...that the most popular threads BY FAR are the ones dedicated to old games, dead companies, remakes. There are new threads about upcoming and newly released games with zero or few replies which is a real shame.

There are SO MANY great adventure games being released right now and AGH is doing a fantastic job promoting them with near daily reviews and previews. I'd love to come here and see those games being played and discussed and not just see everyone reflecting on the glory days. 

This thread is intended less as a criticism than a reflection on whether today's AGs really are so much worse than the "old days", as well as a (less than subtle) encouragement to the AG community get out there and explore those new titles so we can discuss them. I love the reminiscences and but part of being a community is encouraging and giving honest opinions on new and emerging developers and content. Otherwise there won't be a community around for much longer.

What do you think? Are the old days so much better than what we're being served today? Or could the AG community (including myself) step up our game a little?

I somewhat agree, which is why I created the following freeware/pay-what-you-want thread (due for an update) and I regularly post in upcoming games. Like you, I'd love to see more talk about new games and (potential) developments in the genre. I'm not wealthy enough to buy each new game as it comes out, nor do I receive free keys, so that's a limitation on my ability to get that off the ground.

I'm glad you reflect on the future of our community and how to keep it going. I definitely feel what you're saying, but I'm going to complicate the issue: remakes and reminscing about older titles can be useful for getting people (back) into the scene. Playthroughs of older games and the adventure game scene guessing thread keeps some momentum going. I don't think it's a matter of redirecting that energy to new games - I think we need to get more people involved. We could use more people driving engagement, perhaps from AGH itself, but it's going to be a challenge in this day and age regardless. This genre doesn't have a large player base and the dedicated online forum is somehat outdated as a medium.

I think it'd be good to shine a light on developers that aren't that well established. To reach out to scenes that are still fairly active, like AGS and the Interactive Fiction database. It seems to me the response to "what happened to adventure games?" and "are adventure games dead?" has led to an overcompensation, a desire to show our games can measure up to AA or even AAA releases in other genres, especially in terms of audio-visual design. Like we need prove adventure games are still relevant and commercially viable in the video game market at large. It's not all bad; we curently have a viable, high quality niche market that could be around for a couple more years. However, it would serve us well to reflect on where the energy for the genre's resurgence came from, about a decade ago.

All of that said; if you're up for it, create a thread or two! Talk about new games, the future of the genre, what developments you'd like to see!

I play new games but almost exclusively on iPad. What I would like to see is fewer developers trying to recapture the nostalgia of the so-called golden age, because those games almost never live up to the warm fuzzy memories, memories that often elide the aggravations that were present in even the greatest of the classics. I love games that offer new and different experiences, and those are woefully thin on the ground. I do like the more “traditional” games when they don’t have the types of aggravations that permeate the genre, like lengthy conversation trees or trying every inventory item everywhere because nothing makes sense or tromping around endlessly over old ground trying to find something else to do or tired puzzles like sliders or reassembling ripped-up papers or, yes, timed puzzles. I might just be blowing smoke here, but I’ll say games that break the mold are often not well-received by the AG fan base.

Mostly what I end up playing is room escapes, which are basically bite-sized AGs that don’t really merit much discussion. I am also not shy about quitting games when I run up against something I don’t want to do, and it doesn’t feel right to get all judgy about games I haven’t finished. In public, anyway; in the privacy of my own head I am judgy AF 100% of the time. About everything. And everyone :|

... that the most popular threads BY FAR are the ones dedicated to old games, dead companies, remakes. There are new threads about upcoming and newly released games with zero or few replies which is a real shame.

One of the main reasons for this might be that AG community is fragmented now like never before.

A lot of social media channels, websites and forums are dedicated to AG subgenres like horror, investigation, escape room, etc.

People stay in these communities, rarely venturing to play a different kind of game, thus most of the new games discussions are held within these communities.

This a great point

I think it's a general sign of the times, and it can be extrapolated to other media as well.

I remember coming in to work on Monday morning and everybody would immediately go, "Did you see the last episode of ... last night?!"

Nobody does that anymore. Person one still watches regular TV channels live. Person two doesn't even have regular TV anymore and instead watches the channels' app streams. Person three only has Netflix. Person four has Disney+. Person five watches Prime...

There's just too much to choose from.

In the old days, everybody played the same games, and you easily found like-minded people who wanted to discuss them.

Today, when you start talking about a game, almost nobody heard of it, and the conversation drops dead. Sure, they might say, "Yeah, sounds good, I'll check it out some time..." But do they actually do that? No, because they already have so many games in their backlog, and have their mind set on other upcoming games instead.

On the Adventure Games Podcast, we usually take turns in reviewing a game we've played, which often results in a very one-sided monologue. But I like the podcast episodes best where more people have played the same game, leading to a much more dynamic and energetic discussion. However, that rarely happens.

Everybody has different tastes, different interests, different priorities, and with such a huge catalogue to choose from, it's very difficult for any one game to garner momentum, unless it's from a well-established developer, or it had such great marketing that it has wetted everyone's appetite with amazing screenshots and videos for a year. But how many indie devs have the time/energy/talent for such a campaign?

Everybody has different tastes, different interests, different priorities, and with such a huge catalogue to choose from, it's very difficult for any one game to garner momentum, unless it's from a well-established developer, or it had such great marketing that it has wetted everyone's appetite with amazing screenshots and videos for a year. But how many indie devs have the time/energy/talent for such a campaign?

This is why I disagree with the sentiment of "We're living in the golden age of ... There's something for everyone".

The problem is, yes, there might be a game for everyone, but there's no mass appeal game anymore that creates a shared social experience. And for every quality game, there are 100 slop games. The bottom line is, most people don't want to have to search for a needle in a haystack.

Years ago, when you bought a game from Infocom, Legend, LucasArts, Revolution, Sierra, Westwood, etc., you knew it was going to be high quality. Even their worst games are better than half the games that come out today. And once again, I'm not saying there aren't great games today, but they take time and effort to find.

And this goes beyond adventure games. Like it or not, people are drawn to the community consensus.

Everybody has different tastes, different interests, different priorities, and with such a huge catalogue to choose from, it's very difficult for any one game to garner momentum, unless it's from a well-established developer, or it had such great marketing that it has wetted everyone's appetite with amazing screenshots and videos for a year. But how many indie devs have the time/energy/talent for such a campaign?

This is why I disagree with the sentiment of "We're living in the golden age of ...  There's something for everyone".

Yes, we are living in the golden age of dissociation, too busy playing adventure games like Mixtape that show us how good it is to associate with each other and hang out.

Everybody has different tastes, different interests, different priorities, and with such a huge catalogue to choose from, it's very difficult for any one game to garner momentum, unless it's from a well-established developer, or it had such great marketing that it has wetted everyone's appetite with amazing screenshots and videos for a year. But how many indie devs have the time/energy/talent for such a campaign?

This is why I disagree with the sentiment of "We're living in the golden age of ...  There's something for everyone".

The problem is, yes, there might be a game for everyone, but there's no mass appeal game anymore that creates a shared social experience.  And for every quality game, there are 100 slop games.  The bottom line is, most people don't want to have to search for a needle in a haystack.

Years ago, when you bought a game from Infocom, Legend, LucasArts, Revolution, Sierra, Westwood, etc., you knew it was going to be high quality.  Even their worst games are better than half the games that come out today.  And once again, I'm not saying there aren't great games today, but they take time and effort to find.

And this goes beyond adventure games.  Like it or not, people are drawn to the community consensus.

I can absolutely relate to this. I have played point and click adventure games a few hours every night for more than 40 years, it is my main hobby. I have thousands of games that I've picked up here and there, 706 games in my Steam library, and a wishlist of 306 games. Like you said, it used to be that so-and-so company made games and they were guaranteed good, which made things easy for the player. Now there are a lot of crappy games, the majority of them, in fact, and a lot of "AI" slop. Searching for a needle in a haystack is a very accurate analogy.

Lately, I found that I spend more time researching games than actually playing them, which is mind boggling. This has the effect that sadly, my wishlist becomes longer and longer, and I don't buy games as soon as they come out like I used to for decades. There is too much research to do, and I'd rather play than read about the games, so this has two effects. First, I'm replaying old games that I already have because I know for certain I will have a good time. Second, I wait to buy games at high discounts during Steam events, with the idea that if they are crappy, by the time I decide to play them, at least I tell myself I did not waste a lot of money on them. This unfortunately robs people who make good games of getting the fair value for their product. I would happily pay full price for amazing point and click adventure games, I just don't know which ones they are anymore. It sure is a conundrum. 

The 2-hour play refund that Steam offers is nice, but has  also created other problems. Publishers are aware of those, so I find many games start strong, and dwindle after the 2-hour mark. Not a coincidence. Or they give super long intros to games, so when you actually start to play, it's already too late for a refund. Polished endings are particularly rare nowadays, almost all games feel rushed at the end. It is a reflection of our times, albeit a not a very flattering one.