Leisure Suit Larry's Maker On Wedgies v. Bullets

simoniker writes "Al Lowe, the creator of lounge lizard Leisure Suit Larry, has been talking about his comeback game with new developer iBase Studios, Sam Suede, asking why games nowadays are too violent, and revealing of his new title: "there's going to be guards, but instead of slitting their throats, you'll give them a wedgie." He also asks: 'Let me put this way, the shelf is full of racing games and shooters, RPGs and action games. Where are the comedies?' Well, where are they?"

Comments

Total agreement about the violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a couple little kids (yeah, I know - "please think of ....") - and am quite annoyed by the double-standard in gaming and media in general.

Seems like blatently dangerous and illegal activity is endorsed by the industry (shooting people; blowing things up; etc) - while perfectly legal stuff (wasn't the sex in the GTA mod consentual?) ends up being shunned and forbidden.

What kind of lesson is that?

If I were making the rules; game rating should he based on the illegality of the activities in the game -- if there's murder or similar - keep it away from my kids. If it's minor misdemeanors (like this new game sounds like) that's better.

Re:Total agreement about the violence.

[dhasenan]

You know what would reduce the instance of teen pregnancy? Accepting (teen) sex as natural and unavoidable, and educating teens on the use of contraceptives. If we try to hide sex from teens, they'll be exceptionally eager to have it.

And if we want people to use condoms, we should teach girls how to put them on for guys. Guys don't have a stake in the matter; they don't get pregnant. Therefore the decision should not be left to them.

Our treatment of sex is what causes problems. And at any rate, teen pregnancy is easily solved, unlike the products of violence.

Brevity is the soul of wit

[jbrader]

The difficulty with comedy in games is that jokes tend to get tired quickly, then after they get tired they get annoying. Think about games where there's some goofy voie over or sound effect, it's funny at first, then just lame, then bay the time your in the last third or so you want to strangle whoever pu it in there. S the challenge for a comedy game woul be to continously add new jokes, gags, whatever to keep the humor fresh but also to keep the gameplay consistent.

Comedy is hard.

Comedy is...

[krbuck]

Comedy is hard,

blowing shit up is (relatively) easy.

Replay value

[Killgore9998]

The reason why there are no comedy games on the shelf is simple, IMHO. It's because they offer 0 replay value. When was the last time you picked up Leisure Suit Larry for an additional play-through, or any other game that does its best to be funny? Now, when was the last time you decided to go through the Halo campaign again, on another difficulty level perhaps? Granted, Monkey Island has a lot of replayability - but that's because it's such a superbly made action adventure game that it's impossible not to enjoy it another time. But it's not for the humor. The nature of comedy is such that it gets old quickly, and innovation is everything. Racing games and FPS's don't suffer from these problems.

Re:Save us from kiddie "comedy"

[Daniel_Staal]

"No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelegence of the American public." -- P.T. Barnum, allegedly.

Re:Overlooked value of the Sierra-era

[Zaphod2016]

Like how he'd get sick and turn colors (eventually plaid) and die if you slept with the hooker and didn't use a rubber. That was funny.

Not only was this scene funny, but playing as a 13-year-old it really helped drive home the point that condom use was a good idea.

I'm not saying it is the duty of video games to teach sex ed, nor am I one of those "video games are the root of child violence" people, however, I certainly see value in this sort of thing. Speaking for myself, I have learned stuff from all sorts of goofy sources, and more often than not, entirely accidentally.

Re:Wow, please think again

[cgenman]

...and this is where you missed the boat. What we need to accept, in reality, is that being 1) willing and 2) able does not make you 3) ready.

The fact is that teens 1) Wanna and 2) Gonna so we had better darn well make them 3) ready.

Our options are not stopping them from having sex or not, it's making them prepared for when they have it.

On the one hand you're arguing that teenagers are too immature to have sex. On the other hand, you're arguing that they should be mature enough to know not to have sex. Huh? They're KIDS. They're raging balls of insecurity glued together by drunken hormones and a throbbing fire in their loins. That's why they do incredibly stupid, dangerous, and mind-blowingly weird things. That's why they're not mature enough to have sex. That's why they're not mature enough to refrain from having sex. So that's why the way we protect them is by teaching them how to have sex responsibly, not to pretend that they won't until some point in the unknown future when they're magically "ready".

And women should be taught how to put a condom on a guy. Maybe the person they're with isn't mature enough to know how. And if they're not mature enough to know how to put on a condom, they're certainly not mature enough to exhibit the self-restraint to keep it in their pants. A girl should know how to put a condom on a guy every bit as much as a guy should know what schedule the girl is on for her birth control pills. And they should feel not just compelled but also responsible for the decision. At the risk of sounding corny, a condom isn't effective because it goes on one person, it's effective because it goes between two people. Sure, the guy should be responsible enough to put one on. And if they're not, the woman should put one on for him, while teaching him proper technique and taunting him for his inexperience and lack of maturity.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It doesn't matter what kids "should" and "shouldn't" do. Just be safe. And keep them safe. And teach them to be safe.