jfrisby

We all, surely, used voice parser back in the day anyway? 1980s tech at its finest. Who didn't mumble what they were typing after hours of working out what you needed to enter to get past a particular screen? Anyone? No? Just me? Fine.

Saw somewhere that the Tex Murphy folks were making up fliers and posters and stuff for gaming stores, comic shops... So I thought I'd make a little thing to throw up in random places. Don't know that it'll do anything, but I'll just enjoy confusing people. If anyone feels like making something more counter-friendly for shops... That might work too.
 
So here's a poster that requires a Monolith Burger decoder ring.
Link to a PDF below with 6-per sheet, ideal for sticker paper.
 
 

 
Sheet of 6 x 8.5x11 - http://www.aultenavr.../tgakick-6x.pdf
.PSD - http://www.aultenavry.com/tgakick.psd

They basically talked about the artwork:
http://i.imgur.com/mHBot.png
http://i.imgur.com/jlXF7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ImHkd.png
 
And a bit of discussion about SQ history:
http://imgur.com/a/0nxRq
 
Nobody could hear Chris and Mark was sick so Scott basically carried the show. They did mention Prototype 2 was still a few days out yet, though. And they're trying to get the SQ license still.

One thing that sets this Kickstarter apart from the others, and can really be used to form a different compelling narrative, is that the prototypes show something actually being made. As Penny Arcade and others illustrated, it can be hard to trust your money to some guys whose last major product was released in the early 90s. It's been 20 years - how do we know they still have what it takes? A series of prototypes that shows the Two Guys working on a game is a great way to make clear early on - before the money has been committed - that they're focused on actual game development, not just talking about it.
 
If you guys can help form that narrative towards the media, I think we might be able to create an interesting additional angle. "Hey! These guys ARE the only ones putting out something before the Kickstarter is over! What about the others? What have they got to show for it? A bunch of videos?" There's an interesting conversation there waiting to happen.

To answer a couple of things. First off, the survey system is a paid system. It is only free up to the first 50. I have experience using google docs, but when you put the kind of load that we were putting on it, google docs falls apart. We had almost 400 people filling it out at once during a 5 minute period. The other small issue, to address @Spikey. We had to limit responses a bit in order to give them enough thought. the responses also needed to be a bit controlled due to the fact that some of the people out there think its fun to try and sabotage what we are doing. I make sure things go through Scott and Mark always, but if I bring them over 9000 pages of responses that are all over the board, they'll spend hours looking at that, and not hours working on game concept stuff..
 
I hope you guys know that we are putting alot of thought into things. Nothing is just seat of the pants. I know it may seam like that sometimes, and for that, I apologize. But I do promise you, everything is discussed before things happen. There are reasons why things are the way they are sometimes. Let me also say though, that mistakes are still made. Even with alot of help from the wonderful fan community, things do get missed, so please know that I apreciate all the feedback! I wouldn't ask for it if I didn't want it :)
 
Why not enough press? Actually we have tons of interviews lined up, but due to a reason that I'd rather not post just yet, I had to wait until tomorrow to begin the press campaigning. Eventually once the Two Guys are cool with it, I'll let you guys know why all that has worked out a certain way. Thanks again guys for all the feedback!

Really excellent.. Think (and hope) it goes a long way to address the vague concerns about quality people have had.
 
And on another note.. As someone who worked in airport security about 10 years ago I'm amazed you got away with that (in these extra-paranoid times). Brilliant.

Yeah, I'm in the small minority of people that sort of considers gaming dead-ends, and deaths, to be realistic and wonderful.
 
I think games have gotten pretty absurdly out-of-touch with all the fancy checkpoint business that's happened in these later years -- I guess that's an attention span thing, with people wanting to master 3-minute sequences, rather than face possible cumulative consequences from an entire game.
 
But Space Quest does abuse players, without telegraphing a lot of those needs properly.. but that's kinda great!

It really needs to be an official Reddit AMA. Jane Jensen's AMA wasn't featured on the right side where there's the schedule of upcoming AMAs and thus the only people who asked questions were the people who already pledged. As a consequence the kickstarter didn't get any kind of boost. Al Lowe's for example was a featured AMA and got a lot of new backers. And another thing, why hasn't this kickstarter been announced in an update on LSL's project. I think that would be a nice gesture.

I made this humble cover in rock/metal form of a medley of SQ4 themes a few years back. It was for a video game remix competition called Dwelling of Duels and it actually won 4th place. Looking back, I can do much better now with the recording knowledge and education I've acquired since, but it's still fun to listen to. Here's the link to the MP3, but I'll throw it on YouTube as well. Will add the link when it's done. I always wanted to put more music on my YouTube anyway, what a perfect excuse!
 
EDIT: YouTube
 
http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Soxl_OzMQ

Pledged! There are lots of exciting details on the Kickstarter page (iPad version, voice cast, et cetera). I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about in the days and weeks ahead.
 
Jess

How not to do it:
 

One of the best posts I've read in years, Johnathon- kudos Sir.
 
Paul- you said you won't reply, so OK. And Johnathon has summed it up already. But since I started this topic I'll post my 2 cents. I actually like you, what you've done so far and are trying to achieve. I'm disappointed to hear your, for want of a better word, rants, given that my aim was for the air to be cleared so we could move on from accusations and quiet whispers (divisiveness in the "new Sierra" community).
 
So you know, I'm a LSL1VGA Kickstarter funder. I pledged $100 (that I don't really have, BTW), because I feel it's worth it and I love Josh and Al to pieces. They've been generous to me over the years, too.
 
So while you have them, don't waste them. This opportunity will NOT come along again.
 
I will continue to fund LSL Kickstarter projects and try to do the others. but stay positive. Stay community minded. I understand your frustrations at the Two Guys, even if I don't know the personal situations and complex machinations of your relationships, but they have made decisions and that's the reality of the game. So what's done is done. Calling names will not make you look good or professional, and it certainly won't give them incentive to sign on board with you or Replay in the future.
 
I am going to put this one down to past frustrations on your part (legitimate or otherwise) and possibly a lack of sleep due to your frenetic work on LSL1/Kickstarter, but if you're serious about a united Sierra community at some point, I probably speak for more than just myself when I say that I don't want to see a repeat. There's just nothing to be gained for you, for them, and for the fans. You've seen the comments in this thread, whether you've enjoyed them or not. They're the future of companies like Replay reviving old Sierra IP's. Listen to them.
 
I will close by saying that there have been some comments in this thread that could be construed as slanderous or offensive, and as the starter of the topic and a senior member of the Sierra community, I take responsibility for that and apologise. Because I want to see you continue to do great things with the old IP. You're the only person who has been able to get it and do something with it for 20 years. So, kudos to you, Paul. Hey, you liked a comment I made on Facebook. I can't be all bad. Let's work hand in hand to make money and (re)make some great games.

Mr. Trowe,
 
Let me start by saying I respect the fact that you are willing to come here and post, whether to defend yourself or not. And you are right, we know very little in comparison to you, considering your history and relationship with Scott Murphy. I'll even admit, perhaps in my first post just above, regarding this issue, I was being a bit careless and taking a bit of a premature stance, without knowing everything that is going on.
 
I realize that you said this would be your only post here, but in case you're stopping by at all just to read anything that happens next, please consider the following which I would like to say in response to that post, and it does come from the heart:
 
You are a public figure, at least to us "kids" you are. Your initial comment as posted on Ken Allen's wall regarding the Two Guys, carried alot of negative vibe in the way it was phrased. It sounded much like jealousy at the fact that a mere fan was getting attention from Scott Murphy, and not yourself. It reeked of envy classic and old as known in every human story and legend. As you put it, in such similar words, 'some guy he doesn't even know, and not [you].'
 
It would indeed be foolish for us to assume that we know you, nor that we understand your merit vs. unmerit completely, based upon a single comment, and judging what from else you have to say about Scott Murphy, it seems you are convinced that you have your reasons for being upset with him, and Mr. Trowe, I will not challenge that, because I admit that would be nosy and imprudent of me; however...
 
You consider the way you phrased that comment, and posted it for the whole online community of fans, and try and tell me honestly that you haven't made a public and hurtful mistake.
 
REALLY, if you're mad at Scott for something he did/didn't do to you, way back when, then keep it between yourself and him, and if he doesn't want to talk about it, that's between the two of you... And, when you DO decide to post things like that in public, don't do so in a way which allows other indications of jealousy or bitterness to creep in, which is directed at a fan, in front of hundreds of fans. We admire and respect Scott Murphy and Mark Crowe, and we ourselves, like Chris Pope, are fans. It is only natural for us to want to jump up and defend him when we see this. I'll admit that some people here have gone overboard and I do not approve of the intensity of their responses, but you must know, for your own good (not excusing our mistakes here at this board towards you, but...), you must know that as a public figure, your degree of unprofessional behavior is naturally more offensive than ours.
 
Ask yourself, who is it you're more angry with; with whom is your anger most appropriate: Scott Murphy or Chris Pope? Bashing Chris, by subtle implication or mere thoughtless remark, does no good for your reputation with us. And, if your anger with Scott IS appropriate, and yet so long ago and personal to the two of you, is it not such poor etiquette to make a scene in front of all of us, just when Scott Murphy is getting set for a new project we are all greatly looking forward to?
 
If it's none of our business, don't bring US, into it, Mr. Trowe.
 
This having been said, I find it very, VERY sad (and I am speaking from the heart, not for the sake of further criticizing you) that you are willing to post old trash about Scott here, in front of all of us, that is really quite personal and hurtful. Even if for the sake of defending yourself, and clarifying what is, in your mind, rational behavior on your part in front of the community, there is NO EXCUSE for this kind of harmful flaunting of personal, sensitive information.
 
Slander is false, Gossip is true; regardless of which one you claim to be pushing forth about Scott; both are wrong and inappropriate for you to parade. It's quite immature of you, and it shows your friendship for Scott, if I dare infer, is less selfless than desirable. I wonder what he would have to say regarding your "friendship," knowing you're willing to take such cheap shots at him. You should be the better man, and realize the effect you have on Scott publicly, which may be irreversible once you cross a certain line, and wouldn't it be horrible if you came to realize you could never undo the damage you cause to his reputation, having burned it into the minds of the online community, even after you realize you were inappropriate?
 
One can be right, and at the same time, be a... jackass. Being correct about the facts and going about it in a justified and respectable manner, are two completely different things. I think you're hung up on the fact stage, and being a little thoughtless as to how you're coming across and whom you're affecting.
 
Very sad, Mr. Trowe, but I do respect your personal knowledge of/with Scott Murphy (assuming any of it is true, and for the record, I do NOT simply out of principal!), and do not wish to dig into that any deeper. I nonetheless stand behind my initial comment regarding the tone of your remark, and of how it was misfired partially at Chris Pope, and I certainly stand behind what I've said here regarding your SAD and distasteful kick in the nuts you've given Scott Murphy, at this public message board, regarding some of the apparently most personal and sensitive information (To Scott Murphy: I respect you very much, am looking forward to your game very much, and I do not believe everything I hear).
 
I may be somewhat of a kid, Mr. Trowe, and I may be quite unprivy to what you know; but it doesn't take much to know that what you're doing and the way you're doing it is malicious, regardless of if there is ANY good you see in it or of whether you are correct about it to ANY degree. You must act higher than this. I stand behind that, and I encourage you to take these words very seriously if you have any heart.
 
- Johnathon

Definitely wasn't trying to say anything bad about Spaceventure -- only felt that Paul Trowe was a little bit iffy for his comments, and overall.. Doesn't really over-shadow the good he's doing, but still.
 
Along with the letter/update he wrote a few days back, I have to say Josh Mandel has the right tone / fundraising-speak-style and best pitches from their campaign -- great closing video sends folks to Jane & the Two Guys when they launch:
 

Definitely wasn't trying to say anything bad about Spaceventure -- only felt that Paul Trowe was a little bit iffy for his comments, and overall.. Doesn't really over-shadow the good he's doing, but still.
 
Along with the letter/update he wrote a few days back, I have to say Josh Mandel has the right tone / fundraising-speak-style and best pitches from their campaign -- great closing video sends folks to Jane & the Two Guys when they launch:
 

I put $110 into the Double Fine adventure. Had I known the Two Guys were going to start one later on I wouldn't have donated so much and saved it for them. I'll probably try for $100, though. If not $30-$50.

I feel the same way -- Double Fine hit a very narrow 'novelty/nostalgia' Kickstarter "window" with their adventure, and I'm not sure it's possible to incite that level of over-enthusiastic giving again. To me, this puts a lot of weight on their game to actually "help the genre" in some way. Sure it was "Tim Schafer & Ron Gilbert and they're amazing," but not to the extent of the giving -- I've certainly seen a lot of posts from people who backed Wasteland "just because it seemed like a great idea, but never played the games." To me, this seems like there was an extension of that "Kickstarter-enthusiasm" that bled over, bolstering it beyond fanbase donations. Who knows whether that amounts to 10%, 25%, or more of the raised amount.
 
I realized at some point that I was funding things I wouldn't have otherwise bought or played due to the addictive excitement of the pledge/campaign model -- then pulled the plug on some donations, and tried to account for this strange game-ification of the non-profit fundraising model.
 
I guess I would advise Scott & Mark that by keeping the "goal amount" as low as possible they stand to spur a lot of magical-infectious-thinking. I think this is one thing that hurt (amongst many other things) the psychology behind the LSL Kickstarter. I think it's easier to raise money when aiming at a low "Oh, that's easily achievable" goal-amount, and then easier to raise money off of the "leveling-up" of the game after that's achieved -- opposed to the opposite, a goal which initially turns off would-be backers by appearing to be "a stretch." The same psychology works similarly in non-profit telethons and fund-raising, and it is a more traditional model to spur donations -- but I don't believe there's a more predictable method of recreating any of the Kickstarter successes that relied heavily on that impossible-to-recreate enthusiasm.
 
Edit: I'll likely give between $100-$150 to Spaceventure, almost regardless of the above or revealed facts about the game -- but that's after a lot of review. I'm a sample of one, but I do trust Scott & Mark more than Tim Schafer (who I will say is incredibly likeable, high on charisma and marketing, makes broad but often confused games, and is overrated on 'trust meters').

I feel the same way -- Double Fine hit a very narrow 'novelty/nostalgia' Kickstarter "window" with their adventure, and I'm not sure it's possible to incite that level of over-enthusiastic giving again. To me, this puts a lot of weight on their game to actually "help the genre" in some way. Sure it was "Tim Schafer & Ron Gilbert and they're amazing," but not to the extent of the giving -- I've certainly seen a lot of posts from people who backed Wasteland "just because it seemed like a great idea, but never played the games." To me, this seems like there was an extension of that "Kickstarter-enthusiasm" that bled over, bolstering it beyond fanbase donations. Who knows whether that amounts to 10%, 25%, or more of the raised amount.
 
I realized at some point that I was funding things I wouldn't have otherwise bought or played due to the addictive excitement of the pledge/campaign model -- then pulled the plug on some donations, and tried to account for this strange game-ification of the non-profit fundraising model.
 
I guess I would advise Scott & Mark that by keeping the "goal amount" as low as possible they stand to spur a lot of magical-infectious-thinking. I think this is one thing that hurt (amongst many other things) the psychology behind the LSL Kickstarter. I think it's easier to raise money when aiming at a low "Oh, that's easily achievable" goal-amount, and then easier to raise money off of the "leveling-up" of the game after that's achieved -- opposed to the opposite, a goal which initially turns off would-be backers by appearing to be "a stretch." The same psychology works similarly in non-profit telethons and fund-raising, and it is a more traditional model to spur donations -- but I don't believe there's a more predictable method of recreating any of the Kickstarter successes that relied heavily on that impossible-to-recreate enthusiasm.
 
Edit: I'll likely give between $100-$150 to Spaceventure, almost regardless of the above or revealed facts about the game -- but that's after a lot of review. I'm a sample of one, but I do trust Scott & Mark more than Tim Schafer (who I will say is incredibly likeable, high on charisma and marketing, makes broad but often confused games, and is overrated on 'trust meters').