Messages

Look, we're getting way too deep into this. :o

The original post was "Adv. Genre Dead?".

All I'm saying is, that if you look at it, little has changed throughout the Adventure Games'
life. My "Blueprint" wasn't about particular puzzle techniques, or how an inventory is handled, but about how the move from text, to P-and-C, and on to 3D hasn't altered how a designer expects a player to approach his or her game.

And how the term "Adventure", in the mainsteam, defines absolutely nothing about interface or content in the same way as First-Person Shooter, or Third-Person Plaform Game has.
Even the term Survival Horror usually denotes a specific set of design elements.

(Yes, Resident Evil 4 not withstanding... 8) )

I'm not trying to "lump" the many variations of the Adventure Game together, but rather show how, even with many differences, the core of what we perceive it to be remains intact.

Note: I actually enjoyed the entrants in the IF competition this year, even 'The Ninja'

EDIT: When I mentioned "...the term Adventure in the mainstream is used..." I meant how the gaming press uses it as a give-all to describe ANY Point-and Click game, be it CSI or Grim Fandango. Most recent reviews of these types of game tend to begin with the line; "Every now and again, someone comes along and tries to revive the Adventure Game genre...".
I think the press and the public have made up their mind already :'(

EDIT: LimpingFish is tired, so he's gone to bed. 'Night 'night all.

No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.

Aren't ALL games where the player guides a character through a path of events about experiencing a story.

Yes. Which is my point. Adventure game is a silly and too broad a definition.

That's what I meant. The term "Adventure" doesn't accurately describe the kind of games we're talking about. So that leaves "Point-and-Click", wherein the players actions within a game are limited to pointing and clicking, either in the traditional cursor sense, or polygon sense, a logical choice.

I may not be getting across what I 'm trying to say in the most articulate manner, but think about it.

When you say 'by far the best,' which other programs have you learned which you are comparing it to?

TrueSpace 4.3, Carrera 2, Amapi 6 (modeller), RealSoft 3D 4, and other specialist programs like Poser, Vue D'Esprit, Terragen etc.

Cinema 4D, in my humble opinon, offers power and stability along with a gentle learning curve.

Also Cinema 4D 6 CE, it's only limitation being a 640x480 render output, was available for FREE! :oÃ,  Yes, FREE! You can keep your water-marked Maya and Max "Personal Editons"

I liked what I saw of XSI but I'd still go with C4D

EDIT: See here...
Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  http://homepage.eircom.net/~limpingfish/index.html
Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  ...to see the type of stuff I use C4D to do.

My point about Broken Sword 3 was simple this; Using the cursor keys, you directly move the character George to what ever object you want him to interact with. You then click the the mouse button to make him interact with it. Depending on what it is (a flowerpot, a person, a door) he will perform the appropriate action.

(A lot like Grim Fandango )

This is no different than playing Broken Sword 2, but instead of directly moving the character, you point the cursor at said object, click, and George makes his own way there.

So, in effect, they simply made the 3D model of George the cursor. How can you not see the point I'm trying to make?

That fact that the game is constructed from polygons hasn't changed its basic gameplay design.

Look:

The Secret of Monkey Island.
Broken Sword.
Grim Fandango.
The Longest Journey.
Broken Sword 3.

They are all basically the same game. 3D, Sierra-Style Icons, Lucasarts Verb List, even Grim Fandango, which on the surface seems to have NO interface, change little of the basic design of the 'Point-and-Click Adventure Game'.

My point about technological advances was from a commercial pov.

This is all very strange to me.You have people bring up Deus Ex (which is far closer to a first-person RPG than it will ever be to an P-and-C style of game) and talks of new ways of constructing "Adventure" games, when very few people seem to get the point I'm making.

From Maniac Manison to Freddy Phrakas to Broken Sword 3, and all mutations in between, the golden design rules of the P-and-C genre, or sub-genre, have stayed the same.

How much can you take away before it becomes something else?

P.s: If anybody says "Aren't all PC games Point-and Click?Hee, Hee!" go to the back of the line

Text adventures, AGI games? Are these not adventures?

Text "Adventures" could simply be termed Text "Games"...
The type-in parser of AGI has been surpassed by the Point-and-click interface.
The fact that people still make and play these types of "Adventure" is irrelevant. Commercially both are dead. The only time the term "Adventure", again in the classical sense, occurs in the mainstream is to describe those games of a Point-and-Click nature.

Also, Grim Fandango. The idea that there is a set way to do an adventure game bugs me.

Grim Fandango is no different to the point I made about Broken Sword 3.

No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.

Aren't ALL games where the player guides a character through a path of events about experiencing a story.

Film Noir could be a genre of movie defined, at least in some part, by the type of lighting and style of camerawork, among other things.

Agreed. Blade Runner is a prime example of an adventure without a traditional inventory.

I never mentioned Inventories in my original post.

Look, no matter how you look at it Point-and-Click (God I'm tired of typing that ) has, through whatever force of cosmic alignment, come to be known as a genre in itself.
Broken Sword 3 was referred to as a Point-and-Click game in a number of reviews I read, on different formats, not only PC.

EDIT: LimpingFish is currently wearing his Lively Debate Hat :

But if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game, in the classical sense I mean.

Broken Sword 3 is still basically point-and-click. Instead of a little white arrow, we use a animated polygon mesh (LimpingFish has his Technical Jargon Hat on) with a texture of George or Nico wrapped around it.

The term "Point-and Click Adventure Game" usually describes a game which conforms to a certain design blueprint. How much of that design can you strip away before it stops being an "Adventure" game?

...I think I'll go and lie down now.

Cinema 4D is by far the best 3D package to learn the craft on. I did, and I'm dumb as a mule .

Blender scares me. I mean REALLY scares me! What is up with its interface?!

Possibly Carrera would suit a beginner...although I still say Cinema 4D.

Grab the demo version...

www.cinema4d.com

...and give it a try.

I like it. Lighting is a bitch to pull off properly, but you've managed it. Nice use of perspective too. I say go with it. 

If the recent shambling corpses that pass for adventure games (Moment of Silence, Legacy: Dark Shadows, all those horrible games The Adventure Company keeps releasing) are anything to go by, then I'd say the genre is at least coughing up it's innards. Yuck :'(

Sam and Max were, commercially at least, our only hope...

P.s: Those CSI games are shite!

Who's Ron Gilbert?Ã, 

67%? SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT!?! I dispute the validity of that test! 67%?...(sigh)...All those hours playing Resident Evil and I learned zip! Then again, since guns are illegal where I'm from, we'd all be screwed anyway.Ã, 

Hey, I've been following the progress of Horror Hospital for a while now, I hope your still working on it. It took me a fair while to do those backgrounds
in Cinema4D, so if you find your making progress with the DeusEx engine then keep going! If I do all these 3D renderings and my game turns out to be rubbish, then I'll have wasted a lot of time:)

Keep up the good work!

I really like what i see so far.Ã,  I am a huge fan of SH and a luke warm fan of RE.Ã,  The BG's look good.Ã,  Are these ripped graphics or did you make them yourself?

If they are original, i'd like to know how to do the same.

Thanks. To answer your first question, I made themself. They were built and rendered in CINEMA4D 6XL. Everything in screenshot 1 was built from scratch. In screenshot 2, the chair and the fire extinguisher are royalty-free models that I found somewhere on the web, everything else is mine. The chair and the trashcan in screenshot 3 are also royalty-free models that I added to my own scene. All the textures are have either been created from scratch or are modified versions of existing textures (again, royalty-free).

As to how you could do the same, there are plenty of freeware or shareware 3d modelers availble, its just a case of learning how to use them. I'm self-taught, and if I can use them anyone can! Hope I answered your questions.

Wow. That looks great. What do you use to make the BGs?

Also, I've always wanted to make a game like Silent Hill. If you need any help, just gimme a buzz.

a.edmark@gmail.com

Thanks. And thanks for the offer:)

I guess this should be in the 'currently in production' forum, but since it's down, and I'm still pretty early into making my game, I may as well take the opportunity and get a critique on what I have so far. Graphics-wise, that is.

I have some screenshots on my website....

http://homepage.eircom.net/~limpingfish/index.html

...and would be grateful for any feedback. Thanks!

EDIT: A new screenshot has been added at the above.
Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, Tell me what you think