SHP Forums

Good to hear from you again!

I'm really excited about this news, and I think that DeadPoolX has a great perspective on it all. It's actually quite frustrating to see all the negativity surrounding this announcement, specifically on Facebook and Twitter. I know a lot of the concern is that Activision, being the money monger that it is (just look at Skylander... O_o) will turn the IPs into money-making social apps for mobile devices.

But I don't know....the epicness of that video on the website, as well as the success of other game companies like Telltale, give me strong hope that we could be seeing something huge on the horizon. Something good huge too.

But, regardless of what happens, John Williams also made a great point: Either it's going to be an amazing game(s) that we're all going to buy and go crazy over, or it's going to be a crap game that no one's going to buy and then, what does it matter? I mean, we KNOW what the good games are, and let's be honest, even historically Sierra has a bunch of CRAP games. Everyone remembers Sierra for their adventures, but don't forget that they spent the first 3 years putting out bomb after bomb arcade games that almost made the company go under (yes, there were some great games in there too, but a LOT of bad ones).

Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to seeing what's going to happen! Here's hoping!!!!!

Tawmis wrote:What could it mean?

It means Sierra is joining the cache of zombie brands, IP in different hands to be mutilated and exploited by those who had no involvement in its creation. Whatever the hell they do, you won't recognize it as what we know an adventure game to be. The original talent that made Sierra Online magic -- that cadre of beautifully mismatched genius misfits giving their soul to blaze a trail -- will have nothing to do with it.

It's inconsequential big bad meanie Activision owns the IP. (Ironically, the company is, itself, a zombie brand). The situation would be no different if it were EA or Sony. You're getting an emotional buzz over an empty name, a nostalgic beacon erected by suits who have no clue what they own, that has tenuous ties to its former self.

Send up fireworks and open the champaign when the press release goes out touting that Scott Murphy, Mark Crowe, Al Lowe, Josh Mandel, Jim Walls, The Coles, et. al. have all been hired. And I have weighty doubts that would ever happen.

But hey, yay. Let's prop Sierra right next to Commodore and Polaroid at the Bar of the Living Dead.

Now this is interesting... I'm hoping that we'll see more details soon.

Some things I'll comment on...

DeadPoolX wrote:Another example is that some gamers kicked up a fuss about a newer Adventure game (can't remember its name) because it used an art deco style for its graphics, and because of this, apparently the developer copied BioShock. I guess some gamers really believe that BioShock created art deco, whcih is again quite sad.

Bioshock created art deco??? Hardly. Yes, I agree that some gamers are very dumb - for instance, what about Grim Fandango, which also used art deco to great effect (and nearly 10 years before Bioshock). Then again, of course, art deco started flourishing in the 1920s.

DeadPoolX wrote:Actually, QFG would be one of the last series I'd like to see remade. Not because I disliked them, but because there are so many good and technologically advanced RPGs available already. As good as QFG is, there's no way it could compete against something like Dragon Age: Inquisition, or even slightly older games, like Skyrim.

Instead, I see remaking the KQ series (or at least the first game to start off) as a better idea considering how fairy tales are so popular nowadays. I'd also like to see the Laura Bow games remade as well as the Gabriel Knight titles. Maybe even continue on to games like GK4 or something.

Maybe... then again, I don't know if QfG is really an RPG at all. Of course it uses RPG elements, but there are also puzzle elements and adventure game ones, with a humour all of its own. The gameworld is nowhere near as large as DA or TES, nor is it meant to be. Even the gameworld name is a clue - I mean, Thedas, Tamriel... Gloriana? If we have to compare QfG to newer games, then in terms of the game look-and-feel, it's much more reminiscent of Heroine's Quest or Quest for Infamy. Besides, I doubt anyone would ever think of playing QfG with a first-person POV (a la the TES games) - it's just not the same as playing QfG!

I agree that QfG is primarily an adventure with RPG elements. However, the hero has run his course. Remember that it was originally intended to be just a trilogy. The Coles felt that the hero was not quite ready for the final chapter at the end of 2, so the series was extended to four. Five only happened because of fan demand.The fifth one feels sort of tacked onto the series rather than truly part of it, even if it felt more of a QfG game than MoE did a KQ.

EightBitJoe wrote:

Tawmis wrote:What could it mean?

It means Sierra is joining the cache of zombie brands, IP in different hands to be mutilated and exploited by those who had no involvement in its creation. Whatever the hell they do, you won't recognize it as what we know an adventure game to be. The original talent that made Sierra Online magic -- that cadre of beautifully mismatched genius misfits giving their soul to blaze a trail -- will have nothing to do with it.

It's inconsequential big bad meanie Activision owns the IP. (Ironically, the company is, itself, a zombie brand). The situation would be no different if it were EA or Sony. You're getting an emotional buzz over an empty name, a nostalgic beacon erected by suits who have no clue what they own, that has tenuous ties to its former self.

Send up fireworks and open the champaign when the press release goes out touting that Scott Murphy, Mark Crowe, Al Lowe, Josh Mandel, Jim Walls, The Coles, et. al. have all been hired. And I have weighty doubts that would ever happen.

But hey, yay. Let's prop Sierra right next to Commodore and Polaroid at the Bar of the Living Dead.

Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? You're right, everything could turn to shit, but it's also possible that this could turn into something great.

The point is we don't know. All we've got is a very short teaser and some news notices. Let's reserve judgment until we know more.

Rath Darkblade wrote: Maybe... then again, I don't know if QfG is really an RPG at all. Of course it uses RPG elements, but there are also puzzle elements and adventure game ones, with a humour all of its own. The gameworld is nowhere near as large as DA or TES, nor is it meant to be. Even the gameworld name is a clue - I mean, Thedas, Tamriel... Gloriana? If we have to compare QfG to newer games, then in terms of the game look-and-feel, it's much more reminiscent of Heroine's Quest or Quest for Infamy. Besides, I doubt anyone would ever think of playing QfG with a first-person POV (a la the TES games) - it's just not the same as playing QfG!

Regardless, the QFG series will be compared to those games and other more recent entries into the RPG genre. It doesn't matter if it's fair or right, because most of the gaming world will see it as some sort of half-assed RPG, not even understanding that it's really more of an Adventure with RPG elements.

Knowing this, I think Sierra's time and energy is better spent in doing other games, like KQ, SQ, PQ, LB, and so on. Games that are definitely, and without a doubt, Adventure games and won't get people confused as to what genre they belong in.

(Yes, I know Adventure fans won't have this problem, but if the new Sierra is to survive, it has to acquire new fans and be appealing to gamers in the modern gaming market.)

DeadPoolX wrote:Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? You're right, everything could turn to shit, but it's also possible that this could turn into something great.

The point is we don't know. All we've got is a very short teaser and some news notices. Let's reserve judgment until we know more.

Actually, we do have a bit more. John Williams does know more about it, but must be under an NDA. He was indicated that it will be something that he thinks the established fans will like. This make me a lot less pessimistic than I might be otherwise. Combine that with this was in the works when they granted Jane Jensen the license to GK. I think there has been some talks between Activision and the 2 Guys from Andromeda. So there could be some of the original designers involved. I think that this is enough to be cautiously optimistic at this point. And even if it does go to shit, it would not be the first time that a treasured Sierra IP was abused. Think LSL. We have nothing to lose and just possibly a lot to gain.

I updated the SHP front page with the news.

I'm optimistic

misslilo wrote:Hey guys!! Long time no see
I'm now known as "wowdane"

You should stick around more!

Finally, a "Sponsored Post" that actually applied to me... (and this thread!)

DeadPoolX wrote:Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? ... The point is we don't know.

I have very substantial and solid reasons for believing everything I have said in my original post. That is all. Feel free to be as optimistic as you like.

EightBitJoe wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? ... The point is we don't know.

I have very substantial and solid reasons for believing everything I have said in my original post. That is all. Feel free to be as optimistic as you like.

If your reasons are so substantial and sold, why don't you share them? If what you say is true, anyone who disagrees will be quite the fool. Furthermore, Collector's already shared his reasons for his cautious optimism:

Collector wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? You're right, everything could turn to shit, but it's also possible that this could turn into something great.

The point is we don't know. All we've got is a very short teaser and some news notices. Let's reserve judgment until we know more.

Actually, we do have a bit more. John Williams does know more about it, but must be under an NDA. He was indicated that it will be something that he thinks the established fans will like. This make me a lot less pessimistic than I might be otherwise. Combine that with this was in the works when they granted Jane Jensen the license to GK. I think there has been some talks between Activision and the 2 Guys from Andromeda. So there could be some of the original designers involved. I think that this is enough to be cautiously optimistic at this point. And even if it does go to shit, it would not be the first time that a treasured Sierra IP was abused. Think LSL. We have nothing to lose and just possibly a lot to gain.

The way I see it, EightBitJoe, the only thing you have to loose is either your pride or a chance to laugh at some genuine fools.

EightBitJoe wrote:And I have very substantial and solid reasons for believing everything I have said in my original post. That is all. Feel free to be as optimistic as you like.

Yep, I will stay optimistic. I have very good reasons for that which, sadly, I am not allowed to share. Just a few more days for the news to break.

Expack3 wrote:

EightBitJoe wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote:Why don't we remain cautiously optimistic until we know more, okay? ... The point is we don't know.

I have very substantial and solid reasons for believing everything I have said in my original post. That is all. Feel free to be as optimistic as you like.

If your reasons are so substantial and sold, why don't you share them? If what you say is true, anyone who disagrees will be quite the fool.

[...]

The way I see it, EightBitJoe, the only thing you have to loose is either your pride or a chance to laugh at some genuine fools.

EightBitJoe, if you know something we don't and have proof to back it up, by all means, please share it.