Sam and Max Seasons One and Two are excellent games that I happen to love dearly. But Telltale's staff has changed a lot since those two seasons, and a lot of aspects of their design have changed since then. When people express strong and measured concern over Telltale's treatment of King's Quest, they aren't thinking of Sam and Max Season Two, or at least, I don't think they are. Season Two is still not a Sierra game, and I wouldn't want a King's Quest game to be like it. But it is Telltale at their very best as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with what Rather Dashing is saying.. I think Season 2 of Sam & Max was Telltale reaching their peak..but that was mainly due to Brendan Ferguson & Chuck Jordan & both are no longer at Telltale.. I wonder who will be working on the King's Quest games.. I thought Mike Stemmle's puzzle design in episode 1 & 4 of Tales of Monkey Island was great so he may be the best person to handle King's Quest.
I agree with what Rather Dashing is saying.. I think Season 2 of Sam & Max was Telltale reaching their peak..but that was mainly due to Brendan Ferguson & Chuck Jones & both are no longer at Telltale.. I wonder who will be working on the King's Quest games.. I thought Mike Stemmle's puzzle design in episode 1 & 4 of Tales of Monkey Island was great so he may be the best person to handle King's Quest.
Chuck Jordan, you mean. Chuck Jones was the Looney Tunes guy, and he's been dead for 9 years.
Chuck Jordan is confirmed to be working on The Walking Dead, though, but I am not sure that he is actually technically a TTG employee at this point, or if he is just helping out for that game only, or what.
The only person we know for sure who's working on the game is JD Straw (Sinaz20). And we know that Josh Mandel has at least been contacted about the game, but we don't know what kind of a role he might have.
There's also another Chuck Jones that worked at 3D Realms on Duke Nukem 3D art. I was really confused when I read that in the credits lol. "That doesn't look like his style!"
I agree with what Rather Dashing is saying.. I think Season 2 of Sam & Max was Telltale reaching their peak..but that was mainly due to Brendan Ferguson & Chuck Jones & both are no longer at Telltale.. I wonder who will be working on the King's Quest games.. I thought Mike Stemmle's puzzle design in episode 1 & 4 of Tales of Monkey Island was great so he may be the best person to handle King's Quest.
I have to wonder if who works on the game really matters. My interpretation of the available evidence is that the "downhill slide" from Season 2 of Sam & Max is a function of Telltale's policies, not its personnel, or of management rather than bench-level designers. I mean, I don't think the flaws we find in BTTF can be attributed to a failure of execution -- they made the product they set out to make; its lack of interactivity/gameplay/difficulty stems from overall intent, not deficiencies in the capabilities of the individual puzzle designers. I wish it were a matter of just finding the right people to work on KQ, but I fear that it isn't that simple.
DOTT is not "leaps and bounds better than the original." That's a subjective opinion on taste. The correct statement is that it's leaps and bounds nothing like the original. So it isn't a good sequel. The only thing it has in common with the original is that you control 3 kids. Both games are fun and DOTT is a great game, but it's horrible from a sequel point of view. It might as well have been a reboot.
I have to say, I don't quite understand your 'opinion', or what you are trying to get at.
Considering that the game does have several reoccuring characters from the first game including the Tentacles, the Edisons. One of the three playable characters reprised his role from the previous game, Bernard (one of the more useful characters to choose in the first game actually).
It does make a few references to the previous game... It takes place in the same setting, Edison's mansion. Course of the references would make more sense only if you had chosen to use Bernard in the first game...
The interface is more or less the same as the previous game (verb/noun), but better graphics.
The story itself is said to be set five years after the first game.
Using your logic, KQ3 is not a very good sequel to KQ2, since it has you playing a character other than Graham, and the story doesn't tie itself directly into the plot of the previous game to any extreme degree. The feel of the game is different for various reasons, including the fact you aren't playing as a "king". Granted there are elements of the King's Quest series as a whole that makes each game seem fairly disconnected from any other game (due to each one taking place in a new land, with a new threat), except for a few superficial references to various characters from previous games.
If you wanna talk bad 'sequels' I'd suggest looking at Final Fantasy, or Far Cry! The so-called 'sequels' had nothing to do with any previous game (intentionally made to be separate universes)! Only Final Fantasy X and X-2 or Final Fantasy IV-After Years could be called true sequels!
Conquests of the Longbow though it was advertised as a 'sequel' to its series, is not a true sequel, and makes no references to the previous game (no reoccuring characters)! Police Quest IV (or even the first two SWAT games) though advertised as sequels to the previous games, had little in common with the original games, following a completely different cast of characters (and in latter games different genres even)!
In comparison, I'd place DoTT as offering better continuation to its universe, or game style!
At this point, I would be perfectly content to have a King's Quest game that is not a direct sequel to the eighth game. Or the seventh game, if Mask of Eternity rubs you the wrong way. And didn't I read that the setting is going to prior to MoE?
I have to say, I don't quite understand your 'opinion', or what you are trying to get at.
You should have left it at that. Your entire argument after was based on your understanding which, you pointed out in your first sentence, wasn't right.
It isn't about the different character use, or references to the original that makes it a bad sequel. It is the fact that it is NOTHING like the original in gameplay/design. DOTT is a GREAT game. It is not a great SEQUEL. Thats really it. The games do not mesh well asa series.
As for KQ3 being in different places, with different characters, it has the same style as the original. It feels like you are playing a game that was meant to go with the other games. It is when you hit KQ7, and MoE that it starts to get different. And those games are considered the worst sequels in the KQ collection.
I do agree that DOTT is different for a sequel. It seems you think that's a bad thing. Previous reviewers thought it was a good thing, and a better game!
Day of the Tentacle was critically acclaimed. Charles Ardai of Computer Gaming World wrote, "Calling Day of the Tentacle a sequel to Maniac Mansion [...] is a little like calling the space shuttle a sequel to the slingshot".[17] The reviewer enjoyed the game's humor and interface, and praised the designers for removing "dead end" scenarios and player character death. He lauded its voice acting with the statement that it "would have done the late Mel Blanc proud", and compared the game extensively to "Looney Toons gems from the 40's and 50's"—particularly with regard to its humor, animation and camera angles. The review ended with the statement that "I expect that this game will keep entertaining people for quite some time to come".[17] Sandy Petersen of Dragon stated that its graphics "are in a stupendous cartoony style", while praising its humor and describing its sound and music as "excellent". Although the reviewer considered it "one of the best" graphic adventure games, he noted that, like LucasArts' earlier Loom, it was extremely short; he wrote that he "felt cheated somehow when I finished the game". He ended the review,
"Go, Lucasfilm! Do this again, but do make the next game longer!".[18]
Phil LaRose of The Advocate called it "light-years ahead of the original", and believed that its "improved controls, sound and graphics are an evolutionary leap to a more enjoyable gaming experience". He praised the interface, and summarized the game as "another of the excellent LucasArts programs that place a higher premium on the quality of entertainment and less on the technical knowledge needed to make it run".[19] The Boston Herald's Geoff Smith noted that "the animation of the cartoonlike characters is of TV quality", and praised the removal of dead ends and character death. He ended, "It's full of lunacy, but for anyone who likes light-hearted adventure games, it's well worth trying".[20] Vox Day of The Blade called its visuals "well done" and compared them to those of The Ren & Stimpy Show. The writer praised the game's humor, and stated that "both the music and sound effects are hilarious"; he cited the voice performance of Richard Sanders as a high point. He summarized the game as "both a good adventure and a funny cartoon".[21]
Interestingly enough though KQ3 actually while lauded for being a great game according to Sierra apparently many reviewers criticized it for not having a playable king Graham, apparently some didn't figure out Gwydion's connection before they took the time to start complaining about that fact! Still others complained that it was too easy, the magic map made it too easy to move around, and kind have removed the exploratory feel. Still others complained about the use of the magic spells, since most puzzles involved those spells, and he book pretty much explained what you needed for those spells, and how to use them. So it limited the number of puzzles he player had to think of for themselves.
Interestingly enough there were those who complained about KQ5 as well for removing the parser, as another 'dumming' down of the games!
They do not have the design philosophy of Sierra. They do not have the humor of Sierra. They do not have the art direction of Sierra. They have never made a Sierra-style game and they have proven time and time again that a game worthy of a license that is SO INGRAINED IN THE HISTORY OF THE ADVENTURE GENRE.
And no, CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME PEOPLE MAY BELIEVE, LucasArts and, by extension Telltale, is not a BETTER ALTERNATIVE to Sierra that "fixed" and "evolved" the genre by removing all the bad aspects of it left in by Sierra. Sierra was a powerfully distinct entity, with its own philosophy and approach that couldn't be more different from the LucasArts or modern Telltale way of doing things. Until now I've been disappointed in Telltale, but now I'm absolutely livid. How dare they. THEY DON'T F@#$%ING DESERVE IT. THEY HAVEN'T EARNED IT. THEY CAN'T DO IT.
This is hilarious. So much backlash, when honestly, I have never played a Telltale game I didn't love completely. It's the next generation of adventure gaming, and its these pioneers who are the exact right people who should be remaking Monkey Island and King's Quest. Even their Sam and Max was good. The originals will always be golden, but I grew up with those games, and I am so pumped to see what Telltale does with the series. I place my faith entirely in their hands.
I wonder whether the nay-sayers have even played through an entire series of Telltale games recently. It boggles the mind how anybody could NOT like Tales of Monkey Island.
Really? It boggles your mind that people have different opinions, tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes than you do? I'm sure it's comforting for one to find hilarity in people who think differently than they do, but most people eventually realize that there are many, many things they always thought of as self-obvious that actually aren't.
Really? It boggles your mind that people have different opinions, tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes than you do? I'm sure it's comforting for one to find hilarity in people who think differently than they do, but most people eventually realize that there are many, many things they always thought of as self-obvious that actually aren't.
What's boggling is that people could hate a game before they even see a single screenshot of it.
Whats boggling is there is often little tolerance for anyone that might actually like Telltale's style... Few people are tolerant of those opinions, and often insulting.
DOTT is not "leaps and bounds better than the original." That's a subjective opinion on taste. The correct statement is that it's leaps and bounds nothing like the original.
Whats boggling is there is often little tolerance for anyone that might actually like Telltale's style... Few people are tolerant of those opinions, and often insulting.
A lot of people liked TTGs style back when it was good and feel that it got a lot worse over time.
What's boggling is that people could hate a game before they even see a single screenshot of it.
Except that hasn't happened -- that's your incorrect, self-serving interpretation. No one I know has made up their mind to "hate" a game that hasn't come out yet. I and many others dislike certain aspects of Telltale's recent games and don't want to seem them carried over into the King's Quest game, where they would be even more inappropriate given KQ's history.
Whats boggling is there is often little tolerance for anyone that might actually like Telltale's style... Few people are tolerant of those opinions, and often insulting.
If you take a look at the entire board, in particular the JP and BTTF forums -- not to mention larryboy's latest remark -- you will find the intolerance comes from people who think Telltale can do no wrong and no one should be allowed to say otherwise. I defy you to find one post from someone critical of Telltale that implies anyone who isn't should get off the forum or "start their own". Yet we're told that all the time. As for insulting, I'm pretty sure it's against the rules for one forum participant to insult another; you have recourse -- report any insults to the mods.
Except that hasn't happened -- that's your incorrect, self-serving interpretation. No one I know has made up their mind to "hate" a game that hasn't come out yet. I and many others dislike certain aspects of Telltale's recent games and don't want to seem them carried over into the King's Quest game, where they would be even more inappropriate given KQ's history.
If you take a look at the entire board, in particular the JP and BTTF forums -- not to mention larryboy's latest remark -- you will find the intolerance comes from people who think Telltale can do no wrong and no one should be allowed to say otherwise. I defy you to find one post from someone critical of Telltale that implies anyone who isn't should get off the forum or "start their own". Yet we're told that all the time. As for insulting, I'm pretty sure it's against the rules for one forum participant to insult another; you have recourse -- report any insults to the mods.
So you'd prefer KQ stay dead and buried and not even give TT a SHOT at trying to revive it?
So you'd prefer KQ stay dead and buried and not even give TT a SHOT at trying to revive it?
I've never said that (though I believe others might have). I meant exactly what I said on the matter, nothing more, nothing less: "I ... dislike certain aspects of Telltale's recent games and don't want to seem them carried over into the King's Quest game, where they would be even more inappropriate given KQ's history."
I personally found BTTF to be perfectly what I expect out of a BTTF style story and game. Anymore closer to older adventures and it might have not felt like BTTF...
Will they transfer that style onto KQ? I doubt it... Telltale has been pretty good sticking to the style of the series they are adapting to.
Tales of Monkey Island in my opinion copied the MI style very closely. If the game had been released on one cd, with just a 'chapter title splash screen' between chapters, I would have thought it was just another chapter based MI game like all the previous ones.
It is imo, probably my third favorite game in the series after MI2 really.
I think they will successfully pull off emulating the previous KQ style. I just hope that KQ7 isn't the style of game from the series that they choose to emulate... I'd rather see something between KQ5 and KQ6 in style and interface (but better graphics). But if they pulled off mimicing the older KQ1-3/Simpsons style (with modern graphics) it might be interesting.
I have a different opinion as to how good Telltale is at "sticking to the style of the series they are adapting to", so naturally, I come to a different conclusion about how likely it is they "will successfully pull off emulating the previous KQ style". My opinions and conclusions are just as valid as yours, they are not proscribed by the rules of this forum, and they do not constitute "hate" in any way, shape or form.
TMI was only in the spirit of the originals because its development team consisted mostly of people WHO HAD WORKED ON THE ORIGINALS. Nobody seems to get this.
So if the development team doesn't consist of people who have worked on the originals it's not possible to create the game in the spirit of the originals, is that what you're saying?
So if the development team doesn't consist of people who have worked on the originals it's not possible to create the game in the spirit of the originals, is that what you're saying?
Which would therefore mean that a fan group given the license wouldn't be able to create a game in the spirit of the originals either...
I'm not saying that. In fact I'm saying there's no way to prove one way or the other (BUT, KQ2+ split the KQ community down the center and it was a fangame, a lot of people loved it and a lot of people hated it, then there's TSL...). What I'm saying is you can't use TMI as an example of how KQ can be as much like the original as TMI was to MI because most of the same people were designing it. And it's much more closer to Telltale's style.
I'm not saying that. In fact I'm saying there's no way to prove one way or the other (BUT, KQ2+ split the KQ community down the center and it was a fangame, a lot of people loved it and a lot of people hated it, then there's TSL...). What I'm saying is you can't use TMI as an example of how KQ can be as much like the original as TMI was to MI because most of the same people were designing it. And it's much more closer to Telltale's style.
You have to consider that in KQ's case, most of the people who were responsible for making KQ what it was are either happily retired, have moved on, are working on other projects, or simply have no interest.
It's a sticky situation. While TT might not be ideal for some, it is FAR, FAR better than if Activision had farmed out KQ to some third party who knew or cared nothing about adventure games or Sierra--Like Sierra did with the last two LSL games.
I mean Sierra had gotten so far away from it's roots that it ordered the Escape Factory people (who were working on the second aborted SQ7) not to even play the originals.
While I love the fan groups, I do notice with a lot of them there is a trend of putting lots of fan service in their games and tying all the original stories up together in some contrived way, and an overly strong interest in the Black Cloak Society--a group that was only mentioned ONCE briefly and only really as a plot point to prove Alhazred's guilt. Or an interest in turning the series into some sort of psychological soap opera like a certain fan sequel....
I don't want any of that in an official sequel, and I worry that fan groups would still insist on this sort of stuff if they were given the license--Because they're hardcore, diehard fans and thus only seeing it through that lens--That very narrow niche of a lens.
Most of the KQ games are standalone entities; You don't need to know any backstory or play any of the previous games to understand what's going on currently. And that's the way it should be. I loved KQ2VGA as a work of fan fiction and yes, AGDI did capture the TONE and FEEL of KQ magnificently (as did IA) but it's the storyline elements which are worrisome.
Myself, I'm fine with toying with gameplay elements, with graphics and the like. I'm fine with experimentation, which is why I love KQ7 and KQ8. Just don't give me an overly complex plot with twists, turns and 1,000 year old prophecies. Don't tie every villain together or pull a "No, I am your father" moment.
Well actually Codemasters bought LSL license from Activision, as far as I uderstand it? So the last game in the series, was purely CodeMasters fault, and any future games will be their fault.
Well actually Codemasters bought LSL license from Activision, as far as I uderstand it? So the last game in the series, was purely CodeMasters fault, and any future games will be their fault.
Btw, did you know Codemasters also bought the original Sierra headquarters at Oakhurst when Sierra closed it in 1999? And when Sierra gave up the Realm Online, Codemasters bought that too (but later sold it)
You have to consider that in KQ's case, most of the people who were responsible for making KQ what it was are either happily retired, have moved on, are working on other projects, or simply have no interest.
No--Codemasters bought the License from Activision as work on the game was ending. Sierra had been working on it for about a year or so and then the Activision/Vivendi merger came and with it Sierra's end.
Sierra was long dead even before Vivendi bought them out. It was during the Vivendi reign that Sierra's offices closed up shop and they became merely a brand name publisher. Then shortly afterwards they abolished the label completely. All before the ActiVision merger. You can't really say "Sierra" did anything during the Vivendi years because they didn't exist in any tangible form.
It's a completely different scenario and an unfair and over-optimistic comparison.
Sierra was long dead even before Vivendi bought them out. It was during the Vivendi reign that Sierra's offices closed up shop and they became merely a brand name publisher. Then shortly afterwards they abolished the label completely. All before the ActiVision merger. You can't really say "Sierra" did anything during the Vivendi years because they didn't exist in any tangible form.
Yes, I'm well aware that Bellevue closed down in 2004 and that marked the end of Sierra as any tangible company; It did exist as a brand name used on most of VU's products. Vivendi got rid of their "Vivendi Games" name for the most part and "Sierra" de facto became "VU Games." Sierra was said to have 4 studios (which were Vivendi's) up to 2009, when the Sierra name was absorbed into Vivendi. Go look at the press releases from 2004-2009: Sierra is even said to have a President, Martin Tremblay.
Sierra was bought by Vivendi in 1998 and the Bellevue HQ existed until 2004. So yeah--Stuff like the Escape Factory SQ and the first LSL butchery were indeed done by Sierra. Because the guys running it had no clue about what these games were or what Sierra was supposed to be.
So yeah:
Ken Williams (CEO, 1979-1997; President 1979-1981, 1983-1995; Chairman 1988-1996)
Michael Brochu (CFO 1994-1995; President and COO, 1995-1997)
David Grenewetzki (President and CEO, 1998-2001)
Thomas K. Hernquist (President and CEO, 2001)
Mike Ryder (COO and VP of Productment Development, 2001; President and CEO, 2001-2004)* (He was the last true President of Sierra. He was the last one to operate the company from the Bellevue offices and he met with Ken in 2003 to talk about reviving Sierra's adventure game series)
Post Bellevue closure:
Martin Tremblay (President of Worldwide Studios, Sierra, 2005-2009)
Read this from 2007, after Bellevue was closed. It does seem that VU was trying to revive Sierra.
While I love the fan groups, I do notice with a lot of them there is a trend of putting lots of fan service in their games and tying all the original stories up together in some contrived way... Or an interest in turning the series into some sort of psychological soap opera...
Most of the KQ games are standalone entities; You don't need to know any backstory or play any of the previous games to understand what's going on currently. And that's the way it should be.
Just don't give me an overly complex plot with twists, turns and 1,000 year old prophecies. Don't tie every villain together or pull a "No, I am your father" moment.
I find this really ironic. I agree with all of it, by the way, but the irony is that these are exactly the kinds of things Telltale is prone to do. The Devil's Playhouse has an overly complex plot with lots of twists and turns. Every episode ends with a cliffhanger of sorts (well, except the last one). I enjoyed this and many other aspects of TDP, but the final episode, save for one brilliant scene that wrapped up the main plot, just kind of collapsed under its own weight, sloppily brushing off details about things previous episodes suggested were important. The story in Puzzle Agent 2 has similar problems.
And talk about psychological soap opera... Have you met Morgan leFlay? Telltale has said this character was introduced to give players an emotional connection, which I happen to think is the last thing a cartoon comedy needs, at least not as a blatant effort. Not surprisingly, her whiny, self-absorbed ass came across as nothing but cheap sentiment to me, as did the whole shred-of-life (strand-of-life? whatever the hell it was) business. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed Tales very much, and one of the most entertaining side-characters in the entire MI series, The Marquis De Singe, is Telltale at its best.
Backstory, you say. Think about the appearances of the Voodoo Lady in the LucasArts MI games and what she represented. Did you ever say to yourself, Gee I'd really like to meet one of her former lovers. I don't see Telltale's build-up of a deep and longstanding rivalry between Le Chuck and the Voodoo Lady as any different than what the fan games have done with the KQ villains.
Simply put, I do not believe that Telltale is as good at storytelling as they think they are, as the importance of subtlety seems to be totally lost on them. (Anyone who goes around talking about emotional investment in characters as much as they do probably doesn't know how to do it very well.) I'm not saying their stories aren't compelling; they often are but they just go overboard sometimes.
Many of Telltale's fans eat up exactly the kinds of things you say you don't want to see (in fact I'm pretty sure I'd be roasted alive if I tried to diss Morgan in the ToMI forum); Telltale knows it and caters to it, to the point that BTTF is not so much a game as it is a content delivery system. Do you really think a company that describes its game engine as an "interactive storytelling technology" is going to resist the urge to develop the characters far more than anything we've seen in past KQ games and put them into a detailed, complex, emotional plot? I'll be shocked if they don't expand on existing backstory and/or invent new related backstory of their own.
Myself, I'm fine with toying with gameplay elements, with graphics and the like. I'm fine with experimentation, which is why I love KQ7 and KQ8.
Everything I said above would be inconsequential -- inconsequential! -- to me were it not for the fact that, starting after Tales, gameplay has suffered as story and presentation have become paramount. The irony here is that video games have the unique ability to promote character identification through gameplay -- the fusion of the player and the character to face substantive challenges should constitute a great deal of the story in ways that are simply not possible in other media. Yet Telltale seems now to be focusing more on cinematic devices for consumption rather than taking advantage of the opportunities provided by an interactive medium. Compare Chariots of the Dogs to any episode of BTTF.
So I don't mind "toying" with gameplay elements either; Telltale did some wonderful things with gameplay in their earlier works. But interactivity made meaningless and trivial for the sake of ensuring I get the cinematic experience the designers intended is unacceptable to me, especially in a KQ game. Telltale's recent titles and many, many things they have said in recent interviews lead to my conclusion that they are not the right company to revive KQ. (And DO NOT interpret that to mean I am unwilling to give them a shot or that I already hate the game.)
I've never considered whether it would be better for the KQ license to go to one of the fan groups, because I don't see how that was ever a realistic possibility. But there are any number of proven indie game developers who are doing all kinds of interesting things with gameplay, mixing genres, including adventure-like elements, innovative puzzle mechanics, etc. That seems to me a more natural progression from KQ8's evolutionary design than giving the license to a company known for reviving a different style of adventure game.
And talk about psychological soap opera... Have you met Morgan leFlay? Telltale has said this character was introduced to give players an emotional connection, which I happen to think is the last thing a cartoon comedy needs, at least not as a blatant effort. Not surprisingly, her whiny, self-absorbed ass came across as nothing but cheap sentiment to me, as did the whole shred-of-life (strand-of-life? whatever the hell it was) business. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed Tales very much, and one of the most entertaining side-characters in the entire MI series, The Marquis De Singe, is Telltale at its best.
Backstory, you say. Think about the appearances of the Voodoo Lady in the LucasArts MI games and what she represented. Did you ever say to yourself, Gee I'd really like to meet one of her former lovers. I don't see Telltale's build-up of a deep and longstanding rivalry between Le Chuck and the Voodoo Lady as any different than what the fan games have done with the KQ villains.
Simply put, I do not believe that Telltale is as good at storytelling as they think they are, as the importance of subtlety seems to be totally lost on them. (Anyone who goes around talking about emotional investment in characters as much as they do probably doesn't know how to do it very well.) I'm not saying their stories aren't compelling; they often are but they just go overboard sometimes.
Many of Telltale's fans eat up exactly the kinds of things you say you don't want to see (in fact I'm pretty sure I'd be roasted alive if I tried to diss Morgan in the ToMI forum); Telltale knows it and caters to it, to the point that BTTF is not so much a game as it is a content delivery system. Do you really think a company that describes its game engine as an "interactive storytelling technology" is going to resist the urge to develop the characters far more than anything we've seen in past KQ games and put them into a detailed, complex, emotional plot? I'll be shocked if they don't expand on existing backstory and/or invent new related backstory of their own.
What do Monkey Island, On Stranger Tides , Davy Jones, Tia Dalma, LeChuck, De Cava and Voodoo Lady all have in common?
Well, I suppose that Monkey Island is inspired by the novel On Stranger Tides and Pirates of the Caribbean...
On Stranger Tides also was inspired by Pirates of the Caribbean, IIRC.
The whole Voodoo Lady/De Cava background is very similar to the Tia Dalma/Davy Jones backstory in the Pirates movies... though De Cava is not nearly as supernatural and/or evil (just an old guy)!
Pirates 4, went back and adapted On Stranger Tides story into the Pirates mythos...
I've never read On Stranger Tides, nor have I seen the movie adaptation, but I wonder if it has a Voodoo Lady/Priestess type character, and/or supernatural villain like the LeChuck/Davy Jones characters, and a pirate lover for the priestess...
Ron Gilbert once compared LeChuck and Davey Jones;
So, I'm looking through my neighbor's window with a pair of binoculars, trying to see the TV to figure out if they have HBO that I can steal when the latest trailer for the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie comes on and I'm thinking to myself, "Hey, I've seen this before... no... I've played this before... no... I've designed this before!" I'm thinking "This is the Monkey Island Movie!" Yeah, they kind of screwed up his beard, but that's LeChuck, and let's be honest, if I'd thought of the squid tentacles for a beard, I would have done that.
I'd find it ironic, and wouldn't be surprised, if in a future game it turns out that Voodoo Lady once dated LeChuck herself... One of the reasons she's always trying to help Guybrush destroy him, is take take revenge on him, ala the Tia Dalma angle ...
Everything I said above would be inconsequential -- inconsequential! -- to me were it not for the fact that, starting after Tales, gameplay has suffered as story and presentation have become paramount. The irony here is that video games have the unique ability to promote character identification through gameplay -- the fusion of the player and the character to face substantive challenges should constitute a great deal of the story in ways that are simply not possible in other media. Yet Telltale seems now to be focusing more on cinematic devices for consumption rather than taking advantage of the opportunities provided by an interactive medium. Compare Chariots of the Dogs to any episode of BTTF.
So I don't mind "toying" with gameplay elements either; Telltale did some wonderful things with gameplay in their earlier works. But interactivity made meaningless and trivial for the sake of ensuring I get the cinematic experience the designers intended is unacceptable to me, especially in a KQ game. Telltale's recent titles and many, many things they have said in recent interviews lead to my conclusion that they are not the right company to revive KQ. (And DO NOT interpret that to mean I am unwilling to give them a shot or that I already hate the game.)
I've never considered whether it would be better for the KQ license to go to one of the fan groups, because I don't see how that was ever a realistic possibility. But there are any number of proven indie game developers who are doing all kinds of interesting things with gameplay, mixing genres, including adventure-like elements, innovative puzzle mechanics, etc. That seems to me a more natural progression from KQ8's evolutionary design than giving the license to a company known for reviving a different style of adventure game.
Comments
I agree with what Rather Dashing is saying.. I think Season 2 of Sam & Max was Telltale reaching their peak..but that was mainly due to Brendan Ferguson & Chuck Jordan & both are no longer at Telltale.. I wonder who will be working on the King's Quest games.. I thought Mike Stemmle's puzzle design in episode 1 & 4 of Tales of Monkey Island was great so he may be the best person to handle King's Quest.
Chuck Jordan, you mean. Chuck Jones was the Looney Tunes guy, and he's been dead for 9 years.
Chuck Jordan is confirmed to be working on The Walking Dead, though, but I am not sure that he is actually technically a TTG employee at this point, or if he is just helping out for that game only, or what.
I have to wonder if who works on the game really matters. My interpretation of the available evidence is that the "downhill slide" from Season 2 of Sam & Max is a function of Telltale's policies, not its personnel, or of management rather than bench-level designers. I mean, I don't think the flaws we find in BTTF can be attributed to a failure of execution -- they made the product they set out to make; its lack of interactivity/gameplay/difficulty stems from overall intent, not deficiencies in the capabilities of the individual puzzle designers. I wish it were a matter of just finding the right people to work on KQ, but I fear that it isn't that simple.
I have to say, I don't quite understand your 'opinion', or what you are trying to get at.
Considering that the game does have several reoccuring characters from the first game including the Tentacles, the Edisons. One of the three playable characters reprised his role from the previous game, Bernard (one of the more useful characters to choose in the first game actually).
It does make a few references to the previous game... It takes place in the same setting, Edison's mansion. Course of the references would make more sense only if you had chosen to use Bernard in the first game...
The interface is more or less the same as the previous game (verb/noun), but better graphics.
The story itself is said to be set five years after the first game.
Using your logic, KQ3 is not a very good sequel to KQ2, since it has you playing a character other than Graham, and the story doesn't tie itself directly into the plot of the previous game to any extreme degree. The feel of the game is different for various reasons, including the fact you aren't playing as a "king". Granted there are elements of the King's Quest series as a whole that makes each game seem fairly disconnected from any other game (due to each one taking place in a new land, with a new threat), except for a few superficial references to various characters from previous games.
If you wanna talk bad 'sequels' I'd suggest looking at Final Fantasy, or Far Cry! The so-called 'sequels' had nothing to do with any previous game (intentionally made to be separate universes)! Only Final Fantasy X and X-2 or Final Fantasy IV-After Years could be called true sequels!
Conquests of the Longbow though it was advertised as a 'sequel' to its series, is not a true sequel, and makes no references to the previous game (no reoccuring characters)! Police Quest IV (or even the first two SWAT games) though advertised as sequels to the previous games, had little in common with the original games, following a completely different cast of characters (and in latter games different genres even)!
In comparison, I'd place DoTT as offering better continuation to its universe, or game style!
You should have left it at that. Your entire argument after was based on your understanding which, you pointed out in your first sentence, wasn't right.
It isn't about the different character use, or references to the original that makes it a bad sequel. It is the fact that it is NOTHING like the original in gameplay/design. DOTT is a GREAT game. It is not a great SEQUEL. Thats really it. The games do not mesh well asa series.
As for KQ3 being in different places, with different characters, it has the same style as the original. It feels like you are playing a game that was meant to go with the other games. It is when you hit KQ7, and MoE that it starts to get different. And those games are considered the worst sequels in the KQ collection.
Interestingly enough though KQ3 actually while lauded for being a great game according to Sierra apparently many reviewers criticized it for not having a playable king Graham, apparently some didn't figure out Gwydion's connection before they took the time to start complaining about that fact! Still others complained that it was too easy, the magic map made it too easy to move around, and kind have removed the exploratory feel. Still others complained about the use of the magic spells, since most puzzles involved those spells, and he book pretty much explained what you needed for those spells, and how to use them. So it limited the number of puzzles he player had to think of for themselves.
Interestingly enough there were those who complained about KQ5 as well for removing the parser, as another 'dumming' down of the games!
You crack me up little buddy.
I wonder whether the nay-sayers have even played through an entire series of Telltale games recently. It boggles the mind how anybody could NOT like Tales of Monkey Island.
What's boggling is that people could hate a game before they even see a single screenshot of it.
It includes the original.
A lot of people liked TTGs style back when it was good and feel that it got a lot worse over time.
There is a simple solution: Since you've made up your mind about TT, why post here? And don't even bother playing KQ when it comes out.
Agreed! (And if Darth Vader says it, we should probably listen)
If you hate Telltale, start your own forum.
Except that hasn't happened -- that's your incorrect, self-serving interpretation. No one I know has made up their mind to "hate" a game that hasn't come out yet. I and many others dislike certain aspects of Telltale's recent games and don't want to seem them carried over into the King's Quest game, where they would be even more inappropriate given KQ's history.
If you take a look at the entire board, in particular the JP and BTTF forums -- not to mention larryboy's latest remark -- you will find the intolerance comes from people who think Telltale can do no wrong and no one should be allowed to say otherwise. I defy you to find one post from someone critical of Telltale that implies anyone who isn't should get off the forum or "start their own". Yet we're told that all the time. As for insulting, I'm pretty sure it's against the rules for one forum participant to insult another; you have recourse -- report any insults to the mods.
So you'd prefer KQ stay dead and buried and not even give TT a SHOT at trying to revive it?
I've never said that (though I believe others might have). I meant exactly what I said on the matter, nothing more, nothing less: "I ... dislike certain aspects of Telltale's recent games and don't want to seem them carried over into the King's Quest game, where they would be even more inappropriate given KQ's history."
Will they transfer that style onto KQ? I doubt it... Telltale has been pretty good sticking to the style of the series they are adapting to.
Tales of Monkey Island in my opinion copied the MI style very closely. If the game had been released on one cd, with just a 'chapter title splash screen' between chapters, I would have thought it was just another chapter based MI game like all the previous ones.
It is imo, probably my third favorite game in the series after MI2 really.
I think they will successfully pull off emulating the previous KQ style. I just hope that KQ7 isn't the style of game from the series that they choose to emulate... I'd rather see something between KQ5 and KQ6 in style and interface (but better graphics). But if they pulled off mimicing the older KQ1-3/Simpsons style (with modern graphics) it might be interesting.
Which would therefore mean that a fan group given the license wouldn't be able to create a game in the spirit of the originals either...
You have to consider that in KQ's case, most of the people who were responsible for making KQ what it was are either happily retired, have moved on, are working on other projects, or simply have no interest.
It's a sticky situation. While TT might not be ideal for some, it is FAR, FAR better than if Activision had farmed out KQ to some third party who knew or cared nothing about adventure games or Sierra--Like Sierra did with the last two LSL games.
I mean Sierra had gotten so far away from it's roots that it ordered the Escape Factory people (who were working on the second aborted SQ7) not to even play the originals.
While I love the fan groups, I do notice with a lot of them there is a trend of putting lots of fan service in their games and tying all the original stories up together in some contrived way, and an overly strong interest in the Black Cloak Society--a group that was only mentioned ONCE briefly and only really as a plot point to prove Alhazred's guilt. Or an interest in turning the series into some sort of psychological soap opera like a certain fan sequel....
I don't want any of that in an official sequel, and I worry that fan groups would still insist on this sort of stuff if they were given the license--Because they're hardcore, diehard fans and thus only seeing it through that lens--That very narrow niche of a lens.
Most of the KQ games are standalone entities; You don't need to know any backstory or play any of the previous games to understand what's going on currently. And that's the way it should be. I loved KQ2VGA as a work of fan fiction and yes, AGDI did capture the TONE and FEEL of KQ magnificently (as did IA) but it's the storyline elements which are worrisome.
Myself, I'm fine with toying with gameplay elements, with graphics and the like. I'm fine with experimentation, which is why I love KQ7 and KQ8. Just don't give me an overly complex plot with twists, turns and 1,000 year old prophecies. Don't tie every villain together or pull a "No, I am your father" moment.
No--Codemasters bought the License from Activision as work on the game was ending. Sierra had been working on it for about a year or so and then the Activision/Vivendi merger came and with it Sierra's end. They basically took what Sierra had been working on and released it. The screenshots and trailers for the game predate the merger and thus were Sierra's doing.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080916114427/http://www.sierra.com/en/home/news/product_news/011708_-_lsl_bob_announcement.html
Btw, did you know Codemasters also bought the original Sierra headquarters at Oakhurst when Sierra closed it in 1999? And when Sierra gave up the Realm Online, Codemasters bought that too (but later sold it)
I do realise that. All I'm saying is...
It's a completely different scenario and an unfair and over-optimistic comparison.
Sierra was long dead even before Vivendi bought them out. It was during the Vivendi reign that Sierra's offices closed up shop and they became merely a brand name publisher. Then shortly afterwards they abolished the label completely. All before the ActiVision merger. You can't really say "Sierra" did anything during the Vivendi years because they didn't exist in any tangible form.
Yes, I'm well aware that Bellevue closed down in 2004 and that marked the end of Sierra as any tangible company; It did exist as a brand name used on most of VU's products. Vivendi got rid of their "Vivendi Games" name for the most part and "Sierra" de facto became "VU Games." Sierra was said to have 4 studios (which were Vivendi's) up to 2009, when the Sierra name was absorbed into Vivendi. Go look at the press releases from 2004-2009: Sierra is even said to have a President, Martin Tremblay.
Sierra was bought by Vivendi in 1998 and the Bellevue HQ existed until 2004. So yeah--Stuff like the Escape Factory SQ and the first LSL butchery were indeed done by Sierra. Because the guys running it had no clue about what these games were or what Sierra was supposed to be.
So yeah:
Ken Williams (CEO, 1979-1997; President 1979-1981, 1983-1995; Chairman 1988-1996)
Michael Brochu (CFO 1994-1995; President and COO, 1995-1997)
David Grenewetzki (President and CEO, 1998-2001)
Thomas K. Hernquist (President and CEO, 2001)
Mike Ryder (COO and VP of Productment Development, 2001; President and CEO, 2001-2004)* (He was the last true President of Sierra. He was the last one to operate the company from the Bellevue offices and he met with Ken in 2003 to talk about reviving Sierra's adventure game series)
Post Bellevue closure:
Martin Tremblay (President of Worldwide Studios, Sierra, 2005-2009)
Read this from 2007, after Bellevue was closed. It does seem that VU was trying to revive Sierra.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sierra-keen-to-risk-new-ip
I find this really ironic. I agree with all of it, by the way, but the irony is that these are exactly the kinds of things Telltale is prone to do. The Devil's Playhouse has an overly complex plot with lots of twists and turns. Every episode ends with a cliffhanger of sorts (well, except the last one). I enjoyed this and many other aspects of TDP, but the final episode, save for one brilliant scene that wrapped up the main plot, just kind of collapsed under its own weight, sloppily brushing off details about things previous episodes suggested were important. The story in Puzzle Agent 2 has similar problems.
And talk about psychological soap opera... Have you met Morgan leFlay? Telltale has said this character was introduced to give players an emotional connection, which I happen to think is the last thing a cartoon comedy needs, at least not as a blatant effort. Not surprisingly, her whiny, self-absorbed ass came across as nothing but cheap sentiment to me, as did the whole shred-of-life (strand-of-life? whatever the hell it was) business. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed Tales very much, and one of the most entertaining side-characters in the entire MI series, The Marquis De Singe, is Telltale at its best.
Backstory, you say. Think about the appearances of the Voodoo Lady in the LucasArts MI games and what she represented. Did you ever say to yourself, Gee I'd really like to meet one of her former lovers. I don't see Telltale's build-up of a deep and longstanding rivalry between Le Chuck and the Voodoo Lady as any different than what the fan games have done with the KQ villains.
Simply put, I do not believe that Telltale is as good at storytelling as they think they are, as the importance of subtlety seems to be totally lost on them. (Anyone who goes around talking about emotional investment in characters as much as they do probably doesn't know how to do it very well.) I'm not saying their stories aren't compelling; they often are but they just go overboard sometimes.
Many of Telltale's fans eat up exactly the kinds of things you say you don't want to see (in fact I'm pretty sure I'd be roasted alive if I tried to diss Morgan in the ToMI forum); Telltale knows it and caters to it, to the point that BTTF is not so much a game as it is a content delivery system. Do you really think a company that describes its game engine as an "interactive storytelling technology" is going to resist the urge to develop the characters far more than anything we've seen in past KQ games and put them into a detailed, complex, emotional plot? I'll be shocked if they don't expand on existing backstory and/or invent new related backstory of their own.
Everything I said above would be inconsequential -- inconsequential! -- to me were it not for the fact that, starting after Tales, gameplay has suffered as story and presentation have become paramount. The irony here is that video games have the unique ability to promote character identification through gameplay -- the fusion of the player and the character to face substantive challenges should constitute a great deal of the story in ways that are simply not possible in other media. Yet Telltale seems now to be focusing more on cinematic devices for consumption rather than taking advantage of the opportunities provided by an interactive medium. Compare Chariots of the Dogs to any episode of BTTF.
So I don't mind "toying" with gameplay elements either; Telltale did some wonderful things with gameplay in their earlier works. But interactivity made meaningless and trivial for the sake of ensuring I get the cinematic experience the designers intended is unacceptable to me, especially in a KQ game. Telltale's recent titles and many, many things they have said in recent interviews lead to my conclusion that they are not the right company to revive KQ. (And DO NOT interpret that to mean I am unwilling to give them a shot or that I already hate the game.)
I've never considered whether it would be better for the KQ license to go to one of the fan groups, because I don't see how that was ever a realistic possibility. But there are any number of proven indie game developers who are doing all kinds of interesting things with gameplay, mixing genres, including adventure-like elements, innovative puzzle mechanics, etc. That seems to me a more natural progression from KQ8's evolutionary design than giving the license to a company known for reviving a different style of adventure game.
What do Monkey Island, On Stranger Tides , Davy Jones, Tia Dalma, LeChuck, De Cava and Voodoo Lady all have in common?
Well, I suppose that Monkey Island is inspired by the novel On Stranger Tides and Pirates of the Caribbean...
On Stranger Tides also was inspired by Pirates of the Caribbean, IIRC.
The whole Voodoo Lady/De Cava background is very similar to the Tia Dalma/Davy Jones backstory in the Pirates movies... though De Cava is not nearly as supernatural and/or evil (just an old guy)!
Pirates 4, went back and adapted On Stranger Tides story into the Pirates mythos...
I've never read On Stranger Tides, nor have I seen the movie adaptation, but I wonder if it has a Voodoo Lady/Priestess type character, and/or supernatural villain like the LeChuck/Davy Jones characters, and a pirate lover for the priestess...
Ron Gilbert once compared LeChuck and Davey Jones;
I'd find it ironic, and wouldn't be surprised, if in a future game it turns out that Voodoo Lady once dated LeChuck herself... One of the reasons she's always trying to help Guybrush destroy him, is take take revenge on him, ala the Tia Dalma angle
Couldn't agree more. Great post!!