[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.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

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.