Talk:The Dig (video game)

message: The story section reads: "Low shows them the way home, and the aliens eventually resurrect Maggie and Brink, who is now free of life crystal addiction but appears to have greatly aged from their use, though he is assured he will still live a long time."
Brink does look like he's aged a lot in the game, but there's no mention in the dialogue that he will live a long time, or that the reason he's aged is from life crystals. Has this been put in because it comes from the book? It's certainly not part of the game.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.93.62 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in story section

message: From the article: "Designer(s) Sean Clark"
The story in the game, was an original idea of Brian Moriarty. Arguably, the game itself is 70% Brian Moriarty, 30% Sean Clark. And it's not just me who thinks this way, but the people who worked in the game. You can read the interviews I conducted, right here: http://dig.mixnmojo.com/museum/interviews.html
Now. the real issue is, Brian Moriarty isn't exactly credited as a designer on the game itself. The question is: Should we in this article consider Brian Moriarty one of The Dig's designers according real facts, or just stick with the official credits of the game? --Valkian 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Include him with a reference (preferably in the text, not infobox), and talk about his involvement and lack of credit in the history section, no-one should argue with that. We're about facts after all. Kudos on the fantastic website by the way, I'd hoped you'd involve yourself with this article at some point :) – Quoth 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Clark, the only designer? 

message: From the article: "It is also the only one of the LucasArts adventures that fits in the science fiction genre."
What about Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders? It's not serious sci-fi like The Dig, but I think it still fits within the genre. --Chrismith 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction? 

message: "containing absolutely no slapstick humor or even any subtle jokes" isn't entirely true.  There's the whole "Light Hearted", "Light Salad Dressing" exchange when Boston is looking at the brige of light.  The game *is* pretty serious, though.
:I've corrected the statement. – Quoth 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just played through The Dig again, and even the "very little" qualification is inaccurate. While not enough to qualify as a comedy, there's a decent amount of humor in the game, e.g. during Low's first incomprehensible chat with the inventor. Low's interaction with the environment frequently produces funny dialogue, such as his "jumper cables" joke or his remarks when refusing to touch the crevice or animate the inventor's pets a second time. Maggie's dialogue is full of sarcastic humor. There's also some situational comedy, usually when Low is with Maggie and/or Brink (as during Maggie's rescue).
Humorous comments are common, they just aren't the focal point of the game.  Upon clicking one of the many locked doors in a long hallway, Boston comments "Doors, doors, everywhere.  I wonder which one is the pay toilet."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.24.66 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Humor 

message: "Furthermore, the book has scenes that were never intended to be in the book and is a fine compliment to the collection."
I'm guessing the person who wrote this meant that the book contained scenes not in the game, but I don't know the two versions of The Dig well enough to be certain.  Could someone clear this up? 66.36.156.55 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Controversy on what topic? Authorship of the book? Authorship of the other books mentioned? What makes a CS student an authoratative voice on literature? Has he published a thesis on the topic? Or just written a blog entry? This statement is entirely confusing and must be addressed, I'm removing it for now. --JamesTheNumberless 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Book 

message: I have tagged 'The Book' section as unreferenced as there are little to no citations fo where the info came from.  This section also needs rewriting.
I have tagged the 'Trivia' section as needing to be integrated into the article; references also required for this paragraph. Burns flipper 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup required 

message: Very sure that Brink never mentions the name of the planet as "Cocytus" in the actual game, but he does in the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.197.78 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocytus 

message: I deleted the lines in the article which referred to The Dig being released on floppy.  While my recollections of 12+ year old games may be slightly rusty, I am virtually certain that The Dig was only released on CD-ROM.  Given the amount of work (and money) put into the voice acting and pre-rendered cinemas, it would have been insanity to try to make a floppy version. (which would have required even MORE work coming up with static screens to cover the missing movies)
There was a 30-meg or so demo released around 1994 which could have, with compression, probably fit on 12 floppies.  That's likely what the editor was thinking of.  If someone can come up with concrete information on the demo's release, it would be a good addition into the "release" section.
:The bit about the floppy version didn't make any sense to me either, that's why I had put in the 'citation needed' bit. From what I'd read, the game was only ever released on CD. --WaterWolf (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Floppy Version? 

message: http://www.gamethink.net/IMG/gif/pc_the_dig_1995.gif
--85.10.92.127 (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenshot? 

message: I don't have a moment to look this up, but I'm pretty sure Card only wrote the dialogue for the ressurrected Cocytan, not the entire script.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.77.108.70 (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orson Scott Card 

message: A shovel plays a major part of the game. You use the shovel for a lot of things and a shovel is also for digging, which is the name of the game. I think it should be mentioned, at least have a sentence about it. Wolfenstein (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The shovel

message: I say we should not include such information unless it is notable enough to have a source backing it up.  I pulled a huge list of such trivia a few months ago, and I think it's just excessive and uncyclopedic.  It also tends to grow and grow as people drop in this or that little tidbit, many of which are generally not very important in the grand scheme of things. Plenty of other sites have such lists anyway.  We should focus on information from reliable sources. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Too small to be this stubborn regarding exclusion, Reinstating. There is also some coverage on several video game sites:    ... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those sites are reliable sources per WP:VG/S. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the elegant solution, Masem – it looks better now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter eggs/trivia 

message: Is it really necessary?  It's a non-free image illustrating an interesting bit of trivia, but that's just it. It's trivial, and doesn't enhance the reader's understanding beyond a simple mention in the text, if even that is necessary.  I would like to remove it unless there are objections to cutting it and/or justifications for keeping it.  —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 01:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has raised an objection, I am removing the image. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it fails NFCC#8 and #3a (though it has a different # of figures, that's a trivial difference so that we only need the VG cover to demonstrate the branding). So removal is justified. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audiobook cover 

message: I'm debating whether or not that issue is important enough to include in the article.  Maybe it would be a better fit in the LucasArts article?  It seems like another bit of trivia that is insignificant in terms of the game itself. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark issue 

message: I had this game and I loved it. If I remember correctly I once read somewhere that it was planned times of making a film. But this never happened. Is that correct? If yes, can someone provide a proof?  Thanks Zack McKracken (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah Sorry, I found it in the article. 
"The Dig was originally conceived by Steven Spielberg as an episode of Amazing Stories, and later as a movie. However, it was concluded the concept would be prohibitively expensive to film.[6]"
Zack McKracken (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned movie?