Space Quest Sequel Finally Gets A Kickstarter

By John Walker on May 9th, 2012 at 9:30 pm.

Oh please don't stick with that title.

If you were to ask me, “Hey, John, which Sierra Online adventure series would you like to bring back to life?” I’d drive you crazy by not saying Quest For Glory, and in fact stamping my feet and shouting, “I WANT MORE SPACE QUEST!” Well, if only people will give the two original SQ creators $500,000, I’ll have one! Indeed, it’s this week’s forty-seventy-billionth Kickstarter, but this is the one that counts, people!

So it’s pretty awesome that both Two Guys From Andromeda, Scott Murphy and Mark Crowe, have reunited, and they seem to have gathered an impressive collection of voice actors they’d like to bring on board. Actors who are actually genuinely interested, enough to have recorded shakily-recorded videos of themselves promoting it. There’s Rob Paulson, the voice of Pinky from Pinky & The Brain, StarCraft’s Robert Clotworthy, the inestimable Gary Owens, narrator of SQ 4 and 6 and voice of Space Ghost, TF2′s Sniper John Patrick Lowrie, and GLaDOS herself, Ellen McLain, all ready and willing to put voices to the Two Guys’ writing. Take a look:

It doesn’t look like they’ve secured the name just yet, with that rather odd “SpaceVenture” title they’ve put on the Kickstarter. I’m not convinced that will help, but presumably the rights are unpleasantly tangled. I’m sure I’ll be just as happy with Woger Rilco, however.

Do the collective pockets of the world’s nostalgic adventure gamers have another half million in them, after funding Tim Schafer, Al Lowe, and Jane Jensen’s projects too? Gosh, I hope so, because if it’s half as funny as Space Quest 4, then it’ll be worth having.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

70 Comments »

  1. eaprivacypolicy says:

    Great fun for anyone who enjoys dying randomly as a punchline.

    • Zeewolf says:

      Heh, indeed. I was sure the reason RPS hadn’t reported on this yet was that they remembered the Space Quest games for what they were: A little bit rubbish.

      • dreadguacamole says:

        Being blown to bits because you pole-vaulted with a pocket full of bombs got one of the biggest laughs of my gaming life. I’m perfectly fine with this sort of thing, as long as you’re aware that’s the kind of game you’re playing.
        Honorary mention: picking your nose in the Hero’s Quest series

  2. Antsy says:

    I think I’ve bought enough potential games this year. Its good to see these games given a chance to be made but I’ve got a serious case of kickstart fatigue. Nonstarter perhaps. They’re just coming too thick and fast.

    Personally I think they need to extend these kickstart offers over a longer period of time. Have the initial Kickstart to start the project but allow people the same offer before the game is realeased. More cash and players can help out a project when they have a few notes spare.

    I’d love to help them out with this but I can’t at the moment.

  3. Brosepholis says:

    Sure to glean millions of nostalgia dollars. Although I would prefer it if the funding went to games that were actually new and interesting. Shame there aren’t any of those on kickstarter.

    • lurkalisk says:

      It’s better than getting nothing but established AAA monsters from our corporate overlords.

      Who knows, maybe someday all this Kickstarting will give way to some new, interesting things.

      • Shuck says:

        I suspect the future holds more of what’s going on right now: specifically that the games with any chance of getting their full funding from Kickstarter will be the ones that are nostalgia pieces/sequels by well-known developers doing more of what they’ve already done. Good-looking original projects will be lucky to get partial funding.

      • StingingVelvet says:

        Damn those evil corporate overlords for making games millions upon millions want to play! For making games more people have a passing interest in than were into gaming period when Space Quest was new. Horrible people, all of them.

        • jimboton says:

          Damn them for turning the hobby of 1 million geeks into braindead pastime for 100 million retards

        • Urfin says:

          Problem is these games are kinda crap, and the reason millions want to play them is that most of these people hardly ever played any really good games, especially single-player ones, and they can’t really compare. Otherwise yay to the overlords, sure :)

    • kibertoad says:

      Legend of Eisenwald, FTL, Nekro and Haunts: The Manse Macabre beg to differ.

    • Squirrelfanatic says:

      I second Legends of Eisenwald. There is a thread on the forums, go check it out. Round-based tactical combat on a hex-field (similar to King’s Bounty), low-fantasy medieval setting. Oh and 90% done.

      • Lambchops says:

        Thirding for Eisenwald. Though I think 90% done is a tad on the optimistic side. The engine and the combat is there but the likes of writing scenarios and translating them will probably take more effort than envisaged (these things always do!).

        Still, they’ve got a lot of ground work done and as such it’s the only unknown apart from FTL that has convinced me to put down some cash. Looks like it should be a fun game that is trying to do something a little bit different.

    • FataMorganaPseudonym says:

      I will never understand why so many people seem to think that “new and unproven” is somehow innately better than “old, but beloved” as far as IPs are concerned. If people like Space Quest and want to help fund this, great. If you don’t, great. But don’t pretend that this is somehow inherently inferior just because it’s Space Quest (or SpaceVenture or whatever lawyer-friendly name they end up using) and not some random new thing that nobody’s ever heard of before.

      • Consumatopia says:

        I will never understand why so many people seem to think that “new and unproven” is somehow innately better than “old, but beloved” as far as IPs are concerned.

        I will explain. In gaming, innovation is more significant (if not more profitable) than refinement because the potential of games is infinitely greater than what we have managed to create thus far.

        OTOH, the old classics may have potential: the path that gaming has taken over the decades wasn’t the only one we could have taken. Sequels to old games, especially if done by the original artists, could point the way to an alternative future.

      • Consumatopia says:

        In gaming, innovation is more significant (if not more profitable) than refinement because the potential of games is infinitely greater than what we have managed to create thus far.

        OTOH, the old classics may have potential: the path that gaming has taken over the decades wasn’t the only one we could have taken. Sequels to old games, especially if done by the original artists, could point the way to an alternative future.

      • Consumatopia says:

        In games, innovation is more significant (if not more profitable) than refinement because the potential of games is infinitely greater than what we have managed to create thus far.

        OTOH, the old classics may have potential: the path that gaming has taken over the decades wasn’t the only one we could have taken. Sequels to old games, especially if done by the original artists, could point the way to an alternative future.

      • Consumatopia says:

        I will never understand why so many people seem to think that “new and unproven” is somehow innately better than “old, but beloved” as far as IPs are concerned.

        In gaming, innovation is more significant (if not more profitable) than refinement because the potential of games is infinitely greater than what we have managed to create thus far.

        OTOH, the old classics may have potential: the path that gaming has taken over the decades wasn’t the only one we could have taken. Sequels to old games, especially if done by the original artists, could point the way to an alternative future.

  4. emertonom says:

    Sorry devs. We’re tapped out.

    Is this one of those situations where initially people thought, “Okay, there’ve been a bunch of successful kickstarters, but we’d better wait a while so we don’t burn people out,” and then there were a whole bunch more kickstarters, and people thought, “Uh oh, people are certain to burn out now. We’d better jump on that bandwagon while there’s still time”?

  5. Eclipse says:

    wow, that was a really impressive team of voice actors indeed

  6. caddyB says:

    Oh. Gold rush? Kickstarter rush?

  7. Deadly Habit says:

    John you have driven me crazy by not saying Quest for Glory! jabfiaygrnahb fviawyrfvkjbaipugerabf ovaltine tampon bob saget!

  8. hairrorist says:

    I thought there was an embargo on more kickstarter reporting. RPS is turning into an ad-front for this goddamn trend.

    • Antsy says:

      Some of us older gamer types that frequent RPS are happy to be informed about the works of past favourites. Kickstarter is bringing some great game producers back in from the cold.

    • Caiman says:

      Well then, RPS should just stop reporting on any commercial games in development as well because that’s also basically just advertising right? Come on, it’s so last week to be “over” kickstarter, this isn’t going away and why should it? It’s basically just a very long pre-order where you get even cooler goodies and involved in the development of stuff that would never get made otherwise. Of course there are risks, but if that doesn’t appeal to you stick with the major publishers and what they want you to play.

    • D3xter says:

      And I thank them for it.
      As with any other reporting done on the site I don’t feel compelled into throwing out money because RPS reports on it, but because I’m pondering every single case and decide to put down money for it or not.

      Please continue telling people about KickStarters :P

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      RPS’ only editorial line is to cover what’s interesting to the writers. I would never talk about Kickstarters for adventure games, because adventure games are boring ;)

  9. hairrorist says:

    Might be tolerable if it was a subpage instead of being plastered over the front page multiple times a day.

    • lurkalisk says:

      Your brain’s already capable of filtering and prioritising information. If you can’t tolerate it, I’m inclined to believe the problem lies with you.

    • HothMonster says:

      I hate kickstarter stories wasting my time so much that I click on them, read them and then complain about them multiple times.

  10. hairrorist says:

    It’s a great idea and I’ve supported several games, it’s just getting tiring that half of the posts on here are kickstarter links. It was acknowledged as a problem by the RPS staff. It’s not a personal problem of mine.

    • John Walker says:

      It’s how new games are being announced now. If we announced the development of a new game, and linked to the game’s homepage, I doubt you’d be complaining.

      • kibertoad says:

        So true.

      • Jimbo says:

        Not really comparable until/unless the Kickstarter gets funded. Game announcements don’t typically come with the huge caveat of “if we get funded”.

        • Erwin_Br says:

          So now the criteria to post about games is that they have to be funded?

        • Shuck says:

          It’s true that publisher-backed games are announced with the assumption that they have funding. The reality is, however, that the funding does oftentimes disappear before the game is finished (and those are just the games that are already well under development). If we’re talking about more speculative projects – the sorts of things developers announce when starting new studios, for example, the odds of completion are even lower. (In fact, most of the publisher-backed, publicly announced games that I’ve personally worked on were never released.) So I’m not sure this is any different.

          • Caiman says:

            Exactly. Someone should count the number of “game X was cancelled” posts here, or the number of projects that still haven’t seen the light of day, and the Kickstarter posts would pale in comparison. It’s just another stupid bandwagon to complain about Kickstarter when it’s delivering so much hope of getting non-mainstream games funded. Of course, until the first ones start to appear in our hands people will always complain that the money might go nowhere, but as there’s no publisher interference telling them to cancel projects it seems less likely. Delays and over-funding are more likely with those projects that barely scrape through, but that’s no different to commercially-funded games.

          • Jimbo says:

            “We are going to release this game” != “We will release this game only if you agree to fund it up front”

            “We had to cancel the game we said we would release” != “We didn’t get funded in the first place”

            I ain’t saying don’t post them, I’m saying it’s closer to announcing that a developer has a pitch meeting with a publisher and linking to a photo of them with their fingers crossed. People probably would complain about that after a while (unless it becomes like Dragon’s Den for games or something – that would be amazing).

            Basically, it’s only as good as an announcement while the success rate for these things (the ones posted about) getting funded remains relatively high. If it gets to a point where it’s just pipe dreams which rarely get funded (or worse, get funded and never released) then it’s gonna wear thin real fast.

          • Caiman says:

            It depends on the project. Double Fine and Wasteland 2 were projects starting from scratch but based on devs with a strong track record and strong ideas. Things like Xenonauts, Grim Dawn, Starlight Inception, FTL etc are based on actual pre-alpha (in most cases) games that need additional work to either see the light of day or to have enough content to make them viable. I think RPS can highlight those projects with obvious talent, vision or finished product behind them to make them worth pledging for, while ignoring obvious crap like “Your World”.

            Fact is, I’m more interested in a lot of these Kickstarter projects for old IP and niche games than I am of 99% of AAA products, so when this kind of thing starts to appear on RPS I am part of their target audience, and I’ve got no time for the occasional person who personally doesn’t like Kickstarter anymore. Boo hoo. It’s a new, clearly viable funding model for niche games that RPS readers often enjoy, there’s no need to exclude it as long as it is restricted to initial announcement of promising projects and final reporting on whether the goal was reached or not, just as they would any other game project on here.

        • Consumatopia says:

          You’re right that it’s not comparable–it makes a lot more sense to cover the kickstarter announcements than typical game announcements, because readers are more likely to have influence over whether a kickstarter completes than over whether a publisher decides to keep funding a game.

          For the vast majority of games, there’s no reason I need to know about them until shortly before release.

    • chargen says:

      It’s not as bad as Minecraft days at least. Those were tough.

  11. hairrorist says:

    Hmmm, maybe I came off the wrong way there. I’m more wondering why the sudden turnaround in posting policy a few days after declaring that kickstarters would no longer be covered.

    • jaronimoe says:

      well, these are important announcements, kickstarter or not – and what john said in the post above.

    • eaprivacypolicy says:

      Declaration where?

      Anyway. Ultimately kickstarter can only be a good thing for gaming despite giving people the trivial problem of over-exposure and the fact it may depend a lot on nostalgia at times.

      I will keep thinking it is a good thing even when it produces (no offense, but, brrr) Sierra adventure games.

      • Lambchops says:

        Quite. Where was this declaration?

        All I remember was a post asking what we thought about it. I’d assumed RPS would be following their ususal “it’s out site and we’ll post what we want” policy but just wanted to make sure wantings weren’t way off the mark with us readers.

    • RandomGameR says:

      That never happened.

    • Caiman says:

      The only one complaining vocally here is you, that’s four posts so far! Do you have an agenda?

  12. TheWhippetLord says:

    Some day I need to stop thinking “I loved those guys work, I’ll risk $15 on another kickstarter for old times’ sake,” or I’ll end up paupered.
    Some day, but not today. :)
    Also am I the only one with a dirty enough mind that reading “Physical Reward Tier” makes me snigger? Yeah, thought so.

  13. Forsling says:

    I just want to say that I am in no way tired of the coverage of kickstarters. As long as they continue to receive funding I think you should cover them. I find this “kickstarter fatigue” very silly. If you don’t care about kickstarter game projects – don’t read the articles about them. There are plenty of articles on RPS that do not interest me. Want to know how I solve that problem? I don’t read them.

    Stop complaining about kickstarter, even if you aren’t interested, some of us are and might miss out on funding these projects if they aren’t being covered.

  14. malkav11 says:

    Meh. I wish them the best of luck, but I’m already backing a couple of adventure game projects that excite me more, I have no Space Quest nostalgia, and I have limited funds. (Same goes for Carmageddon, except obviously I’m not backing any other gratuitously violent driving games because there aren’t any. Still, no nostalgia, not immediately excited by the concept or the resurrection of the genre, not enough money to back everything.)

    • Lambchops says:

      Same here. The Sierra games were a tad before my time and didn’t scream at me to go back and play them (unlike the Lucas Arts games, Broken Sword series etc.).

      Now if there was a Toonstruck sequel Kickstarter on the other hand . . .

  15. Guhndahb says:

    I agree that of all the really old adventure series, this is the one I’ve been most excited about potential revival. I loved the Space Quests when I was little. Thanks for being the bearer of good news, John!

  16. Freud says:

    Kickstarter psychology is funny. The Grim Dawn one had slowed down a bit last week but now they hit the target it’s growing much faster. Part of it might be publicity because of hitting the target but I think part of it is because people like winners.

  17. LionsPhil says:

    Man, those guys are awkward in front of a camera. And why are all the voice talent on shakey webcams?

  18. Kryopsis says:

    ‘If you were to ask me, “Hey, John, which Sierra Online adventure series would you like to bring back to life?” I’d drive you crazy by not saying Quest For Glory[.]‘

    I hate you John. I always hated you the most.

  19. Scrofa says:

    I. Be. Damned.

  20. Lemming says:

    I’d love to back this having just watched this video, but I just can’t justify more Kickstarter funding at the moment! Maybe next month…

    As an aside, I think Kickstarter will be vindicated this year as the thing that single-handedly brought back the point and click adventure

  21. brulleks says:

    No thanks, but if they do make their target perhaps they could give me back the £6.00 I wasted on the original series.

    Despite my love for adventure games, these are the epitome of Not My Kind Of Thing.

  22. sophof says:

    Hilarious death sequences
    I think I’ll pass, I doubt I have the patience for that kind of gameplay these days. Replayed a few space-quests a while ago, I used a walkthrough all the way for the first and third game for instance.

  23. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    I like adventure games, but I’ve grown up with the Lucasarts brand of them, not the Sierra ones. That, and I do so intend to be cautious with my game purchases this year (even though I just bought Majesty HD).

    But best of luck to them.

  24. genius_starship says:

    I am quite bemused by the way RPS selects Kickstarters for publication. A few weeks ago there was an article debating exactly that, and I had thought the decision was made to not publish any Kickstarters that are not funded yet.

    Well obviously that isn’t the case anymore. So now it looks like only Kickstarters by “famous” people or for “famous” brands are published? Great, but doesn’t that wholly undermine the purpose of both RPS and Kickstarter, which is to put “underdogs” in the limelight? Why doesn’t RPS post about awesome projects like Skyjacker, which looks like a Freespace sequel in everything but name and should have most people here gushing? Or Conquest 2, sequel to the classic PC RTS?

    I get it if the editors want to be skeptical about Kickstarters, but then please don’t mention them at all, even if it has famous talent or a popular brand behind it. But this? This is just hypocrisy.

  25. cutechao999 says:

    I don’t really want to contribute, I never really liked Space Quest, mostly because it frustrated me so much in my youth due to the fact that you die all the time for no reason, but they have Rob Paulson… And Sniper + GlaDOS…

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>