[JKR]

I would certainly not say "Stop completely" because I know others like FPA, but I myself don't play First Person Adventures. I agree with you, they lose all the magic when you don't get to see your character. Just like in First Person Shooters, I have no ties to the character, but a third person shooter (like Gears of War) I get to know the characters and feel emotions about what happens to them.

I wish there were more 3rd person adventures than 1st, but that's just not the trend. (Though there are more coming than previously there were.)

[Terramax]

For these reasons I have never bought first person games...

That heavy implies you've not even played a 1st person adventure?

How could anyone consider your degrading POV when the closest you've gotten is look at the front cover?

To me, that's like someone writing a review to a game/ film/ book without having played/ watched/ read it.

Originally Posted by JKR

I agree with you, they lose all the magic when you don't get to see your character.

I don't agree with that. I think it's all down to presentation and writing. I don't see Gus McVerson in Post Mortem but I'm certainly more in touch with him than Brian from Runaway or stroppy April from TLJ.

'Magic' isn't a very good way of describing why 1st person is somehow inferior.

If anything, 1st person would draw you in even more. That's why it's '1st person'. Because you're being lead to think you're one with your protagonist, right?

Ask any player his Top-10 games : the vast majority is third person games

That's the majority but not all.

99% of the majority gaming public think point and click adventures in general are out-dated and terrible. I'd bet you any money most who're regular GTA & Command & Conquer players haven't even heard of Broken Sword or Monkey Island.

By your logic then, because the majority of most people favourites are GTA clones, FIFA updates and Burnout sequels, we should throw other genres like adventure, puzzles, platformers and adventures completely?

1st person adventures give more variety.

I used to dislike 1st persons too when the only ones I'd played were Riven and a demo of Aura. But
Post Mortem changed that. To me that game worked a whole lot better because I felt at the heart of the action. The Dark Eye and Amerzone had its moments too. And I've yet to play the Tex Murphey games.

The reason why I started playing these in the first place was because I'd gotten bored of flat characters, bland graphics, poor voice acting and illogical puzzles that is the majority in many 3rd persons.

I believe the majority of players has the same attitude.

I'd like to see this guy make the same topic in the justadventure.com's forums.

[cwapitm]

I used to not like first person games because I always used to associate them with the kind of games that would have Myst-like puzzles. So, I would always avoid them. Now, however, I've grown to like them because I realize not all of them are like Myst. I don't really find them dull at all. If done well they make you really feel like you're in the story. I played the game Crysis recently. It's not an adventure game, but it's the perfect example of feeling like you're right in the story. I was impressed with it.

For me the POV doesn't really matter. I'd still play it as long as it has a good story.

I absolutely love FPA. And I absolutely love 3rd person. So, what should the games companies do? Keep the 3rd person only lovers happy but disappoint the FPA fans?

As long as they both have a story and puzzles, and nice graphics, that's all I care about. And I, like Terramax, feel that FPA makes the game more personal and draws you in. In fact, I often feel there's more of an atmosphere in an FPA than 3rd person. So both types of game have a lot going for them. Taking it further, there are other people who think FPA nodal point games ( post mortem, myst, nostradamus ) are outdated because we now have the technology for complete freedom of movement, ie, running and walking. However, this is one of those rare times when, IMO, new technology doesn't mean old technology is obsolete. Because there is an experience and different type of fun ( and atmosphere) to be had with nodal point games which you can't get in quite the same way with full movement, ala, sherlock in the awakened. In a nutshell, they're all valid and it's horses for courses.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by g_sakil

OK. In the same manner, if you meet a woman who is a true goodess in beauty you will ditch her because she has large feet.

Depends how large

And also i forgot to mention that the speech was quite bad.

I would defiantly ditch the woman with huge feet, who can't talk and tries to combine a cat with mobile phone

[Nautilus]

A game must be entertaining. I don't care if it's 2D, 3D, first person, third person, monochromatic, etc.

[Melanie68]

I'm thinking it would be best to agree to disagree on the Secret Files game. The only thing that's happening now with the posts about this particular game is 'Nuh uh' and 'yeah huh' which could go on forever. Not everyone is going to like the same games as everyone else (which I think is the basic lesson of this thread).

[JKR]

Originally Posted by Terramax

If anything, 1st person would draw you in even more. That's why it's '1st person'. Because you're being lead to think you're one with your protagonist, right?

Indeed. But see, I play adventure games NOT to "be one with the protagonist". I play them to see this story of this character, and maybe I feel like I'm helping guide them, but I don't feel as if I AM them. I wasn't Guybrush in MI. I wasn't Brian in Runaway. I just like seeing their stories and getting to know them as characters. I don't want to be them.

[Terramax]

When I wrote that I was thinking more along the lines of 'experiencing it within their own eyes' rather than thinking you directy are them.

That being said Myst feels unique in that, because I don't know who I am, I'm assuming the characters are in fact talking to me, not Tom, Dick or Harry.

Further more, considering that I lead my own life in first person perspective, and I've experienced a fair few emotions in my time, if it's possible to experience fear, doubt, love, angre, hatred, compassion and hope in a 1st person adventure game (in which I think you can, although there hasn't been a story quite as emotionally as enqaging as what I think they could) then isn't g_sakil is in essence critising the viewpoint, or the imitation, or real life? Or even going as far as to say there's no magic in real life?

Originally Posted by Draco2.5 View Post
I don't mind first person adventures if the focus is on the story and characters. What I don't like is all these Myst clones with silent protagonists, almost no NPCs to talk to, and dull mechanical puzzles. *yawn*
I totally agree with you. Myst is a tragedy. In fact it's not an adventure game

On the contrary not everyone wants to experience the constant, patronising drival that comes out of the mouths of all the characters in The Longest Journey.

I personally love the almost mute quality of Myst. At least I enjoyed Exile and Revelation. I found something poetic and relaxing about not having to listen/ read to average NPCs you get in all so many cliched adventures/ RPGs.

I know not everyone agrees with me on the above two subjects but that's what I like about adventures. There's something for everyone. There's certainly more variety than the RPGs I used to play where I had a choice of '3rd person hero in space (Starwars rip-off) or medievil wasteland (Lord of the Rings rip-off)'. That's why I ditched those games in favour of adventures in the first place.

And the first adventure to grab me, funnily enough, was the front and back of the box of Myst Revelation. I'd never seen anything like it before in all my life. I still haven't. It's unique. I paid over ÂŁ800 in for a new PC in order to play it (and consequentially all the adventures I know play) as before hand I was an avid console gamer.

People like different things.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

I'm thinking it would be best to agree to disagree on the Secret Files game. The only thing that's happening now with the posts about this particular game is 'Nuh uh' and 'yeah huh' which could go on forever. Not everyone is going to like the same games as everyone else (which I think is the basic lesson of this thread).

I gotta agree here. The same reasons are being given on each side for why they're good/bad.

One more thing: One of my favorite games is The Journeyman Project 2, followed by 3. The game was very immersive (to me,) and it even gave you a character you played as. It was first-person. That didn't make it any worse though, and I can say right now that it wouldn't have worked in third person.

Then again, some first-person games are horrible. I never really liked the Atlantis games, because their lack of storyline direction confused me. (Talking Beyond Atlantis and BA II.)

Some third person games are great, such as Day of the Tentacle. It had a great balance of humour, intelligence, and characters. The graphics made it look like a saturday-morning cartoon, which just added to the hilarity.

On the other hand, a game that begins with you having to find a tiny item for a guy who doesn't even speak a proper language, just so you can unlock your wardrobe so you don't have to investigate the murder in your bath robe, doesn't land so high on the list. Especially when it proceeds to tell you there's a big box full of clothes probably suitable for wearing, though god forbid your character will try.

There's good and bad games in both categories, and I feel that people skipped by my previous post cause I was actually talking some sense. People can play want they want to, and there's no point trying to be totalitarian based on your personal views. You can't be a monarch and arbitrarily claim things and call them law. You can't control what people like or want, no matter how large or small the group is.

[g_sakil]

Originally Posted by Terramax

I'd bet you any money most who're regular GTA & Command & Conquer players haven't even heard of Broken Sword or Monkey Island.

That's because they are 15 years old and where unborn when those adventures were published. In addition, if they look the "primative" graphics of the old games, they will laugh at them (not knowing of course that graphics isn't the only thing that makes a game good).

Originally Posted by JKR

Indeed. But see, I play adventure games NOT to "be one with the protagonist". I play them to see this story of this character, and maybe I feel like I'm helping guide them, but I don't feel as if I AM them. I wasn't Guybrush in MI. I wasn't Brian in Runaway. I just like seeing their stories and getting to know them as characters. I don't want to be them.

You are absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Terramax

I personally love the almost mute quality of Myst. At least I enjoyed Exile and Revelation. I found something poetic and relaxing about not having to listen/ read to average NPCs you get in all so many cliched adventures/ RPGs.

Any adventure without voice and dialogues isn't an adventure. The end.

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by g_sakil

Any adventure without voice and dialogues isn't an adventure. The end.

You mistake the common word 'adventure' with the computer game adventure genre...

Quote from wiki: "An adventure game is a type of computer entertainment program or video game, characterized by investigation, exploration, puzzle-solving, interaction with game characters, and a focus on narrative rather than reflex-based challenges. It is important to note that this term is unrelated to adventure films, and adventure novels, and is not indicative of theme or subject matter."

You don't have to hear any voices to explore and solve puzzles.

[ProggleRock]

Originally Posted by g_sakil

Any adventure without voice and dialogues isn't an adventure. The end.

At first I was inclined to disagree, but then I read "The end" and was sold.

[ozzie]

This thread is hilarous.
Interesting how everyone tries to take g_sakil serious why he's probably laughing all the way along.
And if not, then he's out of his mind and stubborn.

Any adventure without voice and dialogues isn't an adventure. The end.

Hey, cool, so both Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken aren't adventures!!
Thank you for this revelation, sir.
And I thought that they pioneered the PnC-Adventure.
So either I have a lively imagination or everybody was lying to me.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

...

This thread is hopeless. "The End."

[tsa]

I was just thinking the same thing. I'm out of here.

[Squinky]

Die, Thread™!

[g_sakil]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Quote from wiki: "An adventure game is a type of computer entertainment program or video game, characterized by investigation, exploration, puzzle-solving, interaction with game characters, and a focus on narrative rather than reflex-based challenges. It is important to note that this term is unrelated to adventure films, and adventure novels, and is not indicative of theme or subject matter."

And what does interaction with game characters mean? Punching, kicking and stealing them? I guess not. It means talking with them... dialogues and voice included

[Dale Baldwin]

An adventure game doesn't have to have everything listed in that description from the wiki.

Please stop picking a fight, g_sakil. If you're not willing to listen to what others have to say, without claiming what you think is fact, go post somewhere else.

[ozzie]

I think he would make a good dictator...

Hm, I ask myself if I fulfilled Godwin's Law now. Then the discussion would have finally an end.
Well, to be sure of it I should state it more explicitly.




Like Hitler.