I was browsing Himalaya Studios site, and they were advertising their commercial title, (Al Elmo if anyone doesn't know), would have 640 x 400 high resolution. AGDI's great & all, but can they compete in today's market at such a low resolution by today's standards? This isn't a rant; it's an honest question.
King's Quest on IBM made us throw out our Apple IIs. Everyone played catch-up to their EGA titles. When sierra went VGA, their company aquired a net worth of 800 million U.S. dollars. KQ6 supported 16-bit colour in Windows, and it was their highest selling game to point.
Can an adventure game succeed with low-tech graphics when the company that invented them succeeded by ALWAYS being at the TOP of technology ladder. Some argue that if you want graphics to go play Doom 3, but Doom exists only because of Dynamix-based physics & Sierra-based graphical acheivements, (John Carmack and John Romero are the first to admit this) - so Sierra started this trend.
I just don't know....
I think it can. [EDIT] Gameplay, story, and many other factors have taken second place to resolution. Sorry, I meant that resolution is no longer as important as gameplay, story, and what not. [/EDIT] Heck, people still love Gabriel Knight today, and though it was amazing when it first came out, graphic wise, it's now severely outdated. But people still play it.
Most current commercial adventures are in 800x600 anyway IIRC. It's only 3d games that run much higher.
I think that's what I'm trying to figure out in my head, Rui. Do people love Gabriel Knight because it's so good you don't notice the graphics, or is it nostalgia setting in where the emotions of playing those games when you were younger remind you of simpler gaming? Even if you had never played GK you could think, " I remember when games were like this".
To Clarify - when I said "compete" I meant against the standard 800x600 resolution. I started to think about it because 640x480 compared to 800x600 is like the difference between a video cassette & a video DVD. I know a lot of people who won't even touch a movie if it isn't on DVD anymore. I would say ALL mainstream commercial adventure games, ( Syberia, Nancy Drew, Lights Out, L&O), are running at 800x600.
Nostalgia?
...you might have a point. Besides, Gabe has one HELL of a reputation.
Well, I guess time will tell, won't it? Al Elmo might give us some answers.
Quote from: DCillusion on Sat 08/01/2005 18:50:47KQ6 supported 16-bit colour in Windows, and it was their highest selling game to point.
However, many people also consider
KQ6 to be the best in the series, perhaps that's why it sold so well? Where did you read that it supported "16-bit colour in Windows"? Not even
KQ7 supported that IIRC.
Quote from: DCillusion on Sat 08/01/2005 18:50:47Can an adventure game succeed with low-tech graphics when the company that invented them succeeded by ALWAYS being at the TOP of technology ladder. Some argue that if you want graphics to go play Doom 3, but Doom exists only because of Dynamix-based physics & Sierra-based graphical acheivements, (John Carmack and John Romero are the first to admit this) - so Sierra started this trend.
Saying that Sierra started the graphics race (which is debatable), doesn't distract from the fact that
Doom 3 and
Half-Life 2 are prettier than anything the adventure genre has to offer at the moment and that people looking for the best graphics or people who simply want to see what their hardware is capable of should be playing them instead. While adventure games used to be these games and perhaps that's the way it should be again, it looks like those days are over (for now), and choosing 800x600 over 640x400 will do little to change that. If you manage real-time 3D-rendered photo-realism in your adventure game, that would be something else, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Myst already proved that a pretty adventure can sell much more than a good adventure released the same year, like
The Dig.
Quote from: Rui "Puss in Boots" Pires on Sat 08/01/2005 18:55:22Heck, people still love Gabriel Knight today, and though it was amazing when it first came out, graphic wise, it's now severely outdated. But people still play it.
Sure, they still play it, but would they still buy it? Did
you buy
The Adventures of Fatman for example?
Quote from: DCillusion on Sat 08/01/2005 20:49:24To Clarify - when I said "compete" I meant against the standard 800x600 resolution. I started to think about it because 640x480 compared to 800x600 is like the difference between a video cassette & a video DVD. I know a lot of people who won't even touch a movie if it isn't on DVD anymore. I would say ALL mainstream commercial adventure games, ( Syberia, Nancy Drew, Lights Out, L&O), are running at 800x600.
First of all, there is no such thing as a "mainstream commercial adventure game" anymore. Besides that, what are you talking about? These
Nacy Drew games (which I never had heard of before) appearantly do use 640x480. At least up until
Nacy Drew 10 which was released in 2004 (all according to MobyGames). As do the
Law & Order (which I assume "L&O" stands for) games, judging from the screenshots I can see at GameSpot. As does
Syberia 1. Do you really think
Syberia looks much worse than
Syberia 2 (800x600)? Admittedly there are quite a few 800x600 adventures (
Syberia 2,
Runaway,...), just not those you listed, if I'm not mistaken.
However, to me, the difference between 800x600 and 640x400 is much less noticable than between 640x400 and 320x200, especially when 16 bit (or more) colors and anti-aliasing are used. Keep in mind that the jump from 320x200 to 640x400 quadrupled the amount of pixels, whereas it isn't even doubled (1.875 times) from 640x400 to 800x600. It's even less when you use 640x480 (1.5625). So IMHO this difference can hardly be compared to the difference from DVD to VHS. VHS quality was often below that of a TV broadcast (again IMHO).
The only time when I have problems with the quality of 640x400 when I'm using it on a display with a fixed resolution (such as LCDs), but that affects 800x600 games as well, as most such displays typically have 1024x768 or greater resolutions.
Quote from: Anym on Sun 09/01/2005 00:38:34
Saying that Sierra started the graphics race (which is debatable), doesn't distract from the fact that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 are prettier than anything the adventure genre has to offer at the moment and that people looking for the best graphics or people who simply want to see what their hardware is capable of should be playing them instead.
I kinda disagree, while Doom3 and Half-Life 2 throw more polys at you at a higher res etc, that doesn't neccesarily make them 'prettier'. Art design is more important on the prettyness factor than the resolution.
Agreed; I didn't actually mean "prettier" (bad choice of words) more something along the lines of "more photo-realistic and more special-effects-heavy-ness" (which is what many people mean when they talk about "good looking graphics" and is less subjective than "prettyness").
Anym, you make 2 really good points:
1- "The Adventures of Fatman". That's real proof that lower tech can compete.
2- "Syberia 2" looks only marginally better than "Syberia 1".
This REALLY answers my question - so thank you
A couple of things, if you don't mind, I have to agree with Privateer on the FPS issue. Just because those games move in real time doesn't make them prettier. I think Syberia's still images destroy anything low-poly 3D games have to offer, and they're photo-realistic and filled with effects.
As far as using the term mainstream, I'm surprised you've never heard of Nancy Drew. The game has sold millions of copies, & has been featured in Time Magazine, (a multi-national magazine). As an owner of all 11 I can tell it's been 800x600 since #4, (which brought up my questions to begin with). I consider Syberia mainstream because both games are available on the Microsoft XBox. To put a game on a console you have to pay high licensing costs, and these days, ONLY mainstream games go to consoles.
Stores where I live have entire sections devoted to adventure games. If Best Buy carries it, it has to mainstream.
- Interaction: Fall 1993/94 ,(my cover's ripped), Ken Williams explains that if you play KQ6 in Windows 3.1, you can see the faces lip-synced & in 16-bit high colour.
Quote from: DCillusion on Sun 09/01/2005 01:37:27
Anym, you make 2 really good points:
1- "The Adventures of Fatman". That's real proof that lower tech can compete.
2- "Syberia 2" looks only marginally better than "Syberia 1".
This REALLY answers my question - so thank you
Actually, I meant to say that I wasn't sure if and how well
Fatman was able to compete, but I'm glad that it answered your qestions anyway. ;D You're welcome!
QuoteA couple of things, if you don't mind, I have to agree with Privateer on the FPS issue. Just because those games move in real time doesn't make them prettier. I think Syberia's still images destroy anything low-poly 3D games have to offer, and they're photo-realistic and filled with effects.
Looks like I have to refine my definition from above a bit more. ;) Sure,
Syberia looks gorgeous, but it doesn't have the jaw-dropping qualities that today's FPS have or
Wing Commander,
Comanche,
Loom or
King's Quest used to have, namely showcasing what modern hardware is capable of. Pre-rendered backgrounds simply don't do that anymore. This is the age of digital photography for everyone after all, so photo-realistic stills are about as impressive as real photos (which everyone can make these days be it with their mobile or their digicam) at best. :( But if you manage to pull off that photo-realism in a real-time 3D environment, that's going to impress people. Now that I think about it, "pretty" has nothing to do with it and was a really, really bad chocie of word. And if your going away from photo-realism to cartoon-quality games like
Runaway impressing people doesn't get easier either.
QuoteAs far as using the term mainstream, I'm surprised you've never heard of Nancy Drew. The game has sold millions of copies, & has been featured in Time Magazine, (a multi-national magazine). As an owner of all 11 I can tell it's been 800x600 since #4, (which brought up my questions to begin with). I consider Syberia mainstream because both games are available on the Microsoft XBox. To put a game on a console you have to pay high licensing costs, and these days, ONLY mainstream games go to consoles.
Stores where I live have entire sections devoted to adventure games. If Best Buy carries it, it has to mainstream.
I checked and it seems like those Nancy Drew games were never released in Europe. Both Amazon.fr and Amazon.de only list Nancy Drew novels, so that might explain my ignorance of them. Heh, we don't even have Best Buy around here. ;) And "adventure" sections at stores were I live aren't necessarily filled with adventures, if you know what I mean...
And my definition of mainstream appears to be a bit narrower. I doubt that J. Random Gamer would have heard of
Syberia or
Arx Fatalis, another very good and much underrated game that was ported to XBox, but not what I'd call mainstream material.
You're right about new adventure games NOT even be able to push the computer envelope. It's very true that in their heyday, these games required the hottest hardware to run. Video cards are getting more and more specialized, (better for movement than they are for straight visuals).
I understand what you mean about KQ6 and others, as they used to be a reward for your brand new PC hardware.
Maybe if someone melded a prerendered background with a large amount of realistically moving polygon objects "peppered" all around the background you could get the same "WOW" factor of the old days.
To be fair, I had not taken what you just said into account; that the way computers are made these days is a large part of the reason adventure games aren't as popular any more.
But there is a lot of people out there that can't play these high GX games because they still have a 500 Dell and they are happy with it .
So they will play the games from AGS and the kinds like AGS and love it .
I have a 350 AMD here that has an old 8 meg video card and most of the new games will not play .
AGS works just fine on it . :)
No, please don't talk about Fatman. I didn't buy it, and have now downloaded it, and I'm GLAD AS HELL I didn't buy it. It's simply a bad game, when all's said and done.
I WOULD have bought KQ2VGA, and I would buy QfG2VGA, for instance. I don't pay for hight tech, I pay for quality.
Quote from: DCillusion on Sun 09/01/2005 03:22:48
You're right about new adventure games NOT even be able to push the computer envelope. It's very true that in their heyday, these games required the hottest hardware to run. Video cards are getting more and more specialized, (better for movement than they are for straight visuals).
I wouldn't (and didn't) say that adventures were among the most hardware intensive titles (because I think they weren't,
Monkey Island isn't in the same league as
Wing Commander as far as that is concerned), but still were among the best looking games of their time (simply because an adventure game offers a huge canvas for drawing beautiful background art and uses sprites as actors with many possible animations), in a different way than
Wing Commander of course, but good looking, nontheless. What I mean is that adventure game graphics used to be spectacular, but these days (even though they still get better and better) they look merely as good as my windows desktop image. Nothing we hadn't seen before. Well, most of us probably don't care, but we're the exception rather than the rule.
Quote from: DCillusion on Sun 09/01/2005 03:22:48To be fair, I had not taken what you just said into account; that the way computers are made these days is a large part of the reason adventure games aren't as popular any more.
Huh? When did I say that? And what do you mean by that?
Quote from: Candle on Sun 09/01/2005 05:04:46
But there is a lot of people out there that can't play these high GX games because they still have a 500 Dell and they are happy with it .
So they will play the games from AGS and the kinds like AGS and love it .
I have a 350 AMD here that has an old 8 meg video card and most of the new games will not play .
AGS works just fine on it . :)
While it's true that
Half-Life 2 wouldn't run on these machines,
Half-Life 1 or
Giants probably would. And aren't people with such machines still prefering
Command & Conquer and
Counter-Strike over
Syberia and
5 Days a Stranger?
Quote from: Rui "Puss in Boots" Pires on Sun 09/01/2005 09:41:00No, please don't talk about Fatman.
O.K., I won't. ;)
the kind of people that are going to buy it are mostly people that like adventure games, we seem to care less about graphics if the game is good, anyone that knocks a good game because the graphics aren't superly hi-res is a turd.
"Sure, Syberia looks gorgeous, but it doesn't have the jaw-dropping qualities that today's FPS have or Wing Commander, Comanche, Loom or King's Quest used to have, namely showcasing what modern hardware is capable of."
This was where I drew that conclusion Anym. I took that to mean Loom or King's Quest used to showcase what modern hardware WAS capable of. When you upgraded a computer in the 80's or early 90's, new features included, exponetially, more colours & 2 to 3 times the resolution - also better sound. Whith these features, adventure games could REALLY shine.
Nowadays, every computer displays 16.7 million colours, anti-aliasing, XGA, CD sound, etc. The only significant improvements are your CPU pipeline speeds, (not FSB) - PC isn't faster it just asks more questions, and polygon #'s and effects.
Given the direction PCs are ENHANCED these days, ONLY an FPS could showcase a new PC.
I'm sorry if I misread it, but that was the point I thought you were making. :)
Quote from: Anym on Sun 09/01/2005 00:38:34
Quote from: Rui "Puss in Boots" Pires on Sat 08/01/2005 18:55:22Heck, people still love Gabriel Knight today, and though it was amazing when it first came out, graphic wise, it's now severely outdated. But people still play it.
Sure, they still play it, but would they still buy it?
Actually, I bought Gabriel Knight, and I think it was well worth the money. This was only a few years back when they released the box set, so its nothing to do with nostalgia.
Off-topic: Kudos to Rui for posting the XP installer - just got a new computer, and thought I'd never get to play it again. Works like a charm. ;D
/me can't believe someone treats such a high resolution as 640x400 "not enough for competing"...
One thing I'd like to say, is that Fatman was an alright game for the amount of money he charged. If you didn't like the game, I'm sorry...I agree it wasn't the best game ever, but it was better to me than some games I've bought for 30-40 dollars. And while he doesn't frequent the forums a lot, it's not nice to trash fellow AGSers game's.
And I have to agree with Gil...640x400 is just fine resolution for me.
There are several reasons why adventure games are no longer bringing out new and better graphical improvements...for one, they aren't really needed. We can achieve fairly realistic backgrounds and characters. The major reason is the fact that to produce the graphics of the FPS games, you have to pay out lots of cash...which you'll make back. Adventure games don't appeal to as many people, so for them to go above and beyond it would cost them an assload, that they may or may not make back. I remember reading that The Longest Journey sold some 400,000 copies...where as these new FPS's can sell a million on the first day. It's a simple matter of economics...it's better if these games spend less time on graphics and more time on the story.
Which is what I'm hoping is the case. I don't need great graphics to enjoy a game...I like them, but graphics aren't everything, and for the most part, they're highly over-rated.
-MillsJROSS
Well, about Fatman, I'm sorry you feel I "trashed" it... and indeed, my post WAS short and dry... but I didn't trash it any more or any less than any game I didn't like. Heh, you should hear me rant about Zombieville. THAT I trash. :) Fatman was a decent attempt, but waaaaaaaaaaaaaay below quality one would buy for. Whatever the price was, mind you. When you start charging any amount at all, you start promising the product has quality. And while I find the product was given a lot of work and detail, yes, it still didn't have enough quality. It was just a bad game, to me.
I'd also like to point out that anyone playing games on their TV with an Xbox, PS2, Cube etc. is only getting 720x480 pixels (in the US anyway)
So 640x400 ain't so bad!
You know, I don't think Adventure Games can compete in 3d, its just too hard to be constrained to a tiny 'viewport' into a world where you're supposed to be able to do anything. When virtual reality or holography becomes more 'real' I think adventures will be back in the mix, rather than endless shooters. When you can turn your head without pressing buttons, or reach out and pull a lever or pick up a rock, I think it will be easier. Its hard to know where to look in 3d games, that's why so many shooters are in tunnels, its only 'forward' or 'backward.'
The later Tex Murphy games (Under a Killing Moon, The Pandora Directive, Overseer) did well enough in 3D.
I seem to remember that searching around for objects was a lot more fun than traditional pixel-hunting.
Here is my take on the situation...If a game can create the atmosphere and emotions that they wish to create, they have achieved their goal. With better graphics we can create a better form of atmosphere and realism that can help invoke our emotions. Does it matter if it's resoloution is better? does it matter if it does not have as great of graphics as the state of the art games? no...it needs to do what it needs to, in order to succeed. It needs to create a unique experience...create a unique atmosphere, and touch the gamer as best as possible with laughter, joy, sorrow and the like. frankly, I no longer care about if it can compete with other genres...that is apples to oranges....I don't care if the mainstream succeed anymore...for there are talented people out there who do not care either and just produce their works because they want to and enjoy doing it.....of course I could be so clearly talking off topic here but who knows.
Personally, I'd much rather play a cool adventure game in 320x200 than a derivative shooter in 1280x1024, giga-polygon 3D. But I am not your average gamer, and neither are most of you, I'd bet.
The question isn't whether 800x600 (or more) resolution graphics would significantly improve an adventure game. The question is whether lower resolutions is a serious handicap in the marketplace.
My considered opinion is no, it is not. It would be if everything else was set for adventure games to hit the top-ten bestseller lists. However, adventure games do not compete on that level any more. A traditional 2D point-and-click adventure is not going to be a blockbuster title, whether the resolution is 640x400 or 800x600.
The people who are going to buy this game aren't going to come across the box in Electronics Boutique, check out the specs and then buy it only if the resolution exceeds 640x480. They're going to find out about it on the internet or through word of mouth, and buy it because the game sounds fun and looks polished enough to pay for. Would it look more polished in 800x600, and enough so that more people would buy it? Not necessarily. The graphics would be more detailed, but that also means it would take more work to get them up to the same level.
Actually, a lot of casual gamers* play adventures and buy them by just browsing... though they wouldn't care about the resolution, so your argument is still valid.
*i.e. Girls ;)
The later Mean Street games were really good games, but can do MUCH better in graphics and control if they're not of that crap 3D engine and adopt some traditional point & click adventure interface.
Quote from: Redwall on Wed 12/01/2005 01:00:26
Actually, a lot of casual gamers* play adventures and buy them by just browsing
In other words, "find out about it on the internet ".
No, I meant just browsing in stores... all the crap The Adventure Company puts out, for instance.
Sorry, cultural blindness. It didn't occur to me that "browsing" had a non-Internet meaning. Though I doubt Al Emmo will be for sale in actual stores, so it doesn't really apply.
If the game isn't going to appear in stores, then for the most part the resolution doesn't matter too much. They're not trying to attract people who don't usually buy into the genre. A great majority of their sales will be from the "unusual" gamers, anyway.
Though Al Emmo is the reason this topic started, we can't just discount browsing in stores. The question is merely whether 640x400 is a sellable game, whether it's associated with Al Emmo or not, is of no consequence. There are many gamers who do browse, and while admittedly, The Adventure Company doesn't put out the best games, they're usually lower priced, and have good enough graphics to appeal to those who do browse.
Would 640x400 sell in an atmosphere like EB (or wherever you go for your games)? It's really all dependant on price. If you're charging what all the big game corporations are charging for their new games (about 40-50+ dollars US)...then your profit, if it can be called that, won't amount to much...it probably will have an outcome of debt. If you charge a reasonsble price like maybe 10-20 dollars, than you might be able to make a profit.
A lot of the big corporations will spend a lot of money on advertising...a lot! One good thing about adventure games, is that news spreads quickly when a game is comming out (This is true for FPS and other genres, too, but since they have many more games comming out, it's more an advertising competition than the adventure game market). So a game already doesn't have to spend as much money on advertising. Using 640x400 graphics, they probably won't have to pay out their asses for the graphics...the fee will still be modest, but not nearly as much. So they've minimized their costs.
If they are smart with how much money goes into the game, and selling the game, then I do believe that 640x400 resolution will make a profit. Of course, this is all under the assumption that the game is actually good, and the graphics aren't too shabby.
-MillsJROSS
One solution would be to have a higher res video cutscene intro (done outside of AGS) that would let you put a bigger number on the box :=
Personally I don't really read the specs of a game. I mean I skim over them to make sure the game will run on my computer, but it doesn't really influence my choice of games. Most of my adventure game purchases are influenced by adventuregamers reviews etc. I also read user reviews at gamefaqs. One with a low score, and one with a high score, so I can get a good overview of the game. Despite this, I still buy an average of a game a week - and I wonder where my student loan goes? :P