Frede

The music, I must add, is the one redeeming feature of SQ1VGA, in my opinion. I do agree that SQ3 and SQ4 also feature the most iconic locations. I myself would say that the location that springs to mind when I think of SQ3 is the Garbage Freighter. In SQ4, it'd have to be the post-apocalyptic setting of Xenon. None of which is a barrel of laughs until you begin looking around, triggering hilarious responses for seemingly innocuous objects. So, sci-fi locations that are cool to look at it. Also, your opinion won't get you excommunicated - we don't do that here. We'll just bitch and moan about it.

"Worst" is harsh, IMO. There are many fans who like SQ1 and 2. In my opinion, they have aged more gracefully than pretty much all the other major AGI games from around that time period. Okay, I'm not the biggest fan of SQ2, but give me that over KQ2 any day. Consider SQ3, then. It has plenty of funny settings, like outside the Mog on Phleebhut. There are a few visual gags aboard the Garbage Freighter. But the majority of it looks like something out of a straight sci-fi game. Parts of SQ4 being even darker as well. And yeah, both games have their share of generic corridors. Not every location has to be Nigel's room from SQ6 to have fun stuff going on in it. Not going to touch SQ1VGA. Yes, it's a Space Quest game, but it's not really a Two Guys from Andromeda game (they both resent it, I believe, but Mark is, by his own admission, generally less outspoken than Scott). Unless you will also consider Magna Cum Laude and Box Office Bust to be Al Lowe games.

I'd still rather wait for one full game, though a split in the middle would be endurable. I don't think it sounds like that decision has done the best for Broken Age or Broken Sword 5, though. Nothing is more annoying than being pulled out of a story you just got into. Especially if you can't just start up the second half, but will have to wait another half year for the conclusion.

To be fair, that Kickstopper campaign was started from within Replay Games fairly long ago. And it was so malicious, stupid and clumsy that it felt more like Curbstomper, if you ask me. Overall, I agree with JimmyTwoBucks. Also, the Guys are trying to recapture the classic "Space Quest"-feeling, I guess. How many outright visually funny locales did SQ1 and SQ2 have? I can think of parts of Ulence Flats. The rest is pretty generic space ship/desert planet/jungle planet stuff. It's what unexpectedly transpires on in those serious-looking rooms that's funny. Bringing in Josh Mandel isn't really fair. SQ6 had some brilliant jokes and gags and it's possibly the most outright funny game in the series. At times, it's also the least subtle, which in itself would make it very different from something penned by Scott Murphy. I haven't lost confidence in the Guys. We just have to remember that they're carrying on from where they left in 1991 and not from where Josh left in 1995.

I should add that more than a few of us here are part of something called the "Keronian Underground". Back when the Kickstarter launched, we helped do some online PR for the Guys and, in turn, we've been privy to a lot of inside information along the way. Among other things, we knew of the delay mentioned in the October 16 update before it was coo... sorry, before it was posted, and we've also participated in some discussions about where to take the GUI, etc. The subject of episodic versus one full game has never been brought up among our little group. Of course, there are members here who are working on the game - Troels Pleimert and pcj among them - and whether they know anything about this that I don't, I can't say. Just wanted to point out that those of us who may not be team members, but are "insiders", don't know anything other than that the Guys are releasing a full game. And it seems like something Chris might want to bring up to ensure they're doing what the fans want.

Explains why I never get to pay for anything when I visit.

My preference would also be for a full game. I wouldn't really mind episodic either. But my gut feeling is that we'll be getting the former. Even if they haven't outright specified that, I think they've more than hinted at it.

I love signs that stress the "NOT" so vehemently, because then you just know that there has been a really noteworthy precedent that led to that rule.

Even so, I find King's Quest II+ by AGDI handled the material much better. Their take on the story was much deeper and walked the line between mature and fun perfectly. I'm not a huge King's Quest fan either, apart from KQ6 which is fantastic. I do know that they're basically interactive fairy tales and that Roberta was a pioneer, but I do also think there was room for some stronger plots in there. That became particularly evident when Jane Jensen started designing games of her own that completely smoked Roberta's earlier efforts, in my opinion. And I'm not talking about the technical aspects.

Or, you know, that other free adventure game ;) I've been playing a lot of FTL lately. Very addictive. Definitely one of my favourite strategy games and a definite Kickstarter success. I'm looking forward to the free expansion pack that'll be released this year.

The real head scratcher that I neglected to mention is that Mark barely uses Twitter. Certainly nowhere near as much as Scott does when he has the time for it. And, sure, Scott can be foul-mouthed, but if you judge someone's entire personality solely on the words they use, you may just happen to be a worse person than they'll ever be. I'd laugh my head off if this was somehow because Mark swore like a sailor behind the scenes, but he doesn't. Like Scott, Mark is one of the nicest people I know, only he seems to be more into remaining politely silent until you need his help, as opposed to Scott's refreshing honesty. I'm clueless, because it's not as if it takes a major research effort to see that Mark tweets once in a blue moon and never drops any F, C, S or Skate-O-Rama bombs. But, meh. People have published worse ill-researched stuff under the guise of "opinion".

Pretty sure the author is female. Just wanted to mention that since things might get awkward otherwise; I'm thinking the OP in here might actually be the author. Who might also be in for a bit of a rough welcome ;) I find myself scratching my head over this article as well. Sure, it's nice with some love for "Space Quest", but... why aren't Scott and Mark allowed to be just as fallible as the rest of us? Sure, they're creatively gifted, but that doesn't make them superhumans. And, once again, I really must shake my head at the notion that adventure games are, for some reason, only meant to exist in this 1990's time bubble so we can dust them off once in a while for a fix of quaint nostalgia. Load of rubbish, to be frank. Adventure games have always been about telling stories and I'm clueless as to why storytellers should suddenly be told that they have to stick with the tools they had in their heyday. And to think that bringing adventure games into the current decade will only result in "Call for Space Quest" is absurd. So, yeah. It may be an ode to "Space Quest", but I'd argue it manages to miss the train completely and it winds up being kind of insulting to the people behind the games, and to those of us who have faith in "SpaceVenture".

"Best sci-fi ever" is probably too much of a stretch for me. But all the games contain great examples of quality sci-fi comedy, which is something you rarely see. So I do appreciate the series a lot for that.

True, but even so, there's a lot of baggage there. Especially if it becomes kind of a "well, everyone knows it's really Sierra 2.0"-type thing. Much like when the Dio line-up of Black Sabbath reunited as Heaven & Hell. Everyone knew that was just yet another reunited incarnation of Black Sabbath! I also prefer the developers apart, not having to deal with any kind of friction or a CEO breathing down their necks. One must not forget that, while magic definitely happened at Oakhurst, not everyone was happy-go-lucky with the management all of the time. There are reasons why SQ4 is so dark at times - the Guys had hit a rough patch in their working relationship, and Ken Williams forced the point'n'click interface on them during development just because it was the new thing. No way any of them would want to waste their time on something like that again. I'm happy the Coles and the Guys have gone indie because it's in this arena their creativity can truly run amok!

Agreed. But then the name "Sierra 2.0" kinda becomes a non seqiutur, doesn't it? If such a group of designers was to brand itself as "Sierra 2.0", the target demographic would ultimately have some very high and rigid expectations. Sounds like the complete opposite of what you describe. Ultimately, I think we're all on the same page, but I somewhat resent the "Sierra 2.0"-moniker because, again, it wouldn't be very sustainable once everyone's sense of nostalgia is satisfied, and it would keep the designers on a very tight leash. A clean slate for our heroes I can definitely get behind. "Sierra 2.0" I cannot. There's just too much baggage for it to take off.

Troels and Gareth are both spot on in their respective readings of my post. There is a major difference between wanting games that focus on good storytelling and puzzle-solving and wanting games that are near-exact recreations of what we had in the 1990's, right down to 320x200 VGA graphics and/or outdated mechanics. Asking for the old masters to strictly stick to oldschool endeavours is by no means encouraging. It's creativity-stifling. Something I have pointed out repeatedly in similar discussions is that Sierra was always moving forward. By the end of their heyday, as 3D reared its ugly, low-poly head, they arguably did so at the expense of quality. But Ken Williams constantly had his finger on the pulse of technology. In that light, I find it a bit odd to take the Sierra brand and have it be the basis of an endeavour that would mainly be about looking backward and simultaneously hoping that the games developed by such a company will be mainstream blockbusters. How well do you think an AGI game would've sold in 1993, charming as the aesthetics of those games were?

Too many people are working on "recapturing" something, IMO. I've rambled about this many times, but the 1990's happened and they were good. Now let's get over it and look forward. LSL:R may have sold well enough, but there's a reason it tanked with critics. Few people can just take a game from 1991, slap 2013 all over it and make it work. So "Sierra 2.0" was a lousy idea to begin with, no matter who had it.

I definitely agree with MusicallyInspired that you should play all of them. They make a very good, remarkably consistent series. But since you asked, my own favourite Space Quest games are SQ5 and SQ3, in that order. Also, should you feel the need for more Space Quest after you've completed the official games, there are a few fangames out there you may want to check out. I wrote an article about the most noteworthy ones back in 2012 that should serve as a little introductory guide: http://www.spacequest.net/index.php/page/articles.html/_/ramblings/who-says-space-quest-is-dead-r11 Oh, and yes, by all means - do follow PurpleTentacle's advice and preorder SpaceVenture. I personally have little doubt it's going to be every bit as good as the Space Quest games and well worth the wait.

It happens to be both a powerful laxative and a potent aphrodisiac. Unfortunately, you never really know which side effect you're going to get till it's too late. It makes your urine glow in the dark should your bathroom light suddenly malfunction. It will blend. When mixed with gelatin, it becomes a great trap for Andromedan game designers.

I've yet to play Phantasmagoria, but it's on the list. Especially since I've been quite pleased with GK2, which I'm currently playing. Is Phantasmagoria actually that shitty, or is it just "typical FMV game"-shitty? I do think a Gabriel Knight film would be a lot more interesting than this either way. Either a retelling of the first game or a whole new story from Jane. But still... interesting. Though arguably, Mortal Kombat remains the only film based on a game that actually works well for what it is. Too bad it *cough* never had a sequel. So Justin is probably right about the likelihood of this being pretty bad.

Ask him what the meaning of life is! Ask him to briefly summarise Plato's Cave!

Good point. I'm off to ask Josh who really designed LSL:R.

Whoa, boy. Here we go again...

Chris Pope has said that Al knows how highly Chris thinks of him. But he also said that Al seemed serious about retirement this time around. Never say never, though. I learned that lesson in a most enjoyable way back in 2012. If Josh Mandel ever joins Guys from Andromeda for a project, having Al aboard as a consultant doesn't sound so far-fetched. But that's all speculation and wishful thinking on my part. Either way, I wish Al all the best.

Hmm. I can't really take that article seriously. No matter how many good points the guy may make, Paul Trowe did not "step down". Al Lowe did. Apparently, only a handful of us are able to discern between their names despite the misleading "owe" ending. Not only does it boggle my mind, but it also infuriates me that poor Al will likely never get a break because quite a few so-called journalists will keep writing that the "creator" was the sex offender.