PDA

View Full Version : Space Quest IV



Kennedy
11-03-2006, 11:08 AM
My Space Quest Collector's Edition disc is scratched beyond repair. Would any of you happen to have a good disc and could give me the .aud file (sound file)?

Frobozz
11-04-2006, 11:37 AM
Seriously, only new games are good. Old games like those stupid Sierra adventure games are stupid. That's why they're stupid.
That is sarcasm right? Because I happen to like a lot of older games. Although granted the Sierra games are a pain. There are more ways to die in the game than inventory items. :D

Edit: Oh great - my message is placed funny - nice forum bug we have here. ;)

Queatrix
11-04-2006, 06:59 PM
Out of the 100 people that are going to view your thread, what are the chances of them having a disk 1 out of 1000000?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Space+Quest+Collector%27s+Edition&btnG=Google+Search

maxorator
11-04-2006, 08:23 PM
I hadn't even heard of such thing as "Space Quest".
http://www.mobygames.com/game/space-quest-collectors-edition

That's a pretty old collection of games...

Well, I also play some old games like Dungeon Keeper and Age of Empires sometimes, but they were at least released after Windows 95.

Govtcheez
11-04-2006, 09:39 PM
Seriously, only new games are good. Old games like those stupid Sierra adventure games are stupid. That's why they're stupid.

Dante Shamest
11-04-2006, 09:50 PM
I have Space Quest 4 on my laptop. I've never finished playing it.

The last time I played it, I used a DOS emulator. I don't know if it's the same as the CD version. The total size of all the files seems to be only 5+ mb.

VirtualAce
11-05-2006, 01:34 AM
You may be able to get a copy from Chips and Bits as they specialize in older games. I had Space Quest IV and then also bought the Space Quest collection but sadly the ex took them with her.

You may be able to purchase a CD restoration kit and get it to work if the scratches aren't into the actual media.

Frobozz
11-05-2006, 04:35 AM
A quick search on Froogle turns up quite a number of copies selling on eBay for a variety of costs. http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=Space+Quest+IV&btnG=Search+Froogle

Chips and Bits (http://www.chipsbits.com/), however, returns nothing.

maxorator
11-05-2006, 01:49 PM
Seriously, only new games are good. Old games like those stupid Sierra adventure games are stupid. That's why they're stupid.
You're not right about that one. ;)

Kennedy
11-05-2006, 10:46 PM
You may be able to get a copy from Chips and Bits as they specialize in older games. I had Space Quest IV and then also bought the Space Quest collection but sadly the ex took them with her.

You may be able to purchase a CD restoration kit and get it to work if the scratches aren't into the actual media.
Well, it is my understanding that you may be able to get them again. My little brother says that Sierra is supposed to re-release all of the older games again for a 10th anniversary or some such like that. Supposedly they are rewriting Quest for Glory, King's Quest, Space Quest and Leisure Suit Larry, but I don't know. . .

The disc I have, however, is scratched through the metal -- bummer. I did think to try to buy a repair kit, but the repair kits all say if the aluminum is scratched the disc is unrepairable.

The real pain about this is that all of these games have been hacked into Windows XP playable games, however, I have not found any location that has the aud file. I wonder if Sierra would give me a replacement disc for mine?

VirtualAce
11-06-2006, 01:27 AM
If Sierra even has the replacement disk. These games are so old yet are still protected by the ESA, formerly the IDSA, because technically intellectual property rights of companies extend far beyond the 'profitable' time period for games.

I feel this is a stupid thing to protect since it's obvious these old games even if reverse engineered have no hope or prayer of affecting Sierra's profits. I'm not against downloading these oldies or attempting to find them. Yes they are abandonware but they are so old as to be a moot point.

I have several of these titles and have researched and found some of my other favorite titles on ebay. It is my personal opinion that if we still want to play these types of games when there are games out there now that are hundreds of megabytes larger, have far better graphics, sound, and effects then that should be a tribute to the designers.

As I've said before a good game is far beyond glitz and graphics and these oldies that stand the test of time and win.....just prove it.

maxorator
11-06-2006, 06:27 AM
I wouldn't buy old games. I'd only download them.

I like Rockstar, the first two versions of GTA are free now. (GTA and GTA 2)

VirtualAce
11-06-2006, 06:48 AM
I hardly think GTA 1 and 2 qualify as abandonware just yet.

maxorator
11-06-2006, 06:54 AM
Yeah, but it's good that Rockstar made them free :)

Frobozz
11-06-2006, 07:37 AM
It is my personal opinion that if we still want to play these types of games when there are games out there now that are hundreds of megabytes larger, have far better graphics, sound, and effects then that should be a tribute to the designers.
Not to mention it shows how much gameplay is important over those. ;)

Dante Shamest
11-06-2006, 07:49 AM
The Lucasarts/Sierra games are old, but they still have some of the most beautiful 2D artwork and original storylines.

Govtcheez
11-06-2006, 07:51 AM
Speaking of classic LA games, has anyone played the new Sam and Max yet? I'm really close to buying a Gametap subscription just so I can play that.

g4j31a5
11-07-2006, 05:17 AM
Seriously, only new games are good. Old games like those stupid Sierra adventure games are stupid. That's why they're stupid.

Well IMHO the games now lacked depth while the older games lacked graphics and sound qualities. So it depends whether you like good arts and sounds or good story and gameplay.

VirtualAce
11-07-2006, 05:25 AM
Some games today are great but normally what we get is an awesome rendering engine with nothing behind it. Pretty renders are nice but they don't make anything worth playing.

Govtcheez
11-07-2006, 05:32 AM
> Well IMHO the games now lacked depth while the older games lacked graphics and sound qualities.

Oh? Both of the games he named are just standard RTSs. Neither one has much depth at all. Get resources, build up, expand. There's more to it with strategy and whatnot obviously, but that's the core of it.

Think about a lot of the old classic games, especialy on consoles. They're just shooters or platformers or something similar. Saying that lack of depth in games is a recent development is ignoring the entire history of gaming.

Mario F.
11-07-2006, 06:35 AM
> Think about a lot of the old classic games, especialy on consoles. They're just shooters or platformers or something similar. Saying that lack of depth in games is a recent development is ignoring the entire history of gaming.

Really?

But so is saying they were just shooters or platformers. It seems you are lacking in that same knowledge.... or just trying to be funny.

Consider that today games build on the foundations of old games. Old games had no such foundations to build on. Most of what you saw then was new. They were no just shooters or platforms. They were THE shooters and platforms. Had you played games back then and you would know and remember the fun you had with them, instead of considering them stupid.

Shooting ducks on a TV screen with a pistol is definitely not our idea of a good time these days. The bar has got higher. But it was an heck lot of fun back then. Everyone wanted to play it. Everyone wanted also to play tanks. And in a few years to come you too will look down on people that will call stupid the games you used to play.

maxorator
11-07-2006, 06:47 AM
Shooting ducks on a TV screen with a pistol is definitely not our idea of a good time these days.
I remember those times. It really was fun. :)

g4j31a5
11-07-2006, 06:59 AM
> Well IMHO the games now lacked depth while the older games lacked graphics and sound qualities.

Oh? Both of the games he named are just standard RTSs. Neither one has much depth at all. Get resources, build up, expand. There's more to it with strategy and whatnot obviously, but that's the core of it.

Think about a lot of the old classic games, especialy on consoles. They're just shooters or platformers or something similar. Saying that lack of depth in games is a recent development is ignoring the entire history of gaming.

I'm not talking about the action / strategy kind of game. I was just replying about what you've said about Sierra games. FYI I enjoyed the point and click adventure kind of game like those games. And obviously those games have far more depth than any games today. Even today's RPGs were lacking in the gameplay and storyline than the oldies RPGs.

Mario F.
11-07-2006, 07:20 AM
> Even today's RPGs were lacking in the gameplay and storyline than the oldies RPGs.

With a notable exception going to spiderweb games, which curiously enough mimic old-style RPGs.

SMurf
11-07-2006, 09:47 AM
I can think back to the early 90s when I was zooming around on a cool 8 MHz of Motorola 68000 power thanks to my Atari ST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_ST). :cool:

Flicking through the magazines of the day (which I still have some of), most games being touted were platformers, adventure games being the 2nd best selling genre (strategy sold well too but only Civ/SimCity was any good ;)). This was true of most formats of the time. Then id brought raycasting to the mainstream and... BOOM! We're condemmed to spending the rest of our lives swimming in FPSes. :rolleyes:

Platformers were the FPSes of their time though. Perhaps some of you remember the way it was with film licences, always pumping out identikit games with different sprites. The fact that Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles was NOTHING LIKE the arcade version that everyone expected.

So, to get back to the point then, adventure games are great if you like adventure games. Most uncultured people these days are easily swayed by graphics. Modern marketing has picked up on this and drives the industry to come up with better graphics. They spend so much time on this that not much else is worked on.

End of.

Govtcheez
11-07-2006, 05:09 PM
OK, some of you guys seem to be totally lacking a sense of humor. I was joking when I said that all old games are stupid. I wouldn't have a gig and a half of old LA adventure games on my PC or several copies of multiple old games that I've worn out if I really believed that. I was making fun of maxorator, since he was implying that games pre-Win 95 were stupid.
Consider that today games build on the foundations of old games. Old games had no such foundations to build on. Most of what you saw then was new. They were no just shooters or platforms. They were THE shooters and platforms. Had you played games back then and you would know and remember the fun you had with them, instead of considering them stupid.The fact that they had nothing or very little to build on doesn't make them "deep", which is what I was arguing. If you look at old games like Duck Hunt (or Zelda, or Metroid, or any other classic game from that era), there is very little depth there. Anyone trying to release a game like that nowadays would die poor.

I didn't say they weren't fun. I said they weren't deep.

PS I've been playing games since the early 80s, so don't think that I missed some golden age of gaming or something.
And in a few years to come you too will look down on people that will call stupid the games you used to play.OK there Captain Melodrama.
Even today's RPGs were lacking in the gameplay and storyline than the oldies RPGs.Oh? Name a few.
Perhaps some of you remember the way it was with film licences, always pumping out identikit games with different sprites.God, yeah. For a while you couldn't swing a dead hooker without hitting a "adapted from this crappy ass action movie" game. I bet you could erase 75% of the games that came out for the SNES and Genesis and the world would be a better place.

twomers
11-07-2006, 06:29 PM
>> I bet you could erase 75% of the games that came out for the SNES and Genesis and the world would be a better place.

None, and I repeat none of those games were were bad :p but why limit that to old games? I was getting worried earlier, Govtcheez, I got your sarcasm at the start, but started to doubt it for a while when you were 'making fun'.

I don't have the time (patience and skill really), to play new games, so I just replay old'uns ... or just play online'uns. They're normally rather straightforward. I do have some gameboy, genesis etc emulators on my laptop with a few brazillion games which I never play.

Govtcheez
11-07-2006, 07:20 PM
> None, and I repeat none of those games were were bad

I have but 2 games for you.

Timecop.

Home Alone 2.

twomers
11-07-2006, 07:48 PM
>> OK, some of you guys seem to be totally lacking a sense of humor.

>> None, and I repeat none of those games were were bad :p

Come on. It even had a :p there to enhance the sarcasm. I'll not be unfairly judgmental though, I'll see if I have those games on my computer (or CD), and get back to you with a technical report and quantify their ... quality.

Govtcheez
11-07-2006, 07:54 PM
Oh no, I got it. I was just teasing.

Those games are both horrifically bad, though.

g4j31a5
11-08-2006, 04:50 AM
>> Name a few.

Well one game crossed my mind, Dungeon Siege. The story was plain, the gameplay was standart. I think Diablo was better. Well IMHO none of today's game could par the old gems such as Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, Ultima series, and System Shock.

Govtcheez
11-08-2006, 05:37 AM
> I think Diablo was better.

Diablo, with all its depth of "click click click click loot click click click click level"? At their core, they're very similar games.

The RPGs you noted are all very good, yes, but there are other modern RPGS with a good amount of depth - Morrowind and Oblivion, to name a couple. How about the KOTOR series? Or, if you want D&D, what about NWN 2?

Mario F.
11-08-2006, 05:57 AM
> OK, some of you guys seem to be totally lacking a sense of humor.

Mine has its days. It helps if you don't extend your sarcasm for more than just one post. People start believing in it. Your fault. Moderate you impulses there, stud.

As for the oldies... no, you didn't have depth in old console games. You simply couldn't. The current technology wouldn't allow you. So, it's not possible to compare them on that particular characteristic. Don't go there.

I think most people speak of oldies as late 80 and early 90 PC games. I have No Mouth and I Must Scream, Zork, Eye of the Beholder Series, Ultima, Civilization, Legend of Zelda, X-Com, SimCity, Castle Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Master of Orion, The Ancient Art of War series, Dune, etc...

These games weren't stupid. Calling them stupid is really putting one foot in one's mouth and shooting themselves in their other foot. If you were joking, fine.

psychopath
11-08-2006, 06:10 AM
Govt should really start using sarcasm tags....or that nifty eye-rolling smiley.

Mario F.
11-08-2006, 06:16 AM
I'll give to Gov on one thing. It's hard to take seriously a 14 year old kid that is trying to say old games were stupid. Had I caught that and I would have probably used sarcasm too.

VirtualAce
11-08-2006, 07:17 AM
Diablo - click fest part 1 with graphics
Diablo 2 - click fest part deux with prettier graphics

Diablo series - click fest guaranteed to ruin a mouse every 3 months and give you carpal tunnel.


Out of my growing collection of over 265 games, most of them I probably could have done without. Out of this bunch only a few make it into my personal hall of fame.

1. Crusader: No Remorse
2. Crusader: No Regret
3. XCOM: UFO Defense
4. 1942: Pacific Air War
5. Privateer series
6. Silent Hunter 1 and 3 (2 sucked)
7. Jane's WW2 fighters - way ahead of its time - amazing
8. European Air War - nuff said
9. MS Combat Flight Sim 2
10. GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas
11. IL2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles, Aces Expansion Pack, and Pacific Fighters
12. Novalogic Delta Force 1,2
13. Novalogic Joint Operations:Typhoon Rising and Escalation expansion pack
14. Sims 1 and expansions
15. Sims 2 and expansions
16. Peter Molyneux's Black and White (revolutionary at the time) and Black and White 2
17. Microsoft Flight Simulator series (including 1.0 by Bruce Artwick of SubLogic)
18. Spectrum Holobyte's GATO (first WW2 sub-sim I know of), and Falcon 4.0 (nuff said)
19. Lead Pursuit's Falcon 4.0 Allied Force (remake of Falcon 4.0)
20. EIDOS Omikron:Nomad Soul (revolutionary in the day)
21. Medal of Honor:Allied Assault (not Pacific Assault)
22. Half Life series
23. Unreal series
24. No One Lives Forever series (just plain fun)
25. Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 and series
26. Kings Quest series
27. Almost all of the early Infocom games
28. MicroProse Pizza Tycoon
29. Papyrus NASCAR and Indy racing sims (definitely not the current EA)
30. GTR and GTA legends (awesome race sims)
31. Broderbund's 'The Orient Express'
32. The first Tombraider (accelerated on my good old Rendition Verite card)

There are more but....

And for landmark hardware moments:

1. SoundBlaster series of cards - brought computer audio to where it is now (accelerated the games industry)
2. Rendition Verite hardware accelerated video card (one of the first)
3. Good old Voodoo video cards - (cheap, fast, and great performance)
4. Pentium CPU (started the current CPU craze - landmark moment in CPUs)
5. Intel 8086 and 8088 (started it all)
6. AMD Athlon series (brought AMD from mom and pop to multi-million dollar company)
7. Intel 80386 - the protected mode revolution
8. Intel math-co processor 80287 (great idea, great execution, and great performance in the day)
9. ASUS series of motherboards. Problems in the mid 90's but overall an outstanding all around performer.
10. Microsoft Sidewinder Precision Pro
11. CH Products peripherals (absolutely the best)
12. And of course Western Digital and the now 'bought-out' Maxtor.


The true 3D guru that started the entire 3D craze and accomplished more with clocks <=4.77MHz than some today do in 3GHz:
Bruce Artwick

Govtcheez
11-08-2006, 10:25 AM
I'll give to Gov on one thing. It's hard to take seriously a 14 year old kid that is trying to say old games were stupid. Had I caught that and I would have probably used sarcasm too.
I'm a little confused here. Who's a 14 year old kid? I'm 25, if you were talking about me.

> EIDOS Omikron:Nomad Soul (revolutionary in the day)

What was revolutionary here? I'm not doubting you, it's just that I only know like one person who ever played this game. I don't know anything about it.

edit: Also, I didn't extend the sarcasm for more than that one post. In fact, my very next post was asking about the sequel to a classic adventure game.

Mario F.
11-08-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm a little confused here. Who's a 14 year old kid? I'm 25, if you were talking about me.


Maxorator, not you. You explained that you were making a joke at the fact he was implying pre.Win95 games were stupid.


Also, I didn't extend the sarcasm for more than that one post. In fact, my very next post was asking about the sequel to a classic adventure game.

Correct. But with your defense of games lack of depth not being a recent development (which I entirelly agree with you) coupled with the fact I thought you were not being sarcastic about that "stupid games" bit, it was easy for me to put everything in the same bag.

Govtcheez
11-08-2006, 10:59 AM
OK, so we're on the same page here.

Let's go get a soda :)

Mario F.
11-08-2006, 11:02 AM
I'll pay ;)

g4j31a5
11-08-2006, 01:05 PM
>>Diablo, with all its depth of "click click click click loot click click click click level"? At their core, they're very similar games.

Can't argue with that. It's just that it's one of the pioneer (beside the sadly unpopular Cadaver among the few) in isometric games action/RPG. That in my point of view count for a plus for originality. And that what makes it better than the rest.

>>The RPGs you noted are all very good, yes, but there are other modern RPGS with a good amount of depth - Morrowind and Oblivion, to name a couple. How about the KOTOR series? Or, if you want D&D, what about NWN 2?

Well, I've only played Morrowind, the first KoTOR and the first NWN. It's true that they were good, but I somewhat felt that something was missing when I played those new games. I missed the uniqueness like multiple ending in Planescape: Torment and Fallout series, the romance between character and NPCs in Baldur's Gate, or the twisted storyline in System Shock 1 and 2 (thank god they are released as abandonware now even though I've been struggling to play System Shock 2 in XP). Games nowadays are just straightforward and plain with lots of eye candy.

Morrowind has a good gameplay and a vast world. Too vast actually because I often find myself lost in the wilderness and became bored with it. KoTOR have a good storyline though it's predictable. I can see where it's going even in the middle of the game. The goodside maybe in the racing minigame and upgrading stuffs. And NWN is also a good game. But if I have to compare it with the other DnD or similar RPG in the past, I have to put it in the lowest rank. The game is too linier. Any option I took in the conversation didn't have any effect to the game itself. Completing the henchmen's side quest didn't gave any advantage beside a better artifact.

Ahh, I miss the day when Microprose, SSI, TSR, Sierra, Lucas Arts, Origin, etc were the kings. Luckily I can still play their games in dosbox now. So I'm not too sad now. Although it's better in the old days. Nothing beats playing X-Com 12 hours straight just to hunt a sectoid leader to research psionic. Been there, done that. :D

>>Let's go get a soda

Can I have a hot coffee please? I prefer hot beverages than a cold one. :D :D :D