Intendant S

True. But that has absolutely nothing to do with it being "outdated" or not. P&C can easily be just as badly designed. Point & Click is not "better" than a parser. It's easier. But you'll never get everyone to agree that easier is always better. Obviously some most do, judging by the types of adventure games we're seeing nowadays. It did streamline games and open them up to a broader audience, but it also dumbed them down at the same time. Was that better? Again, maybe for some most. But I'll always disagree that just because something got more popular does not mean that its predecessor is now outdated.
 
Myself, I'm not the huge fan of parser games like those who consider it superior to P&C (which is a legitimate opinion for them), but I also see nothing wrong with them. I enjoy both. It's unfortunate that parser games died out because there are some interesting things you can do with a parser interface game deisgn-wise that you just cannot accomplish with a P&C interface. Such is the industry, people are dogmatic about what they've "grown up with" being superior to anything new. Sometimes it's true sometimes it's just blind nostalgia. But really neither are superior or inferior. There are superior and inferior implementations of both, but I pause to call either "outdated" for those reasons.

I'm against the notion that most everything gets outdated. Not everything gets outdated as much as people say they do. 3D graphics were terrible when they first came out, so they were outdated. However people even feel nostalgia for that. Interfaces, however, were made and perfected in their time. There were no mice when parsers were made. Parsers are the most versatile interface there is. That's why we still type when we program rather than "point & click" commands together. Yes, the GUI has overcome the command line interface, but it's still not as powerful as the latter.
 
My point being, it's not a matter of being outdated it's a matter of being unpopular, something people often confuse. And it bugs me. There is nothing wrong at all with a parser anymore than there is anything wrong with 2D graphics. It's just a matter of patience and being willing to align your way of thinking with that of the game designer rather than the designer trying to guess how best the players like to play. It's not like people have lost their patience. The PC gaming population 25+ years ago was much smaller and comprised of very different types of people than today.

I don't agree with this. Back when these games were newer, I remember some people looking over my shoulder as I played and not "getting it." They'd say, "you're just standing around watching the guy talk. When does the game start? This is boring." (and of course you'd want to slap them but you don't.) Their "not getting it" was more a function of their individual gaming tastes and not necessarily a product of the time period. 
So, I think different kinds of games just appeal more to certain people. Today you have A LOT more people involved in gaming, which is way more mainstream and enjoyed by a wider age range than it was in the past. You will have many people that just aren't into adventure games, and the proportion of overall gamers that likes adventure games is likely smaller than it used to be, but it's not because "you can't take the games out of" a particular era.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing, myself. I may not be on Twitter as much as I'd like, but I've rarely (if ever) seen Mark tweet.

The real head scratcher that I neglected to mention is that Mark barely uses Twitter. Certainly nowhere near as much as Scott does when he has the time for it. And, sure, Scott can be foul-mouthed, but if you judge someone's entire personality solely on the words they use, you may just happen to be a worse person than they'll ever be.
 
I'd laugh my head off if this was somehow because Mark swore like a sailor behind the scenes, but he doesn't. Like Scott, Mark is one of the nicest people I know, only he seems to be more into remaining politely silent until you need his help, as opposed to Scott's refreshing honesty.
 
I'm clueless, because it's not as if it takes a major research effort to see that Mark tweets once in a blue moon and never drops any F, C, S or Skate-O-Rama bombs. But, meh. People have published worse ill-researched stuff under the guise of "opinion".

Okay. Here's my two Buckazoids. The article actually started out fine. We all have fond memories of playing Space Quest and other Sierra classics. But, then it quickly degenerated into a complete bash on Scott and Mark and SpaceVenture. What the hell?! Personally, I feel that this a thinly veiled attempt to attack childhood heroes for being less than perfect and only human. The only thing that I agree on is that there's too much of a focus on action games these days. Everything else is pure rubbish.

I don't mind the conclusion. Or rather, I don't mind that the author doesn't like the project. (S)he is well within his/her rights to not like SpaceVenture, not like the Two Guys, not like the way the social media is handled, and everything else.
 
What I have a problem with is the complete non-sequitur between the first half of the article and the second. I don't understand how they got from point A to node 2.
 
What I also have a problem with is the complete lack of evidence for the conclusion. What exactly did the Two Guys say on Twitter that was so bad? What spoilers have they released? Where is the indication that this will be an action game? Because I've followed all of these developments really closely and... well... I've not seen any of this stuff actually happen.
 
Provide some links and screen grabs and we can engage with the discussion. Otherwise, it's just a poorly written article that doesn't seem to be based at all in the reality of the SpaceVenture project.  :unsure:

Basically what MI said above. The closest you're gonna get to a Sierra revival any time soon is the latest crop of games being done independently by former members of the company. CodeMasters loaned the rights to Replay to do a Larry 1 remake and Activision is letting Jane and Phoenix Online work on a GK1 remake, and are waiting to see how these games fare before doing anything with the IPs. At least that's what I got from it all.

I finally got around to playing "Serena" myself. I was impressed with the overall production quality - the graphics, music, and writing are all very sharp. But nothing could have prepared me for the chills that came around the halfway point when the whole tone changed. A small, subtle shift in atmosphere is all it took to cross the line into nightmare territory. Now I can't get to sleep. So well done to everyone involved!

Personally, I feel that there already IS a "Sierra 2.0" going on right now. If not in name, then certainly in spirit. Between Al and Josh teaming up for LSL:R, Jane and Robert with Moebius and GK20, the Coles with Hero-U, Scott and Mark with SpaceVenture, and even Ken Allen's Under the Half Dome album a lot of the Sierra alums already have returned. Hell, I'd even lump the IQ and Himalaya guys with Quest for Infamy and Mage's Initiation (respectively) in this list.
 
And I actually prefer to see my dev teams spread out instead of under one roof. The Kickstarter regulars know that I've backed dozens of adventure game projects and aside from having to keep track of multiple forums for projects I like it this way. It gives more creative freedom to the people working on these games. Having one person, especially "he-who-shall-not-be-named", in charge kinda ruins the magic we've been seeing over the past couple of years.

Serena is definitely a game you'll remember playing. I really liked the concept. Kind of Twilight Zoney or 6th Sense-ish.

Personally, I feel that there already IS a "Sierra 2.0" going on right now. If not in name, then certainly in spirit. Between Al and Josh teaming up for LSL:R, Jane and Robert with Moebius and GK20, the Coles with Hero-U, Scott and Mark with SpaceVenture, and even Ken Allen's Under the Half Dome album a lot of the Sierra alums already have returned. Hell, I'd even lump the IQ and Himalaya guys with Quest for Infamy and Mage's Initiation (respectively) in this list.
 
And I actually prefer to see my dev teams spread out instead of under one roof. The Kickstarter regulars know that I've backed dozens of adventure game projects and aside from having to keep track of multiple forums for projects I like it this way. It gives more creative freedom to the people working on these games. Having one person, especially "he-who-shall-not-be-named", in charge kinda ruins the magic we've been seeing over the past couple of years.

Revisiting what worked in the past and updating it to fit with modern sensibilities == good.
Simply going back to what was done in the past because it was all wonderful == bad.
 
This is effectively the problem with modern politics too, but I digress.
 
I do think Purple Tenticle has misinterpreted what Fred is saying. The 1990s should be remembered, but critically and with the benefit of historical hindsight. What I mean is - don't see the 1990s as a list of great games. Properly look at what was good, what was bad, and why it worked in the specific context of its time and space.
 
A lot of things in the 1990s worked really well. Good story telling; deep, well-formed worlds; artistic graphics; attention to music; and a focus on puzzle-solving - mental gameplay rather than cut-throat action. It's those things that can be revived and repackaged. You don't need a "Sierra 2.0" to do that. You don't need major companies to do that. And, with the way game development is nowadays, you don't even need a large studio to do that. Indeed, I would argue a "Sierra 2.0" would stifle that very freedom and creativity that would be needed to make genuinely good games for the modern market.
 
Without wanting to put words in Fred's mouth, I think both he and I feel that parroting the past is redundant. If I want to play Space Quest IV, I'll play Space Quest IV. I don't need Scott and Mark to try and "re-capture the magic" by repeating what they did in a new game. It won't work. What I want Scott and Mark to do is get all those things that were good about the 1980s and 1990s and re-use those skills in a new and creative way to give me a new product. And to learn from their mistakes and the bad things about the 1980s and 1990s, so that they can bring us something fresh.
 
"Sierra 2.0", if it is to exist, should be a very loose affiliation of like-minded individual game companies looking out for each other. This is already happening, as you can see the way they promoted each other's Kickstarters and new products as they come out. It's that sort of general feeling of an artistic community rather than an actual company that draws me in. Because it fits so well with the social media generation of indie development and sharing knowledge. No doubt we'll see Sierra-alum games being featured on the same community blogs and played by the same people. There's no need for a physical or virtual office and company controlling everything from the centre. We've moved on. It's one of the good things about the 2010s that should be harnessed.
 
That might all sound a bit pretentious, but I think it's a crucial distinction to make. Some things sucked about the 1990s. The corporate pressure, the technological constraints, shite graphics, the price of games, the length of games, the hair, dear God, the hair...
 
Sierra's games weren't good simply because those people were together in Oakhurst in the same building. It may at that time have been PART OF the reason for it, but I doubt the same would be true today. They were good for far more reasons, and it was to do with part of the culture of games at that time. By the same token, we need to be aware that everything bad about games in the 1990s was also part of that culture. So you can't simply replicate it and expect gold.
 
Take the good things of the 1990s. Mix them with the good things about today. And think about what was bad about the 1990s and bad about today - and how those things can be best avoided.
 
Replace "Sierra" with "America", and 1990s with 1790s, and send that to anyone you know in the Tea Party. It's effectively the same argument... :p #satire #OoohGetHer

Gawd, I hate this new "quote post" system. I can never seem to "break" quotes into small pieces for easy commenting. Oh well.
 
 
Re: Larry criticism. I agree, a lot of it came from a mindset that did not appreciate adventure games for the storytelling medium they were, expecting unlockable achievements and a degree of reflex-twitching, since that's what's considered an "adventure" game these days (survival horror, Zack & Wiki, Tomb Raider, etc.).
 
I don't think the Reloaded game helped matters much, however, by sticking very stringently to the original, going so far as to copy mechanics that were, shall we say, annoying to begin with. The money system where you can get irrevocably stuck in a taxi-cab and have to restore to a previous point? Having to play the slot machines to increase said money count for no other reason than being able to buy some stuff in the convenience store and having enough money to travel around the game world?
 
Despite the addition of some puzzles that weren't in the original and what I think is a pretty good conversation system, it still really did feel like a throwback instead of a forward move. And I'm not saying that's a terrible thing at all, but in terms of appealing to a larger, more mainstream demographic, a lot of eyes were on Larry to take adventure gaming into the future, and instead it stuck to its nostalgic roots - and perhaps a little too closely. I think that criticism of the game is deserved. There were a lot of things you could've done with a remade Larry 1 that would have kept the spirit of the original but taken it in a new direction (yes, unlockable achievements could have been one of them).
 
Okay, that's Larry. Re: the comment about "getting over a time when big budget adventure game releases were common." I don't think that's the sentiment Fred and the guys were going for at all. If anything, yes, we do want adventure games to break into the mainstream so we can see them get the same big-budget treatments that current AAA titles enjoy. Not to replace action/strategy/whatever games. But it would be fun to see true adventure games get back into the good graces with the mainstream gaming public, perhaps attract new players that aren't much into "gaming" but would rather read/watch movies, and share the spotlight with whatever the kids are playing these days.
 
I was recently interviewed for a podcast (in Danish, sadly) about where "gaming" is going these days - it was hosted by a group of cultural intellectuals who preferred reading and watching movies to "playing these video games." So they'd gotten hold of Grand Theft Auto 5 and Flower and played those as "representative of video games today." And they brought me in as one of two guests for a bonus episode (the other was the lead programmer from IO Interactive) to talk about game development today. But it quickly escalated into a talk about how many people are turned off by video gaming because of its lack of emphasis on storytelling and its predelictions towards quick reflexes or technology showcasing. I think modern video games are just coming out of their "puberty" now and we're starting to see a greater focus on storytelling, even in those AAA titles that are still all about blasting everything in sight.
 
That suddenly leaves a spot open for adventure games to reclaim its heyday before Doom made it all about technology and turned computer/video gaming into a competitive sport instead of a culturally viable alternative/evolution of literature. And that's what I hope to see.
 
I very much doubt that there are any adventure gamers who feel we should "get over" the heyday of the 90's, but we need to be willing to share the spotlight with other genres and realize that there is an audience out there for every type of game - even people who didn't realize they were "gamers" until someone showed them that it's not all about massacring zombies or driving really fast.

Too many people are working on "recapturing" something, IMO. I've rambled about this many times, but the 1990's happened and they were good. Now let's get over it and look forward. LSL:R may have sold well enough, but there's a reason it tanked with critics. Few people can just take a game from 1991, slap 2013 all over it and make it work. So "Sierra 2.0" was a lousy idea to begin with, no matter who had it.

Damn. I thought we had gotten rid of you. :P

Damn. I thought we had gotten rid of you. :P

Yours too?? You were like one of the really helpful volunteers. You did that great LSL logo and always answered everyone's questions. Just... wow.

Now comes in extra smooth, extra chunky, and brain matter flavors!

Genuine troll repellant (you know I had to go there :P)

Right on, this is going to be a great year for adventure fans thanks to kickstarter. Go AGRM!

You had to pick one of the nastiest projects to be your representative sample... why not pick SpaceVenture as your prototypical crowd-funding project instead? It may be running late (which doesn't make it non-representative at all) but the team is very respectful of its backer community, and has hired key supporters rather than having them volunteer (and then abusing them)
 
If you think of SpaceVenture as a flagship crowdfunded project, then crowdfunding as a whole won't be ruined for you, and someday you may hear of another project that will inspire you to join in.
 
P.S. I don't store credit card info on kickstarter; they let you enter it separately each time if you want

Maybe, but Toleman is actually an entertaining character. "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is just sad.

How can he possibly think that this behaviour achieves ANYTHING? He must be talented though. I find it difficult enough coming up with 3-minute story lines for an out of touch maniacal games CEO. He lives it.

I've known Josh long enough to see through the ruse. Like Justin said, the comment left by "Josh Mandel" is not at all like him. To anyone in the know, it's quite obvious who this impostor is. (This is one "Josh" that I wouldn't mind setting on fire in a dilapidated old cabin)