Moderators: adeyke, VampD3, eriqchang, Angelus3K
Because AGDI and Himalaya are two different companies, who merely share the same senior staff. Also, we have permission to distribute our remake projects under the AGDI banner, but if we'd distribute original games under the same label, we'd be required to have those games approved first, which is more hassle than it's worth.So, how come you guys are releasing Al Emmo under the Himalaya Studios brand? AGDI would look better on a box, because letters are cool.
Sorry, we're too late in development to scrap the project and restart it from scratch. He's not supposed to look very appealing, btw. But that's a detail.Oh, and about Al Emmo. I notice most commercial adventure games these days go for relatively dull main characters. This Al Emmo guy looks less appealing than the guy from Runaway, and thats saying something.
Maybe you should replace him with a witty vampire from Portugal before you release the final game. Or at least make him an option.
Faux anonymous names? I'm not sure what you mean.I just answered a few questions surfin' the web. But I am still wondering... how come you folks started using faux-anonymous names?
And if you're still inkling to have control over some stud muffin, you can replay the King's Quest remakes...and at some point in the near future, download the QFG2 remake 
I think that my views on western-themed games have been negatively influenced by the abominable Freddy Pharkas, 3 Skulls Of The Toltecs and it's equally shoddy sequel; I sure hope that you haven't based "Al Emmo" on any of those!Okay, so let's hear the names of all these titles you've developed which contain visually appealing characters and revolutionary new game concepts that are in no way derivative of any other game, in which you are personally responsible for the design and development of said characters (both their visual appearance and plotwise).Actually, I do know how difficult it is to develop a game - perhaps even more so than you. I worked for a very well known game developer for quite a few years in the past; so you've got a lot of stuff to buy!
I understand what it is that you're trying to say, but what you didn't explain is the key point of your argument: Why he's visually unappealing and why that means anything to the overall game at this point, when the public has very little else to go on? In your previous post, it seemed like your reasoning was: the main character is unappealing, therefore, this must reflect the game itself, which must also be unappealing and derivative. But now you seem to be saying the opposite. So are you admitting that you wouldn't give the game a chance based only on the way Al looks? Because that's a very subjective (not to mention trivial) thing to get hung-up on, in scope of what the rest of the game has to offer.As I said (perhaps poorly), I think that the character is visually unappealing, not necessarily unappealingly in any other way. As I said, I've no idea what the script is like - Al might be a fantastic character for all I know, just not in terms of his visual design. Look, I don't mean to condemn your game. As you rightly said, I can't form an opinion on any aspect of the game that I haven't experienced.
Of course it is, but you should also back up those statements with some logicical arguments if you want developers to consider your advice. I didn't see anything that could be 'learnt from' in your previous post, I only saw a hastily-drawn conclusion without any valid points as to how a (subjectively) poorly designed character could reflect badly upon the gameplay. For example, what if someone else tells us that they love the main character design? Which person do we listen to? You or him? Or do we simply follow our own vision?However, surely it's perfectly acceptable to give a critical opinion on known aspects of the game?
Funnily enough, none of us had every played Freddy prior to making the game and some hadn't played any of the Larry games either! This is why I was saying that the game may seem derivative, even though that's not the intention. Also, while the game is a Western, it's not really your typical "cowboys and Indians" type western; it's more due the fact that it's set in an Arizona-like land with a lot of cacti. But there are a lot of modern references and influences, plus many pop-culture references too. The narrative mthod is also kind of unique and I don't think anything similar has been really done like it before in an adventure game, so there's a good dose of original ideas in there to complement the tried and true stuff.By the way, and on a positive note, the backgrounds look great. I think that my views on western-themed games have been negatively influenced by the abominable Freddy Pharkas, 3 Skulls Of The Toltecs and it's equally shoddy sequel; I sure hope that you haven't based "Al Emmo" on any of those!
Look, I hear that - I do. But you shouldn't pay for a crappy game JUST because your friends made it. (Not saying in ANY way that Al Emmo is crappy - I'm just saying, don't feed someone mud and tell 'em it's escargot because YOU made it.)navynuke04 wrote:Heh... just remember that if Al Emmo doesn't go over well, and profit isn't made, the chances of more games being made is dimenished considerably. Even if you don't buy the game because you want the game, it is a good way to say thank you and to support the AGD's. They have done a lot of hard work that they have yet to be compensated for. As they say, remakes don't pay the bills.