drdrslashvohaul

That's the worst idea I've ever heard.

I have no artistic skillz. But if anyone wants to steal the app name "Plungr" go right ahead. Or swipe right ahead. I'm too old for this nonsense...

Late to the party, but go for something new. The important thing (as others have said) is that the "tone" fits; not that it's Gary Owens. One of the great things about this game is that it's a new universe, not "Space Quest VII". Let's keep that ball rollin'.

One size doesn't fit all. It's about mixing and matching.

I think forums will make a come back, in some form or another. I've used IRC more in the past year than I did in the previous 8. It's about the right tool for the job. Twitter and Facebook do some things really well. Other things not so well. I don't subscribe to the idea that they are inherently useless for conversation, they just encourage a different kind of conversation. Indeed, those forms of social media seem the perfect way to promote and draw people into a good forum...

Suppose people should know this is a thing, or whatever. http://backseatdesigners.com/open-crowd-source/

As time goes on, I wonder whether a new SQ is really the way to go, or whether it might be better to allow another universe to be created. Something fresh, something built on the 20+ years that have happened since. If there were something, very loosely, called SQ, about the only thing I would keep is the conceit - a space janitor being plunged into a major crisis and bumbling his way through despite himself. EVERYTHING else, from the Sariens via Vohaul to Beatrice can be forgotten about. Or, to put it another way. I would want a game to be written that had a great story - if the authors then want to set it within the SQ universe, I'm OK with that. I just wouldn't want a game that leant on the nostalgia name value and ignored game mechanics and plot as a result. Or one that tried to hard to recapture some imagined "magic" rather than pushing forward. But let me be very clear, Kent. If they ever make a new SQ, you can have all my money.

I turn 30 in two months' time, and I still love to throw my toys out of the pram at regular intervals.

This is one of those extraordinary (lit.) claims that makes me want to see something from a reputable source. Fully willing to believe it. But that's a pretty big accusation that you want to be on firm ground before making. No. Sorry, can't agree here. You can't just take other people's money without asking. Or, rather, you cannot take money people gave in good faith for another project, never do any real work to realise the project, and then funnel it into something else. It's dishonest and morally questionable at best. At worst, it's fraud. Today, "you" get a positive result. Tomorrow, exactly the opposite. Troels was complaining about big game developers warping and destroying Kickstarter. But this type of shit from shady and/or incompetent indies is far, far worse, in my opinion. At least a successful Zach Braff flick or Shenmue game gives the platform credibility. This just hurts everyone, especially if the average punter is no longer willing to use the service or purchase stuff that comes from it.

Your answer to dwindling adventure game sales is trailers involving teens in a shower? I'll give you this - there are a lot of videos of teens in showers, and they seem enduringly popular.

Almost certainly. The chances of a new Space Quest are slim to nil, I would wager. Unless the revived Sierra brand picks up traction and the company can do a deal with Activision to cash in on the revival/nostalgia kick. But even then, part of me thinks that it would be pretty pointless picking up a franchise that has been in stasis for 20 years UNLESS they hire the Two Guys to do it. Otherwise, I think any company is much better off doing something new. Let's face it, I think there's very little from the Space Quest universe that really needs to be in a new game. The idea of Roger being an average schmo is laughable after saving the universe on multiple occasions. The events and characters were fun, but not really that inter-related. And it's not like the Trek or Star Wars universes where there is a deep, inter-woven history to be explored. So, what I'd like to see, if this was going to be done, is a sci-fi comedy adventure, with a view to building a rich universe where sequels make sense and are internally consistent with the world which is created. Wonder if something like that will be released in 2015-2016? :p

Other than Taco Bell (which we don't have here in Europe), I'm pretty sure most people in the world have heard "Finger lickin' good." And, of course, "I'm lovin' it." All. The. Fucking. Time.

This. I only found out about Korea about a year ago.

Fair point. Fair point. So, perhaps I'll rephrase. I don't like what SQ1VGA did with it. And no, I don't find covers of jazz standard inherently bad. (I don't like jazz, though, so that's a bad analogy.) I don't find re-makes or covers inherently bad. But the ones that get me interested are the ones that do something different, interesting and accomplished. I really get the feeling that SQ1VGA was ground out in a very plastic way. I can see what they were trying to do with the 50s aesthetic, but I think it's poorly executed. Whereas Johnny Cash's covers album, for example, was a really great example of genre changing and doing something really interesting with classic material. I should also probably clarify - I was outlining what I believed to be Scott's objections to re-makes. I don't necessarily 100% subscribe to that opinion. Then we have completely different interpretations of SQ1 and SQ4. Which is fair enough. Cheap dig. I don't think SQ is high art. I'm trying to explain why I don't like SQ1VGA, and the artistic analogy is the best way of doing that. Nobody sane believes SQ1 is perfection. By the same token, churning out a VGA version to make a little money on the side really shows in the way it's constructed. I don't deny people tried their best within the confines of what they were given to do something with it. But ultimately, it just doesn't have any of the charm of the original. It's neither got the rough edges of the original games, not the depth of polish one would need to have a real "HD" remake. It's just... well... the "vibe" is off.

I don't think Scott thinks that people are trying to "improve" the original. I think it's more that it's lazy, and serves very little artistic purpose. Unless you take it and do something genuinely different with a well-known story. Much like song cover, or movie re-makes. Unless you're adding something, why bother? When you're doing something on the cheap and hoping to cash in on name value, that's not so great. :) In the case of SQ1VGA, I'm not sure what artistic merit it really has. But that's always in the eye of the beholder. ------------------------- As for "vibe" - that's always difficult to pinpoint. Because if it were, you wouldn't use a term like "vibe". :) However, SQ1's art style is completely out of sync with the rest of the series. With the other games, changes in the style (of the first 4, certainly) seemed to be based more on technological improvements rather than massive swings in the way the game was put together. SQ1VGA is noticeably nothing like the original (which is pretty obvious given the change in resolution), but it's nothing like SQ4 or SQ5 (which, while different, do at least feel like they were made within the same tradition). That, and quite frankly SQ1VGA always felt "cheap". There was always something lacking in charm and detail with the game (in my opinion). I played the original 6 before I played the VGA version of SQ1, and it was very obviously an inferior quality product. Perhaps if I were to seriously go back to it, I would appreciate some of the writing nuances. But honestly - Mark Crowe is a much better artist in the first five than whoever was in charge of SQ1VGA. That's the "vibe" in a nutshell. "Cheap". There's something very flimsy and plastic about it. Which is not a criticism that can be levelled at SQ5 or SQ6, despite their different aesthetics.

Ken Allen of SQ4 says "hi"... ;)

Fair enough, but I don't see that as a weakness. A review doesn't have to be emotionally neutral to be good or useful. Troels certainly isn't on the podcast, but that's one of the show's strengths. I suppose my point is it's fair enough to not like his presenting style or to prefer (or want) a more neutral tone, but that I thought you were being a bit harsh on the quality of the video. As someone elbow deep in a very emotive research topic about which I have to remain reasonably dispassionate, it's nice sometimes to see someone (with solid justification) rip into or gush over something once in a while. :)

It could genuinely be that bad... The video is good. He shows the game, and it's pretty obvious from the screens and the puzzles that it's a bit... let's be kind and say "naff". I think asking for a 'better' is unfair, actually. A less overtly partial review might be useful (and something I'd also like) but that doesn't make the video itself "bad". Perhaps the game has been given exactly the justice it deserves.

It was a series of pages. They were different news stories, but the advert was over all of them. As someone looking specifically at the RNIB, they were duplicates. If you were looking at news websites in the mid-00s, they weren't. I think deduplication needs to be done by users based on their use case. But that needs access to raw data, coding knowledge, and a firm definition on what counts as a "duplicate". None of that is trivial.

Slightly related to the topic, but mostly a naked attempt at self promotion: I was interviewed (briefly) by The New Yorker about the internet archive. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/26/cobweb The whole thing is fascinating, I think. But then I have to think that. Because I want to be paid to look at it.

They'll go blind.

"This little light o' mine... I'm gonna let it shine." Haunting. </Toleman>

"I ate one the size of a city in Washington, and didn't wake up for 3 months." "Really?" "Yes. I fell into a Tacoma."