PurpleTentacle

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I believe it is an important consideration.
 
What is something many of us do as soon as we start certain adventure games? Turn up the character's walking speeds, right? Who wants to sit and wait while a character lumbers from one side of the screen to the next, over and over?
 
I was recently playing Moebius (disappointing product from a developer who apparently struggled technically to make the game work, but no need to get into that here), and I found it annoying how slowly the main character walks around and performs many actions. Even in tense scenes, where the character's safety is at risk, he still strolls around as if he hasn't a care in the world.
 
My suggestion for SpaceVenture: definitely give us the option to make the playable character run/jog whenever we want, rather than simply walk.

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I believe it is an important consideration.
 
What is something many of us do as soon as we start certain adventure games? Turn up the character's walking speeds, right? Who wants to sit and wait while a character lumbers from one side of the screen to the next, over and over?
 
I was recently playing Moebius (disappointing product from a developer who apparently struggled technically to make the game work, but no need to get into that here), and I found it annoying how slowly the main character walks around and performs many actions. Even in tense scenes, where the character's safety is at risk, he still strolls around as if he hasn't a care in the world.
 
My suggestion for SpaceVenture: definitely give us the option to make the playable character run/jog whenever we want, rather than simply walk.

It's intimidation when highly-damaging smears like "sexist" and "racist" are used to punish those who don't comply with politically correct demands. These are unique, poisonous slurs that stick, whether they are being used fairly or not. Someone posted a link to a EuroGamer review that employs this tactic.
 
To avoid the punishment, content developers will self-censor. In this way, politically correct demands (which favor particular groups over others), and their accompanying threat of harm, chill free expression. People are being bullied into avoiding particular speech because certain other people don't like what is being expressed.
 
Some fancy themselves politically correct warriors for a better world, condemning perceived objectionable racist or sexist material wherever they see it - and some people can find it anywhere! However, the standards are applied differently, depending on the group in question and its status in the latest p.c. hierarchy.
 
One of the reasons political correctness is so dangerous is that it can lead people, not just game developers, to fear speaking openly and honestly. Luckily, enough people are recognizing the insidious and absurd nature of the neverending politically correct grievance mongering and are calling it out for what it is.
 
Game developers, make the games you want to make, the way you want to make them, and don't worry about running afoul of the language police. If they throw a hissy fit, wear it as a badge of honor... and hope enough fair-minded people come to your defense if that happens.

Yikes. Just saw this. Sorry, I don't buy the whole "change your game to how we say it should be or else you're oppressing women and anyone who isn't white, you evil oppressor" nonsense.  
The politically correct demands are more a desire to control than anything else. What's offensive to me is when some (not talking about anyone here) cloak their demands in a "righteous crusader for the wronged and downtrodden" facade as they bully and smear non-compliant developers as "sexist" or "racist." Someone in another thread posted a link to a EuroGamer review that reminds me of this.
 
Anyway, the suggestion that games requiring you to rescue a female character harm women is the height of ridiculousness. But some politically correct critics, who could probably find objectionable, patriarchal, racist, sexist and whatever-ist content in any handful of pixels, if you gave them long enough, have to convince us that certain games lead to all kinds of terrible outcomes (e.g., "harmful to women"), since who would ever want to be seen as being anti-women. And then, when pressed to explain how such games are harmful, we hear critics claim that the real problem with non-compliant games is just that they're uninteresting or something. But, if you don't agree, you'll eventually be accused of being a racially insensitive person who is interested in maintaining a male-dominated power structure or something. That's why I don't buy that such objections are nothing more than wanting "more interesting" stories.
 
Developers who are faced with such demands could tell people like the EuroGamer reviewer where to stick their complaints. And then they could mock them further by creating villain game characters modeled after the PC speech police. Refusing to be cowed by the intimidation would win the developer many new fans.

Why must everything be politically correct? If we want blandness, then we could apply a politically correct standard and "make a few simple changes" over and over to works until there is finally nothing "offensive" to a particular narrow way of thinking. And it would still never be enough.  
Please, all you developers out there, resist the urge to comply with the free speech-chilling, politically correct rules. I find it refreshing when games and other works show irreverence to the PC sensibility. Make the games the way you want to make them, and remember that there's nothing wrong with a little fan service. If you're worrying about whether your game will be perceived as classist or sexist or whatever-ist, and you're self-censoring yourself as a result, then you've already started the slide down a slippery slope with no end.
 
Anyway, I loved AGDI's KQ2+. It was brilliant how they tied everything together and improved upon the original. It still felt like the original, but augmented, as someone said earlier. I enjoyed every minute of that game, and after I finished it I told myself I would download or buy anything that team did in the future. That team clearly understands the classic Sierra adventure spirit very well. I hope they become hugely successful in the future and get to retire with private yachts just like the Williams have. AGDI/Himalaya are my heroes.
 
As for The Silver Lining by Phoenix Online Studios and what they did with the story and that game's overall quality, I thought it was atrocious, amateurish dreck.

Even the game is split, we would still have the option individually of waiting to play anything until the whole thing is finished. It would take a lot of self-control, and I don't think I could do it. :-( I would break down and play it immediately.
 
Basically, I just want whatever would lead to the best game possible and the best chance for it to be a lasting success. My own enjoyment and any personal inconvenience of having to take a break in the middle isn't really something I'm too concerned about. The game is going to be around for a long time, and if they choose to release it in stages in order to deliver the best product possible, then I would totally support them.
 
I have a feeling this game is going to hit the bull's eye and be very well-received.

Even the game is split, we would still have the option individually of waiting to play anything until the whole thing is finished. It would take a lot of self-control, and I don't think I could do it. :-( I would break down and play it immediately.
 
Basically, I just want whatever would lead to the best game possible and the best chance for it to be a lasting success. My own enjoyment and any personal inconvenience of having to take a break in the middle isn't really something I'm too concerned about. The game is going to be around for a long time, and if they choose to release it in stages in order to deliver the best product possible, then I would totally support them.
 
I have a feeling this game is going to hit the bull's eye and be very well-received.

Yeah, splitting it in half sounds a lot better. I don't know why I keep describing it as episodic.
 
Hopefully there is enough action in the first half, if it's split. I found the first released part of the latest Broken Sword game to be a tad slow.
 
I like it when the pace picks up right away, like in SQ1. Pulls you in immediately.

Maybe some of the scenes we've been shown seem a bit sterile, but it's hard to say at this stage.
 
For comparison, I remember loving how almost every new scene or location in SQ4 had that "wow, cool!" factor.
 
I think there will be plenty of impressive scenes in this new game, though, if the art shown in the attached image file is any indication. Really, the quality of the SpaceVenture art we've seen so far has surpassed my expectations.

Why must everything be politically correct? If we want blandness, then we could apply a politically correct standard and "make a few simple changes" over and over to works until there is finally nothing "offensive" to a particular narrow way of thinking. And it would still never be enough.  
Please, all you developers out there, resist the urge to comply with the free speech-chilling, politically correct rules. I find it refreshing when games and other works show irreverence to the PC sensibility. Make the games the way you want to make them, and remember that there's nothing wrong with a little fan service. If you're worrying about whether your game will be perceived as classist or sexist or whatever-ist, and you're self-censoring yourself as a result, then you've already started the slide down a slippery slope with no end.
 
Anyway, I loved AGDI's KQ2+. It was brilliant how they tied everything together and improved upon the original. It still felt like the original, but augmented, as someone said earlier. I enjoyed every minute of that game, and after I finished it I told myself I would download or buy anything that team did in the future. That team clearly understands the classic Sierra adventure spirit very well. I hope they become hugely successful in the future and get to retire with private yachts just like the Williams have. AGDI/Himalaya are my heroes.
 
As for The Silver Lining by Phoenix Online Studios and what they did with the story and that game's overall quality, I thought it was atrocious, amateurish dreck.

I think "outdated" also applies to the right tool for the right job. Parsers were removed primarily because, as Collector alludes to, it's easier to design a passable point n' click interface than a good parser. By the same token, for most gameplay needs better 3D graphics convey more information in a more pleasing format. But if you design a game around certain mechanics, old 3D or a parser might be a better tool to get you where you want to go.
 
Horseshoes are "outdated" because so few people have horses. But for the ones that do...
 
Anyway. I like a good parser. A GOOD parser. And I think they could be used very effectively in modern games, especially if tied into a more "Siri" type environment where you can "talk" to the character in the game. That could be through the keyboard or the microphone. It will only work, though, if the game is built specifically around that mechanic rather than being bolted on.

I'm against the notion that most everything gets outdated. Not everything gets outdated as much as people say they do. 3D graphics were terrible when they first came out, so they were outdated. However people even feel nostalgia for that. Interfaces, however, were made and perfected in their time. There were no mice when parsers were made. Parsers are the most versatile interface there is. That's why we still type when we program rather than "point & click" commands together. Yes, the GUI has overcome the command line interface, but it's still not as powerful as the latter.
 
My point being, it's not a matter of being outdated it's a matter of being unpopular, something people often confuse. And it bugs me. There is nothing wrong at all with a parser anymore than there is anything wrong with 2D graphics. It's just a matter of patience and being willing to align your way of thinking with that of the game designer rather than the designer trying to guess how best the players like to play. It's not like people have lost their patience. The PC gaming population 25+ years ago was much smaller and comprised of very different types of people than today.

True. But that has absolutely nothing to do with it being "outdated" or not. P&C can easily be just as badly designed. Point & Click is not "better" than a parser. It's easier. But you'll never get everyone to agree that easier is always better. Obviously some most do, judging by the types of adventure games we're seeing nowadays. It did streamline games and open them up to a broader audience, but it also dumbed them down at the same time. Was that better? Again, maybe for some most. But I'll always disagree that just because something got more popular does not mean that its predecessor is now outdated.
 
Myself, I'm not the huge fan of parser games like those who consider it superior to P&C (which is a legitimate opinion for them), but I also see nothing wrong with them. I enjoy both. It's unfortunate that parser games died out because there are some interesting things you can do with a parser interface game deisgn-wise that you just cannot accomplish with a P&C interface. Such is the industry, people are dogmatic about what they've "grown up with" being superior to anything new. Sometimes it's true sometimes it's just blind nostalgia. But really neither are superior or inferior. There are superior and inferior implementations of both, but I pause to call either "outdated" for those reasons.

I don't agree with this. Back when these games were newer, I remember some people looking over my shoulder as I played and not "getting it." They'd say, "you're just standing around watching the guy talk. When does the game start? This is boring." (and of course you'd want to slap them but you don't.) Their "not getting it" was more a function of their individual gaming tastes and not necessarily a product of the time period. 
So, I think different kinds of games just appeal more to certain people. Today you have A LOT more people involved in gaming, which is way more mainstream and enjoyed by a wider age range than it was in the past. You will have many people that just aren't into adventure games, and the proportion of overall gamers that likes adventure games is likely smaller than it used to be, but it's not because "you can't take the games out of" a particular era.

This is EXACTLY how I feel. If I am indifferent to a game, I'll just look up hints in order to quickly finish it. But, when I am really liking a game, I avoid doing so. Some games are more fun than others when you're stuck, though. 
When I'm trying to figure out how to proceed in a game, I like being able to take my time and walk all over and examine all kinds of things and talk to characters at my own pace. (Still, it can be helpful when the game, through dialogue or narration descriptions, gently reminds me of the direction I'm supposed to be going or what I'm supposed to be doing.) This is one reason I often prefer Sierra-style games to LucasArts games; when I get stuck, exploring all over the place (and trying to get "unstuck") in Sierra-style games can be fun because more of the virtual world is examinable. With LucasArts games, often the worlds seem like movie sets with dead props (not enough "hotspots"). And now with non-adventure game, interactive movies from Telltale, there's next to no exploration possible, and the weak puzzles wouldn't keep people stuck for very long, anyway.
 
And I feel like I'm cheating myself out of a fun experience when I look up hints.
 
It's like when you're talking to someone and trying to remember something or figure something out, you might say, "don't tell me, don't tell me!" And then they tell you. And then you feel kind of pissed off and disappointed because you wanted to see if you could figure it out yourself and they robbed you of the opportunity. I hate that! :-)

No I don't, and yes they do. I've ruined many a classic as a kid by abusing walkthroughs. Never again. I'm a firm believer that all but some of the looniest "moon logic" puzzles have enough clues for you to figure them out. It just requires a level of patience and out-of-the-box thinking that few had the capacity to believe existed as a successful means to an end even back then, let alone nowadays.
 
After learning nearly everything there is to know about the games that I cheated through, I discovered that there was indeed many hints and clues aptly seasoned into the game for every puzzle, as long as you were patient enough and willing to explore everything you see (and in some cases, don't see) on the screen. That's a rare concept especially in today's fast-paced "I don't have the time" society. It's also partially why I'm against adventures on mobile devices.
 
After I played Broken Age and accepted that I was thoroughly disappointed with it, I decided to take another adventure, one that many seemed to have problems with, and complete it entirely on my own. I discovered Deponia was a title that I'd heard many a complaint about (especially regarding "too many hotspots", I don't believe there is such a thing, I also didn't understand that claim as I found the hotspots lacking). I had this game in my Steam library for a while from some bundle or deal, but never sat down with it yet.
 
I played and finished the game in a couple weeks. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that what I was fearing was going to be the end of the game, because I was so used to bad short adventures, turned out to be the end of only the first Act. This helped allay my fears and I continued through the game. By the time I reached the end I felt challenged, accomplished, and thoroughly satisfied. I implore any adventurers out there, take the time to play through a game alone, or with a friend, thoroughly and completely. It's not just the destination, it's the journey. It's right there in the genre label. ADVENTURE. Use hints if you absolutely must, but avoid walkthroughs like the plague that they are. They ruined my experiences with many Sierra and LucasArts games when I was a kid because I thought I wasn't smart enough to solve them on my own. I wasn't just as happy because I cheated through them and got to the end. Beating the game is NOT as important as PLAYING the game and it's not the same experience if you're just following instructions. You're robbing yourself of a much richer experience.
 
THAT is the magic of adventure games. It isn't just in nostalgia, or characters, or story. All of that is meaningless if you aren't working it all out in your head and seeing it unfold the way it was meant to. It's what I believe was truly one of the chief contributers to the adventure's demise. There's a reason they were top of the line. People look back and ask "Were these games really as good as we thought?" because they're looking from that spoiled walkthrough point of view and missing the magic of exploration and discovery, whether they already solved it knowing what to do and forgetting the fresh experience or if they hadn't solved it before and used a walk thru because they didn't have the patience to sit through it properly, both have completely missed the point.
 
ok, rant over.

That sounds like a good system, I might have to adopt that.
 
I think for me it also depends on the actual game, if it's something I'm really enjoying and think is a superb game,
I definitely try to avoid any hints whatsoever...
But if it's midway through the game and I'm kind of "meh" about it, I'm much more likely to want go to the hints.

I don't agree with this. Back when these games were newer, I remember some people looking over my shoulder as I played and not "getting it." They'd say, "you're just standing around watching the guy talk. When does the game start? This is boring." (and of course you'd want to slap them but you don't.) Their "not getting it" was more a function of their individual gaming tastes and not necessarily a product of the time period. 
So, I think different kinds of games just appeal more to certain people. Today you have A LOT more people involved in gaming, which is way more mainstream and enjoyed by a wider age range than it was in the past. You will have many people that just aren't into adventure games, and the proportion of overall gamers that likes adventure games is likely smaller than it used to be, but it's not because "you can't take the games out of" a particular era.

One reason I'd like to see them do a new Space Quest is because of all the attention it would receive. And also to play it, of course.
 
But I feel like they've come up with an excellent solution... as others have said, SpaceVenture will be like its spiritual successor. And it has the word "Space" in the title and every article about the game will mention Space Quest (often no further down than the sub-headline), so it will get noticed. I bet many people will assume it's a new Space Quest.
 
It has a good combo of newness and nostalgia. Go SpaceVenture! I want to see this game be a wonderful success. Those Two Guys have magic together, and everyone loved Space Quest, and they can give us something fun and thrilling again. I really hope it catches on among new adventure game players. We need to spread the Space Quest fandom to ever more players. It would be cool if they could strike some deal and get the game included with a new tablet model or something. I just know that people will enjoy it once they play it, but they just gotta get it out there in front of new players' faces in addition to the existing adventure fans.

One reason I'd like to see them do a new Space Quest is because of all the attention it would receive. And also to play it, of course.
 
But I feel like they've come up with an excellent solution... as others have said, SpaceVenture will be like its spiritual successor. And it has the word "Space" in the title and every article about the game will mention Space Quest (often no further down than the sub-headline), so it will get noticed. I bet many people will assume it's a new Space Quest.
 
It has a good combo of newness and nostalgia. Go SpaceVenture! I want to see this game be a wonderful success. Those Two Guys have magic together, and everyone loved Space Quest, and they can give us something fun and thrilling again. I really hope it catches on among new adventure game players. We need to spread the Space Quest fandom to ever more players. It would be cool if they could strike some deal and get the game included with a new tablet model or something. I just know that people will enjoy it once they play it, but they just gotta get it out there in front of new players' faces in addition to the existing adventure fans.

PurpleTentacle gives that trash article two suction cup thumbs WAY DOWN!
 
What pretentious, self-superior nonsense. This person sounds like they're in love with the sound of their own voice. And their cliched, high school-level writing sucks.
 
Did they post that here? Looks like trolling to me. The key point of that article is the totally uncalled for personal attack on Mark and Scott. That's really what the whole post hinges on.

Serena is definitely a game you'll remember playing. I really liked the concept. Kind of Twilight Zoney or 6th Sense-ish.

I just played the free "Serena" game, which has some voice acting from Scott Murphy.
 
Murphy is a natural!
 
Mandel provides most of the voice acting, as most of you probably know. I don't know if I could ever get comfortable with hearing Mandel's voice in new game roles, though. His voice is just TOO familiar to me after playing all the King's Quest games (AGDI's included) and is one of those instantly-recognizable voices. He also seems to switch between "chest" and "head" voice (as in singing) and it comes across as if he is reading a story in a sing-songey way. That's just not how most people speak unscripted. I think it would be better if he tried to use less inflections (would sound more natural) and avoided using "head" voice which could reduce the nasally sound. Mandel is a great talent, but I think a slower speaking style, with more pauses and a more neutral/less eager or less energetic delivery would suit him better in acting.

Serena is definitely a game you'll remember playing. I really liked the concept. Kind of Twilight Zoney or 6th Sense-ish.

I just played the free "Serena" game, which has some voice acting from Scott Murphy.
 
Murphy is a natural!
 
Mandel provides most of the voice acting, as most of you probably know. I don't know if I could ever get comfortable with hearing Mandel's voice in new game roles, though. His voice is just TOO familiar to me after playing all the King's Quest games (AGDI's included) and is one of those instantly-recognizable voices. He also seems to switch between "chest" and "head" voice (as in singing) and it comes across as if he is reading a story in a sing-songey way. That's just not how most people speak unscripted. I think it would be better if he tried to use less inflections (would sound more natural) and avoided using "head" voice which could reduce the nasally sound. Mandel is a great talent, but I think a slower speaking style, with more pauses and a more neutral/less eager or less energetic delivery would suit him better in acting.