lobotomy42

The later Sierra games had already started moving away (slowly) from dead ends and cheap deaths. As for "are they still working?" Josh Mandel, the "third guy from Andromeda," was making games for awhile (and was also involved with the now-canceled Space Quest 7 fan project.) Mark Crowe is still working. Jane Jensen, as you mentioned, is still active. Corey and Lori Ann Cole have apparently gone batshit insane. Scott Murphy, Al Lowe, and the Williamses have obviously called it quits.

My actual real copy arrived in the mail yesterday. I played for the half-hour or so. Here are my (very, very initial) impressions. Cons: - Really not liking the voice actor for Sam. Almost every single line just seems to hit the wrong intonation, either over-enthusiastic or just completely off the mark. It's not bad voice acting, per se, just seems wrong for the character. - The interface seems a little janky. Sometimes pressing the space bar does nothing, and other times the labels on the hotspots appear for no reason. Also the way inventory is managed is non-standard for adventure games, for no clear reason. - That little lip-synced avatar of the speaker which just STARES STRAIGHT AHEAD is distracting and doesn't really add much. Pros: - People have mentioned the production values as a point of contention, but this hasn't really bugged me, at least during this initial segment. The game plays like a big-budget adventure game from 1999. The animations are either spot-on or completely non-existent. The backgrounds are detailed and lush, albeit completely static. I really don't have any issue with the cutscenes -- they look like early Flash animations done in high-res, or those re-mastered animations of Doctor Who episodes done for Patrick Troughton's "The Invasion" series.* Honestly, they're no worse than the awkward FMV in Gabriel Knight 2. - The huge variety of hotspots and detailed backgrounds makes this feel extremely reminiscent of the old Sierra adventures I love so much. (This is an aspect of classic adventure games that Telltale has completely neglected, in my opinion.) It is so fun to click on every little thing in a room and here your character describe what she sees in it. Especially when Sam makes some snarky or dismissive remark about something that is sign-posted to the player as an important fore-shadowy symbol - this disparity in perception helps sell the world and the characters. - The music and dialogue remind me very much of Gabriel Knight, which is a good thing. In conclusion, I am enjoying the game so far, despite some niggling issues. *Sorry for this completely random non-game-related reference.

There were 4 or 5 versions of most of the Sierra collections. I remember re-purchasing the Space Quest collection specifically because the new version included a trailer for the (never-released) "Space Quest 7." That was the only change - a new trailer. Such were the days before the internet.

Just finished this. It was an ok episode, but, wow, what a great teaser for Episode 3. Really excited for this, and I'm also starting to see the overall plot structure being set up for the series, which is cool.

(Answering my own question) Adventuregamers.com words it thusly: "Telltale has entered into an agreement with Activision, current owner of the rights to the classic Sierra On-Line adventure franchises, to create new episodic games based on these series. The first will be King’s Quest." This implies possibilities for series beyond King's Quest! (Although, let's face it, KQ itself is going to be a 2012 series at the earliest) So my guess is this will be dependent on sales, etc. And will they collaborate with the old Sierra creators? This would be fantastic!

So, assuming this is a hit, what are the odds that TellTale then gets a crack at the other Sierra franchises? Space Quest, Gabriel Knight, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory... And if they did, would they be able to bring back Jane Jensen, Al Lowe, The Guys From Andromeda, etc as co-designers/writers?

I, for one, don't think it's really King's Quest unless you can get stuck on the final room because you forgot to pluck the bird's egg from the riverbed three screens south from the starting point of the beginning of the game. And also Josh Mandel must voice King Graham.

:-/ Would much rather they did Space Quest.

I'm pretty sure their deal with the Bone guy expired. I think he even took the license to someone else.

So, this was pretty good.

So, this.

Miffy, that write up has made want to play Metroid Other M more than anything else I've read about the game, and I've read a fair amount. Even your bad points sound intriguing! I'm not sure if that boss fight you describe is completely broken or a brilliant subversion of the tutorial-that-lasts-the-whole-fucking-game trope that has been cropping up in more and more games over the last few years.

I agree with all of this.

I'm digging the aesthetic they're using a lot. I was never able to get into the original Deus Ex, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

I find this post hilarious. Most people I know can't stand anything in Sunshine *except* for the retro levels. Sunshine is generally considered a weak follow-up to Super Mario 64, which you should definitely play, although if this is your first time experiencing it, it probably won't have 1/10th of the impact it did on those of us who were experiencing a "true" 3D environment for the first time.

I'm mostly disappointed by how many of the games revealed for the 3DS are basically ports/remakes/enhanced-versions of already existing games. :-/

Mass Effect 2 - the shooting elements were hugely playable, which I don't often find is the case; At the time this came out, I was completely engrossed in the story + character development as well. Tons of little improvements add up to a whole new experience from ME. (Though I still can't shake the feeling that it's a step backwards in story-telling.) Alpha Protocol - Of all the games on this list, I think this game was the closest to bringing legitimately new ideas to the table. (Specifically, the way that gameplay structure and narrative structure interact.) When this game is going well, it's fantastic, but those moments are fewer than they ought to be. It's also held down by some mediocre gameplay and writing. Bit.Trip RUNNER is extremely hard, but also extremely satisfying. (I'm still 4 levels from the end.) The auto-restart on death is a small yet important innovation for keeping death from feeling frustrating. The sound and graphic design is phenomenal - the best I can think of in any games this year. Costume Quest is adorable. Super fun and Tim Schafer's writing is superb. A bit shallow. Lara Croft - This was a genuine surprise for me. I'm a fan of Crystal Dynamics previous takes on Tomb Raider, but I had no idea how much better the combat-puzzle-platform-repeat pattern works in isometric 2D than in 3D. This game had absolutely pitch-perfect pacing. The very moment you start to get bored of one thing, it throws you into something else. This is complemented by an in-game achievement system that rewards various different playstyles (speed-run, secret-finder, person-who-pushes-the-mechanics-to-their-absurd-limits.) Seriously, this was top-notch work. Sam & Max Season 3 is the best thing TellTale has produced. Particularly impressive was how well the focus shifted from episode to episode. Jumping from sci-fi to adventure to noir to horror kept this season's episodes from feeling "samey" like they sometimes did across Seasons 1&2. I was going to try to pick one of these, but...eh, screw it, it's a six-way tie.

Thunderpeel, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but a couple of points: 1) I was reacting primarily to the article (which seems like blatant marketing) not the game itself which doesn't yet exist. So it is obviously possible that Crystal Dynamics will make a really awesome well-developed and kickass character/story/etc (though I reserve my skepticism.) And I get that there is a lot more attention paid to these things for women characters than men (see: this thread.) But this article is mostly direct quotes from the developers, and as such is indicative of how the developers want their game to be perceived. And given that they talk almost exclusively about her new look, the message seems to be "Please notice that Lara is sexy in this brand new way, not the old way." They literally state, as you quoted, that new Lara is "what our version of sexy is." I don't see how this is putting words in their mouths, since they said it. (Side note: What exactly does GI contribute to the article here? The whole piece feels like a marketing document handed directly to the magazine.) 2) I don't think I agree with the need for "vulnerability" to make a character real. (putting aside the question of whether realism should even be a goal in video games) This seems like a standard which is applied far, far more to women characters than men. I cannot think of many "vulnerable" male protagonists in a video game. (The boy in Ico?) Most of the male protagonists presented are, as Tim Schafer said "army dudes." Gritty, tough, morally ambiguous dude who plays by his own rules, etc. Some male video game protagonists are deep, some aren't, but rarely do designers say that they contemplated literally *crippling* them for a portion of the game. Whereas with women, "of course" they must be flawed! That's just realism! Seriously, did anyone play the old Tomb Raider games and think "These are good, but Lara Croft is just TOO DARN POWERFUL?"

<optimism> Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light is pretty fucking good and everyone should go play it. It's probably the best Lara/Tomb Raider game ever made. </optimism> <bitter-rant> This new web article has almost no information about the game, but already has me feeling pretty hateful. Basically, it is two designery dudes being self-congratulatory about reducing their female lead's boob size. I GUESS THAT MAKES CRYSTAL DYNAMICS A FEMINIST HERO NOW. Except, oh wait, no. The theme of the interview that both participants keep coming back to is how "weak" they've made Lara and how this is a Good Thing for Gaming: "What dropped away pretty quickly was the hardness that she had." "soften her up" "We wanted a clear size difference. She isn’t going to be as tall as the men around her – about a head shorter." "earthy and vulnerable quality" "we thought about having her bones break and she would be crippled in some way" This quote is possibly the best: "It’s a way of saying that through these tough situations, there is a beauty and vulnerability coming through. I think that is sexy in its own way." In other words, "In the 90s, we were all teenagers and wanted to bone a porn star, so she looked like a porn star. Now we're grown-ups and we just want to date younger, vulnerable women who don't threaten our sense of masculinity, so Lara is going to look younger and more vulnerable." Seriously, this article is a travesty - the entire thing is ostensibly about how they're moving away from sex appeal, but all they're doing is swapping one one objectification for another. Didn't we all get over the "Lara has big boobs" thing 4-5 years ago when Crystal Dynamics took over the franchise the first time? This "we need to make our women vulnerable" nerd-trend is infectious. Off the top of my head, Samus, Wonder Woman, and now Lara have gone through this transition over the past year. Would anyone claim that Link needs to be "more vulnerable?" Brag about how much shorter Solid Snake is in the new game? Or write a two-page promotional article detailing nothing but Master Chief's new body shape and choice of clothes? This is all "same shit, different day," and I think that's what's really bugging me. Not much is being said about the games themselves - past, present, or future - because we all have to stop and give our opinions on how Lara looks first. The Crystal Dynamics games are good -- especially the new one! Why can't we just let them stand on their own? </bitter-rant> Ok, I promise to shut up now.

So I just finished looking through the scans....color me unimpressed. The appeal of Tomb Raider has always been its cartoonish Indiana-Jones-with-boobs-and-an-accent style. You jump in and...Oh! It's a video game! There are chasms to jump and non-sense puzzles to solve and weird animals to shoot. (And later, strange foreign mafia-dudes come to....mafia it up, I guess.) It was all very familiar and throwback - even when it was new, it was cliched and familiar-feeling. Never really a "great" series, but definitely unique, in its way. This new one sounds....very generic? The general design decision seems to be to make the game...darker, grittier, more realistic, more open....more like every other game series out there. They're ditching the goofy switches and keys for...more physics-based and environmental puzzles. And crafting and upgradeable skills and some shooter bits. Uh, welcome to 2007? I'm sure Crystal Dynamics will execute it well, but it doesn't sound so far like it'll pull my lever.

They already used that for the cover of Underworld.

I just finished Lara Croft and the Something of Something. It was awesome! They ditched the horrible storytelling from the main Tomb Raider series and focused instead on alternating between intense 2D overhead combat and puzzle-solving. The pacing was perfect - the game switches back and forth between both activities fast enough that you're never, ever bored. And the puzzles are just the right level of difficulty that you're never stumped, but you still feel pretty clever once you hit the solution. :tup:

Double Fine looks to be on a roll!

I still have hope!

I played the demo and loved it, but am poor. So once this becomes $30 or so I will get it.