Troels Pleimert

Trying to imagine Roger Wilco being played by Robin Williams ... wow.
 
I wonder how many other actors were considered for the role? Both in the realm of possibility (who they auditioned) and impossibility (who they imagined playing the part).
 
If PCJ isn't just making this up in bad taste (huh? well, he might! have you ever had a conversation with the man?), I'm definitely going to slide this in the next show.

Trying to imagine Roger Wilco being played by Robin Williams ... wow.
 
I wonder how many other actors were considered for the role? Both in the realm of possibility (who they auditioned) and impossibility (who they imagined playing the part).
 
If PCJ isn't just making this up in bad taste (huh? well, he might! have you ever had a conversation with the man?), I'm definitely going to slide this in the next show.

Yeah, I learned from your podcast that for both KQ5 and SQ4, the vast majority of characters are voiced by Sierra employees or (for Roger Wilco) family friends.
 
In any case, it seems very unlikely that someone who would go on to be a pro voice actor would take such a small role, and moreover uncredited.

I'll wager pretty much everything that it wasn't a professional actor. Only the narrator and Roger Wilco were voiced by, quote unquote, professional actors. So it's highly unlikely it's the dude from Half-Life.

That sentence is all sorts of depressing.

I recently discovered this podcast. It's really spectacular! I can hardly believe how well-produced it is for an "amateur" affair, and even more importantly the content is so deep and interesting. Blew my mind to hear the Supertramp drummer's interview when I didn't even know he'd done the SQ3 music! From the easter egg stuff to the music trivia, this is a really top-notch thing. (Roger's voice only on Roland for SQ3... wow... Plus it sounds so much better!)
 
The podcast is bizarrely funny too. Even found myself enjoying the fan fiction sections  :blink:
 
Keep digging deep and bringing us awesome SQ trivia and music! (And I guess Space Venture stuff is cool too... ;))

Gawd, I hate this new "quote post" system. I can never seem to "break" quotes into small pieces for easy commenting. Oh well.
 
 
Re: Larry criticism. I agree, a lot of it came from a mindset that did not appreciate adventure games for the storytelling medium they were, expecting unlockable achievements and a degree of reflex-twitching, since that's what's considered an "adventure" game these days (survival horror, Zack & Wiki, Tomb Raider, etc.).
 
I don't think the Reloaded game helped matters much, however, by sticking very stringently to the original, going so far as to copy mechanics that were, shall we say, annoying to begin with. The money system where you can get irrevocably stuck in a taxi-cab and have to restore to a previous point? Having to play the slot machines to increase said money count for no other reason than being able to buy some stuff in the convenience store and having enough money to travel around the game world?
 
Despite the addition of some puzzles that weren't in the original and what I think is a pretty good conversation system, it still really did feel like a throwback instead of a forward move. And I'm not saying that's a terrible thing at all, but in terms of appealing to a larger, more mainstream demographic, a lot of eyes were on Larry to take adventure gaming into the future, and instead it stuck to its nostalgic roots - and perhaps a little too closely. I think that criticism of the game is deserved. There were a lot of things you could've done with a remade Larry 1 that would have kept the spirit of the original but taken it in a new direction (yes, unlockable achievements could have been one of them).
 
Okay, that's Larry. Re: the comment about "getting over a time when big budget adventure game releases were common." I don't think that's the sentiment Fred and the guys were going for at all. If anything, yes, we do want adventure games to break into the mainstream so we can see them get the same big-budget treatments that current AAA titles enjoy. Not to replace action/strategy/whatever games. But it would be fun to see true adventure games get back into the good graces with the mainstream gaming public, perhaps attract new players that aren't much into "gaming" but would rather read/watch movies, and share the spotlight with whatever the kids are playing these days.
 
I was recently interviewed for a podcast (in Danish, sadly) about where "gaming" is going these days - it was hosted by a group of cultural intellectuals who preferred reading and watching movies to "playing these video games." So they'd gotten hold of Grand Theft Auto 5 and Flower and played those as "representative of video games today." And they brought me in as one of two guests for a bonus episode (the other was the lead programmer from IO Interactive) to talk about game development today. But it quickly escalated into a talk about how many people are turned off by video gaming because of its lack of emphasis on storytelling and its predelictions towards quick reflexes or technology showcasing. I think modern video games are just coming out of their "puberty" now and we're starting to see a greater focus on storytelling, even in those AAA titles that are still all about blasting everything in sight.
 
That suddenly leaves a spot open for adventure games to reclaim its heyday before Doom made it all about technology and turned computer/video gaming into a competitive sport instead of a culturally viable alternative/evolution of literature. And that's what I hope to see.
 
I very much doubt that there are any adventure gamers who feel we should "get over" the heyday of the 90's, but we need to be willing to share the spotlight with other genres and realize that there is an audience out there for every type of game - even people who didn't realize they were "gamers" until someone showed them that it's not all about massacring zombies or driving really fast.

Hey guys,
 
Long-time SQ fan (I remember writing upset letters to Sierra management when the adventure branch was closed down), but a recent nostalgia binge has brought me back into the loop...
 
Couple things I wanted to say.
 
First of all, I love the overall positive vibe of this community. People like Fronzel Neekburm aside (who really smells like another, much worse classic-gaming site I visited for a while), there is an incredibly mature, fun, mutually supportive, and genuinely funny vibe in this group. The Space Quest Historian podcasts are stellar, and I just got around to all of the fantastic new fan content: the last fan games I'd played were the AGI classics, back when I made my own AGI games as a teenager, and it was incredible to discover the 2012-2013 revival.
 
Second, SpaceVenture looks great. I think we can all agree, if we're honest with ourselves, that the Two Guys have a checkered history in gaming, and I don't think they can be blindly trusted to produce a perfect product. However, I think they have NEVER delivered a perfect product, but they HAVE successfully given so many things over the years (specifically the years 1986-1995) that there's no reason to riot over potential misuse of swiping puzzles or something otherwise unrelated to the core of the game. Nobody wants to make a good game more than these two guys, who have been forced out of the industry twice as long as they were in it. I have no doubt that the game will be funny, fun, charming, and full of half-finished thoughts: just like every Space Quest game. It will be good, swiping puzzles or no.
 
Third, there's a lot of discussion about how 3-4 are the best SQ games. Totally disagree, and I don't get why 1 is always written off. SQ 1, both EGA and VGA, are easily my favourites in the series. The humour wasn't all there yet, but it's such a tight, exciting, and coherent trip, it's probably ironically the best-designed of the series. And of course, Kerona is probably the best planet of the entire series, providing a classic yet generic atmosphere and a nice mix of the wild and the civilized. 3-4 were good for their self-referential fourth-wall humour and oddball plots/locations, but nobody's gonna call The Sarien Encounter "their worst work" while my Internet still works!!
 
P.S. Was funny to see how nice this community was to Paul Trowe even when he was at his weirdest. Good people.

I have no control over the segments Pope sends me, or anyone else's segments for that matter. People send me shit and I put it on there. I actually try really hard to let people be autonomous with regards to what they want to say on the show; a privilege that Gareth in particular takes pleasure in abusing.
 
I would love to talk more about the game myself but, for kinda obvious reasons, I can't.
 
Pope does listen to criticism and he would address it if you asked him. Hey, here's a thought. Why don't you record your grievances, I'll send them to Pope, and I'll let the two of you duke it out on the show?

Hey, kids! Long time no speaky.
 
Just wanted to drop in and let you guys know that season 2 of my silly little podcast is up and running. This first episode I've got Bob Siebenberg, James Mulvale and Jess Morrissette in the house. And if you don't listen I will continue to speak in wildly inappropriate 90's white rapper lingo until you do.
 
Linky linky: http://spacequesthistorian.com/2014/07/09/episode-13-fandom-through-the-ages/
 
Or just search for the show on iTunes.
 
Oh, and, thanks to a kind soul on Twitter, I've put in an application to get this joint on Stitcher, too. I had no idea that existed but, hey, now I do.
 
As always, feedback is welcome, good and bad, and if you have anything you want me to read on the air, this is as good a place to throw it at me as any!

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.

Exactly. I would have probably spread this around, but that last panel blows it. It turns what could have been a good argument for a point that I have often made into a brainless misogynistic rant.

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!

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

Apologies in advance if my post comes off like I'm firing from both barrels without warning.  Because this has been irking me all day and I wanted to chime in.
Yup.  The article Fronzel linked points that out later on: "The sexual violence at the end of that tutorial will single out a fifth of the female audience who have experienced sexual violence".  There's also this October 2013 report from the World Health Organization which shows that number jumps up to 35% on a worldwide scale for general sexual violence.
 
Look Fronzel, this isn't some sort of moral panic like the ones you're equating it to.  No one is saying people need to stop making these games because bad things will happen if they don't.  People want the industry to shift away from a very entrenched worldview.  This isn't a hobby that is the domain of only adolescent white males these days.  There are other people playing games, and they are all minorities who are very underrepresented by the medium.  You say "It's 100% pure escapism".  How is it escapism for women if the majority of the time they're forced to play as a male character?  How is it escapism for a person of color when the vast majority of game characters are white?  Or LGBTQ players who want to have a non-heterosexual relationship option in a game but the developers didn't think to include one?
 
This isn't the gestapo coming by and saying we need to burn these games.  This is criticism.  This is a reviewer doing her job and saying that she had a very negative reaction to a specific scene in a game that she didn't think was handled properly by the developers.  This is a reviewer who clearly enjoyed the previous game and is pointing out to the developer and the community that she thinks a specific scene weakens the product and will likely negatively impact other players too.  Criticism allows people to have a dialogue about issues.  Censorship does not.  Shouting down people who bring up valid points is not how you have a dialogue such as this follow-up interview with Dennaton on RPS.  What Cara's doing is no different than someone pointing out they didn't think the voice acting was good on a specific character, or something in the story doesn't make sense.  She's not doing it because she hates the game, she's doing it because she wants this to be a good experience for anyone who plays it.  People don't get better at making things unless people are willing to explain the faults in their work.  And considering rape isn't usually handled well in a lot of fiction, it's a good criticism to levy because it can encourage the authors to revisit their work and see if they can handle it better or use a different scene to convey the same information (see the above interview).
 
She's also doing other people a favor by highlighting content that might be problematic for them.  With 1 out of every 5 women having suffered from rape (and the real statistic is probably higher because it's an underreported crime for various reasons) there's real reason to let victims who might not be aware of the content in the game (especially considering the previous game didn't have any sexual violence in it).  Rape victims often suffer from something akin to PTSD like soldiers (and this is true of other abuse victims as well) and stuff like this can cause a very physical response for them.  That's being an empathic human being and looking out for others.
 
No one is saying you can't enjoy these things.  I enjoyed the Larry games because I found them funny, but I also acknowledge there's some problematic bits in them as well (and a lot of this is due to the age in which the games were made).  I also like Game of Thrones which is also problematic in spots.  Does people pointing out the problematic bits diminsh my enjoyment of them?  Not really, but I also don't think people shouldn't voice their opinions and criticisms when there's something problematic going on.
 
As for why it seems like this is all you see about games these days... Well it's a combination of factors.  The main one is that there's a lot more gamers out there from all walks of life and it's no longer the 80's or 90's where many of the minorities were unwilling to speak up.  The Internet has given a lot of groups their own safe spaces to gather and discuss issues without fear of retaliation.  Some of these people are now writing for game publications, running their own sites, or just being vocal on social media.  So a lot of opinions that were being kept underground before are now out in the open and finding there's an audience of likeminded people.  There's also the fact that a lot of people are dissastisfied with the current stagnation in the market and encouraging developers to write for different demographics is one way of addressing this.  And some people are growing older and looking around and noticing that "hey, there's very few games with good female characters for my daughter to look up to".  (Great post here by Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software if anyone's interested)
 
I'm 31 and have been gaming since I was 5.  I know I'd much rather live in a world where more people feel empowered by games because they can find characters to relate to other than buff macho white guy with a gun.  I love games and I want more people to enjoy them.  I also want to live in a world where hopefully my offspring will be able to enjoy a large variety of games regardless of their gender (or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, or ethnicity, etc.).
 
So I ask you, Fronzel, what the fuck gives you the right to air question another person's opinion in such a callous manner?

Except the point is not to ban or criminalise these games. It's to criticise them. And, hopefully, make sure that ones in the future aren't as bad.
 
You're right about sincerity and manipulation not being mutually exclusive, and about Mrs Lovejoy. However, there is a massive difference between hysterical wailing and a reasoned argument. The rhetorical flourish about 1 in 5 victims is meant as a reminder that these issues aren't trivial, not a blanket statement that 1 in 5 women will have a problem with the game. It's called rhetoric.
 
Anyway, I suppose this is what I'm trying to get at here. You make wide-sweeping analogies that don't actually seem to fit. Or, at the base level, do you just dislike anyone who tries to campaign to make the world (as they see it) a better place? Be they reactionary (like the people trying to restrict access to the internet) or progressive?
 
(And by the way, I'm using the political meaning of those words - you, of course, don't need to see gender equality as a sign of absolute "progress".)
 
 

Same could be said of movies, tv shows, musicals and so on (if you change the 100% to 99%). But it's the 1% we hold out for. And, more to the point - fine. If it's escapism for you, or should be no more than escapism, fine. If you want something more from a computer game, fine. But when you want a higher level of complexity and depth you're going to get more complex and deep criticisms of the subject matter and the way it's rendered. 
If the gaming industry is garbage, it's not because people have started demanding more complex female characters. It's that lazy writers have exhausted their colour-by-numbers scripts and have nothing more to contribute. I believe this analogy was made earlier tin the thread re: situational comedies.
 

But once again - THE AUTHOR IS NOT CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP. She's expressing her belief that it shouldn't happen (morally, not legally). That's her prerogative.
 
This idea that criticism is "censorship" is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to know what it stems from.
 
Self-reflexivity is, of course, a good thing. Getting an emotional reaction out of people is something to encourage. But you can get those base emotions out of a snuff movie too. It doesn't necessarily make them right.
 
And, again, the author doesn't say the game should be banned. She says she doesn't like it, it made her feel uncomfortable because of her politics, and (by extension) maybe it ought to be avoided by people who think similarly to her. But that isn't censorship. That's debate. Judging by the comments on the article, she didn't convince that many people to go along with her. So... what's the issue?
 

 
The Gabriel Knight series in general has never interested me, for reasons that are not necessarily rational. It just never has. I've never been actively recommended that I should try it by people close to me, so I've never gone near it. Indeed, I haven't played a huge amount of adventure games in general, certainly when compared to many of the people on this site. With the adventure genre I've tended to play the handful of games that I've had in great depth rather than spreading over lots of different titles. So I haven't ever really "sought out" those games.
 
I'll have to confess ignorance on this one as to whether GK is or isn't sexist. Since you were talking hypothetically, however, I think my point stands.
 
Maybe I ought to play it? Are you recommending? :D

Wow, just wow. You realize that there is a pretty high chance that she is a rape victim. Women have a 20% to 25% chance of being raped. It is a danger that all women face. you should probably back off of this one.

Nobody with half a brain thinks that they'll change the world by criticising computer games. What they do believe is that if discrimination is challenged in video games, tv, film, art, politics, the work place, etc. etc., that winning small battles over time will cause more widespread and more meaningful change.
 
Because the point is there is no "the" man. It's a cultural thing we're all a part of. However, some benefit more from that status quo than others, and have a vested interest in conserving that world.
 
But that's by the by. I'm a little confused by what you think "political correctness" is, the methods employed, or the goals in mind.
 
So let's get down to the nub of why this seems to get you so angry. Because I genuinely want to understand it. As I see it, there's two things at play.
 
If I understand you correctly, the first is, you want to defend the right of games makers to take risks, and you're worried if people listen too much to criticism they will be unwilling to take those risks. On this front, I agree with the initial principle. The fear of litigation or bad publicity has forced so many areas of public life into lockdown. Everything requires a safety label, nobody will say or do something out of the ordinary. The blame for that isn't with individuals fighting for employment rights, health and safety and gender equality, though. It's public and private institutions and their lawyers refusing to do anything on the theoretical possibility of being sued - an issue for which they have a much lower risk tolerance than they did 40 years ago.
 
So, while this seems like a fair enough suggestion, it doesn't seem to be what's actually going on. The arts continue to take risk, and clearly, there are still plenty of games being made which are "edgy" enough to wind people up. And by the same token, there is plenty of art in all media that continues to be "edgy" and gets a very good reception. The multi-award winning Book of Mormon, for example, is set in an African village, involves jokes about child rape, religion, sex, female genital mutilation and AIDS. In no way PC - but so brilliantly done that it's come in for almost universal acclaim.
 
Actually, a clarification - the GOOD ART continues to take risks. The stuff that gets criticised is actually the games that lean on pathetic stereotypes at the expense of actually developing a plot or a nuanced story arc. That's true for those that lean on lazy race or gender tropes as much as it is lazy revenge/romance/horror/etc. tropes. Stories that have been done a thousand times are just dull. I think this is why adventure games seem unusually targeted for this - because any game where the USP is the story, it ought to be something good. When you've stopped creating good puzzles or engaging game play, expect to be critiqued just like a piece of literature or film. Especially when a growing proportion of your audience is female.
 
The reason gender and race get picked out is the belief - which you can of course challenge - that these tropes are more damaging because they re-enforce the power of established groups. Because these tropes are so omnipresent (and are so rarely challenged), black people see that they can never be the heroes, and women see they can only ever be the wife, never the protagonist. That perhaps this isn't a good message to send out. And people, for whatever reason, feel like they should articulate that opinion.
 
So, the second thing is you want to defend the right for games makers to rely on common tropes. Which again, is fine. Just don't expect people to be silent about it. Again, no campaigner worth their salt would ever deny the legal right to do those things. Just so long as they're willing to be called out for it.
 
I find it quite amusing, actually. The typical argument by the supposed "anti-censorship" brigade is "let the market decide". Which is weird. Because if the market starts articulating its opinion (necessary in any market to ensure reputation and to protect consumers from buying products they don't want/need), it's accused of "bullying". Given that these games keep getting made, the bullies are doing a TERRIBLE job.
 
So... I just don't really know what the issue is here, really. I don't understand why "the PC brigade" gets you so riled up. I mean, I don't even really see how your caricature of "the PC brigade" gets you so riled up.
 
Well, I sort of do. It's typical conservatism. That is, the desire to resist change. Which is a legitimate position. Just explain to me what's so great about the world you're defending.

I completely forgot about that one. That video alone makes me want to retract my earlier claims (to some extent at least, he still sucks at games).
 
Also, The Fly is pure unadulterated brilliance!

We're delving into the irony circle of doom, here, but it does seem (as JimmyTwoBucks amusingly put it) as if people defending the game makers are being accused of dismissing criticism as a way of blindly dismissing their criticism of the criticism.
 
And, again, the internet sustains its heroic level of lack of self-awareness and the cycle continues.
 
I do believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion. In some circumstances expert opinion (i.e. those with professional experience of this or similar projects) is preferable in arriving at a judgemet; in others, fan opinion (i.e. those with expertise in playing and enjoying finished products) is preferable. And sometimes, just plain old ranting can expose deeper issues.
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with criticising the devs for delays, or for the direction the game is going in; but when it's built on faulty premises - or does not appear to take into account other factors - people should enter into a debate and explain why they might be wrong.
 
Of course, it's always easy to see more substantive points when you agree with someone. Everyone who disagrees must be a "hater", or must simply be "dismissing criticism".
 
I'm all for people disagreeing with people who disagree with people who disagree. But let's lose the faux outrage about the faux outrage about the faux outrage.