Messages

"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:

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.

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.

Ummm, I'm none of them actually.

I'm a 22-year-old student from Brisbane called Daniel Macpherson.

I like cupcakes.

[What is a Photoshop Phriday?]

What is a Photoshop Phriday?

Photoshopping isn't drawing a completely new image -- It's editing images to create a new image, such as editing one image or combining several images.

Also, you don't have to specifically use Photoshop -- Paint Shop Pro, MSPaint, or any other programs can be used.

See this link:
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop/

And for other examples, see here:
http://www.worth1000.com/

The two above websites should give a fair idea of what is involved.

Also, make sure your image doesn't exceed the width of the screen -- If it does, I will delete it.

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

What do I have to do?

This week's Photoshop Phriday is: "Fake Box Covers"

This one I'm stealing straight from this week's SomethingAwful Phriday.

Simply photoshop together a box cover for a fake adventure game.

It can be funny, serious, stupid, whatever.

See you in a week.

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.

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.

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.

And 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.

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

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.

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

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

Doesn't mean technological advancement is necessarily better.

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.

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.

Ok, 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.

Gameplay 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.

LOL!!!1! TAHTS FUNNY CUASSE HE SAY TAHT IN KINDERGARTEN COP!!!11! LOL!!!

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 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)

They 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.

And 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.

"CRIKEY!!! Have a look at the size of this bill!!! We're gonna have a tought time gettin' this through Senate!!!"

Deficit under Gray Davis: $34.6 million

Question.  According to my ex-califronian sister, the deficit was caused because Davis was promised around $30 million in aid from the government. So he spent all that money, true, but he also expected the state would get that money back.  Is this true?   If so, the most Davis could be blamed for is trusting in his own government.

I don't know -- I live in Australia.

I just took the figure from some "recall Davis" website so I could use it in my lame-ass joke.

I'm sorry, Dave, but I'm afraid I cannot answer your question.

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...

Deficit under Gray Davis: $34.6 million

Number of women groped by Arnie: 17

Tax dollars Bush needs to continue Iraq occupation: $87 billion

Watching society crumble: Priceless!

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.

I think female characters don't HAVE to have flaws (although they help with some parts of characterisation).

I just think, above all else, female characters should be interesting entities like any other character, be it male, dog, fish, alien, or robot.

That's why I liked Zanthia -- she was interesting without being a sex-symbol or a male-reversal.

She could be feminine and masculine at the same time.

Also, she could be strong and flawed at the same time too.

In short, I find her an interesting and fun person with which I can have an adventure.

Here's one I did, late-afternoon:

You never know.

[YOU BASTARD!]

No, you didn't, YOU BASTARD!

I can't really delete the background story cause it's always been in my mind.

Or did you mean why I deleted it?

Personal reasons.

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

Better 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?

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

See above.

Just 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.

I deleted all work on 'Max: The Dark Hero', which includes all scripts, graphics, and sounds.

And I don't regret it.

Yarrr!

Get yer copy off Kazaa or a BitTorrent or walk the plank, ya scurvy seadog!

YAAAAAAARRRR!!!!