When the SCUMM games were released in the late 80s and early 90s, they were state of the art. Subsequently, the 3D hype began and many people lost their interest in 2D games. And, 3D adventure games turned out to be a flop, probably because they were less detailed than 2D adventures - albeit other 3D games provided more kill thrill. It was the era of first-person shooters. Only now I can imagine 3D adventure games with a sufficient level of detail in order to compete with 2D adventure games - but for their costs.
Interestingly, Observer is not so expensive on GOG.com, but, as I wrote, it doesn’t seem to be as complex as a classic adventure game.
I don’t know why but somehow I’m just not that impressed with realistic 3D graphics, maybe my mentality is that it’s still not realistic enough so why bother…
I’m fine with not-really-realistic 3D graphics like Grim Fandango, The Cave, Sam&Max from Telltale Games.
But those are more comic style (which then allows making them with a reasonable budget).
I agree with you in terms of The Cave. It doesn’t look realistic but it’s nonetheless appealing. The Sexy Brutale looks nice, too. There are several examples.
Well, non-realistic 3D graphics may be an option as well, but those are similarly difficult to create. Most 3D graphics in adventure games didn’t convince me (including Grim Fandango, Escape from MI, Tales of MI, Back to the Future). That’s one of the reasons why I’ve been more interested in 2D adventure games.
The controls are another reason, which is why the first-person perspective seems interesting to me.
To get back to topic - part ot the temporary adventure death was related to the try to get it into the 3rd dimension and how the games worked. MI4 was quite a PITA to play. I never even tried playing Simon 3D. Gabriel Knight 3 was okay-ish to play but had several flawed puzzles. Broken Sword 3 was (to speak exxagerated) 3D sokoban with story elements.
Not using 3D world correctly was even pain in newer games like Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened, which came out in 2006. You have poorly rendered world that feels empty. You run around more than you solve puzzles.
IMHO Tales of Monkey Island worked well, because it was a 2,5D game. Broken Sword 4 was much better than 3, though I still prefer the 5th installment to 4th anytime.
The Myst series was mostly pseudo 3D, as you couldn’t walk around freely (besides realMyst and Myst 5 and URU, which is more of a spin-off), but the 3D perspective world worked there even though it was pre-rendered.
Other adventure series shifter more to action-adventures like later Indy games that felt more like Tomb Raider. That’s why I never played them.
There are modern 3D adventure games that work in 3D environment without any action or dumb puzzles - a notable example is IMHO Dreamfall: Chapters. In this series the 2nd installment was actually the poorest one. While even the 1st part - The Longest Journey was in 3D it felt like an adventure, the 2nd one felt more empty in part, though it featured nice story. White I disliked the most in 2nd game was the part with occasional fights. I hated it and used a trainer to win the fights. Because I didn’t want this kind of action part in my adventure.
That’s also valid for Grim Fandango (I only say “elevator puzzle”).
Don’t do it. The controls are horrible.
One problem was, that a lot of developers wanted their games on consoles. So the adventures had to be playable with a gamepad. As a result we had these controls and Sokoban-like puzzles. Today we have a similar situation: To be successful you have to publish your game on a lot of different platforms (consoles, mobile phones, PCs…).
Is the console going to support any standard USB mouse, which everyone owns already, so that you will be able to switch between controller and mouse in the twinkling of an eye - without having to buy a new mouse?
I may be wrong on this, because I don’t remember much of that series, but I remember that both characters and environments were in 3D.
I wouldn’t generalize specific issues to the whole game. To me the controls of Grim Fandango were “unusual” but I quickly managed to use them. Overall, it was easy for me to move Manny and to use the inventory.
It was the same for me. And so I had no problems MI4 which came after Grim Fandango. @rarog4k: Since you don’t like Tomb Raider-like games/controls: Do you like Grim Fandango now with mouse support?
Yes they are, and a lot of running around in empty areas.
But if you are a Simon fan I would still suggest to play it, maybe using a walkthrough.
Even as a Simon fan and with a walkthrough I can say: It was partially frustrating like hell. Especially the parts where you have to run extremely fast and where you have to balance.
There are some games that I probably will never play, even if I am/was a fan of the first installments of the series.
It’s a miracle that I decided to play that ugly MI4. I remember nothing of it.
“The Longest Journey” is one of my favorite adventure games but probably I will not play the sequel(s) due to their strong differences with the first game.
I will probably play “Syberia 3” sooner or later, but not before the developer will address a few issues.
The same goes for “Simon the Sorcerer”: I liked the first two games but the screenshots of the third and fourth game were enough to completely switch off my interest.
Sometimes I feel that somebody in the production chain just thought “Let’s add some action to it.” or “Let’s use 3D.” in the useless attempt to attract a wider audience.
I often see critics of PnC games say that it’s a genre that’s all about story and is weak on gameplay, and that the gameplay gets in the way of the story…
I think the problem is these people just inherently do not like the gameplay that PnC provides, so they think, “I find this boring, so others must do too… therefore people can’t like this for the gameplay, so it must be the story they like”.
But most adventure game fans love PnCs because they LOVE the gameplay, that is the main attraction.
I get more satisfaction from solving PnC puzzles and exploring a PnC world than I do out of any other games (eg. I get very little satisfaction from FPS games, I find shooting things boring). Having a good story is a bonus, but as others have mentioned, it’s more of just a cool framework for the gameplay. I also think an interesting setting/location is much more important than the actual plot.
So most critics of PnCs misunderstand the genre completely. They think it’s like a TV show where someone has added some boring puzzles to interrupt your viewing. But really the puzzles are the main event, the story is just flavoring.
It would be like if I said, “well I find FPS games really boring to play, so it must just be the graphics that people like, therefore they should remove the shooting part, and just have it as a CGI movie.”
Maybe they think so because modern adventure games actually are puzzle-light narrative experiences, like Telltale’s “The Walking Dead” or “Life is strange”.
True, though I think they think that about the classics too, simply because they don’t enjoy solving PnC puzzles, so for them it always ends up being just about the story.
Those new games are kind of like “PnC games made specially for people who don’t like PnC”.
It’d be like if I made a blues song for people who didn’t like blues, where I took away the blues guitar and beefed up the kick drum and now it’s basically a dance track and said, “here you go, we fixed blues, it used to be boring and niche, but now modern blues is great because it has none of the elements of blues!”
I am a huge fan of pnc adventures (actually it’s the only thing I play) but at the same time I feel this problem. For example, suppose I am looking at every object in a room, because I am trying to find an object that helps me solve a puzzle. (Say I am looking for a pin or a screwdriver to open something that I have but I can’t open.) So I click all the objects in a room, to know what they are, and, for all objects ,the game gives me rather long descriptions, in order to make jokes. Now, it does not matter how funny those descriptions/jokes are: with that mindset, I find them annoying. I am tempted to skip them. I force myself not to skip them, but usually I don’t find them funny reading them, even if they are. Because at that time I am focused on finding something to reach a precise objective I have. (“it’s not the right time” for a joke)
This is not to say I never laugh. TWP made me laugh quite a bit. But I believe these were times where I wasn’t strongly focused on a specific puzzle. (or the joke was just too good)
So, I can say I love the genre so much that I don’t care about this problem. But I can see a conflict.
Daedalic reopened a whole new world for me - especially with the Deponia series, which has great humour and is a very classic 2D adventure. Though the latest installment Pillars of Earth goes a little bit into directon of Telltale Games, where you have more of a interactive movie. But at least it’s still 2D and has good story.
Indeed, but the navigation was mouse-like and you had somewhat predefined walking path - not unsimilar to walking boxes in SCUMM engine.
A big bold YES! It’s much better for me now. I don’t have problems with navigation and enjoy the story elements.
Perhaps one day. But it was a bold change, didn’t look good and had non-adventur-ish puzzles.
In terms of not looking good - this is relative. I remember watching the 2nd Mummy in cinema and enjoying the 3D effects on the scorpion king. Rewatched the trilogy last year and laughed about how bad the graphic and the textures were. Perception changes with time.
Dreamfall was relatively empty and had the fighting parts. But Dreamfall Chapters fells much more as a good adventure game in 3D. I was surprised how much more fun I had playing.
