Udvarnoky, The Tingler, and SurplusGamer discuss all the things that have been happening since the last MojoCast recorded in November of last year.
This MojoCast is also the first you can stream directly from the site. Just look below the forum posts to the right to find the new flash player as well as a download link to a slightly higher quality version.
Zaarin
Should we have this discussion in the comments?
The Mojo readers deserve complete transparency after my many, many sex scandals.
Should we have this discussion in the comments?
The Tingler
Well, me and SurplusGamer use headphones... so the culprit must be someone else. No idea who. :)
You get a zero out a ten, because all three of us use headphones. :)
The echo effect is no doubt the mic picking up sound from the headphones. I don't have my source file on my hard drive to listen to so I don't know how much my side contributed, but it'd be something to look out for in the future I suppose.
koosjebig
I liked the podcast, but don't you guys use headphones? Or what explains the echo?
I love both the oldies from Lucas Arts and Sierra. For me, Grim Fandango and King's Quest VI are 'ex aequo' on the top of my top 10 list.
I wish there would be the Sierra equivalent of a mixnmojo. But I can keep dreaming. ;-)
Regarding the lack of polishing in recent Telltale games: they are trying to optimize the business model for making games. An extra time and effort investment in BTTF of 150% does probably not yield a profit of 150% (or a 150% better review grade). Hence, the BTTF episodes are not optimal, which is a pity for game aficionados. As for Jurassic park: I loved the books and the first movie. But I'm afraid I'm going to skip this game though, as the previews don't really appeal to me. They strike me more as 'action' than 'adventure'. Also, shouldn't a contemporary game be able to approximately emulate (e.g. 'realistic' dinosaurs) what happened in Hollywood movies almost 20 years ago?
Jaap
The Tingler
Which Sierra adventures can you NOT die in, then? I may actually give those a go.
I don't think there were any dead-ends in Gabriel Knight. If there were, they were like Fate of Atlantis scant. The GK trilogy is highly regarded and probably the best place to make entry. Space Quest is probably the best of the "Quests."
I really do think though that if you have an afternoon to kill, arming yourself with a walkthrough and simply getting through the early games from all the classic Sierra series will prove enjoyable in at least an academic way if it doesn't convert you to a fan. Like I think I said in the podcast, the writing in Sierra games tends to be pretty smart.
There are also some games out there that are Sierra in about all but name. The free Peasant's Quest by the Homestar Runner guys is a pitch perfect tribute to those games, and there's a "Hugo's House of Horrors" trilogy that shamelessly rips off the Sierra interface.
The Tingler
I am really going to have to listen again, because if I did "judge" the Sierra adventures in that podcast then I'm sorry - I also hate it when people judge games they haven't played. I don't think I did though, I just merely thought I said I wasn't interested and didn't like adventures where you could die.
Which Sierra adventures can you NOT die in, then? I may actually give those a go.
No, I think from a relisten, and Jason's, Surplus' and your own comments, that I overreacted. I think you all dismissed Sierra without actually criticising them, which is a different thing, but I kind of interpreted the dismissal as a criticism in itself, if that makes sense. I'm sorry for riling everybody up.
There are admittedly not a lot of Sierra games that don't include deaths, and the ones that don't are not the best Sierra games either. But the deaths were never the problem, it was the merciless way they were implemented - Monkey Island 2 has a death event in it, for example, but it's handled in a very forgiving way, and people enjoy it. King's Quest 7 and Space Quest 6 are in this vein, so you don't have to worry about saving every five seconds, and there are several others that avoid dead ends of that nature. The only one I've played that I would flat-out recommend to LucasArts fans is Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, which I think Broken Sword borrowed heavily from. The final section of the game is quite difficult, but by the time you reach that point you won't care because the rest of it is so good. There are no dead ends or deaths in the main game, aside from a small number of sequences where they're employed to uphold the integrity of the story. There's never a point where you have to restart, or are punished for exploration, though, and I think it's certainly a better game than any attempt at a "serious" game made by LucasArts.
I didn't mean this thread to spiral out of control like it did; my main point with the original post was to join in the discussion from the podcast about Sean Howard. Apologies again.
elTee
Well that's fair enough. I suppose your positive review of it for the Secret History series, where you said it was worth looking past the dead ends, gave me the wrong impression.
I just get tired of people complaining about games they haven't actually played - and I know Jason seems to think I'm imagining this, but there are numerous examples from comments made on this site of people who speak about them disparagingly whilst also admitting that their opinion is based on hearsay.
Which Sierra adventures can you NOT die in, then? I may actually give those a go.
The Tingler
Last Crusade pissed me off too.
Well that's fair enough. I suppose your positive review of it for the Secret History series, where you said it was worth looking past the dead ends, gave me the wrong impression.
The Tingler
If you want someone to encourage people to play Sierra adventures and end this imagined "feud", it's not me in other words.
I don't care about a LucasArts/Sierra fued. I just get tired of people complaining about games they haven't actually played - and I know Jason seems to think I'm imagining this, but there are numerous examples from comments made on this site of people who speak about them disparagingly whilst also admitting that their opinion is based on hearsay. There are a ton of bad Sierra games, including most of the King's Quest ones, but it's still not a rule you can apply to their entire catalogue.
I said earlier that I possibly overreacted to the podcast itself, but in dismissing the games for no reason other than a "bad feeling" (or in your case, a reason that is based on a fallacy) it's just selling the debate short. The game design philosophies of LucasArts and Sierra were quite different, and the underlying reasons why many of their games are not as enjoyable as the LucasArts ones goes way beyond the "you can die" aspect. The comments section seemed to me an appropriate place to make my opinion known, although I'm sorry everyone on the podcast has viewed it as a direct attack upon them - it wasn't my intention, although I guess I can understand why you thought it was.
elTee
I didn't realise that was your rule - especially given that you can die in Last Crusade. Not all Sierra games feature the 'dying' mechanic, either. That's the kind of ignorance that I mean, with this, but maybe I read too much into it. It still bothers me, even if it didn't happen in this podcast.
Last Crusade pissed me off too. As for Sierra adventures where you don't die, frankly I couldn't care less. I'm not an adventure addict and this is Mojo, not Adventure Gamers. Apart from the LucasArts and Telltale adventures I'm not generally "an adventure guy", mostly because apart from those two companies I've never played an adventure that has reached their level of enjoyment (and I certainly won't defend every game in their stable - plus I have played a fair few others). A Vampyre Story is included in that, despite my positive review.
If you want someone to encourage people to play Sierra adventures and end this imagined "feud", it's not me in other words. None of them simply interested me enough to buy, and the ones that did (Space Quest) sounded, apart from the humour, like exactly the type of adventure I'd hate.
Jason
Did I miss the post where you presented this difference?
Er, what? Was it not clearly presented that I thought your opinion was one way, and mine the other? Why is that not a valid difference?
If you want to know my real opinion on AME, which doesn't really have a place here (or perhaps anywhere on the site), it's that just because Bill Tiller is a nice and guy and he drew some pictures at LucasArts doesn't mean he's any better at making adventure games than anyone else who played Monkey Island. You presumably genuinely think AVS is a great game, in which case all I'm doing is disagreeing with you. But I think it damages our status as assayers of adventure games, frankly, because (in my opinion) AME make games that are style over substance, and I don't think that is in the spirit of LucasArts at all.
But so what? That has nothing to do with this podcast. I'm sure you think this is part of my elaborate plan to... well, I don't even know what you think my motives are. But come on, man... you seriously have a problem with my comments on a site feature? What process do I have to go through to express an opinion?
elTee
No-one seems to mind us taking an open-minded approach to Telltale, so why should AME be any different?
Did I miss the post where you presented this difference?
elTee
What about the rest?
Hah, clearly I'm blind - sorry! But I think you're overreacting by mocking me, or accusing me of conspiracies - Mojo is here to discuss those games, not promote them regardless of quality. If someone we cover makes a bad game, it's not our responsibility to try and make people buy it - the site was founded because the LucasArts games were great, but not all of the ones that have come out since then have been anywhere near that level of quality. Again, you're allowed to promote AVS as much as you want, but I'm also allowed to disagree. No-one seems to mind us taking an open-minded approach to Telltale, so why should AME be any different?
Jason
"Plural," however, doesn't describe the number of people who brought up A Vampyre Story in the podcast.
Well, I clearly responded to that already, as you must know having quoted part of that response back to me already. What about the rest?
The Tingler
I'm really going to have to listen to it again now, because I can't remember us suggesting anything of the sort, certainly not actual disdain for games we haven't played - they're just merely not our type of adventure games. I don't like adventures where you can die. That's it.
I didn't realise that was your rule - especially given that you can die in Last Crusade. Not all Sierra games feature the 'dying' mechanic, either. That's the kind of ignorance that I mean, with this, but maybe I read too much into it. It still bothers me, even if it didn't happen in this podcast.
elTee
Jesus Christ Jason. "Guys" is plural.
"Plural," however, doesn't describe the number of people who brought up A Vampyre Story in the podcast.
But if you want me to address you personally, then I would say your "playful" statements are symptomatic of a tendency to promote games that have a LucasArts connection almost as a rule, as if it were some kind of responsibility. There's nothing really wrong with that because you're entitled to your opinion, but why so defensive?
What the fuck? I guess my "tendency to promote games that have a LucasArts connection" must come off as really out of place in the context of Mojo. Come to think of it, why don't I ever use this site to discuss the current weather over Portugal? Why do I shirk Portugal's weather coverage almost as if part of some sort of rule or responsibility?
Your increasingly conspiratorial fears are moot anyway; Sierra very much HAS a LucasArts connection now.
elTee
Jesus Christ Jason. "Guys" is plural, because the impression all three of you gave is that Sierra were not very good, and it reflects similar comments made by readers of this site who dislike Sierra despite having admitted to no first hand experience (those being the "people" I mentioned).
I'm really going to have to listen to it again now, because I can't remember us suggesting anything of the sort, certainly not actual disdain for games we haven't played - they're just merely not our type of adventure games. I don't like adventures where you can die. That's it.
Surely you agree there's an objective area of criticism addressing the implementation of narrative in game design? Subjectivity comes into liking or disliking a game, but without any individual authority there is a body of evidence against the objective merits of A Vampyre Story, and the same rationale applied to some Sierra games indicates that they are indeed "better" games.
elTee
Jeez, guys. I'm so tired of people moaning about Sierra when they haven't actually played the games they made. It's easy to assume they're all crap because some of them are, but to call someone an idiot for not playing A Vampyre Story, which is objectively worse than many Sierra games, seems hypocritical and prejudiced to me.
My playful if incessant mockery of Chris having not completed A Vampyre Story stems from the fact that he nonetheless published a review of it online. But, I guess drawing an anti-Sierra sentiment out of thin air or accusing me of contempt for an entire segment of people based on games they haven’t played is a more dramatic and interesting interpretation. I happen to love all the Sierra games I've played and have heavy nostalgic feelings for a specific group of them, even if objectively speaking (not to usurp your authority there) I don't consider a lot of those early games to be compelling stories or have great design.
Anyway, having played the seven Leisure Suit Larry's, the first Gabriel Knight, and the first few installments of the King's, Police, and Space Quest series, I'm less than an expert but somewhere above having never played a Sierra game. And since Chris and Peter conceded to not having played Sierra adventures and only cited their reason for not dipping their toes in was the early games' dying/getting stuck stigma, I really don't know who your "moaning" and "assuming they're all crap" comments are really aimed at.
Anyway, great job on researching and informing us about those new Telltale licenses. I guess that wasn't the point of the podcast, but it was like listening to somebody shrug.
I think Sean Howard's point is that Telltale are making bad decisions which are clearly for business reasons instead of creative ones. They're acquiring licenses, which means their games already appeal to sub-groups of people, but they're not able to do as much with those licenses as they could if they were making less games and spending more time on them. I don't get the impression that they've been able to actually figure out what works or doesn't work from each game they release, so there is no observable increase in quality. Problems can be carried over, and innovations can be accidentally dropped.
When I worked in the games industry, the impression I got from almost everyone who saw me playing Tales of Monkey Island was that they thought Telltale were quite happy to make easy money from mediocre games. This isn't true, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter - the Telltale brand name is being harmed by the fact that their moments of brilliance are buried amongst ordinariness. I don't see each new Telltale game as a 'must buy' in the way I once did with LucasArts. Amanita Design, however, spent three years on Machinarium, and it showed. When they announced new games recently, I was immediately attracted to them because I now associate them with good game design. Telltale should be trying to do the same - less games, more development time, a guarantee of quality. They have the staff and the desire needed to be better than LucasArts, so the problem, simply, has to be their business model.