Vote Grim in the Gamespy Awards!!!

Las Naranjas · Thu 04/03/2004 23:20:22

GK is fun as far as pulpy supernatural horror goes, but having read Ms Jensen's novelisations as well, when you take away interactivity, the plot is really exposed as somewhat schlocky, whether it included history or not. But Vel likes tripe, as his love of Dumas shows, so each to his own.

Nacho · Thu 04/03/2004 23:32:22

I tought that the meaning was quite clear, I meant "Vel deffends GK with suck vehemence that seems that he was a developer of the game..."

I must apologize if the meaning was not clear, when Vel posted that he couldn't understand me, I tought that he was attacking (once again) my poor English.

But if the sentence was not easy to understand I could assume that he was not attacking me, so, the harsh reply wouldn't be necessary.

Anyway... I still believe that he was attacking me...
But I can really understand that this issues do not care any of the AGSers, so I won't go on and I'll accept whatever you want to do with my post, Mr. Colossal.

I also demmand all the apologies to anyone who felt offended by this.

Meowster · Fri 05/03/2004 16:02:50

You can't say that GK is better because of the historical content...

...Grim Fandango incorporated some wonderful myths and artistic styles into a beautiful and well-paced story. It was a great game.

I'm sure GK was too...

Vel is allowed to like whatever games he chooses. It does annoy me the way he defends them by proving their superiority against other games, but I probably do the same when I say stuff like, "GK SUCKS! SCREW YOU! GRIM FOREVER!" and suchlike...

Man, like I would ever swear at Vel for saying such stuff.

Vel · Fri 05/03/2004 16:03:30

I wasnt attacking you - you just refferred to me and since I did not understand the meaning of the post, I thought it would be nice to ask.

DGMacphee · Fri 05/03/2004 16:39:23

GK2 was the worst of the series -- it had terrible interaction, poor acting, the puzzles were stupid, and the story was naff.

GK1 was the best, and GK3 was better than GK2 (but it still suffered from stupid puzzles from time to time and a convoluted ending).

Grim Fandango was miles ahead of GK2 -- it was one of those games where everything fits perfectly and works fantastically.

Nacho · Fri 05/03/2004 16:59:21

Vel: It is obvious that we had differences in the recent past, that is the reason why I thought you were attacking me. If you say that you weren't attacking me, I believe you and I apollogy for the present and past faults, it should be great if you accept them.

BTW, I think that your defense of GK is a little bit unconsistent... IMO we're not talking of which adventure game has been the one which has incorporated the best historical content, but which is better, so we can't compare GF and GK in this terms, it is like comparing pears with apples...

Anyway, we should vote for the Adventure which has left in us the better feeling, so, talking of such subjective feelings, a discussion doesn't really have reason, IMO.

Vel · Fri 05/03/2004 17:27:54

DG: I thought that the acting was pretty good(and that of von Glower is exceptional).
IMO, GK1 is the least good game of three, mostly because it is not based as much on real people and events as the other two games. And the cutscene at the end of chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6 is one of the best ever. Apply IMO to all of the lines above.
Farlander: I agree with you.

Las Naranjas · Fri 05/03/2004 23:34:20

I must admit I enjoyed the performance of Von Glower's in an ironic fashion. He glowers here, he glowers there, by gad, he glowers everywhere. I had no idea he was the werewolf until he first entered the hunting club.

Grace's 13 year old temper tantrums were also enjoyable.

As was chapter 4 in the museum and the castle. Since it was almost completely a real museum and castle, with nothing drawn from the creativity of the artist whatsoever, just clicking on REAL hisotrical things, it's the BEST chapter in a game EVA!

Meowster · Sat 06/03/2004 08:12:01

Historical content does not make a game.

But that is not important. Why? Because Grim GOT THROUGH! Hurray for Grim Fandango and Tim Schafer!

MrColossal · Sat 06/03/2004 09:20:58

just the message i don't want to send to lucasarts "GF is popular, make another and you'll get money."

DGMacphee · Sun 07/03/2004 10:47:36

Instead, they should try something like, I don't know, making a whole new game with originality.

Something like Grim Fandango -- Just not another Grim Fandango game.

Vel · Sun 07/03/2004 11:57:09

Problem is, all of the famous ex-lucas project leaders are not there/think ROngilbert, Tim Shcaffer(I misspelled it by intent, Yufster!)/.

remixor · Sun 07/03/2004 12:05:08

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 06/03/2004 09:20:58
just the message i don't want to send to lucasarts "GF is popular, make another and you'll get money."

Except for Star Wars, LucasArts doesn't seem to consider popularity a factor at all when considering what games to release.

DGMacphee · Sun 07/03/2004 12:16:45

Quote from: Vel on Sun 07/03/2004 11:57:09
Problem is, all of the famous ex-lucas project leaders are not there/think ROngilbert, Tim Shcaffer(I misspelled it by intent, Yufster!)/.

That's not a logical point at all.

You're saying that because guys like Ron and Tim aren't there, LucasArts don't have the capacity to make an original game (i.e. a game not based on any of their previous releases).

That's ridiculous, because any game company has the ability to create new ideas.

The next Schafer or the next Gilbert could be right around the corner.

I say they should move on from Sam n Max, Full Throttle, and Star Wars and try for a new adventure.

MrColossal · Sun 07/03/2004 18:43:25

also the big problem is apparently sequels and franchises are the big thing now

sell an original game idea is apparently an uphill battle in the rain with a sword in each lung

DGMacphee · Mon 08/03/2004 01:37:23

True but, most of the time, sequels suck compared to the original.

EMI comes to mind; so do a lot of Sierra's numerous releases.

Sure, you get the odd bright-spark, like DOTT, but those are rare.

Even non-adventure sequels don't compare to an original game: take Deus Ex -- the fans shitcanned the sequel's demo.

Then again, maybe it's just the hardcore fans and their perceptions that are the problem.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic.

Redwall · Mon 08/03/2004 03:39:24

Why in the world would any company want an original game? Original games have to be, like. good in order to sell. A sequel/prequel/spin off simply has to have the name to sell. And that takes a lot less work. It's amazing that any original games get published.

DGMacphee · Mon 08/03/2004 09:33:49

Quote from: Redwall on Mon 08/03/2004 03:39:24
Why in the world would any company want an original game? Original games have to be, like. good in order to sell. A sequel/prequel/spin off simply has to have the name to sell. And that takes a lot less work. It's amazing that any original games get published.

Yes, it's amazing that Doom got published.

Or Quake...

Or Deux Ex...

Or Monkey Island...

Or Myst...

Or X-Com...

Or Syndicate...

Also, isn't ironic that you say you're surprised that original games get published yet you also say sequels just need a name to be successful?

Don't original games provide the name first?

And shoudn't game companies focus upon making good original games in order to provide a good name for planned sequels?

That seems more logical to me than being "amazed that any original games get published."

MrColossal · Mon 08/03/2004 19:06:54

um... it was a joke dg

DGMacphee · Tue 09/03/2004 11:42:08

Yeah, I realised that -- I kinda tore apart his joke too.

I guess I'm just a party-pooper.