SHP Forums

It may work there, but there's also something to remember: the Street Fighter series has a very large and devoted fan base. Adventure games do not or at least, they don't anymore and haven't for a very long time.

The SF series is very marketable and sells extremely well. There were even multiple versions of SF2 with minor differences. Very few games -- Adventure or otherwise -- could do that and still get gamers to pay up.

In addition, the SF series presents numerous factors not present in Adventure Games. These include action, multiplayer and vast replayability. As we all know, action is very limited in the Adventure genre and when it does exist, it's either simplistic or met with disdain. I have yet to see a single Adventure Game that offers multiplayer (it just wouldn't work) and very few Adventures are replayable. I know some people here have replayed certain titles over and over again, but the story never changes. There's no surprise or different paths to explore.

So I don't believe the SF series is representative of 2D games in general.

DeadPoolX wrote: It may work there, but there's also something to remember: the Street Fighter series has a very large and devoted fan base. Adventure games do not or at least, they don't anymore and haven't for a very long time.

Yes, but I bet if you ask more Street Fighter fans - they will tell you they weren't a fan of the 3D element of Street Fighter. I'd wager that MORTAL KOMBAT would make a killing if they wisely went back to 2D style fighting. MORTAL KOMBAT vs DC is a shining example of that. 3D doesn't always mean better.

DeadPoolX wrote: The SF series is very marketable and sells extremely well. There were even multiple versions of SF2 with minor differences. Very few games -- Adventure or otherwise -- could do that and still get gamers to pay up.

Well this is easily explained that most PC games can have patches done. Where as console games (back in the SF2 days) didn't have ethernet connections to allow for patching and updates. So you were forced into buying SF2, and then SF2 Turbo when it came out.

DeadPoolX wrote: In addition, the SF series presents numerous factors not present in Adventure Games. These include action, multiplayer and vast replayability.

Adventure games can have action. As a matter of fact, what's an adventure game without action? Sure it doesn't have may the QUICK movements of Street Fighter or something - but I'd think most adventure games have to have action.

They do lack the multiplayer aspect. And replayability - depends on the adventure game itself. Adventure/RPG games like Quest for Glory, or Realms of Arkania, Oblivion, all have high replayability because you can make different types of characters - which is the sole replayability of SFIV (picking different characters). But there's only like 20 characters to pick from. And many of them are VERY, VERY similiar (Ryu, Ken, Dan, and the girl whose name slips my mind for example).

DeadPoolX wrote: I know some people here have replayed certain titles over and over again, but the story never changes. There's no surprise or different paths to explore.

Well the story rarely ever changes. Even if you pick something like Mass Effect - where you can make ALL kinds of choices - bad or good - MANY MANY MANY times - the end story - is still the same. Just like any game.

And I'd say something like Quest for Glory is an example to the exception. Because that game has different paths, depending on what class you pick.

Tawmis wrote:Yes, but I bet if you ask more Street Fighter fans - they will tell you they weren't a fan of the 3D element of Street Fighter. I'd wager that MORTAL KOMBAT would make a killing if they wisely went back to 2D style fighting. MORTAL KOMBAT vs DC is a shining example of that. 3D doesn't always mean better.

I haven't played the 3D version of SF or Mortal Kombat vs DC so I can't say for sure. MKvDC certainly looks good, however. I really wanted to play that, but it's not on the Wii (and probably for good reason, too).

I can see why SF and MK might not translate well to 3D. I have to imagine that fighting might be more difficult in a 3D environment, especially if you're accustomed to doing so in 2D.

But jumping, punching, kicking and firing off fireballs (and whatever else) is more complex than moving a character around and clicking on objects. An Adventure Game could easily work in 3D (and has before) due to less combat, if there is any at all.

Tawmis wrote: Well this is easily explained that most PC games can have patches done. Where as console games (back in the SF2 days) didn't have ethernet connections to allow for patching and updates. So you were forced into buying SF2, and then SF2 Turbo when it came out.

Good point, but the fact remains that gamers still had to pay for an entirely new copy. Patches and updates are free.

Tawmis wrote: Adventure games can have action. As a matter of fact, what's an adventure game without action? Sure it doesn't have may the QUICK movements of Street Fighter or something - but I'd think most adventure games have to have action.

I suppose it depends on the type of action presented. Although most die-hard Adventure gamers seem to dislike the addition of action sequences.

Tawmis wrote: They do lack the multiplayer aspect. And replayability - depends on the adventure game itself. Adventure/RPG games like Quest for Glory, or Realms of Arkania, Oblivion, all have high replayability because you can make different types of characters - which is the sole replayability of SFIV (picking different characters). But there's only like 20 characters to pick from. And many of them are VERY, VERY similiar (Ryu, Ken, Dan, and the girl whose name slips my mind for example).

Yes, but each Adventure you mentioned could also be classified as an RPG (or at least a hybrid of the two). Pure Adventure Games, on the other hand, have very little replayability.

Which girl? Chun-Li or Cammy? I haven't played any of the SF games in a long, long time.

Tawmis wrote: Well the story rarely ever changes. Even if you pick something like Mass Effect - where you can make ALL kinds of choices - bad or good - MANY MANY MANY times - the end story - is still the same. Just like any game.

And I'd say something like Quest for Glory is an example to the exception. Because that game has different paths, depending on what class you pick.

You're right -- QFG is an exception. However, it's also an RPG. The RPG genre allows for more flexibility, even if the end result is similar. The ending isn't what makes a game, anyway. It's the journey towards that ending and if there are different ways to reach that goal, the replay value skyrockets.

I don't think that beautiful 3D graphics are the be-all and end-all of a game; nor does a game have to be linear to be enjoyable. I wonder if anyone remembers a LucasArts game called Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. I used to play that game many, many times - I have never finished it in all three "paths". Its graphics would be very dated now, and its certainly not very 'linear'. Yet it's one of the best games I've ever played, and the reason is simple: the story is entirely engrossing and logical (until they get to Atlantis, when it gets a little weird. But meh).

Grim Fandango, also, didn't have wonderful graphics - but I thought it was a great game; it had a good (if off-beat) story, something unlike anything I'd ever seen before. It was very funny (even if the humour was often rather dry). And, of course, I loved the silly humour in it - particularly from Glottis, that big silly demon who drove cars.

I really enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis and did beat it all three ways. The paths aren't all that different, but equally enjoyable.

Rath, you're right about that game being non-linear. I typically like games that aren't strictly linear, but a lot of Adventure fans don't share my sentiments. Regardless, it's still a good game and if they dislike a non-linear game, then it's their loss.

Having said that... you're forgetting one very important thing: the graphics in IJFA and Grim Fandango were considered STATE-OF-THE-ART AT THE TIME! The visuals from those two games look very dated today, but both games were made quite a long time ago. Comparing their graphics to modern games isn't fair and for all intents and purposes, somewhat foolish.

The point I'm trying to make -- which seems lost on everyone here -- is that GOOD GRAPHICS FOR THE TIME PERIOD ARE IMPORTANT. King's Quest 1 (the original AGI EGA version) was groundbreaking in the early 1980s. Those graphics amazed gamers. Today it looks horrendous. See my point?

Games made TODAY should utilize modern graphics. The old Sierra games did in the 80s and 90s. So why should modern Adventure Games be any different?

Just thought of a few good arguments for 2D.

The Sonic the Hedgehog series faced harsh criticism ever since they switched formats from 2D to 3D, and for near a decade now, fans and critics alike have been screaming for a return to the old format. At one point, Sega even wised up and made 2D gameplay a major part of their new "Sonic Unleashed," and it was the 2D alone that was the major selling point for the game. Unfortunately, they still tried to incorporate too much alternative 3D gameplay into the end result, which got a lot of people mad.

Also, many recent Mario games, including Smash Bros. and Paper Mario have been entertaining audiences using 2D gameplay (no rotating cameras.) While the graphics themselves are 3D, the style is no different from what we used to get in Donkey Kong Country or Vectorman. And even if the characters aren't 3D models, it can still sell. Gameplay is what's important.

Finally, there's also the fact that 1 out of 10 people can't play 3D games without becoming motion sick. So there's always a market for 2D games for at least 10% of the gaming community.

Datadog wrote:Just thought of a few good arguments for 2D.

The Sonic the Hedgehog series faced harsh criticism ever since they switched formats from 2D to 3D, and for near a decade now, fans and critics alike have been screaming for a return to the old format. At one point, Sega even wised up and made 2D gameplay a major part of their new "Sonic Unleashed," and it was the 2D alone that was the major selling point for the game. Unfortunately, they still tried to incorporate too much alternative 3D gameplay into the end result, which got a lot of people mad.

Also, many recent Mario games, including Smash Bros. and Paper Mario have been entertaining audiences using 2D gameplay (no rotating cameras.) While the graphics themselves are 3D, the style is no different from what we used to get in Donkey Kong Country or Vectorman. And even if the characters aren't 3D models, it can still sell. Gameplay is what's important.

Finally, there's also the fact that 1 out of 10 people can't play 3D games without becoming motion sick. So there's always a market for 2D games for at least 10% of the gaming community.

Excellent points, but... I'm talking about Adventure Games (more or less). However 2D or 3D works in other genres is fairly irrelevant.

I have expressed much of the same sentiments myself. While the narrative is the most important factor of an adventure game, graphics are important. I, too, have mentioned before that the graphics of many of the Sierra games were bleeding edge for their time. I mostly agree with DPX, except that I am not convinced that 3D is the only way to go. I personally detest 1st person view.

I also agree about nonlinear games. Linear games are too limited. Multithreaded adventures are definitely the way to go. Different solutions to the same problem with varying degrees of success and multiple paths not only gives a game more depth and in a certain sense, realism, it also greatly lends to replayablity. Replayablity is not an insignificant factor in an expensive game.

It is time for adventures to modernize, but that does not mean that they should merely ape FPS games.

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.

I realize this I'm a little late in this thread and I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet or not, but I disagree with this statement. If that's truly how all game companies nowadays are doing things then the market is in a sorry state indeed. Personally, I think games in the past were always developed the other way around. Everything first then the graphics (besides maybe design sketches or something). This is because there's more room to innovate and invent new technology to get to where you want to be and have your game looking the way you envisioned. If you do it the other way around you're always constricted as to what you can do (for example: "Oh, our engine won't be able to handle that part of the game we thought up, guess we'll have to can it and think of something else!"). The reason gaming technology has evolved to where it is now is because game developers came up with new ways of doing things and innovated the current technology which previously wasn't able to make it happen.

Gaming calls for innovation and change. If nothing was innovated then games would always be the same. I think that's mostly why there's such a difference between adventure games of the 90s and action games of today. It's not necessarily because adventures were better, but because adventures were always innovating and causing change and improvement. Games nowadays don't really do that very much anymore. They just up the graphics beauty. But there's so much more you can do. TimeShift, as an example, I was really looking forward to because you could alter time in an FPS in real time. I was so interested in seeing how they would handle this as the possibilities are endless! The number of really thought-engaging puzzles you could do were just exciting to think about. Alas, the game never really took advantage of it at all and made it basically just an extra gaming device you could use if you wanted but wasn't really necessary (beyond a few puzzles that made the game uncompletable without it, and even less that were actually interesting. I think I ran into a total of 2 puzzles that were really neat). If the timeshifting abilities weren't in the game it'd be just like any other FPS out there. Not many do anything different now which is why there's such a rift between adventure-era game fans and the current generation of gamers.

Anyway, what was my point? Oh yes, innovation is required and game companies should work on graphics and the engine last.

Collector wrote:I have expressed much of the same sentiments myself. While the narrative is the most important factor of an adventure game, graphics are important. I, too, have mentioned before that the graphics of many of the Sierra games were bleeding edge for their time. I mostly agree with DPX, except that I am not convinced that 3D is the only way to go. I personally detest 1st person view.

I have to admit that I "stole" a comment you made about Sierra's innovation in the graphics department.

As far as 3D is concerned, I know some people really dislike a first-person viewpoint. That's why I think it'd be best to use third-person in an Adventure Game or at least, offer a choice.

Collector wrote: It is time for adventures to modernize, but that does not mean that they should merely ape FPS games.

I absolutely agree. Having excellent graphics doesn't mean Adventures should mimic another genre. I don't want to see Laura Bow brandishing a flame thrower (although you have to admit, that'd be pretty cool if she did!)

I agree with much of the general sentiment in this thread. For the most part, games do need to be kept up-to-date in all aspects to be viable in today's market. As much as I have fond memories of older games and will happily replay them from time to time, I don't want a NEW game to have old graphics. Whether it's 3D or 2D, it should be an improvement in some way.

That said, as far as adventures are concerned, I think that they would be just fine in a third-person 3D engine. Those are much easier to stomach. DPX can attest that I get motion sick in FPS games sometimes, but if it's third person I rarely have problems (Except with Dungeon Siege for some reason. I played a borrowed copy of that for about five minutes and had to stop.). I think a "top down" camera, like they had in NWN1 or Guild Wars, where you can scroll in and out with the mouse wheel, would be perfect for adventure. That way you can get a feel for the entire area, as well as see items up close.

For an example of (somewhat dated) colourful 3D graphics *cough* Datadog *cough*, check out the following screenshots. The first is from Jade Empire and the rest are from Guild Wars. Despite both being a good few years old, I love the graphics because they're so alive and colourful compared to many other RPGs.

JADE EMPIRE makes me drool. I love that game. And to think I initially hated it when I first played it and put it down until just recently - and could NOT put it down.

I now present everyone with two very well-known and popular examples: The Soul Calibur series and Super Mario Galaxy.

Battle Arena Toshinden (1995) and Virtua Fighter (1993) were both pioneers in the Fighting Genre when it came to 3D graphics. BAT was a launch title (and showcase piece) for the original Sony PlayStation while VF was first released as an arcade game and ported over to the Sega Saturn. For reference, I've played a 2D copy of VF on the PSP and it's terrible when compared to the 3D version.

As for Platform Games, has everyone forgotten Super Mario 64 (1996), which was one of the first 3D Platform titles? That game practically revolutionized the genre and brought in the use of an analog stick (which Sony and Microsoft later added). Other popular examples of 3D games in that genre include Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet & Clank, Psychonaughts and Spyro the Dragon.

DeadPoolX wrote:I now present everyone with two very well-known and popular examples: The Soul Calibur series and Super Mario Galaxy.

SOUL CALIBUR is just a wonderfully designed game is all. It has no flaws.

Tawmis wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:I now present everyone with two very well-known and popular examples: The Soul Calibur series and Super Mario Galaxy.

SOUL CALIBUR is just a wonderfully designed game is all. It has no flaws.

Any game where Darth Vader is a playable character has my vote!