An update to Sam & Max Save the World: Remastered has just been published to address some minor bugs, and the good folks at Skunkape have, in light of growing interest, used the release of this patch as an opportunity to write up a blow-by-blow of dang near all observable differences between the remaster and the 2006-2007 original. In doing so they've laid to rest a few misconceptions, but mostly just further expose how much thought went into their fastidious upgrade of Sam & Max's post-LucasArts debut.
Be among the cool kids and read the lowdown while you wait for your update to download. There's also a brief new promo that shows off several pullquotes from the game's more laudatory reviews thus far. Mojo's rave was excluded, but you've gotta grade them on a curve on that one: After the heat Skunkape attracted from up to four pre-adolescents over "censorship" concerns, one can only imagine what kind of hell quoting a known CMI denigrator like Remi would have raised. Look, if he weren't so handsome, we wouldn't put up with him either.
Source: Steam
elTee
If you prefer the original version, just play it, you don't need to paint yourself as some kind of victim.
I think that you're rather missing the point. It's irrelevant which side of the debate I or anyone else falls upon. The issue I've highlighted within this comment chain is not related to the changes made to the game itself. I've purposefully avoided engaging with that particular debate unprompted since day 1. My issue is that the staff on this site are continuing to ascribe unjust derogatory descriptors of bigotry to anyone who doesn't share their own personal views on the matter. When I read a news article on this site and that article specifically insults me or anyone else like me for holding an opinion contrary to their own, then of course I feel compelled to speak up and defend myself for holding that opinion and from accusations of bigotry and petulism. I shouldn't have to do that, but this site keeps forcing my hand. I'm not willing to have mud slinged my way and not defend myself from it.
Ask yourself this, as a hypothetical; if this site posted an article which described the people who are happy with the changes made to the game as "a bunch of self-righteous snowflakes", would you think that to fair game too? I certainly wouldn't and I would speak up against that too, even though the insult wouldn't have been directed at myself. All I am asking for is basic respect for holding my own individual opinion, without having presumptuous character assassinations thrown my way.
As JonesJr alluded to below, this is a news site for Lucasarts and Lucasarts related adventure games. The writers ought to keep their political agendas and sanctimonious judgements out of it, lest they risk alienating a significant proportion of their readership. They're essentially saying "if you don't agree with us on this specific controversial issue, then you're not welcome here" (or at the very least "if you don't agree with us on this issue and you want to stay, then you better get used to being called a bigot and an idiot") and that's no way to run a gaming news site.
JonesJr
Mojo: Come for Lucasarts+, stay for the social justice!
Or... maybe we leave that Proud Boys moment in the past and keep the PC BS out of here? It clearly isn't positive or productive content, let alone progressive.
Want proof? Spend 20 minutes on Facebook or Twitter, I double dare you, but don't expect me to subsidize your therapy!
Honestly, I can't believe I'm seeing this on here, the one part of the internet I come to escape this crap. How about returning to good old-fashioned snark at development houses that build up our hopes then thwart them?
Well said.
Or... maybe we leave that Proud Boys moment in the past and keep the PC BS out of here? It clearly isn't positive or productive content, let alone progressive.
Want proof? Spend 20 minutes on Facebook or Twitter, I double dare you, but don't expect me to subsidize your therapy!
Honestly, I can't believe I'm seeing this on here, the one part of the internet I come to escape this crap. How about returning to good old-fashioned snark at development houses that build up our hopes then thwart them?
Jason
You didn't demand that I alter my joke? No one demanded that Skunkape make the modifications that they did, either. They made changes to their own work of their own volition -- while simultaneously making a positive choice to keep the original builds in circulation. It is fair to be bummed by that decision or to consider the reasoning behind it misguided, but decrying that as "censorship" is the definition of hysterical. People who have actually had their work or their right to express themselves suppressed would probably call you something a tad "meaner" than an adolescent for framing it that way.
You say that "it is fair to be bummed by that decision or to consider the reasoning behind it misguided" and yet, you and Remi accuse anyone who falls within that category of automatically being a bigot or immature (and no, they were clearly not "jokes". Don't be so disingenuous). You don't practice what you preach.
Jason
I dunno if you're workshopping a comedy sketch here...
I'm not but if I were to, my skit would certainly be a lot funnier; a lot less uncharitable; a lot less goading; a lot less condescending and a lot less insidious than your and Remi's disgraceful attempts at "jokes". I wasn't aware that tarring everyone with the same brush and calling them pre-adolescent and bigots because you happen to disagree with them over a video game remaster was considered to be the height of wit.
Jason
...there is a little devil on my shoulder who is of the opinion that the "name-calling" you were so callously subjected to was entirely too generous.
Seems about par for the course with you and your passive aggressive attitude. I suggest that you be a professional in future and learn to take criticism with humility, if you intend to act as a representative for this site. The way in which you're carrying on is not a good look for you or this site as a whole.
St_Eddie
It would only be ironic if I had demanded that you delete or alter the offending "joke".
Nah, I'll go ahead and stick with the traditional definition of irony, same as I do with censorship. You didn't demand that I alter my joke? No one demanded that Skunkape make the modifications that they did, either. They made changes to their own work of their own volition -- while simultaneously making a positive choice to keep the original builds in circulation. It is fair to be bummed by that decision or to consider the reasoning behind it misguided, but decrying that as "censorship" is the definition of hysterical. People who have actually had their work or their right to express themselves suppressed would probably call you something a tad "meaner" than an adolescent for framing it that way.
St_Eddie
There's a difference between either standing by or not standing by a joke one made previously and hysterically whitewashing historic art
Again, the "historical art" remains readily available. I dunno if you're workshopping a comedy sketch here or if your accusation of "bad faith" was pure projection, but there is a little devil on my shoulder who is of the opinion that the "name-calling" you were so callously subjected to was entirely too generous.
Jason
...the fact that judgmental name calling has been part of The Mojo Articles Of Faith from day zero
By all means, point me in the direction of another article, unrelated to Sam & Max, where a specific portion of your readership has been the target of name calling. Specifically; name calling which amounts to accusations of bigotry, petulism or an equivalently egregious character assassination. I suspect that you know perfectly well that your comment and the prior "proud boys" comment falls outside from the wheelhouse and this site's usual harmless fun poking.
Jason
I don't consider my cracks to be particularly "mean-spirited" (and I am arrogant enough to think I know a thing or two about what my intentions were), but it is not my place to deny your pain.
Whilst it's clear that you used facetious terminology to describe the critics as "pre-adolescents", I don't think that you can handwave my points away by saying "it was just a joke". Many a true word is spoken in jest and it seems patently obvious to me which side of the debate you fall upon. I believe that you are genuinely scathingly dismissive of those people who took umbrage with the changes made to the game and that you consider them to be culturally insensitive. Do you deny this?
Jason
I do, however, note the irony of your being so bent out of shape over a joke.
It would only be ironic if I had demanded that you delete or alter the offending "joke". Given that I did no such thing and that I believe that the jokes in Sam and Max should have been left as originally intended for people to either take offense to or not, it's really not all that ironic, now is it? It's you who seems to believe that jokes ought to be retroactively altered to avoid potential offense, not I.
Jason
That was certainly not the reaction I meant for, but I have learned recently that refusing to stand by one's comedy, however insensitive you come to see it as in retrospect, is tantamount to kowtowing to the PC police. So you can see my conundrum.
There's a difference between either standing by or not standing by a joke one made previously and hysterically whitewashing historic art out of some misguided attempt to be uber-woke (seriously, who exactly are these phantom people who would have been offended by the original jokes in Sam & Max? Sensitive skinheads presumably). Again though; that's beside the point. I don't care which side of the argument you fall upon. I respect those who are not bothered by the changes and all I ask in return is that same level of basic respect for those who hold a differing opinion. That's the issue I have here; you and other staff labeling innocent people as bigots and/or overgrown babies and now lacking the conviction to own up to it, by using the excuse of "it was just a joke" (I note that it took an awful lot of back and forth and an inability to refute my arguments for you to trot out the old "it was a joke" excuse).
I don't consider my cracks to be particularly "mean-spirited" (and I am arrogant enough to think I know a thing or two about what my intentions were), but it is not my place to deny your pain.
I do, however, note the irony of your being so bent out of shape over a joke. That was certainly not the reaction I meant for, but I have learned recently that refusing to stand by one's comedy, however insensitive you come to see it as in retrospect, is tantamount to kowtowing to the PC police. So you can see my conundrum.
Jason
I'll try to find some way to make peace with that. I am sure we have more enjoyable, productive topics to discuss, anyway.
Grand. Maybe just leave the mean-spirited, judgemental name calling of your readers out of your articles in future and then these discussions wouldn't have to be had in the first place.
Jason
No. But thank you for asking politely.
Very well, in that case I am left with no alternative but to assume that you are unable to refute the arguments which I have raised.
St_Eddie
May I suggest that you address the core point itself, instead of deflecting to a different and irrelevant argument; the fact that you and another staff member for this site have been besmirching the character of the people who took umbrage to the changes and assuming, in bad faith, that their motivations for doing so are malevolent and bigoted?
Are the people who took umbrage with Spielberg's changes to E.T. bigoted too? Do you believe that the changes made to alter the FBI's guns into walkie-talkies, via retroactive CGI, a positive change to make and were the people who complained about those changes automatically petulant, NRA membership owning proud boys? If not, if that's not what you believe, then you are not only being unfair in regards to your character assassination of the critics of the changes made to Sam & Max, but you are also being hypocritical.
Jason
St_Eddie
However, as I previously said; the debate of what constitutes censorship and what doesn't is beside the point.
Not to me.
You're still not addressing the nub of the issue; that you and other staff have been character assassinating any and all critics of the changes made to the game. I wonder why...
St_Eddie
However, as I previously said; the debate of what constitutes censorship and what doesn't is beside the point.
Not to me.
Jason
Considering you took umbrage with my putting the word censorship in quotes: No, it's not?
That was a side issue and one which you have not definitively refuted, it should be noted. You gave your own two cents on the matter and I respected that as a form of extending an olive branch, in the interests of furthering understanding and civil debate. However, self-censorship is still a form of censorship, so whilst I respect your opinion on the definition of censorship, it is not one which I share.
However, as I previously said; the debate of what constitutes censorship and what doesn't is beside the point. It's arguing semantics. It's irrelevant as to how one describes the changes made to the game's script. The issue is that they changed the content of the game's script, not the descriptor as to what those changes were.
May I suggest that you address the core point itself, instead of deflecting to a different and irrelevant argument; the fact that you and another staff member for this site have been besmirching the character of the people who took umbrage to the changes and assuming, in bad faith, that their motivations for doing so are malevolent and bigoted?
Are the people who took umbrage with Spielberg's changes to E.T. bigoted too? Do you believe that the changes made to alter the FBI's guns into walkie-talkies, via retroactive CGI, a positive change to make and were the people who complained about those changes automatically petulant, NRA membership owning proud boys? If not, if that's not what you believe, then you are not only being unfair in regards to your character assassination of the critics of the changes made to Sam & Max, but you are also being hypocritical.
St_Eddie
However, whether the changes fall under the category of censorship or not is irrelevant to the point at hand
Considering you took umbrage with my putting the word censorship in quotes: No, it's not?
Jason
St_Eddie
The changes made to the game absolutely were a form of censorship.
The changes made to the game absolutely are not a form of censorship, and I am of the opinion that demeaning that word by reflexively shouting it in circumstances where it doesn't apply is dangerous. A terrific way of greasing the skids for genuine censorship is to lose the lexicon.
Well, that's a reasonable stance to take. However, whether the changes fall under the category of censorship or not is irrelevant to the point at hand; that you and this site are attacking the character and motivations of those who took umbrage with the changes made to the game. That is not a reasonable course of action to take.
St_Eddie
The changes made to the game absolutely were a form of censorship.
The changes made to the game absolutely are not a form of censorship, and I am of the opinion that demeaning that word by reflexively shouting it in circumstances where it doesn't apply is dangerous. A terrific way of greasing the skids for genuine censorship is to lose the lexicon.
You seriously need to stop fanning the flames with these judgemental comments. I'm 38, a liberal and a well reasoned person. I'm not a "pre-adolescent", much less a "proud boy". The changes made to the game absolutely were a form of censorship. Just because the changes didn't bother you personally, it doesn't mean that you ought to put the word in quotation marks and make derogatory remarks about the anyone who did take issue with the changes made. You're coming across as immature; incapable of perceiving nuance and engaging in civil debate, so perhaps you ought not to be so quick to ascribe others as being preadolescent. People in glass houses...