Frede

At this point, I don't think there even is a Replay Games. There's a Twitter account that sucks up to Codemasters and mentions whenever LSL:R is on sale, and there's a website that lists Paul Trowe on its "About"-page. But as far as game projects go, Fester Mudd remains the latest endeavour of that company...

Activision also owns the Sierra brand itself, meaning that Sierra operates under Activision and has access to all its IP. How did you think they were getting around making a new King's Quest otherwise? LSL I can personally live without...

Well, my personal problem with classic Sierra deaths (and hence my love of the retry button) is that - to name an example - it frankly isn't very fair that King Graham, the bravest, most dashing and most cunning knight of all of Daventry, is unable to survive a 2-inch fall. If you're going to make the hero that frail, consider giving him malignant melanoma during his desert hike. No wonder the guy has a heart attack in KQ4; his entire body must be made of glass. Some Sierra games were just illogical and cruel. In games like Gabriel Knight 1 or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (one of the few LucasArts games in which you can die, for the few who haven't played it), the deaths seemed very realistic and natural. So it really depends how death is implemented. If it's borderline unfair like my example above, I'd like a "Retry"-button. But if you can spot your own mistake from a million miles away, I'm more than cool with people re-learning how to "save early, save often" instead.

Most likely, much like the dragon in KQ1.

Well, there does seem to be a very vocal group of people who're interested in a familar experience or else. Certainly, some of the people attacking The Odd Gentlemen over their own miscomprehension of the "not point 'n click"-quote didn't seem very interested in waiting and seeing. I'm with Cosmic Castaway all the way. You could always argue about the level of innovation needed, but I'm personally happy Sierra are choosing to go their own way rather than trying to follow a bunch of outdated design dogmas.

Stuff like that will always happen, but I think it's unfair to assume that something will fail only because it failed once before. Moving adventure games into 3D was mostly a mistake. I say "mostly" because Escape from Monkey island wasn't that bad, and people speak fondly of Grim Fandango to this day. But to say that playing around with the genre will equate similar problems is like refusing to watch any film that has a CG-generated leading character in it because Jar Jar Binks sucked. History allows people to learn from the mistakes of others. Also, I think the Sierra of then and the Sierra are now are driven by very different motivations. The Sierra of then seems to have been struggling to find its footing. You're bound to make mistakes if you see your house of cards tumbling down. That is your opinion. Which is fine, but again, games like Grim Fandango challenge your assertion. There is also a more recent game, such as the PlayStation-exclusive Journey which is extremely simple, but, I would argue, is still an adventure game. It's simplified to the point where this no in-game text, nor any verbal lines. And yet, it's all about exploring and uncovering the story behind the world you're in. Bear in mind, though, that "simplify" was a word you choose yourself; as far as I know, The Odd Gentlemen have promised us an adventure game that doesn't use the mouse. Not a simplified game. If you really want to play it safe, sure. And you could, but you'd not really be exploring the boundaries of game storytelling, in my opinion, which would be a shame. Hmm. I don't agree. What you're talking about arguably has to do with the skill of the artist(s) and possibly the budget (which I believe was why BS5 went with 3D characters on drawn backgrounds). Not with the resolution. The early-90's Sierra/LucasArts-look is not tied exclusively to 320x200. Also, I agree with Tomint. I've seen a lot of AGS games with art that has just been scaled down and blurred to oblivion. Most SQ3 remake projects have been all about fucking up Mark Crowe's great art and make it look as if the player has Glaucoma. To me, that spells out that, to most artists, that way of working is kind of a lost art. There are exceptions, but do what you do best. Don't try to do what Mark Crowe did best because... y'know, can't beat Mark Crowe ca. 1989-1993. If they're interested in building a new audience, which I assume they are, because that'd be more viable, that won't fly. The market for "retro" games will always be a niche market, even if it has grown to be a rather big one. I get what you're saying, but the game scene of today is very much one strike and you're out. Or, rather, one strike and people will have made up their minds about you. Phil Fish will forever be known as an asshole, even if he makes amends and restarts development on Fez II. Pulling in all the "kids" and making them appreciate this form of interactive storytelling is more likely to be their top priority, rather than appealing to all us old farts. And hell, that's how it should be. Sierra On-Line could easily have sold a rehash of Mystery House to IBM. But they didn't - they had a team of 6-7 people working for 18 months on a computer game. Something that was pretty daring back then. I get that this is not the Sierra. But still, that is the name this company is now operating under. And if they want to carry on the spirit of yore (which does not equate the technical qualities), playing it safe should be the last thing they ever do.

This is why I have continuing love/hate affair with the adventure community. Because going from text adventure, to parser, to point 'n click was somehow fine. But that's also it. "I only want to play point 'n click games from now on. And I can deal with graphics that have a resolution higher than 640x480, but I am probably still going to mention that I long for 'the good old days'." If Sierra On-Line had to deal with that shitty attitude whenever they started using a new engine, they'd have folded in the early 90's. What makes a game an "adventure" is the focus on exploration and storytelling over action. Every single time someone can't get that through his/her thick skull, a legendary adventure game designer has to pee a shard of glass. Screw the mouse and the parser. Just use whatever you need to make the game world and the story come alive. Give me something I want to explore every inch of and fawn over. Supposedly, only the 1990's wield that power. If you want to make a tradiotional game, cool with me. If you want to take the genre to new places, you're only really doing what's been done since it was first invented, up until the early 2000's. If The Odd Gentlemen can make a different approach work, I say we let 'em. Technologically, we're in a different place than we were back when GK3 and KQ8 were forced to become low-polygon horrors. Cut them some slack.

Maybe my opinion is affected by the tragedy of the man dying, but: what a bummer. That could have been absolutely spectacular. For the love of all potentially existing deities out there, Troels, please mention this on the podcast.

Interesting. I remember seeing "Lite Speed" plenty of times in that game. Maybe I'm mixing things up, though.

I wish them well, and there's a good chance I'll pick up the upcoming King's Quest game if it looks interesting. But then again, I'm optimistic and see a higher chance of fan-service down the road if we actually try to support them. Some just see a higher chance of us fans being screwed over (again). Still, the world is a different place now, given stuff like social media. One could hope that this Sierra will be trying to listen to their audience, which is something Ken Williams' Sierra could only really do at the very end of the original run. EDIT: They seem to be focusing on working with indie developers in their statements. That's promising, I think; the Guys are technically indie...

If that's a joke, it's a damn good one. If not, someone should introduce them to Mr. Trowe before it gets awkward.

Okay, before my first post in this thread, I hadn't seen John Williams' comment. Clearly this isn't a Box Office Bust-like affair where the Williams' have been kept in the dark like Al Lowe was about that game, so colour me cautiously optimistic. In theory, I suppose that could pave the way for them contacting more of the old alumni to pick up their respective franchises again. But it's also a lot to hope for, so let's see. I admittedly don't care that much for a new King's Quest, but it's a good way to start out if they're interested in catering to nostalgia. What I'd really like to see is some of the non-Quest games hitting GOG and Steam.

Hmm. The brand isn't everything. Don't really know what to make of it; they own no rights or assets and all the old timers whose games were worth playing want to be independent. EDIT: I hadn't noticed Activision still owns it. Makes it slightly more interesting, with all the IP's they own. Here's hoping they'll want to collaborate with the original creators if they plan to revive any franchises.

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..."

(Seriously, there was a time here where people here got along and didn't bring up politics and/or shit from the past at every given juncture. Play nice, guys.)

I do believe that statement refers to the full adventure, but obviously it's my unfounded interpretation.

I find myself in complete agreement with Gareth. I support the Guys wholeheartedly and I'm sure no decision is made lightly. But still - watch out. Do the story justice above all. You couldn't turn "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" into a miniseries either.

That makes no sense. If that was the true intent behind the comic, why not go with good old "There's too much violence in video games" instead? No, this comic strip is very much about women, and the "Stop raping me!"-punchline is useless and offensive anyway you slice it. Games have a problem as long as women are depicted like this. I love that game, but the female characters and their unprotected silicone protuberances flopping around while they punch the hell out of their opponents make me want to vomit. I mean, seriously. Who "dresses" like that for a fighting tournament?! I loathe them to the extent where I wish there was a "No female characters on the ladder"-cheat code. To my knowledge, ironically, I don't believe this game has caused controversy in this department. There are games out there with cool female characters, but there are also games whose sole purpose with including female characters is to give players a hard-on. And that's stupid. Especially because you'd be hard pressed to find games where the sole purpose of a male character is to be sexy.

Am I a bad person if I laughed? Without relinquishing, of course.

Yeap, I have to comment. I love how a comic strip that might've been able to make a point once throws it away at the last panel by implying that "rape" is a word that women like to blurt out when they lose a discussion. I'm not against using the word or the act for a bit of raunchy black humour, but honestly, this is a crock of shit. Unless it's some sort of clever meta-comment, but I don't buy that. Looking at that comic, I smell fratboy scrotum sweat and not pipe smoke.

Well, we can at least agree that Kim Jong-un is an asshole and that his hairdresser ought to be in one of his internment camps. I'm off to start a "Do you support Israel or Palestine?"-thread with a poll. See you in a bit!

Gareth already answered for himself regarding the intention of him calling you "conservative", so I'm going to stay out of that. As for the suggestion - humorous as it is - that we nuke the thread, I do hope you realise the superb irony in you calling out for censorship of a discussion you've helped start and keep alive. I must confess I've personally given up on the discussion. I find myself unable to come up with anything worthwhile. Gareth has just about said it all. Even if it's partially my fault we got it going again. But I will say that I would've stopped poking you long ago if it wasn't for the "There shall be PC brigade outrage!"-statement you seem to want to slip in every time a particular game - currently the Gabriel Knight remake - is being discussed. You could always argue that I should've looked away to begin with, but there's no reason to post stuff in public if you don't want it to be read (into). I find it curious and more than a bit hypocritical that as soon as you don't get to have the last word, you call for the discussion to be shut down. Which may eventually happen till you bring up another game you think will send the "politically correct" players reeling. I don't really think anyone here gets to have that prerogative; if you don't feel like being challenged for your controversial opinions (which I get, because some discussions just never fucking end), don't flaunt them at every given chance when you know the end result. This is the third or fourth time this escalates. That's just a piece of advice, btw. Not an order for you to shut up. I like to think we're all still getting along despite the obvious differences.

You could say "It's all fake, Cara. All fake.", though, if we're dealing with that kind of snuff movie. Nine Inch Nails' "Broken" movie springs to mind. Mind, if we're dealing with the kind where you're looking at genuine, unsimulated violence, you can rightfully go "I'm sick in my head." I think the Cronenberg link is broken, so it doesn't factor into the above, I'll admit.

Now that I've managed to set everything on fire, I just want to pop in and say that I personally didn't find Moebius sexist, but I do find it a bit lazy, dramaturgically, that every woman in the game is so moist for Malachi Rector that flood warnings have been issued on a regular basis since the game came out.

So experimenting with the storytelling the adventure genre is arguably all about is... bad. Semi-offensive plot points, however, are must-haves for us to keep our freedom. And if anyone dares argue they're getting more than they bargained for when the player character threatens a woman at knife point, do not attempt to understand their arguments, for they are politically correct and WRONG. You and I must play these games for wildly different reasons. And yes, I am probably largely on the offensive here because I can tell you're going to rag on "Serena" as well, and my involvement with that puts me in a position where I happen to know that devs like that don't sit down and go "Let's get pretentious!" That, and it makes me skin crawl when someone calls for the dumbing down of something like the adventure genre because there's something in a game that made them mad and... oh my word, what have we here? ;)