Video of some of the "best" upcoming PnC adventure games in 2018

Here is a a list of some of the “best” upcoming PnC adventure games according to the authors of the video.

Some of these games have already been discussed in the thread “Under development adventure games that are worth a mention”. Some other listed games were expected in 2016 or 2017, but at this point it’s clear that they will be published no sooner than 2018.

Maybe the best way to watch this video is visiting its YouTube page, because there you’ll find a description containing links that let you to skip parts of the video.

Here are the mentioned upcoming games:

  • Trüberbrook
  • Chuchel
  • Detective Gallo
  • Jengo
  • Don’t Escape: 4 days in a wasteland
  • Gibbous - A Cthulhu Adventure
  • 29
  • Jenny Leclue
  • Elroy and the Aliens
  • Growbot
  • Ira
  • Jennifer Wilde
  • Lancelots Hangover
  • Minotaur
  • Lovecraft Tales
  • Lona - Realm of Colors
  • The Life of Delta
  • Röki
  • Unforeseen Incidents
  • Striped Swipers
  • The Mystery Of Woolley Mountain
  • Saint Kotar

The in-development game FoxTail looks interesting, too:


If those are the best, I don’t really want to see the worst. There are some exceptions, though :slight_smile: (proud backer of Jenny LeClue and Jennifer Wilde … do I see a pattern emerge here?)

Neat :slight_smile:. Seeing that on GOG I just couldn’t resist buying now, even though I won’t play until it’s finished. Threw in the beeping DLC as well, though it’s beeping audacious to take money for that. But since I’d have gladly paid $30 for TWP upon release, I’m generously overlooking this blatant grab for cash (which is definitely in line with the Ransome character, though).

Ron stated on his blog that it had taken a lot of work. I believe him, because you have to make sure that the DLC gets installed seamlessly in your main game and you have to test it extensively. Also, Steam and GOG get 30 % from the money - and the target audience of the DLC is smaller than the audience of the main game. Therefore they might not get a huge revenue with the DLC.
Also, take into account that Ron and Gary have worked on the main game for free over 3 years and that TWP hasn’t made them rich yet. They even have sacrificed some of their own money.


And that’s the reason why I only hesitated long enough to raise an eyebrow before continuing with the purchase :slight_smile: .

I cannot even tell if I was startled more because something I assumed to be available as a patch suddenly had a (negligible) price tag, or because a respectable developer started offering DLCs. Though, yes, I do get the point that at least it is not day one DLC.

They had announced a few months ago that it would not be for free, so I was not surprised about it at all.

If it was the hint system or the TWP Arcade, I would have been startled as well. But, the unbeeped voice is a very special niche option and, as Ron mentioned already, it would have caused a rating issue if it was included in the main game. I think, 1.99 is a reasonable price for such a DLC, seeing that this is an indie game.

1 Like

Why? Was it promised in the Kickstarter?

It doesn’t seem so, but it was announced long before the release of the game. Ron even told that he would program a few little games for the arcade. They also had shown the arcade machines a few times. It might have increased the expectations of a lot of people. So, if they really had decided to add the Arcade via a DLC at a later point, it would have needed to be announced quite early, I think.

1 Like

You should blame the fans, except @Sushi, he was against the DLC idea:

As this is discussed here (and not in the three other corresponding threads :wink: ) I’ll write the following here too:

There is another reason why a lot of player are upset about the 2 Dollars: They think/assume that the beeps were only “placeholders” and that you have now to pay a fee to unlock the full game (without the beeps). They say: “Why hasn’t Ron released the game from the beginning without the beeps?” They don’t understand that the beeping was intentionally there due to humorous reasons.


@Sushi is my hero! … and quite tasty, too :wink:.

1 Like

Wow! Everything I say and do will be used against me in a court of law. Well, actually in my defence, in this case.

Yeah, I still agree with my younger self on this though. It’s better to charge more from the start and provide “free” DLC. If nothing else, it avoids a big debate whether or not some swearing is worth a few bucks.

^ This. :+1:

People will just take the shortest path, unless explicitly informed in a clear way how things actually are. They “assume” because they have no information and nobody gave them that information when the DLC was released.


What’s not respectable in offering DLCs? I mean, there’s something called “supply and demand”. There was an explicit demand for this, to profit from it is the most obvious thing to do. It’s not like you are forced to buy it to enjoy the game as it was intended.

The game is there, you have it, you like it, that’s it. Why do you care if someone else wants to spend two bucks to hear what’s behind the beeps (which, by the way, resulted in Ron having to do extra work to have the game load the censored/uncensored audio file according to the flag, to integrate the DLC in Steam and GOG and so on)?

I really can’t see why people are so upset nowadays about someone trying to make some money from his work. When I developed my game, after a while I created an expansion pack on sale for 1.5 dollars. Suddenly my reviews plummeted, with lots of people writing “it’s bad that they ask money for this”. If you don’t think it’s worth it, then don’t buy it. That’s it.


I don’t speak here for kaiman, but most of them don’t see the added value: The not-beeped version existed from the beginning, it was the result from the recordings. So many players don’t see that there was additional work and thus don’t understand why they have to pay for that extra.

They don’t buy it. But they write in a comment and/or a forum why they don’t buy it (because the DLC isn’t worth the money in their opinion). I don’t want to be the party pooper(*) but the comments section is exactly there for these opinions. Same with the ratings: If a game/DLC/whatever has a bad cost-benefit ratio, then this is a reason to give it “less stars”.

And as a developer I would take the (not offending/insulting) comments seriously, because if a lot of different(!) people complain about the same thing, then there went something wrong: Maybe there were problems in the communication process or “the market” doesn’t accept this kind of DLC (anymore) or they are right and you demand too much money for the pillow bears/the DLC/whatever.

Disclaimer: For me the DLC is worth the money. But I followed the development blog/process and I know the work that is needed to produce that DLC (and why Ron has to put it in a DLC and can’t ship it with the game).

(*) I love that word! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis Special Edition - DEMO 2.0 !






I don’t agree.

I might agree if a person bought the DLC. Then it is his right to give a lower rating because he thought the purchase wasn’t worth it.

But giving less stars just because you disagree on the price of something you won’t buy doesn’t make sense.


And what about the ratings of the press? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

But he decided that the purchase isn’t worth the money. He has even a reason why he don’t buy the game (even if you don’t agree with or like this reason). Why shouldn’t he be allowed to rate the game?

If you go into a shop to buy, let’s say, a knife. You see that the knifes are very expensive. In that case you wouldn’t recommend this shop to your friends with the argument that the knifes are too expensive. But wait - you are not allowed to do this, because you haven’t bought a knife. This is exactly the same here with the DLC: A potential buyer thinks that the DLC is too expensive. So he doesn’t recommend the purchase, but here in form of stars and comments.

What means “very soon”? :slight_smile:

1 Like