[Terramax]

EDIT: Nah, I've deleted my comments. I'm not going to argue with the guy. He's clearly trolling.

[JKR]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Maniac Mansion had plenty of dialog, what are you talking about?

[Matan]

Originally Posted by Terramax

2 excitement arising from or associated with danger or risk."

That's pretty funny, seeing as most adventure gamers would prefer their adventures without any danger or risk

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by JKR

Maniac Mansion had plenty of dialog, what are you talking about?

The quote this referred to specified voice as well. Maniac Mansion and Zak McCracken are both games from the era before games had voice acting in them.

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by Matan

That's pretty funny, seeing as most adventure gamers would prefer their adventures without any danger or risk

I didn't say that? Did you quote the wrong person? Because I never write 'too' as '2' for starts. Not even on my mobile.

Or was this on my last post before I hastefully edited it?

If it was the quote from the dictionary I gave, argue with the guys at Oxford, not me

Most adventures do have danger though. Broken Sword had Stobbart through plenty of risk and danger, whether being climbing in and out of windows, Myst Revelation where you were in a dangerous jungle, or Gabriel Knight with Voodoo and murder.

Pretty much all adventures have danger. It's just that, in my belief, certain measures are created by developers to make it not so action orientated and demanding as with the case with other genres.

[Matan]

Originally Posted by Terramax

I didn't say that? Did you quote the wrong person? Because I never write 'too' as '2' for starts. Not even on my mobile.

Don't chicken out of it now! You tricked me into quoting you and then deleted that post!!

Actually, that 2 was not "too" but the second item on a list of possible definitions of "adventure"

Originally Posted by Terramax

Pretty much all adventures have danger. It's just that, in my belief, certain measures are created by developers to make it not so action orientated and demanding as with the case with other genres.

I still think most advnetures from about 1994 and on tried to tone down the "danger" factor as much as possible. It's not just to make it not "action oriented" as dying as a consequence of doing the wrong thing is also frowned upon.

[Jatsie]

Ignoring the question of whether first person adventures are good or not, this thread is based on the faulty premise that the cessation of first person adventure game production will automatically result in a plethora of outstanding third person games being developed and put on the market.

Clearly this is faulty logic, so aiming for such an outcome is a rather futile.

[JKR]

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

Ignoring the question of whether first person adventures are good or not, this thread is based on the faulty premise that the cessation of first person adventure game production will automatically result in a plethora of outstanding third person games being developed and put on the market.

Clearly this is faulty logic, so aiming for such an outcome is a rather futile.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Refraining from making 1st person adventure games and yet still wanting to produce adventure games would clearly result in more 3rd person adventure games being created. Whether they are outstanding or not is irrelevant. That's not faulty logic, though.

Like if someone wanted to make a shooting game, and they decided not to make it first person, of course they'd make it third person. Because they were set to make a shooting game anyway.

[Jatsie]

The operative word in my statement was "automatic", there's a possibility that it may happen, but it's not a certainty by any means.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by JKR

Maniac Mansion had plenty of dialog, what are you talking about?

Gee, I hoped only g_sakil would fall for it in his opinionated rage.

You can't respond back in Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken so these are only monologues, at least this is how I see it.
There are dialogues in cutscenes, but even the simplest FPS or puzzle games have those to give the action some sense, so I don't believe that this would qualify...

But actually, that's not important anyway because g_sakil has not a clue what he is talking about.
At least he's quoted on the frontpage now.

[Squinky]

I think everyone should stop making games with action movie plots. That way, we'll automatically have more romantic comedy games.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by JKR

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Refraining from making 1st person adventure games and yet still wanting to produce adventure games would clearly result in more 3rd person adventure games being created. Whether they are outstanding or not is irrelevant. That's not faulty logic, though.

But this assumes that people making first person adventures want to make adventures rather than just be in the games industry. Isn't it equally likely that someone with a decent first person engine will switch to making first person shooters instead? (Retaining the viewpoint instead of the genre.)

The faulty logic of the original premise is that anyone who stops make first person adventures games will automatically make third person adventures instead. Realistically there are many other possibilities available (including the above). Switch to writing novels instead of games (utilising story telling skills). Make accounts programs instead of games (utilising programming ability). Switch to making strategy games instead of adventures (utilising game knowledge in a different genre). Change career to accountancy. ( )

But at the end of the day that's academic. First person games are made because enough people buy them for companies to make a profit. Until that stops happening then they'll keep being made.

[diego]

the only logical name to this thread and argument would be Please stop creating bad first person games or bad third person games, or maybe Please start creating good first person games or good third person games.

this is not neither the time nor the place (ok maybe its the time) but 2007. has not been that good for either 3rd or 1st person games.

the thing that can tell if the game is quality is everything but point of view of main character.

if you love the game because of what the game is made of (atmosphere, story, unforgetable characters, places, moments, quotes..) you will certainly not start to hate it because its 1st or 3rd person.

one can have his affections. no one can dispute that. i have affections in 3rd persons games, and some of my favourte adventures of all time are 1st person games. well?

[AdrianWerner]

No, please do not stop creating FPP adventure games I like them a lot, just like I like 3rd person. Both have their own pros and cons. FPP is much more immersive, 3rd person is more cinematic. There are tons of TPP adventure games, so if you don't like FPP you will still have tons of games to play. Why limit the choice for people who might think otherwise? Variety is a good thing you know.

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by Matan

Don't chicken out of it now! You tricked me into quoting you and then deleted that post!!

I didn't 'chicken out'. I deleted that bit because I'm not having anything to do with the troll, but I'll happily answer to you

I still think most advnetures from about 1994 and on tried to tone down the "danger" factor as much as possible. It's not just to make it not "action oriented" as dying as a consequence of doing the wrong thing is also frowned upon.

Yes, but no matter how it's represented, adventure will always have a certain amount of danger. Adventure means risk. At least the risk of a person escaping their normality.

I understand your point, that many adventure gamers may play these games to avoid the more obsessive violence and more strainious activities, but you can't have adventure without some form of danger, whether literally with death, or toned down with the idea that performing a certain action will cause the risk of someone to dislike you or not achieve a personal goal.

[diego]

But i can tell one more thing - first person sherlock holmes games - awakened and arsene lupine were imo dissapointments for sherlock holmes fans. I think this has a lot to do with a point of view of main character. I dont know why, but whenever i think of sherlock holmes i always think of a 3rd person game - it has probably a lot to do with feeling of watching great Jeremy Brett and other great actors who performed sherlock holmes in movies and series.
That doesnt mean that every game should be 3rd person. Some stories, puzzles, characters and atmosphere are better told through 3rd person view, but some are better suited for 1st person.

[ozzie]

I think it has more something to do with that Sherlock Holmes is such a great, deep and well-known character so that you want to see him.
With 1st person you have the feeling that you are the character. This works only when your avatar hasn't much of a personality and/or the game gives you a lot of freedom.
In 3rd person you control a character, but he still has the last word to say.
So with Sherlock Holmes, 3rd person is a must, in my opinion.
I'm glad that the developers work on a 3rd person patch...

[g_sakil]

Originally Posted by diego

But i can tell one more thing - first person sherlock holmes games - awakened and arsene lupine were imo dissapointments for sherlock holmes fans. I think this has a lot to do with a point of view of main character. I dont know why, but whenever i think of sherlock holmes i always think of a 3rd person game - it has probably a lot to do with feeling of watching great Jeremy Brett and other great actors who performed sherlock holmes in movies and series.

Originally Posted by ozzie

I think it has more something to do with that Sherlock Holmes is such a great, deep and well-known character so that you want to see him.
So with Sherlock Holmes, 3rd person is a must, in my opinion.

You are absolutely right. For the above reasons "The case of the rose tattoo" remains one of my favorites

[Izzhov]

g_sakil:

Originally Posted by diego

Some stories, puzzles, characters and atmosphere are better told through 3rd person view, but some are better suited for 1st person.

[RPGCrazied]

I also hate first person adventures.. *shrug* i just like seeing the character im playing.