drdrslashvohaul

And finally, a few non-ship shots they've let us see...
Desert planet:
 

 
Equiv from SQ4:
 

 
Inside something alien-looking:
 

 
Equiv from SQ6:
 

 
Landing place:
 

 
Equiv from SQ6:
 

 
Don't know if this is a cutscene or not, but space vehicle:
 

 
 
One thing I noticed while doing this -- with a lot of the shots in SV, the perspective is closer to Ace than the SQ shots are to Roger,
i.e. the "camera" is further away from Roger in SQ... that will most likely mean there are more rooms in SV, as you can't
fit as much of an area in one screen.
 
It looks like the first spaceship thing is going to be bigger than most SQ areas... there are already around 14 screens for it and
we haven't seen every part of the ship yet (unless we're seeing inside multiple ships in some of the shots).
 
I think another big thing to mention is that we haven't seen any of the other characters placed within the game yet,
which will go a long way to making it feel populated and lived in as a world.

Let's see what else they've shown us from the ship that's not in the demo...
Some kind of canteen, with seats, a drinks machine, a menu and shuttered serving thing:
 

 
Equivalent with drinks machine and seats from SQ6:
 

 
Some kind of elevator with water in it:
 

 
SQ6 elevator thing:
 

 
Some kinda missile-loading or maybe trash-ejecting things with lights, etc.:
 

(Can't find a real equivalent to this in the SQ games at the moment...)
 
Toilets! I remember this was released ages ago, so may have changed by now:
 

(Again, can't find a direct equiv in the SQ games...)
 
The infamous pipes room:
 

(I guess any corridor from the SQ games would count as an equivalent...)
 
Another ship scene (not sure if it's a cutscene though):
 

 
I assume this is part of the sewer-system of the ship:
 

 
Equivalent might be something like this location from SQ4 with steps/ladders, etc.:
 

Next:

 
As a room it has quite a lot going on, there is the animation of the crate thing moving backwards with the lights,
a washing line, the sleeping guy, the table full of stuff... bearing in mind it's a storage room rather than a regular room.
 
The equivalent might be something like this from SQ4, simple room with a table, door thing, etc.:
 

 
This is one of my favorite screens and it has a lot of detail in it:
 

 
It's a more detailed version of something like this from SQ4:
 

 
Next, a corridor joining screen thing:
 

 
So something on a ship with different doors would be this from SQ1:
 

 
This is another of my favorite screens, the lab:
 

In which there are several animations going on, the lights in the center and left, the beasties in the tanks, the bubbles, and
the tanks opening...
 

 
There are some scenes in the SQ games with bits of labs, but they tend to be rooms with a lab, shuttle,
all different things put into one room, rather than a specialist specimen lab like this seems to be....
 
And that's the demo... 
So to me, going like-for-like, SV is on track to being in the same vein as the SQ games,
and surpasses them in some cases like with the lab and the close-up scene of the magazine/drill-bits/etc.
 
I don't think they're particularly empty in comparison to the SQ games, which in some cases are emptier,
partially due to graphic limitations if we're talking SQ1-2.
 
I think you also have to bear in mind that the demo is set on a spaceship with corridors, so there aren't
going to be many rugs, potted plants, etc. in corridors, just as there weren't in the SQ games.

Ok, let's go through the art and maybe I can allay some of your art-related fears...
The main thing we've had to look at is the demo, as that's the thing that has been playable, but I'll go through some of the other screenshots we've seen as well.
 
I think for comparison, it's fair to see what the Space Quest games looked like, in terms of emptiness/boringness (and if you didn't enjoy or like
the SQ games, then SV probably isn't going to be your sort of game!), also bearing in mind the different graphic resolutions, etc.
 
I also think it's important to compare locations as like-for-like... spaceships compared to spaceships, corridors to corridors, 
deserts compared to deserts, etc.
 
Ok, so the demo... first location:

 
The nearest thing I found in SQ was in SQ5 with some kind of door immediately in front of you:
 

 
Next screen:

 
An equivalent might be something like this from SQ4, where it's just a general corridor type of thing:
 

 
(Bearing in mind that SV is also meant to have some kind of character in the ship that wasn't included in the demo
who might be in one of these rooms...)
 
Next:

We've got a tunnel with a cart and a vent that can open and steam...
compared to something like this, from SQ2:
 

 
And we have the close-up of the cart too:
 

Which is similar to close-ups in SQ4:
 

First off, that poster is fucking hilarious. Props.
 
Second, I don't think people are being "hyper defensive" as you claim. If anything... well, we've had this discussion about irony before. Criticism of a criticism is not intended to silence debate. It continues it. Some of the phrasing could have been better, perhaps, but come on. If you want the freedom to disagree with people, you've got to afford them the same courtesy.

"Listening" is a very different concept to "doing exactly as people want", though. If you have faith in something, you should be willing to put your balls on the line for it. Some pretty important people have been plain wrong on a number of things. :)
 
I'm not saying that's specifically the case with regard to swiping (I also didn't care for it), but developers have a much better overarching view of what the game does, what it's supposed to do, and where it's going. There were loads of bugs and problems with the original demo, the fixing of which might make swiping a pretty cool addition feature.
 
Then again, it might not. :P
 
The only experience I have with getting anywhere near close to game developers in the past concerned a soccer simulation in the UK. They were constantly bombarded with requests for certain features and to remove things from their forums. They listened, they refined, but ultimately they stuck with it. A number of years on, the game is much, much better than if they'd simply capitulated to the people who shouted the loudest. At the same time, it's also because they were very, very good at filtering out banal rambling from insightful, well-articulated critique.
 
As a counterpoint, therefore, I'd like to say that I appreciate the informal tone of the updates. I can see how they could come off as insincere, but given the podcasts and other interactions with fans, I don't think that's the case with Chris. (The Troels interview being a perfect example). Perhaps rein it in a little - and proof read! - but otherwise, I'd prefer any tone that's genuine than trying to fit into what you're "supposed" to sound like.
 
Also, I don't feel like being "in the dark", but I do feel like nothing ever gets said in the Kickstarter e-mails. I'm happy with that, knowing what I do through the forums and from reassuring morsels from Troels, PCJ et al. But I can imagine for others that lack of information is becoming worrisome.
 
But, one of the very refreshing things throughout has been the way that failures and problems have been owned up to. The PR failure of the prototypes for example. Cool little gimmicks, but clearly confusing for people who didn't spend their lives on the forums having it all explained. More of that would be welcome, especially as it's clear that development is well below what was originally planned. I'm afraid, PurpleTenticle, I don't see relentless positivity, but then if you were only getting your updates through the Kickstarter update e-mails, I can see where that perception might stem from.
 
So yeah, as Collector says, "pay attention", but don't sacrifice whatever your overarching image is for the sake of short-term PR wins. If you think it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. Just ask yourselves the same questions we ask you, and if you still come to the conclusion your pig-headed, terrible idea is a good one, go for it. ;)

"Listening" is a very different concept to "doing exactly as people want", though. If you have faith in something, you should be willing to put your balls on the line for it. Some pretty important people have been plain wrong on a number of things. :)
 
I'm not saying that's specifically the case with regard to swiping (I also didn't care for it), but developers have a much better overarching view of what the game does, what it's supposed to do, and where it's going. There were loads of bugs and problems with the original demo, the fixing of which might make swiping a pretty cool addition feature.
 
Then again, it might not. :P
 
The only experience I have with getting anywhere near close to game developers in the past concerned a soccer simulation in the UK. They were constantly bombarded with requests for certain features and to remove things from their forums. They listened, they refined, but ultimately they stuck with it. A number of years on, the game is much, much better than if they'd simply capitulated to the people who shouted the loudest. At the same time, it's also because they were very, very good at filtering out banal rambling from insightful, well-articulated critique.
 
As a counterpoint, therefore, I'd like to say that I appreciate the informal tone of the updates. I can see how they could come off as insincere, but given the podcasts and other interactions with fans, I don't think that's the case with Chris. (The Troels interview being a perfect example). Perhaps rein it in a little - and proof read! - but otherwise, I'd prefer any tone that's genuine than trying to fit into what you're "supposed" to sound like.
 
Also, I don't feel like being "in the dark", but I do feel like nothing ever gets said in the Kickstarter e-mails. I'm happy with that, knowing what I do through the forums and from reassuring morsels from Troels, PCJ et al. But I can imagine for others that lack of information is becoming worrisome.
 
But, one of the very refreshing things throughout has been the way that failures and problems have been owned up to. The PR failure of the prototypes for example. Cool little gimmicks, but clearly confusing for people who didn't spend their lives on the forums having it all explained. More of that would be welcome, especially as it's clear that development is well below what was originally planned. I'm afraid, PurpleTenticle, I don't see relentless positivity, but then if you were only getting your updates through the Kickstarter update e-mails, I can see where that perception might stem from.
 
So yeah, as Collector says, "pay attention", but don't sacrifice whatever your overarching image is for the sake of short-term PR wins. If you think it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. Just ask yourselves the same questions we ask you, and if you still come to the conclusion your pig-headed, terrible idea is a good one, go for it. ;)

First off, that poster is fucking hilarious. Props.
 
Second, I don't think people are being "hyper defensive" as you claim. If anything... well, we've had this discussion about irony before. Criticism of a criticism is not intended to silence debate. It continues it. Some of the phrasing could have been better, perhaps, but come on. If you want the freedom to disagree with people, you've got to afford them the same courtesy.

At the end of the day, I think the 2 Guys need to just do what they want to do with the game
and make a game they think is really awesome. They're clever guys, so if they make something
that's awesome to themselves, a lot of other people will also find it awesome.
 
Once you start second guessing or trying to sift through opinions on message boards,
you'll get into all sorts of trouble and be dragged in all sorts of directions.
 
Some people love the art style, some people don't -- you can't please everyone.
Some people thought the swiping was fine, some didn't.
Even with the original SQs, some people think the first game is the best, some think the
3rd game is the best, etc.
 
If something is actually broken and is buggy, that's different, but they're going to be
testing it all before it comes out.

All I can read, no matter how I try, is "I disagree with the art style!" And I believe the only appropriate and honest reply is "well... sucks to be you, then!"

Hence why developers can be reluctant to release too much their early work to the public.

I wouldn't say games in general. AAA crap and many of the recent adventure games, maybe, but otherwise, it really depends on the game; for instance, I've had great fun with FTL and that game is all about the gameplay. That's also what makes it extremely addictive.
 
So I'm not buying that particular generalisation. Sounds a bit too much like Statler and Waldorf to me  :P

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: " :( "

Actually, Gary can only record as fast as his fax machine prints out his script. So we're OK there.

Wow. We must have vastly different tastes because I thought Ep3 was the best of the prequels.

No, I don't think ST always has to be deep. The Trouble with Tribbles is certainly not that thought provoking, but was was still driven by the narrative and very entertaining. Not all stories have to be dramatic or serious, but still the narrative is part of what made Trek so enduring. As to Abrams, I don't dismiss him because he is a newbie, but he is still a clueless git when it comes to understanding what made it work. Let him go ruin some other franchise. Let's see how he makes Star Wars "more exciting."

Actually the particular sequel police on the poster is a black female in uniform... sorry to poke holes in your observation.  
I was assuming Vohal was an equal opportunity employer.
 
HCH

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

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

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

Just popping in here. I havent been following this thread closely (like I probably should). We let a lot of things fly on this forum, but I think the main thing is that we keep from offending eachother. I can see that borderline happening here with the bit of loose terminology being thrown around (PC Police) which is obviously not something any of us seem to be.
 
I don't want to lock the thread (yet, unless it gets too heated) as it's an interesting topic and a lot of good points are being made here. On both sides. As long as we can keep it civil and appropriate I'd like to see discussion continue. If we can't then we may have to lock it up.
 
Remember we're all SQ fans here! We may disagree on things (in fact it's guaranteed), but we all have common ground there. Let's remember that. The key to community is diversity AND mutual respect. Let's refrain from generalizing and using broad-sweeping terms for eachother, shall we?
 
I'm out.

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.

Blazing Saddles (like The Producers) works because it sends up the racists - it uses racist language and images to show just how fucked up we are as a species, and how idiotic humanity is. It is a diatribe against racism, and this is why it works. It isn't politically correct, and is one of the reasons why I would also not consider myself as part of this caricature of "the PC police". I love things like South Park and Mel Brooks' works that attack our idiocy through exposing it in parody. If a piece of art, a computer game, a movie, or whatever else can do that and make a legitimate point, then it is doing exactly what all good art should do. If it's just using racist, sexist or generally stereotypical tropes as a lazy device to avoid story telling, then it's a damaging. It simply reinforces latent prejudice. That's why people like me ask people to have a quick think before they act. That's it. Critique is not censorship. And critique does not immediately lead to calls for certain thoughts to be banned.
 

You do realise the superb irony that you're doing EXACTLY this by using the term "political correctness", don't you? I think the people who have made rational arguments in this thread have moved beyond name-calling, and explained why something might be construed as offensive. 
We're all hypocrites, brother. It's about being self-reflexive enough to see it. I'd like to think I have been. If not, do feel free to show me where I'm wrong. That's what this whole thing is supposed to be about.
 

Indeed. But the problem is we don't have equality, do we? And while we don't, those people who have disproportionately more power need to be a little mindful of how they act and think. It won't be solved over night, but it will be solved if, as a species, we learn to respect difference. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same - it's about giving everyone equality of opportunity by ensuring that people can be who they want to be without fear of insults, denial of opportunity and outright discrimination.
 
As Frede put it brilliantly, you cannot see every single criticism as the worst excessive caricature of feminism. Those idiotic feminists calling for castration, or some sort of punishment for men based on their Y chromosome are arseholes (I'd say dick, but that would be sexist. ;)). But engaging in a debate needn't be that stupid. In a lot of cases it isn't. Just like calling for the de-criminalisation in homosexuality didn't lead to baby rape and bestiality (and, yes, when we had this debate in England in the 60s, people genuinely thought this would happen).
 
 

South Park? Family Guy? Modern Family? Will and Grace? Coupling (UK version)? The Office? Men Behaving Badly (UK)? 
Two things happened. One, sitcoms were told that resting on lazy ethnic and gender tropes was unacceptable. (We had loads of shows cancelled here on the same basis). It took a few years for TV to work out what was and wasn't acceptable. And in the mean time, other types of show became popular, relegating the sitcom even lower. Things change. As a historian I don't believe in absolute progress, but I do believe we gain and lose in the process. Hopefully, it's a better world today for black lesbians than it was in 1975.
 
 
 
In the end, abusive humour is fine PROVIDING THERE'S A POINT TO IT. Providing it doesn't simply take away someone's humanity for the sake of it. What is the deeper point? "We'll give land to the niggers and the chinks, but I'll be damned if we'll give it to the Irish" is, out of context, incredibly offensive. But it works in the context of the film - a film written by a Jew, not long after the second world war, showing us all how barbaric and intolerant we are as a species. And how arbitrary some of our grudges are. I'll raise a glass to Mel Brooks, and hope the film is still going for another 30 years.
 
Cheers!

I think my main problem with your arguments is right now is that you're completely black and white. In your world, it is, apparently, not possible to consider what you say without being a fanatic who will unashamedly put a video on YouTube where you apologise for the colour of your skin and your chromosomes on everyone's behalf. You keep pulling out these extreme examples as if to go "Look! Look at yourselves, you imbeciles!", seemingly oblivious to the fact that most people here will agree with you that extremism is prevalent in both camps and that the above video is treating the issue in a very problematic manner. And again, as is Roseanne. 
 
Were I to play that game, I would post a photo of Anders Breivik or somesuch and go "Look! This is what your love of bigotry has created! You're exactly like this!". It might make you shut up since it's a very uncomfortable attack to attempt to refute, killing off the discussion and (mistakenly) leading me to believe I "won", but we'd be no closer to understanding one another. Just saying. If this discussion appears one-sided and near-dead, it may be because it's becoming extremely tiring to be accused of sympathising with women who want to castrate all men or whatever.
 
When exactly did we get to this? All the "PC Police" here has suggested is that maybe - just maybe - there are alternatives to putting other people down by being an asshole. By yourself, in a group, in art, etc.
 
EDIT: This was originally written in response to PurpleTentacle.