Adventure Games - Myth vs Fact

[DeadPoolX]

This post is designed to refute the most common misconceptions generated by fans of the Adventure genre. I'm sure some here will disagree and that's fine. Please feel free to dispute my claims. Discussion is welcome.

MYTH: Graphics aren't important. It's the story that matters.
FACT: Yes, the story is definitely the most vital component. However, graphics are incredibly important. A game's graphical engine is the player's gateway into a specific world. It's been said that "a picture is worth a thousand words." This holds true in games, as well.



MYTH: Adventures have never relied on graphics.
FACT: That's patently false. Sierra On-Line changed the way games were made and that company's largest contribution was in the visual arena.

Don't believe me? At one time most games (such as Zork) were text-based. Sierra created Mystery House in 1980, which used somewhat crude drawings to give the player images to work with. In 1984, Sierra once again added better visuals, introducing a rudimentary 3D engine that utilized EGA (AGI at first and then later SCI) with King's Quest. In 1990, King's Quest 5 was released as one of the very first -- if not the first -- game to use VGA.

Part of the appeal in playing Sierra's titles were the revolutionary graphics for the time.



MYTH: VGA and/or FMV are still viable in today's gaming market.
FACT: VGA was first used in 1990 and FMV a few years later. Both technologies are well over a decade old and have been replaced with 3D graphics.

No game using a total palette of 256 colors in a 2D world would sell. FMV might fare a bit better, but most games using that technology suffered from a lack of direct player control (not to mention huge production costs).

In today's world, where games like Mass Effect or BioShock exist, there's simply no room for graphics that were state of the art years ago.



MYTH: 3D graphics are unpolished and look fake when compared to VGA or FMV.
FACT: The overall level of 3D highly depends on the time period. Looking back at the original Quake (1996) or Gabriel Knight 3 (1999) will result in poorly created graphics, none of which look realistic in the slightest.

That was years ago. It seems many die-hard Adventure fans point to GK3 as a "good reason why 3D isn't good." Despite the fact other Adventure Games have used 3D well (such as Grim Fandango or Dreamfall), the use of a ten year-old game is a decidedly poor example.

In 1999, the average PC would have been a Pentium II 266MHz, running Win95 or Win98, with under 100MB of RAM and lacked a dedicated 3D video card. Today's computers are much different and as such, are more than capable of running games with superior 3D graphics. Other genres have used -- and continue to use -- modern 3D graphics to their advantage. Unfortunately, the Adventure genre has yet to take note of this tactic.



MYTH: A game that allows the player a choice is merely haphazard and lacks a decent, coherent storyline.
FACT: Many Adventure fans consider King's Quest 6 to be the very best Adventure Game ever created by Sierra (and perhaps any company, as well). KQ6 allowed for a great deal of player-choice flexibility. Another example would be the second Laura Bow game, which allowed for different endings based on the player's actions.

No game is completely non-linear. The developer creates multiple paths for the player and that gives the illusion of choice. Regardless of which path the player takes, he or she is still following the developer's storyline.



MYTH: Modern gamers don't play Adventures because they're too immature and/or too dumb.
FACT: Modern gamers don't play Adventures because most are poorly produced. The most prolific developer of Adventure Games is Dreamcatcher.

The vast majority of that company's games consist of titles that resemble Myst instead of KQ6. In addition, most Adventures use extremely dated graphics with resolutions as low as 1024x768.

Without a high production value, decent story and passable graphics, there is no way the Adventure genre can compete for shelf space (much less gain attention).



MYTH: Gamers who play Adventures are smarter than those who don't.
FACT: Intellect has nothing to do with it.

Playing Adventure Games does in no way make someone a member of MENSA. Many Adventure gamers somehow feel that because their favorite genre lacks action (for the most part) that they must somehow be on a higher intellectual plane than those gamers who prefer action.

The type of thinking necessary for different genres is simply different. In an Adventure Game, the player needs to figure out a puzzle whereas someone playing a First-Person Shooter needs to think strategically and use tactics.

Neither is better or worse, just different.



MYTH: Only PC games matter. Consoles are stupid.
FACT: The PC gaming market is in the minority compared to console gaming. Console gaming brings in more money, if for no other reason, the software always works. There's no need to upgrade hardware.

It also helps that consoles are cheaper than any good PC. Sure, you could purchase an e-machine or find a dirt cheap PC at Best Buy, but it won't be good for much more than MS Word, e-mail and Minesweeper.

A relatively decent PC will run at least $1000, probably more. The cost is related to the components, but if you want something that'll last a few years, you'll need to spend quite a bit of money.

In contrast, the most expensive console (the PS3) can be had for anything from $400 to $600. While that's not cheap by any means, it's still less than a PC and guarantees a whole slew of games that will always work on that machine.



MYTH: A good game plays out like a book or movie.
FACT: Games are not books or movies.

You WATCH a movie and you READ a book. Neither require direct interaction -- unless flipping pages or channels count. A game necessitates that the player actively engage in the story.

This doesn't mean a book or movie is worth any less or that they can't evoke a strong -- or perhaps stronger -- emotional reaction than a game. Books and movies can and often continue to do so. However, the mechanical act of interacting is vastly different in a game than it is in a book or movie.



MYTH: Game designers are solely responsible for the game's production.
FACT: No matter how good Roberta Williams or Jane Jensen were (or currently are), they were part of a team. The game designer often heads or works for a developer. The developer is hired by the publisher or acts as its own publisher. Together a game is made. Without each piece of the puzzle, no game would make it to store shelves.



MYTH: Unless the original designer of [insert Adventure series] returns, the game will be awful.
FACT: Despite the two recent LSL games, it's very possible to make a new Adventure Game in any established series without the original designer. The trick is keeping with the theme of the series. Don't turn King Graham into an action hero or make the Hero (from QFG) into a pervert.



MYTH: Jane Jensen's new game, Grey Matter, will revitalize the Adventure genre and prove that Adventure Games are worth creating.
FACT: Even if Grey Matter sells well, the total sales figures will still be beneath most FPS, RPG and RTS titles today. Developers and publishers are guaranteed a buying audience if they create something from one of those three game genres. That's not true of Adventure Games.

A ton of good Adventure Games (with modern technology) would need to get released and sell in order for the genre to make a comeback. The chances of such occurring are similar to Flight Simulators and Mecha returning, as well.



MYTH: Because MI1 is getting a reboot and TellTale Games is releasing a new Monkey Island, it makes sense that Activision would release a new GK game.
FACT: TellTale Games has direct ties to LucasArts. Some of the designers on the TellTale team were from LucasArts and they've already proved themselves with Sam and Max. In addition, LucasArts was never taken over, so that company still has direct control of its intellectual property.

Sierra, in contrast, is no longer its own entity and hasn't been for a long time. Activision now owns all Sierra properties and by all accounts, has no interest in continuing any Adventure series.



MYTH: There's a large audience for Adventure Games.
FACT: Despite what we see here, the overall audience for Adventure Games is incredibly small. Many gamers don't even know what an Adventure Game is.

That's not entirely their fault -- all types of games are now advertised as "adventure." When games such as Wii Active Outdoor Challenge are labeled "adventure" by stores like Best Buy, Future Shop and GameStop, it's obvious that the entire meaning has been lost.

[Tawmis]

This post is designed to refute the most common misconceptions generated by fans of the Adventure genre. I'm sure some here will disagree and that's fine. Please feel free to dispute my claims. Discussion is welcome.

Well first - is this like an opinion - or is it - like if a company is trying to sell a game? If a company is trying to sell a game - I'd agree with these points, for the most part.

But if it's personal preference...

MYTH: Graphics aren't important. It's the story that matters.
FACT: Yes, the story is definitely the most vital component. However, graphics are incredibly important. A game's graphical engine is the player's gateway into a specific world. It's been said that "a picture is worth a thousand words." This holds true in games, as well.

... this is the only one I'd disagree with, for myself.

And the reason being is - REALMS OF ARKANIA: STAR TRAIL was made and released in 1994. It was pretty big in terms of what you could do, character creation, etc. The graphics were all right (pretty amazing for their time). And to this very day - I have not found a game that beats it. It has a ton of small things that really put the game over the top - as trivial as they are! Imagine one of your characters losing a boot while hiking over mountains! Imagine your weapons and armor breaking DURING combat! Imagine during camping to rest, two of your characters get a cold! Which, if not taken care of, can become a lot more serious! So you need someone to go out and constantly harvest materials while you're out on the road (whirlweed, for example to increase health). And the story over all - is amazing. You really get into it, and really start caring about your characters, because of all these things you can do with them.

Is Obvlivion better with graphics? Oh yes! Oblivion is a game that is beautiful beyond words, in terms of graphics. It's also huge, like STAR TRAIL, as to where you can go and wander. Oblivion even has a somewhat interesting story! Many side quests, like STAR TRAIL.

And yet, I never finished Oblivion. I have played, and still play STAR TRAIL, from time to time, every blue moon - but I have BEAT STAR TRAIL probably over 100 times, with different race and character combos!

[Jules]

This should be retitled to Myth vs DPX's Opinion.

Just teasing.

[DeadPoolX]

This post is designed to refute the most common misconceptions generated by fans of the Adventure genre. I'm sure some here will disagree and that's fine. Please feel free to dispute my claims. Discussion is welcome.

Well first - is this like an opinion - or is it - like if a company is trying to sell a game? If a company is trying to sell a game - I'd agree with these points, for the most part.

But if it's personal preference...

MYTH: Graphics aren't important. It's the story that matters.
FACT: Yes, the story is definitely the most vital component. However, graphics are incredibly important. A game's graphical engine is the player's gateway into a specific world. It's been said that "a picture is worth a thousand words." This holds true in games, as well.

... this is the only one I'd disagree with, for myself.

And the reason being is - REALMS OF ARKANIA: STAR TRAIL was made and released in 1994. It was pretty big in terms of what you could do, character creation, etc. The graphics were all right (pretty amazing for their time). And to this very day - I have not found a game that beats it. It has a ton of small things that really put the game over the top - as trivial as they are! Imagine one of your characters losing a boot while hiking over mountains! Imagine your weapons and armor breaking DURING combat! Imagine during camping to rest, two of your characters get a cold! Which, if not taken care of, can become a lot more serious! So you need someone to go out and constantly harvest materials while you're out on the road (whirlweed, for example to increase health). And the story over all - is amazing. You really get into it, and really start caring about your characters, because of all these things you can do with them.

Is Obvlivion better with graphics? Oh yes! Oblivion is a game that is beautiful beyond words, in terms of graphics. It's also huge, like STAR TRAIL, as to where you can go and wander. Oblivion even has a somewhat interesting story! Many side quests, like STAR TRAIL.

And yet, I never finished Oblivion. I have played, and still play STAR TRAIL, from time to time, every blue moon - but I have BEAT STAR TRAIL probably over 100 times, with different race and character combos!

I suppose I should have clarified that the graphics used in this sense relate to the time period. VGA was groundbreaking in 1990, but would never work today.

None of this has any bearing on whether or not the game is "good" in of itself. There are some older games that I love (Red Baron comes to mind) that look hideous by today's standards. However, a modern-day game would need to have substantially better visuals.

So I guess I'm speaking more of "how well a game would sell" versus whatever personal preferences/opinions anyone else may have. Obviously opinions differ.

[Tawmis]

Well I think today it's almost GRAPHICS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.

You can't sell a game without beautiful graphics. It's expected, because of what PCs, Consoles, etc can do.

Once you have the graphics, then the story might start to matter... Gameplay also matters, but most won't even touch the gameplay, if the graphics aren't nice.

[DeadPoolX]

Well I think today it's almost GRAPHICS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER.

You can't sell a game without beautiful graphics. It's expected, because of what PCs, Consoles, etc can do.

Once you have the graphics, then the story might start to matter... Gameplay also matters, but most won't even touch the gameplay, if the graphics aren't nice.

Well, I don't agree with "graphics are the only thing" either. Unfortunately, there seems to be one extreme or another. Not always, of course (Mass Effect and Fallout 3 come to mind), but in general, I'd agree with you.

I think graphics should be developed last on any game. This way the developer concentrates on story first and foremost and the graphics won't become dated by the time the game is released.

[Tawmis]

I think, perhaps, the only reason they don't do that is - they have to know the limits of what their game engine can do.

For example, imagine if GEARS OF WAR didn't have the whole "take cover" option in their game engine, and they had designed many aspects for such a thing?

I think of this - because when I was approached by ATARI to do a few machinima pieces for NEVERWINTER NIGHTS 2, they were like, "So what do you think? Just brain storm some ideas right now! What do you got?"

And I was like, "Well, without having even seen the Beta version of what you guys have for NWN2, I couldn't even begin to formulate some script ideas, without know what the game engine is capable of doing."

So I think you have to center around the game engine you're going to use for your game, and build your game around that. So sadly, graphics are probably one of the key factors for designing a game. Everything else bends around what you can do with it.

[Datadog]

No game using a total palette of 256 colors in a 2D world would sell.

There will always be a market for 2D games. Even the re-releases of Final Fantasy III and ChronoTrigger on Nintendo DS are selling well. I even saw a bunch of kids crowded around a X-Box 360 once playing some weird 2D side-scroller with a little man in the clouds. I'd like to think 3D actually repaved the road to 2D for the next generation and that we're coming full circle.

As for VGA, that's inconsequential. The only reason a person would make a 256-color game is for memory size. Otherwise, they can boot up MS Paint and draw in 16-bit colors anytime.

[DeadPoolX]

Yes, but... the 2D games you're speaking of are for a handheld system and were rereleased versions of older games. That means there's some nostalgia at work. The DS doesn't have the same hardware and graphical capability as even the PSP, let alone full-scale consoles or a PC. Whatever 2D game you saw on the Xbox 360 probably isn't one of the standard titles. Maybe it's a downloaded game (there are plenty of these for the Wii).

Whatever the case, I'd like to know who'd pay full price for a new game with outdated graphics. I know I sure wouldn't. If the game was $10, I'd consider it. Otherwise, my money is better spent elsewhere.

I've actually seen the first Broken Sword for sale on the Wii. The price was $60, if you can believe it. BS1 was originally released in 1996. That's a lot of nerve to ask that much for a 13 year-old title.

Memory size is rarely an issue today, so there's no need for VGA (other than nostalgia). As for MS Paint, that's fine, but who'd actually pay for artwork done in that program, especially since far more impressive programs exist?

[Datadog]

I just used Paint as an example of how easy it is to not make VGA graphics these days. Back then, 256 was their best option.

And even with a million+ colors to choose from, no one really cares about the palette. Most 3D games seem to use brown and gray anyway.

[DeadPoolX]

I just used Paint as an example of how easy it is to not make VGA graphics these days. Back then, 256 was their best option.

And even with a million+ colors to choose from, no one really cares about the palette. Most 3D games seem to use brown and gray anyway.

That's a bit of a generalization, don't you think? It really depends on the game itself.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Viva Pinata are going to look different. Both use 3D graphics.

[Datadog]

*runs off to make every game brown and gray so I'm not generalizing*

[DeadPoolX]

*runs off to make every game brown and gray so I'm not generalizing*

[Tawmis]

Yes, but... the 2D games you're speaking of are for a handheld system and were rereleased versions of older games. That means there's some nostalgia at work. The DS doesn't have the same hardware and graphical capability as even the PSP, let alone full-scale consoles or a PC. Whatever 2D game you saw on the Xbox 360 probably isn't one of the standard titles. Maybe it's a downloaded game (there are plenty of these for the Wii).

I'd like to point out STREET FIGHTER IV. While STREET FIGHTER started off as 2D, side scrolling fighting - they moved to 3D, and looked a lot like TEKKEN games. I believe they realized their error and moved back to 2D side scrolling, fighting game. STREET FIGHTER IV looks and acts (with some new things to do) JUST like STREET FIGHTER 2, with better models for the characters. But it is 2D. And it has sold EXCEPTIONALLY well.

Whatever the case, I'd like to know who'd pay full price for a new game with outdated graphics. I know I sure wouldn't. If the game was $10, I'd consider it. Otherwise, my money is better spent elsewhere.

This is where opinion comes in. Because depending on the game, I would.
STREET FIGHTER IV is a prime example.

[Tawmis]

Street Fighter IV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e3sSNDi38A&feature=fvst

As an example.