Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
New posts
No new postsQuest for Infamy Discussion and Impressions
Yea, its no biggie , just something I thought would be different.
If this were the only long-anticipated adventure to come out recently, then I’d be surprised, too, but we’ve had a huge windfall of fantastic stuff lately. I think some people might be getting classic point-and-click adventure fatigue!
This is, of course, an excellent problem to have.
Anyway, I miss the days when people didn’t expect a review to be out on the day of release, and publications were allowed to take their time to write a decent review. The rush to get the first review out (and the need to pander to big studios to get those review copies) is anathema to good, clear writing.
(And when we amalgamate these rushed reviews, we get a magic number called a Metacritic score, the less said about which the better.)
That’s what I figured…it’s been edited. Makes me wonder about the reviewer’s editorial license when it’s not even acknowledged the original review was edited. Kind of reduces his credibility in my mind.
Does anyone have screencaps or page cache records of the original review to prove this?
I support the right of reviewers to lambaste a game for politically sensitive content; fake objectivity is the scourge of games journalism. And a reviewer can and should be able to say “this game was so bad I didn’t finish it,” though readers should take that into account when weighting the score.
But savaging a game without finishing it, then editing a review to hide that, is deeply unethical. Under these circumstances, the reader is given a false impression that the reviewer really played the game all the way through.
Does anyone have screencaps or page cache records of the original review to prove this?
Unfortunately no. It’s not something I generally expect to happen when reading already published reviews. 
In any case, I’m not too concerned about it—I was just was a little shocked when I realized he had done that.
Does anyone have screencaps or page cache records of the original review to prove this?
Unfortunately no. It’s not something I generally expect to happen when reading already published reviews.
I’ve tried to find it but without success. I do have an inkling that something has been changed (I read the review soon after the link was posted) but certainly can’t say for sure. What is definite is that the 2nd review which criticised QfI for stereotypical portrayal of women says straight out that he didn’t finish the game & posted a review which is fundamentally very positive - see below for relevant excerpt.Maybe the two have been mixed up?
Home / Reviews / Final Word / Old School Adventuring Reborn In Quest For Infamy
Old School Adventuring Reborn In Quest For InfamyPosted by: David Lins in Final Word, Reviews July 10, 2014 0
Another complaint I have is with how women are portrayed in the game. Yes, I know, feminism is destroying the industry and we should all cover our ears and pretend it doesn’t exist, but it bugs me that all but one woman in this game (that I found) are just dressed-up eye-candy for the players (and, I suppose, Roehm) to gawk at. Their portraits all put their breasts front-and-center, and very few have a personality that isn’t a blatant stereotype. Hell, Roehm’s past—the one he’s running from that almost got him executed—involves sleeping with a Very Important Dude’s woman. It’s not bad enough that I wouldn’t recommend the game because of it, and I do believe that the developers intended to play up the stereotype for laughs, but it made me cringe just a few times.
My other major disappointment with the game is that I didn’t have the time to finish it. I may revisit this review once I manage to complete the game, but as of now I’m confident enough to say that Quest for Infamy far exceeds my expectations
etc etc
Hell, Roehm’s past—the one he’s running from that almost got him executed—involves sleeping with a Very Important Dude’s woman.
The Very Important Dude’s daughter, actually. Not the same thing. Some reviewer. Not finishing the game and not getting his facts straight.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
There’s no need for a witch hunt. If they did update the review to shield themselves from criticism (instead of, say, voicing their stance in the comments) then that’s unfortunate. But let’s not pretend that game reviews are any more than one person’s opinion on a game. They’re allowed to be offended by stereotypes, even if those stereotypes are “justified” later in the game, and even the best writers get facts wrong occasionally.
I don’t have much interest in this type of game, but I have a friend who loved the Quest for Glory games when he was a kid so I passed on the link and told him to check it out.
That is not genetics. That is not evolution. That is not science at all. I suggest that you not use scientific terms like “gene pool” to shore up your political opinions.
Of course it is evolution and the fact you don’t like it, won’t change it a bit. Speaking of which, who says I like it? It’s just the way it is.
And I would really like to know what do you know about my political opinions and how in the world do you know anything about them?
Have we talked about them ever before, because I frankly don’t remember.
IF YOU’RE LOOKING TO READ ABOUT QfI, SKIP THIS POST. IT ENDS WITH A REQUEST TO TAKE THIS TO PMs.
THIS IS ABOUT SCIENCE AND POLITICS
Bogi:
And I would really like to know what do you know about my political opinions and how in the world do you know anything about them?
Have we talked about them ever before, because I frankly don’t remember.
You gave several political opinions in that post. “Not telling us which party you favor” isn’t the same as “not expressing political opinions.” You tried to bolster some very specific and controversial political opinions with evolutionary terms.
Let’s break down that post!
The problem with the current “politically correct first world” (fortunately present state of affairs won’t last very long) is that people are way too conformed and not troubled by day to day concerns, so they are full of shit and they need to release them around.
You say the following things here:
* The first-world is politically correct, but “fortunately” it won’t be much longer!
This is both an opinion and political.
* “People are too conformed.”
In my first-world country, at least, levels of partisan disagreement are at the highest they’ve been in decades. So whatever you’re saying, it’s not a hard fact. It’s an opinion about politics - a political opinion.
* “[People] are not troubled by day-to-day concerns.”
Like… unemployment? Wage problems? Hiring bias? Taxes? Sickness? I’d love to meet these people. That you minimize the actual problems that people have makes this a subjective opinion with strong political implications.
* “they are full of shit and they need to release them around.”
Declaring people with certain political opinions to be full of shit is very definitely a political opinion.
So, how do you support these? Why, by citing evolution!
On the bright side evolution doesn’t tolerate such behavior and the gene pool very quickly left without their contribution.
Breaking this down:
“On the bright side” —-> What follows is a good thing…
“evolution doesn’t tolerate such behavior”—-> People who make political correctness arguments will die and/or fail to reproduce.
(How else are we supposed to read this? Mother Nature is going to descend from on high and waggle a disapproving finger?)
” the gene pool very quickly left without their contribution.”—> Those harmful “talks about women in games” alleles will be gone.
Now that you have made this claim, what do you do when I point out the lack of basis?
Of course it is evolution and the fact you don’t like it, won’t change it a bit.
I don’t believe evolution depends on “what I like.” I do think you’ve failed to back up your point, then retreated behind the classic “but I said so” defense.
Speaking of which, who says I like it? It’s just the way it is.
Huh. Who says you like this idea of people being selected against? Let’s look at your own post.
On the bright side evolution doesn’t tolerate such behavior and the gene pool very quickly left without their contribution.
On the bright side
When you use the phrase “on the bright side” in the connection with living, breathing human beings being evolutionarily selected against… (dying early, dying alone, or losing their children)
...you don’t get to back down and say “who says I like it?” Who, in fact, said you like this supposed state of affairs?
You.
You just said you like it, right there. “On the bright side” is not a synonym for “Sadly.” Nor does it mean, “as a pure matter of fact.” It means you are about to say something you regard as a good thing.
So much for your attempt to maintain plausible deniability and/or the “possibility of human empathy.” Now for the actual biology.
Do you have any idea how evolution really works? If so, this exercise should be simple.
* In your post, you give the following scenario: In the first-world, people who have too much time/no real problems to worry about say “politically correct” things to vent. You then say that evolution does not favor this.
1) What is the trait under selection? Please be specific.
2) To what extent can variation in that trait be accounted for by genetics?
Please provide a numerical estimate of H, the heritability of the trait, justified with evidence.
3) To what extent does the behavior you mention incur a fitness penalty? How?
4) Does any of the extant literature in evolutionary biology actually agree with your inferences about the death/dying out of “politically correct” people?
Citations would be appreciated. Please send your answers to these questions by PM, as we’ve derailed this thread enough.
But you’d better hurry and publish… A major finding like this would be a breakthrough of the highest order, and you don’t want someone else to scoop you on this top-tier paper.
Do you think you’re going to put it in Nature or Science? Nature can be kind of snooty, but if you think you’ve got an in with the editorial board, you should go for it!
Well, can’t say he didn’t have that coming. But I’m impressed.
That post was worth 15 Infamy Points.
Unfortunatly not everyone is loving it.
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/questforimfamy/2381/review.html
That reviwer would probably make good friends with John Walker. Walker can detect misogyny in a glass of water. Hopefully, most people won’t lean much weight on such an unproffessional review, the reviewer clearly didn’t even finish the game, which in my world means he’s in no position to officially judge the game (shouldn’t any professional writeup require professional research?). Anyway, people this easily offended wouldn’t know satire if you fed it to them with a teaspoon 
Personally, I’m enjoying the game, though I could easily live without the rpg aspect of it. I like the humour (even the fart jokes), the music, the game successfully induces my Sierra nostalgia, the backgrounds are nice, puzzles fun and logical. But, I do take some issue with the voice audio. The acting is a little all over the place, but fortunately the protagonist sounds fairly decent. However, the audio itself sounds like it’s been recorded with very low quality devices. There’s a very notable “metallic” sound to the voices, almost as if the mic has been placed inside a tube before recording. Then there’s clicks and pops here and there, aswell as a lack of a P-filter, resulting in occasional “thunder”-cracks when a “P” is pronounced. Pulling a wool sock over a mic can substitute a P-filter if you don’t have one availiable.
For me, the voice-audio aspect is the only part with a notable room for improvement, other than that, QfI feels like a good old 90’s adventure, which, when coming from me, should be considered a huge compliment
Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.
the audio itself sounds like it’s been recorded with very low quality devices. There’s a very notable “metallic” sound to the voices, almost as if the mic has been placed inside a tube before recording. Then there’s clicks and pops here and there, aswell as a lack of a P-filter, resulting in occasional “thunder”-cracks when a “P” is pronounced. Pulling a wool sock over a mic can substitute a P-filter if you don’t have one available.
..I am impressed by the remark
But I think the voices were recorded at some home studio without any isolation ,just the essential equip. hardly you can find in those the use or the need for condenser mics, for they are so sensitive, and without isolation it would be be a disaster ,so the use of dynamics are demanded ,but filters with dynamic mics are even much worse if used because you will kill all the midrange freq from the audio and it be more as humming than sound.
I might be wrong with the process taken here ,but hardly.
When it comes to the inconsistent vocal recording quality, it is one of those things that unfortunately truly was the product of the small budget. Even with amateur actors, doing the voice-overs can easily be the most expensive part of a project like this—having to do it lo-fi was a hard choice we had to make at the beginning if we wanted to stay within our budget. We had actors from all over the world sending us lines, and honestly, I think our sound engineer did a hell of a job processing and normalizing the well over 10,000 lines of dialog in the game. Believe me, no one understands and appreciates recording quality more than James Mulvale. Within our self-imposed limitations, I don’t think anyone could have done a better job. Personally, having played the game long before voices were added, I think the performances (some more than others, of course) add far more to the game than the audio quality detracts. In particular, I love the increasing annoyance and exasperation that can be heard in Roehm’s voice towards the end of the game when all of the shit has hit the fan and he’s forced to confront his unwanted problems head on. Cracks me up every time.
Well, can’t say he didn’t have that coming. But I’m impressed.
Yep, arguments fairly ripped apart I’d say. I’d appreciate it, WitchofDoubt, if you could forward his findings to me when you receive them. I’d like to know why my son’s going to die soon (as presumably he won’t be continuing my gene pool).
I was pretty impressed by the voice acting for Roehm when I last heard it - I think it was in a demo? He sounded cynical and sly and understated, and the early reviews seem to back that up. Even so, it takes really excellent VA to keep me from just reading the captions and skipping the dialogue, so this is almost a non-issue for me, as I suspect it is for many fast readers. Regardless, I’d be astounded if a game with this many characters had consistently good VA throughout, even if it had ten times this budget.
(I mean, Wing Commander IV had a HUGE budget, along with Mark Hamill and Malcolm McDowell, and there was still a whiff of cheese about its cutscenes.)
...I sometimes wish people didn’t expect full VA in adventure games as a rule. The Ace Attorney visual novels make do with a few voice clips and the effect is just fine. I’d rather read and let my imagination fill in the voices, and then see that tremendous amount of money and effort go into other features or even the salaries of the programmers, artists, designers, testers, musicians…
(I somehow doubt the QfI devs had much spending money/backstop emergency money left over after doing all this, especially given the apparent quality of the backgrounds.)
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
