As an experienced adventure gamer who grew up in the 90's in adventures golden era...
I have played many games... My entire collection can be foune here
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=42318.0
(Suggest something for me to play if you know any I don't have)...
I find the issue with adventure gaming in 2010... is simple... there is nothing new being made commercially... a little smatter of Run Away and The Longest Journey topped with the Odd One hit wonder commercial game... but the major studios behind adventure that are doign the most advertising and pushing of the adventure game market are -at least I think- unfortunately just selling new versions of old franchises...
Even broken sword has seemingly ceased being made and are now just shoveling out remakes (Broken Sword: Directors Cut + Beneath a Steel Sky Rrmastered)... and telltale is one of the worst... I buy their products... sure some are quite enjoyable... but they seem like fan games... because they have such a nostalgic relationship with the games that the developed become fans of the game itself and thus are too scared to try anything progressive or inovative...
The tales of monkey island for example really didn't have anything new... Just another cliche Guybrush story... tho for my money lacked a lot of humor... Because they were too scared to do anything that may upset the Series' Fandom... these games like King's Quest, Broken Sword, Monkey Island etc, etc. were classics FOR A REASON... they were something new and interesting, something we didn't have before.... So why is the adventure game Genre "dead"... I believe its simply because no one is making anything truly new or interesting... I daresay Roberta was a genius she took it from text to graphic adventure game with parsor to fully voice acted point and click...
I really respect what Bill Tiller is doing with August Moon Also.... A vampyre Story and Ghost Pirates were actually for my money rather enjoyable games.. tho many are quick to point out their flaws at least Bill had the guts to try and do something new... even tho a lot of people will by default make comparisons between Ghost Pirates and Monkey Island (Which is crazy... just because they both have pirate themes... Is XXX with Vin Diesel a James Bond film just because it has a destructive none-too-careful spy?)
So when will the adventure game company stop just rehashing old shit to make a quick buck.. when are they gonna try and take a risk instead of playing safe and selling nostalgia and start making NEW CLASSICS!?
Don't you think that's a rather simplistic approach to a well known and discussed subject?
Money's a good reason.
Would Telltale have been anywhere near as successful if they'd use an original IP rather than the Sam and Max/Strongbad/Monkey Island/Wallace & Gromit ones? Seems most unlikely.
Putting in new, exciting things to the genre often divides player's opinions a lot more strongly as well (look at Insecticide). It's easy to sit here and go "Boo nothing is new anymore :(" but at the end of the day, games that dare to be different often fail to sell serious numbers.
Also, the adventure game genre is hardly dead.
The way I see it, it's a risk just releasing an adventure game nowdays. Breaking the norm while releasing an adventure is pretty much suicidal money-wise.
And after all nothing's the same like back then. Back in the 90's adventures games were impressive. Best looking games on the amiga/pc. Wanted to impress someone? Showed them Gabriel Knight. Nowdays the hardware has changed, much more is possible, adventures are no longer the treat they used to be.
Also the whole gaming community has changed. Much more massive, meaning more mainstream. Meaning not willing to play a game for solving puzzles and watch a story unfold in 20 hours. There is a market for adventures but it's much more limited than back then. The geeks have lost their kingdom! (sadly)
It's a different world. Damn back then even the kid cartoons were based on plot and puzzles and mystery. Everything now is way more fast and easy to digest.
hooray for using "back then" 1424 times in a post.
I have degree in Film and theatre... and it ties in...there is in theatre a small lil repitory theatre companies who do things that are interesting...
But as the masses (Hollywood).. they're releasing the same movies from the 1930's (Shutter Island is Essentually The Cabinet of Dr Calgari)... and the money thing is a big grey area.. they may lose money... but you have to lose money to make real money... thats entrepeneurial business.... Melodrama theatre (Melodic drama.. which combined humor and tragedy)... was a risk.. but they tried it... now theres elements in it in almost every single video game, tv show and movie today... so you have to take risks... or instance if someone sat down with a Wii type configuration... and thought hard enough.. they could make something interesting.. and thats another issue.... computer games in and of themselves don't make up for much sales... because they're too in acessable and a lot are rather bland...
The market has drastically changed... adventure games were in a time of peoople who were more of a sophisticated class... now everyone has an x box its much more lax...
But the adventure game is realy suffering from a rehash of blandness... and the why "adventure games are too expencive" is for me kind of a scape goat for companies... you cannot look me in the eye and tell me straight faced that a project such as "Resident Evil 5", "Silent Hill Home Coming" or "Grand theft auto 4" was viably cheaper than say "The longest journey" or "Runaway".... no they would have cost a shit load more to make and a lot more time and effort...
So to me thats very much a scape goat for companies... who seem to have many scapegoats for the fact they simply don't have the balls to try...
In the words of the band survivor "Got the guts go the glory"... in about 1999 the adventure games were getting pretty sparce... I'm sure i'm not the only one who agrees that Kings Quest: Mask of Eternity was a bad idea with an even worse execution... and up pops revolution with "Broken Sword" which sells like hot cakes... see what i'm saying....
Also i never personally never said the genre was dead.... is it was "dead"... which makes it a quotation for the masses who say it is... I just think its in a lul period... its making a slight come back now.. but its a shame all the content is just old stuff... and i played the first chapter of Tales of monkey island.. it was just missing the old flair that it used to had... it was guybrush threepwood in bubble wrap because he's too precious to be anything but nostalgic...
Also.. Its reasonable to add that places like IGN and such sites are so biased... I saw one give a review.. and it was like he had been slapped upside the head with a mallet... labotomised... fed half an ounce of rohypnal... than told to make a review.. this was a magazine who said "well the graphics are good..." in about 5 different ways... how does that make a game good or bad... I don't watch a shit movie because the costumes are nice.. nor do i not watch a good movie because the props department are sub-par.. I hardly call what they do Journalism... yet they call them selves video game journalist.. they have the academic depth of a sugar filled condom... in the end pointless... At least Yahtzee (tho you may have mixed oppinions on the man) on zero punctuation actually shows you the flaws instead of just going "yeah... its good... mini game are nice... games pretty.. did i mention mini-games are nice.. and that the developers are paying me off.. oh that might be useful." So its also in the hands of dodgy "Journalists" tho i'd seriously like to see their credentials other than "I once ate 3 pizza's while on a silent hill marathon"...
Quote from: strangechicken on Mon 06/12/2010 05:34:23
The market has drastically changed... adventure games were in a time of peoople who were more of a sophisticated class... now everyone has an x box its much more lax...
I think this could probably be re-written as "Adventure games were popular in a time when people weren't so easily distracted, games were newer and we were much more willing to overlook their shortcomings because we hadn't been shown that there's a friendlier way of doing things. Adventure games were popular in a time when 2D reigned supreme because 3D hadn't been realized to an extent where it could create vivid worlds to set a game in, thus the painted backdrop was the most effective way of creating beautiful locations. Adventure games were popular in a world without the internet, and things like multiplayer and easily accessible solutions to puzzles that spoil the "gameplay" portion of the genre."
It's true that people aren't always doing new things when they release a game, but the same has almost always been true to some extent. Look how many Doom clones and Command and Conquer clones were being made back in the 90s. Every now and then someone is brave enough to propose a game like Planescape: Torment to a publisher and that publisher is foolish enough to give them money and we get an amazing game, but it's rare that any of these sell huge numbers.They might be cult classics still in 10 years time, but they don't keep publishers in business.
I guess what I am saying is: Go and play Planescape: Torment.
;D
I hate online multiplayer games... I play video games to get away from boring real people.. why would i want to play AGAINST even duller lifeless people... who "pwn noobs"... yet if they looked objectively.. they're just pressing x over and over again with a can of coke and bag of doritos.. not really that complex... World of war craft I played for about 2 days and got bored... the philosophy of it is too simple "click yourself silly".. it doesn't get much more complex than click ere/click there and the occasionally more sillful click further over there... its too easy.. now give those "pwners" King's Quest 3 and see how they fare eh!?... I know.. I finished it.. and i'm probably NEVER going to play it again as long as I live (thats probably a lie)... but it was one of the hardest games i've ever played...
When you say things like "you have to lose money to make real money" it shows that you might have the wrong picture of the industry. Most studios that make adventure games nowadays aren't part of the major publishing machines that make those 100 mil games. The very existance of these companies depends on how many copies their next game sells (if they even have enough money to ever finish it) and if they choose such a niche market like adventure games, it's hard to go too far away from the already small audience and try something crazy. Many of the people working in these companies have families to feed and so on.
You should remeber that today's game industry is just that: an industry. It makes money and feeds families. Sometimes great games come out as a by-product.
PS. strangechicken, could you not end every sentece with "...". It makes your text very slow to read.
yeah, i've been getting a lot of flack about the "..." I work as a professional comedian, so a lot of what i write actually meant to be said verbally, I sometimes forget to switch back when i'm doing written text. It's habit I guess, I use "..." as a form of inflection, also the ammount of academic reflective journals i've written probably influence the bad habbit.
I have to disagree with almost everything you've said, I'm afraid.
Quote from: strangechicken on Sun 05/12/2010 22:30:14
telltale is one of the worst... I buy their products... sure some are quite enjoyable... but they seem like fan games... because they have such a nostalgic relationship with the games that the developed become fans of the game itself and thus are too scared to try anything progressive or inovative...
While I'd love to see Telltale produce a game with original premise, their writing and game design rivals and exceeds many of the best adventures of the 90s (most Sierra games, for my money). As for recent originals, what about Machinarium, The Whispered World, The Lost Crown or Barrow Hill (or Time Gentlemen Please!)? Add those to your list, if you haven't played them!
Quote from: strangechicken on Mon 06/12/2010 05:34:23
But as the masses (Hollywood).. they're releasing the same movies from the 1930's (Shutter Island is Essentually The Cabinet of Dr Calgari)...
Just because the endings of those two films are similar doesn't make them the same. Otherwise we could say that all tragedies are essentially the same because everyone dies at the end. Shutter Island
is a homage to Film Noir and it takes much from gothic literature, but I don't see anything objectionable there!
Quote from: strangechicken on Mon 06/12/2010 05:34:23
The market has drastically changed... adventure games were in a time of peoople who were more of a sophisticated class... now everyone has an x box its much more lax...
A more sophisticated class? When I was 11 and I huddled around an amiga with my friends to play Monkey Island I'm not sure we constituted a more sophisticated class than the far broader spectrum of gamers in 2010. Todays spectrum now includes all kinds of people (grown ups and some lady-types) many of whom might be interested in imaginative and inventive storytelling in games.
All in all the indie game scene is a lot healthier than the indie film scene. I think we must stop lamenting the death of adventure games.
Well for the record I can actually acurately say tragedies are all the same: Because I have a graduate diploma In Creative arts (Basically Multimedia, theatre, film etc) majoring in theatre and the history and they were cookie cutout formulas, in fact Shakespeare so called greatest play "Hamlet" is a rip off of Thomas Kyd's Play "The spanish tragedy" down to the ghost who is being avenged and watches everything! In fact there talk amongst scholars that there was a play called "Ur-hamlet" that shakespeare directly copied; we must remember there was no real copyright so they stole absolutely everything off each other, you gotta remeber there was no real plot twists, the theatre was a political structure.. so every tragedy IS in essense the same play, just pointing out something different politically at the time. There was a reason both the monarchy and church innitially viewed theatre as "dangerous."
My lecturer was a historian who had a PHD in Shakespeare and Renaisanse history andwas head of many academic boards, but thats off topic! I never said shutter island was bad, In fact I loved it, Di Caprio is probably up there with Christopher Lloyd with my favorite actors, but it still has striking similarities to Calgari's twist and plotline, Except calgari was probably a lot deeper because it was an "Expressionist" film, and Shutter Island, while a good poignant movie and nod to films of yesteryear, was more so main stream entertanment.
Obviously also.. while I admittedly don't have a full picture of the adventure niche genre companies.. but as someone with a university training of the entertainment industy and who has worked and various facets of the entertainment industry professionally (Mostly thru stage work, a few varied multi media jobs). I think it would be inaccurate to say i have the "wrong picture" I just don't have the insight into that specfic area of the industry, and thats accurarate but i do have a very good knowledge of the basics, but admittedly I am simply a purveyor of the fine of art of adventure gaming have been most of my life, I'm not the Be-all and end-all argument i'm just stating my view as i see it and I think thats a fair thing to do in a public forum.
I will not disagree that telltale outdoes Sierra, I will be completely honest, Sierra's writing was cliche and spewed out, if it were an action games dialogue, it would be in the same vain as "house of the dead." they weren't the strongest writers around, and i'm not saying that there isn't new good content, i'm just saying that its a sad thing that its so few and sparce, when in my era it wasn't h ard to find something fun to play, now we have to grovel and scavange for someone to release something for us...
Finally the indie film scene is not dead, its just what it is, Independant: thus not that heavily publicised, most major cities and EVEN rural cities have a number of indie film festivals, and some even get incuded in the major film festivals such as cannes, and the Indie scene IS booming, where did I ever say it wasn't? I have seen a lot of good product come out of AGS, and there is probably still a lot to come out of it, but for years before finding AGS I had nothing. My debate is more about commercial companies than the indie scene.
The issue is even with a booming independant community you'd rarely get anyone without a predisposition to adventure gaming in some form, so all we can do here is preach to the converted, where commercial games, due to their marketing and commercial status has more ability to reach out and find new fans and help the community grow.
But as I said earlier in this post, this is just my oppinion, i'm not saying you have to agree or disagree, its just what it is: An oppinon, and again I believe it is fair to do that on a public forum
You're not the only one with a mickey mouse degree in Theatre & Film etc. *Ahem...*
The fact that Shakespeare borrowed material doesn't make all tragedies the same. Are you telling me Hamlet and King Lear are the same? Narratively, thematically, emotionally, politically? Come on, now!
I also doubt I overstated the problems independent film is facing. In the UK at least we're in for a cold winter. *Shakes fist at Coalition government*.
I just wanted to offer an alternate perspective. I hope you enjoy some of the newer games I suggested!
ah yeah! in Australia indie film is huge, but than its really all the new content because commercially *looks down* they only make on average 7 commerical films a year! So most everything else is an independant project, and whats mickey mouse about a degree in theatre and film, its actually based on a mixture of historical accuracy whic provides context, psychology to understand the human condition and relate to our audience, I am NOT trained as an actor, I wish to point that out as many seem to have ono clear differintiation, I am an academic, a dramaturg, writer, Historian etc: that is my study focus, and tho the plot changes, they're still following the same conventions set by Aristotle in the "Ars Poetica" (tho a few rules are distrupted here and there). So they are in essne the same play, different characters.
In the same instance that there is a thousand horror films abotu a lemented teenage high school girl who becomes an undead or supernatural killing machine and kills her tormentor in her high school (Carrie probably the prime example), in fact walk into any video rental store and go to the horror/thriller section, and you will find at least 10 films in the first 5 minutes with exactly that description, tragedy is in essense that!
and I respect your oppinion, but in some thing I believe we will just have to agree to disagree
I don't agree with the tragedy/unimaginative slasher movie parallel, but I will agree to disagree.
And by mickey mouse, I mean the kind of media-related degree I did. That is, one which will be little use in the unlikely event of global economic meltdown. No offence intended!
Quotebut I will agree to disagree
and that is what academia is all about, because every academic knows there IS no definitive truth, only different perspectives of the one event.
QuoteNo offence intended!
Sorry bout that, but its not uncommon for people to try to discredit theatre as viably academic, the other day I had a nurse tell me my degree was ultimately pointless and just about wearing funny costumes and entertaining children. That's not what theatre, well the theatre I prefer to do is about; and in fact I could make the argument without theatre the medical degree would not exist as it is today, because, the initial disection of bodies, where the renaissanse depictions of the human body were debunked (Much to to dispair of the catholic church) in ticket shows, hence where the term "Operating theatre" comes from, otherwise we'd still think the vagina was an internal penis, the body is made of 4 humors, and that women are irrational because hysteria festers in their womb (Hence hysterectomy).
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 01:09:19
I am an academic, a dramaturg, writer, Historian etc: that is my study focus, and tho the plot changes, they're still following the same conventions set by Aristotle in the "Ars Poetica"
You meant
Horace, didn't you?
QuoteYou meant Horace, didn't you?
Nope, Because really all the concepts horace talked about where handed down by Aristotle; Horace was a student of Aristotle and Aristotle was in turn a student of plato, Horace did change a few things here and there but fundamentally it is the same foundation and roughly the same ideas and concepts (plays must be 5 acts, Etc.).
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 02:23:22
QuoteYou meant Horace, didn't you?
Nope, Because really all the concepts horace talked about where handed down by Aristotle; Horace was a student of Aristotle and Aristotle was in turn a student of plato, Horace did change a few things here and there but fundamentally it is the same foundation.
Then why a
latin title for a work written in
greek?
QuoteThen why a latin title for a work written in greek?
Just because he was a student of Aristotle doesn't mean he was greek does it? I could be a student of the work of Samuel Beckett and the man is long dead, the period of Horace was really about them digging up old material to understand how the world works in both a physical and metaphysical way, most notably the works of people like aristotle and pythagoras, horace was roman. It was one of those "whats old is new again" and we can learn from it type eras. Kind of like the english renaisanse, the age of re-enlightenment. so horace took Ari's words, translated and reinterpreted them for roman poets and playwrights, but really it was all pretty much the work of aristotle, he is really the creative force behind "Ars Poetica" horace was fundementally just a translator hence why in academic circles they are called the NEO-classical rules, not simply the classical rules.
I hope that cleared things up for you.
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 02:38:17
Just because he was a student of Aristotle doesn't mean he was greek does it? I could be a student of the work of Samuel Beckett and the man is long dead, the period of Horace was really about them digging up old material to understand how the world works in both a physical and metaphysical way, most notably people like aristotle and pythagoras, horace was roman. It was one of those "whats old is new again" and we can learn from it type eras. Kind of like the english renaisanse, the age of re-enlightenment. so horace took Ari's words, translated and reinterpreted them for roman poets and playwrights, but really it was all pretty much the work of aristotle, he is really the creative force behind "Ars Poetica" horace was fundementally just a translator.
I hope that cleared things up for you.
I must have been misunderstood!
My question was: why are
you referring to Aristotle's Poetics (a work written in
greek, by a
greek author) using a
latin name?
Because Ars Poetica is not the same as Aristotles Poetics, different book, Horace brought his own politics to aristotles work, while most of his duty was as translator he did however change a few things (Aristotle liked a bit of comedy, horace despised comedy and actually started the comedy is inferior to tragedy thing).
Here see for yourself, this is a section on comedy from aristotles "Poetics"
As, in the serious style, Homer [supposed author of the Illiad and the Odyssey] is preeminent among poets, for he alone combined dramatic form with excellence of imitation, so he first laid down the main lines of Comedy, by dramatising the ludicrous instead of writing personal satire....But when Tragedy and Comedy came to light, the two classes of poets still followed their natural bent: the lampooners became writers of Comedy, and the epic poets were succeeded by Tragedians, since the drama was a larger and higher form or art.
... Comedy is, as we have said, and imitation of characters of a lower type-not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the Ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect of ugliness, which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain. The successive changes through which Tragedy passed, and the authors of these changes are well known, whereas Comedy has had no history, because if was not at first treated seriously ...
(Aristotle, ‘Poetics,’ (translated by SH Butcher) in Bernard F Dukore (ed.), Dramatic theory and criticism: Greeks to Grotowski, HBJ College Publishers, 1974, New York, pp. 34â€"5.)
However good old horace found it far too indecoruous to be considered true theatre, it wasn't tragedy and he therefore claimed that tragedy is by far insuperior to comedy, not exactly what aristotle himself said if ya get my drift. Old horace liked to change an odd passage here and there to fit his personal agenda.
So I am still talking about Ars Poetica as it is the most modern classical version of poetics, its still Ari's work so why not refer to the most moden version? after all Neoclassical france actually Use Ari's work thru horaces translation the most
Brad Newsom get out of this body.
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 03:01:23
Because Ars Poetica is not the same as Aristotles Poetics, different book
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 01:09:19
I am an academic, a dramaturg, writer, Historian etc: that is my study focus, and tho the plot changes, they're still following the same conventions set by Aristotle in the "Ars Poetica"
I think you were referring to a greek work by mistakenly using a latin title, an error many wannabe academics do.
The "I am talking about Aristotle's ideas as depicted in Horace's book" doesn't hold up:
a) the fellow took his damn time to express his views
in a work he wrote himself, no need to go elsewhere
b) Horace would punch you repeatedly in the face for being called a "translator", and rightly so.
I apologise if I sound rude, but calling yourself "an academic, a dramaturg, writer, Historian etc", "professional comedian", "someone with a university training of the entertainment industy and who has worked and various facets of the entertainment industry professionally" sounds stilted and pathetic.
By the way, my favourite movie is Oceanus XI
Thumbs up if it took you long enough to see what movie is bicilotti's favorite and used quote to see it.
Yes. Encourage him. Atta boy
Edit: ctrl+v at the adress bar
I kind of have to agree with the latter part of Bicilotti's statement (I don't pretend to have deep thoughts about Aristotle or Horace so I'm not even touching that argument). This bandying about of qualifications you've been doing since you been posting lately comes off, I don't know, a touch attention-grabby? LOOK AT ME, I AM SO QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES THAT I HAVE THESE DEGREES. Step back and take an objective look at how you've approached several of your posts so far; might any of that seem a bit pretentious and off-putting/arrogant to people who don't yet know you? I think so, and sadly you've opened yourself to this criticism in doing so, potentially derailing your topics from their intended purpose.
Just my opinion on this, and you're obviously entitled to dismiss it.
RE your topic, I also have to kind of agree with Ali in saying that I disagree with several of your points. For one thing, we're actually seeing a sort of slow revival of the genre that just happens to be starting with remakes. In my opinion, this is a clear example of companies like Lucasarts 'testing the waters' to see if there's a large enough market to justify them doing more. With Telltale it's more of a matter of them taking advantage of a rather low-competition market where they can make a profit off of the current consumer base. I'm not sure that 10 more companies would find enough adventure gamers to all profit at this time, but I could be wrong -- and I'd be happy to admit it if that were the case! Let's not forget that the vintage adventure games were blessed (some would say plagued) with gameplay elements that were to varying levels:
1. From challenging to outright unfair (and unapologetic).
2. Confusing (in the sense that often no help or hints were provided about what to do or how to do it).
3. Difficult to pick up and play for the average consumer (this is more true today than ever before).
4. Slow-paced, requiring some patience in order to get involved in the story.
These are all elements some people love and others hate, but most agree do not suit the gaming demographic of today. Gamers now want to pick up a game and have instant immersion, they want tight controls that don't require much explanation, and as we have seen with the increase of games with outright handholding gameplay, many of them have a low threshold for challenge compared to people gaming 20 years ago.
As much as I'd like to see a game made with classic sensibilities, I have to be realistic and say I think it would be a total commercial failure. The huge verb lists alone would piss off or confuse people who'd rather be able to left or right click everything. Telltale seems to understand this based on the way they do their interfaces, and the fact that they've made a profit selling their games would seem to show that sleeker, simple interfaces, lowered difficulty and more 'interactive' elements get their games sold. I found all the Sam and Max games I played, as well as Tales of Monkey Island, to be at least 5 times easier than the titles on which they were based. Maybe it's partly because I'm older, but I also see a simplification of the system and how they've cut down on inventory sizes, and by limiting you to just a few actions based on what you are hovering the mouse over you've also eliminated the various attempts a player would naturally make trying to figure out what their limitations are.
We're ALL a student of the great Samu Alisdair Beckett...
Anyway, this is verging on general discussion ranting now, please bring it back on topic or it'll be time to move it :=
And preferably not mention the words Ars Poetica again, I think we've met our annual quota now ::)
:(
My intention is not to be arrogant, it is more so to explain where my view point comes from it is ones background that does explain his view point! I wrote what I do to explain my context in the argument, not to prove anything, Just so it makes it easier to clarify.
"Horace was a Roman poet and satirist whose works are again considered ‘classics’ in the canons of Western literature. He was a passionate writer of Odes which were often dedicated to issues of love, friendship and patriotism, while his Epistles documented his observations of Roman society, literature and philosophy. Of his later works, the most influential in the field of theatre theory is entitled the Ars Poetica (or The Art of Poetry) which was probably written around 20 BC. This piece of writing unashamedly extolls the writings of the Greeks â€"especially Aristotle â€" and Horace takes Ari’s ideas and interprets them for aspiring Roman poets. He is the FIRST to try and create a set of rules for the theatre by borrowing from and clarifying Aristotle’s often vague discussions of the tragic form." Written by Dr Janet Mcdonald PHD...
and i'm sorry but the "Horace was a genius and some how just ingeniusly created these ideas outta thin air with no catalyst or cause" doesn't hold up
I am not trying to sound at all pretencious, i'm a laid back happy go lucky dude. I was just simply explain the context in which my knowledge base exists, far from trying to grab attention, I realise it may have seemed that way, but it was far from my intentions. In fact in the world of stand up prtention is the kinda thing that can kill your career, because stand ups are intrinsic but straight forwards people and they see thru bullshit.
I haven't dismissed anything anyones said here, I've taken it all on board, i've found it an enlightening and intesting debate it would be totally arrogant to not listen when I started a topic to hear others oppinions on the matter.
thus it became about Horace for no apparent reason, so can we get back on topic please? I created this topic because I feel strongly about this stuff (adventure gaming), and i genuinely want to hear your oppinions on it. if i wanted to simply state an authoritarian oppinion, i'd change my name to Ben Croshaw and start a blog.
Also this hasn't been the most hospitible welcoming from the community: it isn't hard to see why some of the view points are being expressed in here http://www.agdiforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19=14626&start=0
Well you said greek and horace but I never thought you bend that way
Hah! People have said way worse stuff than that about AGS!
Anyway, going on about your qualifications to lend weight to your arguments (don't deny it) is a major faux pas on most internet forums--as well as in pretty much every other social setting. No one here is impressed by a university degree (in progress). Ultimately, you establish your authority by doing: if you can argue persuasively, write coherently, and most importantly: demonstrate your ideas in a kick-ass game, it doesn't matter if you're a game design PhD or a fry cook, or both. And if you can't, it definitely doesn't matter.
If you don't feel welcome, I'm sorry about that. Welcome! My impression is that like many people who join for the first time, you have some ideas and opinions about adventure games that you've never really had a chance to discuss with others and reflect on before, so they're not as nuanced or well informed as they'll get with more experience. That's only natural, but you might want to realize that most of what you say are things that we've heard several times before (those of us who've been around on this and similar forums for a few years), and probably views we held ourselves at one time or another. Not to say that that makes forum veterans more right--we disagree with each other just as much--just more savvy about the standard arguments.
Edit: Oh, and while I'm being patronizing (sorry about that, honestly!), what they teach you in university as an undergrad is usually greatly simplified. A lot of it is mainly to break you out of "common sense" and "common knowledge" and get you to think differently about a topic. So Shakespeare's plays didn't leap fully formed from his brain, he had sources and models and collaborators. And things that seem peculiar or unique to us were actually generic or fashionable elements at the time, or references we no longer pick up on. But to go from there to "I can actually acurately say tragedies are all the same" (because that's what my professor said) just shows that you've missed the point. Really? There's no difference between Oedipus Rex and King Lear and The Wild Duck and Death of a Salesman worth mentioning? If your argument is simply "all literary works that adhere to Aristotle's criteria for a tragedy have those characteristics in common," then congratulations, you've just proved a tautology!
Again, you truly are welcome here. People will disagree with you and criticize you, but that's the regular rough and tumble of online debate. People who have made much less auspicious debuts have gone on to become valued community members.
Agreed. And on a personal note, this thread has been worthwhile for me for two reasons:
Quote from: Mods on Tue 07/12/2010 04:17:39
We're ALL a student of the great Samu Alisdair Beckett...
Don't make me cut your arms and legs off and make you live in a dustbin!
But mainly:
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 07/12/2010 04:08:18
RE your topic, I also have to kind of agree with Ali
Normally I disagree with ProgZ's stance in all political and philosophical matters (just not in matters of how to make excellent looking sprites, of course). So it's nice to kind of agree!
I find the point of this discussion to be utterly pointless. And everyone who has created or replied to a similar topic in the past, know it's pointless as well.
A) The adventure game genre isn't dead.
B) If we take into account the thought that it's not what it used to be:
1) This topic is an chance for everyone to go nostalgic about the great eras when windows had so many blue screens I thought it was the windows desktop theme. When CD was an item in a museum of ART.
2) What kind of answers are you expecting?
3) What kind of discussion do you think this would have brought up? Already few posts and I find the most important and interesting thing said that made me this topic a little less than boring-to-death, was about your behavior. A COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT THEME.
4) The adventure game genre isn't dead at all. With all the discussions that its dead and all, its a constant topic.
If anyone doesn't like my tone/spelling, complain to the post-office.
People seem to have misconstrued my intentions here, my intentions where good. I came here to find out your views on why people said that adventure gaming is "Dead" I have never said it was "dead". Nothing can ever truly die! I'm not trying to be condescending. Adventure gaming has a small but loyal fan base, and it wasn't to show my qualifications, it wasn't about qualifications, it was about to show you who I am, (someone based as a screen writer will view things differently than say, someone who works in I.T. ALA the guys who wrote the Longest Journey. EG when i did courses and screen writing, they have a completely different philosophy and ideals from writing for the stage for instance.)
If you want my personal opinion I find a degree in theatre to be rediculous, because its an artform, and to have a piece of paper to say your an artist is ironic to the very foundation of art.
I'm new here, and tho you've probably seen this thing discusses many a time, I HAVE NOT! Be patient with me, I've been patient with you here, so please lets all respect each other this is a grown up forum, not a school yard discussion on whose weener is bigger.
Did i ever say Aristotle/Horace was the main tenants of everytihng, NO. I said they were resonant in shakespeare work and people of the time (they broke A LOT of rules, I wasn't saying it was solid, simply had resonance) I used the term "Tragedy" in context to "revenge tragedy" in the English Renaissanse -I shoud have clarified that- but by the time of death of a sales man the whle ideal had completely died out replaced by things like the well made play structure etc (Indecorous acts were shown on the stage etc.) In no way whats so ever does death of the salesman have anything to do with aristotle! Oedipus Rex was more strongly aristotelean, because it follows it very smoothly (indecorous acts like the queens suicide off stage as is the incest and oedipus' defies the gods prophecy, so he is part of his undoing: which would bring the moral point "Do not defy the gods or bad things will happen to you!" (It was written around the time more and more people were becoming athiest" But can we stop discussing theatre, this topic is not "the problem with Clasical theatre/litereature in 2010." But if i can say something, My degree is not "in progress as you say" I've actually completely finished my Major completely. (Tho I am considering doing another year of uni within the education area to qualify me as a high school teacher, but thats another story).
I'd also like to point out the case of "OceanSpirit Dennis" parodies, sure the kid was an absolute tit, but is it fair to hate on him just because he is obviously a frustrated and somewhat confused kid!? All i'm saying is there is a reason why i've only publicly spoken on the boards now. I'm starting to feel more welcome as time wears on, but the welcome party was rather foreboding.
But enough, Horace has been dead for about 2000 years, I don't think he cares about people debating who did or did not write his book. I didn't come here to discuss such things, so can we move back to topic please!?
Quote from: strangechicken on Tue 07/12/2010 14:33:02
I came here to find out your views on why people said that adventure gaming is "Dead".
Studios and publishers started to say adventure games are dead because back in the 2nd half of the 90s most of the expensive ones were failing financially, some spectacularly so (e.g. The Last Express).
Also, sometime in 1998 (if I remember correctly) Ken Williams went into retirement selling Sierra to other companies. The new management decided to ignore all of Sierra's iconic adventure game IPs (and soon bankrupted the entire company), but at least they released the already started GK3.
The final blow that immortalized the "adventure games are dead" idea in people's minds was LucasArts canceling Sam & Max 2 when it was near completion.
I think for sierra, from what I see they tried to make their company something it wasn't, they tried to make million dollar projects like "Phantasmagoria," which were incredibly overhyped but fell short. Phantasmagoria is ok for what it is, the issue was it wasn't truly an interactive movie in the true sense of the term, and they Sierra were trying to make full scales movie, cinematic type games; so in a way some of their stuff was their own undoing.
Its a shame they sold sierra tho, beause when they closed down, they shut down so many projects, like a new space quest and Leisure suit larry game. But it may not have been the smartest thing for them just to ignore them, brings tears to my eyes when I see the "Sierra" logo on something like "Ice Age: The game" or such movie related cash in products.
Adventure games are never dead, while theres technology to make them, some people will still make great content "If you build it, they will come!" The issue is, I love the genre so much, I just wish there were more commercial releases so many more can come to share the same love for them, I just want to share the joy of adventure gaming, after all I find it is the best genre, because tho they have fundamental elements, there is really no limit to the genre of adventure gaming, it can be on any topic or subject matter with any story. Action games seem to just spew a script out as an after thought to their combat system (IE. Resident Evil: WOw a bunch of crazed scientists making a bunch of zombies for an underground government project to raise super soldiers, That plot hasn't been plot line of half of every zombie film released since Romero and Pre-romero"
No need of so many words. For the sellers adventure game genre is dead. For the fans (us) the adventure game genre is not dead.
Yeah thats very true, and iI guess i'm speaking from the rose colored glasses of nostalgia, I remember being pissed off because Kings Quest 7 has too high specs for my computer (Good memories), but still I am sure there are people out there who'd love the genre, but because of its low public status (I mean general joe average public here) Don't yet know the genre exists. For example I stuck my 8 year old niece on a few of the old "Humongous Entertainment" Games and they kept her entertained for hours.
I will continue to read this thread and learn more from your views, but for now I have an adventure game to make.
QuoteNormally I disagree with ProgZ's stance in all political and philosophical matters (just not in matters of how to make excellent looking sprites, of course).
Really? I never noticed! But that's because I love you ;).
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 07/12/2010 15:52:43
QuoteNormally I disagree with ProgZ's stance in all political and philosophical matters (just not in matters of how to make excellent looking sprites, of course).
Really? I never noticed! But that's because I love you ;).
We can all agree that I'm lovable! You haven't noticed because I normally stay out of political threads, but my impression is that you haven't yet awoken to the glorious red dawn that is socialism..?
Sorry to go off topic. Best of luck with your game strangechicken.
Quote
Sorry to go off topic. Best of luck with your game strangechicken.
Thanks mate!
Quoteis that you haven't yet awoken to the glorious red dawn that is socialism..?
Please read 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek and then get back to me on that.
I'm fine with where the adventure game genre is these days - there are tons of great releases coming out all the time. Everyone waxes poetic about the good old days of the genre, and while there are many golden classics from that era, everyone seems to forget the tons of trash adventure games that were released as companies tried to cash in on what was hot at the time.
Not saying that everything released now is fantastic but the majority have to some redeeming quality to survive in what is now a niche market. Great! Let the masses focus on the shooters and the action games while I get to revel with folks like you in games with well written stories and great mind churning puzzles.
I agree, we do pretty well, really! I find lots of newer adventure games as enjoyable as the old ones, so no real complaints from me!
Every time I go back and play older games I often realize how much I prefer modern releases anyway (if past 10 years counts as "modern" :-[)