Not necessarily - I liked how "dead ends" were tied into the design of Conquests of the Longbow. The game was structured as a series of missions, and had multiple endings based on your overall performance throughout the game.
I think it was almost always possible to reach one of the endings - but of course, if you screwed up too many missions you would be stuck with the bad ending.
Since it was quite obvious when you had screwed up, you could always go back and try to replay the same mission better.
But those aren't dead ends, they don't stop you playing the game through. That's just a design with alternative solutions or possibility to fail at something without it stopping the player to pass the game.
Why always the pie as an example? You ate it and got no points for that so you know that you must have done something incredibly stupid. Especially since money is rare in the game and you just spent your only silver coin on it.
You get it early in the game and you can lose it in several ways before you reach the point where you need it, which is near the end of the game. Personally, I fed it to the eagle. It would be one thing if the game provided another means of defeating the yeti, but to me it felt like I was being punished for not reading the game developer's mind, which is a big no-no in my book.
Maybe a better example would be having to know there's a horse bridle hidden on the deserted island in KQIV that you only have one chance to visit. It's been a while since I played it but I'm pretty sure the game offers absolutely no clue as to the bridle's existance at all.
I am a little late jumping in on this, but I just have to. Everyone complains about the dead ends in KQV but think that KQVI is the best game in the series. KQVI had plenty of dead ends. Some of which you had to go back far to fix some where you did not. No one remembers the dead ends in KQVI because the game was brilliant. If you make a great game, even with dead ends, at the end of the day, no one cares.
In case you don't remember them, here are a few...
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
I think you get the point. They exist, even in the best of games (according to the fans). Tell Tale just needs to make a good game and it doesn't matter if it has them.
I am not sure about the original but in the VGA remake you can bribe the troll with one of the treasures too. You don't need the goat.
But you could have one of the three main treasures stollen by the dwarf, drop into the pit without the mushroom...eat the mushroom without exiting the small door...etc. There were dead ends.
Not necessarily - I liked how "dead ends" were tied into the design of Conquests of the Longbow. The game was structured as a series of missions, and had multiple endings based on your overall performance throughout the game.
I think it was almost always possible to reach one of the endings - but of course, if you screwed up too many missions you would be stuck with the bad ending.
Since it was quite obvious when you had screwed up, you could always go back and try to replay the same mission better.
That was more of a specific game design mechanic of the Conquests series, though. Conquests of Camelot was the same way. I wouldn't want to see this specific type of mechanic present in a King's Quest game, for instance, because it's a typical conquest mechanic, despite how great it is.
You get it early in the game and you can lose it in several ways before you reach the point where you need it, which is near the end of the game. Personally, I fed it to the eagle. It would be one thing if the game provided another means of defeating the yeti, but to me it felt like I was being punished for not reading the game developer's mind, which is a big no-no in my book.
You didn't feed the eagle the meat? You can eat half the meat yourself and then give the other half to the eagle, even though you're still hungry.
Maybe a better example would be having to know there's a horse bridle hidden on the deserted island in KQIV that you only have one chance to visit. It's been a while since I played it but I'm pretty sure the game offers absolutely no clue as to the bridle's existance at all.
Totally. But that was the nature of adventure games back then. You had to discover everything. Nothing was simply given to you or mentioned. The idea was that if you didn't seem to have what you needed than there was something else that you haven't found yet. Even if it's not documented or explained. I agree this type of game mechanic doesn't work nowadays, but it was commonplace back then. It was a whole world to explore and try to figure out. Is it difficult? Sure. But that's why it was fun. The bigger the challenge and the harder the obstacle to overcome the greater the feeling of accomplishment when you finally beat it. That's why Sierra games were so popular despite being so "cruel."
Maybe a better example would be having to know there's a horse bridle hidden on the deserted island in KQIV that you only have one chance to visit. It's been a while since I played it but I'm pretty sure the game offers absolutely no clue as to the bridle's existance at all.
You didn't just have one chance to find it. Anyone who played these games back then knew to save and all of the time (and not over old saves). When playing this, you would have a save game in the whale because you would have known you were never making it back in there once you were out. When you realized you were missing something you could go explore there quite easily. You can't go back in the traditional sense, but you would have known to have saved all over the place.
I know I'm pretty late to this thread, but I figured I might as well toss in my 2 cents.
My first reaction to this news was a knee-jerk "No way, Telltale's not the kind of company that should be rebooting a series like KQ! I mean, I wouldn't trust a team of ex-Sierra people to do a reboot of Maniac Mansion!" However, after I sat down and thought about this, I began to feel a bit less negative about it.
While I didn't exactly grow up with Sierra's games, I started following the activities of both it and its online fanbase back when I discovered the Internet more than a decade ago, shortly after "Chainsaw Monday". It's interesting how much things have changed since then. When AGD Interactive (then known as Tierra Entertainment) began creating a remake of KQ1 around 2000, as I recall, there was a bit of an uproar. Fans were complaining that what they were doing was illegal and they were ripping Sierra off. I remember a little cartoon created around that time with this little bear wearing a shirt that said "Sierra Fan" on it, standing next to a huge elephant wearing a blanket that says "Sierra" on it. There's tiny mouse with the words "Tierra Entertainment" on it eating the elephant's droppings, and the bear is furiously pointing at the mouse, screaming "KILL!", while the elephant looks completely oblivious to everything and is asking the bear to be quiet.
However, as time went by, people became more and more accepting of fan remakes, and now nearly every Sierra fangame-in-progress is a remake. Back when AGDI's KQ1 remake came out, most of us were desperate for a King's Quest IX or a Space Quest 7 or a Larry 8. A few fan teams tried to make these sequels realities, but for the most part, these ended in failure. In the years that followed, there were times when the news of a possible franchise revival hit the Net, and the first couple of times this happened, we got all excited, hoping that this was what we'd been waiting for. However, as time dragged on and titles such as Leisure Suit Larry: Magnum Cum Laude and the KQ and SQ games that Escape Factory was planning before they were both canceled, a lot of us became increasingly wary of official games and began to look to fangames more and more.
It's actually a little ironic -- ten years ago, I suspect the majority of us would have been bouncing off the walls with excitement if a company like Telltale Games had announced a KQ reboot. We were pretty desperate back then and would have taken a sequel in any form, as long as it was a pure adventure game. Now that an official KQ game has been announced, however, many people are treating it almost as negatively as fangames were treated back in 2000.
Though I may have warmed to the idea of a KQ reboot, I'm still pretty apprehensive. Though I have enjoyed the few games from Telltale that I've played so far, I'm still not completely sold on the idea of them doing a KQ reboot. I really don't like the episodic format, but I'm willing to set my feelings toward it aside. If this reboot at least attempts to be as challenging as the original games, I'd probably be satisfied. A easy/medium/hard difficulty setting would be a fair compromise. Also, Telltale's games are almost the complete opposite of what the classic KQ games are like (big story, few puzzles vs. minimal story, many puzzles), so I'm not sure what sort of approach they're going to take.
Still, when it comes to adventure games, beggars can't be choosers. And look at it this way: Not only do we have the promise of a new KQ game after more than ten years since the last official release, but it's being developed by a relatively well-off company that actually specializes in adventure games. How many companies today can make that kind of claim?
You didn't feed the eagle the meat? You can eat half the meat yourself and then give the other half to the eagle, even though you're still hungry.
I actually don't remember if I even had the meat at that point. I mainly remember that I used the pie only because it came back to bite me in the butt several hours later when I had to reload an old save replay a large chunk of the game. (yeah, yeah, I mad)
Totally. But that was the nature of adventure games back then. You had to discover everything. Nothing was simply given to you or mentioned. The idea was that if you didn't seem to have what you needed than there was something else that you haven't found yet. Even if it's not documented or explained. I agree this type of game mechanic doesn't work nowadays, but it was commonplace back then. It was a whole world to explore and try to figure out. Is it difficult? Sure. But that's why it was fun. The bigger the challenge and the harder the obstacle to overcome the greater the feeling of accomplishment when you finally beat it. That's why Sierra games were so popular despite being so "cruel."
The only reason I knew about the bridle was because my parents warned me about it beforehand, and even as a kid I thought it seemed like a very strange place to put such an important item. But honestly, I would be okay with it being hidden and easy to miss if it weren't for the fact that you get one chance to visit that island and then you're screwed unless you feel like reloading and redoing everything. That's the point where it goes from being challenging to being frustrating, IMO. That's my beef with the dead ends in KQ- more than anything, it feels like the developers tried to make them non-linear but not account for the fact that this would mean some players would go wildly off into other directions. I feel like it defeats the purpose of exploration if you're just going to punish the player for not going in an intended order. Does that make any sense?
All in all I think this is an 'agree to disagree' thing here. Challenge is fun, but when I feel like a game is punishing me for not doing what the developer intended me to do, I don't find that challenging or fun.
You didn't just have one chance to find it. Anyone who played these games back then knew to save and all of the time (and not over old saves). When playing this, you would have a save game in the whale because you would have known you were never making it back in there once you were out. When you realized you were missing something you could go explore there quite easily. You can't go back in the traditional sense, but you would have known to have saved all over the place.
But it's incredibly frustrating to miss something like that, continue playing, and find out much later that you can't progress without it. Yeah, you can reload an older save, but then you have to work your way back to where you got stuck instead of solving new puzzles. Having that location available would alleviate all of that.
Still, when it comes to adventure games, beggars can't be choosers. And look at it this way: Not only do we have the promise of a new KQ game after more than ten years since the last official release, but it's being developed by a relatively well-off company that actually specializes in adventure games. How many companies today can make that kind of claim?
I actually don't consider Telltale to be a developer of adventure games anymore. Rather a developer of "cinematic story games" instead.
But honestly, I would be okay with it being hidden and easy to miss if it weren't for the fact that you get one chance to visit that island and then you're screwed unless you feel like reloading and redoing everything. That's the point where it goes from being challenging to being frustrating, IMO.
Yeah, I don't see why they couldn't have had you be able to be sucked by the whale more than one time and be able to go to the island again that way.
All in all I think this is an 'agree to disagree' thing here. Challenge is fun, but when I feel like a game is punishing me for not doing what the developer intended me to do, I don't find that challenging or fun.
I actually don't remember if I even had the meat at that point.
If you still had the pie and madfe it to the eagle you must have had the meat (or you would have starved already). You might have eaten it all though (eat meat twice instead of once).
but when I feel like a game is punishing me for not doing what the developer intended me to do, I don't find that challenging or fun.
Every single game punishes you if you don't do what the creators intended you to do. For example Marty giving you the same boring hint-line about Trixie every time you enter a certain place. Really that was cruel and unusual punishment.
But it's incredibly frustrating to miss something like that, continue playing, and find out much later that you can't progress without it. Yeah, you can reload an older save, but then you have to work your way back to where you got stuck instead of solving new puzzles. Having that location available would alleviate all of that.
You have to so far back? Seriously? I can play through the whole game with all of the points in about 30-40 minutes.
The problem with this in current games is that with the amount of video/dialog it takes way longer to play through things that you have already done. I would go insane playing through something that I already did in any of the current telltale games. The time you play is about 1/4 of the time you are "playing."
I am a little late jumping in on this, but I just have to. Everyone complains about the dead ends in KQV but think that KQVI is the best game in the series. KQVI had plenty of dead ends. Some of which you had to go back far to fix some where you did not. No one remembers the dead ends in KQVI because the game was brilliant. If you make a great game, even with dead ends, at the end of the day, no one cares.
Most of the "dead ends" you mentioned either only affect the long ending of the game (ie, you can still complete the short ending even if you miss those things), or happen very soon before the point that it affects, so you should be able to restore a game and not have to replay too far.
Most of the "dead ends" you mentioned either only affect the long ending of the game (ie, you can still complete the short ending even if you miss those things), or happen very soon before the point that it affects, so you should be able to restore a game and not have to replay too far.
Not befriending Jollo, getting the wrong lamp, not getting the gold coins, and not giving the knife to Cassima are all way before you find out. Thats 4 MAJOR dead ends. As for you can still play the short version, not really true once you get past the deciding point. You could say choosing the wrong path is a dead end if you messed up previously.
My point is that dead ends can exist in a great game. I don't see why people would defend dead ends in one game and not another. Perhaps there are more in KQV, but none of them are so awful that you have to replay the whole game, and even if you did, it really doesn't take long to play through it again when you know what to do.
Not befriending Jollo, getting the wrong lamp, not getting the gold coins, and not giving the knife to Cassima are all way before you find out. Thats 4 MAJOR dead ends. As for you can still play the short version, not really true once you get past the deciding point. You could say choosing the wrong path is a dead end if you messed up previously.
My point is that dead ends can exist in a great game. I don't see why people would defend dead ends in one game and not another. Perhaps there are more in KQV, but none of them are so awful that you have to replay the whole game, and even if you did, it really doesn't take long to play through it again when you know what to do.
I think KQ6 is a great game in spite of its dead ends. Just because it had them doesn't make them inherently okay. King's Quest V simply had more of them, as well as generally less intuitive puzzles. (And sometimes, as with the lamp/genie/witch puzzle, the only way to figure out the solution was to die... which is a big no-no in my book.)
I am a little late jumping in on this, but I just have to. Everyone complains about the dead ends in KQV but think that KQVI is the best game in the series. KQVI had plenty of dead ends. Some of which you had to go back far to fix some where you did not. No one remembers the dead ends in KQVI because the game was brilliant. If you make a great game, even with dead ends, at the end of the day, no one cares.
In case you don't remember them, here are a few...
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
I think you get the point. They exist, even in the best of games (according to the fans). Tell Tale just needs to make a good game and it doesn't matter if it has them.
Hi Chucklas, for accuracy's sake I just wanted to mention that many of the examples you listed are not true dead-ends:
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
You do NOT have to befriend Jollo in either the short path OR the long path. As you correctly stated, Jollo helps you acquire Shamir's lamp. But you do not need the lamp in order to beat the game, as you can use the mint leaves (from the cave on the Sacred Mountain) to dispatch of the genie. Of course you have to do either one of the two (befriend Jollo or get the mint leaves), but the mint leaves are obtainable at any point in the game prior to entering the castle.
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
See above: the lamp isn't needed to beat the game.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
This is 100% true, but I just wanted to say that you CAN re-enter the catacombs after rescuing Lady Celeste in case you missed anything the first time through (the coins or the shield). Plus the catacombs are completely safe after the minotaur is defeated, which makes re-exploration much less painful.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
This is also true, but if Alexander is not prepared for the catacombs he says so when first talking to Lord Azure and Lady Ariel (and then the player's given the opportunity to get whatever else he may need). Theoretically you can re-do the scene with additonal inventory items until Alex says he's ready to go, upon which you're taken directly to the catacombs.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
See above: you are allowed to re-enter and re-explore the catacombs at your leisure after dispatching the minotaur. Unlike the coins on the Isle of the Dead, this is not a dead-end since you can get the shield at any time for the puzzle on the Isle of the Beast (i.e. you're never trapped on the Isle of the Beast like you are in the Realm of the Dead).
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is true, although I think playing the bones and picking up the key is an obvious thing to do.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is also true, but the gauntlet scene is just a few screens before, so I don't think it's that big of a setback.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
Also true, but see above regarding Alex's intuition as to whether he's prepared.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
Also true, but she mentions wanting a weapon to defend herself so many times hehe.
In my opinion King's Quest VI is an awesome, LOGICAL masterpiece of a game, real dead-ends and all. I just wanted to clear up some misinformation, especially regarding Jollo, the genie, and the catacombs.
Hi Chucklas, for accuracy's sake I just wanted to mention that many of the examples you listed are not true dead-ends:
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
You do NOT have to befriend Jollo in either the short path OR the long path. As you correctly stated, Jollo helps you acquire Shamir's lamp. But you do not need the lamp in order to beat the game, as you can use the mint leaves (from the cave on the Sacred Mountain) to dispatch of the genie. Of course you have to do either one of the two (befriend Jollo or get the mint leaves), but the mint leaves are obtainable at any point in the game prior to entering the castle.
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
See above: the lamp isn't needed to beat the game.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
This is 100% true, but I just wanted to say that you CAN re-enter the catacombs after rescuing Lady Celeste in case you missed anything the first time through (the coins or the shield). Plus the catacombs are completely safe after the minotaur is defeated, which makes the re-exploration much less painful.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
This is also true, but if Alexander is not prepared for the catacombs he says so when first talking to Lord Azure and Lady Ariel (and then the player's given the opportunity to get whatever else he may need). Theoretically you can re-do the scene with additonal inventory items until Alex says he's ready to go, upon which you're taken directly to the catacombs.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
See above: you are allowed to re-enter and re-explore the catacombs at your leisure after dispatching the minotaur. Unlike the coins on the Isle of the Dead, this is not a dead-end since you can get the shield at any time to use on the stone archer on the Isle of the Beast.
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is true, although I think playing the bones and picking up the key is an obvious thing to do.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is also true, but the gauntlet scene is just a few screens before, so I don't think it's that big of a setback.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
Also true, but see above regarding Alex's intuition as to whether he's prepared.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
Also true, but she mentions wanting a weapon to defend herself so many times hehe.
Fair enough. I have not played the game in years, I was going off memory. The point is, they exist. The game is still good. As for giving hints as to what to do, thats all fine, but that doesn't mean you can
t get caught in that situation. When you suggest to save and do it again and again until he says that he is ready, someone playing the game for the first time has no way of knowing that he will say anything different if he had all of the items. Also isn't this the same problem as a dead end...if you don't have what you need you have to restore and try again.
Fair enough. I have not played the game in years, I was going off memory. The point is, they exist. The game is still good. As for giving hints as to what to do, thats all fine, but that doesn't mean you can
t get caught in that situation. When you suggest to save and do it again and again until he says that he is ready, someone playing the game for the first time has no way of knowing that he will say anything different if he had all of the items. Also isn't this the same problem as a dead end...if you don't have what you need you have to restore and try again.
I agree with you regarding the catacombs. I apologize if my post came off as a bit harsh. It's just that I think King's Quest VI is quite possibly the most perfect adventure game ever made, so I get a little defensive regarding the dead-ends haha. Justadventure.com's review of KQVI criticized the "dead-end" with Jollo and the lamp, and I actually wrote into the editor years ago to point out the error. The editor wrote back saying that the review would be fixed, but sadly I don't think it was ever done.
I also get really heated about King's Quest V, as it's my favorite game of all time. People always seem to bring up all the dead-ends (and I must admit there are quite a few), but to tell you the truth never did I once get stuck (you don't get any points for eating the pie for crying out loud -- isn't that a dead give-away?). And I played it when I was seven years old without any hints of any kind.
I'd agree that the dead-ends in KQ6 were actually pretty fair. Certain things that you missed weren't always required to beat the game, but anything that was required could be found through a little basic exploring. It's easy to avoid a dead-end in that game as long as you have a little common sense and save a new game before entering a dangerous area.
"Gold Rush" was another adventure that was also fair in the sense that when you leave Brooklyn, the game will let you know if you forgot something important. It won't tell you what, of course, and it certainly won't tell you that something random is hidden in some random floorboards. And of course, you're on a timer so you don't have a lot of time to explore. But the game still watches out for you.
Just to address the ranty bits in this thread - I know this IP is near and dear to a lot of people (me included), but let Telltale actually put the game out before you go nuclear on it. This is the same thread 3 times now - I read it when they announced Back to the Future, and when they announced Tales. Its like
"I LOVE [the IP]!!! ITS ALL I LIVE FOR!!! TELLTALE UR GOING TO SCREW THIS UP I'LL CUT U!!!!!"
That doesn't help anyone. Constructive suggestions are good, especially with Telltale, because they really do listen (as they've demonstrated time and time again), but being CAPTAIN RAGE about things doesn't.
And jumping to the other topic - for the people who are FOR dead-ends. Not Sierra, but all I can think of is the damn bonding plant in Return to Zork. It would die in the beginning of the game, and you'd be all life-is-good and happy and singing for joy as you progressed through the game, until you realized you needed to save it 3 WEEKS AGO. THAT is an excuse to go captain rage. I personally don't want that in a game.
Lol I remember the bonding plant. I remember my dad freaking out over that puzzle and trying to rush before the plant died. Never beat the game myself. Still have it, though. I have so many old adventure games I need to actually play.
LOL yeah - I have a stack of them myself. And then I discovered the Adventure Shop online store and made the problem even worse. Stupid job/real life getting in the way of gaming time.
My problems with KQV were: animal voice actors (eg. ants, bees, Cedric); the catacombs under Mordack's castle where every room looks the same; the ease of missing the cat-chases-rat puzzle.
the catacombs under Mordack's castle where every room looks the same;
This one was just a basic maze. If you only turn say right everytime, you will easily get out. It works everytime, even in almost any maze. Always turn the same direction and you will have no trouble.
I have to say, I think Telltale is going to have a VERY hard time pleasing bothnew fans and old with this game.
I've been following the AGDI KQ3 Redux release. A few people have occasionally asked for a walkthrough to be posted. The team's response has been, basically, "if you're having trouble solving the puzzles, you're not the intended audience for this game."
Or, to quote MusicallyInspired, responding to one rather... vocal... petitioner:
IF THE PUZZLE IS TOO HARD FOR YOU THAN DON'T PLAY THE FREAKING GAME.
GOD
How DARE you say anybody has been rude to you when you have been nothing but a whiny little kid screaming to have his way in everything? Honestly I'd rather just sit here and enjoy you not being able to beat it just to spite you. You'll get no help from me.
You don't NEED help to enjoy the game. If you can get it through your head that these games are not about cheating but about challenging your mind maybe you might actually get somewhere! If you want an easy game go buy a Telltale game.
I don't know how Telltale will deal with this "I love a challenge, so I don't want a KQ game to cater to less experienced adventure gamers" mentality. But it means that you guys are going to have one hell of a job cut out for you.
I should say that we didn't use that response to everybody, we merely encouraged people to try and figure it out themselves, settle for hints at the moment, or wait for the walkthrough to come out later on. Usually that suffices for everybody.
That particular person was being incredibly rude and was demanding answers to nearly every single puzzle because he couldn't figure them out after sitting on them for about a maximum of 2 minutes. He was eventually banned from the forums for badmouthing the designers for making such a "stupid hard game." The reason he was so upset was that he used a walkthrough for the original game and he thought he already knew all the puzzles. When he discovered all the changes we'd made he was furious that he couldn't figure them out from his past cheating experiences.
He's since been unbanned and become a lot more civil, though.
I have to say, I think Telltale is going to have a VERY hard time pleasing bothnew fans and old with this game.
I've been following the AGDI KQ3 Redux release. A few people have occasionally asked for a walkthrough to be posted. The team's response has been, basically, "if you're having trouble solving the puzzles, you're not the intended audience for this game."
Or, to quote MusicallyInspired, responding to one rather... vocal... petitioner:
I don't know how Telltale will deal with this "I love a challenge, so I don't want a KQ game to cater to less experienced adventure gamers" mentality. But it means that you guys are going to have one hell of a job cut out for you.
That is quite a bold statement. While it is true that the older KQ games were a lot harder than the later ones, part of the reason for that is the parser system in the game, as well as being made in the early '80s, an time where games were simple, yet hard as hell.
I think TT has to find a solid ground here to try and cater to both old and new gamers. From a business standpoint, it is unrealistic to make a game as hard as the older King's Quest w/o any hint system or difficulty meter to please the older gamers.
Hey ATMachine that ugly brown site withe awesome content is yours? I love that site... Ilove that sort of content well done.
edit
I'm on a cellphone.. Excuse the typos.
I have to say, I think Telltale is going to have a VERY hard time pleasing bothnew fans and old with this game.
I've been following the AGDI KQ3 Redux release. A few people have occasionally asked for a walkthrough to be posted. The team's response has been, basically, "if you're having trouble solving the puzzles, you're not the intended audience for this game."
Or, to quote MusicallyInspired, responding to one rather... vocal... petitioner:
I don't know how Telltale will deal with this "I love a challenge, so I don't want a KQ game to cater to less experienced adventure gamers" mentality. But it means that you guys are going to have one hell of a job cut out for you.
Um...context???
You've blatantly taken that quote from MusicallyInspired out of context to try and paint this picture of AGDI as pretentious assholes out to screw over the more "casual" fans.
As MI just said above, that particular poster was blatantly trolling the AGDI team on their website. He got banned, and then brought his shitty attitude over to the Infamous Adventures forums where he really started to piss people off. MI's quote came after a barrage of posts from the guy rudely demanding solutions and bashing AGDI for making such hard, unsolvable puzzle changes to their Redux version of the game.
You've blatantly taken that quote from MusicallyInspired out of context to try and paint this picture of AGDI as pretentious assholes out to screw over the more "casual" fans.
As MI just said above, that particular poster was blatantly trolling the AGDI team on their website. He got banned, and then brought his shitty attitude over to the Infamous Adventures forums where he really started to piss people off. MI's quote came after a barrage of posts from the guy rudely demanding solutions and bashing AGDI for making such hard, unsolvable puzzle changes to their Redux version of the game.
Yes, I understand that MI's outburst came at the end of a long and heated debate with an annoying, demanding forumgoer. But I think the hostility evident in his post toward "casual" gamers like that person, people who can play "easy" Telltale games but not Sierra games that "challenge the mind," perfectly encapsulates the mindset of the diehard Sierra fans. Sometimes in anger we speak words that are truer than what we say with sober tongue.
Also, it's pretty clear that AGDI is trying to get what Telltale has now: a license from Activision to create all-new KQ content, for which they could charge customers money.
I do wonder how many KQ fans, given the choice, wouldn't have opted to grant the KQ rights to AGDI, who clearly DO make games for the old-school Sierra fan, instead of Telltale.
1) Our licensing agreements with Activision only allowed us to remake the Sierra games we have created. We can't legally create any more unless a new license is issued to us.
2) We can't afford to make free games any longer.
So here's the deal: we'll make King's Quest IV if you can convince Activision to do something about the above 2 criteria. We got a deal?
It's a shame neither Vivendi nor Activision saw the potential in making our Sierra remakes available commercially years ago. We have the download stats to prove that if even only 10% of people who downloaded these games paid $10 for them, they'd still be generating millions in sales. It just doesn't make sense for a company to pass on that much potential when they'd have to do no work. It's no exaggeration to say that free games have severely set us back and thinking about the amount of time and money spent on them is depressing if nothing beneficial comes out of it for us, while TellTale capitalizes on the series revival we started and have actively kept alive for the past decade. But if we can make something commercial happen with Activision, it'll all be worth it.
I want to apologize for the overly hostile tone of my earlier posts. It was bad form to quote MI out of context. I also shouldn't have assumed that his view expressed in one frustrated post represented the entirety of the AGDI team.
I don't know how Telltale will deal with this "I love a challenge, so I don't want a KQ game to cater to less experienced adventure gamers" mentality. But it means that you guys are going to have one hell of a job cut out for you.
They could go a long way (not necessarily all the way) toward the "please both" ideal, with this or any other game, if they would just use their existing hint system in the way a hint system was intended to be used.
I do wonder how many KQ fans, given the choice, wouldn't have opted to grant the KQ rights to AGDI, who clearly DO make games for the old-school Sierra fan, instead of Telltale.
Took me less than a nano-second to conclude my choice would be AGDI over Telltale. And I'm not even as much of an old-school KQ fan as the rest of you here are.
TTG's experience in bringing in casual gamers (ie. more sales) and possibly their experience in doing console and iOS versions (ie. more sales) is probably exactly what appealed to Activision, moreso than AGDI's track record on pleasing the fans and maintaining the integrity of the IP.
Also, it's pretty clear that AGDI is trying to get what Telltale has now: a license from Activision to create all-new KQ content, for which they could charge customers money.
I do wonder how many KQ fans, given the choice, wouldn't have opted to grant the KQ rights to AGDI, who clearly DO make games for the old-school Sierra fan, instead of Telltale.
I agree that AGDI seems stunned that TT gotten the license over them. I think Activision went with TT over them because TT has more games out. Honestly, I am not certain if AGDI can handle a KQ game from scratch. Making a fan remake of some sort is one thing, but hiring writers, producers, and graphic artist to make a KQ game with the same quality of a professional game would be difficult. I understand a lot of ppl like the AGDI games. I like their games too. Like all fan-made stuff, the quality is good, but has to be better for a retail title.
I would choose TT over AGDI and no, I am not a TT fanboy. The reason being is that I have seen a lot of fan projects -whether it is action figures or fanfiction - get praised and ending up doing things commerically. The end product tends to be in the same quality as the fanwork and not a commercial product.
I think that AGDI would make really good new KQ games, but I believe that TTG may have a superior marketing department. AGDI's KQ games might be better, but I think Activision's movation for picking TTG was that if more people hear about TTG's KQ games, more people may buy them.
I'm sorry Telltale. I love ToMI and Sam & Max very much, but they're not Sierra games- and I'm not sure that you won't succumb to appeasing the nooby masses at the expense of sacrificing respect for source material.
I am pretty sure Activision isn't interested in making VGA sequels to their games.
Indeed. As Activision has repeatedly - and rather brutally - shown the only thing they have any interest in is making as much money as possible. They're a "great for investors, crap for gamers" company (to paraphrase a quote I saw somewhere else).
At least if the Sierra franchises had gone to an openly hostile towards fangames company like Square Enix you'd know where you stand. I'm pretty sure Himalaya are not the first or last small company to get burnt dealing with Activision - I rather suspect at least one more small going concern is going to find out that trying to work with them isn't likely to be to their benefit...
You guys aren't being entirely fair. These games were made for free. If they were fully funded and financially backed the graphics would be a heck of a lot better and the overall quality would be even better than the current remakes are now. There's a huge difference in quality that occurs when the same team does something for money rather than for free and out of the goodness of their hearts and I don't think some of you are really considering that at all. Look at the quality of the artwork in the KQ remakes (and how they've been revamped and improved over the years to this point) and then think how much better that would be if everyone was getting paid. Look at Himalaya's new Mage's Initiation project. Granted, the screenshots available aren't that big right now (just wait for that), but the graphics are twice as good as the KQ remakes, trust me.
You guys aren't being entirely fair. These games were made for free. If they were fully funded and financially backed the graphics would be a heck of a lot better and the overall quality would be even better than the current remakes are now. There's a huge difference in quality that occurs when the same team does something for money rather than for free and out of the goodness of their hearts and I don't think some of you are really considering that at all. Look at the quality of the artwork in the KQ remakes (and how they've been revamped and improved over the years to this point) and then think how much better that would be if everyone was getting paid. Look at Himalaya's new Mage's Initiation project. Granted, the screenshots available aren't that big right now (just wait for that), but the graphics are twice as good as the KQ remakes, trust me.
There's also a huge difference between pixel art and fully hand drawn art a la Curse of Monkey Island etc. Just because someone can do one well doesn't automatically mean they can do the other. Not to mention that 2D to 3D is an entirely different beast altogether, and I am fairly certain Activision is of the opinion that 3D > 2D. It makes sense that they would choose a developer who primarily deals in 3D original stories that are sold for profit vs. one who makes 2D remakes for free, regardless of the perceived difference in quality or ability to remain true to the franchise (which is something that Telltale has also done very well with in the past).
Actually, all the backgrounds were hand painted. You should see them at their full resolutions. In fact, here's some recently released full resolution screenshots featuring artwork by the same background artist on Himalaya's new project Mage's Initiation.
And 3D isn't necessarily the better choice. 2D is a lot more portable, for instance, than 3D. I mean, the gap is closing with the increase in technological advancements on portable devices, but still...
I definitely think you have some issues when you scale down artwork into 320x200. It almost always tends to get fuzzy and usually requires touching up to correct those issues. I noticed a fair amount of fuzziness in KQ3 Redux, despite the great quality of the paintings. We've avoided this on KOS by working natively in 320x200 during the painting process of each screen.
Comments
But those aren't dead ends, they don't stop you playing the game through. That's just a design with alternative solutions or possibility to fail at something without it stopping the player to pass the game.
You get it early in the game and you can lose it in several ways before you reach the point where you need it, which is near the end of the game. Personally, I fed it to the eagle. It would be one thing if the game provided another means of defeating the yeti, but to me it felt like I was being punished for not reading the game developer's mind, which is a big no-no in my book.
Maybe a better example would be having to know there's a horse bridle hidden on the deserted island in KQIV that you only have one chance to visit. It's been a while since I played it but I'm pretty sure the game offers absolutely no clue as to the bridle's existance at all.
In case you don't remember them, here are a few...
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
I think you get the point. They exist, even in the best of games (according to the fans). Tell Tale just needs to make a good game and it doesn't matter if it has them.
But you could have one of the three main treasures stollen by the dwarf, drop into the pit without the mushroom...eat the mushroom without exiting the small door...etc. There were dead ends.
That was more of a specific game design mechanic of the Conquests series, though. Conquests of Camelot was the same way. I wouldn't want to see this specific type of mechanic present in a King's Quest game, for instance, because it's a typical conquest mechanic, despite how great it is.
You didn't feed the eagle the meat? You can eat half the meat yourself and then give the other half to the eagle, even though you're still hungry.
Totally. But that was the nature of adventure games back then. You had to discover everything. Nothing was simply given to you or mentioned. The idea was that if you didn't seem to have what you needed than there was something else that you haven't found yet. Even if it's not documented or explained. I agree this type of game mechanic doesn't work nowadays, but it was commonplace back then. It was a whole world to explore and try to figure out. Is it difficult? Sure. But that's why it was fun. The bigger the challenge and the harder the obstacle to overcome the greater the feeling of accomplishment when you finally beat it. That's why Sierra games were so popular despite being so "cruel."
You didn't just have one chance to find it. Anyone who played these games back then knew to save and all of the time (and not over old saves). When playing this, you would have a save game in the whale because you would have known you were never making it back in there once you were out. When you realized you were missing something you could go explore there quite easily. You can't go back in the traditional sense, but you would have known to have saved all over the place.
My first reaction to this news was a knee-jerk "No way, Telltale's not the kind of company that should be rebooting a series like KQ! I mean, I wouldn't trust a team of ex-Sierra people to do a reboot of Maniac Mansion!" However, after I sat down and thought about this, I began to feel a bit less negative about it.
While I didn't exactly grow up with Sierra's games, I started following the activities of both it and its online fanbase back when I discovered the Internet more than a decade ago, shortly after "Chainsaw Monday". It's interesting how much things have changed since then. When AGD Interactive (then known as Tierra Entertainment) began creating a remake of KQ1 around 2000, as I recall, there was a bit of an uproar. Fans were complaining that what they were doing was illegal and they were ripping Sierra off. I remember a little cartoon created around that time with this little bear wearing a shirt that said "Sierra Fan" on it, standing next to a huge elephant wearing a blanket that says "Sierra" on it. There's tiny mouse with the words "Tierra Entertainment" on it eating the elephant's droppings, and the bear is furiously pointing at the mouse, screaming "KILL!", while the elephant looks completely oblivious to everything and is asking the bear to be quiet.
However, as time went by, people became more and more accepting of fan remakes, and now nearly every Sierra fangame-in-progress is a remake. Back when AGDI's KQ1 remake came out, most of us were desperate for a King's Quest IX or a Space Quest 7 or a Larry 8. A few fan teams tried to make these sequels realities, but for the most part, these ended in failure. In the years that followed, there were times when the news of a possible franchise revival hit the Net, and the first couple of times this happened, we got all excited, hoping that this was what we'd been waiting for. However, as time dragged on and titles such as Leisure Suit Larry: Magnum Cum Laude and the KQ and SQ games that Escape Factory was planning before they were both canceled, a lot of us became increasingly wary of official games and began to look to fangames more and more.
It's actually a little ironic -- ten years ago, I suspect the majority of us would have been bouncing off the walls with excitement if a company like Telltale Games had announced a KQ reboot. We were pretty desperate back then and would have taken a sequel in any form, as long as it was a pure adventure game. Now that an official KQ game has been announced, however, many people are treating it almost as negatively as fangames were treated back in 2000.
Though I may have warmed to the idea of a KQ reboot, I'm still pretty apprehensive. Though I have enjoyed the few games from Telltale that I've played so far, I'm still not completely sold on the idea of them doing a KQ reboot. I really don't like the episodic format, but I'm willing to set my feelings toward it aside. If this reboot at least attempts to be as challenging as the original games, I'd probably be satisfied. A easy/medium/hard difficulty setting would be a fair compromise. Also, Telltale's games are almost the complete opposite of what the classic KQ games are like (big story, few puzzles vs. minimal story, many puzzles), so I'm not sure what sort of approach they're going to take.
Still, when it comes to adventure games, beggars can't be choosers. And look at it this way: Not only do we have the promise of a new KQ game after more than ten years since the last official release, but it's being developed by a relatively well-off company that actually specializes in adventure games. How many companies today can make that kind of claim?
I actually don't remember if I even had the meat at that point. I mainly remember that I used the pie only because it came back to bite me in the butt several hours later when I had to reload an old save replay a large chunk of the game. (yeah, yeah, I mad)
The only reason I knew about the bridle was because my parents warned me about it beforehand, and even as a kid I thought it seemed like a very strange place to put such an important item. But honestly, I would be okay with it being hidden and easy to miss if it weren't for the fact that you get one chance to visit that island and then you're screwed unless you feel like reloading and redoing everything. That's the point where it goes from being challenging to being frustrating, IMO. That's my beef with the dead ends in KQ- more than anything, it feels like the developers tried to make them non-linear but not account for the fact that this would mean some players would go wildly off into other directions. I feel like it defeats the purpose of exploration if you're just going to punish the player for not going in an intended order. Does that make any sense?
All in all I think this is an 'agree to disagree' thing here. Challenge is fun, but when I feel like a game is punishing me for not doing what the developer intended me to do, I don't find that challenging or fun.
But it's incredibly frustrating to miss something like that, continue playing, and find out much later that you can't progress without it. Yeah, you can reload an older save, but then you have to work your way back to where you got stuck instead of solving new puzzles. Having that location available would alleviate all of that.
I actually don't consider Telltale to be a developer of adventure games anymore. Rather a developer of "cinematic story games" instead.
Yeah, I don't see why they couldn't have had you be able to be sucked by the whale more than one time and be able to go to the island again that way.
I certainly don't disagree with that.
Every single game punishes you if you don't do what the creators intended you to do. For example Marty giving you the same boring hint-line about Trixie every time you enter a certain place. Really that was cruel and unusual punishment.
You have to so far back? Seriously? I can play through the whole game with all of the points in about 30-40 minutes.
The problem with this in current games is that with the amount of video/dialog it takes way longer to play through things that you have already done. I would go insane playing through something that I already did in any of the current telltale games. The time you play is about 1/4 of the time you are "playing."
Most of the "dead ends" you mentioned either only affect the long ending of the game (ie, you can still complete the short ending even if you miss those things), or happen very soon before the point that it affects, so you should be able to restore a game and not have to replay too far.
Not befriending Jollo, getting the wrong lamp, not getting the gold coins, and not giving the knife to Cassima are all way before you find out. Thats 4 MAJOR dead ends. As for you can still play the short version, not really true once you get past the deciding point. You could say choosing the wrong path is a dead end if you messed up previously.
My point is that dead ends can exist in a great game. I don't see why people would defend dead ends in one game and not another. Perhaps there are more in KQV, but none of them are so awful that you have to replay the whole game, and even if you did, it really doesn't take long to play through it again when you know what to do.
Hi Chucklas, for accuracy's sake I just wanted to mention that many of the examples you listed are not true dead-ends:
If you do not befriend Jollo early in the game then he doesn't help you switch the lamp. Dead end (for sure in the short path, I can't recall in the long one). This one you have to go way back to fix (and you don't find out until the end).
You do NOT have to befriend Jollo in either the short path OR the long path. As you correctly stated, Jollo helps you acquire Shamir's lamp. But you do not need the lamp in order to beat the game, as you can use the mint leaves (from the cave on the Sacred Mountain) to dispatch of the genie. Of course you have to do either one of the two (befriend Jollo or get the mint leaves), but the mint leaves are obtainable at any point in the game prior to entering the castle.
If you trade for the wrong lamp. Dead end.
See above: the lamp isn't needed to beat the game.
You don't get the gold coins in the catacombs...no way to cross the river styx. Dead end.
This is 100% true, but I just wanted to say that you CAN re-enter the catacombs after rescuing Lady Celeste in case you missed anything the first time through (the coins or the shield). Plus the catacombs are completely safe after the minotaur is defeated, which makes re-exploration much less painful.
You don't take the hole in the wall or the brick to the catacombs...dead end.
This is also true, but if Alexander is not prepared for the catacombs he says so when first talking to Lord Azure and Lady Ariel (and then the player's given the opportunity to get whatever else he may need). Theoretically you can re-do the scene with additonal inventory items until Alex says he's ready to go, upon which you're taken directly to the catacombs.
You don't get the shield from the catacombs...dead end.
See above: you are allowed to re-enter and re-explore the catacombs at your leisure after dispatching the minotaur. Unlike the coins on the Isle of the Dead, this is not a dead-end since you can get the shield at any time for the puzzle on the Isle of the Beast (i.e. you're never trapped on the Isle of the Beast like you are in the Realm of the Dead).
You don't play the bones to get the key in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is true, although I think playing the bones and picking up the key is an obvious thing to do.
You don't pick up the gauntlet to challenge death in the realm of the dead...dead end.
This is also true, but the gauntlet scene is just a few screens before, so I don't think it's that big of a setback.
You don't bring the tinderbox to the catacombs. Dead end.
Also true, but see above regarding Alex's intuition as to whether he's prepared.
You don't send the dagger to cassima...dead end.
Also true, but she mentions wanting a weapon to defend herself so many times hehe.
In my opinion King's Quest VI is an awesome, LOGICAL masterpiece of a game, real dead-ends and all. I just wanted to clear up some misinformation, especially regarding Jollo, the genie, and the catacombs.
Fair enough. I have not played the game in years, I was going off memory. The point is, they exist. The game is still good. As for giving hints as to what to do, thats all fine, but that doesn't mean you can
t get caught in that situation. When you suggest to save and do it again and again until he says that he is ready, someone playing the game for the first time has no way of knowing that he will say anything different if he had all of the items. Also isn't this the same problem as a dead end...if you don't have what you need you have to restore and try again.
I agree with you regarding the catacombs. I apologize if my post came off as a bit harsh. It's just that I think King's Quest VI is quite possibly the most perfect adventure game ever made, so I get a little defensive regarding the dead-ends haha. Justadventure.com's review of KQVI criticized the "dead-end" with Jollo and the lamp, and I actually wrote into the editor years ago to point out the error. The editor wrote back saying that the review would be fixed, but sadly I don't think it was ever done.
I also get really heated about King's Quest V, as it's my favorite game of all time. People always seem to bring up all the dead-ends (and I must admit there are quite a few), but to tell you the truth never did I once get stuck (you don't get any points for eating the pie for crying out loud -- isn't that a dead give-away?). And I played it when I was seven years old without any hints of any kind.
"Gold Rush" was another adventure that was also fair in the sense that when you leave Brooklyn, the game will let you know if you forgot something important. It won't tell you what, of course, and it certainly won't tell you that something random is hidden in some random floorboards. And of course, you're on a timer so you don't have a lot of time to explore. But the game still watches out for you.
"I LOVE [the IP]!!! ITS ALL I LIVE FOR!!! TELLTALE UR GOING TO SCREW THIS UP I'LL CUT U!!!!!"
That doesn't help anyone. Constructive suggestions are good, especially with Telltale, because they really do listen (as they've demonstrated time and time again), but being CAPTAIN RAGE about things doesn't.
And jumping to the other topic - for the people who are FOR dead-ends. Not Sierra, but all I can think of is the damn bonding plant in Return to Zork. It would die in the beginning of the game, and you'd be all life-is-good and happy and singing for joy as you progressed through the game, until you realized you needed to save it 3 WEEKS AGO. THAT is an excuse to go captain rage. I personally don't want that in a game.
This one was just a basic maze. If you only turn say right everytime, you will easily get out. It works everytime, even in almost any maze. Always turn the same direction and you will have no trouble.
I've been following the AGDI KQ3 Redux release. A few people have occasionally asked for a walkthrough to be posted. The team's response has been, basically, "if you're having trouble solving the puzzles, you're not the intended audience for this game."
Or, to quote MusicallyInspired, responding to one rather... vocal... petitioner:
I don't know how Telltale will deal with this "I love a challenge, so I don't want a KQ game to cater to less experienced adventure gamers" mentality. But it means that you guys are going to have one hell of a job cut out for you.
That particular person was being incredibly rude and was demanding answers to nearly every single puzzle because he couldn't figure them out after sitting on them for about a maximum of 2 minutes. He was eventually banned from the forums for badmouthing the designers for making such a "stupid hard game." The reason he was so upset was that he used a walkthrough for the original game and he thought he already knew all the puzzles. When he discovered all the changes we'd made he was furious that he couldn't figure them out from his past cheating experiences.
He's since been unbanned and become a lot more civil, though.
That is quite a bold statement. While it is true that the older KQ games were a lot harder than the later ones, part of the reason for that is the parser system in the game, as well as being made in the early '80s, an time where games were simple, yet hard as hell.
I think TT has to find a solid ground here to try and cater to both old and new gamers. From a business standpoint, it is unrealistic to make a game as hard as the older King's Quest w/o any hint system or difficulty meter to please the older gamers.
edit
I'm on a cellphone.. Excuse the typos.
Um...context???
You've blatantly taken that quote from MusicallyInspired out of context to try and paint this picture of AGDI as pretentious assholes out to screw over the more "casual" fans.
As MI just said above, that particular poster was blatantly trolling the AGDI team on their website. He got banned, and then brought his shitty attitude over to the Infamous Adventures forums where he really started to piss people off. MI's quote came after a barrage of posts from the guy rudely demanding solutions and bashing AGDI for making such hard, unsolvable puzzle changes to their Redux version of the game.
I do wonder how many KQ fans, given the choice, wouldn't have opted to grant the KQ rights to AGDI, who clearly DO make games for the old-school Sierra fan, instead of Telltale.
Cheers, guys!
Took me less than a nano-second to conclude my choice would be AGDI over Telltale. And I'm not even as much of an old-school KQ fan as the rest of you here are.
TTG's experience in bringing in casual gamers (ie. more sales) and possibly their experience in doing console and iOS versions (ie. more sales) is probably exactly what appealed to Activision, moreso than AGDI's track record on pleasing the fans and maintaining the integrity of the IP.
I agree that AGDI seems stunned that TT gotten the license over them. I think Activision went with TT over them because TT has more games out. Honestly, I am not certain if AGDI can handle a KQ game from scratch. Making a fan remake of some sort is one thing, but hiring writers, producers, and graphic artist to make a KQ game with the same quality of a professional game would be difficult. I understand a lot of ppl like the AGDI games. I like their games too. Like all fan-made stuff, the quality is good, but has to be better for a retail title.
I would choose TT over AGDI and no, I am not a TT fanboy. The reason being is that I have seen a lot of fan projects -whether it is action figures or fanfiction - get praised and ending up doing things commerically. The end product tends to be in the same quality as the fanwork and not a commercial product.
I'm sorry Telltale. I love ToMI and Sam & Max very much, but they're not Sierra games- and I'm not sure that you won't succumb to appeasing the nooby masses at the expense of sacrificing respect for source material.
At least if the Sierra franchises had gone to an openly hostile towards fangames company like Square Enix you'd know where you stand. I'm pretty sure Himalaya are not the first or last small company to get burnt dealing with Activision - I rather suspect at least one more small going concern is going to find out that trying to work with them isn't likely to be to their benefit...
There's also a huge difference between pixel art and fully hand drawn art a la Curse of Monkey Island etc. Just because someone can do one well doesn't automatically mean they can do the other. Not to mention that 2D to 3D is an entirely different beast altogether, and I am fairly certain Activision is of the opinion that 3D > 2D. It makes sense that they would choose a developer who primarily deals in 3D original stories that are sold for profit vs. one who makes 2D remakes for free, regardless of the perceived difference in quality or ability to remain true to the franchise (which is something that Telltale has also done very well with in the past).
tl;dr: Marketplace realities, etc.
http://adventuregamers.com/gallery.php?id=1895
And 3D isn't necessarily the better choice. 2D is a lot more portable, for instance, than 3D. I mean, the gap is closing with the increase in technological advancements on portable devices, but still...
I definitely think you have some issues when you scale down artwork into 320x200. It almost always tends to get fuzzy and usually requires touching up to correct those issues. I noticed a fair amount of fuzziness in KQ3 Redux, despite the great quality of the paintings. We've avoided this on KOS by working natively in 320x200 during the painting process of each screen.