Adventure Games - Myth vs Fact
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:44 pm
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.
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.
