«

[Borodin]

Originally posted by Scarface+Aug 30 2005, 12:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scarface @ Aug 30 2005, 12:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-efthimios@Aug 29 2005, 06:51 PM
I have to say I am not so sure a sequel to Sam and Max would sell very much.* Then again, who knows.

I agree, because today's gamers are not into adventure games anymore. They want everything that involves a multiplayer mode. [/b][/quote]
Or at least, so the game companies would have us all believe. Myself, I'm not so quick to assume that.

[efthimios]

I don't agree that the gamers mainly want multiplayer games, but I stand by what I said about traditional point and click adventures. I base that completely on my own wishes and desires for games. Though I still buy such an adventure about once every couple of years, I rarely play them till the end. Most of the time because I don't know why. :blink:

The last such adventure I bought was Midnight Nowhere.

[moogle]

Personally, I'm more tempted to buy a game if it has multiplayer than if it only has singleplayer, it has to get VERY good reviews for me to buy it if its only single player, multiplayer games last a bit longer...

[THEEVILOFMEN]

For me, it was System Shock 2 for the dreamcast. It was supposed to be even bigger than the PC version, and they CANCELLED IT! CURSE THEM!!!!!!

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by efthimios@Aug 30 2005, 01:33 PM
I rarely play them till the end.

Perhaps you've been playing the wrong adventuregames, an adventuregame should pull you into its story, not make you tired of playing it. A good example of such a game would be The Longest Journey, it was slow paced, long and often pointless dialogues... but it is a jewel of a game.

I myself am happy that companies finally decided to shift the accent away from multiplayer. Eventually every game had to have multiplayer in it just to be worth the player's attention. Often this came with a pricetag, that of a weak or nonexistent singleplayer game.
I disagree with the theory that multiplayer games last longer. Its crux depends on who is playing on the other end of the line, and that is often a rude awekening. While the developpers may claim that their multiplayer game will push the players to work together in teams I have yet to see people work in teams. That is to say I have played games in which I was part of a team, but usually we were just one team surrounded by all kinds of lone wolves.

In any case, forgive me, i'm afraid reading some of Oscar Wilde's works has made me a bit long-winded, we are quite off topic.

[troop18546]

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy+Aug 29 2005, 01:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blood-Pigggy @ Aug 29 2005, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-troop18546@Aug 28 2005, 11:30 AM
I don't know if this counts as a cancelation, but - Diablo 3.
Why did they stop on such a great game? WHY???

P.S. When the first time I heard that Max Payne 2 won't be released because the company got bankrupt I almost died. But when it came back, the Payne sparkle was lost forever...

What the hell do you mean?
They never started work on it (as far as the public knows) and they never even announced it. [/b][/quote]
Did you even read this?
"I don't know if this counts as a cancelation".

But, not even releasing this they really dissapointed me.

[Mats]

I was quite sad when thet cancelled the development for Space Quest VII, but I guess the company couldn't cope with the economical part.


///MJ

[efthimios]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Aug 31 2005, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Aug 31 2005, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-efthimios@Aug 30 2005, 01:33 PM
I rarely play them till the end.

Perhaps you've been playing the wrong adventuregames, an adventuregame should pull you into its story, not make you tired of playing it. A good example of such a game would be The Longest Journey, it was slow paced, long and often pointless dialogues... but it is a jewel of a game.

I myself am happy that companies finally decided to shift the accent away from multiplayer. Eventually every game had to have multiplayer in it just to be worth the player's attention. Often this came with a pricetag, that of a weak or nonexistent singleplayer game.
I disagree with the theory that multiplayer games last longer. Its crux depends on who is playing on the other end of the line, and that is often a rude awekening. While the developpers may claim that their multiplayer game will push the players to work together in teams I have yet to see people work in teams. That is to say I have played games in which I was part of a team, but usually we were just one team surrounded by all kinds of lone wolves.

In any case, forgive me, i'm afraid reading some of Oscar Wilde's works has made me a bit long-winded, we are quite off topic. [/b][/quote]
I have TLJ but never left the town. I liked the game but it eventualy bored me. Very few adventures manage to keep me playing till the end (or near end). I do not like puzzles that make no sense like use pipe on chewing gum because that will manage to unlock the bird in the cage puzzles. Especially when I have a better idea and the game doesn't let me do it, that pisses me off.

[Stroggy]

Yes, the beginning of TLJ had some silly puzzles (use the duck with the fishingrod and the... to get the item off the railroadtracks)

[Amayirot Akago]

Star Trek: Secret of Vulcan Fury. The trailers looked so damned good, and BAM, they cancelled it. Sigh. There hasn't been a good Star Trek adventure game since Final Unity.

Same with Warcraft Adventures. Looked like a promising adventure game and they had to cancel that too.

The Sam & Max sequel being cancelled hurts the most.