The State of Adventure Gaming

By Randy Sluganski
February 1999

It seems that Randy ruffled more than a few feathers with his first State of Adventure Gaming article for this month, so he kindly offered to rewrite it. Below is the rewrite, followed by the first version that offended so many.

Hello fellow adventure gamers!

So where was I before I was so rudely distracted?

It certainly seems as though this will be a very lean year for adventure releases in North America. Already two major companies, Sierra and LucasArts, have unofficially delayed their long-awaited Indiana Jones and Gabriel Knight 3 games until the third quarter of the year. Big Brother seems to have gone into hiding, and the future of Star Trek: Vulcan Fury is still in limbo despite an admirable attempt by Farah Houston to resurrect a product that has been placed on interminable hold. There are a few other major adventure releases that have yet to be announced--and which I am sworn to secrecy on--but they are not scheduled for release until Christmas. So what does that leave us with? Well, fortunately, there are a lot of interesting games coming out in Europe. The Longest Journey, The Real Never Ending Story, Simon 3 and Discworld Noir are but a few we can look forward to playing. It seems to me that we had all better find a reliable overseas mail-order company.

In this big electronic society we call the Internet, there is only one rule and that is--there are no rules. So when individuals wrote to me and said that what I did last week was "taboo" and "just plain wrong" well I had to wonder what ulterior motives were behind my rage against the Games Domain Review and why anyone would consider "sticking up for oneself" wrong. After much consideration and words of support and advice from such dear readers and newfound friends such as Tom and Audrey and Farah (you all know who you are), I do realize that I must apologize to our loyal JA readers for involving them in such a messy matter. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that playing within the boundaries of the "rules" gives them the right to attempt underhanded shenanigans in attempting to impose their edicts upon others. A lot of the misunderstandings on the Internet could and would be avoided if we would only recognize that there are cultural differences. There are American phrases and sayings that may be humorous to a citizen of the United States but may be found offensive, if taken literally, by someone not familiar with English idioms. For the final word I will ever have on this subject, true understanding can only be achieved if both sides try to understand. In the words of the famous Stan Lee, "'nuff said."

We at JA are going to throw so many new articles at you this month that you will be begging for mercy. I'll not list them all now, but do drop us a line and let us know how you enjoy them. Oh, and as for the voting, the "Stay" votes right now outnumber the "Leave" votes by a 20-to-1 margin! So for the five of you who asked me to leave--sorry, looks like I will still be around for awhile!

I love you guys!

Hello fellow adventure gamers!

Well, dear readers, this could be the last of my monthly editorials on the state of adventure gaming or it could be the initial step in an exciting new direction. You will decide! But more on that later.

First, some of you have been asking what exactly is an Adventure Plus review? In today's constantly changing state of adventure gaming there seem to be less (but better) adventure games coming out than ever, yet there are more and more releases that fit the categories of adventure/action, adventure/RPG, adventure/puzzle, etc. These games are not "true" adventure games in the purest sense of the definition, but many of them contain enough adventure elements to be of interest. This is a constantly evolving industry, and if you do not keep up with the changes, then you will be left behind. Fallout 2, Half-Life and Return to Krondor are just a few examples of recent excellent releases that would fit nicely into this Adventure Plus category. Why the Plus and why not just categorize the games as puzzle, action, etc. We just thought it a good idea to lump them all together for the sake of harmony.

Speaking of harmony during this month of love, let's get on to the good stuff. I recently had the unmitigated gall to make fun of some other web gaming sites in handing out our first annual JA Best of the Year Awards. The last time I checked the Constitution, the right to free speech was still permitted. Yet, the editor of Games Domain Review (GDR) writes (I have, by the way, deleted the names of all persons mentioned in the body of the emails with the exception of myself and Craig. Other than that, these are verbatim):

All right, lets get this sorted out.

Craig and Randy, I was just as pissed as (name deleted) was at the beginning, that is, until I read your intro. Then it all came into focus--the fact that it was tongue in cheek. Craig responded to my query regarding this and I was satisfied with the answer. I also know Craig from the last "incident" we had and I don't think he really has anything against the TI. However, quite a few of us were hurt by this. I cannot ignore this, and I certainly understand (name deleted) feelings. I personally think that your "awards" were amusing, but it is true that if you only read Randy's column without having any reference (like the intro), it looks very bad.

The sensible thing to do would probably be to add a one line warning at the top of each of the award pages - something along the lines of "warning: tongue-in-cheek ahead". Unless you really mean them, of course, in which case we certainly have a problem :-)

Now, as I told Craig (who agreed), I do plan to use your "awards" in my next editorial in a tongue in cheeky way - I even have a cute little graphic to go with it. I thought you would like to know that. In fact, and I already told you that after the (name deleted) letter issue, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know in advance when you are going to post something like this (i.e. a direct attack on the GDR). As (name deleted) says, it really doesn't help anyone, especially not you guys ... credibility is not won by discrediting everyone else, in fact it is only lost more quickly that way.

To summarize, (name deleted), I don't think this is as tough as you make it to be - unless Randy really meant what he said (Randy?). I hope this is not the case, though ... however, since I did see my group's reactions to the column, and I wonder about your readers, I would appreciate it if you could add a general warning somewhere over there so that it will not be mistaken.

And we will consider this strike two ... *shifty smile*

I in turn was shocked to discover that I am not, according to GDR, allowed to mention their site in any manner at all without their permission. Craig asked me if I would play nice in my response, and I thought I did, as you shall now read:

Me thinkest thou dost protest too much

or in the words of a "famous" American

"Can't we all just get along?"

Seriously though (name deleted), kudos for being astute enough to recognize tongue-in-cheek humor when you see it. Unfortunately, many people nowadays are not astute or schooled enough to recognize such. In fact I would go so far as to say that many people on the internet and on many web sites are just becoming too thin-skinned.

The problem with this type of humor is that if I put a disclaimer in front of every single tongue-in-cheek award then it sort of loses the impact, does it not?

Why did I do what I did? Two reasons: first - it was a subtle but not so subtle way of pointing out the atrocities that govern the newsgroups anymore. The moment one writes a negative review someone is sure to attack. Everyone wants to have their opinion, but no one wants to hear anyone else's opinion.

Second, and most importantly - controversy. Back in the golden days of Hollywood, marketing departments would create bitter feuds between famous movie stars or between studios. The public ate it up. These feuds were fake, created by marketing departments. They drew a lot of attention.

GDR recently did some reviews of DSOTM and MOE that were soundly trashed on the newsgroups, (name deleted) I will wager that these 2 reviews received big time hits. Am I right. JA is in need of some attention right now. I want GDR and the TI to fight back. We know it is good natured, you know it is good natured. Not all of the readers will realize that. But if JA mentions that crappy MOE review over at GDR, how many readers do you think will go out of their way to visit your site to read that "crappy" review. If GDR slams JA as being conceited by mentioning a horrible Blackstone Chronicle review or a stupid awards column, how many of your readers will just have to read the rest of the awards on our site.

I for my part would like to see this continue as long as it is good-natured but still has an edge to it. It might give a sense of immediacy to both of the sites and may also cause some controversy. I do not think it will alienate any of the readers. What is this unwritten policy that web sites seem to have to always play nice. Let's break some rules. Let's have some fun. We are all writing about playing games you know.

Interested?

ps-(name deleted), I love you baby!!

In retrospect, I was attempting to be funny, but humor does not always come across well in print. I should have just stuck to my guns and my principles and not even responded. But out of respect for Craig and the JA site, I thought I had smoothed things over. Yet, here was the response:

All right. Now that I have your view, I believe I was wrong and that (name deleted) was right. In short, are you nuts?

Randy, there are ways to do things, and there are ways to do things. If you wanted my cooperation in such a ploy, you should have asked for it in advance. You cannot force me into a situation like that and expect me to cooperate. And frankly, I would not have cooperated.

I am sorry, but I find it difficult to accept the fact that you are willing to lie to your readers in an effort to gain more hits. And telling me that our DSOTM and KQ8 judgments (not review style) were made with a preconceived notion of gaining more hits is, frankly, insulting. I am all in favor of "friendly" exchanges that "sharpen the edge", but these have to be based on fact, or at least be able to stand close scrutiny, OR be agreed upon by both sides. I may certainly enjoy telling everyone that, say, PC Gamer's judgment of games is affected by the fact they are dependent on advertisements, as this is something that cannot be proven either way. On the other hand, telling the readers that we "threatened to pull up the site and go home" cannot be substantiated, and the same goes for the Microprose remark. I was more than willing to accept it as humor - you know that well enough - but wanted to make sure your readers were not misled. However, your ulterior motive, so to speak, makes me feel sick.

A few other points: I understood your humor, but from the angry comments I received from my staff, plus a few readers, I see that most people did not. On the other hand, you have just told (name deleted) that (name deleted) is neither astute nor schooled enough. You were also condescending to (name deleted) with your ending "I love you baby!". (name deleted) was hurt. I demand an apology to (name deleted), and make it well written. I more than agree about the newsgroups. But if you check the current threads regarding my KQ8 review, I stood my ground and managed to get my point across with enough effort. As a result, I have won a number of new readers, that were attracted to the noise but emerged with a feeling of confidence in me, and therefore, in the site I represent. This I know from private messages sent to me following the discussion. That is the only way to go - there are no "quick and dirty" ways to succeed. And I have the authority to say so, being the editor of the most read area of the largest online game zine in the world. However, even I, who admittedly found your awards funny from the start line, had no idea that you were going against the newsgroups. Is this not a sort of "retrospect excuse"?

In view of all this, I demand that you post up a public apology on the game award page and in the adventure newsgroup, explaining your motives as you list them below. Actually, I am willing to let you save face, so you may instead explain that this was all humor to begin with and mention none of the "darker" issues involved, but make this absolutely clear. If this is not done within 30 hours (until Friday, 5pm GMT+2), I will post your letter, in full, to both the Adventure newsgroup and on the TI. Reading your letter, I realize that this is exactly what you would like to see, but believe me, not all publicity is good publicity. Our readers are not mindless idiots, in fact, adventure gamers are maybe the most mature and educated of all. They will understand, and they will despise you for using these tactics.

Craig, I suggest that you work with Randy a bit about ethics. I do not hold grudges, but I certainly will remove the gloves if I must. I am giving you an option to get out of this mess easily and with a slightly increased readership, that will come to see what the fuss was all about once you post the explanation I suggest above.

I am expecting your cooperation.

Wow! Excuse me for disrespecting the gaming gods! So is it true? Am I nuts?! Have I become the "bad boy" of the adventure sites? I will not even comment on the last letter except to ask where is that unwritten rule written, the one that says "thou shalt not ridicule or comment upon another web site except in a positive fashion that has been approved by that site's editor?"

So now you make the decision. You cast the vote. If you, the readers of JA think I am 100 percent in the wrong, then I will retire from the site as of March 1st. Here is what I ask you to do. If you would like to see me gone then email me at srandra05@aol.com and put in the header "LEAVE!" If you agree with my stand, and would like to have free speech on the web, then send me an email at srandra05@aol.com and put in the header "STAY!" If you do not agree with either points of view, then send me an email at srandra05@aol.com and put in the header "WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT IS A JA?"

The choice is yours!