My main question is, if you hate it as much as these comments to Slashdot suggest, why are you even doing it? I mean, seriously, you've written a dozen tirades against your jerk users and absolutely nothing that reveals why you even participate in the first place.
You hate working for free, you hate having users who make suggestions, why bother with open source in the first place?
I also have an engineering bent so I'm a little more interested in getting things done than having oooo...pretty all over the place.
First of all, "oooo.... pretty all over the place" has absolutely nothing to do with usability.
Second of all, for a lot of people, "getting things done" is defined as "adjusting the white balance of photos," "splicing together different videos and adding captions," "chatting with my brother on the phone," "play the latest Unreal game," or other tasks that are literally impossible to do without GUIs.
You're happy with the CLI; that's fine. But you must realize that you represent a minuscule percentage of the population; the vast majority of the population simply can not complete their task in the CLI, even if they were willing to learn it. And two more points:
1) Your CLI is made ten times more useful if its in a GUI than if it's not. I find that most people like you, who make the claim "everything I need to do is in the CLI" (or the even more stupid claim, "everything everybody needs to do is in the CLI") are actually using windowed terminals, taking advantage of tons of GUI features while "just using" their CLI. (If you do actually run a text-mode terminal with no GUI, apologies.)
2) If you're happy with the CLI, then why are you even commenting in here? You're already happy with what you have, so let's leave this thread for the people who aren't happy with what they have. Ok?
Proof of pudding: Most Flash websites are by creatives, and most Flash websites are almost entirely un-usable. There's nothing technologically wrong with Flash that makes it impossible to make usable sites, the creative types simply don't know, or don't care, about the difference.
(give me programmable interfaces over GUIs any day, but I know others have the opposite preference)
The two aren't mutually-exclusive.
One of the greatest crimes of OS X was downplaying the use of AppleScript and AppleEvents in GUI applications. In Macintosh System 7, 8, or 9, virtually all applications supported AppleEvents, and therefore could be scripted for any purpose and using many different languages.
In addition, because of the design of AppleEvents (applications sending events to themselves as a result of UI interactions), macros could be "recorded" and re-used by even inexperienced users. Because applications kept a detailed dictionary of all AppleEvents they accepted, entire workflows could be created with nothing more than AppleScript Editor.
But, like everything else in Classic Mac OS, the NeXT guys who took over saw no value to it and trashed the whole technology. *sigh*
If the user can't find the feature in your UI, the feature Does. Not. Exist. UI is the number one most important concern when developing software intended for end-users.
I always chuckle when some OS X software advertises that it was "built with Cocoa" or Windows software advertises that it's "built with.Net." As if I, or any rational person, gave a flying shit. The API the software is built on is an implementation detail, not a feature-- so is the web server technology chosen (for all you LAMP developers.) Nobody cares about implementation details except the implementers.
The Daily WTF.com has a term for software like this: "Enterprise-y." It's a basic joke that most software that advertises itself as being "enterprise-quality" is actually pretty damned shitty. Think of anything from Oracle, Cisco (their VPN client gives me nightmares), IBM (Lotus Notes is aggressively user-hostile, and has been for decades), etc.
There's a "sweet spot." Tiny software is usually unusable because there are too few developers and resources. Medium-sized software is usually pretty good, because it has more development resources, it's in a more general market and trying to be more competitive, etc. Enterprise-y software companies know that all they need to do is feed the CIO enough bullshit terms for them to sign off on the contract; they know the end-user has no say on what software choice is made, so it's 100% marketing.
(That's also why so much enterprise-y is extremely general purpose. If you ask an IBM rep, there's literally no business function Lotus Notes isn't capable of-- web server? You got it. Point of sale? No problem.)
With all due respect, if you genuinely believe that OpenOffice has "EXCELLENT usability," then you're not the right person to be judging how usable a particular program is. OpenOffice doesn't even have (what Microsoft calls) Normal/Draft View.
I'm not expecting anybody to use it. It's a gift to the world in the hope that it'll be useful. And certainly, I do address criticisms, but don't *expect* me to do it or *demand* from me to do it. If after having processed 10 criticisms, people are still criticizing you, often for invalid reasons or for things that you've already addressed, things get tedious soon.
If you don't give a shit if people use it, why don't you put the code up with no contact email or bugtracker? Then you don't have to listen to users at all, which is great because you don't care about them.
If you do give a shit if people use it, why wouldn't you work on the issues preventing people from using it? Then you'll have more users, which is great because you care about that.
I don't get how you're expecting to coast in-between those two extremes. It seems to me you either care or you don't, and in either case, solving your problem would be trivial.
And that's exactly that's happening in the open source world. Everybody takes open source for granted. People are constantly criticizing and complaining, and almost nobody's giving the developers any praise. And somehow you think that it's strange that a lot of developers become jerks?
I'm guessing you were 80% of the way to being a jerk before you even wrote the first line of code, judging from your Slashdot posts.
The converse is also true. If the users are jerks, demanding from the developer to do things for free (which I've already done for a large part), why shouldn't the developer be a jerk? Nowhere in the license does it say that the developer is obligated to help. The license does say that users can help themselves.
Nobody should be a jerk, period. But you're not using good faith, here. If a new user comes to you with a suggestion "you should fix the capitalization on your menu titles", and you reply with "patches welcome," you might as well just be saying "fuck off." It's like when Verizon or Comcast says "your call is important to us," everybody knows it's bullshit.
And the new user has no way of knowing that 20 users before him had the same suggestion, just none of them happened to write the patch. Of course, since probably less than 0.1% of the population even has the competency to write a patch at all, you'd expect that result, right? Or are you just being purposefully dense and pretending that every single human does nothing but write code all day?
Why not pass your application over to somebody nice, and see how things work out?
Poor usability? Is there really anybody who thinks that Internet Explorer 7's user interface is better than Firefox 3's?
Windows has 200 applications with the UI quality of IE7/FF3. Linux has... maybe 10.
Yes, Firefox has an OK GUI. Not a great one; an OK one*. That's because Mozilla is drowning in Google cash, and actually pays designers to design their product. Firefox is the *exception*, not the *rule*, in Linux-world.
I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over again. For example, in the past 7 years, GNOME has invested an insane amount of effort in usability. Go read about all those professional GNOME usability studies that Sun has funded.
I agree that many open source projects are getting better; I don't think anybody really denies that. But are they: 1) As numerous as the good products on Windows/OS X? 2) Getting better at the same rate as Windows/OS X?
The original blog post also brings up a relevant point here, that as long as open source projects simply copy features Apple or Microsoft have already developed, they'll never be *better* than Windows or OS X. Firefox has a good interface, but it doesn't have a single thing that Macintosh System 6 applications didn't do in 1994.
But what's the community doing? Instead of offering helpful feedback, perhaps mockups or even professional usability studies, they're flaming the developers.
Maybe that's because they've already tried, and been flamed by the developers. I've been flamed for even super-simple no-brainer bugs, like "control-A should perform the Select All function in the field the text cursor is in."
What's the point of even trying to help in an environment where the developers won't even acknowledge that the Select All shortcut should work in their app? Or where developers in the year 2008 are entirely unfamiliar with how long menus (perfected since 1985) should work: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1865630&group_id=95717&atid=612382
-- * A great UI wouldn't have tabs-within-tabs in the Settings dialog, and the Page Info dialog would update itself in real-time as AJAX-y websites do their thing. Also, what's up with control-mousewheel changing the page's zoom level when the cursor is inside a text field, but not doing it when outside a text field? That quirk gets me every time.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I'm all riled up by this now.
Tell you what, prove it to me!
I have a Dell Inspiron 530 with Vista Ultimate right here in front of me. Bog-standard OS install, direct from Microsoft's retail Vista Ultimate DVD, 32-bit edition. I got iTunes on it, I got Zune on it, VLC, I got MP3s, I got MP4s, I got DVDs, I got CDs. Dual monitors.
I got a tablet/laptop with Vista Home Premium, HP tx1000 laptop installed with the Vista DVD that came with the Dell originally. I got Firewire cables, ethernet cables, wifi, DSL Internet. I got a stopwatch, if the mysterious DRM consists only of performance impacts. I got an Xbox 360 (but remember, we're debating DRM in Vista here.)
Prove it to me. Show me the DRM. Reply with specific, detailed reproduction instructions, as if you were filing a bug against Vista. Let's end this goddamned urban legend once and for all.
I'm going to be honest, I posted that without first reading your article. Then I stopped reading your article after the first paragraph:
Microsoft joined the Apache open source project as a platinum sponsor, promising to put $100,000 per year into a project that beats its own IIS (Internet Information Services) in the market.
Uh, what? That's delusional, there... oh what grounds does Apache beat IIS, exactly? "Being named after a Native American tribe?" At worst, the two servers are neck-and-neck.
In any case, if you're delusional enough to believe the above quotation, and paranoid enough to assign some far-fetched conspiracy theory to every single action Microsoft engages in, I can see there's no room for a rational discussion.
The ONE article some guy wrote about how the DRM "makes his computer vaguely slower" that Slashdot has been posting back and forth the the last year?
There is no DRM in Vista, other than the standard checks on downloaded patches. I've never been restricted by Vista from doing ANYTHING Slashdotters continually tell me Vista restricts me from doing. It's bullshit, it's an urban legend, and stop spreading it.
Microsoft got burned by Eolas, and they've supported software patent reform in the past. It's obvious that Microsoft feels the same way about software patents that many Slashdotters do, but the problem is being a huge obvious target, they can't afford to let their guard down. Don't hate the player, hate the game, you know.
But most likely, you're just making a demand you know is impossible (at least for Microsoft; Congress could make it happen), just so you can continue griping until the end of time. Because, in reality, I think the open source movement is more of an anti-Microsoft movement than a pro-anything movement.
Ah, but Citizen Kane is famous for being panned upon initial release, its true nature not being discovered until decades later when scholars began to study Wells' career in earnest. And Oblivion was recognized as a classic game the same year it was released.
Calling me a horse? Doesn't help your argument. Asshole.
The real problem is that Europe seems to have very little home-grown software. Microsoft and Apple are in the US, but where's the French OS? Why do people who speak French use an OS designed by a company that speaks only English in a country across the ocean?
The French example doesn't really surprise me, but it kind of does when you consider Japan. Where's Japan's home-grown OS that competes with Windows and OS X?
You've cherry-picked a classic movie that many people (who are interested in film) have already seen, which is already available on VHS, and which (frankly) doesn't really gain anything by being seen in a theater. (Neither does BloodRayne; but people going to see it wouldn't know that.)
You're comparing it to a crappy-ass movie, released years later, and one which people would expect to have a better experience of in the theater, i.e. better sound and special effects. Oblivion can't be compared to BloodRayne.
How much did a crappy movie make, proportionally, at the time Citizen Kane was released? Compare that with what a crappy movie makes today, and I think you'll find the same proportions apply exactly. Do a fair comparison and let's see your argument again.
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot for a second that William Baric speaks for every gamer ever. I guess now that William Baric has replied and proved, beyond all doubt for all people, that the best-seller RPG Oblivion was, in fact, no fun... there's no point to continuing this conversation. All you gamers who played Oblivion and thought it was fun? You're wrong; William Baric says otherwise.
I still say you're being mostly influenced by nostalgia. Much like the legions of Slashdotters who decry the lack of adventure games, while there's 30 of them being released every year that they don't go out and buy.
Well, if those old-school games with puzzles were really so fun, they'd sell better. And if they sold better, there'd be more of them. Right?
So I'm guessing that I'm right, just from looking at the games market. There are tons of adventure games (based around puzzles) made every year. In another post I listed something like 10 that have been released just this year. But they're not the blockbusters they once were, because people are rushing out to buy them.
I didn't say it sucked at all, I'm just saying that there are tons of products that did the same thing before 10.5 came out. Apple gets credit where credit is not necessarily due.
I get my constant invisible backups from Mozy.com. It's not like Apple invented the concept, but they did make it require an external drive instead of using the Internet.
The problem is, I've seen A Knight's Tale (at least the first half, before I walked out on it-- I think around the time Gregory Chaucer was walking around naked), and thus I can't ever respect Heath Ledger no matter how much he may have turned his career around. That movie sucked with a capital ucked.
I was going to say, the SCUMM VM games like Monkey Island, Full Throttle were favorite adventure games. Even relics like Space Quest and Kings Quest aren't even seen anymore. Portal is there from last year, but nothing with that calliber of pure unadulterated puzzling exists anymore.
Here's a partial list of Adventure Games released this year from Gamestop.com:
Dracula 3 (PC) Naturo: The Broken Bond (X360) Sonic and the Black Knight (WII) Sinking Island (PC) Dracula: Origin (PC) Everlight (PC) The Experiment (PC) Art of Murder: FBI Confidential (PC) Overclocked: A History of Violence (PC)
In short: you're wrong, it does.
The reason you don't see adventure games is:
1) They're not as popular as they used to be; i.e. none of those games listed (except probably the Sonic one and perhaps the Naruto one) are going to get a lot of industry press or advertising budget.
2) You're not actually looking for them. This is what I find from most "oh adventure games are dead"-type people, they don't even slightly bother to see adventure games out and are surprised to death at how many there are.
If you want to see more adventure games, try this shocking course of action: ORDER SOME FROM AMAZON AND PLAY THEM. Sorry for the caps, I'm just sick to death of it.
Slashdot Mirror
So why do it?
If, as you say, the number of jerks is "overwhelming," then why subject yourself to it?
My main question is, if you hate it as much as these comments to Slashdot suggest, why are you even doing it? I mean, seriously, you've written a dozen tirades against your jerk users and absolutely nothing that reveals why you even participate in the first place.
You hate working for free, you hate having users who make suggestions, why bother with open source in the first place?
I also have an engineering bent so I'm a little more interested in getting things done than having oooo...pretty all over the place.
First of all, "oooo.... pretty all over the place" has absolutely nothing to do with usability.
Second of all, for a lot of people, "getting things done" is defined as "adjusting the white balance of photos," "splicing together different videos and adding captions," "chatting with my brother on the phone," "play the latest Unreal game," or other tasks that are literally impossible to do without GUIs.
You're happy with the CLI; that's fine. But you must realize that you represent a minuscule percentage of the population; the vast majority of the population simply can not complete their task in the CLI, even if they were willing to learn it. And two more points:
1) Your CLI is made ten times more useful if its in a GUI than if it's not. I find that most people like you, who make the claim "everything I need to do is in the CLI" (or the even more stupid claim, "everything everybody needs to do is in the CLI") are actually using windowed terminals, taking advantage of tons of GUI features while "just using" their CLI. (If you do actually run a text-mode terminal with no GUI, apologies.)
2) If you're happy with the CLI, then why are you even commenting in here? You're already happy with what you have, so let's leave this thread for the people who aren't happy with what they have. Ok?
Proof of pudding: Most Flash websites are by creatives, and most Flash websites are almost entirely un-usable. There's nothing technologically wrong with Flash that makes it impossible to make usable sites, the creative types simply don't know, or don't care, about the difference.
(give me programmable interfaces over GUIs any day, but I know others have the opposite preference)
The two aren't mutually-exclusive.
One of the greatest crimes of OS X was downplaying the use of AppleScript and AppleEvents in GUI applications. In Macintosh System 7, 8, or 9, virtually all applications supported AppleEvents, and therefore could be scripted for any purpose and using many different languages.
In addition, because of the design of AppleEvents (applications sending events to themselves as a result of UI interactions), macros could be "recorded" and re-used by even inexperienced users. Because applications kept a detailed dictionary of all AppleEvents they accepted, entire workflows could be created with nothing more than AppleScript Editor.
But, like everything else in Classic Mac OS, the NeXT guys who took over saw no value to it and trashed the whole technology. *sigh*
Ding ding ding. Mod this guy up.
If the user can't find the feature in your UI, the feature Does. Not. Exist. UI is the number one most important concern when developing software intended for end-users.
I always chuckle when some OS X software advertises that it was "built with Cocoa" or Windows software advertises that it's "built with .Net." As if I, or any rational person, gave a flying shit. The API the software is built on is an implementation detail, not a feature-- so is the web server technology chosen (for all you LAMP developers.) Nobody cares about implementation details except the implementers.
The Daily WTF.com has a term for software like this: "Enterprise-y." It's a basic joke that most software that advertises itself as being "enterprise-quality" is actually pretty damned shitty. Think of anything from Oracle, Cisco (their VPN client gives me nightmares), IBM (Lotus Notes is aggressively user-hostile, and has been for decades), etc.
There's a "sweet spot." Tiny software is usually unusable because there are too few developers and resources. Medium-sized software is usually pretty good, because it has more development resources, it's in a more general market and trying to be more competitive, etc. Enterprise-y software companies know that all they need to do is feed the CIO enough bullshit terms for them to sign off on the contract; they know the end-user has no say on what software choice is made, so it's 100% marketing.
(That's also why so much enterprise-y is extremely general purpose. If you ask an IBM rep, there's literally no business function Lotus Notes isn't capable of-- web server? You got it. Point of sale? No problem.)
With all due respect, if you genuinely believe that OpenOffice has "EXCELLENT usability," then you're not the right person to be judging how usable a particular program is. OpenOffice doesn't even have (what Microsoft calls) Normal/Draft View.
I'm not expecting anybody to use it. It's a gift to the world in the hope that it'll be useful. And certainly, I do address criticisms, but don't *expect* me to do it or *demand* from me to do it. If after having processed 10 criticisms, people are still criticizing you, often for invalid reasons or for things that you've already addressed, things get tedious soon.
If you don't give a shit if people use it, why don't you put the code up with no contact email or bugtracker? Then you don't have to listen to users at all, which is great because you don't care about them.
If you do give a shit if people use it, why wouldn't you work on the issues preventing people from using it? Then you'll have more users, which is great because you care about that.
I don't get how you're expecting to coast in-between those two extremes. It seems to me you either care or you don't, and in either case, solving your problem would be trivial.
And that's exactly that's happening in the open source world. Everybody takes open source for granted. People are constantly criticizing and complaining, and almost nobody's giving the developers any praise. And somehow you think that it's strange that a lot of developers become jerks?
I'm guessing you were 80% of the way to being a jerk before you even wrote the first line of code, judging from your Slashdot posts.
The converse is also true. If the users are jerks, demanding from the developer to do things for free (which I've already done for a large part), why shouldn't the developer be a jerk? Nowhere in the license does it say that the developer is obligated to help. The license does say that users can help themselves.
Nobody should be a jerk, period. But you're not using good faith, here. If a new user comes to you with a suggestion "you should fix the capitalization on your menu titles", and you reply with "patches welcome," you might as well just be saying "fuck off." It's like when Verizon or Comcast says "your call is important to us," everybody knows it's bullshit.
And the new user has no way of knowing that 20 users before him had the same suggestion, just none of them happened to write the patch. Of course, since probably less than 0.1% of the population even has the competency to write a patch at all, you'd expect that result, right? Or are you just being purposefully dense and pretending that every single human does nothing but write code all day?
Why not pass your application over to somebody nice, and see how things work out?
Poor usability? Is there really anybody who thinks that Internet Explorer 7's user interface is better than Firefox 3's?
Windows has 200 applications with the UI quality of IE7/FF3. Linux has... maybe 10.
Yes, Firefox has an OK GUI. Not a great one; an OK one*. That's because Mozilla is drowning in Google cash, and actually pays designers to design their product. Firefox is the *exception*, not the *rule*, in Linux-world.
I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over again. For example, in the past 7 years, GNOME has invested an insane amount of effort in usability. Go read about all those professional GNOME usability studies that Sun has funded.
I agree that many open source projects are getting better; I don't think anybody really denies that. But are they:
1) As numerous as the good products on Windows/OS X?
2) Getting better at the same rate as Windows/OS X?
The original blog post also brings up a relevant point here, that as long as open source projects simply copy features Apple or Microsoft have already developed, they'll never be *better* than Windows or OS X. Firefox has a good interface, but it doesn't have a single thing that Macintosh System 6 applications didn't do in 1994.
But what's the community doing? Instead of offering helpful feedback, perhaps mockups or even professional usability studies, they're flaming the developers.
Maybe that's because they've already tried, and been flamed by the developers. I've been flamed for even super-simple no-brainer bugs, like "control-A should perform the Select All function in the field the text cursor is in."
What's the point of even trying to help in an environment where the developers won't even acknowledge that the Select All shortcut should work in their app? Or where developers in the year 2008 are entirely unfamiliar with how long menus (perfected since 1985) should work: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1865630&group_id=95717&atid=612382
--
* A great UI wouldn't have tabs-within-tabs in the Settings dialog, and the Page Info dialog would update itself in real-time as AJAX-y websites do their thing. Also, what's up with control-mousewheel changing the page's zoom level when the cursor is inside a text field, but not doing it when outside a text field? That quirk gets me every time.
If you're referring to this chart:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/07/07/july_2008_web_server_survey.html
It also says that Google owns 6% of all servers on the Internet-- 10,468,720 domains. Somehow I doubt that's reliable data.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I'm all riled up by this now.
Tell you what, prove it to me!
I have a Dell Inspiron 530 with Vista Ultimate right here in front of me. Bog-standard OS install, direct from Microsoft's retail Vista Ultimate DVD, 32-bit edition. I got iTunes on it, I got Zune on it, VLC, I got MP3s, I got MP4s, I got DVDs, I got CDs. Dual monitors.
I got a tablet/laptop with Vista Home Premium, HP tx1000 laptop installed with the Vista DVD that came with the Dell originally. I got Firewire cables, ethernet cables, wifi, DSL Internet. I got a stopwatch, if the mysterious DRM consists only of performance impacts. I got an Xbox 360 (but remember, we're debating DRM in Vista here.)
Prove it to me. Show me the DRM. Reply with specific, detailed reproduction instructions, as if you were filing a bug against Vista. Let's end this goddamned urban legend once and for all.
I'm going to be honest, I posted that without first reading your article. Then I stopped reading your article after the first paragraph:
Microsoft joined the Apache open source project as a platinum sponsor, promising to put $100,000 per year into a project that beats its own IIS (Internet Information Services) in the market.
Uh, what? That's delusional, there... oh what grounds does Apache beat IIS, exactly? "Being named after a Native American tribe?" At worst, the two servers are neck-and-neck.
In any case, if you're delusional enough to believe the above quotation, and paranoid enough to assign some far-fetched conspiracy theory to every single action Microsoft engages in, I can see there's no room for a rational discussion.
What DRM?
The ONE article some guy wrote about how the DRM "makes his computer vaguely slower" that Slashdot has been posting back and forth the the last year?
There is no DRM in Vista, other than the standard checks on downloaded patches. I've never been restricted by Vista from doing ANYTHING Slashdotters continually tell me Vista restricts me from doing. It's bullshit, it's an urban legend, and stop spreading it.
Don't they need the gun for self-defense?
Microsoft got burned by Eolas, and they've supported software patent reform in the past. It's obvious that Microsoft feels the same way about software patents that many Slashdotters do, but the problem is being a huge obvious target, they can't afford to let their guard down. Don't hate the player, hate the game, you know.
But most likely, you're just making a demand you know is impossible (at least for Microsoft; Congress could make it happen), just so you can continue griping until the end of time. Because, in reality, I think the open source movement is more of an anti-Microsoft movement than a pro-anything movement.
Ah, but Citizen Kane is famous for being panned upon initial release, its true nature not being discovered until decades later when scholars began to study Wells' career in earnest. And Oblivion was recognized as a classic game the same year it was released.
Calling me a horse? Doesn't help your argument. Asshole.
Not that I disagree with your point, but in what way is Rock Band not software?
The real problem is that Europe seems to have very little home-grown software. Microsoft and Apple are in the US, but where's the French OS? Why do people who speak French use an OS designed by a company that speaks only English in a country across the ocean?
The French example doesn't really surprise me, but it kind of does when you consider Japan. Where's Japan's home-grown OS that competes with Windows and OS X?
You've cherry-picked a classic movie that many people (who are interested in film) have already seen, which is already available on VHS, and which (frankly) doesn't really gain anything by being seen in a theater. (Neither does BloodRayne; but people going to see it wouldn't know that.)
You're comparing it to a crappy-ass movie, released years later, and one which people would expect to have a better experience of in the theater, i.e. better sound and special effects. Oblivion can't be compared to BloodRayne.
How much did a crappy movie make, proportionally, at the time Citizen Kane was released? Compare that with what a crappy movie makes today, and I think you'll find the same proportions apply exactly. Do a fair comparison and let's see your argument again.
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot for a second that William Baric speaks for every gamer ever. I guess now that William Baric has replied and proved, beyond all doubt for all people, that the best-seller RPG Oblivion was, in fact, no fun... there's no point to continuing this conversation. All you gamers who played Oblivion and thought it was fun? You're wrong; William Baric says otherwise.
I still say you're being mostly influenced by nostalgia. Much like the legions of Slashdotters who decry the lack of adventure games, while there's 30 of them being released every year that they don't go out and buy.
Well, if those old-school games with puzzles were really so fun, they'd sell better. And if they sold better, there'd be more of them. Right?
So I'm guessing that I'm right, just from looking at the games market. There are tons of adventure games (based around puzzles) made every year. In another post I listed something like 10 that have been released just this year. But they're not the blockbusters they once were, because people are rushing out to buy them.
I didn't say it sucked at all, I'm just saying that there are tons of products that did the same thing before 10.5 came out. Apple gets credit where credit is not necessarily due.
I get my constant invisible backups from Mozy.com. It's not like Apple invented the concept, but they did make it require an external drive instead of using the Internet.
The problem is, I've seen A Knight's Tale (at least the first half, before I walked out on it-- I think around the time Gregory Chaucer was walking around naked), and thus I can't ever respect Heath Ledger no matter how much he may have turned his career around. That movie sucked with a capital ucked.
I was going to say, the SCUMM VM games like Monkey Island, Full Throttle were favorite adventure games. Even relics like Space Quest and Kings Quest aren't even seen anymore. Portal is there from last year, but nothing with that calliber of pure unadulterated puzzling exists anymore.
Here's a partial list of Adventure Games released this year from Gamestop.com:
Dracula 3 (PC)
Naturo: The Broken Bond (X360)
Sonic and the Black Knight (WII)
Sinking Island (PC)
Dracula: Origin (PC)
Everlight (PC)
The Experiment (PC)
Art of Murder: FBI Confidential (PC)
Overclocked: A History of Violence (PC)
In short: you're wrong, it does.
The reason you don't see adventure games is:
1) They're not as popular as they used to be; i.e. none of those games listed (except probably the Sonic one and perhaps the Naruto one) are going to get a lot of industry press or advertising budget.
2) You're not actually looking for them. This is what I find from most "oh adventure games are dead"-type people, they don't even slightly bother to see adventure games out and are surprised to death at how many there are.
If you want to see more adventure games, try this shocking course of action: ORDER SOME FROM AMAZON AND PLAY THEM. Sorry for the caps, I'm just sick to death of it.