Commercial games?

[Mr_Threepwood]

Does anyone actually make commercial games and sell them?  If so who is buying these things?  I love adventure games with a passion but I cant justify spending money on a game based on 1992 technology, no matter how good it is.

[Kweepa]

who is buying these things?

A. People who can justify spending money on a game.

Really, what kind of a troll question is that? What has 1992 technology got to do with whether you enjoy a game? Meh.

[Mr_Frisby]

I agree with Steve.
Retro is cool - and there has to be a market because of the small amount being made and the large amounts of fans.

[Mr_Threepwood]

Dont get me wrong, I love adcenture games a lot.  Im just saying that to me at least it doesnt make any sense to purchase a game.  How much profit are creators actually making off selling an adventure game.  I love the graphics and everything but still i cant justify spending cash on an ags style game, unless lucasarts made it...  It may just be me because im a cheapass and dont like spending cash on games, but I think id rather put my cash towards a game such as half life 2.  Again do not get me wrong, I am not a graphics whore or anything, hell I think that monkey island 2's graphics are way more cooler then most new games, just because of the sense of adventure and freedom they give off.  It'd be neat to get some stats tho on how much money developers of ags games make.  On the other hand maybe im being biased, because if lucasarts decided "hey instead of making a stupid 3d style adventure game, lets make a pack of a few classic style games" I'd definitly buy it.

[Moox]

If you work on something dont you think you should be payed?
Look at the gba, there re releasing classics on it. Some mainstream stores even sell pixelized clothes. Go back to your fps's and leave us with our 1992 tech that chris is writing still

[Redwall]

My friend wears his NES controller shirt all the time. I was going to get one, but I don't want to look like a copy-cat.

Your point seems to be that you would buy a game from a real developer/publisher like LucasArts but won't buy a game from an amateur, because you assume the LucasArts game is going to be worth paying for and the amateurs' isn't. I think that's a flawed assumption. Most published games are shit. But that's just the way it is - most of everything is shit. Most movies, most games, most books. There are only a few amateur adventures I would pay for, but I would pay for them because they're quality rather than because some big company made them.

The whole debate's a bit pointless considering there's been only one or two commercial AGS adventures. (Fatman and... anything?)

[Mr_Threepwood]

Losttraveler you misunderstood me, I have nothing against old games I love them more then almost all newer games (excepting final fantasy 7 but thats old to).  The first time around those games were amazing.  Don't think that I am anti old stlyed games either, ive played a bunch of them such as 5 days a stranger and it was amazing.  I guess just since about 1998 or so ive gotten more particular about what games ill buy, I only buy games with a lot of replay value, which unfortuanitly adventure games dont have.  Im not talking about playing them a bunch of times over, im talking about being able to solely play that game for months and have it not get boring, such as war3 and half life 2.  I gues the reason I would buy anything that lucasarts made is probably because i grew up on all those games and they were amazing, even though they were crappy graphics at the time I didnt care the story was what counted, and the exploration.

Ill probably break off my loyalty to lucasarts soon if they make monkey island 5 like they did 4, which in my opinion was a piece of crap that defiled the previous games.

Still I honestly cant why anyone would buy a commercial game unless they bought it so that they could see the neat things that the person made and try to incorporate them into their game.  Currently I am making a game which has a story basis of warcraft 3 but i wont go into it since it may or may not ever get finished.

So dont think I have anyhting against ags or classic adventure games, they are both amazing.  I just cant see why someone would sell an oldstlye game nowdays, because to me it just seems like it limits your game from being spread around and enjoyed, and becoming a well known game, which would be my goal if I was anywhere near to as good as some of you ags programmers.  A great example of this is 5 days a stranger, if i ask around there are a bunch of people that will know of the game and compliment it, whereas these commercial games cant go very far because of their price, which seems ridiculous to most people in this day and age.

Once again dont think I have anything against old stlye games, they were the best with the exception of ff7.

[MrColossal]

Well, first

I've never heard anyone say that Lucasarts' old adventures had crappy graphics but anyway

I guess I just have to ask, what is your definition of old style? 2d? Point and click?

I'm just confused. I mean people buy all types of games all the time there are tons of 2d games that sell a lot and are not adventures.

Also, maybe people would buy them because there aren't any other adventures out there.

[shbaz]

I posted something here that referred to something which wasn't said at all, so I'm going to sleep.

[Mr_Threepwood]

Bah, i keep getting bamboozeled and made out as some new ags fps player that  buys games solely based on their graphics.  By crappy graphics I did not mean that they look poor, most old style backgrounds and such were amazing and creative since makers were limited to a certain amount of pixels so they made them look great.  I am NOT a graphics whore, Graphics come 3rd to me when I think about games, first is storyline, second is replay value.  This whole conversation has become a pointless match of trying to crop apart my sentences and give them new meaning.  Im just gonna bail on it and leave it like this.

[rodekill]

Personally, I can't justify pre-ordering a 60$(+) game that isn't even done yet, just based on some movies I saw online and some hype built up by a marketing team.
But aparently a lot of people can.
Wierd.

[Hollister Man]

I'd pay for FoY if it would ever come out.   Its been "in progress" ever since I started playing with AGS, that was way back before KQ1VGA.    Which by the way I would pay for as well.  Pleurghburg, not so much.  5DAS probably if the interface wasn't so hard for me to use (right click brings up a save box?)  That's about all the AGS games I've played.    I'd probably take KQ7 back to the store and exchange it for one of those any day.

[Sutebi]

If the "first" requirement for you is storyline, then why do you not like adventure games? Some of the best plots I've ever seen in games come from adventure games. Even one of the earliest Lucas Arts games, Maniac Mansion, had an interesting story when you got down to it.

And I think that some of the puzzles in Adventure games make it very challenging, and features like the branching style in Indiana Jones (Fight more, go off single, go as a team) adds replay value to the game. Plus there was Sierra's old point system that added a lot of replay value because you wanted to get the maximum amount of points.

In my personal opinion, professional adventure games have lost a little of what made them great. So many companies want to make spectacular looking games with 3D environments and engines that a really stupid, that they don't realize that the biggest fan base for adventure games would prefer if they released the game with well done 2D graphics.

Anyway, I'm late for work now, but I'm sorry the board has kind of ganged up on you. We're just trying to play devil's advocate. Plus, we've heard this question before. Have fun with AGS and on the boards from here on out.

[MrColossal]

I love adventure games with a passion

I don't think he doesn't like adventure games, Sutebi

and I don't see what's so bamboozling about the questions I asked you.

I didn't call you any names or anything, I'm just asking, what is your definition of old style.

[Mr Jake]

but I cant justify spending money on a game based on 1992 technology, no matter how good it is.

thats the statement that I think is giving you alot of hassle, to me that sounds like 'OMFG, ITS NOT BRAND NEW TECH!!! NOT WASTING MY MONEY!'

Which Im sure you dont mean..... right?

[Eggie]

Spending koney on 1992 technology is better than spending money on 2004 technology that's bloated with up-to-the-minute bullshit that hasn't been properly tested yet.

Damn you stoopid game companies! STOP MAKING MY PC CRASH!!

[Moox]

How is ags 1992 tech if CJ is still developing it?
Damnit, how do you define modern?

[Eggie]

With software?
You can judge how modern or retro something is by how many bugs it has.

[Moox]

Windows XP has more bugs then an ant hill, yet its modern

[viktor]

Windows XP has more bugs then an ant hill, yet its modern

troo. The only thing that actualy bugs me is that i can't play old games with it. Like princ of persija 1 or donkey kong 1. Those were all great games. Heck they still are. Princ has crappy graphic (in my opinion) and it is still better than most platform games I have ever seen (like those crappy mario brothers. The stile of play changes with every game).
But the anvser to your question is rather simple. 

Who is buying these things?

A: People who hawe money.
B: People that like playing games and are ready to pay for them.