What went wrong with LucasArts...

[Chyron8472]

You know... this MI epic-ness has me wondering. What exactly went wrong with LucasArts back when adventure games died anyway? I know someone is going to tell me that some executive(s) higher up made decisions to cut back funding to adventure games, but bad sales on one or two games is not enough explanation why the whole adventure gaming industry died for several years.


I don't know if any of the Telltale Team can even respond to this, but several things don't make sense to me:

1) Why, when SMI and MI2 were apparently so popular, did LA dump any idea of Ron's MI3 and wait 6 years to create CMI?

2) Why, when CMI's animation looks wonderful, did they use a blocky and ugly looking "3D" style for EMI that was also entirely devoid of mouse controls and market it to console gamers? Why couldn't they make another MI game that looked similar to CMI? I love that game's graphics style.

3) Why did they drop Sam and Max: Freelance Police or stop making Monkey Island games altogether after EMI?

... as far as the rest of the industry goes, I've read that the reason why King's Quest 8 sucks as much as it does is because some exec told Roberta Williams of Sierra On-line to make it that way. That doesn't make sense since KQ6 was extremely popular, why change the formula?


It just doesn't make sense to me. If a developer creates a game and it's successful, and then for the next game they are pressured to make it look/feel a certain way which turns out to fail, why quit the whole industry? Why not just go back to what worked in the first place?

Suffice it to say, I don't understand why LA stopped making adventure games, or stopped making future installments of Monkey Island (SMISE doesn't count) just because sales for EMI were apparently lackluster. It doesn't mean there's no market, just that they made the game different than people wanted.

[Secret Fawful]

Because they dumb.

[Avistew]

Probably it wasn't worth the financial risk? If adventure games are a smaller market to begin with, and the games themselves have a higher chance to be hit-or-miss, it might make them decide to focus on what they know will sell, what's safe.

So yeah, maybe they thought "okay, let's give it a last chance with Escape and base our decision on that. If it doesn't sell then it means people don't like adventure games anymore". And when it wasn't received as well as the previous ones, they concluded there wasn't market for it anymore?
I don't know, it's just speculation. We can see it as a bad move from our point of view, but from theirs? Not necessarily, they could focus on games that might make them more money.

Adventure games probably cost a lot to make. They're dialogue heavy so if everything is voiced that's a lot of actors to hire, for instance. And in the end it might not sell that well, especially compared to some of their other games such as Star Wars games, that are pretty much sure to sell.
So, from a business point of view, it might have been a smart move.

[Kroms]

This is a long, complicated topic, best summed up as "business reasons". I'll skim the surface of it, though this is based on *my* understanding of what happened. These aren't facts. I'd appreciate anyone correcting me.


1) Why, when SMI and MI2 were apparently so popular, did LA dump any idea of Ron's MI3 and wait 6 years to create CMI?

Ron Gilbert willingly left LucasArts on his own after MI2 wrapped-up. CMI took two years to make, so it was green-lighted four years after MI2. I assume everyone else just wanted to make other things in the time being (Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max Hit the Road).


2) Why, when CMI's animation looks wonderful, did they use a blocky and ugly looking "3D" style for EMI that was also entirely devoid of mouse controls and market it to console gamers? Why couldn't they make another MI game that looked similar to CMI? I love that game's graphics style.

They'd already made a new engine for Grim Fandango; updating SCUMM may have been too costly. 2D is just a lot more costly in general. Besides, the thinking of the time was, "If a game wants to sell a lot, it has to be 3D and state of the art." Remember the obsession (it's still there) over graphics and poly tech?

This is due to Half-Life and Quake. They were excellent games that sold well. Short-sighted business people assumed that the reason they sold well was things had to be 3D, fast-paced and cool - if you were still 2D, you didn't stand much of a chance. To these people, it would have been too risky to make a 2D game that was also an adventure game.

Personally, I appreciate the benefits of 3D. I never understood all the unnecessary hate for it. I do still think that a blend of 2D and 3D is a step in the right direction (there's various ways to do that), and I do love the timeless look of good 2D art, but 3D provides a few artistic outlets that aren't feasible in 2D.



3) Why did they drop Sam and Max: Freelance Police or stop making Monkey Island games altogether after EMI?

"Marketplace realities".


... as far as the rest of the industry goes, I've read that the reason why King's Quest 8 sucks as much as it does is because some exec told Roberta Williams of Sierra On-line to make it that way. That doesn't make sense since KQ6 was extremely popular, why change the formula?

Roberta Williams was head of Sierra On-line, so that doesn't explain much. Roberta Williams has always blamed everyone else for her games' failings. She never took into account that her games were lazy and frustrating games that would punish you for not trying to pick up every other object you see. Dead ends are the reason she failed. I think people just got sick of it.

That so many terrible adventure games were coming meant that good ones were often overlooked - if a game is critically acclaimed but reaps little profit, then there's something inherently wrong with either marketing, or the mold it was built in. Business-people decided it was the mold; the mold was cracked because of the clumsy handling of the likes of Roberta.


It just doesn't make sense to me. If a developer creates a game and it's successful, and then for the next game they are pressured to make it look/feel a certain way which turns out to fail, why quit the whole industry? Why not just go back to what worked in the first place?

Suffice it to say, I don't understand why LA stopped making adventure games, or stopped making future installments of Monkey Island (SMISE doesn't count) just because sales for EMI were apparently lackluster. It doesn't mean there's no market, just that they made the game different than people wanted.

"Successful" is relative. Even ignoring that fickle beast expectation, what would you pick: a $1000 000 investment in a game that might give you $5 000 000 in profit, or a a $1000 000 in a game that might give you $1 500 000 in profit? People decided that the market wanted hardcore FPS. They invested accordingly. Digital distribution means you can take larger risks - your entire market is one click away, after all. Retail doesn't allow most of us to buy the games we want.

I've noticed that people never know what they "want". I think people just want to have fun, actually. What they *think* they want is a game that's "just similar to, but different from, the last one". I've indulged in that myself. There's always going to be the vocal minority that hates any and all change: "ARGGHHH! Why does this start at day? SMI/MI2 started at night!!!!!" "AHHH! They improved the controls! THIS ISN'T LIKE 1990!" "MI2 ENDED IN DARKNESS. WHY IS TALES ENDING IN LIGHT?"

Don't get me wrong, it's important the *spirit* of a prequel carries over. I'm just saying that 90% of complaints have been inconsequential and, more importantly, baseless. Them not buying these games because of mis-informed opinion harmed adventures more than anything.

[Hassat Hunter]

Kroms seems to be dead on anyway, but here some more speculation...
but bad sales on one or two games is not enough explanation why the whole adventure gaming industry died for several years.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but it is. There is one good selling MMORPG (Wow), and that makes many people try it on, failing miserable. That's not even "two games"...
That's pretty much the way the business goes. RPG's died, but when people richly bought Baldur's Gate, it revived it. Hopefully the same now happens with adventure games.
It's because most executives don't want to take risks and just go off on "what sells"... which pretty much limits the market to certain types of games on produce. With the success of indy developers and online sales this might change atlast though...
Why, when SMI and MI2 were apparently so popular, did LA dump any idea of Ron's MI3 and wait 6 years to create CMI?
Isn't there a 6 year gap between Diablo 1, 2 and 3 too? Or Half-Life 1 and 2? Last year one of my favorite games, Majesty, finally got a sequel after 10 years! Sequels aren't insta always. And, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Although that may not have necessarily been the case here, more that Star Wars titles sold like hotcakes, and they prefered making them as priority instead.
2) Why, when CMI's animation looks wonderful, did they use a blocky and ugly looking "3D" style for EMI that was also entirely devoid of mouse controls and market it to console gamers? Why couldn't they make another MI game that looked similar to CMI? I love that game's graphics style.
Because 3D is "hewt". Every gametype that stepped over to 3D, be it RPG (compare NWN and BG... UGLY!) or RTS (There still isn't a 3D RTS I like, while I still love RA1, AOE's 1 and 2 etc.) has suffered for it in the beginning. And only 10 years later now does it finally catch up, adventure and RPG's at least.
Also, with the PS1's success they might have though along with everyone the PC is dead (yeah, sure... keep doomsaying...) so they had to sell it to consolegamers too to make a profit, who couldn't use mouse point-and-click.
3) Why did they drop Sam and Max: Freelance Police or stop making Monkey Island games altogether after EMI?
S&M:FP was dropped because it didn't meet LA's "Quality requirements", same with Full Throttle 2. At least, that's what they told the press.
I think they realised, with all the adventure-staff left or fired, there was no hope to create a legendary adventure of old, and just dropped it.
It just doesn't make sense to me. If a developer creates a game and it's successful, and then for the next game they are pressured to make it look/feel a certain way which turns out to fail, why quit the whole industry? Why not just go back to what worked in the first place?
That's the industry for you. It can't possibly not sale because they f***** it up with de-evaluation (quick-time events in action games, "interactive" movies, 3D, regenerating health for FPS (WTF?), draconic DRM, DLC-milking etc.), it's because of pirates (EVIL!) or because the genre is dead, and they just stop making it.
Sucks, doesn't it?
It doesn't mean there's no market, just that they made the game different than people wanted.
For most companies, what-ever people think about the game doesn't matter, it's just about the sales. If they are low, there is no investigation or even a tiny look WHY it sold badly... it's assumed because gamer's don't want something like it (even if they want, but just disagreed with some design choices).
Fortunately TTG isn't such a company.

[Falanca]

What went wrong with LucasArts?

George Lucas happened.

[S@bre]

S&M:FP was dropped because it didn't meet LA's "Quality requirements", same with Full Throttle 2. At least, that's what they told the press.

Quality never came into it with the decision for Freelance Police, the developers were in full swing when it was cancelled, marketing was just about to begin, industry previews were positive (http://www.mixnmojo.com/php/site/gamedb.php?gameid=30) and Purcell thought it was shaping up fine (http://www.adventuregamers.com/newsitem.php?id=463). The decision didn't come from quality like with Full Throttle 2, but rather economics:

After careful evaluation of current market place realities and underlying economic considerations, we've decided that this was not the appropriate time to launch a graphic adventure on the PC (http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/496/496351p1.html)

[Uzrname]

Personally, I think that what happened is, RPG (and eventually MMORPG) slowly replaced quests as adventure game genre. This is due to both Roberta Williams and what the late 1990s have done to the genre. Companies thought (and maybe this was true) that gamers didn't want to just quest anymore, i.e. get objects and think about where to use them, but to simply talk a little, fight a little, quest a little, and move a lot through some kind of fantasy-shmantasy world. And while KQ series (where MOE was that turning point) did not suffer a lot from such new genre innuendos, games like MI (where satire and parody was always the ripest of lulz) simply died on that.

Today, things changed. First of all because computers finally started to regain interest of games after several years of console mangling. Second because people got sick on RPGs (that's my understanding), so some subtle companies emerged, like TTG, and slowly starting moving their products forward, in hopes on renewing the quest genre. Then finally came the question of everything-compatibility, from consoles to Macs, though not all of them were existent back in the 1990s.

My opinion is all of this is that LA would probably, and very probably not make another quest game. MISE doesn't count, since it's really just a remade update. I mean, real quests, new, fresh stuff. TTG, on the other hand, has now all the chances to release quests, and I think the more they do it, the more we'd see productiveness and the more there would be chances for the genre to return once again.

[StarEye]

The Phantom Menace happened. Really, that's all there is to it.

[Remolay]

yeah, by that time Star Wars had taken over.

[Rather Dashing]

LucasArts fans really, really don't like Roberta Williams, do they? Geez. I mean, I can admit her games can and do have unfair elements, but "ROBERTA WILLIAMS SINGLE-HANDEDLY STRANGLED THE GENRE IN ITS SLEEP" seems a bit harsh.

Besides, adventure games were made. Indie releases, sure, but those tend to be better in terms of creativity than big releases anyway.

Like a lot of people, I have that desire to boil it down to one person to blame. The difference is that I need it to actually make some degree of sense, so Roberta Williams, George Lucas, and Hitler won't cut it.

For my one-person blame, I turn to Jim Ward. He drops in around 2004, and Sam and Max gets cancelled due to Marketplace Realities. Seemed devastating at the time, but in the end I feel like I gained something far better overall.

[Hassat Hunter]

Today, things changed. First of all because computers finally started to regain interest of games after several years of console mangling.
Que? It may be because I am a PC gamer pur sang, but it seems like today more than ever consoles try to savagely murder the PC by "exclusive deals", removing of dedicated servers etc. so we get console like online options etc.
Second because people got sick on RPGs (that's my understanding)
Guess you never heard of Bethesda, BioWare or Obsidian?
so some subtle companies emerged, like TTG, and slowly starting moving their products forward, in hopes on renewing the quest genre.
More like to quench the thirst of adventure gamers, who previously had to life on games from primarily Germany (they love their adventures). Modest hits there like Syberia or Runaway made clear there is a market for adventuregames.

[techie775]

To me it was never just a lucasarts thing. The whole adventure game genre was dying with Sierra too. I was amazed LA even made EFMI considering how little adventure games were made in 2000. Their Star Wars craze got even more annoying when Phantom Menace came out, and I thought it was a waste to turn every game in the Indiana Jones series into a tomb Raider clone.

[Hayden]

Adventure games were put aside so that companies could cater for the new wave of braindead gamers who just like to shoot and kill things again, and again, and again.

There's nothing wrong with games like that, but you can't just play action games where all you do is fight, it'll kill your brain cells. At least adventure games, and some RPGs, require you to actually think at some stage.

[Rather Dashing]

Adventure games were put aside so that companies could cater for the new wave of braindead gamers who just like to shoot and kill things again, and again, and again.
Except gaming started with space combat, the Wolfenstein games predate and were released alongside the first two Monkey Island games, and Doom was close to follow after LeChuck's Revenge.

There's nothing wrong with games like that, but you can't just play action games where all you do is fight, it'll kill your brain cells. At least adventure games, and some RPGs, require you to actually think at some stage.
Except that's not the way it works. It's thinking, but on a different level, in a different way. RPGs, especially those in the standard Japanese mold, end up amounting to more grinding than actual thought, where at least a shooter forces dynamically changing tactical thought to survive.

[StarEye]

Except that's not the way it works. It's thinking, but on a different level, in a different way. RPGs, especially those in the standard Japanese mold, end up amounting to more grinding than actual thought, where at least a shooter forces dynamically changing tactical thought to survive.

Of course, japanese RPGs tend to focus on telling an epic story with gameplay in second seat - unless they're SRPGs, which focuses on gameplay a lot, with strategic thinking being very important to succeed.

Valkyria Chronicles is a good representative of the japanese SRPG, where it's all just one mission after another, with storytelling inbetween, and where the gameplay is turnbased on a set battlefield with plenty of units and their unique abilities. Not unlike Disgea or Final Fantasy Tactics, but in full 3D and direct control of the units.

Demon's Souls is a good example of a japanese rpg going for a different route than the standard jrpg as well. This is a truly hardcore dungeon crawler, with unforgiving enemies and tactical gameplay is very important for survival. Dying is very common but generally not recommended if you want to get somewhere. Each world (level) has a checkpoint, but the way there is tough and mostly ends with a terrifying and unforgiving bossfight. You don't want to get hit in this game, and protecting yourself is very important and playing tactical will prove a vital point if you want to progress in the game at a decent pace. Toughest rpg in years, really, regardless of its origin.

There's also a lot more focus on tactical shooters nowadays, than braindead blastfests like Doom. Killzone 2, Call of Duty, Gears of War... they may seem braindead, but they're all highly tactical and requires thinking and good reaction to beat. Killzone 2 is actually the first FPS I ever played through alone, and I never got bored.

All genres have bad apples, or different subgenres. Adventure gamers itself have quite a few bad apples, especially those who tried to follow the whole 3D thing too early. And there are also a good amount of braindead adventure games as well, that offers little challenge and are so easy that it's almost just cannon fodder for the adventure gamer fans.

[Uzrname]

Syberia or Runaway
Syberia? German?
Dude... you are wrong. Do you feel it? Do you feel being wrong? Ah? Ah, well.. take that, y'know.

[Uzrname]

LucasArts fans really, really don't like Roberta Williams, do they?
It's more about all the hate that she put in her games, all that sadistic pleasure of killing the hero in every stupid situation. Sure, heroes died in many games, take Kyrandia series for example. But not like that, NOT LIKE THAT!

[Secret Fawful]

It's more about all the hate that she put in her games, all that sadistic pleasure of killing the hero in every stupid situation. Sure, heroes died in many games, take Kyrandia series for example. But not like that, NOT LIKE THAT!

But that stuff was hilarious. I wish I could make a game that evil yet addicting.

[Uzrname]

But that stuff was hilarious. I wish I could make a game that evil yet addicting.
How can dying of hunger because your hero didn't eat because you didn't think he would actually need to eat because you're playing a freaking game be hilarious?

[Secret Fawful]

How can dying of hunger because your hero didn't eat because you didn't think he would actually need to eat because you're playing a freaking game be hilarious?

HA HA HA HA HA! I thought only Roberta Williams could slay me like that, but you're KILLING me, man!

(Uzrname jumps me and starts beating me up)

Ow! Stop! You're killing me, man!


ANNOUNCER: Well, you've done it this time, Secret. Maybe now you'll view PHYSICAL comedy a little bit differently.

RESTART? RESTORE? QUIT?

[Ripcord]

What went wrong with LucasArts?

George Lucas happened.

Amen.

Well, "George Lucas turned 45" is probably more accurate. I'm not sure why or what happened to him around that time, but his brain broke, or he stopped listening to people, or something. The empire underneath him was never the same.

[Ripcord]

I love that if you go to the LucasArts site right now and look at their current "Games" list, the entire list is comprised of 6 Star Wars games, 2 Indiana Jones, and 1...Monkey Island =)

[Uzrname]

HA HA HA HA HA! I thought only Roberta Williams could slay me like that, but you're KILLING me, man!

(Uzrname jumps me and starts beating me up)

Ow! Stop! You're killing me, man!


ANNOUNCER: Well, you've done it this time, Secret. Maybe now you'll view PHYSICAL comedy a little bit differently.

RESTART? RESTORE? QUIT?
"Next time, don't use your head just LITERALLY."

I love that if you go to the LucasArts site right now and look at their current "Games" list, the entire list is comprised of 6 Star Wars games, 2 Indiana Jones, and 1...Monkey Island =)
Yep, it's MISE. A wonder they didn't take it off yet, actually.

[Hassat Hunter]

Syberia? German?
Dude... you are wrong. Do you feel it? Do you feel being wrong? Ah? Ah, well.. take that, y'know.
Most adventures today come from Germany. And Syberia was a modest hit. Don't see where I connected the 2, because I... well... didn't?
So?...

Dude... you are wrong. Do you feel it? Do you feel being wrong? Ah? Ah, well.. take that, y'know. :p

[Chyron8472]

Amen.

Well, "George Lucas turned 45" is probably more accurate. I'm not sure why or what happened to him around that time, but his brain broke, or he stopped listening to people, or something. The empire underneath him was never the same.

Indeed. I remember watching a late night talk show (I think it was Conan) and George Lucas was asked what his response was to fan criticism of his changing things in the Original Trilogy such as Han Solo shooting Greedo first in Special Edition. Lucas' response was that he is god as far as Star Wars is concerned. That's all the reason he gives, it's his movies so he can do what he wants and damn everyone else if they don't like it.

I hate George Lucas.

I love Star Wars, especially the original version of the Original Trilogy, but aside from that and Revenge of the Sith, the other movies (or versions) are dumb. (btw, yes I heard somewhere that he changed the scene where Greedo dies because "it makes Han into a bad role model." Well, damn it, HE'S A SCOUNDREL. He's supposed to be a bad role model at first.)

EDIT: *sigh* Now, I'm in rant-about-Star-Wars-mode. grr. I guess that's what casting bad actors and creating pointless character-altering retcons can do. I'm sure you all understand *cough*Herman*cough*Toothrot*cough*.

[Steverin0]

Probably it wasn't worth the financial risk? If adventure games are a smaller market to begin with, and the games themselves have a higher chance to be hit-or-miss, it might make them decide to focus on what they know will sell, what's safe.

So yeah, maybe they thought "okay, let's give it a last chance with Escape and base our decision on that. If it doesn't sell then it means people don't like adventure games anymore". And when it wasn't received as well as the previous ones, they concluded there wasn't market for it anymore?
I don't know, it's just speculation. We can see it as a bad move from our point of view, but from theirs? Not necessarily, they could focus on games that might make them more money.

Adventure games probably cost a lot to make. They're dialogue heavy so if everything is voiced that's a lot of actors to hire, for instance. And in the end it might not sell that well, especially compared to some of their other games such as Star Wars games, that are pretty much sure to sell.
So, from a business point of view, it might have been a smart move.

This is what happened. Around that time all adventure games took massive hit and were not seen as being profitable. The rise of the internet didn't help, walkthroughs etc..

As an old adventurer I remember playing text Scott Adams adventures on my vic-20 - almost no hints possible. Once a month I bought C&VG and there was one adventure page with some hints on it (upside down) and maybe, just maybe if you were lucky the adventure game you were playing was featured. In those days you really did tear your hair out trying everything, but it was better.

It's the same with the start of WOW (blasphemy to mention.. :) I don't play any more) - when it hit everything was just adventure and discovery. Now we get screenshots, all quests, objects etc laid out before we even get to play the patch/expansion, ruins the experience - you even get markers on screen (through addon) telling you where you need to go so you can play with your eyes closed. Shame... It's up to player's discretion though of course.

[Hassat Hunter]

walkthroughs etc..
I fail to see how that meant the end of adventure games, as opposed to making them MORE open and accessible to gamers. And possibly done faster, so they can faster spend time (Read: money) on the sequel... :confused:

[daro2096]

Well once you know the solution to a game the game virtually becomes meaningless and boring. You can really only play adventure games once.

[Avistew]

Well once you know the solution to a game the game virtually becomes meaningless and boring. You can really only play adventure games once.

But people don't keep buying the same game until they know what to do. They buy it once, so the time it takes them to figure out what to do doesn't change how many copies they buy.
Plus people who don't want to use walkthroughs just don't look at them, that's as simple as that, really.

And I disagree about playing an adventure game several times. Good adventure games you replay over and over again. And I'd say you can replay them more if you used a walkthrough, because you're less likely to remember the solutions than if it took your 3 days before you figured it out.

[Didero]

And I disagree about playing an adventure game several times. Good adventure games you replay over and over again. And I'd say you can replay them more if you used a walkthrough, because you're less likely to remember the solutions than if it took your 3 days before you figured it out.
That's not always true though. I was so annoyed with a puzzle in EfMI that I looked up the solution in a walkthrough. The solution to that puzzle is just about the only thing I still remember about the entire game :p
I should replay that game...

[Avistew]

That's not always true though. I was so annoyed with a puzzle in EfMI that I looked up the solution in a walkthrough. The solution to that puzzle is just about the only thing I still remember about the entire game :p
I should replay that game...

True, although you remember it because you got annoyed with it (and because it made NO SENSE which made it stand out), which means you still tried to figure it out for a while. Had you used the walkthrough from the start or at least earlier, you might not remember it as much.

[Little Writer]

I can't remember the amount of times I've replayed some adventure games (except the ones I thought were bad, of course). It's another form of entertainment next to reading a book or watching a movie. You can do that over and over again, just like some people can listen to a CD over and over again. Yes, after a while I can get stale, or you're just not in the mood, but then you wait a while longer between replays and in the right mood it can feel fresh again.

[Didero]

True, although you remember it because you got annoyed with it (and because it made NO SENSE which made it stand out), which means you still tried to figure it out for a while. Had you used the walkthrough from the start or at least earlier, you might not remember it as much.
And because I really hate to have to look up a solution. I'd rather figure it out on my own.
What makes it even worse is that it was the very last puzzle of EfMI, so it detracted a lot from what's supposed to be the epic conclusion of the story.
But yeah, it was a bit of a weird puzzle that required you to have paid attention to one particular detail earlier in the game, which I apparently hadn't.

[Chyron8472]

Well once you know the solution to a game the game virtually becomes meaningless and boring. You can really only play adventure games once.

Lies.

[Steverin0]

I fail to see how that meant the end of adventure games, as opposed to making them MORE open and accessible to gamers. And possibly done faster, so they can faster spend time (Read: money) on the sequel... :confused:

As I explained, I was talking about the state of adventure gaming just before Lucasarts were at their prime. There were no walkthroughs or (very few) hints. Some games would take 6 months or a year to finish. I hear what you are saying, I didn't mean it was the end of adventure games, just the end of an era.

As another poster pointed out, the problem with adventure games is for most they have no replayability. TMI for example, was fun, lots of fun but I will never play them again. Here I am several years later playing HL2 again though. Mind you I did replay CMI a little while back but we are talking total classic. I'm all over the place with this reply ;)

[tredlow]

You know... this MI epic-ness has me wondering. What exactly went wrong with LucasArts back when adventure games died anyway? I know someone is going to tell me that some executive(s) higher up made decisions to cut back funding to adventure games, but bad sales on one or two games is not enough explanation why the whole adventure gaming industry died for several years.


I don't know if any of the Telltale Team can even respond to this, but several things don't make sense to me:

1) Why, when SMI and MI2 were apparently so popular, did LA dump any idea of Ron's MI3 and wait 6 years to create CMI?

2) Why, when CMI's animation looks wonderful, did they use a blocky and ugly looking "3D" style for EMI that was also entirely devoid of mouse controls and market it to console gamers? Why couldn't they make another MI game that looked similar to CMI? I love that game's graphics style.

3) Why did they drop Sam and Max: Freelance Police or stop making Monkey Island games altogether after EMI?

... as far as the rest of the industry goes, I've read that the reason why King's Quest 8 sucks as much as it does is because some exec told Roberta Williams of Sierra On-line to make it that way. That doesn't make sense since KQ6 was extremely popular, why change the formula?


It just doesn't make sense to me. If a developer creates a game and it's successful, and then for the next game they are pressured to make it look/feel a certain way which turns out to fail, why quit the whole industry? Why not just go back to what worked in the first place?

Suffice it to say, I don't understand why LA stopped making adventure games, or stopped making future installments of Monkey Island (SMISE doesn't count) just because sales for EMI were apparently lackluster. It doesn't mean there's no market, just that they made the game different than people wanted.

My theories:

1. Probably because Ron didn't really submit any ideas for a third MI game back then.

2. So they can advertise that it has 'awesome 3D graphics', and to cut animation costs, since 3D is cheaper to use than 2D in mainstream games, as well as more popular. Also, they want to cash into the console gamer market.

3. Actually, it's quite a miracle that EMI was released after Grim Fandango's commercial failure. So, it's actually not that big of a surprise that the adventure games set to be released after EMI were cancelled.

Bad sales of one or two games did not cause the decline of adventure games, it's the other way around. Grim Fandango didn't cause the death of adventure games, it marked it.

Also, it's not that there's less market for adventure games, it's just that there's an even bigger market for Star Wars related games. It's all about the money for them.

What went wrong with LucasArts is not that it took part in killing adventure games, it's that they did nothing about it and abandoned adventure games to die and hopped onto the next big thing.

In the end, it's not the death of adventure games, but the rise of other genres. So it's more of an overshadowing of adventure games.

[Hassat Hunter]

ASome games would take 6 months or a year to finish.
Which would be a bad thing for a producer if they shipped new adventure games in a faster rate.

[Steverin0]

Agree with tredlow.

[dthoupis]

While all what is being said is valid at most points, we need to check the whole information being given to us and analyze it in thorough before we come into rash and harsh conclusions. Before going into the end of the adventure genre which all of you are totaly wrong because if LA and Sierra stopped making adventure games does not mean that all others stoped as well. So I pressume that none of you played Syberia then!!?? Go on and play it. Oh and by the way it was released in 2002 when supposedly adventure games were dead. Come on people wake up. Just because LA stopped making adventure games does not mean the whole world stopped it. Stop being so single sided. In any case, Lucasarts was out of ideas as to what makes a good adventure game. A dead period is actually a good thing because it gives the chance to see what actually the public likes and what would be the next best thing. I tell you people, a Ron Gilbert installment of MI from Lucasarts is imenent and I am not just hoping, I know it is. In any case, all this mumbo jumbo about Roberta Williams is so not true. Sierra Games had a very different approach to the genre. Hardcore adventurers actually loved Sierra games because of all the wrong things you could do and get yourself killed! Sierra games were actually more challenging at the end of the day. I have nothing else to say only that I am sad it ended the way it did with Sierra. All people who had something to do originally with Sierra feel the same way. Look into Al Lowes site regarding the Larry Series. Roberta Williams and her husband also feel the same. It was a matter of money rulling over peoples' choices in both cases. Just feel glad that a turn is happening and soon we will see more adventure games from Lucasarts coming out.
Demetris

[FitzoliverJ]

Quality never came into it with the decision for Freelance Police, the developers were in full swing when it was cancelled, marketing was just about to begin, industry previews were positive (http://www.mixnmojo.com/php/site/gamedb.php?gameid=30) and Purcell thought it was shaping up fine (http://www.adventuregamers.com/newsitem.php?id=463). The decision didn't come from quality like with Full Throttle 2, but rather economics:

After careful evaluation of current market place realities and underlying economic considerations, we've decided that this was not the appropriate time to launch a graphic adventure on the PC (http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/496/496351p1.html)

Wuh? How does that work? You spend all this money developing the game, then pull the plug at the point of which you can recoup some of your investment. I mean, all the thing had to do was cover the cost of the marketing to make money than not releasing it at all....


Hmm...

COMPUTER GAME GUY: Well, the new Sam and Max game is ready. I'll call marketing,

GEORGE LUCAS: Is Jar-Jar in it?

COMPUTER GAME GUY: Um, no. That's because it's a Sam and Max game.

GEORGE LUCAS: Oh, I didnt realise you'd done a Special Edition of "Hit the Road". Have you CGI'd any of the Yeti from the end of the game into the begnning of the game?

COMPUTER GAME GUY: Er, no... it's a new game. See - brand new footage of Max violently attacking somebody!

GEORGE LUCAS: Oh, I don't like that. Make the guy attack Max - we can't have the hero being a total bastard!

COMPUTER GAME GUY: Er... isn't that the point?

GEORGE LUCAS: How dare you question me? You're fired! Everybody's fired!

COMPUTER GAME GUY: That's what you think! I've got a gun! Bang! Bang! Oh, no, he's replaced it with a walkie-talkie. Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Or something

[techie775]

Well once you know the solution to a game the game virtually becomes meaningless and boring. You can really only play adventure games once.
Depends on the game. Indiana Jones and the Fate of atlantis they have 3 paths; Fists, Team and Wit I think. One with Sophia, one alone and one where you do fighting. King's Quest VI had the quick ending where you're missing almost a third of the game but it had some different puzzles and then it the longer more challenging one. Plus in Sierra games if you wanted to get a perfect score you'd have to replay it a lot of times.

[nachtritter]

...Myst.

[Ripcord]

COMPUTER GAME GUY: Er... isn't that the point?

GEORGE LUCAS: How dare you question me? You're fired! Everybody's fired!

COMPUTER GAME GUY: That's what you think! I've got a gun! Bang! Bang! Oh, no, he's replaced it with a walkie-talkie. Nooooooooooooooooooooo!


This seems so spot on =)

I'm sure Lucas had nearly zero involvement with LA by that point, but it just seems so likely =)

[Bagge]

YWhy, when SMI and MI2 were apparently so popular, did LA dump any idea of Ron's MI3 and wait 6 years to create CMI?


According to Tim Schafer, MI1 and 2 sold pretty poorly, and they were asked to do something different after LeChuck's revenge.

Interestingly, however, despite arguably being the best-known adventure series of all time, [The Secret of] Monkey Island and LeChuck's Revenge sold very poorly on release, especially in comparison to rival Sierra's King's Quest titles. "People like to go on about declining adventure game sales," Schafer notes, "but in my experience it only got better after that. Monkey 2, they said, sold about 25.000 copies; King's Quest was selling something like 100.000 units at the time. Management came down on us and told us Monkey was a failure and that we should make something else. They were like, 'Guys, your games are funny like David Letterman', and this was when David Letterman was sort of cutting-edge comedy. 'You need to be more mainstream funny like The Simpsons'. So I think it is funny that everyone thinks Monkey Island was a big success, because at the time, at least, it wasn't. I don't know, maybe it was just pirated a lot."

In comparison, Grim Fandango, sometimes acredited to killing the adventure game genre seven years after Monkey 2 because of it's low sales, sold someting like 500.000 copies.

[Rather Dashing]

In comparison, Grim Fandango, sometimes acredited to killing the adventure game genre seven years after Monkey 2 because of it's low sales, sold someting like 500.000 copies.
You can't really compare the sales of Secret and LeChuck's Revenge to the sales of Grim Fandango. Note that the big game of the old days was selling 100,000 copies. By the time Grim Fandango had come out, the industry had grown, and LucasArts with it. LucasArts made big investments for big returns. 25,000-100,000 sales just didn't cut it anymore, because budgets were bigger and expectations were higher.

[Bagge]

You can't really compare the sales of Secret and LeChuck's Revenge to the sales of Grim Fandango. Note that the big game of the old days was selling 100,000 copies. By the time Grim Fandango had come out, the industry had grown, and LucasArts with it. LucasArts made big investments for big returns. 25,000-100,000 sales just didn't cut it anymore, because budgets were bigger and expectations were higher.

Sure, the industry grew between 1991 and 1998, but 100.000 units was not a huge seller, even i 1991. Zelda: A Link to the Past, also released in 1991, sold millions, as did Sonic the Hedgehog and even Pitfall for the Atari 2600, almost ten years earlier.

Grim Fandango's unconventional setting and story made it far from a surefire hit, but it still sold a respectable number of units and made a profit for Lucasarts. What really "went wrong with Lucasarts" was the new Star Wars craze starting with Phantom Menace in 1999.

[StarEye]

Back then, I'm pretty sure that pirating games were even worse than now, considering the ratio to original vs copied game. Gamers were for kids and teenagers, and they didn't have much money back then. So, piracy was extremely rampant. Original games were a rarity for me and plenty of other people it seems, as it looks that when you buy a used Amiga today, the games that comes with it are maybe 1 original for every 100 pirated game. I rarely ever see an Amiga come with more than 10 games, and even 5 is somewhat rare.

I'm pretty sure PC were equally bad when it comes to piracy.

Sure, the industry grew between 1991 and 1998, but 100.000 units was not a huge seller, even i 1991. Zelda: A Link to the Past, also released in 1991, sold millions, as did Sonic the Hedgehog and even Pitfall for the Atari 2600, almost ten years earlier.

Grim Fandango's unconventional setting and story made it far from a surefire hit, but it still sold a respectable number of units and made a profit for Lucasarts. What really "went wrong with Lucasarts" was the new Star Wars craze starting with Phantom Menace in 1999.


But you have to remember that these were for piracy-free consoles, thus the only way to get hold of it was to buy it. Had it been the same with PC (or maybe even Amiga games), sales would be pretty good as well.

[Bagge]

It's hard to say without numbers and statistics, but anecdotally, I remember piracy being really widespread back when games were still being released on floppy disks. Me and my friends used to share all our games between us, and I don't think it even crossed our minds that we were doing somehing illegal when we copied a game.


But you have to remember that these were for piracy-free consoles, thus the only way to get hold of it was to buy it. Had it been the same with PC (or maybe even Amiga games), sales would be pretty good as well.

Piracy is always a factor, but I don't think removing piracy has a tenfold impact on sales.

[Secret Fawful]

Back then, I'm pretty sure that pirating games were even worse than now, considering the ratio to original vs copied game. Gamers were for kids and teenagers, and they didn't have much money back then. So, piracy was extremely rampant. Original games were a rarity for me and plenty of other people it seems, as it looks that when you buy a used Amiga today, the games that comes with it are maybe 1 original for every 100 pirated game. I rarely ever see an Amiga come with more than 10 games, and even 5 is somewhat rare.

I'm pretty sure PC were equally bad when it comes to piracy.

But you have to remember that these were for piracy-free consoles, thus the only way to get hold of it was to buy it. Had it been the same with PC (or maybe even Amiga games), sales would be pretty good as well.

They didn't have enough money to buy Monkey Island so they pirated it, yet they had enough money to spend on King's Quest...grumble grumble...dumb teenagers and their dumbness...grumble...

[StarEye]

King's Quest was well known and had been out since what, 86? It had the time to build up a big fanbase, as well as Sierra being more popular than Lucasfilm ever was back then (and this is coming from a Lucasfilm/Arts fan). Sierra were the pioneers, and King's Quest was a big name, not to mention a lot more difficult to learn than the Lucas games (Sierra had all these different verbs that you had to figure out for yourself, and some of them you'd never guess had you not had a manual (which usually included all the verbs/words you could use in the game), or a walkthrough.

But what it boiled down to was Monkey Island was still a newcomer and King's Quest had a rich history by the time the first MI came out, hence why it sold more. And piracy weren't really as rampant back in the mid-eighties as they were in the early nineties.

[Chyron8472]

...grumble grumble...dumb teenagers and their dumbness...grumble...

:D

http://www.pyromosh.org/images/bbs/diesel_sweeties/zelda_grumble_grumble_food.png

[tredlow]

While all what is being said is valid at most points, we need to check the whole information being given to us and analyze it in thorough before we come into rash and harsh conclusions. Before going into the end of the adventure genre which all of you are totaly wrong because if LA and Sierra stopped making adventure games does not mean that all others stoped as well. So I pressume that none of you played Syberia then!!?? Go on and play it. Oh and by the way it was released in 2002 when supposedly adventure games were dead. Come on people wake up. Just because LA stopped making adventure games does not mean the whole world stopped it. Stop being so single sided. In any case, Lucasarts was out of ideas as to what makes a good adventure game. A dead period is actually a good thing because it gives the chance to see what actually the public likes and what would be the next best thing. I tell you people, a Ron Gilbert installment of MI from Lucasarts is imenent and I am not just hoping, I know it is. In any case, all this mumbo jumbo about Roberta Williams is so not true. Sierra Games had a very different approach to the genre. Hardcore adventurers actually loved Sierra games because of all the wrong things you could do and get yourself killed! Sierra games were actually more challenging at the end of the day. I have nothing else to say only that I am sad it ended the way it did with Sierra. All people who had something to do originally with Sierra feel the same way. Look into Al Lowes site regarding the Larry Series. Roberta Williams and her husband also feel the same. It was a matter of money rulling over peoples' choices in both cases. Just feel glad that a turn is happening and soon we will see more adventure games from Lucasarts coming out.
Demetris

1. That's what I said in my last post; adventure games didn't die, neither did LucasArts murdered it. It just became less popular. So not all of us are wrong.

2. LucasArts didn't run out of adventure game ideas. If they did, they'd at least release Sam and Max: Freelance Police and Full Throttle 2. They canceled them because they felt that bigger franchises have more potential.

3. The 'dead period' showed that people liked games from other genres. Hence the decline of adventure games.

4. Yes, I played Syberia. No, I have not finished it. Yes, I lost my copy. No, I have not found another. Yes, I'm still looking for one.

5. Please use multiple paragraphs. It's difficult reading your post.

[Chyron8472]

Please use multiple paragraphs. It's difficult reading your post.

Agreed. I didn't even bother.