Cosmic Castaway

You have a very good point here. Let's face it, folks - the majority of the fun in adventure games is in the interactions. Walking around, exploring the game world, talking to people, poking and prodding at every hotspot to see what sorts of reactions you get - those are the things that really make the game experience unique. Space Quest proves that this sort of design can make for a great game even when the actual plot isn't exactly award-winning material. :rolleyes: KQ, QfG and the like had stronger plots, yes, but they too were more about world-building than story strength - more about the experience than anything else. Indeed, that's why the early KQ games were so heavily 'fairy tale' - the whole idea was to bring those tales you remembered to (virtual) life.
 
 
This was actually a strong running theme in the early KQ games - they often gave you the ability to *kill* certain monsters in your way, but then also gave you a less overtly violent means of dealing with them, with the latter always worth more points. The dragon could be killed with a thrown dagger, but could also be driven away using water. The troll/ogre/whatever in the cloud area could be felled with a sling, or you could hide from him and wait for him to fall asleep, then steal the chest from him without waking him. The lion in KQ2 could be killed with a sword, or fed with meat. The idea was that Graham the knight *could* be violent when he needed to be, but his kind nature preferred not murdering everything in his path by default. Sometime around KQ3, they started phasing these sorts of options out completely, making the clever, non-violent solutions more or less mandatory - this lead to the 'guile hero' archetype that almost all future adventure game heroes would adhere to from then on.
 
 
Lucasarts beat them to that one - they had the 'click on verb' system as early as Maniac Mansion. Sierra's icons were basically the same thing.
 
Also, don't forget the removal of the whole 'walk to X' system. The old games required you to physically move your character to where they needed to be to perform an action - a system which, while revolutionary at the time, was also wholly unnecessary outside of arcade or maze sequences (hello, root monster!). Lucasarts' mouse-based controls simply moved the character to where they needed to be when you tried to perform an action, which greatly streamlined interacting with the environment. This is part of the reason the interfaces for Grim and MI4 are so clunky - they *removed* this feature and forced you to manually walk around all over again. <_<
 
 
Absolutely. Space Quest 5 made use of a radical new technology in adventure gaming that Sierra was only just learning how to properly apply - something called a 'supporting cast'. ;)
 
 
You poor, dexterity-challenged fools. ;) Some of us are perfectly comfortable with a little ACTION!!! mixed in with our puzzle-based gaming. Still, I can see how such things would be supremely annoying for those who don't spend far more time than they should playing more traditional, actiony video games. :unsure:
 
 
IMHO, neither Sierra nor Lucasarts had the right idea at first. Lucasarts' 'no death' design, while certainly user-friendly, also only really worked because of the tongue-in-cheek nature of their games - you could only get away with not having any lethal consequences for in-game characters because creating contrived ways of having them *not* die was hilarious enough to fit with their style. Sierra's more ICly serious worlds demanded more serious consequences for failure to make them believable - but then people feel afraid to experiment for fear of getting the dreaded RRQ1 screen.
 
Sierra actually hit upon the perfect solution towards the end of their adventure gaming days, with games like SQ6 and LSL6. In those games, you could die or get game-overs...but when you did, you'd get a shiny new 'Retry' button that put you right back before you screwed up, good as new. It's the perfect system, IMHO - the in-character consequences (and potential out-of-character humor) of death, but with no real inconvenience to the player. It saddens me that the system isn't used in more adventure games even now...

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.

Are there actually people in this world who think that Roberta Williams was a good designer OR writer...??
 
I think Sierra really started making great games when they began bringing in the genuine writers to supplement the people who were just "in the right place at the right time." 
 
Roberta Williams, Scott Murphy, and Al Lowe are all outstanding figures in Sierra lore, but none of them is really legendary for their writing/design talent. Before Sierra, the latter two were small-time programmers and Roberta was the wife of the big chief. Roberta in particular led a long series of mediocre titles that were primarily notable for their technical innovations.
 
In any case, Roberta, Scott, and Al certainly don't hold a candle to Josh Mandel, Lori Ann Cole, and most prominently Jane Jensen, all of whom were primarily writers and designers, and all of whom are associated with consistently quality games (criminally underappreciated in Josho's case, despite his talent and passion: the good parts of SQ6, ignored by marketing; Freddy Pharkas, one my favourite Sierra titles; and Callahan's Crosstime Saloon.) 
 
By the way, Mop Jockey, the only thing I really disagree with you about is your repetition of the canard that adventure games are dead (or stagnant or suffering). I don't know how many new adventure game releases annually will be necessary to get people to stop saying things like that.
 
I also don't think you established that Roberta was responsible for the action portions of KQ8. She was a vehement opponent of the industry's trend toward action, calling it a sign that computers were now affordable by the common man instead of "consumers of a certain income level."

Considering the narrator's remarks about the timepods' resemblance to tennis shoes, did you think about getting it done on your foot?
 
The more I think about it, the more I don't really see many Sierra references lending themselves to good tattoos. Quest for Glory and King's Quest honestly feel like they have more material to draw from (no pun intended) than Space Quest. Though I suppose a pin-up style piece of WD40 might be kind of neat. Or if you feel like being tacky, a heart with "Wankmeister" in it. ;) As far as KQ is concerned, the Dangling Participle might make for a decent one.

As far as adapting a series for newer audiences, what's so wrong with that? Just because it doesn't appease the diehard fans doesn't mean it's terrible. You can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time, and all that. If they made a game that was geared exclusively towards the hardcore Sierra fan, it'd be an utter failure, and that's assuming that developers could even settle on a design that would be appealing to the fans of old. Bemoan the state of gaming all you want, but the fact is that the Grande Olde Sierra Titles™ are no longer the apotheosis of computer gaming. And if anything's been made clear in this thread it's that no one seems to agree on just what parts of the Sierra legacy are so great. Exactly why I think there's potential in this new venture: we don't know what's in store, and it could very well be an enjoyable adventure game.
 
As for the storytelling medium discussion, that is a good point, though I think it's more apropos in regard to Space Quest, and less so when applied to another series like King's Quest or Quest for Glory. Yes, there's a fair degree of humor and occasionally the absurd in both, but they also manage to tell some good stories. I would say that it's pretty clear that those technological advances allowed for better stories to be told, however. King's Quest went from simply rehashing fairy tales to stories like those found in King's Quest 5 and 6, which, while still referencing and using various bits of fairy tales and mythology, felt less like a mashup of Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm. The same thing is true of Space Quest, though it definitely has always been more interested in the comical than telling a compelling story.

I don't like the idea that some indie developers ought to have been "consulted" first before the announcement. As for Blackthorne and Infamous Quests, I respect their passion and contributions, but they are far from top tier in terms of quality, even just among lower budget indie teams. There are far better, more appropriate teams for ActiVision to work with. I stress again that I respect Infamous Quests and am sure they will continue to improve.
 
Sometimes the adventure gaming community can feel small or cliquish if we visit only certain forums visited by a regular, relatively small group of people, but there are so many more adventure game fans/designers out there whom we don't hear from as much in these places. If we start suggesting that some people should, in part because they familiar from these forums, have "first dibs" or be given special info access, then it starts feeling a little like a form of cronyism. And that wouldn't be thinking of what's best for the games.
 
As for this news, I think it's great!! Finally the door has opened to creating new, official games using the Sierra IP. This is something I, as a longtime Sierra fan, had been waiting for. This could lead to great things. And, yes, it feels good to see that classic logo come alive again.

Everyone needs to stop throwing a hissy fit and see what comes from all of this. Just because it might not use the same interface as the classic titles doesn't automatically invalidate it. I think too many people around here are stuck wearing rose-tinted glasses, or else just can't enjoy anything that's not a Sierra adventure game. I love the classic titles as much as the next person, but what, exactly, is so wrong with the torch being passed? Just because it's not the original developers working on it? Get a grip and wait for some actualy screenshots or gameplay videos! At this rate the project will get shitcanned before the end of the year thanks to "lack of interest".

Everyone needs to stop throwing a hissy fit and see what comes from all of this. Just because it might not use the same interface as the classic titles doesn't automatically invalidate it. I think too many people around here are stuck wearing rose-tinted glasses, or else just can't enjoy anything that's not a Sierra adventure game. I love the classic titles as much as the next person, but what, exactly, is so wrong with the torch being passed? Just because it's not the original developers working on it? Get a grip and wait for some actualy screenshots or gameplay videos! At this rate the project will get shitcanned before the end of the year thanks to "lack of interest".

Colour me interested. Broadly speaking, I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for the old Sierra titles, so a fresh start of sorts is not necessarily a bad thing in my eyes. I'll refrain from passing judgement one way or the other, simply because we don't really have any real information about what's going on. Anyone who follows or enjoys video games understands that it's a golden age of hype and bullshit right now, and to get excited over a press release is a recipe for tears. So while I don't expect to necessarily see this amount to much more than a failed experiment, I would certainly like to hear what the folks in charge have in mind.

I'd like to see a picture of Roger Wilco laughing J. Jonah Jameson-style at this thread. Barring that, Space Quest Gangnam Style.

I'd like to see a picture of Roger Wilco laughing J. Jonah Jameson-style at this thread. Barring that, Space Quest Gangnam Style.

I'd like to see a picture of Roger Wilco laughing J. Jonah Jameson-style at this thread. Barring that, Space Quest Gangnam Style.

@penguinfan - It's not even about whether the people playing it are "impressionable" or not. It's just absolutely sexist that every female character (bar some wonderful exceptions) appears to have her sexuality (cans) as her most predominant feature... all right... two features.
 
It's not just degrading to women - it's degrading to men. You're telling me and my gender that the only reason I will accept a woman is because she's fuckable. I find that deeply offensive.
 
As you can probably tell by my language and general demeanour, I couldn't give two cyber shits whether any game is "family friendly" or not. I would prefer it to just be "good". I'm not saying sex doesn't have its place, it's just supremely irritating that women continue to be defined primarily in this way. You can look at Joss Whedon's characters for how a fictional person can be incredibly beautiful and sexy, but defined by far, far more than how much of her cleavage is showing on the front cover of the box:
 
 

 
I'm sure the young lady in the cover art is a rather smart woman, who doesn't define herself through her relationships with men and is an independent, well-rounded individual. But - hey - I'm judging a book by its cover. And the cover says "jazz mag". Is there a particular reason why she has to be so scantily clad, other than the fact that you've defined the target audience as priapic 35-year olds living in their parent's basement who cry themselves to sleep wanking over their highschool year books?
 
If you don't think women in computer games can or should be rounded people, you're an idiot. If you have a problem with someone pointing out the inherent sexism of this, you can go eat a bag of dicks.
 
Oh, I'll leave with Joss. For whom I now have a raging boner (because he's a sexy, smart individual, not because he gets his norks out).
 

When it comes to giving impressionable young girls (and boys) ideas about women's power, the former sounds way worse than the latter, unless the point turns out to be that trying to gain power by being physically beautiful and going around mostly-naked in public is generally a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend it even for people who can pull it off. If I recall correctly, Princess Leia was temporarily under control of a bad guy when she wore the metal bikin+skirt; her normal competent (if grumpy) self didn't go around trying to get by on looks.
 
I take it all of you here are old enough to not be as impressionable any more, so go ahead and enjoy whatever fantasies you like. Enjoying Larry games doesn't brand you as a woman-hater either, I have examples to the contrary ;)
 
However, it would be nice if game devs cared a little more about providing "family-friendly" stories that weren't *just* for kids. Lots of kids are really bright while still being rather impressionable to cultural forces. I have been planning to give a copy of Hero U to my bright young niece to play with her dad, assuming it does turn out to be suitable (ha, how could I forget about buying games for my niece? I knew there was a better example than my cousins now). This game looked like a close miss, which is why I was frustrated enough to comment. Even if the current game is too advanced for the devs to be open to feedback, perhaps they would consider making their future games more friendly to girls by leaving out the stereotypical scantily-clad female character (who is reportedly not a main character)? Seemed worth a try.
 
I'm going to try to avoid saying any more in this thread -- don't want to turn someone else's thread about a project they are excited about into arguments about more general side topics (whether games people play as kids actually influence their cultural views, whether using looks to gain power is a net gain for the people who can get away with it let alone those who can't, whether the costume is really in line with the bikinis typical girls wear to the beach,etc etc). I am sorry if the sarcasm I used in an earlier comment put people on the defensive; that was really not my intention. Just a clumsy attempt to get people to think about making games more suitable for pre-teen and teenage girls with minor alterations that would not turn the whole thing into a sissy girly game.
 
P.S. my reference to Larry was taken backwards -- I was trying to say that it would be stupid to assert nearly-naked women in Larry games are unnecessary since that's the *main point*. A standard RPG-ish game can be just as good with sensible armor instead of chainmail bikinis; whereas Infamous Quests might make it a key part of the story. Now do you see the point?

Lots of games that have scantily-clad females can claim this to a certain degree, that the look is just right for the character being portrayed. Funny how many of those AAA titles end up needing to work in such characters, isn't it? I'm sure it's very inspiring to teenage girls who play games -- at least the ones who look like supermodels and consider little strips of cloth to be stylish every-day attire.

I was at one point in time excited for this. Suffice it to say my interest has waned. Also, I think they would have made a better impression if the lone female in their big ol' poster had some clothes on; Leisure Suit Larry already had his Kickstarter project. :rolleyes:

True, I had forgotten about them. But it all fits within the context of Shapier, and in both of those cases, it's the female character testing the "Hero" by flirting with him. Aziza might look pretty, but the second you try and make a move she'll throw you out on your ear, and Dinarzad is the Chief Thief; she acts coy with you, but if you step out of line you'll find yourself out of work and possibly missing a hand courtesy of her bodyguard. Good catch though, QFG 2 has always been the game I've sort of glossed over, for some reason.

Well if we wanted to get all technical and split hairs, Fallout 3 and New Vegas incorporated the action points and "called shots" system as well, albeit in a more FPS-oriented way. It's actually implemented quite well, IMHO. I recall using it as an example when I explained it to Lori and Corey on Facebook back when they asked for suggestions regarding combat systems. [/shameless fanboying]
 
A little more on-topic, I agree with the sentiment regarding chipping in when possible. Just when it seems like I've got a few bucks to pony up for the Kickstarter, real life rears its ugly head and gives me a good kick in the wallet.
 
And as far as QFG and it's naughty streak goes, the Thief was the only one who got any fanservice, really, and it was a situation where if he so much as blinked at those women the wrong way he'd have been dead along with the rest of the world. And the rest of the series was pretty tame, seeing as it was usually ladies flirting with the (ever-silent) Hero. I like to think Devon was too much of a gentleman to take them up on their advances. ;) Come to think of it, I think the only ones who ever flirted with him were the two harem women (in their reappearance in QFG 5) and a few evil NPCs that tried to lure him to his death by being flirty. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played QFG in years.

Gah -- I was afraid that this topic would eventually go there... <_< 
But back to the topic at hand, I'd say that with an entire universe with a virtually infinite amount of possibilities out there, it is possible that a handful of in-universe Wilco fans still exist, even at the time SQ6 takes place. However, to make these fans fit convincingly within the "framework" of the series, they would most likely fall into one of three categories:
 

There's also a googol-to-one chance of any of these fans actually running into Roger. "Never the twain shall meet", in other words. If you wanted to take the fan idea to a new level, perhaps you could even find a bunch of creatures who are "fans" of Roger for completely different reasons.
 
This could be something like a population of submicroscopic, plantlike organisms who have never heard of Roger saving Earnon or defeating Sludge Vohaul, but they revere him because they are descended from a form of mold growing in the corner of a bathroom which Roger never cleaned thoroughly. Since what little cleaning Roger did do wiped out all of the mold's competing species and some of the chemicals he used dramatically altered the mold's genetic makeup, the mold was able to develop very rapidly, and eventually gave rise to a super-intelligent species of plant life that (unsurprisingly) sees Roger as their creator.*
 
I have actually explored the "in-universe fans" concept once or twice in this work-in-progress currently quoted in my signature. I've been pretty cautious about saying anything about it (since it's still far from done), but I figure I might as well quote a bit of it that relates to this topic:
 

I'm also reminded of quote from Hoyle Games, Volume 1. It features several Sierra characters (including SQ3-era Roger, who thinks that he's gotten trapped in the game and desperately wants to get out) as well as some actual Sierra employees, who start talking with each other if you stop playing the game for a while. One of the characters is a kid who keeps talking about his love of sports, and at one point Roger tells him, "I get most of my exercise running away from Sludge Vohaul's troopers and my fan club." :D
 
 
*This ficlet was loosely inspired by J. F. Bone's short sci-fi story, "The Issahar Artifacts".

At the end of the day, I like where they're going with combat, etc, but that's all window-dressing. I care about story, which the Coles will deliver in droves, and from what I've read, talked to the Coles about, etc, the focus will not be on HD art or photorealism, but rather, solid plot, RPG action, and above all, their mantra, FUN. That's what I care about, immersion and gameplay, not pretty, pointless things or pure looting or pure plot. QFG was always about balance an I feel really confident that they're following some of an old formula and a major new twist.
 
Without wishing to diss the Guys, and I would have always pledged for SV no matter what, I feel this KS is more exciting in many ways. They're promising a lot and asking for not much. Plus, the team is very promising and Corey and Lori have been very open. They get major kudos in my book for that alone.
 
Anyway, stay tuned. This will be a keeper.

This. It's exactly why I thought the mention of Syndrome from The Incredibles was a good one; Mr. Incredible was undoubtedly a hero, but he also was a little self-absorbed. Think of how differently things would have gone had he actually taken the time to put up with the annoying kid who worshipped him. (Hint: We wouldn't have a movie and he still would be boring old Bob Parr. Wait a minute...)
 
Also, a round of applause to you for catching the reference I made! ;)

What Johnathon said. Figure that any joke that's a sexual or scatological innuendo, or involved four letter words or pop culture flew over my head right up until I was around 16 or 17 and merely reading about Space Quest instead of playing it. I suppose all the dirty humour was part of the reason my mom hated Space Quest, and why my dad never actually explained half the jokes he chuckled at when he played/watched us play.