I was under the impression a part also must have went into not having to live on welfare, which should be obvious when you´re not getting paid for 2 years of work. What do you life by in that time?
I meant: Most of the marketing budget went into PR. 
1 Like
I think, with the Arcade update and the blog, Ron Gilbert delivered, what he pitched (maybe even more than you could expect, the uncensored version kind of missing [but it’s nothing I would expect from the pitch as well]).
Regarding updates, I would love to see improved sound and some further houses being opened with additional stories & puzzles and stuff … but not as a major project.
Without knowing the numbers, you can’t say if it’s a labor of love, if the updates pay for themselves by staying in the focus (often it’s a mix of both) but I wouldn’t mind to pay for a DLC/SE if this would be needed. Imagine the ‘fun’ when it looks like the SEs too.
TWP isn’t perfect but it’s a great and unique adventure, like top 11. In another reality he might have had Tim Schafer’s budget …
a) Firstly I’m excited about a new good game, no matter what it is (as long as I can enjoy it, no children content please).
b) Maybe Ron Gilbert can make a great shump or skiing sports/adventure. On the other side, no one is making good adventures, so, hmm, hard to say.
c) I can see three ways working:
- A focused adventure for a hardcore audience. This is a valid option.
- An adventure with more bells&whistles in order to realise something, you otherwise can’t.
- Or something completely different.
If I had to choose, I would go for the second or third option. The first option isn’t bad either but it’s more limited. If you’re fine by doing a series of games, then go for it but if you’re not, then changing things might be a good idea. We’re all not getting younger too.
I wouldn’t mind finding a couple of further disks in my drawer but without trying out something new, there wouldn’t have been The Cave as well.
2 Likes
I have to disagree with point nº 1 (A lot of players don’t like pixel graphics.
Just look at Undertale. Its graphics are ugly and it has been a big succes around the world.
3 Likes
I can´t stress this enough really. Stop being preoccupied with the graphics everyone. There is so many highly sucessfull pixel graphics games out there. And I can´t believe that out of all people adventure gamers would be graphics-over-gameplay snobs. Could we really be that superficial?
It’s less a black/white scenario where you can choose between great gameplay and great graphics. It’s more about getting more or less the same gameplay with better or worse production values, where the production values can have a substential influence on the design of a game. It’s a matter of balance.
A game made in 2018 shouldn’t look&feel like a game from 1988, unless you try to mimic exactly this. Pixel graphics are overused. I prefer bells&whistles, like pushing all aspects of a game (where it makes sense and supports your idea), just like good video games used to do.
1 Like
Hm … that’s one of the games sitting in my library and waiting to be played.
I would imagine that perhaps it appeals to (S)NES and/or JRPG aficionados, of whom there are likely more than Maniac Mansion fans. I also hear it’s really good. Will get it out one day and play it, I promise.
I’m sorry to say I am one of these (though good pixel graphics hold a special place in my heart). Thing is, back then a lot of the graphical adventure games were amongst the games with the best graphics, and today they aren’t. Thinking of it, they also don’t have the best stories (unlike back then) or the best gameplay (not much change in this regard).
Don’t get me wrong: personally I’m a big P&C adventure fan, for various reasons. But there are so many other games that might be more appealing to today’s audience. If gameplay isn’t a selling factor, than at least the graphics need to be top-notch. If they’re merely artsy, that doesn’t attract as many gamers, I fear.
I tend to agree. The problem is that in 1988, a small, capable team could really push the boundaries of what was state-of-the-art. Today, you’d need massive man-power to do that. Spending that kind of money on an unpopular genre is just not realistic.
Man, somehow I’m all negative tonight, better stop posting now …
This might be the reason why Lost Horizon 2 is graphically not on a par with its predecessor. The first LH possesses fairly impressive high-resolution drawings. Well, they used a different engine for LH 2, so maybe they just wanted to get ahead of the first game and failed due to technical issues or miscalculations. However, it seems to me as if they decided for those changes because the first game had been too expensive or the adventure games market is too small for such a game, respectively.
You mean the adventure game from Animation Arts? 
This game isn’t such a good example because the latest Animation Arts games were not that good at all. For example the last “Secret Files” game has a weird story (and ending). So I would assume that it’s a general quality problem.
btw: The graphics from Lost Horizon 2 doesn’t look that bad.
1 Like
Do you mean “Sam Peters”? That one felt like a collection of mini games and almost being Wimmelbild-style, so I stopped playing in the mean time as I lost my interest.
This very much depends on the type of game you’re trying to make. F.e. with a 5 person team you can still make a very good polished game, if you you decide to go with the right type of game. With a team of 30 people you can target something completely different.
Is the type of game more a 5 or a 30 persons kind of problem? The larger projects don’t result into better games automatically but they allow you target them in a serious way at all.
The presentation is a matter of personal taste and tolerance. Some pixel art is looking good (but proper pixel art needs talent and time a well), most of it looks dated and boring (best combined with superfluous pixel perfect lighting).
It would be cool if someone would say ‘Here, we’ll go with a cheap presentation but create insanely good riddles.’ But that’s not happening. Instead you get not this well done pixel graphics with boring to soso puzzles. They advertise retro graphics instead of presenting cool puzzle chains. Such games will stay within their genre. Or, The Witness wouldn’t have sold this well without its gorgeous presentation.
At the same time you have this huge amount of pixels and colors (unless you do nice 3d and run into banding and noise issues). There exist a couple of games which make proper usage of this. They’re high res but not too complex, both 2d and 3d. I favor clever high res usage instead of retro pixels. Devs on the Arcades/Amiga didn’t try to do retro gfx for the C64 and VCS 2600, they tried to max out their possibilities. This evolution is part of the fun of video games.
No, I refer to this series:
And especially the third game:
Same.
I found it quite ok.
What I meant was the semi-spinoff: Secret Files: Sam Peters - Wikipedia
IMHO it’s definitely worse than the 3rd official instalment.
I never played the Secret Files games. I haven’t even played Lost Horizon yet. I only watched some Let’s play videos.
Well, I admit that most of the scenes in the game look nice, but there are exceptions, e. g. the dialogue in the plane doesn’t have any graphical charm, Anne’s face seems to vary, as if they used different models for that character, the waterfalls at the end look bad, and the walking animations look extremely unrealistic sometimes. Also, the resolution of the cut-scenes is too low. Maybe I criticize the graphics too severely, but I prefer the graphics from the first game.
Nonetheless I agree that the biggest issue in LH 2 might be the story and the puzzles indeed.
We don’t exactly know the reasons for this, but perhaps the demand for these games had turned out to be too small, so they reduced the production budgets, maybe.