New Screenshots For A New Beginning

There’s an adventure in the works by Daedalic, they who brought us the very lovely, and almost good, The Whispered World. It’s called A New Beginning, it’s been in development for over two years, and at last there’s some new screenshots of it.

The “eco-thriller” plays as a classic point and click adventure, with what look to be gorgeous painted backgrounds, fighting to save the world from ecological catastrophe. (It was in looking up details of this game that I saw – for the first time – details of The Chronicles Of Shakespeare. Oh yeah. Next post for that.)

So first, enjoy a few A New Beginning shots. It’s set in the year 2500, which at first seems optimistic about how long we’ve got until the planet needs saving. However, the surface of the Earth is uninhabitable, and there’s only a handful of survivors left. Oops. So some Time Pilots head back to 2050, only to find that it’s already devastated. Eek! Two of the pilots manage to make a second leap back, presumably into our times, and through radically different ends intend to prevent the environmental collapse.

Here’s some of the lovely looking shots out so far. Click on them for a larger size:

It’s yet to receive a UK release date.


  1. Lukasz says:

    why is it not on steam?

    and should i play machinarium:?

  2. Shagittarius says:

    The future of gaming is a scary place. I don’t know enough about this game to know if its propaganda but you know eventually games will be used more and more as propaganda for special interest and political agendas. Just like I can’t watch some TV shows because of their obvious bent I’m assuming pretty soon I wont be able to enjoy the game mechanics of some games because I disagree with their politics.

    This has never been much of an issue even with games like the US Army’s FPS / Recruitment tool because it didn’t have a political agenda but more and more I’m seeing games that seem to, like the Bioshock series (Especially Infinite which touches on current flashpoint issues) and this global warming themed game.

    The only thing I cant figure out is how games avoided being used as propaganda for so long. After all can you think of a better way to indoctrinate someone into a belief than simulating active participation as the main protagonist. Agree or not with the propaganda presented it’s still a scary place to go.

    • Lukasz says:


      So a game having a message about environment is a bad thing? It becomes propaganda? Do you even know what that word mean?

    • JohnS says:

      The thing with this sort of reasoning is… if Shagittarius truly believed all this… then he must have much more troubling things to be concerned about. The government and media lies to him daily, and everyone else is a sheep and doesn’t notice. He is the only sane man on earth, and he is busying himself by complaining about the state of games on a blog. If he actually thinks this sort of reasoning holds water, then he is suffering from a severe lack of sense of proportions. As do most conspiracy theorists.

    • Shagittarius says:

      My point was not about weather you believe in something or not, it was about using the game medium to propel an opinion intended to influence those experiencing it in a specific direction.

      I don’t want to debate about the opinions themselves, just wanted to point out how convincing a game could be in that regard. I haven’t ever not played a game because I disagree with its politics but I’m starting to see a world where this is common and I get a bad feeling in my stomach when I think about it.

    • Vinraith says:

      It’s a science-fiction set game based on current science. That’s hardly new, unusual, or “political.”

    • Shagittarius says:

      Its amazing how impossible it is to have a discussion with the general population now a days. If you don’t agree with them, even in an implied manner, the name calling, marginalizing and insults start immediately.

      Nothing matters as long as you can drown out all other opinions at any cost. I’m open for discussion while your already calling me stupid/paranoid/crazy.

    • Matt says:

      (re: Shagittarius)

      Before this completely derails into a “Shagittarius is a global warming denier” thread, I’d like to say that he brings up a good point. If games become as accepted into mainstream society as we all know is happening, then people will increasingly use them to influence you to think the way they want you to. It’ll be like those political pamphlets they send you in the mail or smear commercials on TV, but in game form. It’s scary, yeah, but it’s foolish to think that it’s not coming. They’re not going to turn down an effective avenue of influence, and games are going to prove to be an EXTREMELY effective avenue of influence.

    • Shagittarius says:

      Thanks for staying on target Matt! I only hope they are as easy to spot as the propaganda movies / pamphlets / and TV shows are.

    • destroy.all.monsters says:

      Clearly Shag is a global warming denier. And it is hilarious that he is the pot calling the kettle black – particularly as he started this whole mess. But then I consider global warming deniers (where’s the science?) on the same level as holocaust deniers, libertarians and other “useful idiots” that do the handiwork of the top 1% doing their best to disenfranchise the rest of us.

      But by all means Shag, continue. It’s not like labeling something as propaganda is about stifling debate – nooooooooooooo.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Calling anything with any political message “propaganda” is dangerous – it devalues the word. Politics is everywhere, and politics is life.

      Gosh, but I’m poetical and political today. It’s this new Sufjan Stevens album and the Spending Review splurging together in my head. Sorry!

    • Ricc says:

      @Shagittarius: Games have tried to find a way to be meaningful since the very beginning. I would argue, that not many have done so yet. Games are held back by the “It’s just a game!” notion and not trying to be anything but fun.

      I hugely appreciate the fact that Daedalic has something to say here. As you mentioned, games are uniqely qualified to transport meaning, except nobody does it so far. I can engage with a piece of media, even if it doesn’t refelect my own opinion, otherwise I’d be lacking any critical thinking. In fact, I’d argue that being able to have an interesting discussion about a book, movie, game, etc. after experiencing it, already makes it worthwile.

    • Raum says:

      My God, please. Can we keep this rubbish out of RPS?

      Ancient aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, and Elvis is alive and well next.

    • Shagittarius says:

      Games are different things to different people. To me a meaningful discussion about a game should be about gameplay. I understand with a broadening audience that gameplay is no longer the be all end all of games, but I don’t think those are better games, in my opinion games that focus on story for more than a justification of mechanics are over stepping their boundaries.

      Now in this case we are talking about an adventure game, I agree that this kind of game requires a much stronger story than a shooter for instance. I think it just points out how adventure games are less games and more stories. The limited interaction in which you figure out puzzles to advance the story is not unlike figuring out a mystery as you read a book. A pleasant experience but a lesser video game for sure.

    • James G says:

      Ignoring for the moment the specifics, as I don’t think thats a useful or strictly relevant debate, I still think I disagree. I mean to a certain extent I’m with you, in that my reaction to a message I feel a particular text is trying to push, influences the way I enjoy or appreciate that piece. In some cases it would be enough to dissuade me from reading/watching a piece, at least for reasons of entertainment. Of course, in some cases after reading a book, I’ve subsequently been exposed to the politics of the author, and have realized that my reading of their book appears to be completely at odds with the authors political beliefs. I’m not sure if that makes me stupid, the author poor, or the message subtle enough for multiple readings.

      However, despite all this, I don’t see it as a bad thing, and nor would I dismiss it as propaganda. For one, any suitably complicated book/film/game is going to pick up messages, be they those of the writer or reader/player. Obviously these messages will be varied, and delivered with varying degrees of intention, subtlety, even handedness and outright dis-ingenuity. Its been happening already, from the slightly stretching readings, to overt political commentary. Some of these messages have even been communicated directly in game-play mechanisms (I believe Jim recently mentioned the requirements for a public transport system in Sim City 2000)

      Games with messages are not a bad thing in themselves. You might disagree with the message, or the way in which its presented, but that is a separate issue. And if you prefer to disengage yourself for a few minutes, into more abstract gameplay, or at least something where the message is easily ignorable when you are not specifically searching for it, then those games still exist, just as many books and films don’t feel overtly political.

    • Lilliput King says:

      I’m a Sufjan Stevens denier.

      Guy just really bugs me. The lyrics are fine, but the actual instrumental music feels insipid.

    • Shagittarius says:

      That’s very interesting James. I don’t disagree that any game presenting a viewpoint need not ruin the game experience. As you point out while most films and books are filled with other peoples ideas it doesn’t cause you to dislike the experience. Certainly if the ideology is confined to characters within the story this presents no conflict of interest for the player, but, what if the mechanics of the game re-enforce the idea, forcing the player to participate by the rules of the idea in order to achieve success.

      This could create a causality for the player that might not be based in reality. Especially if the game is presented as a simulation, and the simulation isn’t scientifically sound but you present it with an implied parallel to real life you’ve suddenly got a subtle success oriented model for the distribution of your propaganda.

      Rat meet cheese.

      I guess I’m just saddened by the exploitation of a medium I grew up with becoming mainstream and afraid it will become something I no longer enjoy.

    • Lilliput King says:

      “but, what if the mechanics of the game re-enforce the idea, forcing the player to participate by the rules of the idea in order to achieve success.”

      I see where you’re going with this (indeed, you’ve elaborated below) but I’m not sure it has the capacity to be any more severe than in a book or film which forces the reader or viewer to participate. Admittedly, these mediums don’t possess the power to give the participant a ‘success’ state upon achieving a given set of ideals, but they can portray agendas in a positive or negative fashion, they just have to be bit more subtle about it (and if it’s too hamfisted, no one will fall for it anyway).

      It is, though, a very real question as to whether participating in an action as one does in a game (i.e., in a very limited fashion) is in some way more affecting emotionally or behaviourally than watching or reading the same action. You may remember a game which was I think called Edward, and revolved around a series of rapes. Rape is a taboo subject even for films, but I find it interesting that friends who would watch a film with a fairly graphic rape in it wouldn’t play Edward. On the other hand, the self same question is at the heart of the ‘games cause violence!’ “debates,” in which the evidence does seem to suggest the negative. I guess there’s evidence for both sides, but don’t take it for granted that ‘doing’ stuff in games is more affecting than ‘watching’ stuff as you do in books/films.

    • Lilliput King says:

      They also may not have wanted to play Edward ‘cos it was pretty shit so who knows.

    • Shagittarius says:

      I think that violence in games manifesting as physical violence in the real world by the player is quite a bit different from attempting to have the player make a correlation about an idea in their head.

    • bastronaut says:

      @Shagittarius: this is in reply to your original post. You’re slightly misusing the term “propaganda”. Of course it’s not just you, it’s the typical lack of interest in keeping meanings nice and specific and “propaganda” has long since lots its original precise meaning.

      People have opinions. Art is about ideas. Ideas are, usually, deeply intermingled with opinions. Games are, to a greater or lesser extent, written works. They often come with stories, dialogue and such. Thus, they serve as a good medium for presenting ideas, and for exploring their implications. This is a Good Thing (TM), not a problem.

      Trying to sanitize games of any kind of politically charged content is not only pointless, it’s actually the completely wrong approach. For games to be grown up, to be complex, to be sophisticated, to be, by God, interesting, they need to be open to–to address–any and all ideas, any and all opinions, not the opposite.

      To criticize a game because it presents a point of view is to miss the whole point and to try to seclude yourself in an escapist fantasy. The primary reason that Bioshock was so compelling and engaging was that it grappled with real and controversial ideas about the meaning of society, of how to judge people’s contributions, and as a commentary of sorts on the theories of Libertarianism (maybe). That is a valuable and amazing quality of all good art: it has the balls to take a stand, or at least to acknowledge that such ideas exist, and to put their own spin on them.

      Think of all the people who were probably completely ignorant of Ayn Rand before encountering Bioshock! Suddenly a new generation were introduced to those ideas and given a fun, fantasy setting in which to explore some of their implications. It doesn’t matter whether the creators of Bioshock agreed with Libertarian ideas or not–they were inspired by them.

      I’m sorry if you think it’s annoying or an imposition if game developers have opinions and have the audacity to share them. Of course, you’re making a big assumption that the creators of politically-informed games necessarily agree with any implicit beliefs that may or may not be encoded into their games.

      What this really comes down to is whether players of games are mature and intelligent enough to handle some political or other viewpoints in games, whether or not they agree with them. Let’s face it: no theory of human or social behaviour is correct–they’re all to simplistic. But a game is as valid a medium for exploring those ideas as any other. I’m all for it. If the game sucks, or if the information is clearly wrong, then criticize it for those reasons, but not for bringing the ideas up.

    • James G says:

      I suppose it depends with what mind you approach the game. For instance, I noticed in Clifski’s Democracy games, reducing the dugs enforcement results in a rising crime-rate. Now, certainly this is the popular idea, and the one presented by politicians, however its not a position I’m entirely convinced by. (More in a ‘I think you’ll find its a bit more complicated than that’ kind of way than completely denying correlations between drugs and crime.)

      Now, I don’t know what Clifski’s political beliefs are with respect to drug use. Perhaps he also feels that the model he uses in game isn’t entirely accurate, and decided to opt for it either because it is simpler to present, or he felt that including more radical modeling of the effects of drug policy would detract from the overall message of the game. (One of balancing different effects and appeasing different segments of the population) However, I still find that I’m able to consider these presentations from a critical perspective.

      With regards to more sub-conscious synthesis of other ideas though. Well firstly, I’d be reluctant to suggest that this implied any form of malicious intent. Even if the game were intended to persuade in a particular issue, I think that in most case to suggest underhand tactics is to dismiss our own critical faculties. I suppose I also take issue with the idea that this is somehow exploiting gaming, as though gaming was inherently supposed to be free from alien ideas. I can see your concerns at how the ‘success orientated model’ may make it easier to drive home this message at a sub-concious level more easily, but I’m not sure more complex messages benefit from this approach. I actually wrote a good deal more at this stage, but realized it was all pseudo-scientific conjuncture, so I scrapped it.

      Though I get the impression that it is not so much the concern you may be unduly swayed that bothers you, as the worry that you might get politics in your fun time, or at the very least you might be rolling your eyes at a disagreeable message, such that you can’t enjoy the rest of the game. I think its an inevitability though, not so much a result of the medium going mainstream, so much as being used to explore more concepts. I’d say your best bet is just to avoid those games with the overt political message, although this won’t always be apparent from the start.

      On a related note, I sometimes find it amusing to try and dig out political or philosophical messages from games in which they almost certainly weren’t intended, and require quite a bit of over-reaching to find.Obviously best done tongue in cheek.

      ETA: Gah, three tries with this Captcha. Really should log in on the netbook to stop needing them.

    • medwards says:

      To me a meaningful discussion about a game should be about gameplay.

      You are in something of a minority here with this position. While no one here thinks gameplay is unimportant, there are definitely other ways in which a game can be meaningful. Have you missed the entire ‘games as art’ stuff here? Or are you just above it, which many others here are, but I don’t think to the point where ‘games should only be gameplay’ in which case we should throw almost all modern games in the trash because as formulaic as game narratives may be getting they certainly serve more than just gameplay today.

      And in the end all stories carry a bit political message even if it is simply the affirmation of the status quo.

    • JackShandy says:

      Every single well-made game carries a message about the opinions of it’s creators, whether it’s the focus of the game or not. You can’t escape it – whenever someone makes a game, they put their own opinions and ideas into it. It doesn’t become Propaganda just because those ideas are made the focus of the game.

      Let’s take Gears of War, a game that tries it’s hardest to be nothing more than the gameplay you praise. The enemy you face in the game is a race of hideous invading aliens. You are unable to speak to these aliens, or negotiate, or work out a way to share the planet earth – the only way to stop them is to kill them. No matter how much a player despises violence, or believes that a peaceful solution would be better, or wants to sit down and have a cup of tea with the enemy, they are forced to kill hoards of them in order to progress.

      You’re crazy if you think that doesn’t carry a message.

    • Lilliput King says:

      “I think that violence in games manifesting as physical violence in the real world by the player is quite a bit different from attempting to have the player make a correlation about an idea in their head.”

      You’re entitled to your opinion, but I doubt it’s accurate. The ‘idea’ portion of violence is simply when that violence is acceptable. I kind of focussed on that part because I felt the original argument was a bit willy, really. Aristotle said “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ARISTOTLE. Think he knows a little it more than you do, fella.

    • Dreamhacker says:

      Shagg: We’re being bombarded by opinions and orders on what we should think and do everyday, in all media. Why should games be any different?

      There has been propaganda in games, there is propaganda in games and there will be propaganda in games. DEAL WITH IT, the way you deal with propaganda in any other medium: Take it in, consider it, accept it or reject it.

      You say you miss the good old days when gaming wasn’t mainstream and untouched by propaganda. Here some news: Gaming has never been untouched by propaganda.

      And why should it be? Heck, one of the first big and notable uses of the printing press was by Martin Luther in his quite successful attempt to rip the catholic church in half and create protestantism. I ask you again, why should games not be the same?

      I could go on and on with this, because your argument can be taken apart in so many ways: political, philosophical, religious, economical, historical. You name it.

      All I can recommend you is education, the evidently best antidote against propaganda.

      Ontopic: This game has an unbelievably nice and retro art style. I love it! :)

    • Torqual says:

      Nice. A theological discussion on RPS. Conspiracy-theorists against mainstream-hypocrits. How entertaining. Propaganda, just to win!

      Have a nice day

    • Helm says:

      on topic:

      I’d argue that games in which you are an active protagonist and have to figure out how to progress through the pre-written story (as most adventure games) would train one to be more critical of the subject matter than a film in which the story is developing without input by the viewer. This is because in the waiting time between solving puzzles in an adventure game, one is occupying the mindspace of the protagonist, and is, invariably, bored. Bored people philosophize inside, or they go do something else. Those that close the adventure game application and do something else are besides the point of this discussion. Those that stay, surely have a predisposition towards ingress and analytic thinking, so I do not think they’re in any danger from being brainwashed by the political agenda – if any – of the developer studio. If they are in fact, in opposition to it, I’d expect them to finish the videogame and feel even more in opposition than they did before. Especially if the proselytizing in the adventure game were to be blatant. Adventure game people have a lot of problems going for them as to how they approach videogames, but one thing they’re not, is stupid.

      on the broader topic:

      Of course the media we are involved with shape our belief system to a degree. I wouldn’t call it propaganda because of various historical charges related to the term, but sure, we are constantly being sold a complacent, atomized and lonely consumerist life, foremost. Ideology is only another part of that product in that sense (the self-justifying part, to be exact “I am a lone consumer because of this this and that philosophical reason). So I do not so much mind (say) a game made by holocaust deniers and meant to promote holocaust denial (actually that sounds pretty interesting, I’d play that), than I mind it promoting itself as a product and enforcing the reflex that in my life I should consume products to exist (oh oh, see what I wrote above about how ‘I’d play that’? Don’t I have something better to do with my life than constantly consume products?).

    • Okami says:

      This has never been much of an issue even with games like the US Army’s FPS / Recruitment tool because it didn’t have a political agenda

      Because trying to recruit young people into the US Army is in no way a political agenda….

    • Helm says:

      some more thought-points:

      * adventure games can’t brainwash anyone because they’re not a pleasant time. For every new screen of hand-painted wonderful they have to fight tooth and claw with what defines the point and click adventure game experience: entropy and cruel gnostic divination. Entropy because the game world is completely static until you solve the next puzzle (a deeply unsettling experience that any adventure gamer is intimate with) and gnostic divination because from all of videogaming, there never has been a genre that displays the concept of the Gnostic cruel demiurge better: we throw ourselves against a manufactured world with hopes that we’ll eventually come across the ‘intended solution’ that the Developer had in mind. Again, this is very unsettling (though fascinating on some meta-contextual levels).

      People that play adventure games know these things. Even if the game is funny, or very well made, it is never a fun time on the whole. It is an experience, and it promotes some characteristics of their personality, but it’s not fun playtime eye-candy smooth gaming experience to be lulled into, to be put in a susceptible state of mind and be fed ideological propaganda.

      However, playing something like Medal of Honour, which is smooth sailing and hand-held does probably make the video-gamer enter a conspiration of forces in which holding guns, training them on the opposition and then pulling the trigger until they are dead and bloody, is a possible reality.

      Please don’t construe, I am not saying violent videogames make people violent. I am saying they inform their internal reality by the option of violence. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing. But if we were honest with each other, I think we would all agree that after killing 3,000 virtual mens in an FPS, we are slightly desensitized by the endeavor. It’s not the same endeavor as killing people in real life (I would expect — I haven’t killed anyone) but it’s an endeavor in itself, and it is base instinctual and it is used to sell us product! Ideology is secondary, meaningless, even. The point of the military FPS is to feel good about virtually killing virtual things and wanting to do more of it. It is *scarier* without ideological ties.

    • Daniel Rivas says:

      Lilliput: Try the new album. He’s gone electronic, and apocalyptic.

    • neems says:

      This is a really good topic – I’ve actually added this page to my favourites in the hope that the discussion will continue. Lots of interesting points from both sides.

    • Lilliput King says:


      Really enjoyed that. I’ll definitely give his new album a go.

  3. Dan says:

    I saw that pic of the the two time pilots, and for a minute interpreted it as the game offering a choice of which one you would play, instead of one just being the (non-playable) bad guy. Oh well, it still looks nice.

  4. PleasingFungus says:

    The “click to make biggerer” links are broken. Which makes me sad, because they look so pretty!

  5. TSA says:


    That bosom-displaying coyly sexy stance that seems to be the main character’s manner of carrying herself would annoy me pretty quickly. She’d also get severe back problems after about half a day. Which type of heroine is she? The intelligent, kind, but shy sexpot by the looks of it. I wonder where she’d fall on the female character graph linked from the Sunday Papers post.

    Oh well, as long as she’s not as chirpy as the one from The Longest Journey I might give this a chance.

    • medwards says:

      I think she’s the dumb kind of hero.

      I mean according to the background info the world essentially ends in 2500AD. But the dude is characterized as ‘ruthless’ because he’s prepared to do what it takes to make sure that doesn’t happen.

      This reminds me a lot of “Environmentalist Star Wars” but not nearly as funny because it thinks its genuinely useful.

  6. John Walker says:

    You are different from the person above you.

  7. woot says:

    I saw this along with ‘Deponia’ on Amazon the other day (I usually browse for games by weird/lesser known publishers, i.e. G2 Games, Buka, Mamba, Reef Entertainment, City Interactive).

    Any adventure game featuring hand drawn content gets my attention (like Whispered World, Machinarium, etc.) – will definitely check this out as well.

  8. Pinky G says:

    There is a game called Special Force.
    link to

    It is made by Hezbollah and you fight against the Israel Defense Force.

  9. Marshall says:

    I’m going to be in San Francisco this weekend. I sure hope it doesn’t look like this when I get there…

  10. kwyjibo says:

    A game about climate change. Sounds tiresome.

    • bastronaut says:

      Someone else might instead say, “A game in which the issue of climate change is considered as part of the game.” The game is probably mostly about clicking things and pressing buttons.

  11. JohnnyMaverik says:

    Why is her stomach showing that much? =/

    • Lukasz says:

      You can see her stomach? really?

      oh. You mean abdomen? Nope. It is fully covered.

    • MrEvilGuy says:

      I thought no pants in first picture before looking at second picture

  12. DRoseDARs says:

    Reading the stuff on their website, something sticks out in a bad way. The premise of this game is science fail: Climate change causes global havoc… but it’s a “solar eruption” that threatens to wipe out Humanity. Lolwut? One has nothing to do with the other. If this “solar eruption” is massive enough to threaten extinction globally, fiddling with the Earth’s surface environment in the past isn’t going to stop that. It’s the Earth’s magnetic field that protects us from the harshest solar radiation; even real “solar eruptions” known as Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are fended off. Even a weakened global magnetic field protects us. This premise of altering the Earth’s surface environment, when really we would need to alter the deep interior processes that creates the Earth’s magnetic field, to protect us from an event that wouldn’t threaten us anyway is so much understanding-middle-school-science fail. I’m talking the movie The Core-level science fail. IF this game were “climate change propaganda” as some have suggested, it falls flat on its face, tripping over the very message and science it wishes to promote.

    But the bigger takeaway here is it’s just a game folks. Complaining about it being “propaganda” is even bigger fail. Get a grip.

    • MrEvilGuy says:

      If what you said is true (I’m too lazy to check that out for myself), than I’m 100% with you, and it pisses me off.

    • Nallen says:

      What he said is true. And The Core is probably the worst film I have ever seen.

  13. Shagittarius says:

    All very good arguments, I wish I had time to consider and reply to them all. I think we opened a few different topics unintentionally as well. I certainly don’t have the time to respond to all of them as they deserve so instead I will simply give the respect of letting you all have the last word. Hopefully in the future there will be more opportunities that may provide an area for further discussion.

  14. new jordan says:

    your post are very helpful for me
    look forward more posts
    welcome to our web!

  15. Dain says:

    Weird, do all gamers have such a reaction to the word “Environment” and then spend their time discussing how it’s filthy propaganda?

    It’s odd. If the world had been ended due to nuclear war in this game, everyone would likely love it.

    • James G says:

      Why are you extrapolating the views of one commenter to the opinions of gamers as a whole? that fact that Shagittariuswas subject to a bit of a pile-on should be indication enough that plenty disagree with them.

  16. Nallen says:

    It makes me think of ‘Beneath a Steel Sky’ for some reason.

  17. pupsikaso says:

    Second image from the bottom… just blew my mind. Something about it just so resonates with my being. Probably brings up old memories of long (several days) train journeys when I was a kid.

    Can’t say that any game in the past 9 years has had art that touched me in this way. I haven’t played a point and click adventure since I was 14, but this game I will definitely buy just because of that. I hope the nature of point and click adventure won’t ruin it for me.