SHP Forums

BBP wrote: With the text hinting that only one per series was picked, I'm surprised LSL ends so low.

That's not true, BBP. Multiple games from the same series could be, and indeed are, featured on the list.

Ah OK,and good to hear. This got me confused.

Leisure Suit Larry is never going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but putting aside any political correctness, the series remains one of the funniest ever. It’s tough to pass over the original game for its special place in history, but for ongoing accessibility and just plain fun, the seventh and final “real” Larry adventure is the most worthy representative for our top 100.

Well, I'm not saying that there will be more LSL games on the list, just that multiple games from the same series were technically eligible. In many cases, you'll find indeed that some series are represented by multiple installments. And as for Larry, we argued... a lot, on what games should be on the list

I have to say I'm shocked LSL 7 made the list. I even said "huh?" out loud. That's not the only game that shocked me either. Gemini Rue did as well. It seems like I just watched the trailer for that game. I should definately try it out now if it's already getting all this praise from everyone.

There are several games on the list already that I haven't played. I'm hoping a lot of them eventually get released on gog so I can give them a try. The list is going to be a great reference I believe.

It seems like such a list needs to exclude any games that are too new. Not out of some notion that only old games are worth being included, but some may hold more recent games higher solely because they are so fresh in their minds that they have not put them into perspective, yet.

Rudy wrote: RE: Conquest of Camelot
The beauty and variety of graphics, the well-balanced mix of adventure and arcade sequences, the little historical facts and legends built into the game.

Definitely agree then!

Rudy wrote: Here comes a personal confession. *Cough* You ready? *Cough*
I haven't played any Quest for Glory yet.
*quickly hides*

I am VERY surprised someone here hasn't flailed you alive yet... Especially since you run the SierraChest! While I enjoyed QFG, it wasn't my favorite of the Sierra games (definitely the top 10, but nothing I was ever so emphatic over!) But I know we have some QFG Fans here...

Rudy wrote:

Tawmis wrote:

Rudy wrote: sierra games I do NOT expect to make it:
- Codename Iceman

Now see, I think this SHOULD be there. This should go down as one of the most difficult Adventure games - ever. A challenge for even the most experienced adventure gamer.

Nah... too much submarine.

One - or I - could say the same thing about Portal. Having read what others say - half way through the game you get "out" - but by that time, I was done with the game and tired of it. At least Codename: Iceman you start on a relaxing beach, do a few cool things, before being confined to the sub. And - should the internet rumor be true - and the sub sequence can indeed be beaten (which is probably as true as Big Foot, Chupacabra, Lochness, etc) - then there's supposedly things to do outside the sub again.

Again. That's if internet rumors are to be believed, and the sub portion is indeed beatable.

Rudy wrote: KQ7 broke away too much from the series with its graphics and the story of its predecessor was just far superior for KQ7 to come near the same level. Agreed on Torin's Passage.

Now see, here we disagree. I think King's Quest 7 was pretty much what Sierra always hoped the King's Quest series to be. King's Quest, in my mind, was always meant to be like an interactive cartoon that was to be played with the family. And King's Quest 7 literally makes the series into a cartoon. Something, I think, any kid would truly enjoy (with some escorting and nudging by their parents). But I believe KQ7 is one of those with no possible dead ends; so it saves frustration for a younger crowd.

Collector wrote:It seems like such a list needs to exclude any games that are too new. Not out of some notion that only old games are worth being included, but some may hold more recent games higher solely because they are so fresh in their minds that they have not put them into perspective, yet.

I suppose the question is then: what counts as "too new?" Some of the games on the list are nearly three decades old, so new could mean "one year" or "ten years." It all depends how you view it.

Collector wrote:It seems like such a list needs to exclude any games that are too new. Not out of some notion that only old games are worth being included, but some may hold more recent games higher solely because they are so fresh in their minds that they have not put them into perspective, yet.

Uh, well the list is called Adventurer Gamers Top 100 Adventures of All Time - wouldn't it be unfair to exclude new games?

QuestCollector wrote:I have to say I'm shocked LSL 7 made the list. I even said "huh?" out loud.

I've made two DOSBox films trying to prove it's a great game. I love how it manages to both take away the frustration of typing puzzles (you've probably never had friends calling you asking how to spell "tie rope around waist" but that's what happens when non-native speakers play) and yet give it the same freedom. If the sense of humour isn't yours I can imagine it is a terrible game, but I know there's enough people who love it; even saw a kid in the Dutch Donald Duck magazine writing a letter about Larry.

Rudy: you're not alone. I never played QfG either. Don't feel like it either.

DeadPoolX wrote:

Collector wrote:It seems like such a list needs to exclude any games that are too new. Not out of some notion that only old games are worth being included, but some may hold more recent games higher solely because they are so fresh in their minds that they have not put them into perspective, yet.

I suppose the question is then: what counts as "too new?" Some of the games on the list are nearly three decades old, so new could mean "one year" or "ten years." It all depends how you view it.

Good question. I would say at least three or four years. A lot of people will wait until a game has been on the shelves long enough to get cheaper, if not in the bargain bin.

Tawmis wrote:Uh, well the list is called Adventurer Gamers Top 100 Adventures of All Time - wouldn't it be unfair to exclude new games?

No. New games can wait for another list. It is like anything in pop culture. Popularity rises and falls with whatever is new. It skews attempts to rate things against others.

Well, if people tend to wait until new games are less expensive, then that'd suggest they wouldn't play them right away when first released. So how would being a new game favor any entry into this? A game can only be popular if enough people have played it.

Notice I said "popular." A game's popularity says little about the overall quality of it, especially since much of that is based on subjective criteria.

Collector wrote:No. New games can wait for another list. It is like anything in pop culture. Popularity rises and falls with whatever is new. It skews attempts to rate things against others.

I think that Collector is basically saying that Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and countless others are top musicians now and will be forgotten next year, therefore not belonging in the top 100 musicians of all time, but ending up in it due to short-lived recent "popularity". Same goes with adventure games.

Rudy wrote:I think that Collector is basically saying that Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and countless others are top musicians now and will be forgotten next year, therefore not belonging in the top 100 musicians of all time, but ending up in it due to short-lived recent "popularity". Same goes with adventure games.

Exactly. A little time is needed to put a game in perspective.

DeadPoolX wrote:Notice I said "popular." A game's popularity says little about the overall quality of it, especially since much of that is based on subjective criteria.

And that is my point. Rating the overall quality of a game can be just as subjective. Many people will rate such things, being influenced by the current popularity.

Trying to speculate how long a game is new is the only reason I considered including the bargain bin period.

Collector wrote:

Tawmis wrote:Uh, well the list is called Adventurer Gamers Top 100 Adventures of All Time - wouldn't it be unfair to exclude new games?

No. New games can wait for another list. It is like anything in pop culture. Popularity rises and falls with whatever is new. It skews attempts to rate things against others.

I wouldn't say that's always true. I think folks on Adventure Gamers are probably all fairly nostalgic people (considering the content they typically put on there... and the number of classic games already mentioned). I, more often than not, compare a lot of new games against the caliber of many older, classic games. So I think new games, in some cases may have a disadvantage. Because there's a lot of old games, that we may cherish as being "one of the best games, ever" - and yet, if we were to go back and play them now - some of them, I'd wager, would quickly fall from that place we have put them in, because they're not as great as we recall (or because our interests in things have changed). One example, using a cartoon - Thundercats. I remember really loving that cartoon. So I bought the first three seasons of it, a few years back. I could not even make it past the second episode, before the character Snarf bothered me so much... The cartoon is nowhere near as great as I remember, either. I think the same thing would happen to some of the older games, if I played them now. Stories would be too simplistic, or something, would take away, from what I remember making them so great eons ago.

Rudy wrote:

Collector wrote:No. New games can wait for another list. It is like anything in pop culture. Popularity rises and falls with whatever is new. It skews attempts to rate things against others.

I think that Collector is basically saying that Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and countless others are top musicians now and will be forgotten next year, therefore not belonging in the top 100 musicians of all time, but ending up in it due to short-lived recent "popularity". Same goes with adventure games.

Lady Gaga has been around since 2005. That's six (nearly seven) years, which while that isn't a huge number, is probably a lot longer than many would've thought.

Anyway... I think that whole line of reasoning is flawed. How do you know who's going to have long-term or short-term popularity? Using the musician example, there are lots of them who critics probably thought were flash-in-the-pan when they first appeared (i.e. The Beatles, KISS, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, etc) and they have lasted years.

How does "new" make it bad (or at least "unworthy") anyway? Maybe it's just a damn good game. By this line of reasoning, you couldn't have included games like KQ6 in a "best of" list in 1992. Why? Because it's new!

So long do we wait? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Does it only then become a worthy, once it's faded into obscurity with everyone aside from die-hard fans?

Furthermore, the "Top 100 Musicians of All Time" (like the Adventure version) is subject to updates. You can't keep the same list of people (or games) on a list forever simply because that's who's always been there.

How do you even decide who "the best" is anyway? Does it break it down by category? Time period?

My point is that the number of people or games or whatever can and will change as time goes on. There have be allowances for changes or there's simply no point in doing a list like this. I don't think there should be an arbitrary cutoff simply based on time. If a game is good or bad, waiting a decade or two won't change that.

How do we know our feelings of nostalgia won't overshadow a new game?

Besides, I think we're somewhat deluding ourselves into believing that pop culture really gives a damn about the Adventure genre. No Adventure game released today has the marketing or wide-spread recognition that many others do. You'll see everyone talk about Skyrim, but only a relative few discuss Gray Matter. So I don't think we really need to concern ourselves with pop culture swaying interest.

If we want to be fair about this, these games should be compared based on time period or technology involved. How do you objectively compare KQ4 and Dreamfall? You can't.