I'm not so sure you can have a true open-ended adventure. You could have a small degree of open endedness (for instance, multiple paths to complete different things. Different puzzles to get different items to draw different conclusions) but the very nature of the Adventure doesn't lend itself to a wide open world. Also, many open ended games give you a lovely large world with lots of space (rooms) but because of how large they are, only a few certain spots are actually filled with anything interesting. Oblivion for instance. Great big game world with great big empty pointless spaces. I've used Oblivion for this point before and god help me, I'll use it again until all the world hates it as much as I!
But imagine an adventure game which takes up a huge island, only most of the island is dense bush and mountains with little to look at or interact with. Ick.
Is a puzzle's level of excellence directly related to its difficulty?
If the puzzle is so easy how can you even call it a puzzle. Does the puzzle make you think? does it make sense? If I looked at all the puzzles in culture shock I would say yes they all made sense, but I only had to think and get my mind working 2 times in the entire game.. I just breezed through it. Don't underestimate the power of a good puzzle and how it relates to other parts of the game. If you get stuck you are more likely to explore the world more, click on more things and become more immersed in the characters and the game.
Using objects in unusual/unexpected (illogical?) ways (MI Monkey Wrench, anyone?). Combining 3 or more objects to make a new object (which as been pointed out can be somewhat contrived in the context of a game).
For me, an example of an excellent puzzle is the insult swordfighting from Monkey Island. You have to learn the winning responses from better swordsmen to be able to use later against other opponents. Did it make me 'think'? Not really. Was it difficult? No.
But it was huge fun, and indeed an excellent puzzle.
I thought the psychoanalysis puzzle in culture shock was awesome.. That was one of my all time favorites.. really well thoughout, creative and challenging.
A difficult and rewarding puzzle? Its not so much using objects in weird ways or combining weird things together..
but say in grim fandango, you have to get the balloon off the clown, fill it with the stuff..and then send it down the mail shoot... To solve that puzzle you need to explore your environment, and think about using items in your world. Which is fun.. even in hit the road using the cup to get tar while you bungee jump was a lot of fun.. you dont automatically think to do these things straight away, but if you think at whats at your disposal and whats in the environment, it makes a lot of sense.
and let me go back to the "cheese puzzle" in culture shock.. Now in bosco's store the only item you can pick up is cheese.. It was simply too easy to figure out..what else are you gonna do? I think there could have been more steps involved to knock whizzer out there, or atleast more in the environment. Or you could have atleast got the cheese from somewhere else. There could have been 1 item that you could have given him that didnt set off an alarm, another that did. There could be a lot more complexity, in fact JP I think you've already come up with a few good examples...
For me, a difficult puzzle can be something slightly zany/illogical, or it can be a logical puzzle like the ones in S&M but with less hints and/or more steps.
What made the puzzles in S&M so easy for me was that they all seemed laid out for me.
Example: One of my favorite puzzles, the psychiatric evaluation, could be made slightly more difficult (for some) if Sybil didn't flat out say which of the three symptoms she was looking for in each test. Certainly, it is logical that she would tell her patient the symptoms before the tests, but does she have to say "Obsessed with money" before the ink blot test, without including the other two symptoms?
So far the only suggestion that would allow Telltale to attract all the players they want to attract would be to implement an easy/(medium?)/hard setting. That way all players would be catered for and maybe the easy players would become intrigued about the higher difficulties, play them, and slowly increase the difficulty of puzzles they're willing to solve.
One of the easiest ways to do this would be to alter the number of in game hints you get. Telltale don't have time to create a completely different game with harder puzzles, but changing the number of clues people give you shouldn't be that hard.
As to the whole puzzles vs. story debate I think there is a very fine balance to be kept. Without a good enough story there is no incentive to come back to the game to solve that horribly difficult puzzle and with out the puzzles you might as well go watch a movie. To me it seems they are equally important and the reason recent adventure games have been so bad is that they concentrate on getting one just right then messing up the other.
Sicarius: That is awfully elitist of you to say. Not everybody has hours to spend to solve puzzles.
Its not the slightest bit elitist, its simple logic. A game needs challenge to be a wellcrafted game, and the quality of games shouldnt suffer because some people says they dont have time to actually play the games. The whole point of adventureGAMES its telling an INTERACTIVE story, and if you dumb down the interactive part then you don´t have a good game. What you are left with is few buttonclicks to play upp storysequences.
1UP summarizes the problem quite good:
"The whole thing takes about four hours to play, with only five or six small locations to explore and a handful of simple puzzles to solve. None of this will win over anyone who doesn't already like adventure games, though. Too much of Culture Shock boils down to clicking on one object or dialogue choice after another and chuckling at whatever smartass thing Sam or Max says. Each little cartoon snippet you unlock is fun, but eventually you find yourself asking why you have to do so much work for them -- it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank."
One of the easiest ways to do this would be to alter the number of in game hints you get. Telltale don't have time to create a completely different game with harder puzzles, but changing the number of clues people give you shouldn't be that hard.
It would be lovely if, depending on how you did on the first puzzle, the game would change the amount of hints given through-out the game. Granted, it'd be hard to measure.
If the puzzle is so easy how can you even call it a puzzle. Does the puzzle make you think? does it make sense? If I looked at all the puzzles in culture shock I would say yes they all made sense, but I only had to think and get my mind working 2 times in the entire game.. I just breezed through it. Don't underestimate the power of a good puzzle and how it relates to other parts of the game. If you get stuck you are more likely to explore the world more, click on more things and become more immersed in the characters and the game.
The puzzles made me think, pretty much through-out the entire game. I even got stuck when trying to figure out how to knock out Peepers. I don't think anyone's arguing that you didn't find the game difficult. It just seems to me like a lot of you are missing the fact that not everyone found the game easy.
Its not the slightest bit elitist, its simple logic. A game needs challenge to be a wellcrafted game, and the quality of games shouldnt suffer because some people says they dont have time to actually play the games. The whole point of adventureGAMES its telling an INTERACTIVE story, and if you dumb down the interactive part then you don´t have a good game. What you are left with is few buttonclicks to play upp storysequences.
1UP summarizes the problem quite good:
"The whole thing takes about four hours to play, with only five or six small locations to explore and a handful of simple puzzles to solve. None of this will win over anyone who doesn't already like adventure games, though. Too much of Culture Shock boils down to clicking on one object or dialogue choice after another and chuckling at whatever smartass thing Sam or Max says. Each little cartoon snippet you unlock is fun, but eventually you find yourself asking why you have to do so much work for them -- it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank."
I don't get what you're getting at with bringing the 1up summary, 1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work.
Your argument is the exact opposite: that adventure gamers will not like Culture Shock because it doesn't require any work. Additionally, do you actually believe that 1up will change it's mind if you make it require more work?
For a more in-depth look at what 1up thinks about this stuff, listen to the 1up's Retronauts podcast on Sam and Max which Telltale conveniently (and surreptitiously) has given a very prominent link to on the front page of its blogs/news/comics page. It's basically very critical about the way adventure games used to be. Why would someone put up a link that is in many ways actually very critical about a game they want to pay homage to? My guess is that, even if Telltale doesn't agree with all the points that they're making, the fact that they want people to listen to it must mean they at least think these points should be considered.
I've talked on and on about this already. I'm tired of people saying that the logical progression of my arguments is that adventure games aren't for me. I feel that I've explored every argument to be made, and I'm just going to repeat myself if I keep going. Unless there are new things to say or address (such as the meaning behind what 1up actually thinks), we're just going to talk past one another.
I don't get what you're getting at with bringing the 1up summary, 1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work.
Your argument is the exact opposite: that adventure gamers will not like Culture Shock because it doesn't require any work. Additionally, do you actually believe that 1up will change it's mind if you make it require more work?
What 1UP is saying is that since the puzzles are so basic that the game more resembles a comic book than a game, you will wonder why have to work even this much for the game, so that games interactivity is quite pointless.
If the retronauts-podcast is the same that was transcribed here before, then I have already dismissed it as being random bantering from people who dont know the genre and dont wanna know (since they say that genre is dead, and that even the good adventuregames is about random clicking on objects).
No matter what people think of the genres past efforts, it doesnt change the facts that they have choosen to develop a game in the genre. If they dont want puzzles in the oldschool-style, then they have to replace it with something else because people want to PLAY when they pay for a game.
There are ways to change the oldschool-formula.
Westwood did it with Bladerunner
SEGA did it with Shenmue
Quantic Dreams did it with Fahrenheit.
Telltale doesnt have to create and oldschool-adventuregame. But they still have to create a GAME. And games requires a bit of a challenge. If you dont want a challenge, well then dont play. If Telltales try to appeal to non-gamers by dumbing down even the coming episodes, then they will get slaughterd in the coming reviews when this fresh feeling of Sam&Max´s return have faded away.
I really disagree with that inference of what 1up is saying--I really think like your stretching what they say way too much.
1up
"The whole thing takes about four hours to play, with only five or six small locations to explore and a handful of simple puzzles to solve. None of this will win over anyone who doesn't already like adventure games, though. Too much of Culture Shock boils down to clicking on one object or dialogue choice after another and chuckling at whatever smartass thing Sam or Max says. Each little cartoon snippet you unlock is fun, but eventually you find yourself asking why you have to do so much work for them -- it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank."
1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work. It's not that hard of a quote to comprehend.
And the Retronauts podcast is full of commentators that have played all the Lucasarts and Sierra games, so its not random bantering. I think there are about 5-6 people talking, and I've only really highlighted one. Again, you display a penchant for dismissing arguments without anything beyond a superficial consideration of them. There's no point in debating with somebody that does that.
I feel that I've explored every argument to be made, and I'm just going to repeat myself if I keep going.
Yeah, I think this whole debate is running in circles. Telltale did what they did, and it's pretty damn good. Quantic Dream did what they did, etc.
Sam & Max are not the exact same as 13 years ago because time has passed (obviously) and things change.
Now let's wait for Episode 2 before jumping to conclusions.
And honestly, look at the things we've linked to or discussed about Idle Thumbs, Digital Life, Gametap and other people's comments. You have to at least acknowledge that not all people feel the way you do--I acknowledge that you have your point of view, and feel very strongly about it. But many of you just dismiss the things I say, declare that adventure games aren't for me, that I shouldn't play if I only have 5 hours a week available, and on and on. I've been quite clear that I think the difficulty will go up, but such an admission doesn't do anything for you. The logical progression of my arguments seem to continue to be: in reality you aren't an adventure gamer, Telltale is going to fail if it continues to satisfy the like of you. I've been an avid supporter of Lucasarts-style story driven games (and its offshoots) for most of my life, and it is really disappointing that you guys wish to drive me out simply because I've had to use walkthroughs or think that puzzles are not the be on and end all of the genre.
EDIT:
Yeah, this was written in a little fit of frustration. I agree with Major_Higgins, it's time for me to check out and move on.
I really disagree with that inference of what 1up is saying--I really think like your stretching what they say way too much.
1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work. It's not that hard of a quote to comprehend.
And the Retronauts podcast is full of commentators that have played all the Lucasarts and Sierra games, so its not random bantering. I think there are about 5-6 people talking, and I've only really highlighted one. Again, you display a penchant for dismissing arguments without anything beyond a superficial consideration of them. There's no point in debating with somebody that does that.
Read the 1UP-quote again. They say " a handful of simple puzzles", so the bit about "working hard" is not really about the game being suitable for seasoned adventuregamers.
This part is the interesting one:
"it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank.""
How on earth can that be interpreted as that the game is only for adventure gamers?
And its really not interesting if the retronauts-people have played the LucasArts- and Sierra-adventure. Those games are 10-15 old. Everyone has played them. But have they played the more recent adventures like:
A Moment of Silence
Broken Sword 3
Broken Sword 4
Dreamfall
Fahrenheit
Martin Mystére
Myst 4
Myst 5
Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silver Earring
Still Life
Syberia 1
Syberia 2
Since they say that genre is "dead", then they don´t give an impression of having played those games, since no genre with so many good games release in just a couple of years can be considered "dead".
That, and the fact that the part that they say that even the best adventuregames are about random clicking is enough for me to dismiss their opions as "random bantering". If they want their opinions to count, then they really have to get at least some facts right.
Its not arrogance from my side, its arrogance from theirs.
Edit: But sure, if I have seem arrogant - then I apologise. But just as some people seem to be annoyed with my comments, I get annoyed by being branded some kind of elite abnormal super-adventurer just because I wants a bit of a challenge when I play.
Yeah, I think this whole debate is running in circles. Telltale did what they did, and it's pretty damn good. Quantic Dream did what they did, etc.
Sam & Max are not the exact same as 13 years ago because time has passed (obviously) and things change.
Now let's wait for Episode 2 before jumping to conclusions.
There, I'm out, bye.
I myself never said that I wanted Sam&Max to be exactly as it was 13 years ago. On the contrary. I welcome innovation and development of the genre. But some kind of challenge is still an important part of a game, which is exactly what you can read in the reviews from gamespot, 1UP and others. Telltale did do a good job with episode 1, and I do like it. I just think that it can be so much better.
And yes, I think this discussion is important since Telltale is one of very few developers who listen to their customers. I don´t expect them to listen to only me, and no one else. But I want to make my opinions heard. If anyone doesnt want this discussion, well then this is just one thread out of hundreds in this forum.
And let me just clarify that I really only believe this to be the case with story-driven games. In another genre a great story and great writing are wonderful additions and can benefit any game, but a racing game has to be a good racing game first and foremost. A shooter has to nail what makes a shooter game great before adding frosting elsewhere. And an adventure game's core is its story and characters. Let the puzzles or however you move through the game serve that, not the other way around. Compare a true story game like Monkey Island to a puzzle game like Myst. Both are widely considered "adventure games," but how are they different in focus?
Myst is actually less of a purely puzzle game than you may think. I have not played Monkey Island, but I have to say, that in all likelyhood, their way of storytelling is significantly different.
Monkey Island, I get the feeling, tells a story through what you do. You wander around and do stuff, and story happens to you.
In Myst, the focus of storytelling is different. Not much actually HAPPENS to you. All the happening has already taken place. However, the story is still there, documented carefully in the books.
Yet still, I bet Monkey Island had more of a story than that. It's kindof likely, in fact, since Myst still doesn't have much of a story, even in its books. But Myst isn't the totallity of the story. Not by a long shot. There have been 4 sequels, and an attempt at an MMO (coming back this December, by the way!). All 5 of these, in my opinion, have a significant amount of story, more than the original Myst. But the totality of the story is greater than even that.
In short, I would disagree that the Myst series' focus is on puzzles. It's focus is also on stories. Those stories are merely told differently...
I still disagree. I don't believe that a reviewer will say both that adventure gamers will like it and then that adventure gamers will not like it in the span of 30 seconds. Short of personally asking the reviewer what he meant, we will never know.
EDIT:
I'm really stopping now. I've realized that, since I also haven't played any of those games you mentioned, you would dismiss my comments right off as unqualified, so there's no point in belaboring this discussion any further.
Sam and Max's twisted world is captured near-perfectly in the art, which makes the disappointments in the dialogue and puzzles all the more acute.
PC Game World
Judged against regular game standards, it was definitely too short and easy
A major contributor to the short playtime is the easy puzzles. Almost every one is presented and solved in the same area, using items found in that area.
mature dialog content doesn’t mesh well with the overly-easy puzzles. I think Telltale was trying to please both hardcore Sam & Max fans and the Bejewed crowd, but I don’t think that’s really possible (or even necessary).
Gamespot
The Bad: Limited inventory makes puzzle-solving pretty easy; short and easy enough that you might not want to replay it;
Gamespy
As an adventure game, solving puzzles is a big part of the gameplay. By and large, the puzzles in Culture Shock are fairly easy.
Adventure Gamers
Culture Shock continues the Telltale trend of games on the easier side. The puzzles are more intelligent than Great Cow Race but still not difficult to figure out.
Games Radar
That said, Culture Shock is a pretty simple game. Everything you can interact with lights up when you mouse over it, and while the puzzles are clever, they're not exactly difficult
Quandary
You will move through the game fairly quickly because the puzzles aren't too tricky
Just Adventure
I would place all the puzzles at the easy to medium level of difficulty.
2404
Puzzle-wise, you will find that Sam and Max sticks with the standard dialogue- and inventory-based quests, with a small amount of pixel hunting thrown in. This will dismay some of the older gamers, who were hoping perhaps for a little more depth from Sam and Max, but it will make the game more accessible to younger gamers
IGN
Of the few dozen puzzles in the game only a handful will really challenge your problem solving skills. Most have simple one-part solutions and are as easy and as obvious as flipping on a light switch.
Firing Squad
Puzzles for the most part are rather simple but there are a few that are pretty challenging
Yahoo Games
Our one reservation, and it's a little one, is that if you're an old hand at adventure games you'll probably find it a touch on the easy side. Only the very last problem really stumped us for any length of time, and often you'll find fairly obvious solutions close by.
Gaming Trend
Overall, the game is fairly simple and fun. The interaction that made the first game so much fun is very much present in this title. The only drawback is also one of the strengths - the episodic nature. Because this is the first episode of the game, the area is rather limited. You can get in the car and harass motorists, but you really can't escape from the initial area quite yet. Perhaps in subsequent episodes we'll see a return to this area, as well as the new areas, but only time will tell. As a result, you don't get the crazy puzzles that you do in other adventure games where you might pick up a wrench in one location hundreds of miles away from where you use it. In Culture Shock, at least at this stage, the puzzles are still insane, but you really only have a small number of possible uses for some of the objects you obtain. I'm hoping the difficulty ramps a little bit for future episodes.
I'm really stopping now. I've realized that, since I also haven't played any of those games you mentioned, you would dismiss my comments right off as unqualified, so there's no point in belaboring this discussion any further.
Nope. I wouldnt do that. Well.....not until you try and generalise about the genre like the retronauts-guys tried.
I have an interview with Tim Schafer in one of my copies of PCPowerPlay where he says the reason adventure games are dead are because they haven't gone out and tried to evolve for many years. The fact that at least 75% of the posts in this forum demand that Telltale remake Hit the Road or at least make the new games more like it only strengthen this idea.
Agreed, TellTale have done a good job progressing the adventure genre with Sam & Max. The whole idea of verbs is actually pretty dumb. Even having two verbs is pointless and completely unintuitive.
Since they say that genre is "dead", then they don´t give an impression of having played those games, since no genre with so many good games release in just a couple of years can be considered "dead".
Incognito: You're really ignoring the obvious, so hopefully I can persuade you once and for all: Adventure games are dead. The games you mention are produced by small companies for a niche market. Sure, adventure games are not technically dead, because there IS new titles, but that's not what people mean when they say "adventure games are dead".
There's still new software being developed for the Amiga, for instance, that doesn't mean that the Amiga isn't dead - because it is! Well and truly. Nailed up, six feet under. Dead. It's only being kept alive for the few die-hards who still love that machine... so I can understand you might argue that technically it's still alive, but that's not what people mean when they say it's dead.
It's hyperbole, but it's what's meant that matters.
Ron Gilbert, Monkey Island creator Does Myst have partial responsibility at the death of the Adventures? No, Adventures killed themselves. There they did not have an assistance of someone else necessarily. Old Man Murray has a excellent explanation.
Tim Schafer, creator of Full Throttle and Grim Fandango "Someone said once, 'Why do we play adventure games?'" Schafer recalls, acknowledging that the adventure-game genre died an early death due to its relative inaccessibility. "Well, it's like that guy who's banging his head against the wall, and it's like, 'Why are you banging your head against the wall?' 'Cause it feels so good when you stop.' Adventure gamers are a little bit like that."
I guess it's time to dismiss those guys as being unqualified to talk about the genre.
Edit:
My interpretation of the really-hard-to-understand Schafer metaphor: he's talking about how you spend hours trying multiple variations of item/verb/inventory combinations--like banging your head against the wall multiple times--until you get the right solution.
Hero: We've all acknowledged that the game is easier than your run-of-the-mill adventure game and that it's invariably going to be more difficult later on. I don't think pointing out that some selected reviews point out that a minor issue with the game is puzzle difficulty proves the point that this is the OVERWHELMING issue, you can read many posts that basically say "good puzzles overcome a good story"-- and that is basically what I'm taking issue with.
I've read many of the whole reviews, and they focus on story, characters and humor and even discussing the episodic model, a lot more than discussing the puzzles. Quote the percentage of time spent discussing the problems with puzzle easiness--without a biased selection of which reviews to include/exclude--and I'll be more inclined to believe you.
Schafer's snippet is spot on, developers are competing with the rose tinted childhood memory of being lost in a world of imagination.
Saying this, you only have to load up one of your old favourites in ScummVm to see that the gameplay and writing is still spot on regardless of advances in graphics, sound and waistlines
I guess there's no getting away from the fact that we all found it easy. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, in fact it doesn't even mean that I want anything to change for Episode 2, but I wouldn't mind if TellTale tried to tweak the difficulty a bit.
Something else to consider; we're going to see Episode 2 pretty soon. The other episodes are set to follow MONTHLY after that, too. When you consider that they're coming in pretty fast, it might not be so bad that they're completable quickly...? I don't know.
All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed Episode 1, and quite frankly I can't imagine it getting much better, as it was already top notch!
Hero: We've all acknowledged that the game is easier than your run-of-the-mill adventure game and that it's invariably going to be more difficult later on. I don't think pointing out that some selected reviews point out that a minor issue with the game is puzzle difficulty proves the point that this is the OVERWHELMING issue, you can read many posts that basically say "good puzzles overcome a good story"-- and that is basically what I'm taking issue with.
You're absolutely right! But, as jp-30 pointed out, there's more to a "good puzzle" than its difficulty. I personally don't have issues with Episode 1 that couldn't be considered minor. It's a stellar example of what made LucasArts games great in the first place, and possibly better than the original Sam & Max game (has anyone cranked up the old game since playing episode one?).
Myst is actually less of a purely puzzle game than you may think. I have not played Monkey Island, but I have to say, that in all likelyhood, their way of storytelling is significantly different.
Monkey Island, I get the feeling, tells a story through what you do. You wander around and do stuff, and story happens to you.
In Myst, the focus of storytelling is different. Not much actually HAPPENS to you. All the happening has already taken place. However, the story is still there, documented carefully in the books.
Please don't misunderstand me - just because I don't think a game is story-driven doesn't mean it can't have a rich, engaging story, nor does it mean that it has no value to the game. Also, just because a game is story-driven doesn't necessarily mean the story is good or complex. There are a lot of games whose stories I consider superior to that of adventure games. I also didn't mean to suggest that Myst was "purely" a puzzle game. And, most importantly, just because a game is of a certain genre says zero about its quality.
In this particular discussion though, the "totality" of Myst's story as it's documented and expanded in books or otherwise outside the game itself is irrelevant. The difference in the focus of the storytelling that you're pointing out is, I think, why I set it apart. Storytelling plays a part in any kind of game. Many people adore the stories of games like Zelda or Final Fantasy and it may be a major selling point for them, but Final Fantasy is still an RPG at its heart.
Nice effort ignoring the 13 reviews i quoted that cited the game as being easy
I'd just like to point out to everyone (or anyone) that, for example, in most of those reviews, the puzzles being described as "easy" was a COMMENT and not a COMPLAINT. As such, this thread's title is misleading. I think people are, for the most part, COMMENTING on how Sam & Max is, and a very vocal minority have turned this into a COMPLAINT.
I thought the puzzles in Sam & Max weren't too taxing, but that's not a complaint!
Johnny Walker: Oh silly old me. Here I thought that the fact that there are more than enough good adventures games with really high production values to play, and even more upcoming was enough to call the genre "alive".
Yes, the genre is dead in many peoples eyes. But I you scroll back in this thread and look at my arguments you see that what I say is that anyone who actually takes time and look at what games are available and how good they are will find out that genre is alive and kicking, and that publishers and developers are continuing funding new adventuregames.
This discussion is even more fun when one thinks that its being posted on the forum at a developer who has released 5 adventuregames over the last 1,5 years, and are now acting as a distributor for other adventuredevelopers.
Numble: As much as I respect Ron Gilbert, he has been out of the industry for quite some time now. I know that is developing some kind of RPG/Adventuregame, but his most recent game was released 1997 (Total Annihilation), and his last adventuregame.......1992 (Monkey Island 2).
And if we continue with the namedropping, we can look at what a certain developer who released his last adventuregames this month says:
"People talk about the decline of the adventure, [but] we sold the same for Broken Sword 3 as we did for Broken Sword 2, and Broken Sword 1. The market is still very much there, and it's not declining; there's still plenty of room for adventures." - Charles Cecil
Broken Sword 1 - released 1996
Broken Sword 2 - released 1997
Broken Sword 3 - released 2003
Incognito: Though I've never heard of Charles Cecil or Broken Sword, he's entitled to that belief and I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand.
I've never been the one going around saying I'm not willing to listen to what they say if they say something I disagree with. I was just saying that you aren't even willing to listen to what some people (Retronauts) say about Sam and Max, because you heard that one of them said "adventure games are dead." Stretching that out to prove the logical consequences of that principle means rejecting everything Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer has to say because of one comment they made that you disagree with.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore, Incognito.
I can't see how there's any reason to argue about any kind of death, or any genre. That has nothing to do with Sam & Max's difficulty. It's obvious that you see this living, thriving genre because you like the games that have been coming out the past years. On the other hand there are those that think it's metaphorically dead, because they don't like the way it's been the past years.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with Culture Shock, however.
Hero1, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. Everyone agrees that the difficulty could be ramped up a tad. Unless you feel it should be ramped up by quite a lot, I don't think anyone's trying to say otherwise.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore, Incognito.
I can't see how there's any reason to argue about any kind of death, or any genre. That has nothing to do with Sam & Max's difficulty. It's obvious that you see this living, thriving genre because you like the games that have been coming out the past years. On the other hand there are those that think it's metaphorically dead, because they don't like the way it's been the past years.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with Culture Shock, however.
This part about the genre is related to the discussion since people have used quotes from these "experts" about the genre being dead to prove a point against us who wishes a bit more advanced puzzles in the Sam&Max-games.
And its doesnt seem to be about people not liking the genre the last year. It seems to be about people not liking the genre at all because of the challenge, which leads me to wonder why people want to play adventuregames at all if you want to dumb down the actual playing part.
I think this "adventure games didn't evolve" angle is misleading. Adventure games didn't have a chance to evolve. True, they were stuck for a time, but hollywood FMV pushed adventure games in the wrong direction. Then FPS games came along and made it impossible for adventure games to have a commercial audience to evolve in and with.
You can't evolve if no one is buying adventure games. And during the mid-late 90s no one was buying adventure games. Yes, I'll reiterate that I was a pc video game store clerk during this time. The only things people were buying were FPS games, RTS games, and Sims.
Hero1, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. Everyone agrees that the difficulty could be ramped up a tad. Unless you feel it should be ramped up by quite a lot, I don't think anyone's trying to say otherwise.
Hey that's all I'm saying, the one thing i'd like to see in future episodes is for it be more challenging. There are people who see culture shock being easy as a positive, which I dont agree on.
Its up to Telltale at this point to see where they go from here. If they agree with the people who say the difficulty is perfect and they keep it at the same level it worries me, because I think a lot of people could stop buying the episodes if the puzzles remain that easy.
I can recall maybe one person (not on this forum, I think) saying they won't be buying Sam & Max ep 2 unless it is harder than Ep 1.
Most people who are vocal enough to post on a game company messageboard would like it a little harder, but certainly wouldn't stop buying/playing future episodes if they remained about Culture Shock's level of difficulty.
The silent majority are, one would probably conclude, satisfied with Culture Shock and will most likey continue with the series.
I would hazard a guess that making the game more difficult is likely to cause more people to drop the series than pick it up, as Hero1 believes.
Having said that, I think most people would be happy if the difficulty ramps up slightly from episode to episode (as appears to be happening with Bone).
I can recall maybe one person (not on this forum, I think) saying they won't be buying Sam & Max ep 2 unless it is harder than Ep 1.
Agreed. While I definitely belong to the group who finds the game a bit on the easy side, I have bought the whole season and do not regret it one bit. Even if every future game is about the same difficulty, I will still enjoy my purchase... for the money, these games appear to be a great value for entertainment.
However, if Telltale can ramp up the difficulty a bit (I have given my ideas of how in several threads) then the value of the games, for me, would skyrocket!
It's a stellar example of what made LucasArts games great in the first place, and possibly better than the original Sam & Max game (has anyone cranked up the old game since playing episode one?).
I actually have fired up the game since, and I currently find Hit the Road to be a better adventure game. Notice, I said currently. This season has six episodes. At around 2-4 hours each (depending on speed of play), we are looking at a "full" game of 12-24 hours. Not too shabby for $35 a season. While playing Hit the Road, I have noticed something, however... that during the first portion of the game, puzzles were simpler... and towards the end, puzzles were more complex. So for the first sixth of the season, Culture Shock is setting up the scene almost perfectly. As a stand alone game, it would leave a little to be desired. Not much , mind you, but a little.
I'd just like to point out to everyone (or anyone) that, for example, in most of those reviews, the puzzles being described as "easy" was a COMMENT and not a COMPLAINT. As such, this thread's title is misleading. I think people are, for the most part, COMMENTING on how Sam & Max is, and a very vocal minority have turned this into a COMPLAINT.
I thought the puzzles in Sam & Max weren't too taxing, but that's not a complaint!
Actually thats a load of bull. In most of those it WAS a complaint. PC Gamer, a UK magazine known for giving very balanced and fair reviews, gave Culture Shock a woeful 61%. And I quote "A reasonable game on its own, but a sad disservice to Sam & Max"
They even described it as "heart breaking". What you have to understand is that Sam & Max are 2 of the most loved characters from the old school adventure game genre. There was a lot of expectation in this game. The reviewer, as well as myself, dont believe it lived up anywhere near those expectations.
SPENDING HOURS TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO AN EVERYDAY SITUATION IN THE MOST OBSCURE WAY IS NOT FUN.
The puzzles were logical in Sam and Max, logical, hear me? You did not have to try every item with everything on the screen to actually get somewhere. Adventure games died out (and I say "died" out as they died, and are in the process of being resurrected) because very few people found it fun to get a walkthrough to find out a stupid, obscure solution to a problem that can be solved by common sense or by brute force.
Spending hours in front of the same screen, clicking on everything with everything in your inventory to find some demented, vague logic that some developer thought up while being stoned is NOT fun.
Adventure games are about adventure, not solving abstract puzzles that make no sense.
That's why Dreamfall is experimenting in combining elements from other genres. Adventure games are not marketable, people are reminded of wasting hours in front of the computer figuring out obscure solutions, developers are using graphics engines years old (graphics sell, whether it deserves it or not, and I am referring to that most adventure games use fixed camera with a fake 3D), and professional game reviewers are professionally stupid with bad taste.
Dreamfall cut with all of it, even at the expense of some shortcomings (combat).
Sam and Max is the first adventure game were I didn't have to get a walkthrough to find solutions. That's a good point in my book. The graphic were also great, nothing unnecessary (though, I would have liked if more things are effected by the gun, like it leaves decals or some other funny animation).
Old-school adventure games are dead, leave it be. And no, it cannot survive. The fact that the Adventure Company was brought by JoWood proves this.
That company specialize in old-school adventure games, and now its brought by a shitty publisher that is known to release games either early or without proper quality testing (Gothic 3, look at the forums, the fans are screaming about the hoard of bugs, they needed two patches just to make the game playable).
Adventure games should be about plot, characters and interacting with the environment , not finding out solutions that you need to be stoned just to think about it. Deal with it.
SPENDING HOURS TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO AN EVERYDAY SITUATION IN THE MOST OBSCURE WAY IS NOT FUN.
No thats sounds quite dull. Good thing that there are many good adventures out there where there is logic behinds the challenges.
What the critics here says is that if you takes the challenging puzzles out, then you have to replace it with something else, since its games we are talking about here. Adventuregames are welcome to evolve, but just cutting things its not evolution. Thats just......cutting things.
Comments
But imagine an adventure game which takes up a huge island, only most of the island is dense bush and mountains with little to look at or interact with. Ick.
If the puzzle is so easy how can you even call it a puzzle. Does the puzzle make you think? does it make sense? If I looked at all the puzzles in culture shock I would say yes they all made sense, but I only had to think and get my mind working 2 times in the entire game.. I just breezed through it. Don't underestimate the power of a good puzzle and how it relates to other parts of the game. If you get stuck you are more likely to explore the world more, click on more things and become more immersed in the characters and the game.
Using objects in unusual/unexpected (illogical?) ways (MI Monkey Wrench, anyone?). Combining 3 or more objects to make a new object (which as been pointed out can be somewhat contrived in the context of a game).
For me, an example of an excellent puzzle is the insult swordfighting from Monkey Island. You have to learn the winning responses from better swordsmen to be able to use later against other opponents. Did it make me 'think'? Not really. Was it difficult? No.
But it was huge fun, and indeed an excellent puzzle.
A difficult and rewarding puzzle? Its not so much using objects in weird ways or combining weird things together..
but say in grim fandango, you have to get the balloon off the clown, fill it with the stuff..and then send it down the mail shoot... To solve that puzzle you need to explore your environment, and think about using items in your world. Which is fun.. even in hit the road using the cup to get tar while you bungee jump was a lot of fun.. you dont automatically think to do these things straight away, but if you think at whats at your disposal and whats in the environment, it makes a lot of sense.
and let me go back to the "cheese puzzle" in culture shock.. Now in bosco's store the only item you can pick up is cheese.. It was simply too easy to figure out..what else are you gonna do? I think there could have been more steps involved to knock whizzer out there, or atleast more in the environment. Or you could have atleast got the cheese from somewhere else. There could have been 1 item that you could have given him that didnt set off an alarm, another that did. There could be a lot more complexity, in fact JP I think you've already come up with a few good examples...
For me, a difficult puzzle can be something slightly zany/illogical, or it can be a logical puzzle like the ones in S&M but with less hints and/or more steps.
What made the puzzles in S&M so easy for me was that they all seemed laid out for me.
Example: One of my favorite puzzles, the psychiatric evaluation, could be made slightly more difficult (for some) if Sybil didn't flat out say which of the three symptoms she was looking for in each test. Certainly, it is logical that she would tell her patient the symptoms before the tests, but does she have to say "Obsessed with money" before the ink blot test, without including the other two symptoms?
One of the easiest ways to do this would be to alter the number of in game hints you get. Telltale don't have time to create a completely different game with harder puzzles, but changing the number of clues people give you shouldn't be that hard.
As to the whole puzzles vs. story debate I think there is a very fine balance to be kept. Without a good enough story there is no incentive to come back to the game to solve that horribly difficult puzzle and with out the puzzles you might as well go watch a movie. To me it seems they are equally important and the reason recent adventure games have been so bad is that they concentrate on getting one just right then messing up the other.
Its not the slightest bit elitist, its simple logic. A game needs challenge to be a wellcrafted game, and the quality of games shouldnt suffer because some people says they dont have time to actually play the games. The whole point of adventureGAMES its telling an INTERACTIVE story, and if you dumb down the interactive part then you don´t have a good game. What you are left with is few buttonclicks to play upp storysequences.
1UP summarizes the problem quite good:
"The whole thing takes about four hours to play, with only five or six small locations to explore and a handful of simple puzzles to solve. None of this will win over anyone who doesn't already like adventure games, though. Too much of Culture Shock boils down to clicking on one object or dialogue choice after another and chuckling at whatever smartass thing Sam or Max says. Each little cartoon snippet you unlock is fun, but eventually you find yourself asking why you have to do so much work for them -- it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank."
It would be lovely if, depending on how you did on the first puzzle, the game would change the amount of hints given through-out the game. Granted, it'd be hard to measure.
The puzzles made me think, pretty much through-out the entire game. I even got stuck when trying to figure out how to knock out Peepers. I don't think anyone's arguing that you didn't find the game difficult. It just seems to me like a lot of you are missing the fact that not everyone found the game easy.
I don't get what you're getting at with bringing the 1up summary, 1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work.
Your argument is the exact opposite: that adventure gamers will not like Culture Shock because it doesn't require any work. Additionally, do you actually believe that 1up will change it's mind if you make it require more work?
For a more in-depth look at what 1up thinks about this stuff, listen to the 1up's Retronauts podcast on Sam and Max which Telltale conveniently (and surreptitiously) has given a very prominent link to on the front page of its blogs/news/comics page. It's basically very critical about the way adventure games used to be. Why would someone put up a link that is in many ways actually very critical about a game they want to pay homage to? My guess is that, even if Telltale doesn't agree with all the points that they're making, the fact that they want people to listen to it must mean they at least think these points should be considered.
I've talked on and on about this already. I'm tired of people saying that the logical progression of my arguments is that adventure games aren't for me. I feel that I've explored every argument to be made, and I'm just going to repeat myself if I keep going. Unless there are new things to say or address (such as the meaning behind what 1up actually thinks), we're just going to talk past one another.
What 1UP is saying is that since the puzzles are so basic that the game more resembles a comic book than a game, you will wonder why have to work even this much for the game, so that games interactivity is quite pointless.
If the retronauts-podcast is the same that was transcribed here before, then I have already dismissed it as being random bantering from people who dont know the genre and dont wanna know (since they say that genre is dead, and that even the good adventuregames is about random clicking on objects).
No matter what people think of the genres past efforts, it doesnt change the facts that they have choosen to develop a game in the genre. If they dont want puzzles in the oldschool-style, then they have to replace it with something else because people want to PLAY when they pay for a game.
There are ways to change the oldschool-formula.
Westwood did it with Bladerunner
SEGA did it with Shenmue
Quantic Dreams did it with Fahrenheit.
Telltale doesnt have to create and oldschool-adventuregame. But they still have to create a GAME. And games requires a bit of a challenge. If you dont want a challenge, well then dont play. If Telltales try to appeal to non-gamers by dumbing down even the coming episodes, then they will get slaughterd in the coming reviews when this fresh feeling of Sam&Max´s return have faded away.
1Up is basically saying only adventure gamers will like Culture Shock, since according to them, Culture Shock requires so much work. It's not that hard of a quote to comprehend.
And the Retronauts podcast is full of commentators that have played all the Lucasarts and Sierra games, so its not random bantering. I think there are about 5-6 people talking, and I've only really highlighted one. Again, you display a penchant for dismissing arguments without anything beyond a superficial consideration of them. There's no point in debating with somebody that does that.
Yeah, I think this whole debate is running in circles. Telltale did what they did, and it's pretty damn good. Quantic Dream did what they did, etc.
Sam & Max are not the exact same as 13 years ago because time has passed (obviously) and things change.
Now let's wait for Episode 2 before jumping to conclusions.
There, I'm out, bye.
EDIT:
Yeah, this was written in a little fit of frustration. I agree with Major_Higgins, it's time for me to check out and move on.
Read the 1UP-quote again. They say " a handful of simple puzzles", so the bit about "working hard" is not really about the game being suitable for seasoned adventuregamers.
This part is the interesting one:
"it's like watching a cartoon on a DVD player powered by a hand crank.""
How on earth can that be interpreted as that the game is only for adventure gamers?
And its really not interesting if the retronauts-people have played the LucasArts- and Sierra-adventure. Those games are 10-15 old. Everyone has played them. But have they played the more recent adventures like:
A Moment of Silence
Broken Sword 3
Broken Sword 4
Dreamfall
Fahrenheit
Martin Mystére
Myst 4
Myst 5
Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silver Earring
Still Life
Syberia 1
Syberia 2
Since they say that genre is "dead", then they don´t give an impression of having played those games, since no genre with so many good games release in just a couple of years can be considered "dead".
That, and the fact that the part that they say that even the best adventuregames are about random clicking is enough for me to dismiss their opions as "random bantering". If they want their opinions to count, then they really have to get at least some facts right.
Its not arrogance from my side, its arrogance from theirs.
Edit: But sure, if I have seem arrogant - then I apologise. But just as some people seem to be annoyed with my comments, I get annoyed by being branded some kind of elite abnormal super-adventurer just because I wants a bit of a challenge when I play.
I myself never said that I wanted Sam&Max to be exactly as it was 13 years ago. On the contrary. I welcome innovation and development of the genre. But some kind of challenge is still an important part of a game, which is exactly what you can read in the reviews from gamespot, 1UP and others. Telltale did do a good job with episode 1, and I do like it. I just think that it can be so much better.
And yes, I think this discussion is important since Telltale is one of very few developers who listen to their customers. I don´t expect them to listen to only me, and no one else. But I want to make my opinions heard. If anyone doesnt want this discussion, well then this is just one thread out of hundreds in this forum.
Myst is actually less of a purely puzzle game than you may think. I have not played Monkey Island, but I have to say, that in all likelyhood, their way of storytelling is significantly different.
Monkey Island, I get the feeling, tells a story through what you do. You wander around and do stuff, and story happens to you.
In Myst, the focus of storytelling is different. Not much actually HAPPENS to you. All the happening has already taken place. However, the story is still there, documented carefully in the books.
Yet still, I bet Monkey Island had more of a story than that. It's kindof likely, in fact, since Myst still doesn't have much of a story, even in its books. But Myst isn't the totallity of the story. Not by a long shot. There have been 4 sequels, and an attempt at an MMO (coming back this December, by the way!). All 5 of these, in my opinion, have a significant amount of story, more than the original Myst. But the totality of the story is greater than even that.
In short, I would disagree that the Myst series' focus is on puzzles. It's focus is also on stories. Those stories are merely told differently...
EDIT:
I'm really stopping now. I've realized that, since I also haven't played any of those games you mentioned, you would dismiss my comments right off as unqualified, so there's no point in belaboring this discussion any further.
Sam and Max's twisted world is captured near-perfectly in the art, which makes the disappointments in the dialogue and puzzles all the more acute.
PC Game World
Judged against regular game standards, it was definitely too short and easy
A major contributor to the short playtime is the easy puzzles. Almost every one is presented and solved in the same area, using items found in that area.
mature dialog content doesn’t mesh well with the overly-easy puzzles. I think Telltale was trying to please both hardcore Sam & Max fans and the Bejewed crowd, but I don’t think that’s really possible (or even necessary).
Gamespot
The Bad: Limited inventory makes puzzle-solving pretty easy; short and easy enough that you might not want to replay it;
Gamespy
As an adventure game, solving puzzles is a big part of the gameplay. By and large, the puzzles in Culture Shock are fairly easy.
Adventure Gamers
Culture Shock continues the Telltale trend of games on the easier side. The puzzles are more intelligent than Great Cow Race but still not difficult to figure out.
Games Radar
That said, Culture Shock is a pretty simple game. Everything you can interact with lights up when you mouse over it, and while the puzzles are clever, they're not exactly difficult
Quandary
You will move through the game fairly quickly because the puzzles aren't too tricky
Just Adventure
I would place all the puzzles at the easy to medium level of difficulty.
2404
Puzzle-wise, you will find that Sam and Max sticks with the standard dialogue- and inventory-based quests, with a small amount of pixel hunting thrown in. This will dismay some of the older gamers, who were hoping perhaps for a little more depth from Sam and Max, but it will make the game more accessible to younger gamers
IGN
Of the few dozen puzzles in the game only a handful will really challenge your problem solving skills. Most have simple one-part solutions and are as easy and as obvious as flipping on a light switch.
Firing Squad
Puzzles for the most part are rather simple but there are a few that are pretty challenging
Yahoo Games
Our one reservation, and it's a little one, is that if you're an old hand at adventure games you'll probably find it a touch on the easy side. Only the very last problem really stumped us for any length of time, and often you'll find fairly obvious solutions close by.
Gaming Trend
Overall, the game is fairly simple and fun. The interaction that made the first game so much fun is very much present in this title. The only drawback is also one of the strengths - the episodic nature. Because this is the first episode of the game, the area is rather limited. You can get in the car and harass motorists, but you really can't escape from the initial area quite yet. Perhaps in subsequent episodes we'll see a return to this area, as well as the new areas, but only time will tell. As a result, you don't get the crazy puzzles that you do in other adventure games where you might pick up a wrench in one location hundreds of miles away from where you use it. In Culture Shock, at least at this stage, the puzzles are still insane, but you really only have a small number of possible uses for some of the objects you obtain. I'm hoping the difficulty ramps a little bit for future episodes.
Nope. I wouldnt do that. Well.....not until you try and generalise about the genre like the retronauts-guys tried.
Agreed, TellTale have done a good job progressing the adventure genre with Sam & Max. The whole idea of verbs is actually pretty dumb. Even having two verbs is pointless and completely unintuitive.
Incognito: You're really ignoring the obvious, so hopefully I can persuade you once and for all: Adventure games are dead. The games you mention are produced by small companies for a niche market. Sure, adventure games are not technically dead, because there IS new titles, but that's not what people mean when they say "adventure games are dead".
There's still new software being developed for the Amiga, for instance, that doesn't mean that the Amiga isn't dead - because it is! Well and truly. Nailed up, six feet under. Dead. It's only being kept alive for the few die-hards who still love that machine... so I can understand you might argue that technically it's still alive, but that's not what people mean when they say it's dead.
It's hyperbole, but it's what's meant that matters.
Does Myst have partial responsibility at the death of the Adventures?
No, Adventures killed themselves. There they did not have an assistance of someone else necessarily. Old Man Murray has a excellent explanation.
Tim Schafer, creator of Full Throttle and Grim Fandango
"Someone said once, 'Why do we play adventure games?'" Schafer recalls, acknowledging that the adventure-game genre died an early death due to its relative inaccessibility. "Well, it's like that guy who's banging his head against the wall, and it's like, 'Why are you banging your head against the wall?' 'Cause it feels so good when you stop.' Adventure gamers are a little bit like that."
I guess it's time to dismiss those guys as being unqualified to talk about the genre.
Edit:
My interpretation of the really-hard-to-understand Schafer metaphor: he's talking about how you spend hours trying multiple variations of item/verb/inventory combinations--like banging your head against the wall multiple times--until you get the right solution.
I've read many of the whole reviews, and they focus on story, characters and humor and even discussing the episodic model, a lot more than discussing the puzzles. Quote the percentage of time spent discussing the problems with puzzle easiness--without a biased selection of which reviews to include/exclude--and I'll be more inclined to believe you.
Saying this, you only have to load up one of your old favourites in ScummVm to see that the gameplay and writing is still spot on regardless of advances in graphics, sound and waistlines
WD
Something else to consider; we're going to see Episode 2 pretty soon. The other episodes are set to follow MONTHLY after that, too. When you consider that they're coming in pretty fast, it might not be so bad that they're completable quickly...? I don't know.
All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed Episode 1, and quite frankly I can't imagine it getting much better, as it was already top notch!
You're absolutely right! But, as jp-30 pointed out, there's more to a "good puzzle" than its difficulty. I personally don't have issues with Episode 1 that couldn't be considered minor. It's a stellar example of what made LucasArts games great in the first place, and possibly better than the original Sam & Max game (has anyone cranked up the old game since playing episode one?).
Please don't misunderstand me - just because I don't think a game is story-driven doesn't mean it can't have a rich, engaging story, nor does it mean that it has no value to the game. Also, just because a game is story-driven doesn't necessarily mean the story is good or complex. There are a lot of games whose stories I consider superior to that of adventure games. I also didn't mean to suggest that Myst was "purely" a puzzle game. And, most importantly, just because a game is of a certain genre says zero about its quality.
In this particular discussion though, the "totality" of Myst's story as it's documented and expanded in books or otherwise outside the game itself is irrelevant. The difference in the focus of the storytelling that you're pointing out is, I think, why I set it apart. Storytelling plays a part in any kind of game. Many people adore the stories of games like Zelda or Final Fantasy and it may be a major selling point for them, but Final Fantasy is still an RPG at its heart.
I'd just like to point out to everyone (or anyone) that, for example, in most of those reviews, the puzzles being described as "easy" was a COMMENT and not a COMPLAINT. As such, this thread's title is misleading. I think people are, for the most part, COMMENTING on how Sam & Max is, and a very vocal minority have turned this into a COMPLAINT.
I thought the puzzles in Sam & Max weren't too taxing, but that's not a complaint!
Yes, the genre is dead in many peoples eyes. But I you scroll back in this thread and look at my arguments you see that what I say is that anyone who actually takes time and look at what games are available and how good they are will find out that genre is alive and kicking, and that publishers and developers are continuing funding new adventuregames.
This discussion is even more fun when one thinks that its being posted on the forum at a developer who has released 5 adventuregames over the last 1,5 years, and are now acting as a distributor for other adventuredevelopers.
Numble: As much as I respect Ron Gilbert, he has been out of the industry for quite some time now. I know that is developing some kind of RPG/Adventuregame, but his most recent game was released 1997 (Total Annihilation), and his last adventuregame.......1992 (Monkey Island 2).
And if we continue with the namedropping, we can look at what a certain developer who released his last adventuregames this month says:
"People talk about the decline of the adventure, [but] we sold the same for Broken Sword 3 as we did for Broken Sword 2, and Broken Sword 1. The market is still very much there, and it's not declining; there's still plenty of room for adventures." - Charles Cecil
Broken Sword 1 - released 1996
Broken Sword 2 - released 1997
Broken Sword 3 - released 2003
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=66614
I've never been the one going around saying I'm not willing to listen to what they say if they say something I disagree with. I was just saying that you aren't even willing to listen to what some people (Retronauts) say about Sam and Max, because you heard that one of them said "adventure games are dead." Stretching that out to prove the logical consequences of that principle means rejecting everything Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer has to say because of one comment they made that you disagree with.
I can't see how there's any reason to argue about any kind of death, or any genre. That has nothing to do with Sam & Max's difficulty. It's obvious that you see this living, thriving genre because you like the games that have been coming out the past years. On the other hand there are those that think it's metaphorically dead, because they don't like the way it's been the past years.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with Culture Shock, however.
Hero1, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. Everyone agrees that the difficulty could be ramped up a tad. Unless you feel it should be ramped up by quite a lot, I don't think anyone's trying to say otherwise.
This part about the genre is related to the discussion since people have used quotes from these "experts" about the genre being dead to prove a point against us who wishes a bit more advanced puzzles in the Sam&Max-games.
And its doesnt seem to be about people not liking the genre the last year. It seems to be about people not liking the genre at all because of the challenge, which leads me to wonder why people want to play adventuregames at all if you want to dumb down the actual playing part.
You can't evolve if no one is buying adventure games. And during the mid-late 90s no one was buying adventure games. Yes, I'll reiterate that I was a pc video game store clerk during this time. The only things people were buying were FPS games, RTS games, and Sims.
Hey that's all I'm saying, the one thing i'd like to see in future episodes is for it be more challenging. There are people who see culture shock being easy as a positive, which I dont agree on.
Its up to Telltale at this point to see where they go from here. If they agree with the people who say the difficulty is perfect and they keep it at the same level it worries me, because I think a lot of people could stop buying the episodes if the puzzles remain that easy.
Most people who are vocal enough to post on a game company messageboard would like it a little harder, but certainly wouldn't stop buying/playing future episodes if they remained about Culture Shock's level of difficulty.
The silent majority are, one would probably conclude, satisfied with Culture Shock and will most likey continue with the series.
I would hazard a guess that making the game more difficult is likely to cause more people to drop the series than pick it up, as Hero1 believes.
Having said that, I think most people would be happy if the difficulty ramps up slightly from episode to episode (as appears to be happening with Bone).
Agreed. While I definitely belong to the group who finds the game a bit on the easy side, I have bought the whole season and do not regret it one bit. Even if every future game is about the same difficulty, I will still enjoy my purchase... for the money, these games appear to be a great value for entertainment.
However, if Telltale can ramp up the difficulty a bit (I have given my ideas of how in several threads) then the value of the games, for me, would skyrocket!
I actually have fired up the game since, and I currently find Hit the Road to be a better adventure game. Notice, I said currently. This season has six episodes. At around 2-4 hours each (depending on speed of play), we are looking at a "full" game of 12-24 hours. Not too shabby for $35 a season. While playing Hit the Road, I have noticed something, however... that during the first portion of the game, puzzles were simpler... and towards the end, puzzles were more complex. So for the first sixth of the season, Culture Shock is setting up the scene almost perfectly. As a stand alone game, it would leave a little to be desired. Not much
Actually thats a load of bull. In most of those it WAS a complaint. PC Gamer, a UK magazine known for giving very balanced and fair reviews, gave Culture Shock a woeful 61%. And I quote "A reasonable game on its own, but a sad disservice to Sam & Max"
They even described it as "heart breaking". What you have to understand is that Sam & Max are 2 of the most loved characters from the old school adventure game genre. There was a lot of expectation in this game. The reviewer, as well as myself, dont believe it lived up anywhere near those expectations.
"Its a bit Phantom Menace
It's:
It's not:
- Funny enough
- Very Challenging
- Up to pedigree
"Directly from the magazine.
SPENDING HOURS TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO AN EVERYDAY SITUATION IN THE MOST OBSCURE WAY IS NOT FUN.
The puzzles were logical in Sam and Max, logical, hear me? You did not have to try every item with everything on the screen to actually get somewhere. Adventure games died out (and I say "died" out as they died, and are in the process of being resurrected) because very few people found it fun to get a walkthrough to find out a stupid, obscure solution to a problem that can be solved by common sense or by brute force.
Spending hours in front of the same screen, clicking on everything with everything in your inventory to find some demented, vague logic that some developer thought up while being stoned is NOT fun.
Adventure games are about adventure, not solving abstract puzzles that make no sense.
That's why Dreamfall is experimenting in combining elements from other genres. Adventure games are not marketable, people are reminded of wasting hours in front of the computer figuring out obscure solutions, developers are using graphics engines years old (graphics sell, whether it deserves it or not, and I am referring to that most adventure games use fixed camera with a fake 3D), and professional game reviewers are professionally stupid with bad taste.
Dreamfall cut with all of it, even at the expense of some shortcomings (combat).
Sam and Max is the first adventure game were I didn't have to get a walkthrough to find solutions. That's a good point in my book. The graphic were also great, nothing unnecessary (though, I would have liked if more things are effected by the gun, like it leaves decals or some other funny animation).
Old-school adventure games are dead, leave it be. And no, it cannot survive. The fact that the Adventure Company was brought by JoWood proves this.
That company specialize in old-school adventure games, and now its brought by a shitty publisher that is known to release games either early or without proper quality testing (Gothic 3, look at the forums, the fans are screaming about the hoard of bugs, they needed two patches just to make the game playable).
Adventure games should be about plot, characters and interacting with the environment , not finding out solutions that you need to be stoned just to think about it. Deal with it.
No thats sounds quite dull. Good thing that there are many good adventures out there where there is logic behinds the challenges.
What the critics here says is that if you takes the challenging puzzles out, then you have to replace it with something else, since its games we are talking about here. Adventuregames are welcome to evolve, but just cutting things its not evolution. Thats just......cutting things.