drdrslashvohaul

And the music is great!

Seriously, give this game a spin.  It's like mind candy for your drugs.  Or something.
 
I loved it enough to endorse it without being paid anything, and I'm a giant corporate shill, so this should tell you something.
 
 
 
Bt

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.

This is as official a confirmation as we're likely to get for now, since there are probably a bunch of NDAs in place. This is what Andrew Hussie had to say:
 

 
Still waiting for some games "journalists" to decide to put their precious Doritos at stake and pick up the story.
 
 
There's also this. Which makes the whole thing even more fishy/plausible.

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.

Just dropped by to spread the good news that the oh-so-indie NuKing's Quest is $40 on Steam and that in order to celebrate NuKQ's arrival, Activision pulled the original King's Quest Collection.
 
11/10

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

Eh, maybe to us personally, but SQ doesn't have the community today that KQ has - look at the Phoenix Online forums, even back in their "Silver Age" versus here. Not much activity round these parts even back then. And it's not like there weren't similar things going on - the SQ7 group shut down about the same time TSL was going through its own cease-and-desist throes, which eventually reversed, supposedly thanks to their fans... And saying it's SQ ignores the following that games like QFG, GK, or even PQ has...
 
My intent is not to dump on any specific community. Perhaps SQ just appeals to a different type of person than KQ - the underdog.
 
My opinion as a programmer is that AGI/SCI, as well as Ken's ability to keep developers produce a number of quality games for years, are the true "crown jewels" of Sierra. Without an engine that could let storytellers do what they wanted or a producer that pushed them to succeed, I don't see how Sierra could have been successful. It's only once Ken was pushed out by Cendant that we saw Sierra fall. I don't feel that SQ could have happened at that time without Sierra. SQ helped diversify Sierra's portfolio and probably helped make it a bigger name, but there was Sierra before there was SQ. Ken was the one that let Scott learn how to program and develop his own game after hiring him for random projects. That wouldn't have happened later, or likely at another game company.

Well, admittedly, the above has made me more critical of SQ1VGA. As a fan, I care about this kind of trivia, so how could it not? Something that has not been mentioned is that KQ1 got a remake that is way closer in spirit to the original. Which is interesting, because King's Quest, as Ken's darling, was always used as the guinea pig for technical innovations. Interestingly, this one time, this status arguably allowed KQ1 to get a faithful, authorised-by-the-designer remake. I think that's rather telling as well. 
That said, SQ1VGA was always the odd man out, style wise. And I definitely fell for it more so than the original back when I first discovered Space Quest. It had more immediacy to it, so it got easier across to me. Now that I'm older, it feels a little overblown.

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.

Good question!  :)
 
I think Gareth said it pretty well. To me, the remake eschews all kinds of subtlety. With all fear of sounding a tad pretentious, it's just a loud, busy game. A spaceship entering hyperspace looks like Space Quest IV's time rip tunnel on LSD. Yes - merely travelling in space apparently looks more spectacular than travelling through time or entering a black hole. Roger screams like the Wicked Witch when he's melted by acid, and BOOM - we've got an instant replay lined up for you too! Which I don't really think of as a classic Space Quest moment, btw. It's a one-off that's unique to this game, isn't it? The backgrounds look like Ray Harryhausen on a sugar rush.
 
I could go on, and I do realise that none of the stuff I highlight above is inherently bad. But it makes it extremely different. I'm not sure I agree 100% with Gareth that the remake has no artistic value. It does have a very interesting style, which adds a unique twist to the game, but we do know that adding artistic value to SQ1 was not Sierra's main motivation for remaking it.
 
Applying the jazz standard terminology, the loud, busy SQ1VGA is not just another interpretation of Some Day My Prince Will Come or Greensleeves. It's Weather Report's take on Rockin' in Rhythm. And, like I said I do enjoy SQ1VGA's art style, I actually like that version, but I can also totally understand why an oldschool jazz purist probably won't. Much like I can relate to the more negative points of view here.

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"... ;)

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

Cartoony =/= 50's retro. There are various styles of artwork that are all cartoony. I really enjoy SQ5's artwork. But it's nothing like SQ1VGA's or SQ6's. There's a tremendous amount of detail in SQ6's backgrounds and I respect that. And while the characters are cel-shaded, at least they're not as bad as and much better animated than KQ7's.
 
But as far as SQ1VGA's artwork, it's not the sprites and animations I have issue with, it's that round-edged 50's sci-fi look that's just so completely contrasting to the great work that Mark had put into the visual style of Space Quest. Space Quest's art has always been classic, sleek, and stylish, not overly colourful and bubbly like some ages 1-4 kid's PlaySkool funhouse theme park. At least SQ6 stayed true.
 
Ugh those stupid mantis and chicken space ships....I loved Space Quest's ship designs...all but the ones from that game. They ruined it.

I didn't say it was just the Inner Space angle. That's just one thing. And the only thing I can really 100% pinpoint. There are many things. The art style, Stellar, the soundtrack, the other characters. I also never said I hated the game. And I also don't hate SQ1VGA.

So sad to hear. He seemed to be the consummate professional, king of the craft and all-around nice guy.  From Space Ghost, to Blue Falcon, to Laugh-in, to everything else (especially Space Quest) he had a measurable impact on my childhood. I worked in a toy department in a big box store during high school and would sign off on the PA during the crazy Christmas season with a “This is Gary Owens, signing off” when we would close. The parents seemed to get a kick out of it.
 
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has lots of his Space Quest lines seared into his brain. There have been times when I have responded sarcastically with an “Oh joy” whenever I get some bad news or project that is going to be a pain in the arse. Or think to myself “Don’t mess with it!” to a misbehaving appliance or vehicle …all brought to life from his talents. He will be missed.

Just don't know if we would be able to get him...

Hey Gang -
 
Scott and I are both very saddened by the news of Gary Owens' passing the the age of 80. What can we say-  the man was a living legend in the entertainment biz whom we were both extremely privileged to have had the opportunity to work with and honored to have featured in Space Quest. It was definitely a high-point in our younger lives/careers and an experience I'll always look back on warmly. What makes this news doubly hard ,of course, is that (as you all know) Gary was to be featured as the narrator in Spaceventure. Unfortunately, Mr. Owens health fell into decline before we were able to record him. But what we want everyone to know is that, though we could never replace Gary as the narrator, we will work hard to find the right talent for the job.
 
Best,
 
-Mark
 
A favorite chidlhood memory ... "SPAAACE GHOOOST!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9NI_Z-hAeM

If at all possible, I'd like to use Season 3 as a platform to air out my grievances with Pete Toleman concerning Secret Quiches of the Luftwaffe.
 
Jess

The time has come to plan season 3 of the podcast. These past two seasons, there hasn't really been much of an overarching theme. I tried going for a bit of "x vs y" theme in season 2, and season 1 was just all over the place. For season 3, my idea is to stick to the style of the past season with me droning on about "today's topic," followed by whatever amount of guest contributions have come in that week. But what should those topics be?
 
Our very own drdrslashvohaul had some good suggestions, such as ...
 
- Broader sci-fi/comedy tropes, and how Space Quest fits into those.
 
I like this one. It could feasibly be the theme of the entire season, actually, with each episode focusing on a different established trope and how it relates to Space Quest / SpaceVenture.
 
- Technology focus. Beaming, instant mail novelty items, cloning ...
 
This one also tickles my fancy -- bringing some of the more obscure tech-things into focus and trying to make sense of them. Even though I'm pretty sure most of them were just thought up on the spot. And it's not even clearly explained how most of these things work. But it'd be a good excuse to crowdsource some input from fans, e.g. "which doohickey was your favorite", etc.
 
And then, of course, I have my own desires for season 3.
 
- More Chuck Clusterbluck. (Kinda sad that Chuck only made one appearance in season 2. Tom has a truly grand epic plot arc planned.)
 
- More Pete Toleman. (Gotta keep Gareth occupied before he jumps ship and simply goes off and does his own Pete Toleman podcast.)
 
- More SteveBot. (Thinking of doing a plot arc for SteveBot.)
 
- More "Lucky Corner" with Alan Luckachina.
 
- Introducing CyberCedric. CyberCedric wants to bring the universe to its knees, but he's stuck in my room for some contrived reason, so now all he can do is make Borg-esque/Purple Tentacle-esque degrading comments about humanity and his own superiority. (I'd love to get the guy who actually voiced Cedric to do this, but, barring that, I'd need to find an impersonator. You can put your hand down now, Frederik!)
 
- Something to keep us musically occupied. We've already done SQ4 (season 1) and SQ3 (season 2). I'd love to get in touch with Tim Clarke and Chris Stevens, the dudes who did SQ5's music, but I have no idea how. That would also give me an excuse to pester Ken Allen into talking a bit more about the lost SQ5 soundtrack that he did.
 
- I'd love to hear more about the "behind the scenes" work of the artists, programmers and producers of the games themselves. People we haven't heard from yet. For instance, talking to SQ4CD's producer Dan Carver about the many changes between disk and CD (if he can remember why they did so).
 
Any more suggestions, or something or someone you would like to see-- well, hear about/from in season 3, please feel free to fire them my way!
 
As for when season 3 will rear its ugly head? I'm thinking March at the earliest. Might be April. I won't know until I've planned the season and got people on board, will I? :)

"Briefly" is kind of an understatement. ;) But, hey, your name in The New Yorker! That's pretty damn cool. You snob.

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.