Troels Pleimert

Thanks for checking that out -- I couldn't remember if that actually was an option, or if my long-term substance abuse-riddled brain had just made it up.
 

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed without the gem. Well, not pretty much. You are screwed. ;)
 

You mean this guy? :D
 

 
Come on, everyone loves the MarrowMatic.

Great art style! Can't wait to see the characters!
 
Also, nice "Star Quest 3" poster in the bedroom. :)

The Two Guys have always done what they felt like. I'm acting as sort of a liason between them and my experiences playing other adventure games, because they honestly don't want to be influenced by anything else. And I'm trying my hardest not to inadvertently push them in a direction where we go, "Oh, popular opinion dictates that this and this is considered bad form or a bad idea, so we probably shouldn't do that."
 
In the end I may be completely biased (in fact, I totally am -- hell, I probably love the Space Quest series much more than anyone would consider healthy), but I am determined to let Scott and Mark build whatever the hell they want to build. Because, at least from my completely biased personal experiences, that's usually what gets the best results.
 
The Two Guys have been masters at taking something that on paper probably sounded like a horrible idea to adventure game purists and turning it into something that inexplicably works. I mean, they pioneered the arcade sequence. They made timer puzzles fun. They made killing off your main character something not to be avoided, but that players actively sought out. That's why I'm not worried. If anything looks or sounds like a bad idea, just wait until you play it. It could change your mind if you give it a chance.
 
The whole business of the art style, I think, does boil down to taste. I'm sorry. It has nothing to do with detail or lack thereof. This other game we're talking about looks damned amazing; no question about that. SpaceVenture, in my book, does too, but in a completely different way. It's more crisp, dare I say more cartoonish without making that sound derogatory. It takes a no frills approach. This, more than anything, I think is a stylistic choice. It may not appeal to everyone; it may scare people into thinking we're going in a Toy Story sort of direction. I happen to know that's not true.
 
Tl;dr: The Two Guys are punk as fuck.

Aargrghhh, get it away from me, get it away from me!!

The Two Guys have always done what they felt like. I'm acting as sort of a liason between them and my experiences playing other adventure games, because they honestly don't want to be influenced by anything else. And I'm trying my hardest not to inadvertently push them in a direction where we go, "Oh, popular opinion dictates that this and this is considered bad form or a bad idea, so we probably shouldn't do that."
 
In the end I may be completely biased (in fact, I totally am -- hell, I probably love the Space Quest series much more than anyone would consider healthy), but I am determined to let Scott and Mark build whatever the hell they want to build. Because, at least from my completely biased personal experiences, that's usually what gets the best results.
 
The Two Guys have been masters at taking something that on paper probably sounded like a horrible idea to adventure game purists and turning it into something that inexplicably works. I mean, they pioneered the arcade sequence. They made timer puzzles fun. They made killing off your main character something not to be avoided, but that players actively sought out. That's why I'm not worried. If anything looks or sounds like a bad idea, just wait until you play it. It could change your mind if you give it a chance.
 
The whole business of the art style, I think, does boil down to taste. I'm sorry. It has nothing to do with detail or lack thereof. This other game we're talking about looks damned amazing; no question about that. SpaceVenture, in my book, does too, but in a completely different way. It's more crisp, dare I say more cartoonish without making that sound derogatory. It takes a no frills approach. This, more than anything, I think is a stylistic choice. It may not appeal to everyone; it may scare people into thinking we're going in a Toy Story sort of direction. I happen to know that's not true.
 
Tl;dr: The Two Guys are punk as fuck.

The Two Guys have always done what they felt like. I'm acting as sort of a liason between them and my experiences playing other adventure games, because they honestly don't want to be influenced by anything else. And I'm trying my hardest not to inadvertently push them in a direction where we go, "Oh, popular opinion dictates that this and this is considered bad form or a bad idea, so we probably shouldn't do that."
 
In the end I may be completely biased (in fact, I totally am -- hell, I probably love the Space Quest series much more than anyone would consider healthy), but I am determined to let Scott and Mark build whatever the hell they want to build. Because, at least from my completely biased personal experiences, that's usually what gets the best results.
 
The Two Guys have been masters at taking something that on paper probably sounded like a horrible idea to adventure game purists and turning it into something that inexplicably works. I mean, they pioneered the arcade sequence. They made timer puzzles fun. They made killing off your main character something not to be avoided, but that players actively sought out. That's why I'm not worried. If anything looks or sounds like a bad idea, just wait until you play it. It could change your mind if you give it a chance.
 
The whole business of the art style, I think, does boil down to taste. I'm sorry. It has nothing to do with detail or lack thereof. This other game we're talking about looks damned amazing; no question about that. SpaceVenture, in my book, does too, but in a completely different way. It's more crisp, dare I say more cartoonish without making that sound derogatory. It takes a no frills approach. This, more than anything, I think is a stylistic choice. It may not appeal to everyone; it may scare people into thinking we're going in a Toy Story sort of direction. I happen to know that's not true.
 
Tl;dr: The Two Guys are punk as fuck.

I can see why someone would prefer the more detailed art work and I agree it is impressive/beautiful,
though I personally prefer the style that the SV demo is in, at least for this type of game...
 
Out of the SQ games, I liked the SQ4 graphics the best, even though SQ6 had more detail...
With the LucasArts games I liked the first Monkey Island level of graphics over the later Curse/Escape graphics...
 
Part of that I think is the feel of the game and how the visuals represent it, whether it's meant to look
like real life or creating a world with a specific visual style.
 
Also you can't really make something hyper-realistic with the backgrounds and then have more cartoony
characters walk through them without it looking odd, so it will be interesting to see the Exogenesis game's characters...
 
Plus, when things get really detailed it can make some of the puzzles needlessly difficult, as usually
you're only looking for a handful of key items and there's just so much on the screen it detracts
from the actual gameplay.
 
Part of it as well is just subjective - I always found the first Monkey Island game's graphics hilarious
in a way that the later games didn't capture as well.
 
For me, the lack of items so far isn't a problem with the few bits and pieces we've seen -
I don't really expect corridors to be full of items... they weren't in the Space Quest games.

Hi all.  I played the original Space Quest shortly after it came out, in stunning monochrome, on my dad's Sharp PC:
 
I played every game pretty much as soon as possible after it was released, although I didn't really have my own money until V and 6 came out, since I was just a kid in 80s.  In fact, I bought Space Quest II with money I won from a Bingo game at my stepfather's company picnic back in 1988!

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.

Nope. Best I can do is to get the writer's intern blitzed and hope he reveals something!

Oh, crap. I installed this on my phone. You know how hard pixel hunting is on a 5x8 inch screen?

Best guess: probably just a background character that reminded the programmers of Clark Kent or something, and they gave him that nickname in the code. Doesn't necesssarily refer to THE Superdude. :)

Gary Owens: "Well guys, that was a tough 72 hours straight of recording, but job done!"
 
Two guys: "Yep! Oh no, wait... it looks like pcj and Troels just made a ton of changes to the script
while you were in the recording booth. Well, back in you go Gary."
 
Gary Owens: " :( "

What PCJ said. We're working across states and continents here, and it's important to have our stuff in a central database so we don't end up with multiple iterations of the same script. Also, this way, we can very quickly go over each other's lines and give pointers directly within the Narrative Editor's comment field, instead of going the roundabout way of emailing it and hoping someone will notice.
 
Once the script is final, it's locked down - and, as PCJ says, it'll only be tweaked when the actors come up with stuff during recording.

What PCJ said. We're working across states and continents here, and it's important to have our stuff in a central database so we don't end up with multiple iterations of the same script. Also, this way, we can very quickly go over each other's lines and give pointers directly within the Narrative Editor's comment field, instead of going the roundabout way of emailing it and hoping someone will notice.
 
Once the script is final, it's locked down - and, as PCJ says, it'll only be tweaked when the actors come up with stuff during recording.

Seriously, what's with all the drama lately? Lol

I...what. What is going on here guys.

Cause on the Internet, nothing ever survives a copyright takedown ;)

Very pleasantly surprised with Tesla Effect. Am really enjoying it. Definitely recommended. Love the atmosphere.

Nemesis ruined Trek for me. Insurrection mauled me badly, but Nemesis had me in therapy for months. I'm very wary of new Trek.

Hey guys! Did I miss someth...
 
Oh.
 
 
 
*turns around and walks away*

I agree, sitcoms are usually stale and formulaic to the point where they're vomit-inducing. And they always have been. The old 60's sitcoms are offensively stupid, but they're a product of their time. They weren't castrated; we just discovered that they weren't funny anymore.
 
Big Bang Theory is just as offensively stupid, but not because it bucks sexist/racist stereotypes (which, by the way, it doesn't; at least not with any aplomb or finesse). It's just transferring the stereotypes we usually pick on -- race, disabilities, gender -- and turning it onto nerds and social classes. And my beef with BBT goes even deeper, but I'm not going to let myself be derailed. I'll gladly espouse why I hate this piece of shit another time.
 
However, I have been watching a fair bit of 30 Rock lately -- yes, much later than everyone else; that's how I roll; I didn't get into Seinfeld until way into the 2000's -- and 30 Rock brilliantly holds no prisoners. It's written and created by a self-proclaimed feminist (Tina Fey), but she is more than willing to poke as much fun at her own beliefs as anyone else's. You could call it cynicism for laughs, but to me, it just captures our failings at upholding our own ideals when faced with real-life situations exceptionally well. Her character on the show claims to be a feminist as well, but is easily swayed by money and she liberally takes advice from her overtly sexist, conservative boss (Alec Baldwin). And female characters on the show get hit in the crotch just as often as male characters.
 
My point with bringing up 30 Rock is that we can argue about how we all should think until the cows come home. Forcing kids to attend a gay pride parade in the name of equality? Stupid. Arguing that women are better than men, or the other way around? Stupid. This is why we have ideals. Ideals are not reality. They are what we would strive for, if we were somehow perfect creatures. But we're not.
 
(Edit: Here's a great article about "Liz Lemonism" and how feminists erroneously lambast it for failing to live up to their ideals: http://www.genders.org/g55/g55_mizejewski.html)
 
That said, your idea of "the four big B.S." can still fuck right off. Gareth said it absolutely right: You are clearly oblivious to how ironic you sound when you call us the "P.C. police" (a misnomer if ever there was one). If we're going to play that game, it should at least be "the five big B.S.".
 
And I can't speak for Gareth or Frederik, but I definitely don't consider myself politically correct. I consider myself a humanist. But I am also a cynic and I think there is truth to Carlin's words that we will never attain our ideals. The peaceful world of Star Trek where everyone is united in peace with no money and a military hierarchy that somehow works will never happen. We're too far gone; we've already fucked it up for ourselves beyond repair -- there has to be a cataclysmic event where we nuke the site from orbit, final-scene-from-Fight-Club style, just like a drug addict has to hit rock bottom, before we're going to get anywhere.
 
Which is why I think everyone and everything is fair game for lampooning, satire, comedy and cynical remarks. I might even get thrown out of Frederik's apartment for telling an obviously racist joke, however ironically I might be telling it. I also think everyone deserves the right to live their life however they want to. Yes, even homophobic racist dickwads -- go ahead, live that way if you choose, but I think those people are wrong, they are sad and wretched, and I reserve the right to call them out on just what a homophobic racist dickwad they are.
 
And I also reserve the right to call you out for being full of shit with regards to your accusations of wolf-crying, because you're doing exactly the same yourself.

I agree, sitcoms are usually stale and formulaic to the point where they're vomit-inducing. And they always have been. The old 60's sitcoms are offensively stupid, but they're a product of their time. They weren't castrated; we just discovered that they weren't funny anymore.
 
Big Bang Theory is just as offensively stupid, but not because it bucks sexist/racist stereotypes (which, by the way, it doesn't; at least not with any aplomb or finesse). It's just transferring the stereotypes we usually pick on -- race, disabilities, gender -- and turning it onto nerds and social classes. And my beef with BBT goes even deeper, but I'm not going to let myself be derailed. I'll gladly espouse why I hate this piece of shit another time.
 
However, I have been watching a fair bit of 30 Rock lately -- yes, much later than everyone else; that's how I roll; I didn't get into Seinfeld until way into the 2000's -- and 30 Rock brilliantly holds no prisoners. It's written and created by a self-proclaimed feminist (Tina Fey), but she is more than willing to poke as much fun at her own beliefs as anyone else's. You could call it cynicism for laughs, but to me, it just captures our failings at upholding our own ideals when faced with real-life situations exceptionally well. Her character on the show claims to be a feminist as well, but is easily swayed by money and she liberally takes advice from her overtly sexist, conservative boss (Alec Baldwin). And female characters on the show get hit in the crotch just as often as male characters.
 
My point with bringing up 30 Rock is that we can argue about how we all should think until the cows come home. Forcing kids to attend a gay pride parade in the name of equality? Stupid. Arguing that women are better than men, or the other way around? Stupid. This is why we have ideals. Ideals are not reality. They are what we would strive for, if we were somehow perfect creatures. But we're not.
 
(Edit: Here's a great article about "Liz Lemonism" and how feminists erroneously lambast it for failing to live up to their ideals: http://www.genders.org/g55/g55_mizejewski.html)
 
That said, your idea of "the four big B.S." can still fuck right off. Gareth said it absolutely right: You are clearly oblivious to how ironic you sound when you call us the "P.C. police" (a misnomer if ever there was one). If we're going to play that game, it should at least be "the five big B.S.".
 
And I can't speak for Gareth or Frederik, but I definitely don't consider myself politically correct. I consider myself a humanist. But I am also a cynic and I think there is truth to Carlin's words that we will never attain our ideals. The peaceful world of Star Trek where everyone is united in peace with no money and a military hierarchy that somehow works will never happen. We're too far gone; we've already fucked it up for ourselves beyond repair -- there has to be a cataclysmic event where we nuke the site from orbit, final-scene-from-Fight-Club style, just like a drug addict has to hit rock bottom, before we're going to get anywhere.
 
Which is why I think everyone and everything is fair game for lampooning, satire, comedy and cynical remarks. I might even get thrown out of Frederik's apartment for telling an obviously racist joke, however ironically I might be telling it. I also think everyone deserves the right to live their life however they want to. Yes, even homophobic racist dickwads -- go ahead, live that way if you choose, but I think those people are wrong, they are sad and wretched, and I reserve the right to call them out on just what a homophobic racist dickwad they are.
 
And I also reserve the right to call you out for being full of shit with regards to your accusations of wolf-crying, because you're doing exactly the same yourself.

You're gonna let the PCJ Police boss you around? ;)

This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today; pardon my bluntness. Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't care about racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia? To me, writing "big four of BS" about these topics is just self-servingly ignorant.
 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not intent on upholding some PC standard for behavior or to encourage self-censorship in any way. I'm just going to reiterate the point that I already quoted Carlin on in the "damsel in distress" post, which is that it's the intent behind a statement that's offensive, not the words or wordings themselves. Your "intent" here, however, seems to be that anyone who decries racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia is by default trying to control your thoughts and force you to conform to a certain world view.
 
Not so. You can tell me a racist joke if you're not racist, because I know it's not coming from a prejudiced mind. You can tell me a sexist joke or a gay joke, too, if you fundamentally believe in gender equality or gay rights. If you don't, however, and tell me a joke on either of these anyway, I'm going to assume that you're just a bigoted a-hole who thinks it's funny to pick on people different than yourself. That's the fundamental difference between being PC and being able to joke about things.
 
It's not self-censorship. It's not about giving up your freedom to say what you want. It's about having values that don't demean or belittle other human beings.