Infamous Quests
Public Forums => IQ Chat => Topic started by: Lupin3 on August 13, 2016, 03:04:45 AM
-
"Go back to the 90’s and it was Sierra Online vs LucasArts. In 2016, the only successful adventure games use the LucasArts style."
Not really well-versed on the difference between the styles. What is a good example of a post-1990s "LucasArts style" game - Aveyond? Al Emmo? Warthogs?
-
I guess by this distinction I really mean the LA model, which is none or limited death, A-B-C storylines as opposed to more gather-the-items quests, removal of random events, multiple paths.
Modern games as examples. Anything by Wadget Eye, the early TellTale games before they became very much interactive stories. Broken Age. Life is Strange. Firewatch.
-
I am a major classic sierra fan but very strongly dislke LucasArts style. Its just my personal preference.
-
I am a major classic sierra fan but very strongly dislke LucasArts style. Its just my personal preference.
To be fair, the only LucasArts graphic adventure game I've ever played was "Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis" when it came out while I was in college...
(While I was in college?!?!? Huh, huh. I'm OLD. Huh, huh.)
...so I really don't have much of a basis to form any pro-/con-/love/hate opinion about the LucasArts style/humor/gameplay/design choices. I recognize and acknowledge their contributions to the adventure game genre, and much like Sierra, I fully understand why they still have so many fans to this day.
However, as I watch PUR and LGR continue their Let's Play of "The Secret of Monkey Island," it reminds me of the ONE thing that keeps me from ever wanting to actually play any of the LucasArts "classics": the user interface.
It's just plain awful.
-
Without releasing figures was QFI a lot more successful ( I understand it cost a lot more to produce)
-
Without releasing figures was QFI a lot more successful ( I understand it cost a lot more to produce)
A "lot" is subjective :) , but it's sold multiple times more than OOTT.
-
I think one thing is qfi had a wide appeal in terms of its storyline. The idea of being a bad ass has the ability to reach outside of the traditional niche classic adventure market, I am not sure a bard with a lute has the same appeal
-
It's funny because I agree with you about QFI's appeal, but on the other hand it's also specifically a tribute / pisstake of a specific series so in that respect it should limit it's audience. One thing I do know, I have no idea.
-
Prior to playing it though I am not sure many knew that QFI was going to be a partial piss take. I had backed it and followed it right through andI was not expecting that.
-
The name didn't give it away?
-
Prior to playing it though I am not sure many knew that QFI was going to be a partial piss take. I had backed it and followed it right through andI was not expecting that.
? piss take?
-
Us kiwis can be a bit slow!! I actually thought it was going to be a serious game where you played the bad guy.
-
You may be slow, but you make up for it in superior Rugby skills. Or are we so bad now that it makes the All Blacks look good?
-
Prior to playing it though I am not sure many knew that QFI was going to be a partial piss take. I had backed it and followed it right through andI was not expecting that.
? piss take?
It's British/Austalian/Kiwi slang.
"It is often used to mean (or confused with) taking the piss out of, which is an expression meaning to mock, tease, ridicule, or scoff"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss
Basically means parody.
Bt
-
ohhhhh
rgr that learn something new every day whoot
-
You may be slow, but you make up for it in superior Rugby skills. Or are we so bad now that it makes the All Blacks look good?
The ABs are on another level right now... Still The Warriors have just missed the 8 AGAIN. Seriously over them right now, till next season when my expectations rise only to be crushed again
-
If you do end up signing Foran, and assuming he can keep his head on straight, the Warriors will have that stability in the spine that will produce a good run to the finals and further. Big IF there, I think he'll sign and maybe being away from Sydney will really help him. Can't really have a worse season than the one at Parramatta.
-
While of course I love the idea of Foran, I don't think he will fix our problems. We have a lame forward pack and consequently play props on the wing and then get surprised when teams score off simple kicks behind our prop wings.
We don't have an angry forward in the whole pack and while our three back rowers are fine players (hoffman, mannering and thompson) they are severely out of balance and don't have an offload, aggression or footwork between them.
The adventure genre has shown more life in the last 5 years than the hapless Warriors
-
I've thought this year the biggest issue was game management, nobody seems to know when and where to make the right plays, that's why I thought Foran would be a good fit.
I think the finals are going to be wide open this year. The only team that's faltering a bit at the moment is the Bulldogs, the Sharks seem to have found some form again last weekend and the Broncos / Cowboys have both started winning again at the right time. That said, I wouldn't write off any of the 8 from knocking out anyone else. Except the Tigers if they make it.
-
Agree the finals should be a ripper this year.
You are right with good game management we would have on a couple more and prob be in the 8, but to be a top 6 or top 4 club we need some forwards. If RTS and Luke are fit for the year we can live without foran but we can't live without a beast
-
Hi all,
Hey a status update on Roehm to Ruin/ Fortress of Fire would be appreciated. Perhaps the future of IQ is in doubt, however I am wondering about Roehm to Ruin?/FOF? Bueller, Bueller, Anyone???? Chadly.
-
Hi all,
Hey a status update on Roehm to Ruin/ Fortress of Fire would be appreciated. Perhaps the future of IQ is in doubt, however I am wondering about Roehm to Ruin?/FOF? Bueller, Bueller, Anyone???? Chadly.
Kind of piggy-backing on Chadly's questions, IIRC IQ said in recent interviews that they wanted to be part of the Humble Bundle scene as the only way to sell IQ games in that manner -- no "1,000 games/pay only $1.99!" type of deals.
Now that you have been part of one, was it worthwhile? Are you pleased with the result? Does it change the outlook for the future of IQ?
(Not looking for sales numbers or amount of money taken in, just how the experience went...)
-
Roehm to Ruin is almost complete, basically a bit of testing and some voices to put into it and she'll be complete. FoF is still being worked on - it's a slow process, don't expect in any hurry.
With the bundle situation, yes we were in a bundle but it wasn't a "bundle" bundle, if that makes sense. We basically bundled our two games together for a sale, it wasn't a Humble Bundle with a dozen different titles from different publishers. So all the money from it came to us and wasn't split a dozen different ways. The sale went ok, we sold a few copies. Nothing exceptional and even adding in those numbers the sales for OOTT have been very poor. (That's actually one of the reasons for the slow work on FoF. It's hard to be motivated to do another OOTT game when the first one didn't splash. So it's a matter of changing things up a bit without compromising the existing mythology we've built).
-
Thanks for the clarification and update, Klytos.
-
No probs my man.