seems as if movies would simply be books with cosmetics.

While this may be the case when new mediums arrive -- thinking of the switch between radio n tv where they d practically just would take footage of the radiostudio -- once the mediums have matured they develope their own unique language.

I m not claiming that graphical adventures has succeded in this but if or once they have, the visuals will be an inseperable part of them; as visuals in movies or fps for that matter. A scene in a movie isn t the same as the same scene describes via an author in a book or in the moviescript for that matter.

Claiming that the written word is more closely connected with the 'core' of a story/adventure and therefor essential, whereas visuals n music is superfluous, is a pretty bold statement I think. Our minds consist of more than can be put into words.

But as I've discussed earlier in this thread, making a film is different to making a game -- you can't compare the two.

Films rely upon visuals and narrative.

Adventure games rely upon interaction and narrative.

Thus:

Visuals in films are necessary.

Visuals in adventure games are peripheral and purely cosmetic.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking visuals universally -- I appreciate a good piece of artwork, and have even painted a few, but that is not my point here.

I'm not saying that visuals are unecessary in all mediums (films, painting, mime, etc) -- I'm am saying visuals are only unecessary in adventure games.

And that is why you can't jump to conclusions and say "DG thinks visuals in adventure games are unnecessary. Adventure games have narrative. Films have narrative too. Therefore, DG must think visuals in film are unecessary."

Like I said, they relay their narrative in completely different ways: films visually, and adventure games with interactivity.

QuoteAnd why did we invent color tv's then? Or houses?
Why not stick to the cave and watch b&w TV's there?  Better graphics will *surely* attract more downloaders/buyers. Who can argue against that fact?
But technology is at the moment in a position where we buy/download games by their minimal requirements, not the quality. At least, this goes for bigger percent of people.

I'm not arguing that graphics will increase popularity -- Even Ray Charles can see that.

However, my point here is that graphics are unnecessary in the actual construction of an adventure game.

And to address this whole stupid houses/colour TV argument:
When we lived in caves we weren't fine cause weather conditions, preditors and other external phenomenon kept invading our privacy and either: a) killed us off b) made us sick c) made us unhappy -- Therefore the evolution of houses ARE a necessity cause they protect us to a greater degree (And whoever suggested comparing such a thing to something trivial, like adventure games, should check their rationale for a minute -- STOP PLAYING ADVENTURE GAMES FOR A MINUTE, GET OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE WORLD, IGOR!!)

As for colour TVs, who gives a shit if I can see Rosie O'Donnell's flabby buttocks in full rainbow kalidescopic colour?

I think that alone ends that argument!

-------------------

My fingers are tired and I seem to be saying the same things over and over and over and over...

Just to summerise things so everyone is clear in not arguing the same points from before:

* Graphics in adventure games are unnecessary, because adventures are narrative-based, and such narrative advances primarily through interactions.

* You can't argue through comparing visuals in adventures and in films as both mediums relay their narrative in different ways: films visually, and adventure games through inertaction.

* I'm NOT saying visuals are unnecessary and cosmetic in all mediums -- just adventure games.

* Comparing human existance (through houses and caves or whatever) to adventure games is a stupid way to argue -- If anyone else thinks about doing such a thing, get the fuck away from your computer right this minute and go ride a bike or hang out at your bowling alley, cause you've been playing one too many adventure games.

i'm sorry dg, i just can't read all of this... i have no desire and i believe a majority of it is repeatative and/or badly argued [not you but the entire thread] so i'm just gonna do this:

i'm reading a book called Trigger Happy by Steven Poole

it's not good so far cause it appears he is trying to talk about video games and also show off his knowledge of other things so he doesn't appear like a video game nerd but an all around cultured guy...

case in point he footnotes donkey kong by saying that women are often put on pedastals in platform games and the male characters are often trying to reach their level, he states that it's an interesting example of plinth ideology and we should read a book by a guy so we can learn of it's definition through cognintive science.. or something

it's like get off my dick

he then goes on to say that the video game industry may engulf the movie industry cause interactive media is the future. then he goes on to try very hard to relate video games to movies and then say that they are not relatable at all. He uses such french words as you have used here in trying to explain video games and how they are not movies.

so if you think you'd like this i'd recommend it to you dg cause it seems to be staggering down the same path as you.

just be carefull he calls Grim Fandango an RPG

ok so i read a bit of it

"You couldn't simply remove elements from graphic adventures and have a text adventure without substantial modification. "

"Not really. Text adventures use the phraser that early Sierra game do. Remove the graphics and you have a text adventure. For the best example of this, look at Softporn's evolution into Leisure Suit Larry"

You wouldn't call this substantial modification? entire scenes had to be created through image and not graphics. in a softporn you walk left usually by typing W and hitting enter. In LSL you walk left by moving the character to the location and off the screen or through a door or whatever. This is substantial modification. Removing the visuals from a movie and you get the script which is still very much readable. You remove the visuals from Full Throttle and you get nothing playable without substantial modification.

in Trigger Happy he uses the example of Resident Evil being the most cinematic like game cause the camera angels are chosen for you and are usually in such a way as to relate the mood of the game to you.

also, if graphics are so unimportant then explain to me how the puzzles in 6da would be done when the majority of them rely on sight. sure you could always "look at hair" and "examine hair" or "examine board" but when you get to the sniper will the game just take over or will it say "the sixth window from the left on the forth buiding, there's a flash in the window." and then "AIM at sixth window from the left on the forth building" and boom he shoots?

hell yes graphics are necessary for many things, just cause adventure games used to be text doesn't mean that they were better when they were. They are completely different experiences and also can't be compared. the same way you can't compare books to movies which i don't see you doing, don't you see any relation between this?

eric

don't answer if you don't want, no worries

Very nicely put Loominous and Eric.

I agree- better graphics might be pure cosmetics... however i don't see a point in claiming that for graphics itself.

Quote
Adventure games rely upon interaction and narrative.

Thus:

[...]
Visuals in adventure games are peripheral and purely cosmetic.

I m guessing that you didn t bother to make the deduction logically valid since your point is made by it anyway, but I think it needs to be corrected to clear up a couple of things.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adventure games rely only upon interaction and narrative

thus

Adventure games doesn t rely upon visuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Granted that the premise is true the conclusion seems to follow. I m not sure that it is though.

As 6DA possibly proves (I havn t played it yet) the premise contradicts empirical facts. And even if 6DA, or any other game to date, wouldn t prove this, we could still imagine an adventure game that would rely on graphics (for puzzles etc), which would prove that it isn t an analytical truth either.

The premise therefore seems highly questionable to me. What s left to claim, a claim I d agree with, is:

Most adventure games to date don t rely upon visuals.

Graphics are important to me. More than impressive 3D wizardy and crap like that though, the design of the graphics. Maniac Mansion was pretty flat and straight, so I wouldn't consider them good. Monkey Island had a nice graphical design (Monkey Island 2 moreso than 1) and Day of the Tentacle was gorgeous to look at. Final Fantasy games have some gorgeous and detailed backgrounds, especially IX... I loved the graphics in IX.  Metal Gear Solid II has so much movement and fluidity, and Simon the Sorcerer had a few lovely backgrounds and animations (Even though I hated the actual game).

See, I would consider Final Fantasy IX and Day of the Tentacle on the same level graphically, in that the design is supurb. No matter whether you live in 1990 or 2000, no matter whether you're running 286s or Ataris or Pentium 4s or an Xbox... the platform won't stop the designers from being creative and artistic with the design. Unless you go back reallll far. But let's not do that.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 11/10/2003 04:55:24
"You couldn't simply remove elements from graphic adventures and have a text adventure without substantial modification. "

"Not really. Text adventures use the phraser that early Sierra game do. Remove the graphics and you have a text adventure. For the best example of this, look at Softporn's evolution into Leisure Suit Larry"

You wouldn't call this substantial modification? entire scenes had to be created through image and not graphics. in a softporn you walk left usually by typing W and hitting enter. In LSL you walk left by moving the character to the location and off the screen or through a door or whatever. This is substantial modification. Removing the visuals from a movie and you get the script which is still very much readable. You remove the visuals from Full Throttle and you get nothing playable without substantial modification.

[...]

hell yes graphics are necessary for many things, just cause adventure games used to be text doesn't mean that they were better when they were. They are completely different experiences and also can't be compared. the same way you can't compare books to movies which i don't see you doing, don't you see any relation between this?

I've read the same book and I'm against it too -- That misdefinition of Grim Fandango pissed me off too.

I take granted the 'subtantial modification' bit, however it does not actually prove that graphics are necessary.

Even a 'substantial modification' shows that there are methods to make a graphicless game.

As for 6 Day Assassin, image if you had the same idea 20-30 years ago -- I'm sure you would have found a way to create the same atmosphere.

Here's one idea -- When you TAKE PHOTOGRAPH, the game displays a set of co-ordinates that you must shoot to kill the sniper.

After that, you AIM AT SNIPER and the game launches into an action sequence where you must hold down the space bar for a certain amount of time for the X and Y co-ordinates.

Similar to another great game, isn't it, Eric?  ;)


loominous:

QuoteGranted that the premise is true the conclusion seems to follow. I m not sure that it is though.

As 6DA possibly proves (I havn t played it yet) the premise contradicts empirical facts. And even if 6DA, or any other game to date, wouldn t prove this, we could still imagine an adventure game that would rely on graphics (for puzzles etc), which would prove that it isn t an analytical truth either.

The premise therefore seems highly questionable to me. What s left to claim, a claim I d agree with, is:

Most adventure games to date don t rely upon visuals.

I doubt your thesis, since you're using an example of a game you haven't played.

Perhaps if you provided an example of a game that DOES find graphics necessary, I'd be more swayed to your argument.

But when you look at it, most of the puzzles in an adventure games are simply interactions that can be replicated with a non-graphical interface (WALK, TALK, LOOK, etc).

And the rest of the puzzles can be "substantially modified", as Eric suggests, into something conveyed as text (Action sequences), as I've proven with 6 Day Assassin.


Yufster:
I agree that graphic design enhances a game, but that's just an example of graphics being cosmetic.

Even though graphics look appealing, they're not necessary to create an adventure game.


Everyone:
I just want to make clear: I'm not trying to say we should all give up on graphics and make text adventures -- All I'm suggesting is that developers, reviewers, and gamers sometimes place too much emphasis upon graphics, when graphics really aren't aren't as vital to adventure creation as people seem to think.

what game do you mean dg? gunbound?

but what you suggest doesn't create the same atmosphere at all it doesn't matter that a puzzle can be done without graphics it matters that the graphical representation is sometimes necessary to do more than just look pretty

i was depending on the people's ability to actually observe their surroundings in 6da instead of relying on the ego to spell everything out for you. in a text adventure it's pretty damned impossible not to spell everything out for you

some people don't notice that the light turns on next door, in a text adventure the words "a light is on nextdoor" would give it away.

and "examine body" would yield what? "her hair is kempt" then what examine hair?

i don't see how you've proven anything except the possibility that one can rewrite some puzzles so that they can exist in a purely textual form, but to say the same for all puzzles everywhere in every game is a little bold wouldn't you say? You're lucky 7th Guest isn't an adventure game... hehe

and don't you think a graphical representation of a character moving through a forest as you follow him to the swordmasters house creates an entire different mood than

"You are in a clearing surrounded by trees, everything looks the same, why do all forests have to be mazes?

Exits are N S E W

You see the storekeeper walk off to the  east."

and it's funny that you read that book cause a lot of what he is saying seems you were repeating and then when i signed off and read last night a lot of what he said i had just read from this topic

it seems you've done a slight course change because now it seems you're trying to entertain the thought that adventure games could be done without graphics when before you were saying adventure games don't need graphics.

and as far as my opinion is concerned, the majority of the narrative advancement in adventure games is done through long dialogues and cutscenes not interactions [unless you mean dialogue/character interaction] the puzzles rarely reflect the actual plot of the game

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 12/10/2003 11:25:06
what game do you mean dg? gunbound?

Aye :)

Quotebut what you suggest doesn't create the same atmosphere at all it doesn't matter that a puzzle can be done without graphics it matters that the graphical representation is sometimes necessary to do more than just look pretty

Once again, someone mentions that graphics contribute to atmosphere, which shows graphics are more cosmetic than necessary to the overall construction of an adventure game.

Quotei was depending on the people's ability to actually observe their surroundings in 6da instead of relying on the ego to spell everything out for you. in a text adventure it's pretty damned impossible not to spell everything out for you

some people don't notice that the light turns on next door, in a text adventure the words "a light is on nextdoor" would give it away.

and "examine body" would yield what? "her hair is kempt" then what examine hair?

i don't see how you've proven anything except the possibility that one can rewrite some puzzles so that they can exist in a purely textual form, but to say the same for all puzzles everywhere in every game is a little bold wouldn't you say? You're lucky 7th Guest isn't an adventure game... hehe

and don't you think a graphical representation of a character moving through a forest as you follow him to the swordmasters house creates an entire different mood than

"You are in a clearing surrounded by trees, everything looks the same, why do all forests have to be mazes?

Exits are N S E W

You see the storekeeper walk off to the  east."

and it's funny that you read that book cause a lot of what he is saying seems you were repeating and then when i signed off and read last night a lot of what he said i had just read from this topic

You talk of atmosphere again here, which shows graphics only advance the cosmetic aspects of the game and not advance the central drive of the game.

My theory still stands that adventure games don't rely upon graphics.

Sure, 6DA would be less atmospheric without graphics -- But it can survive without them, as I've shown.

As for the book, if he can't distinguish between an adventure and an RPG, he doesn't know his stuff.

I came upon all this stuff through my own observation, not through reading whatshisface's under-researched book

Quoteit seems you've done a slight course change because now it seems you're trying to entertain the thought that adventure games could be done without graphics when before you were saying adventure games don't need graphics.

I'll say my point again, so you'll know i'm not changing course: GRAPHICS ARE NOT NECESSARY IN ADVENTURE GAME CONSTRUCTION.

I have not changed course -- I have stuck to that theory for the last two/three years.

I have also provided evidence from your own game 6DA to show it doesn't need graphics in construction.

Once again, I restate: It may become less atmospheric, but it can survive without graphics.

Quoteand as far as my opinion is concerned, the majority of the narrative advancement in adventure games is done through long dialogues and cutscenes not interactions [unless you mean dialogue/character interaction] the puzzles rarely reflect the actual plot of the game

If narrative in adventure games advances through cut scenes, then the game would just be one long cut scene.

As for dialogue, they are interactions as your are interfacing with other characters -- Thus, they advance the narrative.

And when you complete certain puzzles, you gain new information/new items to add in your quest -- Thus, the narrative advances here too as the new info/objects aid in completing the overall objective.

For example, in 6DA, without interacting with the woman's body, your character cannot advance to the end of the game.

Therefore, the advancement of narrative occurs in adventures thorugh interactions.

If there are no interactions, the game becomes stagnant, and thus there is no narrative advancement.

Once again, I didn't get this from a book -- This is my own observation.

I think I also read a similar theory in Las Naranjas' paper on the Uber-Protagonist.

--------------------

While on the subject of atmosphere: you can still retain a good atmosphere in a text adventure -- and not through graphics but through puzzles/interactions alone.

One text adventure I know (but can't remember the name of) has a chaacter trapped in a glass booth that's locked.

There are characters on the other side and he needs a way of communicating to them.

The answer: He needs to BLOW ON GLASS and then WRITE HELP on it.

Great puzzle that enhances the atmosphere without graphics.

It's like I say: sometimes you can do so much with so little.

Methinks somebody's suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance...  ;)

DG, I think you're being far too narrow-minded.  Sometimes atmosphere is such an important part of a game that removing it by stripping the game of what gives it atmosphere will leave you with a completely different game.  It doesn't matter that you could produce a game with the same fundamental actions as, say, Grim Fandango using only text.  That's irrelevant because that text game would have nothing in common with Grim Fandango!  Perhaps it would have very similar puzzles, but a game is more than the sum of its parts.  Nobody wants to just play through a bunch of interactions, they want a full experience.  This can be achieved with a text adventure, and it can be achieved with a graphic adventure; however, it must be gone about in COMPLETELY different ways.  And by the way, the genre of game we here at AGS create and play is actually called the "graphic adventure"--one reason the genre has been dubbed as such is to differentiate it from text adventures, which are very different games.  When graphics were introduced to adventures, it was revolutionary.  It wasn't some minor thing that just got tacked on.  With graphics, one is able to tell stories without having to spell out every word of it--instead of saying "You are in a majestic cathedral", you can SHOW the player a beautifully rendered shot of a vaulted church, light pouring in through the stained-glass windows.  It doesn't matter that you could theoretically type out every single detail of the church through a text interface, because it's a completely different experience.  Neither one is THE way to do it, but I don't understand how you could think that they are fundamentally the same.  They aren't.  

DG, your point now seems to be that atmosphere merely adds on to a game, and is not fundamentally necessary.  This is SOMETIMES true, but by no means is it always.  Every game has different strengths, and sometimes atmosphere is a big strength.  I don't understand why you don't just say "I, DGMacphee, don't care about graphics."  The fact that you're trying to make such a broad statement as "Graphics are not necessary in adventures" (especially considering we're talking about GRAPHIC adventures) is absurd!  You're the only person in this thread with that opinion, and these are the AGS forums, for crying out load, where nobody expects a high graphic standard.  If most adventure gamers think graphics can be very important in a game, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't, where do you get the authority to make such an absolute judgment?  Games exist for the purpose of enjoyment.  Obviously, for most people, graphics can substantially improve the amount of enjoyment one derives from a game.  I don't understand where the lack of understanding occurs at this point.

But again, even aside from your point being more of a personal opinion than an axiom, I firmly maintain that graphics absolutely positively provide a different GAMEPLAY experience than text.  I mean, you're saying that at their core adventures rely on interactions.  Fine.  So do all other games.  This is obvious.  Games are an interactive medium.  If the gamer doesn't make the character perform interactions, nothing would happen.  Just because you can ALSO script interactions using a text parser doesn't mean that text is equivalent to graphics.  But the way those interactions function is one big thing that differentiates genres.  For example, take the pixel hunt.  It doesn't matter whether one likes them or not, but it cannot be denied that they are very common in graphic adventures.  Now, how would you go about doing this with text?

"> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You find a needle!"

Hooray!  What about musical puzzles, like those in Loom (and some in Myst, if I recall)?  Those would be pretty dumb with just a text parser.  What about mazes?  They're possible in both text and graphics, but utterly different.  In text, they mainly rely on guessing and memory.  In graphics, they CAN be done that way, but you could also have, for example, a top-down maze that simply relies on planning and looking ahead.  For a somewhat tangential example of this, take the scene in Fate of Atlantis when you're trying to run into the fez guy on the streets of Algiers.  That wouldn't make much sense with text.  You could argue that the game doesn't absolutely need scenes like that--it doesn't matter.  The game DOES have scenes like that, and scenes like that are part of what set games apart from other games.  And in the Loom example, you really couldn't justify that game at all in a text setting.


Basically, I think you are a VERY nostalgic person when it comes to games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all, just don't try to pass off your own personal expectations or opinions as dogma.

Quote from: rEmiX0r!!11one on Sun 12/10/2003 12:59:26
DG, I think you're being far too narrow-minded.

Please, don't call me that -- I'm probably one of the most open-minded people here and have accepted a lot of what other people have said here with great consideration.

Close-minded would be more "You are wrong because you suck! LOL!"

QuoteSometimes atmosphere is such an important part of a game that removing it by stripping the game of what gives it atmosphere will leave you with a completely different game.

Read the last thing I wrote in previous post -- You can create atmosphere without graphics.

QuoteThat's irrelevant because that text game would have nothing in common with Grim Fandango!

Except have the same narrative drive, which as I've said, is fundamental to adventure game making.

QuoteNobody wants to just play through a bunch of interactions, they want a full experience.

I'm not debating on what people want -- I am merely saying that graphics aren't necessary in adventures.

Quotehowever, it must be gone about in COMPLETELY different ways.

Yet both rely upon the same inner mechanisms.

QuoteAnd by the way, the genre of game we here at AGS create and play is actually called the "graphic adventure"--one reason the genre has been dubbed as such is to differentiate it from text adventures, which are very different games.

Both sub-genre are still part of the same genre.

Besides, just because AGS is used to form graphic adventures, it doesn't mean I have to conform to graphic adventure principles when making games.

QuoteWhen graphics were introduced to adventures, it was revolutionary. It wasn't some minor thing that just got tacked on.

No debate there -- Yes, revolutionary, but still cosmetic.

It enhanced the game, but is not a fundamental.

QuoteWith graphics, one is able to tell stories without having to spell out every word of it--instead of saying "You are in a majestic cathedral", you can SHOW the player a beautifully rendered shot of a vaulted church, light pouring in through the stained-glass windows.

Once again, cosmetic.

QuoteI don't understand how you could think that they are fundamentally the same.  They aren't.  

They are and I've shown how.

You haven't proven otherwise.

QuoteDG, your point now seems to be that atmosphere merely adds on to a game, and is not fundamentally necessary.  This is SOMETIMES true, but by no means is it always.  Every game has different strengths, and sometimes atmosphere is a big strength.

But you haven't told me how or why graphics are a fundamental of game-making.

QuoteI don't understand why you don't just say "I, DGMacphee, don't care about graphics."

Because I do care about graphics -- I'm attracted to all pretty, shiny things like a crow.

However, I recognise they're only a cosmetic value in the construction.

That is why I place more emphasis on story and interactivity than on graphics and sound.

QuoteThe fact that you're trying to make such a broad statement as "Graphics are not necessary in adventures" (especially considering we're talking about GRAPHIC adventures) is absurd!

Just because I belong to a graphical adventure forum means I can't state something for which I've provided evidence?

Now that's absurd!

QuoteYou're the only person in this thread with that opinion, and these are the AGS forums, for crying out load, where nobody expects a high graphic standard.

Galileo tried to prove the Earth revolved around the Sun and was labelled a heretic, put on trial by the Spanish Inquisition, and imprisoned.

And let's not forget Nelson Mandela was jailed and beaten for promoting the crazy idea that black people should have the same rigths as white people.

Then again, those things are important -- This is just an adventure game forum.  ;)

QuoteIf most adventure gamers think graphics can be very important in a game, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't, where do you get the authority to make such an absolute judgment?

Because I'm allowed to have an opinion?

QuoteGames exist for the purpose of enjoyment.  Obviously, for most people, graphics can substantially improve the amount of enjoyment one derives from a game.  I don't understand where the lack of understanding occurs at this point.

No lack of understanding.

Graphics can enhance the enjoyment of a game, true.

However, graphics are not fundamental to adventure games, despite enjoyment.

Some of the most enjoyable games I've played have had zero to limited graphical ability.

QuoteBut again, even aside from your point being more of a personal opinion than an axiom, I firmly maintain that graphics absolutely positively provide a different GAMEPLAY experience than text.

That's fine to state that, but it's not what I'm debating here.

QuoteI mean, you're saying that at their core adventures rely on interactions.

And narrative.

QuoteSo do all other games.

Not true, as action and arcade games don't rely on narrative -- that's what separates the genres.

A game like Doom or Command and Conquer can exist without the narrative because the primary goals of those games (blow everything up) is not centred upon narrative.

QuoteJust because you can ALSO script interactions using a text parser doesn't mean that text is equivalent to graphics.

A text parser's core functions in the same way to a graphical engine.

Progress of narrative in the game is determined through interaction.

QuoteBut the way those interactions function is one big thing that differentiates genres.

You haven't shown how they're different.

QuoteFor example, take the pixel hunt.  It doesn't matter whether one likes them or not, but it cannot be denied that they are very common in graphic adventures.  Now, how would you go about doing this with text?

Just plainly state "Objects you can see: OBSCURE PIXEL-HUNT OBJECT"  ;)

Just because the puzzle works in a different way, it does not follow that the central core of an adventure game is different.

Both puzzles work on the same basis of interactivity and narrative.

QuoteHooray!  What about musical puzzles, like those in Loom (and some in Myst, if I recall)?  Those would be pretty dumb with just a text parser.

Dumb yes, but possible still -- read a bit further.

QuoteWhat about mazes?  They're possible in both text and graphics, but utterly different.

But the basis is the same.

QuoteFor a somewhat tangential example of this, take the scene in Fate of Atlantis when you're trying to run into the fez guy on the streets of Algiers.  That wouldn't make much sense with text.

You'd have to "substantially modify" (to borrow from eric again) the method to follow him, but I'm sure some ingenious game creator can work around this obstacle.

However, the game's narrative still advances through your interactions in each instance.

QuoteYou could argue that the game doesn't absolutely need scenes like that--it doesn't matter.

I could, but I won't because I find scenes like that enjoyable.

However, graphics atill aren't necessary to the core construction of an adventure, and you haven't shown otherwise.

QuoteAnd in the Loom example, you really couldn't justify that game at all in a text setting.

You could -- keep in mind that music is represented in letters A-G.

QuoteBasically, I think you are a VERY nostalgic person when it comes to games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all, just don't try to pass off your own personal expectations or opinions as dogma.

Okay, now you're getting a little personal here, as you seem to be throughout your reply.

I'm not trying to push my opinion as dogma -- Ignore me if you want and just consider me as some blathering idiot, cause it doesn't matter to me.

But please, don't automatically assume so much about me, such as being "narrow-minded" and dogmatic.

You also seem to think that just because I have an opinion that differs from other people, that I'm automatically wrong.

Well, fine, I'm in a minority.

If you want to conform to the populist belief without any concrete evidence to back your theory up, then go ahead.

Just don't call me names like "narrow-minded" or "dogmatic", because I've based these opinion on my own observations and discussions with other AGSers.

And I've provided evidence.

So, I'll stick to being a minority, even if it is on something as socially insignificant as an adventure game.

Ignore me, blacklist me, think whatever you want, remixor -- I'm stickin' to my opinion, as narrow-minded as you may think it is!


EDIT:
As an afterthough, from now on could you remain a little more civil, remixor -- I don't appreciate stating my opinion a number of times for you, then having you call me 'narrow-minded' and 'dogmatic'.

Keep in mind, I haven't called anyone else here such names.

Please, don't take all this so personally, as I'm trying my hardest to ignore such comments and keep this debate as informative and insightful as possible.

Sorry for the double post but, as you can tell, my repsonse in the previous post is long enough.

I'm borrowing from Naranjas' text, entitled 'On Uber Protagonistical Elements and Their Effect On Emotive Responses To Hypertexts' to show my comments have some relation to the opinion of another AGSer.

Las Naranjas states:

"The Adventure Game, which shall be examined here, is one of the oldest genres (arising first in Adventure in the Crystal Caves in 1975) and is distinguished by the prominent position of the plot in the construction of the game. The gameplay is achieved solely within the construct of the storyline and is used as a (or rather the) method of propelling the plot."

Full text here: http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/blargh.htm

This does back up my theory to some degree.

Man... i havnt been here for a little while and like this thread has totally evolved. I really don't have time to read the last page or so of replies... heh...

ok, so now continue...

Well i for one am enjoying this :)

But, hm... i lost the track of what this debate is all about.
Yes, adventures don't need graphics. As a matter of fact, no game needs graphics (you can have a game where you need to type in "jump", "shoot" (etc.) fast enough- and you'll have arcade).
But nonetheless graphics are very important (needed or not needed) element of adventure. If you call this element, that adds another dimension (and for some make it more fun) to gameplay, "cosmetics", then ok, let's call it cosmetic.

Do we agree here?

Someone understands!  :D :D :D

Thank you, Igor!

And yes I agree, cause that's exactly the point I was trying to get across!

I can t help but to think that the movie-book analogy had an imortant point in it.

The point that I tried to make wasn t to compare games with movies since they re obviously different in many ways. But I think the relationship between a book/script and a movie is analaguos with the textadventure-graphicaladventure. That is, if you d say that a movie relies on visuals then a graphicaladventure does as well. Here s why I think it seems valid:

You ve argued, as I understand, that a graphical as well as textadventures games rely only upon narrative and interaction. The graphics and sounds isn t necessery since it can be translated into text or it can be cut out all together, given, and I think this is very important, that the game is redesigned.

What I mean with redesign is that if the visuals were simply cut out the game the game wouldn t be playable. So the game has to be rewritten/redesigned.

Now, if we look at movies, they rely on visuals as you say. But do they really given your 'coretheory'? What differs a graphical game from a movie, as I see it, is that what differs a textadventure from a book, namely interaction. A graphical adventure that didn t have any interaction would be called a movie.

Musn t we, if we adopt the reductive theory you ve presented, admit that in the same way that graphicaladventuregames can be reduced to textadventures, claim that movies can be reduced to scripts, given once again, that they are redesigned?

If we were to cut out the visuals from a movie it wouldn t be percieveable, as the graphicadventure with the graphics cut out, but as with the game, it could be redesigned into textgame/a script/book. Some atmosphere would be lost but the core would be the same.

The core would be the story, and it would still be told with the script but without the unnecessery cosmetics that is the visuals.

I think this is a necessery implication given the reductive theory you ve presented.

I m guessing that you may argue that there s still a difference between a movie and a script. A movie per definition has visuals; it s what makes it a movie and is therefore necessery. But in line with the same thinking a graphical adventure would per definition have graphics and therefore be necessery.

Edit: modified the last paragraph

DG,

What I object to in your posts are the following:

1) graphics aren't necessary.
Now you back this up by saying that anything that doesn't add to the loop of "interaction -> narrative" is unnecessary. And that graphics can be substituted with text leaving the same game. Therefore graphics are unnecessary. However, I see several excellent counterexamples in this thread to your substitution argument (loom's music, indy's following the fez). You can't argue that *either* text or graphics or sound aren't necessary to advance the narrative.

2) graphics are cosmetic.
While this is true to an extent, it implies (in many people's minds) that graphics are inferior to other elements of the game. As they are being used to advance the narrative, I suggest that good looking (in some sense) graphics are at least as important as good writing and good sound.

3) an implication that films need good visuals but games don't.
Looking at the book-film versus text adventure-graphic adventure, I can't see evidence for that.

4) you put a lot of stock in narrative.
Most of the adventure games I've played, from Infocom to Sierra to LucasArts, has the most inane, ridiculous, cliched, or banal narrative, and served only to string a bunch of entertaining puzzles, text or graphics off, much like blockbuster movies serve as vehicles for spectacular stunts and effects.

5) comparison with Galileo :)
For every Galileo, there are thousands of crackpots proved wrong by history. Anyway, Galileo was in a scientific field where the answers are pretty black and white. Here, it's mostly down to semantics. By comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

That Las Naranjas article was very interesting - thanks.

Let the theses continue.

Steve

QuoteBy comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

I think we re getting a bit personal. DGs argument was simply, as I understood it, that the majority isn t always right, an argument Remixor implied when saying:

Quote
You're the only person in this thread with that opinion

Even though we re down to semantics these kind of arguments aren t valid and only creates a lousy atmosphere.

The same goes, imo, for your own namecalling in the quote, where you imply that DG is a 'opinionated punter'. You could argue that you didn t call him that, but since you don t seem to hold him for a misunderstood genius, the implication is easy to make.

Let s stick to criticising arguments.

First off: I'm finding this debate really enjoyable reading.  Congrats everybody.

Loominus's second-to-last post contains the point I wanted to make, but I thought I'd just add my own little snippet.

DG, when you claim that 'graphics aren't necessary to the core construction of an adventure', you are absolutely correct.  However, I believe this claim directly translates to the statement: 'visuals aren't necessary to the core construction of a story'.

I feel the book/film analogy is pretty much spot on here.  A book has its own specific strengths and limitations in conveying story, as does a film.  That's why a story told in book form comes across very differently than a story told in film form, even though at the core, the story is the same.

So it is with text/graphic adventures.  A text adventure has its specific strengths and limitations in conveying story and interaction, as does a graphic adventure.  The experiences are different, even though at their core they are the same.

To argue that graphics have no importance in adventures is (to my mind) to argue that visuals have no importance in stories.  But where does that leave graphic adventures and films?


As a side note, I plan to release two versions of the game I'm working on: a text-adventure version and a graphic-adventure version.  I see these as two related but seperate projects, and fully expect them to turn out very differently (despite coming from the exact same initial design) because of the strengths and weaknesses of their different mediums.  If, when released, you can point out that the two games are the same, then I'll be more persuaded to agree with your theory.  Until then...  nah... ;)

Loominous:
The problem with your comparison is that a text adventure and graphical adventure still function on the interactive-narrative level, while a movie acts on a visual-narrative level and a script/book acts on a textual-narrative level.

Steve:

I'm saddened that you object to my post, but we're not in court.

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sun 12/10/2003 16:34:18
1) graphics aren't necessary.
Now you back this up by saying that anything that doesn't add to the loop of "interaction -> narrative" is unnecessary. And that graphics can be substituted with text leaving the same game. Therefore graphics are unnecessary. However, I see several excellent counterexamples in this thread to your substitution argument (loom's music, indy's following the fez). You can't argue that *either* text or graphics or sound aren't necessary to advance the narrative.

But they don't.

I've demonstrated how Loom can work without actual music (substitute sound for the letters of instruments).

Granted, it sucks, but it works.

Also keep in mind that many were playing Loom without soundcards when it was first released -- a lot of us couldn't afford Adlib or SB back then.

Quote2) graphics are cosmetic.
While this is true to an extent, it implies (in many people's minds) that graphics are inferior to other elements of the game. As they are being used to advance the narrative, I suggest that good looking (in some sense) graphics are at least as important as good writing and good sound.

But as I've proven graphics DON'T advance the narrative.

You haven't even said how they advance the narrative.

Also, you shouldn't assume I'm implying anything.

Even though I consider graphics secondary to the narrative and puzzles, I don't think they're inferior as such.

Just unecessary to construct an adventure game.

Quote3) an implication that films need good visuals but games don't.
Looking at the book-film versus text adventure-graphic adventure, I can't see evidence for that.

First of all, you've mixed up my words.

Films don't necessarily need GOOD visual, but they do need visuals of some kind or else you have no film.

I imply nothing once again -- I state very clearly that films operate on a visual-narrative basis while adventure games (both graphical and textual) operate on an interactive-narrative basis.

And as you'll see above post to loominous, I've counter-argued the book-film-adventure theory.

Quote4) you put a lot of stock in narrative.
Most of the adventure games I've played, from Infocom to Sierra to LucasArts, has the most inane, ridiculous, cliched, or banal narrative, and served only to string a bunch of entertaining puzzles, text or graphics off, much like blockbuster movies serve as vehicles for spectacular stunts and effects.

Of course I place a lot of stock in narrative -- It's what drives the game (Naranjas' quote backs me up on that).

Without narrative, all you you have is a series of random interactions that don't move toward a specific goal.

The problem here is you're debating quality with me, when I'm not even talking of quality.

Like I say, graphics do enhance a game, but only on a cosmetic (not inferior) level.

Above all else, an adventure game must have narrative, no matter how inane or cliched.

Quote5) comparison with Galileo :)
For every Galileo, there are thousands of crackpots proved wrong by history. Anyway, Galileo was in a scientific field where the answers are pretty black and white. Here, it's mostly down to semantics. By comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

Galileo was right, though. :)

And Mandela was elected president of South Africa.  ;D

I don't claim to be a misunderstood genius (LOL, the fact you even suggested such a thing makes my theory even more considerable than it actually should be!! Misunderstood genius!! That'll be the day!!) nor do I place myself in the same field as these guys (you'll notice I say "Then again, those things are important -- This is just an adventure game forum")

Call me an opinionated punter, but I'm an opinionated punter with a lot of evidence to back up my theory.

Christ, just because you're in a minority with a proven theory, everyone starts calling you 'opinionated' and 'dogmatic'.

Maybe I should just become a Gandhi-like figure who promotes peace between n00bs and oldies.

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH -- This is way more fun!  8)


Loominous (part 2):
Thank you.


Nellie:
Read my first reply to Loominous for the film-book-adventure stuff.

Also, read back a few posts and you'll see that I'm not translating my theory across all mediums -- just adventure games.

I've stated many times in this thread that visuals are necessary to film, and that you can't compare films and adventures because.. oh, just flick back a few pages and you'll see what I'm saying.

Also, I'm sure your two sames won't be exactly the same (I'm not saying they will be different or the same) -- However, the core narrative-interactive theory will drive them both.

But if films function on a visual-narrative level, and books/scripts function on a textual-narrative level, how come adventures can only function on an interactive-narrative level?

It seems to me that text-adventures function on a textual-interactive-narrative level, while graphic adventures function on a visual-interactive-narrative level.

Quote from: Nellie on Sun 12/10/2003 18:04:34
But if films function on a visual-narrative level, and books/scripts function on a textual-narrative level, how come adventures can only function on an interactive-narrative level?

It seems to me that text-adventures function on a textual-interactive-narrative level, while graphic adventures function on a visual-interactive-narrative level.

I had a feeling you'd ask this.   :)

Hold on to your seat, cause this might get confusing:

It's because the text in a text adventure and the graphics in an a graphic adventure do not primarily drive the adventure as such.

The interactivity does.

This is what separates them from books and films.

Books advance the narrative through reading text as a primary driver.

Film advance narrative through the visual information as a primary driver.

Adventure games (like all games) rely upon interaction as a primary driver.

A text adventure does not primarily rely upon text to drive it -- it's secondary.

Just the same as a graphical adventure does not primarily rely upon graphics to drive it -- graphics are secondary too.

The main focus is the interactivity to drive the narrative.

By the same token, you could argue that text isn't necessary to create an adventure game. (OMG, he's going back on his argument!!)

No, I'm not going bakc on my argument -- I still affirm that graphics aren't necessary.

But text isn't necessary too.

As an example, look at the Inca and Gobliiins series of games -- very minimal (if any) text usage to convey narrative. (But they have GRAPHICS only then -- you're wrong)

No, I'm not wrong because you can translate it to another peripherial, such as text.

And this is what I'm arguing -- text, graphics, and sound are all peripherial to the narrative and interactivity.

After you decide the direction of core of your game (narrative and interactions), then you decide which peripherials to use (should your game be graphicial, textual, etc, etc).

I am also sure there are other way to create an adventure game other than textual and graphical -- Peter Gabriel's Eve project was based more upon audio than graphics and text.

Also, people used to play adventure games before computers, using their voices to describe the happenings (and believe it or not, I once played a game of Loom with a friend of mine in primary school, but I had no computer with me so I just spoken what was happening and he interacted with the world I spoke)

But I'm sure some boffin can translate such across the other peripherials.

However, this still proves that the heart of a game relies upon interactivity and narrative primarily.

Text, graphics and sound act as cosmetic peripherials.

And even if you don't use text, graphics, sound, or voice, you'll still have an adventure game.

You'll just be playing it in your head. ;)

(But you'll still have created an adventure game)  ;D

Have I confused you enough yet?

Oh, it seems i missed one of your replys yesterday DGM... no wonder with the speed this thread is evolving.
Well, wasn't there some talk about getting personal a few messages back? I won't respond though, as i think i'd get too low with any reply and don't want to additionally heat up otherwise interesting thread.
No hard feelings, but sometimes it's better to "go ride a bike or hang out at your bowling alley" as you wrote, before replying with big letters and exclamation marks.

so lemme get this straight?

DG now says that text, graphics and sound are not necessary for an adventure game, so i take it the only thing that is necessary is the story/narrative and how you choose to tell that story/drive that narrative is unnecessary?

so all the arguements you have made about graphics being unneeded because the same can be done with text is in a way added to by saying that text is unneeded cause the same can be done with another medium?

and you'll be apologizing to remixor and igor? hehe

I'll reply briefly because my reading of this thread has been sparse.

Whilst the defining element of a hypertext is it's interactivity (and you'll notive I'm making evaluations on them as texts and not Games, whch muddies the issue), graphical adventures which are a seperate but related genre to text adventures, are an audio visual medium, and all elements are important.

George Lucas makes the claim that film is a Visual medium, and he uses that as an excuse to write shit dialogue. But we are no longer in the silent film era and you can't neglect sound unless there actually purpose in doing so.

Just as I attack Syberia for only providing a pretence of interactivity when it was available, I would attack a game that left its graphics in a shambles. But that has limited applicability here because of the fact that its easy to recognise that high quality graphics are easily not within the grasp of amateur developers, and with the limited resources they have, those who can achieve them most likely neglect the larger porton of their game.
Or make fan games to fill the void created by the sapping of creative energies ;).
There's also the likes of Mostly whose graphical shambles have purpose.

Graphics are an important part of the Audio Visual Hypertext that we call the Adventure Game. Interactivity makes it unique, and seperates it from film, but it's by all means not the only element.
But I'm very wary of good graphics in Amateur games. They seem to distract from the whole. My favourite AGS games either have very utilitarian graphics, or they're very short (Apprentice), unfinished (Sol, Crown of Gold) or still being waited upon like the proverbial postcard (Time Out).

But my hasty and ill based judgement of the Inventory magazine based on the sole issue I've read and the place of it's hosting on JA leads me to believe that there's an overemphasis on eyecandy, though less than in the horrendus reviews on JA.

He better does, or i'll throw my bowling ball at him ;)

Quote from: Igor on Sun 12/10/2003 20:33:38
Oh, it seems i missed one of your replys yesterday DGM... no wonder with the speed this thread is evolving.
Well, wasn't there some talk about getting personal a few messages back? I won't respond though, as i think i'd get too low with any reply and don't want to additionally heat up otherwise interesting thread.
No hard feelings, but sometimes it's better to "go ride a bike or hang out at your bowling alley" as you wrote, before replying with big letters and exclamation marks.

Okay, okay -- I'll relent here.

I appologise, if you were offended.

However, the point of my "STOP PLAYING ADVENTURE GAMES FOR A MINUTE, GET OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE WORLD, IGOR!!" was to emphasize that comparing adventure games, of all things, to life real consequence is kind of ridiculous as real life is a little more significant than an adventure game.

I didn't say it to attack you, only to emphasize the above.

Now, let's go bowling!

QuoteDG now says that text, graphics and sound are not necessary for an adventure game, so i take it the only thing that is necessary is the story/narrative and how you choose to tell that story/drive that narrative is unnecessary?

Although, this seems like the most preposterous thing you've heard, it's true.

Quoteso all the arguements you have made about graphics being unneeded because the same can be done with text is in a way added to by saying that text is unneeded cause the same can be done with another medium?

Once again, it may sound preposterous, but when you think carefully about it, it's true.

Quoteand you'll be apologizing to remixor and igor? hehe

I've apologised to Igor, but I don't see why remixor needs an apology, as I never said anything bad about him.

I just politely asked him to be a little more civil (though now that the Igor comment has been brought up, I feel the same could have been applied to me).

I don't think I want to cause any ill-will to anyone here.

...

...

Ah what the hell...

/me throws his bowling ball at Eric and calls him "Girly-girly-wet-pant-man"!   ;)




I gather this thread is going nowhere and I'm forever going to be in a minority on this, so I'll shut my gob completely now -- I think my point has been made clear, so if anyone wants reply to my "dogmatic" and "close-minded" drivel without further debate, please do so.

Ok, I still honestly can't force myself to agree with much at all of what DG is saying, but I hope it's clear that I don't hold anything against him personally. :)  I assume that goes without saying, but just in case, there it is.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 12/10/2003 13:44:46

QuoteSometimes atmosphere is such an important part of a game that removing it by stripping the game of what gives it atmosphere will leave you with a completely different game.

Read the last thing I wrote in previous post -- You can create atmosphere without graphics.

I realize that, and I even said it myself in one part of my post.  However, I was saying the game would be totally different.  You can get nutrition by consuming wildly varying types of food, but you can still detest one type of food, even if you love another kind that does exactly the same thing for you.  Just because to YOU the narrative drive only requires text doesn't mean that holds true for other adventure gamers.  I'm not arguing that graphics are more important than story or plot, but in a graphic adventure they are indeed crucial.  And hell, I'll just say you CAN create the same narrative drive with just text.  Fine, but narrative drive is not all that makes up a game.  Period.  There are many aspects of a graphic adventure, and you can't boil them all down to something like "narrative drive."

Quote

QuoteThat's irrelevant because that text game would have nothing in common with Grim Fandango!

Except have the same narrative drive, which as I've said, is fundamental to adventure game making.

I never said it wans't fundamental!  However, just because something is fundamental doesn't mean it's the only important part.  Your brain is pretty fundamental, isn't it?  That doesn't mean you would get far without your heart.

Quote

QuoteNobody wants to just play through a bunch of interactions, they want a full experience.

I'm not debating on what people want -- I am merely saying that graphics aren't necessary in adventures.

And still, I merely ask: on what authority do you decree this principle?  They are not necessary in text adventures, but in a graphic adventure they obviously are.  Those two genres have wildly diverged.  I understand you can sort of put them in the same category, but it's fairly irrelevant.  On the whole they attract very different sorts of gamers.  Sure, it's very possible for people to enjoy both--but people also enjoy both shooters and puzzle games.  The appeal of graphic adventures is still very different than the appeal of text adventures, even if they do contain some shared elements, like narrative drive.

Quote

Quotehowever, it must be gone about in COMPLETELY different ways.

Yet both rely upon the same inner mechanisms.

No, they don't.  One relies on the player imagining a world in his mind, the other relies on SHOWING a player a world.  This is not the same mechanism at all.

Quote

QuoteAnd by the way, the genre of game we here at AGS create and play is actually called the "graphic adventure"--one reason the genre has been dubbed as such is to differentiate it from text adventures, which are very different games.

Both sub-genre are still part of the same genre.

Besides, just because AGS is used to form graphic adventures, it doesn't mean I have to conform to graphic adventure principles when making games.

You most definitely don't, but what I take issue with is that you seem to be trying to define the genre according to what you think is apparently the sole important factor.  I can't tell if you really think narrative drive is the only important part of adventures, or if it's just really important, but whichever one you mean, it sure looks like you're saying the former, so that's how I'm treating your statements.

Quote

QuoteWhen graphics were introduced to adventures, it was revolutionary. It wasn't some minor thing that just got tacked on.

No debate there -- Yes, revolutionary, but still cosmetic.

It enhanced the game, but is not a fundamental.

At first, this was true.  However, the genre has evolved greatly to the point where graphics are crucial in providing the unique experience of a particular game.  I absolutely maintain that this is a very different mechanism than creating the experience of a text adventure.

Quote

QuoteWith graphics, one is able to tell stories without having to spell out every word of it--instead of saying "You are in a majestic cathedral", you can SHOW the player a beautifully rendered shot of a vaulted church, light pouring in through the stained-glass windows.

Once again, cosmetic.

Possibly.  Or maybe there are things hidden in the stained glass windows that you would have no choice but to spell out for the player in a text adventure, which could be subtly placed in the graphic adventure.  And what if the whole game is based around clues like this?  It simply wouldn't make sense in a text adventure.

Quote

QuoteI don't understand how you could think that they are fundamentally the same.  They aren't.  

They are and I've shown how.

You haven't proven otherwise.

Your proof is based entirely on your opinion that graphics are purely cosmetic, and I've given several examples (and another one in this post) of cases when non-text elements cannot be accurately translated in a text adventure.  Even if they literally have the same underlying fundamental elements, they do not provide the same experience, and games are largely about providing an experience for the player.

(sorry, it was too long and I had to split it up)

Quote

QuoteDG, your point now seems to be that atmosphere merely adds on to a game, and is not fundamentally necessary.  This is SOMETIMES true, but by no means is it always.  Every game has different strengths, and sometimes atmosphere is a big strength.

But you haven't told me how or why graphics are a fundamental of game-making.

Of course I haven't, since I never attempted to say such a thing.  I said that there are many cases of graphic adventure games (not "game-making" as an absolute) in which graphics or other non-text elements provide crucial parts of the game that cannot be reproduced with text.  Even in graphic adventures CAN be translated decently well to text, it is NOT a case of simply "removing the graphics", not at all!  This would seem almost self-evident to me.  In many or even most cases, the gameplay is fundamentally different.

Quote

QuoteI don't understand why you don't just say "I, DGMacphee, don't care about graphics."

Because I do care about graphics -- I'm attracted to all pretty, shiny things like a crow.

However, I recognise they're only a cosmetic value in the construction.

That is why I place more emphasis on story and interactivity than on graphics and sound.

In adventure games, I generally put far more emphasis on story and interactivity than on graphics and sound as well.  I agree with you there.  Where I cannot possibly agree is where you say that they are "only a cosmetic value."  This CAN be the case, but is by no means always such and I have no desire to continue to provide examples to support my argument there.

Quote

QuoteThe fact that you're trying to make such a broad statement as "Graphics are not necessary in adventures" (especially considering we're talking about GRAPHIC adventures) is absurd!

Just because I belong to a graphical adventure forum means I can't state something for which I've provided evidence?

Now that's absurd!

I didn't say you can't state it, but I still can't help feeling a lot of your "evidence" IS fairly absurd.

Quote

QuoteYou're the only person in this thread with that opinion, and these are the AGS forums, for crying out load, where nobody expects a high graphic standard.

Galileo tried to prove the Earth revolved around the Sun and was labelled a heretic, put on trial by the Spanish Inquisition, and imprisoned.

And let's not forget Nelson Mandela was jailed and beaten for promoting the crazy idea that black people should have the same rigths as white people.

Then again, the Earth rotating around the Sun is a scientific matter.  Games are not bound by the laws of physics, and are essentially only measured by how much fun they provide.  Nobody is going to prove you or me right or wrong a few hundred years down the road.  Same goes for the second example.

Quote
Then again, those things are important -- This is just an adventure game forum.  ;)

True dat.

Quote

QuoteIf most adventure gamers think graphics can be very important in a game, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't, where do you get the authority to make such an absolute judgment?

Because I'm allowed to have an opinion?

Again, it just seems to me that you're trying to pass off your opinion as the law of the genre.  I would have absolutely no problem with you saying "For me, the narrative drive of adventure games is by far and away the most crucial part of the game and graphics don't significantly add to my enjoyment or appreciation of the genre" (or something along those lines).  However, it seems like you're trying to put that on a universal level, and, again, that's where I take issue.

Quote

QuoteGames exist for the purpose of enjoyment.  Obviously, for most people, graphics can substantially improve the amount of enjoyment one derives from a game.  I don't understand where the lack of understanding occurs at this point.

No lack of understanding.

Graphics can enhance the enjoyment of a game, true.

However, graphics are not fundamental to adventure games, despite enjoyment.

They are not fundamental to all adventure games, but I absolutely stand firm in saying that they are crucial to SOME, or MANY, adventure games.

Quote
Some of the most enjoyable games I've played have had zero to limited graphical ability.

Ok...same here.  Also, some of the most enjoyable games I've played have had a lot of graphical ability.  Such statements really don't support either argument at all.


Ok, I'm going to stop responding to individual statements at this point because quite frankly it's just taking too long ;)  Most of what was left I think I've pretty much covered earlier anyway.

Quote
Okay, now you're getting a little personal here, as you seem to be throughout your reply.

I'm not trying to push my opinion as dogma -- Ignore me if you want and just consider me as some blathering idiot, cause it doesn't matter to me.

But please, don't automatically assume so much about me, such as being "narrow-minded" and dogmatic.

Ok, I definitely got a bit out of line.  I offer my full apologies.  I don't mean to accuse you as a person of being narrow-minded, it just seemed to me that your opinion on this matter is rather limiting as far as what constitutes an adventure game.  I didn't intend to get more personal than that, and I'm sorry that it came out that way.  Hopefully you won't hold it against me.

Quote
You also seem to think that just because I have an opinion that differs from other people, that I'm automatically wrong.

No, if I thought you were automatically wrong, I wouldn't have bothered to write so much. ;)

Quote
Well, fine, I'm in a minority.

If you want to conform to the populist belief without any concrete evidence to back your theory up, then go ahead.

Ok, now careful not to fall prey to the same vices I did here.  I don't think I'm being baselessly conformist by any means.  I think I've provided ample support for my arguments.

Quote
Just don't call me names like "narrow-minded" or "dogmatic", because I've based these opinion on my own observations and discussions with other AGSers.

Rest assured I won't; again, I'm sorry for making my post more personal than I intended.

QuoteIgnore me, blacklist me, think whatever you want, remixor

Nah, no need.



Anyway, it looks like DG is done with this topic.  I probably am too unless someone else posts something new, so I just want to be clear I hold no ill will.  I'm sure DG won't hold it against me.

"I'm sure DG won't hold it against me."

if you told him he had a beautiful body he would

Oh man, I hope so.

*Igor throws away bowling ball (along with a few knifes and guns he was hiding under his underpants)*

As i said, no hard feelings. But thanks for apologizing :)
Just to clarify- my "before TV there was rado.... before houses there were caves" was clearly taken out of context. I was far from comparing games with real life issues. What i did, was comparing advancement of games with technology advancement in general- exaggerated of course. The only reason i did this, was because i misunderstood the point of your argument (as most of other people here clearly did).

Here, now i can finally retire :)

I think computers also aren't necessary for adventure games!!!!

No computers??  But then how would you do the monkey wrench puzzle from Monkey Island????

(http://teachers.teach-nology.com/web_tools/web_quest/monkey.gif)

I dunno man the experience just isn't the same!11

(http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/lg-sock-monkey.jpg)

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 11/10/2003 02:28:34
* Graphics in adventure games are unnecessary, because adventures are narrative-based, and such narrative advances primarily through interactions.

Ok - but a lot of puzzles in point-n-click adventures are based on visual clues, so how can you stick with this argument?

Maybe this would be a good competition in the Comp/Activity forum (or not), but how about some brain exerice by thinking of ways in which very graphical puzzles could be done in a text adventure and vice versa. For example, Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy has some cracking puzzles. For example, you start in bed and can't do ANYTHING until you open your eyes, get out of bed and turn the light on. Or when you teleport on to the Vogon ship, you get:

You can smell nothing, see nothing, taste nothing, hear nothing, feel nothing...

repeatedly, except occasionaly you get:

You can see nothing, taste nothing, hear nothing, feel nothing...

at which point you need to type "SMELL", you smell smelling salts and wake from your unconciousness!

Quote from: miez on Mon 13/10/2003 13:17:05

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 11/10/2003 02:28:34
* Graphics in adventure games are unnecessary, because adventures are narrative-based, and such narrative advances primarily through interactions.

Ok - but a lot of puzzles in point-n-click adventures are based on visual clues, so how can you stick with this argument?

If only you'd asked several days ago, I'd be bothered to answer.

Now the thread's fallen into silliness and I'm just posting random crap -- looks like you'll never know what I would have said.

You're too late, the debate's pretty much over, sucks to be you -- HAHAHAHAHAH!  ;D

j/k

and DG's posting sock monkey porn....

he's got a huge... banana

and SSH:

that puzzle reminds me of hitchhiker's guide, after you teleport onto the vogon ship you just sit there in blackness [blueness] and you have to keep looking until something happens, then you have to look at it or something like that

eric

(http://images.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/games/_photos/monkey-brains.jpg)