BluScreen_Jason

Yeah it did. After the SV kickstarter I just stopped working on it, so it still has that problem... but what else is worth tracking anyways? Like really... c'mon. :)

Furrito (How long has that been sitting out? Who knows! But we assure you that green and fuzzy meat is perfectly normal)
 
Supernova Salsa or Supernova Nachos (Experience the flaming hot explosion of flavour from both ends!)
 
Meteor Meal or Comet Combo  (Comes with Nacho Taco, one side, and a medium beverage of choice. Comes with 50% off coupon for your next E.R visit and a toy for the kids)
 
Big Bang Belcher (90% carbonation, 10% what the heck is this stuff?!)
 
Chalupa Cleanse (Guaranteed to "clear out" your system)
 
Uranus Burner
 
and wife contributed the following:
 
Timelord Taco - it's timeless. The Loaded Launcher - use your imagination. Cosmic Corn Chunks - Fried chicken and corn nuggets. Refried Rice - life just got interesting.     Sides Quazar Queso Dip: Intergallactic awesome made for dipping chips, vegetables, and why not even your fingers into! So finger-licking good! Space Salsa - made from leftover space food with some random red toothpaste - just don't smell while eating.     Dessert:    Chunky Churros - Don't eat too many or you'll take after the desert itself.

Furrito (How long has that been sitting out? Who knows! But we assure you that green and fuzzy meat is perfectly normal)
 
Supernova Salsa or Supernova Nachos (Experience the flaming hot explosion of flavour from both ends!)
 
Meteor Meal or Comet Combo  (Comes with Nacho Taco, one side, and a medium beverage of choice. Comes with 50% off coupon for your next E.R visit and a toy for the kids)
 
Big Bang Belcher (90% carbonation, 10% what the heck is this stuff?!)
 
Chalupa Cleanse (Guaranteed to "clear out" your system)
 
Uranus Burner
 
and wife contributed the following:
 
Timelord Taco - it's timeless. The Loaded Launcher - use your imagination. Cosmic Corn Chunks - Fried chicken and corn nuggets. Refried Rice - life just got interesting.     Sides Quazar Queso Dip: Intergallactic awesome made for dipping chips, vegetables, and why not even your fingers into! So finger-licking good! Space Salsa - made from leftover space food with some random red toothpaste - just don't smell while eating.     Dessert:    Chunky Churros - Don't eat too many or you'll take after the desert itself.

Furrito (How long has that been sitting out? Who knows! But we assure you that green and fuzzy meat is perfectly normal)
 
Supernova Salsa or Supernova Nachos (Experience the flaming hot explosion of flavour from both ends!)
 
Meteor Meal or Comet Combo  (Comes with Nacho Taco, one side, and a medium beverage of choice. Comes with 50% off coupon for your next E.R visit and a toy for the kids)
 
Big Bang Belcher (90% carbonation, 10% what the heck is this stuff?!)
 
Chalupa Cleanse (Guaranteed to "clear out" your system)
 
Uranus Burner
 
and wife contributed the following:
 
Timelord Taco - it's timeless. The Loaded Launcher - use your imagination. Cosmic Corn Chunks - Fried chicken and corn nuggets. Refried Rice - life just got interesting.     Sides Quazar Queso Dip: Intergallactic awesome made for dipping chips, vegetables, and why not even your fingers into! So finger-licking good! Space Salsa - made from leftover space food with some random red toothpaste - just don't smell while eating.     Dessert:    Chunky Churros - Don't eat too many or you'll take after the desert itself.

If only Chris would let me swear at them. For some reason, he thinks that's "unprofessional behavior."

I'd argue, that Roberta, Al and Scott were good designers, as they were working in an era where there was no real, clear methods for developing games. Had they been bad developers they would have taken the first model they made and churn out all of their games within that model. Instead of doing that  they at least seemingly learned from their mistakes and managed to make the gameplay better during their carereers.
 
Roberta learning from her mistakes lead into the high points of King's Quest series as well as Al learning from his mistakes lead into the high points of Larry series. I think most Sierra titles do show the gradual rising awarness on how games could be designed to be better, rather than sticking stubbornly on a couple design ideas meant for different kinds of games.  In one interview Al Lowe stated, that after they had shipped Larry 5 he realized, that the old method he used to design it was more fitting on a parser based game, hence it became his easiest title, so for the next title he had to think his methods all over in order to produce a game more suitable to a point and click interface. The things he learned from those games lead into IMO the best Larry title, Love For Sail.

I haaaaaaaate the retry button. Screw that button. Might as well not even have deaths. Call me old fashioned, but I believe if you got yourself killed then it's your own fault that you didn't save. There's no threat to a death with a retry. It's part of the atmosphere. It adds to the tension. Retries completely ruin the whole point of deaths.
 
That's my opinion which also happens to be fact and anyone who disagrees is wrong and needs to seriously reevaluate their life choices, values, and goals. You're also stupid.

If there are a substantial amount of new people left to buy this thing (and there may well be), you'll chase away a good deal of them by releasing the game incomplete. People are distrustful of games getting split up like this (and for good reason) so it's going to hurt sales. And again if those sales are needed to fund the rest of the game, then it's more broken promises. It really just doesn't feel like the right decision for this particular game.

In other cases where these companies are better funded, more trusted by consumers, etc it may be less problematic, but even then it's hard to guage the impact it has on sales.

I've had similar thoughts about the viability of an episodic SpaceVenture. Are there really enough people out there who haven't already pledged to the SpaceVenture Kickstarter -- backers are essentially receiving "free" copies of the game -- who would be interested enough in the project to purchase half a game, thereby funding the second half?

I imagine it would require the first half of the game to get amazing reviews and attract a huge audience. Of course, splitting the game is likely to impact its quality (since, presumably, it wasn't designed from the ground up with a clear Part 1/Part 2 delineation in mind), which could generate negative reviews, damage sales, and decrease the likelihood of Part 2 getting the funding it needs.
 
Of course, this is all uninformed speculation on my part about something we have no real reason to believe is actually going to happen. I've never gone wrong before placing my faith in Mark and Scott.

I have to say I agree with Frogacuda in that if SpaceVenture would be split, there would be a big propability that the second part of the story would be left unfinished, especially if the split would be done in order to get more developement funds. I just don't see half of SpaceVenture to have that kind of pull. As far I can tell i.e. Broken Sword 5's sales numbers picked up signifigantly after the second half of the game was published, as that was the point where people felt it was a safe purchase. Telltale can do well on episodic publishing, as people already know they are very likely to push out all the episodes because of their long history, but for new devs it might not be that simple. I suspect that Double Fine suffered from the episodic decision as well and that the sales after the completion of the game might be substentially bigger.

Call it ridiculous, but it's happened countless times in the past. I bought Sin Episodes, Insecticide, Bone, Penny Arcade (which sort of finished in a radically different form, but still...).
 
Broken Age split their release up at great expense to the company, and luckily they can afford to do that, but it shouldn't be regarded as a guarantee. When companies split a game up to bankroll the remainder they often end up disappointed. Not only that, but I'd argue it undermines a game's ability to sell well; Broken Age should really have done much better considering its high profile and positive reviews, but it didn't because people don't want to buy half a game. They'll never make up the sales later, either since by the time it's whole, people will no longer care in the same way.
 
 
If you can guarantee (i.e. have the money and scheduling accounted for) that the whole game can be made, then there's no reason to split it up in the first place. Just make the whole thing. The problem is that companies split these releases up because they need money to finish the game, which is NOT a guarantee, and then they fuck themselves over in the process.

The following is just my response to the thought that "adventure gaming is dead". Skip this if you feel it's too irrelevant.
 
Just wanted to chime in with a thought that's been bouncing around in my head for a while. It may not be 100% related, but I feel that it'll paint a picture of how I believe the "industry" is.
 
Basically, back in the day we had adventure games, we had RTSes, we had arcade styled challenging games, we had what I'll refer to as (for lack of a better term) "hardcore games". These games typically had much higher difficulty ceilings, or required more work from the player to truly enjoy. I would put adventure games into this category. Now what happened as hardware became less expensive, and the idea of playing video games became less of just a "nerd hobby", more people started getting into them, and as more people got into them, the companies started to notice that they gravitated towards a certain kind of game. This has led us to the present day, with our adventure games, and our plethora of more "mainstream" type games. 
 
Where is this all going? Well, let me try to illustrate it this way. Imagine that back in the day that adventure games typically sold to 100 of the 200 people who played games. That's a pretty good chunk of total players. Companies totally went for that. Today though, adventure games may sell to 100-120 of the 40,000 people who play games (I'm making up numbers to illustrate a point, don't quote me on exact figures). In comparison to everything that's out there, and the amount of effort that companies will spend to please their customers adventure gaming may appear to be dead, when in actuality it's right where it was before, it's just that the pool of players and games has increased. The market grew around it. Adventure gaming is currently a niche genre with growing popularity. Will it ever be "mainstream"? I have no clue, but I know that until it does achieve that "mainstream" status, it'll be considered dead by many.
 
END RANT
 
I do agree with suejak in that I feel that there's too much emphasis on adventure games being about story. An adventure doesn't need to have some crazily crafted masterpiece of a story. An adventure can simply be exploration into the unknown. This is what I feel Sierra games did well in the past, and what I would like to see from any new endeavors under the same name. In Sierra games I felt like I was on an adventure, that I was exploring worlds. I've never been able to get into the LucasArts adventure games for some reason and I wonder if it's because of 1. The greater emphasis on story, and 2. The lack of death. Exploration and the threat of death are the biggest things that jump out to me when I hear the term "adventure". I don't care what format the new King's Quest plays in, as long as I feel like I'm an actual adventure, and not just riding along with a highly interactive visual novel with no failure states. I want a game, not a movie that waits for me to figure out what the plot is.

The following is just my response to the thought that "adventure gaming is dead". Skip this if you feel it's too irrelevant.
 
Just wanted to chime in with a thought that's been bouncing around in my head for a while. It may not be 100% related, but I feel that it'll paint a picture of how I believe the "industry" is.
 
Basically, back in the day we had adventure games, we had RTSes, we had arcade styled challenging games, we had what I'll refer to as (for lack of a better term) "hardcore games". These games typically had much higher difficulty ceilings, or required more work from the player to truly enjoy. I would put adventure games into this category. Now what happened as hardware became less expensive, and the idea of playing video games became less of just a "nerd hobby", more people started getting into them, and as more people got into them, the companies started to notice that they gravitated towards a certain kind of game. This has led us to the present day, with our adventure games, and our plethora of more "mainstream" type games. 
 
Where is this all going? Well, let me try to illustrate it this way. Imagine that back in the day that adventure games typically sold to 100 of the 200 people who played games. That's a pretty good chunk of total players. Companies totally went for that. Today though, adventure games may sell to 100-120 of the 40,000 people who play games (I'm making up numbers to illustrate a point, don't quote me on exact figures). In comparison to everything that's out there, and the amount of effort that companies will spend to please their customers adventure gaming may appear to be dead, when in actuality it's right where it was before, it's just that the pool of players and games has increased. The market grew around it. Adventure gaming is currently a niche genre with growing popularity. Will it ever be "mainstream"? I have no clue, but I know that until it does achieve that "mainstream" status, it'll be considered dead by many.
 
END RANT
 
I do agree with suejak in that I feel that there's too much emphasis on adventure games being about story. An adventure doesn't need to have some crazily crafted masterpiece of a story. An adventure can simply be exploration into the unknown. This is what I feel Sierra games did well in the past, and what I would like to see from any new endeavors under the same name. In Sierra games I felt like I was on an adventure, that I was exploring worlds. I've never been able to get into the LucasArts adventure games for some reason and I wonder if it's because of 1. The greater emphasis on story, and 2. The lack of death. Exploration and the threat of death are the biggest things that jump out to me when I hear the term "adventure". I don't care what format the new King's Quest plays in, as long as I feel like I'm an actual adventure, and not just riding along with a highly interactive visual novel with no failure states. I want a game, not a movie that waits for me to figure out what the plot is.

This is a little off-topic, but am I the only one here who doesn't view adventure games as some kind of storytelling medium? I've seen that phrasing pop up a surprising amount in this little community, which is surprising considering that Space Quest has never been very strong on the "storytelling" front, per se. Most of the "story" you're told is illogical and arbitrary. The core of the experience comes instead from, you know, the game -- the exploration and the interaction with the world, events, characters, puzzles, etc. In other words, the participatory elements of the story.
 
It seems to me that if you want to be told a story, there are much better media for it.
 
Anyway, back on topic, I'm equally supportive of both self-conscious nostalgia and innovation (especially with old IP). As long as Sierra adventure series are kept within the adventure genre, I'll be excited for any new products.
 
Finally, Sierra's storied and very real innovation was on the technical front -- everyone agrees with that -- but this necessitated gameplay innovations as well. Every substantial change in technology (AGI, SCI parser, SCI icons, FMV, 3D, digital sound, speech, etc) necessarily carried with it changes in the way the game was constructed. My SQ5 experience was worlds different from my AGI SQ1 experience due to the technology used to construct the world I was exploring.

Meh. There's a difference between talking about SpaceVenture and bringing up political correctness and feminism all the time. Or going "Wow, this guy sucks!" in your first post. And I was mainly referring to those.
 
No one is saying "don't talk about SpaceVenture" as far as I can tell. But several of us are asking that those who are critical of the game consider listening to what the development team representatives here might have to say before going "Yes, but..."

Really enjoyed this week's podcast, as usual. I wanted to comment on the "hero" topic... Two things, the second more important than the first:
 
First, it seems like people have a preconceived idea of what Space Quest is and who Roger Wilco is, and try very hard to shoehorn the factual events of the games into those pre-conceived molds.
 
Both Troels and the guest commentator claim that Roger is selfishly motivated and a "path-of-least-resistance kind of guy." I'd say this is wrong. In SQ1, there's nothing anti-heroic about Roger going to blow up the Deltaur. "A desire to save his planet" and "a desire for glory" are both offered as anti-heroic by the commentator in the podcast... Really? That is typical Hollywood heroism. Having a personal interest in saving the world (e.g., saving your home) does not make you any less brave and heroic when you could have simply run away. 
 
"A desire for glory" is interesting as an "antiheroic" motivation, considering the most self-consciously hero-based Sierra game, Quest for Glory, is literally about a hero being motivated by a desire for glory, at least if the title is to be believed. Are the QfG games about an antihero then? Going to Shapier in QfG 2 or Tarna in QfG 3 are as "antiheroic" as going to the Deltaur: you're going out of your way to save people who aren't yourself, either just to save friends or for glory, right? It's definitely not self-preservation.
 
Now, Roger Wilco IS an anti-hero, of course. But that's just because he's got traditionally non-heroic qualities -- he's awkward, a bumbler, sorta stupid, etc. However, there's no reason to take it to the extreme that everything he does is unheroic. He's very obviously brave and resourceful as well as awkward and stupid.
 
 
Second, the real purpose for this post is that I wanted to voice something I've always felt: Scott Murphy doesn't really have any idea what he's doing. Now, Scott Murphy is probably a big part of the reason the SQ series is so fun, but that aside. People often point to Scott Murphy quotes to bring insight to a discussion, but I'm not sure why -- Scott has yet to show that he has any sort of clear conception of what Space Quest is, or even that he had a clear idea at the time he was making the games. I've heard him describe Roger as a "path-of-least-resistance kind of guy" before, but think about it: Roger chooses to go to the Deltaur instead of running away in his pod. That's the HARDEST path. In SQ3, he chooses to save the Two Guys when he himself is 100% perfectly safe (although I enjoy the meta interpretation about saving his inventors). SQ5 is pretty obviously heroic, but that's not a Scott Murphy game. In SQ6, Roger goes out of his way to save Stellar, and this time there's no Beatrice time-paradox problem threatening his own existence. So that wasn't the path of least resistance -- you're saving a damsel in distress just because you care.
 
The only games that effectively cast Roger as an accidental or lazy hero are SQ2 and SQ4 -- because Roger is directly, personally threatened. Both games are about "not dying," rather than about going out of your way to save something or someone without being directly threatened. Every plot development in SQ2 and 4 is about Roger being chased and backed into a corner like a rat. He literally flees from one place to another, and the only way to not die is to shut down Vohaul himself (this applies to both 2 and 4).
 
So my point here is less about whether Roger is a hero or an anti-hero, and more about how amazing it is that Scott Murphy doesn't get his own games.
 
I say Scott Murphy is the anti-hero! He's unwittingly given us an extremely fun series, despite himself!

Forgive me if I'm being opinionated or biased here, but... wouldn't it seem to be an undermining of the Two Guys' finally working together again, after so long - and most notably without having to answer to some corporate penny-squeezer(s) - for them to decide to dice SpaceVenture up into an episodic release?
 
I must be honest and say that the very idea sits very ill with me. I don't believe I'd like it at all.
 
Then again, it is the Two Guys... so I'm sure if they decide it of their own free will, then there must be a good reason for it - one which enhances the game experience rather than does the opposite.
 
EDIT: @JimmyTwoBucks
 
Much the same feelings here, but I'll add my two cents in saying that I believe it would also be a bad idea to release the game episodic even temporarily. What the Guys need to do is make the best damned impression that they can with it, from the get-go. Having episodic releases would only dwindle the punching force of a later full release.

It's not like they aren't way behind schedule as it is (saying this not out of criticism, but just for making the point that if people weren't still interested nor didn't still want a full release - well... you know...)
 
What they need to do is take advantage of the fact that those really looking forward to the game have accepted that it's going to be late, and just keep on chugging on underneath of that moral bubble, to deliver a full, epic gaming experience.

If something really does disappoint me about SV is the underuse of SWrewards site. It has at time had some pretty promising updates, but everytime it has looked like the use of the site woudl have turned meatier, it has kind of dwindeled out. I'd really love to see more concept art in there, more stuff about how designing an adventure game and the tools have changed over the years.

I just wanted to chime in unhelpfully and thank those guys'n'gals (you know who you are) who have stepped in to bring some much needed balance to the criticisms in the latest Kickstarter update.
 
It's not that criticism isn't valued. I know the Space Pope reads every single thing and the team are having regular meetings to discuss these as well as game matters. No one's opinions are being ignored. But there's also something to be said for keeping your heads down and staying true to your vision, which is exactly what the Guys are doing.
 
To unnecessarily reiterate, sliding/motion puzzles will NOT be the bread and butter for this game. The demo is NOT to be taken as indication of the final product. The demo was a gift to us backers to show what was going on AT THAT TIME. Anyone who has been involved in a creative process knows how unnerving it is to show a work-in-progress that may have little to no bearing on what the finished product might be -- you hope that people will look at the elements individually and realize it's not a cohesive package yet, and this was exactly the case with the backer alpha demo.
 
Delays in projects are annoying and it's understandable that people are frustrated. Sitting on the sidelines making easy snide comments about what should and shouldn't have been anticipated is just that: easy -- and not helping anything or anyone. Everyone's hindsight is always 20/20. Real life just has a way of never turning out exactly how you planned.

For me, it's a bit hard to take argumentation seriously because we've only seen a fraction of the game. Probably a fraction of the third that's been completed, too. Of course, they're not gonna show off all the good stuff right now. Pope has written countless of times that Mark, especially, doesn't want to spoil anything major. Judging from that, we can probably conclude that anything released prior to the game that is Mark Crowe-approved will be fairly innocuous.
 
I think you're acting like you instantly know how the entire game is going to be just by looking at backgrounds (without characters and, presumably, objects you can interact with) and critiquing an early build which didn't even contain the complete script for the section it showcased. It comes off as more than a bit arrogant. The guy who was pretty much forced to take over as lead programmer on the game (pcj) has stated, like, two or three times that you're only really stirring the pot here. That your fears are unfounded. I don't know what else you want. A piece of paper going "SpaceVenture will NOT be what you fear!" signed by the entire team? 
 
In that light, it becomes more than a little bit annoying to read "Yes, but here's a[n] [hyperbolic adjective] worry of mine that would [hyperbolic verb] the entire game for me!" And to me, it honestly doesn't seem like you're interested in a discussion that goes beyond "Well, yes, Fronzel, you could very well be right". I am trying to reply in a serious fashion, you know. Not just put down your arguments for the fuck of it. You could be right, but in my view, chances are you're not.
 
Ultimately, I suppose it's a "glass half-full, glass half-empty"-type thing. I just choose to be optimistic. Fair enough that some people have become pessimistic due to the delays and their reactions towards the material they've seen, but just remember that:
 
1) It's a crowdfunded game, so it's literally based on goodwill.
 
2) It was pitched as the Guys from Andromeda doing their thing in 2014. Not as Guys from Andromeda pulling a Tim Schafer, Guys from Andromeda looking over the shoulders of Telltale or the AAA companies, or Guys from Andromeda asking the community for advice when every design decision has to be made.
 
Even if it's been 2+ years, I personally pledged to give them a chance. Till they either give up or release the game, that's still my goal. And yes, dammit, I will be popping in here regularly to dish out a bit of vitriol to ensure that people do not forget the two points above.

True... though I think from the demo we don't have a broad enough sense of the game to really judge...
 
We're only really discussing three little puzzles (maybe even just two, as the door one would take 5 seconds with
fixed controls) and I think they took up way more of people's time than they normally would have, due to the controls and lack of instruction.
 
Also, regular adventure game inventory puzzles tend to play out over a far larger area (eg. item on screen 3 is used on screen 24, etc.),
and the demo is only a few screens, so it meant they couldn't showcase lots of inventory puzzles (especially as the demo is
part of the game and not a stand-alone demo), and so it seemed more heavily weighted towards swiping.
 
I think if the demo had one fewer swipe puzzle, then no one would have really made a big deal about it,
and it would be seen as just a nice little variation to add variety to the overall types of puzzles.
It's just people saw the crates AND the cart and are extrapolating that we're going to have to play a sliding puzzle
(like below) every five seconds and that they will make up the majority of the puzzles in the game:
 

 
Now, if that's true and it really is "Sliding Puzzle Venture" then sure, it'll probably get a lot of criticism for it,
but I don't think there is necessarily any reason to assume that it will be loaded with those puzzles.
And there is always the potential for hilarious uses of swipe functions too... 
 
 
I think that's pretty unfair...
When people are making broad criticisms it's helpful to break it down to specifics and to provide some evidence
for the claims, so we can see what we're dealing with and make a more informed judgement.
 
If someone says every scene is empty and that won't make a good game, then let's look at equivalent screenshots
from games we agree are good and see how many objects are in them.
 
If someone hates all the swipe puzzles, let's actually break down how many there were and why people didn't actually like them
and see if there is actually cause for concern.

I wanted to comment on this. As someone who's worked on some games (often from scratch) I can say that the criticisms of the demo show a lack of understanding of how bare bones and brutal an early build can be.
 
I'd say the demo is almost a prototype/pre-alpha stage. To judge it at all is foolish. This isn't your AAA "Beta" where the game is more of a demo/release candidate. So even if you feel as though the swipe controls don't work based on what you tried, or they add nothing, keep in mind that at that stage of the development it was probably closer to being a concept than a fully thought out feature. 
 
I think it's best to wait and see how the interface is going to actually be used in the full game before criticizing it. 

I wanted to comment on this. As someone who's worked on some games (often from scratch) I can say that the criticisms of the demo show a lack of understanding of how bare bones and brutal an early build can be.
 
I'd say the demo is almost a prototype/pre-alpha stage. To judge it at all is foolish. This isn't your AAA "Beta" where the game is more of a demo/release candidate. So even if you feel as though the swipe controls don't work based on what you tried, or they add nothing, keep in mind that at that stage of the development it was probably closer to being a concept than a fully thought out feature. 
 
I think it's best to wait and see how the interface is going to actually be used in the full game before criticizing it. 

Someone felt "raped" by the "patriarchial" swipe controls? "Raped"? Seriously? And does this person even know what patriarchial means? Considering the context in which that word appears, I'm going to go with "no" and combining that with the exquisitely bad taste of throwing rape into the mix, I'd say this is the single most useless piece of "feedback" I have ever laid my eyes on.
 
Take this with a sarcastic grain of salt, but this is how the ever-increasing hyperbole and manipulation in this thread (and in the KS comments, for that matter) make me feel:
 

 
Mea culpa.

*sigh* I guess I'll step out of lurker mode to finally give my answer. Since I post so infrequently I think I'll just rate all of the games.
 
The one I like the least is Space Quest 6. I can't stand it, and to this day I haven't been able to beat it. I've tried forcing myself to play through it but it's just not a Space Quest game. I won't get into the numerous reasons why, but know that I refuse to accept it as part of the SQ series. 
 
Next least would be SQ1 VGA. It also didn't quite feel like Space Quest.
 
After that I would probably say 5 for the sole reason that it also didn't really feel like a Space Quest game. A reminder that this is a list of my preferences, and not what I feel are the worst games when judged on their own merits. If I was doing that I'd say SQ5 is actually pretty good and was pretty well designed.
 
Now the next one on my list will likely destroy any credibility I may have as a Space Quest fanatic. Space Quest 3. I don't know. I feel as though there wasn't really all that much to explore, and what there was wasn't tremendously interesting. I think this is probably due to length as it's pretty much one of the shortest games in the series. 
 
Then Space Quest 2, Space Quest 4, and then in last place (of my least favorite) is Space Quest 1.