User Avatar Image

Consolidated "Adventure Games We'd Like to See" thread

posted by Marduk on - last edited - Viewed by 1.5K users

Threads suggesting adventure games we'd like to see TellTale work on are no new thing to the TTG forums but I thought it might be a good idea if we had the one list of titles rather that dozens of threads that have scrolled away. Every few days or so I'll even update the thread with suggestions from those who've replied.

So far they're mostly old Adventure games nostalgic fans would like to see innovated but there are also TV shows, books and movies in there, too.

I might make a poll on this, depending on responses.

I'll begin by CP'ing lists from other such threads' (FYI, I've omitted 'ideas' that TTG should continue various series' they've already began);

[LIST]
[*]Rex the Runt Adventures
[*]Day of the Tentacle
[*]Myst
[*]Indiana Jones
[*]Simon the Sorcerer
[*]The Simpsons
[*]Doctor Who
[*]Gabriel Knight series (I don't know if this is an existing game franchise or a TV series or what).
[*]Pushing Daisies (ig0rpwnwEd; I LOVE YOU!)
[*]Maniac mansion
[*]Grim Fandango
[*]Space Quest
[*]Futurama
[*]Red Dwarf
[*]The Dig
[*]Full Throttle
[*]MacGyver
[*]Family Guy
[*]Doctor Who
[*]King's Quest
[*]Police Quest
[*]Quest For Glory
[*]Loom
[*]Calvin and Hobbes
[*]Star Trek
[*]The Mighty Boosh
[*]Get Smart
[*]'An H.P. Lovecraft based game'
[*]Garfield
[*]Barney Google (Somebody might want to enlighten me, here)
[*]The Boondocks (and here)
[*]Discworld (Yes, yes; oh please god yes!)
[*]Monk
[*]Psych
[*]Laura Bow (and also here)
[*]Simon the Sorceror
[*]A Nuklear Power RPG (?)
[*]Sanford and Son (I've heard of this but never actually seen it)
[*]Leisure Suit Larry
[*]The Neverhood
[*]The Feeble Files
[*]Beneath a steel sky (maybe TTG should just buy Revolution. I can't imagine it'll cost much considering all the cuts they've had to make and it'll be a sure fire way to get a leg in the UK)
[*]Blade Runner
[*]Gateway
[*]Death Gate
[*]Shannara
[*]Blazing Dragons
[*]Digimon (this guy, apparently, was serious)
[*]So Blonde
[*]Kyrandia
[*]Normality
[*]Nightlong
[*]Sanitarium
[*]Stupid Invaders
[*]Ceville
[*]Flight of the Amazon Queen
[*]Still Life
[*]Chewy
[*]The Accolade adventures (I may have got confused, here, the way that MusicallyInspired's post was phrased made me thing it was but I could have been wrong).
[*]Zak McKracken
[*]Gang Garrison (no idea if this is real)
[*]Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman"
[*]Lucifer (Sandman Spinoff)
[*]Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
[*]Dilbert
[/LIST]

120 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Darth Marsden said: Looks nice, plays awkwardly. Too many commands to choose from. And it's kinda fiddly to get working on a PC. But your point remains a valid one.

    Now to pick apart the newer suggestions...

    [LIST]
    [*]The Venture Bros. - While it's certainly an interesting show, I don't think it's popular or flexible enough to be made into a video game series. Then again, I'd say the same about Harvey Birdman, so what do I know?

    [*]Scooby Doo - No. Just... no. We already have one crime-fighting team, why would we want another, far more annoying one?
    [*]Another Code - It's a nice idea, but I doubt the series would do particularly well as an episodic series. Plus, the games seem to really emphasize the interactivity of the systems they're on, which I think would be pretty hard to replicate on the PC.

    [*]DuckTales - This has very much had its day. Plus, it's a Disney trademark, and I highly doubt they'd let anyone else make games on it.

    [/List]

    @Darth Marsden said:

    [LIST]

    [*]Indiana Jones - Again, not at all sure this would work as a series of episodic adventures. The games have moved into that awful catch-all phrase 'action adventure', and dodgy Wii controls and unskippable cutscenes aside, it's worked out pretty well.

    [*]Simon the Sorcerer - Doing fine on its own. Well, I say fine, but has anyone here actually played the newer ones? Yeesh. Besides, there's a new one out in Germany anyway. It doesn't need a helping hand - it needs to be shoved over the edge.

    [*]The Simpsons - Really cannot see this working as an adventure game. As with Indy, 3D platformers seem to be working pretty well for that particular franchise.

    [*]Gabriel Knight - This was an old adventure game series that did everything wrong (odd 2D interface, FMV, dodgy 3D camera), yet still worked. If Jane Jensen ever finishes Gray Matter, she'll probably make a GK4.

    [*]Maniac Mansion - If you've heard of LucasFan Games, chances are you know about both Maniac Mansion Deluxe (the remake) and Maniac Mansion Mania, the Reality-On-The-Norm style series set within the Maniac Mansion universe. That's more than enough MM. Provided you speak German.

    [*]Space Quest - I think this is a series from a bygone era. Or, to put it another way, it's Monkey Island in space, and we don't need another MI, do... we...

    [*]MacGyver - Somehow, I doubt most players would be able to figure out they need to put sodium metal into a cold pill casing and drop it into a container of water in order to make a hydrogen bomb*.

    [*]King's Quest - I think that's died a well-deserved death. Don't believe me? Try playing the first one and see how long you can go for without dying.

    [*]Quest For Glory - Another self-contained series which wouldn't really benefit from being forcibly re-opened. Or picked open, anyway. (Now that's what I call an in-joke.)

    [*]Calvin and Hobbes - While the comics themselves were wonderfully charming and very funny, I really don't see how they'd make good adventure games. Unless they were something like Pajama Sam. *shudder*

    [*]The Mighty Boosh - I've never watched it, and having read the Wikipedia page, I don't see how it'd work out as an adventure game. It seems a little too surreal.

    [*]Get Smart - Never saw the TV show (before my time), but I can imagine what it's like. Again, not altogether sure it'd cross over into an adventure game particularly well, and it's a pretty old franchise...

    [*]'An H.P. Lovecraft based game' - This just plain wouldn't work as an adventure game. HP Lovecraft wrote extremely dark and macabre stories, and they'd only really translate into video games as horror titles. Not at all appropriate for adventure titles made by Telltale.

    [*]The Boondocks - Again, I've not seen the show, but I doubt it'd work as an adventure game series. I'll have to YouTube it, seems like an interesting show.

    [*]Monk - I've seen a couple of episodes of this, and again, I think it's too quirky for a video game. Though I'd say the same for House, and they made a DS game of that, so what do I know?
    [*]Psych - See 'Monk'.

    [*]Laura Bow - The games were great, but they're a long gone relic of a golden era. Modern replacements are Art of Murder (No Wikipedia page, sorry) and Secret Files, though I'll agree that they're not as good.

    [*]Sanford and Son - Why would anyone think this would make a good game?
    [/List]
    *An actual plot device from the very first episode.

    Don't take offense to anything I say. This is a list of my disagreements and reasons, but there was quite a bit I did agree with as well.

    The Venture Bros: This show was INCREDIBLY popular, and turned out to be one of the most popular if not the most popular, and wittiest most well written, shows Adult Swim ever had. I'd say it would make just as much money as Strong Bad or Wallace and Gromit did. You underestimate the popularity of this show; it's more well known than anything Telltale has done outside of Wallace and Gromit and CSI.

    Scooby Doo: This has already been made into a series of adventure game episodic serials on Warner Brothers website; and the games were very very good. You should try them out.

    DuckTales: It's Disney; what more can I say. If you say this series wouldn't work for adventure games you do not understand it at all. Some of it inspired Indiana Jones for crying out loud. And if you don't think Disney would lease it; people said the same about Monkey Island and Lucasarts.

    Indiana Jones: This was already TWO adventure games; and it's based on episodic serials of the 1940s and 50s. What better fit could there be?

    Simon the Sorcerer: Play the first two games; they were great. The fact the newer ones suck so bad is evidence that the series NEEDS a good hand to go out on a good note. See - Monkey Island.

    The Simpsons: This was a video game already sure; but it could work in basically any medium. As long as it has material to spoof to death, it will be doing it's job right. It's no less plausible than Futurama.

    Gabriel Knight: What was wrong with the 2D interface on this? I loved it.

    Maniac Mansion: This is your most groundless argument among all of your arguments. The Mania series is a series of fangames; some containing strong language, and most of them are uninspired basic adventure game cliches. I don't even understand how in a million years you could prefer this over a new official commercial sequel. No offense.

    Space Quest: It's true this one may not work as well in Telltale's scheme, but I think it could have a very good shot. Besides, saying it is so much like Monkey Island is a bit of a fallacy. Logically, to say that it is that much like Monkey Island, is to say that it is the only thing that much like Monkey Island. To say it is Monkey Island in space is the same as saying the Naked Gun is Monkey Island with cops. It's a separate entity with many differences from Monkey Island.

    MacGyver: You're just looking for things to nitpick here. MacGyver uses common items and knowledge that can be found anywhere (or added in game somehow) to escape deadly situations. Basically EVERY adventure game ever made. It's just as illogical to hypnotize a monkey into a monkey wrench to turn off a waterfall, but that made it into the greatest adventure game of all time. No. Just no.

    King's Quest: I beat Kings Quest 1 in two hours the first time I played it completely. That was the AGDI remake. This point doesn't amount to it being a bad series to redo, it amounts to you not being good enough at playing the game.

    Quest For Glory: Just as plausible as any other Sierra game.

    Calvin and Hobbes: If you had read the Sam and Max comics and didn't know that they had been in any adventure games, you wouldn't know they were fit for the genre either.

    The Mighty Boosh: A lot of adventure games were surreal. Like Sam and Max, Monkey Island, Beneath a Steel Sky...

    Get Smart: It's not that outdated; there was a recent Warner Brothers reboot movie.

    H.P. Lovecraft: This is perfect for an adventure game. Know how I know? Four brilliant adventure games were made in the Lovecraft universe. Alone in the Dark is one. Shadow of the Comet, Prisoners of Ice, and Dark Corners of the Earth(Part FPS) are others.

    The Boondocks: It would run on a similar formula as Wallace and Gromit. Adventures set in a small suburban neighborhood spoofing racism and racial tension. In fact, Wallace and Gromits small-street setting kind of proves you can set an adventure game basically ANYWHERE and make it interesting.

    Monk/ Psych: Quirky is the best thing for an adventure game. Honestly, getting around Monk's phobias and being a convincing fake psychic would be better than the average detective show.

    Laura Bow: See Quest For Glory, King's Quest, and Space Quest.

    Sanford and Son: I admit this is one of my least likely choices, but it's a dream one, same as MacGyver. To me an adventure game with a central hub in a junkyard presents all sorts of inventory possibilities. And that show got pretty wacky with stories at times. But I admit; it's pretty unlikely.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Quest For Glory: Just as plausible as any other Sierra game.

    This is the only case in which I think Darth Marsden has a point. The ending was pretty final for both the characters and the world. Also, the fact it's an RPG would make a monthly schedule very punishing for the developers, with all the balancing, multiple player classes, and so on.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Don't take offense to anything I say. This is a list of my disagreements and reasons, but there was quite a bit I did agree with as well.

    I find I rarely take offence at anything on the internet. No idea what 'offense' is. Anyway, time to rip your argument to shreds. That's what I do best, after all!

    @Secret Fawful said: The Venture Bros: This show was INCREDIBLY popular, and turned out to be one of the most popular if not the most popular, and wittiest most well written, shows Adult Swim ever had. I'd say it would make just as much money as Strong Bad or Wallace and Gromit did. You underestimate the popularity of this show; it's more well known than anything Telltale has done outside of Wallace and Gromit and CSI.

    I'm going to hold my hands up here - I haven't seen the show. For all I know it could be adventure game gold. I have done a little interweb research though, and what I've found doesn't see to indicate that way though.

    The strength of your argument for this seems to be the old 'it's an awesome show, it would therefore make an awesome game' line of thought. I'm not saying this applies directly to you, but most people who think this are idiots. There's a long, time-consuming process behind taking an already existing franchise and converting it into a different medium. Some work great as a TV series but wouldn't work at all as a video game series. Others are the other way round. Some would be perfect for both. I could, for example, write the plot for 'an awesome Doctor Who adventure game series', but if I don't factor in all the dialogue, the puzzles, the limitations of the medium and so forth, then I haven't written a game. I've spent an entire afternoon drafting a TV episode. (Actually, it's two, and I've got ideas for four more, bbut that's besides the point).

    @Secret Fawful said: Scooby Doo: This has already been made into a series of adventure game episodic serials on Warner Brothers website; and the games were very very good. You should try them out.

    You're right, they're not bad. Basic, but enjoyable. So why the heck should Telltale make more of them?

    My main concern with Scooby Doo is the target audience. SD is aimed at kids, who have wide imaginations but limited cognitive power. Adventure games are aimed at late-teens and up, people who still retain that imaginative flair, but who would also think to use the rubber chicken (with a pulley in the middle) on the cable in order to get across. I'm sure there's a chicken crossing the road joke there somewhere, but whatever. As it is, SD already has a bunch of 3D platformers, and judging by the reactions of my nephew, kids seem to enjoy it as that. Why change something that works?

    @Secret Fawful said: DuckTales: It's Disney; what more can I say. If you say this series wouldn't work for adventure games you do not understand it at all. Some of it inspired Indiana Jones for crying out loud. And if you don't think Disney would lease it; people said the same about Monkey Island and Lucasarts.

    Again, you seem to be using a tried and tested line of thought here. This one's 'if it worked for company A, why can;'t it work for company B?'. There's a large number of differences between the Mouse House and the House That George Built.

    The first, and most obvious, is that Disney is not a video game company. They've published games they've licensed to other companies (most notably with *shudder* video game tie-ins), but they haven't really developed their own - not in a long time, anyway. The second, and most crucial one, is that Disney suck. They've gone downhill recently in a big way,what with their straight to DVD sequels and constant pimping out of anything that even hints at being a success. LucasArts also went through a sucky phase, but they're pulling out of it. They've had a change of management (totally for the better) and they really seem to realise that they should care about the games being released.

    I've not actually mentioned DuckTales. That's because it's been years since I last saw it. Still have that movie with the Genie on VHS. Can't watch it - we're a DVD family now - but it's nice to have nonetheless. It could well be adventre game worthy. It's just never going to happen.

    @Secret Fawful said: Indiana Jones: This was already TWO adventure games; and it's based on episodic serials of the 1940s and 50s. What better fit could there be?

    I'd love to see more Indiana Jones adventure games. It's probable that the only way that'll happen is through fan-games though. Indy's gone the action-adventure route, and dodgy Wii controls aside, it seems to be working pretty well for him. I too wish it would happen, but it's extremely unlikely.

    @Secret Fawful said: Simon the Sorcerer: Play the first two games; they were great. The fact the newer ones suck so bad is evidence that the series NEEDS a good hand to go out on a good note. See - Monkey Island.

    I'm going to be straight up honest with you - the Simon the Sorcerer series has never been particularly good. The first two were stupidly hard, made little sense and featured way too much backtracking. It's gone downhill from there ever since it went 3D. There's no point in resurrecting something if it couldn't even stand on its own in the first place.

    @Secret Fawful said: The Simpsons: This was a video game already sure; but it could work in basically any medium. As long as it has material to spoof to death, it will be doing it's job right. It's no less plausible than Futurama.

    Yes, The Simpsons has had a wide variety of games - Beat 'em Ups, Wrestling, Skateboarding, Driving... But it's only really hit its stride when it embraced platforming aspects. Once you go down the action-adventure route it's pretty damn hard to come back - Wallace and Gromit only just managed it, and that's only because nobody played the first two games (well, except me). Even then, there's still problems with the games. But that's for another time.

    Besides, which would ou rather have an episodic adventure game series of - Futurama or The Simpsons?

    If you said The Simpsons, then you can bite my shiny metal ass.

    @Secret Fawful said: Gabriel Knight: What was wrong with the 2D interface on this? I loved it.

    I didn't actually mean the first one, which was great. I was referring to the second and third titles. That's my bad, and I apologise for it.

    @Secret Fawful said: Maniac Mansion: This is your most groundless argument among all of your arguments. The Mania series is a series of fangames; some containing strong language, and most of them are uninspired basic adventure game cliches. I don't even understand how in a million years you could prefer this over a new official commercial sequel. No offense.

    I'd prefer a proper remake with no 'oop, you took too long, game over' aspects over a sequel. Besides, Day of the Tentacle was WAY better then the first game, and I'd want a sequel to be based on that rather then the first game.

    @Secret Fawful said: Space Quest: It's true this one may not work as well in Telltale's scheme, but I think it could have a very good shot. Besides, saying it is so much like Monkey Island is a bit of a fallacy. Logically, to say that it is that much like Monkey Island, is to say that it is the only thing that much like Monkey Island. To say it is Monkey Island in space is the same as saying the Naked Gun is Monkey Island with cops. It's a separate entity with many differences from Monkey Island.

    There's similarities. Don't argue the fact. There's the bumbling lead character, the bizarre incidents that occur to him, the illogical puzzles ;).. there's a bunch of similarities. I'm not saying they're virtually identical, but they do share some common aspects.

    And I would like to see a revival of the series, but I'd really prefer remakes in which you can't freakin' die first. I can't stand adventure games that let you die. Massive turn-off for me. I play adventures to be mentally challenged, not punished for not figuring out exactly what I have to do first time round. If I wanted that I'd play a first person shooter.

    @Secret Fawful said: MacGyver: You're just looking for things to nitpick here. MacGyver uses common items and knowledge that can be found anywhere (or added in game somehow) to escape deadly situations. Basically EVERY adventure game ever made. It's just as illogical to hypnotize a monkey into a monkey wrench to turn off a waterfall, but that made it into the greatest adventure game of all time. No. Just no.

    Monkey Island et al get away with those sorts of puzzles because they're clearly not based in the real world. They're zany and bizarre, so every so often they can afford to include a random puzzle like that. A MacGyver game would be full of puzzles like that, but because it's in a real-world situation and played straight, it looses the ability to make the player go 'oh, I guess that's pretty clever'. Instead, they'll simply fail to see the connection and give up, or they'll somehow stumble upon it and think 'well how the hell was I supposed to know that?'. I fully stand by my statement.

    @Secret Fawful said: King's Quest: I beat Kings Quest 1 in two hours the first time I played it completely. That was the AGDI remake. This point doesn't amount to it being a bad series to redo, it amounts to you not being good enough at playing the game.

    I have two reasons for not thinking this'd be a good bet.

    One - They're difficult. You say you mad it through in two hours? Hooray for you. I like to think I'm a pretty good gamer. I've been doing this for half my life (Playing games, not writing well-informed responses to the thoughts of someone I've never met and probably never will). And yet for the life of me I could not get through Kings Quest I. And if I couldn't get through the first game, think how bad other people are gonna suck at them.

    Two - They're set in ye olde England. That's a terrible setting for an adventure game. Or any game really, except possibly an RTS. There's just not enough to keep people's interest.

    @Secret Fawful said: Quest For Glory: Just as plausible as any other Sierra game.

    I'd like to thank Radogol for responding to this, meaning I don't have to. Cheers mate!

    @Secret Fawful said: Calvin and Hobbes: If you had read the Sam and Max comics and didn't know that they had been in any adventure games, you wouldn't know they were fit for the genre either.

    Calvin and Hobbes is a very sweet, innocent and charming world. Sam & Max is not. Again, you're pulling the old 'if it works for A, why not for B?' line out again. Different comic, different scenario. Unlike Sam & Max, you'd be stuck with the scenarios given - you wouldn't be able to make your own. That leads to very real problems if you're making a series, because once you're hit four or five, you're out. No future expansion. Done.

    @Secret Fawful said: The Mighty Boosh: A lot of adventure games were surreal. Like Sam and Max, Monkey Island, Beneath a Steel Sky...

    Again, I stand by my statement. Simply too surreal.

    @Secret Fawful said: Get Smart: It's not that outdated; there was a recent Warner Brothers reboot movie.

    And they should have either left it as a stand-along film or given it a proper sequel. Instead they rushed out a crappy direct-to-DVD film and ruined the whole thing.

    @Secret Fawful said: H.P. Lovecraft: This is perfect for an adventure game. Know how I know? Four brilliant adventure games were made in the Lovecraft universe. Alone in the Dark is one. Shadow of the Comet, Prisoners of Ice, and Dark Corners of the Earth(Part FPS) are others.

    I honestly haven't read them, so I'll only say one thing before moving on - HP Lovecraft stuff seems incredibly dark, and CSI aside, that really doesn't sound like Telltale.

    @Secret Fawful said: The Boondocks: It would run on a similar formula as Wallace and Gromit. Adventures set in a small suburban neighborhood spoofing racism and racial tension. In fact, Wallace and Gromits small-street setting kind of proves you can set an adventure game basically ANYWHERE and make it interesting.

    See The Venture Bros.

    @Secret Fawful said: Monk/ Psych: Quirky is the best thing for an adventure game. Honestly, getting around Monk's phobias and being a convincing fake psychic would be better than the average detective show.

    Yeah, because detectives are totally original adventure game concepts.
    [/Sarcasm]
    Seriously though, that's what Monk is - a detective. And OCD aside, he's a very standard one, which feels very clichéd. I'll admit Psych is a more interesting take on the premise, but even then it'd still revolve around the same sort of things as a PI game, and suchforth. And honestly, I don;t think the TV audience would cross over into a video game one. Like I say though, I'd have said the same thing about House.

    @Secret Fawful said: Laura Bow: See Quest For Glory, King's Quest, and Space Quest.

    Again, I'd actually quite like to see more Laura Bow games, but as I said the first time around, she's been supplanted. Shame, there aren't many adventure games where the lead character is female.

    Oh wait.

    @Secret Fawful said: Sanford and Son: I admit this is one of my least likely choices, but it's a dream one, same as MacGyver. To me an adventure game with a central hub in a junkyard presents all sorts of inventory possibilities. And that show got pretty wacky with stories at times. But I admit; it's pretty unlikely.

    You've written my response for me, so I'll let you dream with this one. I'll also point out that the show's based on a British one called Steptoe and Son, so if you're interested in seeing more, try and watch 'em.

  • @Darth Marsden said: My main concern with Scooby Doo is the target audience. SD is aimed at kids, who have wide imaginations but limited cognitive power. Adventure games are aimed at late-teens and up, people who still retain that imaginative flair, but who would also think to use the rubber chicken (with a pulley in the middle) on the cable in order to get across. I'm sure there's a chicken crossing the road joke there somewhere, but whatever. As it is, SD already has a bunch of 3D platformers, and judging by the reactions of my nephew, kids seem to enjoy it as that. Why change something that works?

    And my question is, why not? It's not like Telltale has ever tried to reach this same audience with the Adventure genre. It would be a great challenge for everyone.

    And look at it. The only thing kids need to do are finding clues, and set traps for the "ghosts". By setting a more scalar hint system which defaults to very hint-y, kids wouldn't even need to think a lot, while it still leaves some challenges for the more mature people who grew up with the cartoons. If you really would want it, you could add some platform elements. Sure, the pause button would need to be re-assigned, but using the keypad or WASD controls for movement, and the space bar for jumping (mostly for grabbing ledges or stuff on ropes or chains) would add to the fun. And, maybe to spruce it up, make the chase scene a bit more interactive, even a (non-mandatory) minigame.

    There's enough to play around with the adventure genre, and Scooby Doo would potentially be able to attract that other untapped audience in the Adventure genre.

  • @GaryCXJk said: And my question is, why not? It's not like Telltale has ever tried to reach this same audience with the Adventure genre. It would be a great challenge for everyone.

    And look at it. The only thing kids need to do are finding clues, and set traps for the "ghosts". By setting a more scalar hint system which defaults to very hint-y, kids wouldn't even need to think a lot, while it still leaves some challenges for the more mature people who grew up with the cartoons. If you really would want it, you could add some platform elements. Sure, the pause button would need to be re-assigned, but using the keypad or WASD controls for movement, and the space bar for jumping (mostly for grabbing ledges or stuff on ropes or chains) would add to the fun. And, maybe to spruce it up, make the chase scene a bit more interactive, even a (non-mandatory) minigame.

    There's enough to play around with the adventure genre, and Scooby Doo would potentially be able to attract that other untapped audience in the Adventure genre.

    There already are Scooby Doo adventure games, I played a few of them on Gametap a while back, and they sucked.

  • Someone have a link to the episodic Scooby Doo adventure games? Can't find them with Google.

  • @Darth Marsden said:

    RE: Venture Bros.

    I'm going to hold my hands up here - I haven't seen the show. For all I know it could be adventure game gold. I have done a little interweb research though, and what I've found doesn't see to indicate that way though.

    The strength of your argument for this seems to be the old 'it's an awesome show, it would therefore make an awesome game' line of thought. I'm not saying this applies directly to you, but most people who think this are idiots. There's a long, time-consuming process behind taking an already existing franchise and converting it into a different medium. Some work great as a TV series but wouldn't work at all as a video game series. Others are the other way round. Some would be perfect for both...

    Before you make any judgments, DM, ya really should check out an episode or two. They are very self-contained and -er- episodic. Part Johnny Quest, part Scooby Doo, part Indiana Jones, and completely hilarious.

    Here is a link to one currently available at the Adult Swim website:

    Viva Los Muertos!

    Edit:

    Oh, yeah, and an ode to everyone's favorite henchmen 21 & 24.

  • I can't access that video as I'm in the UK. :( For anyone else with the same problem, here's the same episode on YouTube - Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four.

    Having watched it, my suspicions have been confirmed - I think it's just a little too crazy to really work. It's also very fast paced, which doesn't work at all well with adventure games. Seems like a great show though - wish they actually showed it over in merry ol' England.

  • @Darth Marsden said: I find I rarely take offence at anything on the internet. No idea what 'offense' is. Anyway, time to rip your argument to shreds. That's what I do best, after all!

    I'm going to hold my hands up here - I haven't seen the show. For all I know it could be adventure game gold. I have done a little interweb research though, and what I've found doesn't see to indicate that way though.

    The strength of your argument for this seems to be the old 'it's an awesome show, it would therefore make an awesome game' line of thought. I'm not saying this applies directly to you, but most people who think this are idiots. There's a long, time-consuming process behind taking an already existing franchise and converting it into a different medium. Some work great as a TV series but wouldn't work at all as a video game series. Others are the other way round. Some would be perfect for both. I could, for example, write the plot for 'an awesome Doctor Who adventure game series', but if I don't factor in all the dialogue, the puzzles, the limitations of the medium and so forth, then I haven't written a game. I've spent an entire afternoon drafting a TV episode. (Actually, it's two, and I've got ideas for four more, but that's besides the point).

    Having watched it, my suspicions have been confirmed - I think it's just a little too crazy to really work. It's also very fast paced, which doesn't work at all well with adventure games. Seems like a great show though - wish they actually showed it over in merry ol' England.

    You haven't really given a good reason why that is a bad line of thought. Episodic games themselves are made to be like TV shows. That's what episodic is about. Look at CSI. If CSI hadn't been made into an adventure game yet, would you have agreed it would make a good one? And don't pull the "Venture Bros. and CSI are two different shows" argument. You know perfectly well what I'm saying. Just because it worked for CSI doesn't mean it would work for the Venture Bros., sure, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't work either. As far as being crazy, Sam and Max were way crazier in their TV show, but translate slightly less zany in adventure game format. So the Venture Bros. could too. The blunt of your argument seems to rest with "it's two different mediums so therefore the material couldn't possibly transfer well", but with Telltale that's not a valid argument.

    You're right, they're not bad. Basic, but enjoyable. So why the heck should Telltale make more of them? Why change something that works?

    I wasn't talking about the ones on GAMETAP at all. Look on the kids section of Warner Bros. website. There are flash made ones there, which are quite good. I have no clue how the GAMETAP ones are. Just because it worked one way doens't mean it wouldn't work another. Besides it's already been done, so we know it would work. Why should Telltale make more? I'm not saying they should, but I definitely think they'd do a great job. Remember that this list is a list of things each person would like to see. In the end a lot of your arguments don't work because they come down to personal preference vs. personal preference.

    Again, you seem to be using a tried and tested line of thought here. This one's 'if it worked for company A, why can't it work for company B?'. There's a large number of differences between the Mouse House and the House That George Built.

    The first, and most obvious, is that Disney is not a video game company. They've published games they've licensed to other companies (most notably with *shudder* video game tie-ins), but they haven't really developed their own - not in a long time, anyway. The second, and most crucial one, is that Disney suck. They've gone downhill recently in a big way,what with their straight to DVD sequels and constant pimping out of anything that even hints at being a success. LucasArts also went through a sucky phase, but they're pulling out of it. They've had a change of management (totally for the better) and they really seem to realize that they should care about the games being released.

    I've not actually mentioned DuckTales. That's because it's been years since I last saw it. Still have that movie with the Genie on VHS. Can't watch it - we're a DVD family now - but it's nice to have nonetheless. It could well be adventure game worthy. It's just never going to happen.

    Well, it may never happen, but so what? Again I'll say it; this topic is mostly for what each person would love to see. DuckTales is based around great adventures, so of course it would work for the medium. It's just never been given a chance. Now when you said Disney sucks, you clearly showed that this is based on personal opinion. Disney has made many great movies through Pixar and has left most of it's animation assets in that field. Pixar is a brilliant company. As far as Ducktales, if Telltale had the rights, Telltale would most likely write the episodes and put them together, meaning we wouldn't be seeing any of the sucking Direct to DVD style work on those episodes. By the way, Disney is going back to it's roots with the beautiful looking Princess and the Froig. Look up a trailer of it; it looks great.

    I'm going to be straight up honest with you - the Simon the Sorcerer series has never been particularly good. The first two were stupidly hard, made little sense and featured way too much backtracking. It's gone downhill from there ever since it went 3D. There's no point in resurrecting something if it couldn't even stand on its own in the first place.

    Please don't make THIS mistake. You're better than this. This entire post is made up of personal opinion and bias. Don't try to push your personal opinion off as fact. (I'm probably a hypocrite by saying this; okay I am one.) Look, honestly, lots of people loved the first two Simon games and thought they were great and lots of fun, myself included. It stands on it's own VERY well; I and many I know still bother to play it. True, the game has some faults in these areas, but they have a lot of charm and great comedy which people just love. You wouldn't buy it; I would.

    Yes, The Simpsons has had a wide variety of games - Beat 'em Ups, Wrestling, Skateboarding, Driving... But it's only really hit its stride when it embraced platforming aspects. Once you go down the action-adventure route it's pretty damn hard to come back - Wallace and Gromit only just managed it, and that's only because nobody played the first two games (well, except me). Even then, there's still problems with the games. But that's for another time.

    Besides, which would ou rather have an episodic adventure game series of - Futurama or The Simpsons?

    If you said The Simpsons, then you can bite my shiny metal ass.

    Here you and I agree 100%. Futurama is the most perfect idea for an adventure game I've heard on this forum, and I'm a big advocate of the idea. I was never a Simpsons fan, but I think it could work just as well. In fact an AGS one is being worked on, and it looks quite good, though it may never be finished.

    I didn't actually mean the first one, which was great. I was referring to the second and third titles. That's my bad, and I apologise for it.


    Okay, never mind then.

    I'd prefer a proper remake with no 'oop, you took too long, game over' aspects over a sequel. Besides, Day of the Tentacle was WAY better then the first game, and I'd want a sequel to be based on that rather then the first game.

    DOTT was the better game, but the reason I argue for Maniac Mansion is because there are characters in that game I believe should get time in the spotlight. Specifically Razor and her band, the Scummettes. Massive personal opinion here, so I'm leaving myself wide open. But do I think the gameplay from MM should return, no way.

    There's similarities. Don't argue the fact. There's the bumbling lead character, the bizarre incidents that occur to him, the illogical puzzles ;).. there's a bunch of similarities. I'm not saying they're virtually identical, but they do share some common aspects.

    And I would like to see a revival of the series, but I'd really prefer remakes in which you can't freakin' die first. I can't stand adventure games that let you die. Massive turn-off for me. I play adventures to be mentally challenged, not punished for not figuring out exactly what I have to do first time round. If I wanted that I'd play a first person shooter.

    I admit I haven't finished a Space Quest game because of the deaths yet, but many people loved that aspect of them. The massive difficulty. I actually enjoyed it in Kings Quest and Quest for Glory. I mark it off as the VGA remakes of the SQ games were not that amazing; SQ4 and 5 were the best, but 6 was awful IMO. Many liked 6 but I did not. I doubt if TT did the games that they would include the deaths though; that's just not their style.

    Monkey Island et al get away with those sorts of puzzles because they're clearly not based in the real world. They're zany and bizarre, so every so often they can afford to include a random puzzle like that. A MacGyver game would be full of puzzles like that, but because it's in a real-world situation and played straight, it looses the ability to make the player go 'oh, I guess that's pretty clever'. Instead, they'll simply fail to see the connection and give up, or they'll somehow stumble upon it and think 'well how the hell was I supposed to know that?'. I fully stand by my statement.


    The ability to take what seems illogical and make it logical and amazing is what makes the character so endearing, not to mention the fact it makes him out to be like a sort of pulp superhero. I disagree that it wouldn't make you feel clever; the thing is, you're thinking that all of MacGyver's gadgets were as obscure as bubblegum and tin foil. that's just not true; he did everything from using helium tanks to blow out a door to fighting ants with fire in the jungle. I'm sorry but it's the lack of knowledge of how flexible this character really is that makes your argument fall apart.

    I have two reasons for not thinking this'd be a good bet.

    One - They're difficult. You say you mad it through in two hours? Hooray for you. I like to think I'm a pretty good gamer. I've been doing this for half my life (Playing games, not writing well-informed responses to the thoughts of someone I've never met and probably never will). And yet for the life of me I could not get through Kings Quest I. And if I couldn't get through the first game, think how bad other people are gonna suck at them.

    Two - They're set in ye olde England. That's a terrible setting for an adventure game. Or any game really, except possibly an RTS. There's just not enough to keep people's interest.


    Personal preference. You wouldn't buy it; I would. I won't argue your point here because you are entitled to your personal opinion.

    I'd like to thank Radogol for responding to this, meaning I don't have to. Cheers mate!

    I agree with what he said actually. It wouldn't be Telltale's thing. Maybe Double Fine or Bioware would do it, but not Telltale.

    Calvin and Hobbes is a very sweet, innocent and charming world. Sam & Max is not. Again, you're pulling the old 'if it works for A, why not for B?' line out again. Different comic, different scenario. Unlike Sam & Max, you'd be stuck with the scenarios given - you wouldn't be able to make your own. That leads to very real problems if you're making a series, because once you're hit four or five, you're out. No future expansion. Done.


    Two sided argument. Just because the comic is different doesn't mean it wouldn't work. You missed my point before. Also, you're discounting Calvin's extremely active imagination and ability to change the environment around him into alien and foreign worlds. Just because they never ended up in a adventure game style scenario in the comics doesn't mean you couldn't put them in one and still keep it true to the comics.

    Again, I stand by my statement. Simply too surreal.


    But imagine the possibilities. I think this one just takes imagination.

    And they should have either left it as a stand-along film or given it a proper sequel. Instead they rushed out a crappy direct-to-DVD film and ruined the whole thing.


    I agree to this point.

    I honestly haven't read them, so I'll only say one thing before moving on - HP Lovecraft stuff seems incredibly dark, and CSI aside, that really doesn't sound like Telltale.


    I'm really not sure here; but you're probably right that Telltale wouldn't do it. But I was actually argument the fact that you said it wouldn't make a good adventure game period. You really kicked yourself in the face when you said that, seeing as it was already made into four great ones. But it's probably not Telltale's thing.

    See The Venture Bros.


    See the Venture Bros. You can take almost anything and put it into an adventure game scenario and keep it true to the spirit of the original.

    Yeah, because detectives are totally original adventure game concepts.
    [/Sarcasm]
    Seriously though, that's what Monk is - a detective. And OCD aside, he's a very standard one, which feels very clichéd. I'll admit Psych is a more interesting take on the premise, but even then it'd still revolve around the same sort of things as a PI game, and suchforth. And honestly, I don't think the TV audience would cross over into a video game one. Like I say though, I'd have said the same thing about House.

    While I disagree that they wouldn't make good adventure games, I do have to consider the point about audience.

    Unfortunately, most of both our arguments rest with personal preference, and I'm not sure I have presented good enough arguments; but I AM sure you haven't. :) (But that may be my arrogance talking)

Add Comment