Exclusivity over the license.
Just because I'd like to see (one of) the AGDI guys stop their whining, even though it's very unlikely to be answered here...
Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?
Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Bt
I have read all his comments on the board and from the sounds of it, he seems rather upset that TT has the license; he compared TTG getting license with Pepsi making toothpaste. However, he wants us to tell Activision on how we feel about it without slander TT. Just that it seems that he wants other companies or people who understands King's Quest to make the games since they understand the series more. That is what I have gotten from the guy's comments
I see where he is comming from. Him and his company has helped revived interest in the series by making fan sequels. He is probably upset that Activision didn't come to his team, and instead came to TTG, a company who is known to make sequels of games from a revival company. Guess it is like having coke making pepsi products.
I'm fan of the King's Quest and own legal copies of all 8 games and I have never heard about these guys, although I have heard about that other fan group who are making a fan sequel. So at least in my case it was TTG's announcement which revived my interest towards the series. Personally I trust that TTG can handle this job better than some amateur group. TTG has made some of the best adventure games of the recent years, only issue I have with their games is that those are easier than old Sierra adventures (but then again difficult adventure games are rarity these days).
Not only did AGDI's remakes encourage me to look for other King's Quest remakes, but they also encouraged me to look for other adventure games. That's how I came across Just Adventure, and now I often check their list of upcoming releases, previews and reviews to see if there are any games I want to play. I bought a few games that were listed like Fairy Tale About Father Frost, Ivan and Nastya http://justadventure.com/reviews/Father_Frost/FatherFrost.shtm, Wanted: A Wild Western Adventure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjMlK6IqwY, and Everlight: Magic and Power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCXlBhS2zk. When I saw the news that Telltale was making a game based on the Bone graphic novels from Jeff Smith, I wanted to try it because I had fun reading one of the novels at Barnes and Noble. I played the demo and then I bought the full version. I've also bought Wallace and Gromit and Tales of Monkey Island.
Overall, if it weren't for AGDI's King's Quest remakes, I wouldn't be here on the Telltale Games Forums, and I also wouldn't have gotten into the adventure gaming genre.
That said, I do find it rather puzzling that Telltale was entrusted with the King's Quest license, considering how well AGDI handled the license, while Telltale has no previous history with it. That said, maybe this would help motivate Himalaya to begin one-upping Telltale.
My bad. I meant fan remakes, not fan sequels. Both AGD and the TSL group started on their fan games around the same time. I agree that TTG can handle a better than AGD, though AGD is one of the main reasons why Kq is still revalant today, and were the group who inspired other fan groups to make Sierra fan remakes.
even though AGD is now a commercial studio, their work is that of an indy studio, no offense. The Kq remakes are fine as fan games, but I am iffy of seeing an official sequel from them unless they hire a professional writer for the story.
I think Telltale was chosen over AGD because of studio size and experience. While it is true that AGDI is now a commercial company, the studio is made up of at least six people whereas TTG has more than maybe 20 for a project. AGDi, imo, is an Indy studio with the programmers also doing the art and storyline. TTG has programmers, artists, and writers. TTG has a better track record in releasing games in a timely manner since they have a bigger budget. The Kq series was a big property during its prime, so it would be more appropriate to give the license to a company that has more professional experience making commercial games. Perhaps Activision is not certain if a full fledge Kq game would sell, so they probably give it to a company who makes episodic games to test the waters.
I love Infamous Adventures
While I do still love Telltale, each and every amateur group, even the mediocre ones, makes games that feel a lot more like Sierra than anything Telltale's ever made.
Agreed. While AGDI only made one professional game so far, it didn't left a mark like their fan games have made.
Um...I don't work for Telltale or Activision, so for all I know maybe there really is such a deal, but why would a new King's Quest game give Telltale the license to every other Sierra property?
We didn't see any other LucasArts properties getting revived after Tales, because, well...Telltale only had the license to do Monkey Island.
The difference is that Lucasarts is an active company and Activision effectively killed their Sierra division after the merger. So the speculation would be that Activision might have licensed multiple franchises to TTG if they were interested.
Quoted for truth. And I'm not just saying that because I'm in one of those groups.
Seriously though, anyone who isn't impressed by AGDI's just-released KQIII Redux is no fan of King's Quest. The game is fucking fantastic. Probably the best fan product out there.
And no, I'm not on the AGDI team.
I think we all have to wait and see in what TTG has in store for King's Quest. Maybe they'll hire ppl who worked on sierra games or will try their best to make the games like Sierra of old.
AGDI games are impressive especially Quest for Glory 2, but they are remakes. I wonder if they or TTG can make a King's Quest game that is true to the series.
True. I didn't mention KQ2 since honestly, the overhauled story seemed too convoluted. Having it as a fangame is okay, but having it as a retail game might alienate those who wanted to see something more polished in a retail game.
It's bit harsh thing to say that people who aren't impressed by it aren't true fans of King's Quest. Personally I'm not friend of fan games (or any other fan fiction), but I don't mind if other people love those games. However when people start claiming that people who love the original King's Quest games and don't want to see anything changed aren't true fans, then I'm starting to get bit annoyed.
I was just pointing out the fact that they're not all just silly remakes that don't deserve attention. My point was that KQ2+ is like a brand new game rather than a simple remake.
Yes, it's definitely faster and easier to make low-res sprites and animation (a BIG detriment to higher-res games!) and background art. Generally, the higher the resolution you got the more animation frames you have to have to make things look smooth and natural. KQ3Redux would have taken us 16 years instead of 8 if we were working in hi res!
Have you checked the setup program? With the right options you can get the resolution up to 1280x800. High enough?
I wouldn't say it's JUST for nostalgia's sake.
There is a real beauty, in my opinion, to those so-called "archaic" 320x200 screens. Not only is it an interesting artistic challenge to make the most with the low resolution (there are techniques you develop as an artist that you simply wouldn't use in higher res) but the whole pixelated look is really an aesthetic choice. We choose that resolution because yeah, that's what the golden age games looked like, but also because we still think it looks great even today. People don't make games like that anymore, so if we want a game in that particular style, and we have the abilities, we may as well try to make it ourselves.
The games by AGDI and IA in particular are labors of love, intended to stick as close to the feel of the originals as possible, while slightly updating them visually or with a few new puzzles/fleshed out characters to make them feel fresh again. Compared to TSL, which threw the feel of the originals out the window, but updated the LOOK to something more contemporary, I'd choose those "archaic" 320x200 games any day of the week.
Fair enough. I'm sorry.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to come off as a graphics whore. I like '90s-style VGA pixel art and the low-res scanned hand-painted backgrounds, and I like the '80s-style blocky 16-color widepixel artwork of the originals too. Both looked absolutely beautiful not just given the limitations of the technology of the time but also in their own right. I was just asking why you would go for a low-res look, when generally the point of a remake is to modernize an old game using the most current technical resources that didn't exist when the original was made. Artist preference is, of course, a legitimate reason.
But why get rid of the parser? I really, really loved the old parser-driven games. When the genre switched over to point-and-click interaction, it destroyed a lot of the interactivity and the sense that you could do anything you wanted. Of course, Sierra's parsers didn't always understand you, and they weren't as sophisticated as Infocom's. You'd think that if you were going to remake a game that had a somewhat simplistic parser, though, you'd want to remake it with a more sophisticated one. Instead they replaced the parser with a '90s-style point-and-click icon bar.
Of course, artistic preference is a legitimate reason to do that too. But when you do both, when you model both the graphics and the gameplay after the later games, then it feels like you're more interested in staying true to KQ5 and KQ6 than KQ3.
At IA, we were actually throwing around the idea of having both a parser and P&C interface for SQ2, but we decided against it for the same reason. It's just too much work when only a fraction of the audience would actually use it.
The Quest for Glory II remake offered a parser for dialogues, which allowed me to more quickly access specific topics or ones that are not apparent. That was definately enjoyable for me, and I liked how the dialogue trees offered user-friendliness as well. I am of the belief that while it would take more work to pull off, offering Combo Parsers in adventure games would be a worthy goal in advancing the gameplay and atmosphere.
Is it really the case that no one actually wants Parsers? That is hard to say because we don't have much in the way of commercial adventure games that actually try it, in my opinion. This is probably a good place for independent game developers to fill up, since where there is a void in a market, there is opportunity.
However, there is also going to be potential customers who are not satisfied with that level of gameplay. Someone who taps into other forms of adventure games would access a source of money that is unavailable to P&C adventure game developers. That is how small and independent companies get started - they exploit things that are too 'risky' for more established companies, and would establish a foothold in their chosen niche.
People once thought the adventure gaming genre was dead, due to the overabundance of shooters and the decline of the genre when DOOM was released. This has been proven untrue with the advent of digital distribution and the internet, which allows people to more easily find and purchase niche products. Observe the Dwarf Fortress roguelike, which has garnered over $2,000 dollars in donations during January, and $9,000 during the December of 2010. That is a fair bit of dough received for something that is free.
While most independent games admittedly wouldn't be so successful, it still means that there are openings and opportunities for Independents to profit from what bigger companies wouldn't dare to do.
King's Quest 3 redux is starting to grow on me. The only AGDI title I didn't enjoy playing was KQ2+. However, both QG2 and KQ3 are fun. Perhaps it is because AGDI stuck with the main story and added new content that was present in the manual or Greek mythology,
I like how they added the journal entries from the previous slave boy.
In what adventure-games? [maybe LSL7?]