Indiana Jones game? (Fate of Atlantis sequel?)
Telltale, I (and many others) would LOVE to see you do an Indiana Jones game next!! Surely the look and overall tone would have to change a bit, but your links to Lucasarts and your firm understanding of story, character and puzzles would make you the perfect fit for giving us Indy fans a GOOD INDY GAME for a change.
What do ya say!?
What do ya say!?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
now you can continue to throw rocks at me...
I would love Indiana Jones point and click (wink wink) graphic Adventure not action adventure.
But it might not happen.
Lol, we will
Aside from jokes, I think they were really hard just in Indy 3 (last crusade), they were OK in atlantis! And btw, they could be revisited to make the game ready for the new century!
Also, I could have sworn I saw an interview with someone from Telltale mentioning the possibility. Not sure where though. It was last week maybe the week before...
I am a huge Monkey Island fan from Germany, but I also liked to play other great Lucas Arts adventures like Indiana Jones.
I just wanted to see how you guys liked these games like Fate of Atlantis or the Last Crusade.
Maybe some of you can write down some comments about this.
Greetings from Germany
Michael
http://www.barnettcollege.com/index2.htm
Kevin
I for myself really liked Fate of Atlantis as an adventure game. It was one of my favourite Lucas Arts games besides Monkey Island and Day of Tentacle.
They're already talking about another movie from the series.
I have lost track of how many other companies LA has hired to make Star Wars games..... why wouldn't they do the same for Indy?
Emperor's Tomb was developed by The Collective, and Staff of Kings by A2M. As has been pointed out, more than a few of LEC's Star Wars games are 3rd party as well. If anything, it's become much rarer for LEC to develop in-house.
But...Fate of Atlantis and the Last Crusade are both CLASSICS. No matter how you dice it, quality graphics, voice acting, puzzles, game play of that time. There well made games, well LC does not have voice acting...
IT's commonly regarded as a 9 or perfect 10
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/indianajonesandthefoa/index.html?tag=result;title;0
Frankly Last Crusade is under rated.http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/indianajonesandthelc/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssimilargames&tag=similargames;title;1
But commonly regarded as a 8 or a 9.
Stupid Cat, stupid mouse.
Yeah... but still, out of all Sierra games, SQ2 has the most ridicolous dead end, IMO. If you don't open a locker and pick some stuff in the beginning, then you're stuck in the freaking endgame.
On the other hand, THIS teached me to try every possible thing in any possible room in an adventure game, discovering a lot of funny things on the way.
You guys really aren't selling these games too well, that sounds like GARBAGE! I was going to get the King's Quest franchise and try Space Quest, but after hearing how poorly designed they are ,and how tedious in a God awful stupid way they are, I don't think I want to ever play them.
I'll stick to LA who know how to make adventure games, and not half programmed messes ,where the player is mislead and wastes his time playing a half ass game that fails to lead the player in the right direction, precisely, so it screws him the rest of the game because he missed out on tiny details in the game earlier on, and forgot to do something that wasn't at all obvious and poorly programmed into the game.
That's not a challenge that's a lack of clarity, communication and poor design. Those games sound like TRASH.
Well, most Sierra games of their 80-90s period (including King's Quest V, which is on the edge of the period) have stupid design decisions (so do Maniac Mansion and The Last Crusade, and even MI2, IMO) but, only by today's standards - that was a period when the adventure genre was evolving. For example, I can't stand playing text adventures. Not because they have no graphics, but because in some of them, you have to go south two times to die, without any clue that you would. And yet, they were considered great at the time. Or, let's say, Dune II. When I was a very small kid, I loved it. But then, I found out newer RTS games. Where, to make a squad of units move, you didn't have to click on a unit (without a possibility to select multiply units), press move button and then press where to move, and so with each unit individually. Many old games have just aged, you know.
I still suggest to try Space Quest - it IS very funny, and is one of those games where you want to kill your main character to see how hilarious his death will be. Also, I highly recommend Quest for Glory series - a REALLY well designed Sierra's Adventure/RPG hybrid, one of my favorite game series.
You could die in LC many times but it never had a puzzle at the way beginning that could screw you later on in the game after you put all your time into it, never had a puzzle like that. That's just horrid sounding.
Still, I'd like to try King's Quest.
It isn't fair to call the Sierra games "half-programmed" or "poorly designed." It's not like the dead-ends were mistakes that escaped the designers' notice. They were entirely intentional. Their goal wasn't to make games that urged you along and gave you helpful hints; they wanted to make games that competed with you and wanted to see you fail just as much as you wanted to win. They also wanted to make games that felt like huge, open worlds were you could try anything, where you weren't always nudged along a single linear path. They liked to design puzzles that had one or two correct solutions but also had programmed responses and death sequences for every possible failed attempt to solve them. They didn't want you to beat the game on your first playthrough. They wanted you to play it over and over again, discovering new things about the world, until you were finally able to defeat this game that was hellbent on defeating you. Winning a Sierra game didn't just feel like reaching the end of an interesting story, it felt like a real accomplishment.
Now, it's perfectly fair for you to say that that doesn't sound like any fun and that you'd never want to play such a game, but you shouldn't call Sierra games poorly designed just because they set out to make different sorts of games than LucasArts did.
I still disagree, any game that lets you progress further into the story without any warning what so ever that what you've done is incorrect is incomplete, half witted programming. If something isn't vital to the story, or some small detail is over looked, insignificant, then it's a design flaw, there should not be little bits in a game that appear insignificant that are in fact crucial to the story and can screw you over, esp if the game design supposedly lets you progress further, without any warning or sign that the design elements you over looked were necessary and vital to the game.
That's like living a fair life, doing everything your told, living a healthy life, following the rules , then having a meet with Death and hearing him say "oh by the way you shouldn't have wore black socks with poke a dots, it's a sin "and then getting slaughtered at age 30...:rolleyes:
Any puzzle in an adventure game that isn't justified, isn't coherent, and isn't part of the bigger picture, story, it's like a side detail, something additional. Little stupid additional details shouldn't ruin a gaming experience. If the company is too lazy to be fair to the player then it shouldn't make games, it should make web viruses or something instead but this is an adventure game with a story and coherent and logical events. You shouldn't get to the end of a game, story only to find out that some little stupid detail which the company failed to mention its importance and lead you in the right direction was ciritcal to the entire game...that's JUNKISM! I mean seriously, what are we psychic!?
While I'll admit to being partial to the LA games due to the fact that you can't die, or get yourself into situations that you can't get out of, I did enjoy the space quest games when I was younger too (I was somewhere around 9-13 when I played most adventure games for the first time), and certainly wouldn't call them junk.
Me and my cousins used to play a lot, and we didn't have hint books, or walk-through guides for most of them either. We finished the LA ones mostly just through persistance.
The Sierra ones weren't quite so simple. Playing a sierra game, it almost seemed like their philosophy was more similar to the original Super Mario Brothers. If you ran out of lives and died, you went right back to the beginning. No resuming from where you were, just go back and start again.
Most of the Sierra games we enjoyed playing for a while, then we'd get stuck somewhere, and sometimes never be able to figure it out. We enjoyed them, we just never finished them. I think the only Sierra game we finished was Willy Beamish.
Years later I went back and finished most of them with the help of walk-throughs from the internet, but we didn't have access to them at the time.
GRRRR GRRRROWL!!! RAGHHHH!!!!
I gotta try the series now, so I can more fairly judge it but it sounds iffy, I'm sure so many people had to use a walk through to beat them.
Taking into account earlier AGI games, like King's Quest, Space Quest I (especially I) and II, I remember reading an article how they were being made. Everything on the move, mostly through trial and error, they like, played, noticed something, added, noticed, added, ideas and art were also developed, as I said, on the move with no real structure. Then they kinda intergrated design documents in game-making process...
So really, most of Sierra's dead ends (especially in AGI-era, where there's a lot more of them than in later SCI games) ARE mistakes and are not intentional.
So the unsolvable puzzles and the 1000 deaths are not meant to be part of these games but are in it because they did not have the time to design it better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BYWb8dpLCc&feature=player_embedded
Not sure when it'll be done, but this group did a pretty good re-make of King's Quest 3.
Kevin
I would love that Telltale games made an episodic Indy series. It would work really well in episodic format and I think they have enough experience to make it amazing. I also would like to see less cartoony graphics in the engine. Maybe it can even include deaths as long as they are logical. At least I hope there is a Special Edition of Indy Atlantis at some moment as the game is one of the best adventures ever, but dated already.
And even the dead ends due to not picking up an item earlier are forgivable compared to some of the evil things they did in the really early King's Quests, like the stupid dwarves randomly appearing and stealing your items that you need to win the game and you can't get away because you're in the middle of crossing a two-pixel wide bridge, and your only other choice is to reload your save and hope you can make it across the bridge without the game deciding to randomly screw you over again. Who thought that was a good idea?
KQ5 was very annoying, though. At least the other games gave you a little wiggle room--if you lose the goat, you can still bribe the troll with treasure with a point penalty, and so on--but I don't think it's possible to beat KQ5 with anything less than full points.
Please tell me that you're joking...PLEASE?
Nope, and thats part of the reason..why I have a disdain of dwarfs. The early sierra games are worth a try.
Space Quest V was especially fun and didn't have SO many sudden deaths and no dwarf at all.
I always ran into the situation where the sorcerer would freeze me in place, and then the dwarf would show up and pick my pockets while I was waiting to be able to move again. It's like they were teaming up on me.
At least in KQII you could break into the dwarf's house and steal your stuff back. And then you get your revenge by stealing his soup. Ha! Take that, you stupid dwarf!