I know. Every response is "blame the publisher", conveniently.

oh and hey, wait one darn minute, what happened to this?
It still says that right on the kickstarter. But then they want to turn around and blame it on the publisher.

yeah, the license situation doesn't make sense.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this project DOESN'T reach its target. I think it will, but if not, I also think it will still be published and the money left where it is.

Well, Roberta might not have credited everyone out of jealousy. Because I just checked Paul Trowe's IMDB resume, and it turns out he co-wrote, co-designed and scripted almost every single Sierra adventure! I underestimated him. Here are just few mere examples of his talent:

I know it was originally supposed to be a small game, but were they going to make a documentary about 3 people, really? :crazy:

This remake clause may have been the only way Replay Games was able to snag permission to use the Larry IP.

Getting the rights doesn't mean Codemasters could have paid for the project - it means Codemasters won't sue or close down the production.

DF originally planned to license a graphic adventure engine: youtube Tim interviews Ron. So, this licensing fee was included in the initial 400 k budget of DF. Not sure why replay games claim DF already spent millions of a engine, as they did not. With that respect there is no reason why they need $500 k. :frown:

I thought that DF weren't planning an iOS release from the start. If memory serves me, it wasn't until they surpassed the goal that they made the announcement regarding an iOS release.

I interviewed Tim Schafer recently for a magazine article and we talked about the original budget. He admitted that the $300k he asked for was tiny and that it would have been a very small game with a very small team. (The quote was something like "one or two people for six months.") Even so, comparing what he planned to do with what Replay plans to do is apples and oranges, and the fact that they are comparing it to justify their own budget doesn't really make sense to me. If you need $500k, you should be able to say why, based on your project's needs and goals, not based on what someone else who works somewhere else said he'd be able to do in a completely different situation...

You can make a great documentary about one person, that's irrelevant. There would have been peripheral characters anyway (everyone else at the studio not working on the game, possibly the designers' friends and family, etc.).

Personally I am actually very excited about this re-make, better graphic does so much for a game. It will almost feel like playing a brand new game I think. But that's also because I like the Love for sail look. I would have never spent money on the Monkey Island remakes. And 15 dollars for a game is still very cheap. If it doesn't get made you get your money back so it's a pretty safe investment.

True, but people were comparing the budgets in their minds, the 300,000$ figure with the 500,000$ figure, so I think the response is an apt one.

I agree with everyone stating that Al Lowe should make a new Larry game instead of yet another remake of a game that's gotten multiple already.

Especially since the first Larry game (like Kurufinwe already said) was very time-specific. It was a game that captured the feel of the late '80s. Now it's outdated (and I'm not talking about the text parser or the graphics here). A remake of something that's outdated, is itself outdated from the get-go.
Even moreso if they want to appeal to "modern" gamers. "Modern gamers" aren't used to the text parser, and won't like it. Heck, even I've gone so far as to avoid text parsers nowadays. I no longer have the patience to experiment with words to figure out what I need to do in an adventure game. Point-and-click has grown on me in such a way that I'll happily replay classics, as long as they don't use a text parser. Imagine how a gamer who's never used a text parser in a game before would react, then.
But scrapping the text parser means the game will be lacking half of the charm and humour of the original. The great thing about the first game actually WAS the text parser and the fact that you could experiment with it and get an actual (funny) response most of the time - especially if you wrote something dirty. Lose the text parser and you lose this.

As for the comparison with the Monkey Island remakes: the best thing about those remakes was the added voice-over. NOT the graphical update, because that was a tad too generic and lacked some of the original's charm.
This will be a huge trap for the Larry remake as well: having voice-over like in Love for Sail would be a plus, but any graphical update not only has to contain the charm of the original, but it also has to compete with the VGA remake.

I just don't think this is worth it. Not even for the fans.

A new game, with a new storyline, adapted to present-day situations (and humour), THAT's what we'd like to see. But with the Larry-character, that would also be hard to do. Larry was a late '80s - early '90s phenomenon.

Përsonally, I think it should stay there. Let Larry live on in our dreams, in our memories and in Germany. No matter how good Love for Sail is, this franchise is imo a thing of the past.



Regarding those questions Al Lowe answered: I agree with most of you.
I don't get the Codemasters involvement. Did they sell back the rights or didn't they? Cause if they did, why would they need to see a remake of the first game to give them freedom for the next game? If they sold the rights, they don't need to see anything, they're basically out of the equation. If it's a funding thing, however, then why the Kickstarter? If Codemasters want to fund Al Lowe for the game, but want to see a remake first, then THEY should fund that remake. Not the fans.
And if Al Lowe & co want Codemasters out of their neck so they could make a new game, then why not launch a Kickstarter for a NEW game? Why still this remake?
Unless Codemasters didn't actually sell them the rights, but then I still don't see why they'd need a Kickstarter for the remake. I hope someone can clarify a bit, because this just doesn't make any sense to me...

it makes no sense to me why they would license out the rights to remake the first game but refuse a new game. Only one thing makes sense: the publisher wanted more money to license out a new game, and everything about the remake is cheaper. They should just say that and stop this dancing around.

Yeah, that's what Vivendi tried to do when they replaced Laffer with this Larry Lovage abomination.

The team has already stated the game is going to be expanded and updated from the original anyway.

And would you donate if they do come out and say that? Is it even that important? That's what I thought.

In the comments of the LSL announcement:

Does anybody know how to predict a Kickstarter's final total from the first 24-48 hours? Like if something makes $100K in the first 48 hours, is it likely to make $500K after 30 days? The current $140K after 36 hours is a little disconcerting (while still much better than the guy in that link I posted predicted).

Yeah actually, i probably would if they were that frank about it. But its not the point anyway.. These things hinge on trust and transparency, and if theres any murkieness and confusion its bad news.

Well this sounds kind of weird, im still gonna put 15 dollars there...just in case
this leads later to a GK4 or a new MI5, etc etc...