Capn_Ascii

Hmm. There seems to be a bit of vitrol bubbling up in this thread. I was afraid of this; I still remember some of the same things being thrown around back in the old days. SRS BZNS and all. ;)
 
For what it's worth, I prefer SQ1 VGA. There's a few reasons for this, but by far the biggest one is this one:
Simple fact of the matter is, IMHO, Space Quest didn't really hit its stride writing-wise until SQ3. There's nothing *wrong* with SQ1EGA and SQ2, but like many of the other adventure game greats (especially Sierra's own AGI games), the writing was a bit tame compared to what they started coming up with in later games. Most of the written humor in SQ1EGA and SQ2 is either expospeak gags or dry wit; nothing bad about either of those, but it does make for less 'punchy', laugh-out-loud humor. Right around SQ3 is when the smartassery quotient (towards both the player and the sci-fi material they were mocking) really took off, which is easily the series' strong point. SQ1 VGA, being a later release, incorporated that more developed sense of humor - add Josh "Reward exploration! More random messages! MORE!" Mandel into the mix, and you get a game that gets me laughing as much as SQ4 and SQ5. :lol:
 
Another reason: The music. Good god, the music. :blink: Easily my favorite score in the entire series. The bombastic new version of the SQ theme alone won my heart, and much of the rest of the soundtrack seems to be a loving homage to Star Wars's similar style of orchestral epic-ness. I mean, heck, go back and listen to the end-credits medley, and tell me they're not ripping off A New Hope. But, that's a good thing. ;)
 
As for the art style...I'll admit, I think I like Mark's unique sci-fi designs (not just in SQ1, but in general) more than the raygun gothic look VGA went for. But like someone else said earlier in this thread, it's not unlike someone writing a cover of your favorite song. It's *different*, sure, but not necessarily worse than the original. Just...different.  ;)  I like the occasional foray into 'what if' scenarios, just for the sake of variety.
 
As for the behind-the-scenes aspects of development...I'm not going to get into that. I make it a point to judge games based on their own merit, not because of its pedigree.

Hmm. There seems to be a bit of vitrol bubbling up in this thread. I was afraid of this; I still remember some of the same things being thrown around back in the old days. SRS BZNS and all. ;)
 
For what it's worth, I prefer SQ1 VGA. There's a few reasons for this, but by far the biggest one is this one:
Simple fact of the matter is, IMHO, Space Quest didn't really hit its stride writing-wise until SQ3. There's nothing *wrong* with SQ1EGA and SQ2, but like many of the other adventure game greats (especially Sierra's own AGI games), the writing was a bit tame compared to what they started coming up with in later games. Most of the written humor in SQ1EGA and SQ2 is either expospeak gags or dry wit; nothing bad about either of those, but it does make for less 'punchy', laugh-out-loud humor. Right around SQ3 is when the smartassery quotient (towards both the player and the sci-fi material they were mocking) really took off, which is easily the series' strong point. SQ1 VGA, being a later release, incorporated that more developed sense of humor - add Josh "Reward exploration! More random messages! MORE!" Mandel into the mix, and you get a game that gets me laughing as much as SQ4 and SQ5. :lol:
 
Another reason: The music. Good god, the music. :blink: Easily my favorite score in the entire series. The bombastic new version of the SQ theme alone won my heart, and much of the rest of the soundtrack seems to be a loving homage to Star Wars's similar style of orchestral epic-ness. I mean, heck, go back and listen to the end-credits medley, and tell me they're not ripping off A New Hope. But, that's a good thing. ;)
 
As for the art style...I'll admit, I think I like Mark's unique sci-fi designs (not just in SQ1, but in general) more than the raygun gothic look VGA went for. But like someone else said earlier in this thread, it's not unlike someone writing a cover of your favorite song. It's *different*, sure, but not necessarily worse than the original. Just...different.  ;)  I like the occasional foray into 'what if' scenarios, just for the sake of variety.
 
As for the behind-the-scenes aspects of development...I'm not going to get into that. I make it a point to judge games based on their own merit, not because of its pedigree.

Hmm. There seems to be a bit of vitrol bubbling up in this thread. I was afraid of this; I still remember some of the same things being thrown around back in the old days. SRS BZNS and all. ;)
 
For what it's worth, I prefer SQ1 VGA. There's a few reasons for this, but by far the biggest one is this one:
Simple fact of the matter is, IMHO, Space Quest didn't really hit its stride writing-wise until SQ3. There's nothing *wrong* with SQ1EGA and SQ2, but like many of the other adventure game greats (especially Sierra's own AGI games), the writing was a bit tame compared to what they started coming up with in later games. Most of the written humor in SQ1EGA and SQ2 is either expospeak gags or dry wit; nothing bad about either of those, but it does make for less 'punchy', laugh-out-loud humor. Right around SQ3 is when the smartassery quotient (towards both the player and the sci-fi material they were mocking) really took off, which is easily the series' strong point. SQ1 VGA, being a later release, incorporated that more developed sense of humor - add Josh "Reward exploration! More random messages! MORE!" Mandel into the mix, and you get a game that gets me laughing as much as SQ4 and SQ5. :lol:
 
Another reason: The music. Good god, the music. :blink: Easily my favorite score in the entire series. The bombastic new version of the SQ theme alone won my heart, and much of the rest of the soundtrack seems to be a loving homage to Star Wars's similar style of orchestral epic-ness. I mean, heck, go back and listen to the end-credits medley, and tell me they're not ripping off A New Hope. But, that's a good thing. ;)
 
As for the art style...I'll admit, I think I like Mark's unique sci-fi designs (not just in SQ1, but in general) more than the raygun gothic look VGA went for. But like someone else said earlier in this thread, it's not unlike someone writing a cover of your favorite song. It's *different*, sure, but not necessarily worse than the original. Just...different.  ;)  I like the occasional foray into 'what if' scenarios, just for the sake of variety.
 
As for the behind-the-scenes aspects of development...I'm not going to get into that. I make it a point to judge games based on their own merit, not because of its pedigree.

Hmm. There seems to be a bit of vitrol bubbling up in this thread. I was afraid of this; I still remember some of the same things being thrown around back in the old days. SRS BZNS and all. ;)
 
For what it's worth, I prefer SQ1 VGA. There's a few reasons for this, but by far the biggest one is this one:
Simple fact of the matter is, IMHO, Space Quest didn't really hit its stride writing-wise until SQ3. There's nothing *wrong* with SQ1EGA and SQ2, but like many of the other adventure game greats (especially Sierra's own AGI games), the writing was a bit tame compared to what they started coming up with in later games. Most of the written humor in SQ1EGA and SQ2 is either expospeak gags or dry wit; nothing bad about either of those, but it does make for less 'punchy', laugh-out-loud humor. Right around SQ3 is when the smartassery quotient (towards both the player and the sci-fi material they were mocking) really took off, which is easily the series' strong point. SQ1 VGA, being a later release, incorporated that more developed sense of humor - add Josh "Reward exploration! More random messages! MORE!" Mandel into the mix, and you get a game that gets me laughing as much as SQ4 and SQ5. :lol:
 
Another reason: The music. Good god, the music. :blink: Easily my favorite score in the entire series. The bombastic new version of the SQ theme alone won my heart, and much of the rest of the soundtrack seems to be a loving homage to Star Wars's similar style of orchestral epic-ness. I mean, heck, go back and listen to the end-credits medley, and tell me they're not ripping off A New Hope. But, that's a good thing. ;)
 
As for the art style...I'll admit, I think I like Mark's unique sci-fi designs (not just in SQ1, but in general) more than the raygun gothic look VGA went for. But like someone else said earlier in this thread, it's not unlike someone writing a cover of your favorite song. It's *different*, sure, but not necessarily worse than the original. Just...different.  ;)  I like the occasional foray into 'what if' scenarios, just for the sake of variety.
 
As for the behind-the-scenes aspects of development...I'm not going to get into that. I make it a point to judge games based on their own merit, not because of its pedigree.

Well, geez. You get all lazy and don't check the SubChan for a few1 months, and then something like this goes and happens. Now the cheeping, winged piglets nesting in the tree behind my house suddenly make more sense.
 
After reading everything posted so far, I'm personally in the 'wait and see' camp here. I approve whole-heartedly of the idea of using the Sierra publishing brand constructively in this manner; the name certainly still means something even outside of our little cabal, and leveraging it in the right ways could have some interesting results. Somewhat more worrisome is the idea of classic Sierra adventure game franchises possibly being dug out of their graves and butchered in a misguided attempt at appealing to the nostalgia market. Will this be the case, or will this new King's Quest (and possibly other games) actually be quality spiritual successors to their namesakes? Only time, and sequels, will tell.
 
I will say up front that, personally, I hope that Space Quest doesn't get that treatment. Besides Troels' comment about the 2.5 Guys from Andromeda2 needing to be involved (which I agree with), I feel that SQ already got a  tasteful (and amazing) resurgence and send-off with the latest round of fan games. Incinerations, especially, is the perfect cap-stone to the series IMHO, even if it is technically 'just' a fan game. If this new Sierra were to try and ressurect the series without the Guys, I doubt they would be able to do as good a job as our own dedicated fans have done - we'd end up with a cash-grabby, sub-par Space Quest zombie instead of a series that, though essentially dead, is at least resting peacefully in a beautiful hand-carved mahogany casket after having been lovingly laid to rest at a lavish-yet-tasteful funeral attended by everyone who ever knew and loved it dearly3 , who even now cherish its heartwarming, un-zombified memory. I love the series too much to want to see that happen to it; if it comes to that, I'd rather let SQ lie and focus instead on Space Quest: The Next Generation (aka Spaceventure).
 
 
...buuuut, as for ports of the existing Sierra games to current OSes? *Hell* yes. Port the hell out of them. Whore those bad boys out to every smart phone, tablet, and VR headset there is. B) More exposure for the classics is never a bad thing. Nintendo figured this out - they sell their own classic library on their current-day consoles, and make money hand over fist from it. You don't have to do anything fancy to 'em - just keep circulating the tapes.
 
 
 
 
1) Eight. Eight months since I last posted. I need to get off my virtual ass more often.
 
2) We love ya, Josh, really.
 
3) I'm suddenly recalling the end scenes of Full Throttle here.

You have a very good point here. Let's face it, folks - the majority of the fun in adventure games is in the interactions. Walking around, exploring the game world, talking to people, poking and prodding at every hotspot to see what sorts of reactions you get - those are the things that really make the game experience unique. Space Quest proves that this sort of design can make for a great game even when the actual plot isn't exactly award-winning material. :rolleyes: KQ, QfG and the like had stronger plots, yes, but they too were more about world-building than story strength - more about the experience than anything else. Indeed, that's why the early KQ games were so heavily 'fairy tale' - the whole idea was to bring those tales you remembered to (virtual) life.
 
 
This was actually a strong running theme in the early KQ games - they often gave you the ability to *kill* certain monsters in your way, but then also gave you a less overtly violent means of dealing with them, with the latter always worth more points. The dragon could be killed with a thrown dagger, but could also be driven away using water. The troll/ogre/whatever in the cloud area could be felled with a sling, or you could hide from him and wait for him to fall asleep, then steal the chest from him without waking him. The lion in KQ2 could be killed with a sword, or fed with meat. The idea was that Graham the knight *could* be violent when he needed to be, but his kind nature preferred not murdering everything in his path by default. Sometime around KQ3, they started phasing these sorts of options out completely, making the clever, non-violent solutions more or less mandatory - this lead to the 'guile hero' archetype that almost all future adventure game heroes would adhere to from then on.
 
 
Lucasarts beat them to that one - they had the 'click on verb' system as early as Maniac Mansion. Sierra's icons were basically the same thing.
 
Also, don't forget the removal of the whole 'walk to X' system. The old games required you to physically move your character to where they needed to be to perform an action - a system which, while revolutionary at the time, was also wholly unnecessary outside of arcade or maze sequences (hello, root monster!). Lucasarts' mouse-based controls simply moved the character to where they needed to be when you tried to perform an action, which greatly streamlined interacting with the environment. This is part of the reason the interfaces for Grim and MI4 are so clunky - they *removed* this feature and forced you to manually walk around all over again. <_<
 
 
Absolutely. Space Quest 5 made use of a radical new technology in adventure gaming that Sierra was only just learning how to properly apply - something called a 'supporting cast'. ;)
 
 
You poor, dexterity-challenged fools. ;) Some of us are perfectly comfortable with a little ACTION!!! mixed in with our puzzle-based gaming. Still, I can see how such things would be supremely annoying for those who don't spend far more time than they should playing more traditional, actiony video games. :unsure:
 
 
IMHO, neither Sierra nor Lucasarts had the right idea at first. Lucasarts' 'no death' design, while certainly user-friendly, also only really worked because of the tongue-in-cheek nature of their games - you could only get away with not having any lethal consequences for in-game characters because creating contrived ways of having them *not* die was hilarious enough to fit with their style. Sierra's more ICly serious worlds demanded more serious consequences for failure to make them believable - but then people feel afraid to experiment for fear of getting the dreaded RRQ1 screen.
 
Sierra actually hit upon the perfect solution towards the end of their adventure gaming days, with games like SQ6 and LSL6. In those games, you could die or get game-overs...but when you did, you'd get a shiny new 'Retry' button that put you right back before you screwed up, good as new. It's the perfect system, IMHO - the in-character consequences (and potential out-of-character humor) of death, but with no real inconvenience to the player. It saddens me that the system isn't used in more adventure games even now...

You have a very good point here. Let's face it, folks - the majority of the fun in adventure games is in the interactions. Walking around, exploring the game world, talking to people, poking and prodding at every hotspot to see what sorts of reactions you get - those are the things that really make the game experience unique. Space Quest proves that this sort of design can make for a great game even when the actual plot isn't exactly award-winning material. :rolleyes: KQ, QfG and the like had stronger plots, yes, but they too were more about world-building than story strength - more about the experience than anything else. Indeed, that's why the early KQ games were so heavily 'fairy tale' - the whole idea was to bring those tales you remembered to (virtual) life.
 
 
This was actually a strong running theme in the early KQ games - they often gave you the ability to *kill* certain monsters in your way, but then also gave you a less overtly violent means of dealing with them, with the latter always worth more points. The dragon could be killed with a thrown dagger, but could also be driven away using water. The troll/ogre/whatever in the cloud area could be felled with a sling, or you could hide from him and wait for him to fall asleep, then steal the chest from him without waking him. The lion in KQ2 could be killed with a sword, or fed with meat. The idea was that Graham the knight *could* be violent when he needed to be, but his kind nature preferred not murdering everything in his path by default. Sometime around KQ3, they started phasing these sorts of options out completely, making the clever, non-violent solutions more or less mandatory - this lead to the 'guile hero' archetype that almost all future adventure game heroes would adhere to from then on.
 
 
Lucasarts beat them to that one - they had the 'click on verb' system as early as Maniac Mansion. Sierra's icons were basically the same thing.
 
Also, don't forget the removal of the whole 'walk to X' system. The old games required you to physically move your character to where they needed to be to perform an action - a system which, while revolutionary at the time, was also wholly unnecessary outside of arcade or maze sequences (hello, root monster!). Lucasarts' mouse-based controls simply moved the character to where they needed to be when you tried to perform an action, which greatly streamlined interacting with the environment. This is part of the reason the interfaces for Grim and MI4 are so clunky - they *removed* this feature and forced you to manually walk around all over again. <_<
 
 
Absolutely. Space Quest 5 made use of a radical new technology in adventure gaming that Sierra was only just learning how to properly apply - something called a 'supporting cast'. ;)
 
 
You poor, dexterity-challenged fools. ;) Some of us are perfectly comfortable with a little ACTION!!! mixed in with our puzzle-based gaming. Still, I can see how such things would be supremely annoying for those who don't spend far more time than they should playing more traditional, actiony video games. :unsure:
 
 
IMHO, neither Sierra nor Lucasarts had the right idea at first. Lucasarts' 'no death' design, while certainly user-friendly, also only really worked because of the tongue-in-cheek nature of their games - you could only get away with not having any lethal consequences for in-game characters because creating contrived ways of having them *not* die was hilarious enough to fit with their style. Sierra's more ICly serious worlds demanded more serious consequences for failure to make them believable - but then people feel afraid to experiment for fear of getting the dreaded RRQ1 screen.
 
Sierra actually hit upon the perfect solution towards the end of their adventure gaming days, with games like SQ6 and LSL6. In those games, you could die or get game-overs...but when you did, you'd get a shiny new 'Retry' button that put you right back before you screwed up, good as new. It's the perfect system, IMHO - the in-character consequences (and potential out-of-character humor) of death, but with no real inconvenience to the player. It saddens me that the system isn't used in more adventure games even now...

Well, geez. You get all lazy and don't check the SubChan for a few1 months, and then something like this goes and happens. Now the cheeping, winged piglets nesting in the tree behind my house suddenly make more sense.
 
After reading everything posted so far, I'm personally in the 'wait and see' camp here. I approve whole-heartedly of the idea of using the Sierra publishing brand constructively in this manner; the name certainly still means something even outside of our little cabal, and leveraging it in the right ways could have some interesting results. Somewhat more worrisome is the idea of classic Sierra adventure game franchises possibly being dug out of their graves and butchered in a misguided attempt at appealing to the nostalgia market. Will this be the case, or will this new King's Quest (and possibly other games) actually be quality spiritual successors to their namesakes? Only time, and sequels, will tell.
 
I will say up front that, personally, I hope that Space Quest doesn't get that treatment. Besides Troels' comment about the 2.5 Guys from Andromeda2 needing to be involved (which I agree with), I feel that SQ already got a  tasteful (and amazing) resurgence and send-off with the latest round of fan games. Incinerations, especially, is the perfect cap-stone to the series IMHO, even if it is technically 'just' a fan game. If this new Sierra were to try and ressurect the series without the Guys, I doubt they would be able to do as good a job as our own dedicated fans have done - we'd end up with a cash-grabby, sub-par Space Quest zombie instead of a series that, though essentially dead, is at least resting peacefully in a beautiful hand-carved mahogany casket after having been lovingly laid to rest at a lavish-yet-tasteful funeral attended by everyone who ever knew and loved it dearly3 , who even now cherish its heartwarming, un-zombified memory. I love the series too much to want to see that happen to it; if it comes to that, I'd rather let SQ lie and focus instead on Space Quest: The Next Generation (aka Spaceventure).
 
 
...buuuut, as for ports of the existing Sierra games to current OSes? *Hell* yes. Port the hell out of them. Whore those bad boys out to every smart phone, tablet, and VR headset there is. B) More exposure for the classics is never a bad thing. Nintendo figured this out - they sell their own classic library on their current-day consoles, and make money hand over fist from it. You don't have to do anything fancy to 'em - just keep circulating the tapes.
 
 
 
 
1) Eight. Eight months since I last posted. I need to get off my virtual ass more often.
 
2) We love ya, Josh, really.
 
3) I'm suddenly recalling the end scenes of Full Throttle here.

Well, geez. You get all lazy and don't check the SubChan for a few1 months, and then something like this goes and happens. Now the cheeping, winged piglets nesting in the tree behind my house suddenly make more sense.
 
After reading everything posted so far, I'm personally in the 'wait and see' camp here. I approve whole-heartedly of the idea of using the Sierra publishing brand constructively in this manner; the name certainly still means something even outside of our little cabal, and leveraging it in the right ways could have some interesting results. Somewhat more worrisome is the idea of classic Sierra adventure game franchises possibly being dug out of their graves and butchered in a misguided attempt at appealing to the nostalgia market. Will this be the case, or will this new King's Quest (and possibly other games) actually be quality spiritual successors to their namesakes? Only time, and sequels, will tell.
 
I will say up front that, personally, I hope that Space Quest doesn't get that treatment. Besides Troels' comment about the 2.5 Guys from Andromeda2 needing to be involved (which I agree with), I feel that SQ already got a  tasteful (and amazing) resurgence and send-off with the latest round of fan games. Incinerations, especially, is the perfect cap-stone to the series IMHO, even if it is technically 'just' a fan game. If this new Sierra were to try and ressurect the series without the Guys, I doubt they would be able to do as good a job as our own dedicated fans have done - we'd end up with a cash-grabby, sub-par Space Quest zombie instead of a series that, though essentially dead, is at least resting peacefully in a beautiful hand-carved mahogany casket after having been lovingly laid to rest at a lavish-yet-tasteful funeral attended by everyone who ever knew and loved it dearly3 , who even now cherish its heartwarming, un-zombified memory. I love the series too much to want to see that happen to it; if it comes to that, I'd rather let SQ lie and focus instead on Space Quest: The Next Generation (aka Spaceventure).
 
 
...buuuut, as for ports of the existing Sierra games to current OSes? *Hell* yes. Port the hell out of them. Whore those bad boys out to every smart phone, tablet, and VR headset there is. B) More exposure for the classics is never a bad thing. Nintendo figured this out - they sell their own classic library on their current-day consoles, and make money hand over fist from it. You don't have to do anything fancy to 'em - just keep circulating the tapes.
 
 
 
 
1) Eight. Eight months since I last posted. I need to get off my virtual ass more often.
 
2) We love ya, Josh, really.
 
3) I'm suddenly recalling the end scenes of Full Throttle here.

This. I've commented about Bea and/or Stellar in other threads before, so I'll just summarize by saying that Troels' summary is the perfect summarization of what my summary would be summarizing were I to be summarizing it again here. :huh:
 
But, yeah. Especially in the writing for SQ6, Bea is meant to be less "bitch" and more "violently jealous for comedic effect". I.E. She's the sort of woman who genuinely likes Roger, but does *not* like him getting pseudo-romantically entangled with other women, and the whole thing is played for laughs at Roger's expense (due to his...less than macho personality). Bea is a strong, authoritative woman who Gets Things Done and doesn't take any crap, while Roger is a (relatively) laid-back, dismotivated guy who usually needs some outside motivating factor (such a life-threatening crisis) to get him in gear. They really are a perfect match, in that sense. ;)
 
Meanwhile, I actually really like Stellar, and think that she's *also* a good match for Roger, albeit in a different way. I rather liked the multiple endings of Incinerations, and part of me kept hoping that, even if the whole fiasco with Bea fell through, he might end up with Stellar instead for an unexpected, but still happy, ending. That didn't quite happen, of course, but I did love the Stellar ending regardless - it put a nice bow on their friendship-turned-unresolved-romantic-tension-turned-friendship again relationship, Again, Incinerations did a great job of doing justice to her character and her relationship with Roger without playing favorites or bashing anyone's character along the way.

This. I've commented about Bea and/or Stellar in other threads before, so I'll just summarize by saying that Troels' summary is the perfect summarization of what my summary would be summarizing were I to be summarizing it again here. :huh:
 
But, yeah. Especially in the writing for SQ6, Bea is meant to be less "bitch" and more "violently jealous for comedic effect". I.E. She's the sort of woman who genuinely likes Roger, but does *not* like him getting pseudo-romantically entangled with other women, and the whole thing is played for laughs at Roger's expense (due to his...less than macho personality). Bea is a strong, authoritative woman who Gets Things Done and doesn't take any crap, while Roger is a (relatively) laid-back, dismotivated guy who usually needs some outside motivating factor (such a life-threatening crisis) to get him in gear. They really are a perfect match, in that sense. ;)
 
Meanwhile, I actually really like Stellar, and think that she's *also* a good match for Roger, albeit in a different way. I rather liked the multiple endings of Incinerations, and part of me kept hoping that, even if the whole fiasco with Bea fell through, he might end up with Stellar instead for an unexpected, but still happy, ending. That didn't quite happen, of course, but I did love the Stellar ending regardless - it put a nice bow on their friendship-turned-unresolved-romantic-tension-turned-friendship again relationship, Again, Incinerations did a great job of doing justice to her character and her relationship with Roger without playing favorites or bashing anyone's character along the way.

Speaking of hilarious parser responses to player-provided obscenities, LSL1 has the funniest response to any typed line ever:
 
>MASTURBATE
Larry, the whole point of all this was to STOP doing that!
 
Al Lowe once demo'd a build of the game for some folks, and that one was suggested by an audience member when he asked for random commands to try for them. He wasn't even aware that particular response was in the game. The crowd reaction was, reportedly, priceless. :lol:
 
 
Your friend sounds like a really cool, badass, and altogether awesome individual. I say this as a purely objective outside observer, and not because my own name happens to also be Steve Jones. :ph34r:
 
We Steves have to stick together. Although it does present certain problems...

What's the difference? ;) The key to understanding the narrator's treatment of Roger is realizing that, for all intents and purposes, Roger and the player are the same entity.
 
In the early games, there basically was no "Roger", at least not as we know him now. He had no dialogue and no real personality beyond what characterization the story events (such as napping in the closet) and the narrator put on him. Although he started getting a little more characterization in SQ3 (mostly due to the increasing snarkiness of the writing around that time), it wasn't until SQ4 that Roger got any actual dialogue and personality. Up until that point, "Roger" was little more than an AFGNCAAP - an avatar for the player, with no real character of his own.
 
It's a holdover from the days of interactive fiction, where virtually all games spoke directly to the player as if they were the one personally interacting with the game world. It wasn't until adventure game protagonists started graphically appearing on-screen that designers realized they had to start defining certain basic attributes (gender, appearance, etc.) for the sake of designing character sprites. Over time, the trend continued, until adventure protagonists became their own entities.
 
Thing is, the second person narration ("You can't get ye flask!"), using "you" to refer to the main character, kept being used. Superficially, this would seem to indicate that the narrator is talking to the main character somehow - which of course is where the backtalk-the-narrator humor in many games (SQ6, the later LSL games) comes from. But on a gameplay level, the narrator is still talking to *you* - the person at the keyboard - which carries certain implications. ;)
 
Basically, when the narrator is snarking about how Roger is stupid, clumsy, useless, etc., he's not talking about Roger - he's talking about Roger as controlled by you. Think of Roger as a puppet (or a mech suit, if you're more of an anime fan) with you in the driver seat - everything he does is ultimately your doing. If Roger does something brainless (such as blow himself up with an unstable tank shell), it's because you were being stupid. If Roger blunders off the edge of a cliff, it's because you weren't paying attention or didn't have the finger dexterity to guide him around it. Akril's fanfic isn't far off the mark - it's basically a cute way to personify what would otherwise be an abstract game concept, impossible to portray in normal fiction.
 
Gary is ripping on Roger, sure, but only because Roger has the misfortune to be stuck with a shmuck of a player leading him around. ;) Arguably, if we were able to percieve a version of Space Quest where Roger acted of his own accord - one where there is no player, and no narrator - then we'd see him in his "natural" state - that of a lazy, clutzy, somewhat cowardly, but ultimately well-meaning average joe who's more dopey than he is dumb.
 
Then again, without the player's intellect to give him those sudden bursts of McGuyver-esque ingenuity and puzzle-solving insight, he'd probably have been blown up way back on the Arcada... <_<

Save early, save often. ;) And for god's sake, save in multiple slots. I've been screwed over plenty of times because I just kept saving over the one or two slots out of laziness. <_< Now I have the opposite problem - by the time I finish an adventure game, the save directory has some 20-odd savegames, numbered by relative game progress (Save1, Save 2, etc.). Not a biggie on the older games, but some of the more recent indie adventures and other AGS stuff has some surpisingly large save files. :huh:
 

I'm not sure which is worse - spending all that time and effort on an entirely optional puzzle, or doing it the right way and having Roger sashaying around in drag. :wacko:
 

God bless the Internet. :D I first discovered the online SQ community when I first got my copy of SQ6 and got stuck for six months on the endodroid freezing puzzle - I couldn't find the valve behind the bar (stupid pixel-hunting). Six months later, my family got our first Internet-capable PC, and my first stop was a SQ6 walkthrough. :rolleyes:

No. Just...no. Go down that road, and before you know it fan creations everywhere will be having annoying adverts forced on them by corporate lawyers.
 
One very important thing to realize here is that the whole trademark/copyright thing ultimately has *nothing* to do with money, at least not directly. After all, VSB, Incinerations, SQ7-Fan, and the like are *free* games - no money is changing hands. The whole 'taking away sales from the company' argument doesn't fly here.
 
The *real* issue here is one of legal precedent. The idea is simple: if Activision or whoever gives out the rights to bandy about their intellectual property in a fangame, and make a habit of doing so, then they eventually lose *control* over those rights.
 
You know the word 'xerox'? It's a verb, used to refer to making a photocopy of something. Once upon a time, the Xerox company was a huge presence in the world of photocopiers - so much so that people began to use the name of the brand (Xerox) to refer to the act of making copies. The Xerox company hates - *HATES* this, because it dilutes their brand name; people now use the word to refer to *any* photocopy stuff, even when it's not actual Xerox brand.
 
That's what a lot of copyright law stuff is about; if you don't make a show of acting like you're trying to protect your IP, you run the risk of losing control over it in the future. Every so often, Activision or whoever has to flex their legal arms over stuff like this, or else the lawyers of the future might be able to point back at this time and say "Hey, they didn't take action then, what right do they have to do so now?" Sometimes they'll pick on fan stuff for absolutely no logical reason beyond them crossing some obscure line in the legal dirt - one that makes no sense to us, but means everything in the courts.
 
I agree that the fact that the game went around calling itself "Space Quest 7" was probably a big part of why it got shut down. 'Tangent' games like VSB and Incinerations are one thing, but if someone releases a game called Space Quest 7, then the legal SQ copyright holders can't release one of their own and potentially get screwed over should they decide to make one in the future. It's a lot like how businesses will often reserve Internet domain names *years* in advance, in order to make absolutely sure that no one else can have them - even if they themselves aren't using them yet either.
 
In short - it's a legal thing. It doesn't have to make sense to regular people like us; it just has to *exist* so that some lawyer somewhere can make a point in court. :P

I finally got around to playing both this game and its prequel not long ago. Excellent work :D but a couple of comments:
 
--It feels like there was a bit of a shortcoming regarding Roger the boyfriend. When he first showed up, I was expecting the game to have some sort of "sidekick" mechanism (ala Fate of Atlantis) where Roger would tag along with Bea and offer hints and/or assist in one or two puzzle solutions. Having him show up in the intro and then just sort of get left behind seems like a bit of a missed opportunity.
 
--Giving the game the subtitle "Noodle Shop of Horrors" is a bit misleading. I was expecting the game to take place in said noodle shop rather than Bea's apartment again.
 
--When is that expansion pack coming out? Get to work, already. ;)
 
--Vohaul the cat. Best. Pet name. Ever.

It's an issue with limited color pallettes. Admittedly, as a modern game, RCR doesn't technically *have* a limited color pallette - but the effect is done anyway, on purpose, since RCR is trying to emulate NES games (which all had the same issue). With only a limited number of colors and/or memory space to work with, you have to make sacrifices.
 
Classic NES sprites, IIRC, can only have up to four or five colors apiece. Thus, certain parts of things that logically should be different colors, often aren't - in this case, both the mop handle and head are comprised of black and three different shades of yellow/orange. In the case of RCR, if I remember correctly, almost *all* weapons are that same yellowish color - even the guns. It's necessary to make them visually distinct from the player character, who in this case is mostly blacks and blues (which would drown out any dark-colored weapons). It's especially important in RCR, as you can change your character's appearance with different hairdos and outfit colors - I think he chose yellow because it stands out very well against almost anything that isn't itself yellow or green.

Well, alright then. Now that that's settled...
 
...I expect to see every last person on these boards voting for SQ in every single category. *Especially* for Incinerations. Nothing against SQ2 VGA, but epic new Space Quest game beats out classic game remake every time. :D
 
Oh, and the two Pledge Quests, of course. ;) </kissing up to Jess>
 
On a side note, I notice that Vohaul Strikes Back isn't in here anywhere - I'm assuming it wasn't eligible, for some reason. Was it not made with AGS, or something? I confess to being ignorant of the criteria for getting on the nominee list...

Well, alright then. Now that that's settled...
 
...I expect to see every last person on these boards voting for SQ in every single category. *Especially* for Incinerations. Nothing against SQ2 VGA, but epic new Space Quest game beats out classic game remake every time. :D
 
Oh, and the two Pledge Quests, of course. ;) </kissing up to Jess>
 
On a side note, I notice that Vohaul Strikes Back isn't in here anywhere - I'm assuming it wasn't eligible, for some reason. Was it not made with AGS, or something? I confess to being ignorant of the criteria for getting on the nominee list...

Well, alright then. Now that that's settled...
 
...I expect to see every last person on these boards voting for SQ in every single category. *Especially* for Incinerations. Nothing against SQ2 VGA, but epic new Space Quest game beats out classic game remake every time. :D
 
Oh, and the two Pledge Quests, of course. ;) </kissing up to Jess>
 
On a side note, I notice that Vohaul Strikes Back isn't in here anywhere - I'm assuming it wasn't eligible, for some reason. Was it not made with AGS, or something? I confess to being ignorant of the criteria for getting on the nominee list...

"Art" is somebody's brain vomiting its ideas out into the physical world, and then someone else's brain lapping up that vomit like a hungry dog and then misinterpreting it, thus completely ruining the whole point.
 
Art, my friends, is communication. Sweet, disgusting communication. ;)
 

This door sucks. The technical skill of the artist leaves much to be desired, the thematic symbolism is confusing and self-contradictory, and it's not blue enough.
 
</art critic>
 

I hate that bear. :angry: He keeps breaking into my study and drawing cartoon mustaches on all of my paintings. Even the ones that aren't portraits.

"Art" is somebody's brain vomiting its ideas out into the physical world, and then someone else's brain lapping up that vomit like a hungry dog and then misinterpreting it, thus completely ruining the whole point.
 
Art, my friends, is communication. Sweet, disgusting communication. ;)
 

This door sucks. The technical skill of the artist leaves much to be desired, the thematic symbolism is confusing and self-contradictory, and it's not blue enough.
 
</art critic>
 

I hate that bear. :angry: He keeps breaking into my study and drawing cartoon mustaches on all of my paintings. Even the ones that aren't portraits.

Alright, here's one that you guys might find interesting.
 
I've been in e-mail communication for years now with an old friend of mine from the old era of the SQ fandom. He's requested that I not mention him by name, as he prefers to play the role of shadowy lurker in today's SQ community, but like me, he's both an avid SQ fan and a rabid gamer.
 
Recently, both he and I played a little game called Retro City Rampage. The game is basically what Grand Theft Auto would have been if it had been made back in the glory days of the original NES - gorgeous 8-bit graphics, addictive square wave tunes, the whole shebang. B) Perhaps more importantly, the game was made by a lifetime gamer like us, and is thus chock-full of video game references ranging from the old-school arcade era all the way up to modern gaming.
 
Anywho, as I was corresponding with my aforementioned friend, he pointed out to me a rather interesting object in the city junkyard:
 

 
To the left, right next to the cartoon ACME rocket. Looks familiar, doesn't it? ;) Normally, I'd be tempted to write this off as a coincidence, but given the location (a junkyard) and that RCR is chock-full of other, more overt references to adventure gaming, I think it's pretty obvious that this one is intentional.
 
It's always a treat when an old-school fan manages to sneak stuff like this into a game. :lol:

Greetings, fellow Space Quest fans! It's that most wonderful time of year again, and as was something of a tradition for me back in the day, that means it's once again time to share...
 

 
...my old Space Quest holiday greeting card! :D
 
 
I made this one a *long* time ago - we're talking more than a decade ago (Wow, have I really been hanging around for that long? :blink: ). The old version had some ugly sci-fi-styled lettering that I didn't care for, so I modified it to look more like the sort of thing you'd see inside a sappy Hallmark card. Other than that, though, it's the same terrible pun I've been throwing around every year. ;)
 
If you ask him nicely, he might give you a great big box of "not getting shot by minions with laser rifles" for Christmas. :)
 
I posted this one on my Devianart account too, along with a few other things1. The only one that'll be of any interest to any of you folks are this one (crappy drawing of Roger), and possibly this other one, because it's kinda sorta vaguely Monkey Island-related. If you squint.
 
 
 
1) I apologize in advance for my lack of artistic ability.

I don't normally quote my own posts (I'm not *that* narcissistic), but something I forgot to mention - in addition to the sketches, the original box arts for LSL 1-3 *also* had Larry drawn in that same exaggerated manner. The art style more or less existed from Larry's inception - the games simply couldn't convey it properly until resolutions and color depths increased sufficiently.
 

Hear, hear. :lol: Although I try not to watch it too often...it has an odd habit of making my eyes tear up. Some kind of allergic reaction, I guess. :ph34r: