Hi Darleen -- Sam & Max seems...unsophisticated? Just curious -- did you play the demos, or was your impression formed by the trailers, screenshots, etc.?

I'm looking at the list of games that did much better on the Twisty List than on GameRankings. One thing that they have in common is that many of the games (DarkFall is an exception here) were translated into English. This may just be a coincidence, though.

Becky...

I got Sam & Max Season One on a trade from GB's...I really hadn't a clue about the game at all...I seen trailers ...I thought I would love it...

When I played I was 15 minutes into it...That was enough for me..
I just can't explain it...This game was too Stupid I still have the game...Will trade it at some point....

I think I will put it on my list at the Trading forum

Darlene -- thanks for the info. It sounds like the humor in the game either "grabs" you or...it really doesn't.

Becky, hi again,

Firstly, thanks for the analysis. Awesome! Then:



From my experience, the generalist reviewers just don't have the patience to sit through an adventure game of any appreciable length, no matter how good it is (unless LucasArts made it, and they have fond memories of playing it when they were 15). They especially don't like:

* Long, expositional dialogues
* Difficult/contrived inventory-based puzzles (like the 'ducky' one in The Longest Journey, or Gabe having to disguise himself in GK3)

The reason they like the Telltale Sam & Max series is the same reason I (and I'm assuming other avid adventure gamers) *don't* like them: they're short.

Of course, there are generalist reviewers that can transcend all that and actually give an adventure game a fair review, but they are few and far between these days.

MetzO'Magic

For me, Sam and Max just didn't translate well into 3D characters. I liked them as cartoons in Sam and Max Hit the road, but Season One just turned me completely off (too realistic in some way that I couldn't stomach maybe?) so I didn't even bother with Season Two although I could have played it on GameTap since I was still a subscriber at that time.

What qualifications does a reviewer have? Is it just a gamer who writes his/her opinions well? Or do they sit all day and play games and then write their reviews, and get paid for it? I usually read reviews after I have played the game just to see if the reviewer and I agree.

Hi catsmom -- I think that qualifications vary widely for reviewers, depending on the particular website. I wouldn't say that there is one overall profile for a reviewer to which all websites adhere, except (perhaps) the ability to write well.

Thanks Becky I only read reviews from this site BTW thanks for all you do here, you are appreciated very much I hope you do get some time to Play the games too.

I think you are probably correct Becky - except of course that GB reviewers get paid handsomly and are the envy of the rest of us
Perhaps we over-analyse things too much? Nothing is perfect, least of all a list of impressions. I don't think we try and pretend that the GB list is the font of all wisdom - its just what a bunch of like-ish minded people suggest to their forum friends they might like to play.

I played Grim Fandango Recently, I think there was alot of trading it on the Trade forum recently anyway, I LOVED it, it was the funniest game I have ever played LOL... it really was a GREAT surprise still that it got that high a rating...

I REALLY didnt like the Ending of the Black Mirror, although I thought it was a good game, I couldnt recommend it for that REASON,

I am not surprised the Lost Crown did so well, I loved it myself, and think even if I played it 5 or 6 years ago, it would be on my top 10,
I do agree also, we tend to remember what is FRESH in our minds
and pick that way too..

GREAT list, I am also printing it, so I can look for games I haven't played and review others...
Marcia

Hi flotsam -- you are so right. Over-analyzing things is what I do best.

Okay - reviewers - No laughing from the bleachers please.

Awwww MaG, I wanted to keep that our deep dark secret

Hi flotsam, I've got to thank you again for making the effort for doing this list. It may be a list of impressions & it may not be "the font of all wisdom" but it is interesting enough for me to look at games mentioned a few times to read up on reviews on them. In the case of older games, if they appeal to me (analytical reviews are best!) & I think there is any possibility that I can play them on my system via "Steve's XP corner" I will buy if I do come across them!

But it was a little sad, I thought, that there was so many negative/cynical comments aimed at the motives of players who included either newer or Independent games over older games in their lists (& personally I found that insulting!). But the final list, hopefully, reflects a diversity of the best games, old & new, that include somthing to cater for all tastes!

If your voting for YOUR favorite game How can you be wrong! New games old games whats the difference..nada.95% of my games are my favorites it was hard to choose..If a reviever gave a bad review of blue cars I'd go out and buy one anyway, no difference in games..

For me not have surprises in the List, i like very much of the inclusion of The Lost Crown in the 6,but i think the Barrow Hill deserved a better place in the list

Love Maria

I was surprised that The Longest Journey didn't win and that the third person games were dominate.

Longest Journey is #2 - check here.
Are you meaning you want it #1?
It's been running as #2 for the last several years in our Annual recommendations. Check here.

It just shows that what one person loves, another person hates. Yes, I loved Keepsake & all the myst like games, but my favorites are dark mysteries & spooky games. One of the games on my list was "Shady Brook". I loved that game, but it looks like I was the only one. Thats what I love about GB. We're all different but the same. LOL. Judy

Hi judith, I'm sure that I'm not the only one where there are so many games that I loved that I just couldn't include in a list of 20 - 21!

I really liked Shady Brook too & I know many others did also.

We should, really, really narrow down the games list to games released within the last few years. Otherwise how would the newer games be recognised? They could never compete with Tex Murphy Series or Gabriel Knight series or Myst series with 4-8 disks and lots of FMVs starring hollywood actors because these games were from a golden age when game companies like Sierra and Cyan, Access, Lucasarts and Take 2 etc had huge budgets that new developers don't.

Even with a moderate budget, Games from the newer generation developers could never take the place of vintage classics like these as the classics have a permanent place in gamers' hearts. If there is a need to put everything together in a list, then let's have two separate lists - a list for the best games of all times and a list for the best games within the last five years.

Let us keep the golden games on a separate pedestal and let gamers recognise and choose gems among the newer games.

Sounds like it might be a bit complicated to try and figure out if a particular game fits in the "past 5 years" category. I know, you can look that information up, but will people do that? I think of this list as a "fun" thing to do, but if I have to start worrying about the timing of a game: not so much fun anymore. Just my opinion.

Benedict, hi,

I had earlier promised to bow out of this discussion, because I'm afraid it was moi that was causing most of the controversy with my comments about the latest crop of adventure games being 'average'. But I'd like to use your comments as the launch pad for a hopefully constructive continuation of this thread, in order to discuss why I feel this way. What prompted me to re-enter the fray was this:



Warning: this is gonna be... long!

Well then, how did Jonathan Boakes manage to capture the hearts of most of us adventurers with Darkfall, obviously made on a shoestring budget?

Let me put it another way: I think the graphics in all the games made by Frogwares are nothing short of fantastic. It was thus with Keepsake, and Runaway too. OK, there's the voice acting. But that wasn't the strong point of any of the Tex Murphy or Cyan games either. So what are the magical ingredients that must combine in a certain way to get your game on the all time greats list? I maintain they are (in no particular order):

* Bringing some fresh ideas to the table
* The game play and puzzles
* The story
* The dialogue and voice acting
* The graphics

It is a combination of being strong in most or all of those categories that makes a game an enduring classic. For instance, Myst, in it's time (which is important!) was a completely different departure from anything that came before it graphically (its peers were all 'cartoony'), and it also had good puzzles. On the other hand, Day of the Tentacle had great cartoon graphics, was extremely funny, and had *deviously* good puzzles. Not to mention a great premise (being able to pass objects between different time frames), and witty dialogue...

But back to the gist of this. All of those bullet points above, possibly with the exception of the voice acting (i.e. paying for professional actors) are within reach of most modern development houses.

But being *adventure* games, what I feel lets down most of the games being developed nowadays is... *the game play and puzzles*. Remember, I do agree that games like the Frogwares' Sherlock Holmes series, Keepsake, and Runaway are pretty solid in the graphics and sound departments. So now we must venture into spoiler territory as I attempt to explain why I didn't get more than a few hours into those games before giving up and putting them right back on my shelf to gather dust for the next couple of decades (I managed to see Keepsake through to the end, because I was going to review it for Quandary. But I found I really disliked it and had to turn it over to Rosemary and Gordon to review because I would have roundly trashed it).

Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Silver Earring
-----------------------------------------------
I found the pixel hunting just got to be too much, and trying to figure out what I had in inventory was beyond my powers of comprehension. To wit:



Keepsake
--------
I kept coming across puzzles that told me I didn't have the 'prerequisites to continue'. Huh? I finally managed to figure out that meant you had to attack the puzzles in a very particular order, which really put me off. Also, there were quite a few puzzles that didn't have sufficient clues to help you in solving them without trying random things. In other words, what we in the biz call 'twiddleware'. No thanks.

Runaway
-------
This one had so many artificial puzzle constructs that it completely ruined my suspension of disbelief. For instance:



Now... I'm well aware that there are those who wouldn't be bothered in the slightest with issues like those, but the fact is... when you have been playing adventure games for 20-odd years, you build up certain expectations about what type of puzzles you can expect to find in a decent adventure game. And the puzzles in most of today's games just don't measure up at all to the likes of the ones you find in the classics.

So that is my point, as belaboured as it was. My tuppence worth, as it were.

Regards,
MetzO'Magic

I was just thinking of that today after reading some of the posts here.
That some of the gamers have expectations or preset ideas already before playing a game. Like in the case of Dracula: Origin. They expect it to be like the older Dracula games which is made by another developer. I was wondering if they expected it to be as horror filled and thus got disappointed. They might have missed the beauty of how the game is presented, the fun in playing it. It actually saddened me a bit, that they missed to me a work of art in its own way.

I am an adventure gamer of 31 years or so, I treat games like I treat people - no expectations and I take them for what they are. If they show themselves to be horrible then that is how I approach them but if they are well mannered and doesn't have a secret agenda - then it's a pleasure of knowing them.
I take the games I play for what I see during gameplay: if the game does not present the story well, if the dialogue is not clear, if the gameplay is loaded with glitches or finding the wonder of the graphics, the compatible music, the delivery of the story line. I get my pleasure in the wonder of the discovery or the frustration of disappointment.

I can't say that this is true for most gamers, but it makes gaming more pleasurable like finding new friends or a great book.
As I mentioned before, to each its own. We all differ and that is great.

MaG...

That is very well said...I look to the beauty & art myself in a game..I am playing Perry now...The game is truly a work of art..

Dracula origin is also a work of art..