SHP Forums

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/32 ... tings-body

http://www.codemasters.com/games/?gameid=3021

Hmm... that's interesting. Codemasters is hardly known for Adventure Games. The only title of theirs that could even somewhat qualify would be Prisoner of War, but that'd be more accurately classified as "Action-Adventure."

To be fair, the last LSL game was more "action" than "adventure." In fact, I'd go so far as to say it was nearly a rhythm game.

Wow, this was unexpected. I'm not sure whether to peg it as good news or bad news, though. It seems pretty neutral to me; Codemasters hasn't made any vows to make Box Office Bust into a game like the classic Larrys, and I find it unlikely that Box Office Bust could be any more of a disappointment than MCL (of course, I could be wrong...).

Sorry, LSL is dead as far as I am concerned. I won't be suckered into another MCL.

Are you sure about that Tawmis? You do know that Codemasters has a bunch of former Sierra employees and has its US headquarters in the former Sierra building in Oakhurst, right? I expect BOB to be better than MCL, but the Codemasters only got involved in the final stage of development. However, if this one does good, then they (former Sierra employees) will probably have a say in the next installment. They know what Larry is about and may possibly even contact Al Lowe for it. The odds are far better for that to happen than ever before.

Rudy wrote:They know what Larry is about and may possibly even contact Al Lowe for it. The odds are far better for that to happen than ever before.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm, Rudy... But, for now, I have to remain skeptic, not to raise my hopes for nothing

Still, former employees are a step in the right direction. It was reported that LucasArts was ruining "Sam and Max" which led to it's cancellation, and that everything was fixed once it landed in Telltale hands with a bunch of the original game's creators.

Rudy wrote:Are you sure about that Tawmis? You do know that Codemasters has a bunch of former Sierra employees and has its US headquarters in the former Sierra building in Oakhurst, right? I expect BOB to be better than MCL, but the Codemasters only got involved in the final stage of development. However, if this one does good, then they (former Sierra employees) will probably have a say in the next installment. They know what Larry is about and may possibly even contact Al Lowe for it. The odds are far better for that to happen than ever before.

I will let someone else be the sucker for the game.

If I hear from folks on here that it's like the real adventure games that LSL was like - then I will pick it up. If it has insane stupid swimming semen games, and stupid mini games for the entire thing - I am more than fine not picking it up and being a "completionist."

Rudy wrote:Are you sure about that Tawmis? You do know that Codemasters has a bunch of former Sierra employees and has its US headquarters in the former Sierra building in Oakhurst, right? I expect BOB to be better than MCL, but the Codemasters only got involved in the final stage of development. However, if this one does good, then they (former Sierra employees) will probably have a say in the next installment. They know what Larry is about and may possibly even contact Al Lowe for it. The odds are far better for that to happen than ever before.

Indeed. They've helped salvage different pieces of Sierra before--they even owned the Realm Online for a few years when Sierra abandoned it on Black Monday.

This is what Box Office's Bust producer said in an interview:

his is what the producer said in an interview:


IGN: Would you describe this as an adventure game? If so, what do you think makes a good modern adventure game?

John Melchior: LSL is most certainly an adventure game. I think a good adventure game is when you can make player "lose time". We want them to look up at the clock and be shocked at how long they have been playing. We design these styles of games to flow smoothly through the story and entertain all the way. Great mechanics combined with dialogue and stories that keep the player wanting to see what is next, "will they take this gag farther?" or "what possibly could be next?"


IGN: The last Larry game wasn't exactly a critical success – what does this one do differently?

John Melchior: I took this game over after Magna Cum Laude and the initial designing of its sequel, but after we sat down and reviewed the last game and looked to where they wanted to take it we decided to put the brakes on this franchise and bring it back in a big way. The last game was torn apart and I think it was just the wrong approach for this franchise. Most of the criticisms of the game were not off base. This game is a total departure from the last game. I think it's safe to say that for the first time Larry is actually a game with tried and true mechanics and a vision that it catered towards today's gamers.

IGN: Will there be the same emphasis on mini-games as the last Larry title?

John Melchior: There really is nothing we are bringing over from the last game. With Team17 aboard we knew we had a developer that could handle comedy and an animation style that fit the new direction. This allowed me and the writers to handle the heavy lifting of the storytelling and script writing. Whatever we threw at them they got it and knew how execute on it. Obviously comedy in games is rare and far between so once we saw what Team17 could do we knew we had something. They were able to concentrate on creating game mechanics and a new conversation system that actually has gameplay attached to it. This game has some mini-games but they are not the focus on the game, they are small addictive side quests that fit into the storyline.

I would take John Melchior's words with a bag of salt. Team17 is not the Codemasters. While Team17 does reportedly make good games (they're most known for their "Worms" series), i can't think of any adventure game they made, so his definition of an adventure game may be, and probably is, quite different than how we define it, not to mention that Vivendi instructed them on what kind of game they would like to publish. Like i said, Codemasters took it over at the final stage of development, so i doubt much was changed with the game being released in 2 months. Different game? Yes. Adventure game? Doubt it.

Rudy wrote:I would take John Melchior's words with a bag of salt. Team17 is not the Codemasters. While Team17 does reportedly make good games (they're most known for their "Worms" series), i can't think of any adventure game they made, so his definition of an adventure game may be, and probably is, quite different than how we define it, not to mention that Vivendi instructed them on what kind of game they would like to publish. Like i said, Codemasters took it over at the final stage of development, so i doubt much was changed with the game being released in 2 months. Different game? Yes. Adventure game? Doubt it.

I think when anyone says ''adventure game'', a clear picture of what an adventure game is enters the mind. For example, I know friends who have never played an adventure game and are RPG fans and when I asked them to describe an adventure game, they gave me a pretty accurate description.
And Codemasters took it over in February 2008. The game was first announced in January '08 and by the next month, Activision had jettisoned it. So in a years worth of time (seeing as the game is coming out in April/May) I'm sure certain changes could've been made. I don't think the game was very far in development.

YeOldeSierraFan wrote: And Codemasters took it over in February 2008. The game was first announced in January '08 and by the next month, Activision had jettisoned it.

I would like to see a source for that, because i have several hard counter arguments.
First off, there were not many articles on BOB, but this article, released in late March 2008, clearly shows that LSL:BOB was still to be published by Sierra (so Vivendi): http://games.on.net/article/2809/Leisur ... len_Covert
Secondly, and more importantly, while the merger was announced on 12/2/2007, it was only officially completed in the summer of 2008 and Activision-Blizzard hadn't reached a decision on ditching BOB (among other titles) until after that. The day they decided to drop it, was July 28 2008 to be precise. Not only was that the day it was announced, it was also the day the decision was made, according to a Vivendi employee who was just as surprised as the forum moderators were when they learned the news the same day. And i doubt the Codemasters bought the IP the same day Activision-Blizzard decided to sell it.
So yeah, if there is any source stating that BOB was sold to the Codemasters at least 5 months earlier than the official statement, then somebody was well ahead of the corporate decision. Source please?

Well the fact that he said they're not taking much from MCL at least restores SOME faith...

Like I am pretty sure there's never been a game I have hated quite as much as MCL... except maybe Battlestar Galactica for the XBOX... those two are neck and neck on my sheer level of hatred for games. I mean even Mask of Eternity doesn't go that high on the hate list.