Personally, I think KQ6 did a great job of striking that balance between childish and adult. It was fun yet engaging at the same time. The Kings Quest series is far and away my favorite of all time and KQ6 is at the top of the list for exactly that reason. Too often games are either too mindless or too serious.
I have to admit though, that my second favorite series is Gabriel Knight. I don't think they ever really recaptured the magic of the first game, but they had a fantastic engaging story.
I guess it's really the intrigue / fantasy story element that I love. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I want a mindless game I play things other than adventure games.
It's interesting that at least twice as many people liked KQ8 over KQ7...
According to whom?
It's interesting to hear you say that when the vast majority of people (including Paw) seem to think that, while MoE was decent in its own right, it doesn't come close to the feel of what a canon KQ game should be. At best, it's the black sheep of the series. At worst, it should be called Mask of Eternity and have "King's Quest" removed from the title. MoE doesn't even have Josh Mandel voicing King Graham, and even the AGDI and IA remakes recruited him. For crying out loud, Paw even points out how the 3D flythrough of AGDI's remakes look more recognizable as King's Quest than MoE's Daventry does.
KQ7, while having cartoon-style animation and more kid-style humor (waits for Dashing to rant about CMI's style versus MI2), has an art style that's as timeless as Curse of Monkey Island, and doesn't include combat. If one were to replace Retry-upon-death with Save/Restore and the one-click cursor with KQ5/6's cursor options, KQ7 wouldn't have nearly as many nay-sayers.
And I actually think the quality of art and animation in KQ7 is rather sloppy and poor. And I've heard opinions from many artists and animators that agree with me. Nothing like CMI which was extremely well done. Just because they're both exaggerated and cartoony doesn't make them both automatically have the same "timeless" art style. I always thought the animations in KQ7 were rather clumsy and inconsistent in that they were disproportionate from moment to moment at a time. Actually, I think the same for Torin's Passage. Sierra didn't do that as well as LucasArts did. LucasArts nailed that style long before the SVGA era.
And I actually think the quality of art and animation in KQ7 is rather sloppy and poor. And I've heard opinions from many artists and animators that agree with me. Nothing like CMI which was extremely well done. Just because they're both exaggerated and cartoony doesn't make them both automatically have the same "timeless" art style. I always thought the animations in KQ7 were rather clumsy and inconsistent in that they were disproportionate from moment to moment at a time. Actually, I think the same for Torin's Passage. Sierra didn't do that as well as LucasArts did. LucasArts nailed that style long before the SVGA era.
You have to remember though, there is a three year gap between KQ7 and CMI. Three years is a long time, technologically speaking.
A better comparison, time wise, would be Larry 7 and CMI, as Love for Sail came out in '96 and CMI came out in '97.
3 years or no, LucasArts were still miles ahead of Sierra in the quality department of that style of animation. They'd perfected it since Day of the Tentacle.
KQ 7 still looks better than KQ8. Why? Because old 3D games were horrible. Even back in the day. Back then I used to get headaches from those games and nothing ever changed for those games.
If you show me a screenshot of KQ7 I would instantly know where that is at. Show me one on MoE and chances are it's a generically textured blob of ugly that could be everywhere.
KQ 7 still looks better than KQ8. Why? Because old 3D games were horrible. Even back in the day. Back then I used to get headaches from those games and nothing ever changed for those games.
If you show me a screenshot of KQ7 I would instantly know where that is at. Show me one on MoE and chances are it's a generically textured blob of ugly that could be everywhere.
Personally I think retro 3D graphics ala Doom or Quake or KQ8 have a quaint (as one friend put it), nostalgic sort of quality to them.
Consider these screenshots from an early version of KQ8:
I agree that old 3D can be ugly and that KQ7 in a lot of ways looks better than MOE...yet I agree with Anakin's point as well. Sometimes old 3D can be as charming as an ancient AGI 160x200 blocky sprite game.
I agree that old 3D can be ugly and that KQ7 in a lot of ways looks better than MOE...yet I agree with Anakin's point as well. Sometimes old 3D can be as charming as an ancient AGI 160x200 blocky sprite game.
My feeling is that from KQ1-7, the graphics and sound were being pushed forward into becoming better and better as the series progressed, KQ7's (and KQ5's) flaws not withstanding. Then we get MoE, which graphically felt like a large step backward visually. Sure, it was 3D, but 3D technology was in its near-infancy at the time. We go from nice, quality 2D visuals to a large blocky, clumsy and ugly 3D style.
*sigh* My real beef with MoE is that it looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone, and by the time MoE came out there were already 3 Tomb Raider games. So, where once King's Quest was, in my mind, a contender against Monkey Island as the best adventure game series of all time--now Mask of Eternity is pitting itself against the popularity of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider? Monkey Island and Tomb Raider are such disparate entities that... well, I don't even know where to begin. Mask of Eternity feels more like a a spin-off than a core series title and should have only been treated as such.
...Now that I think about it, Might and Magic 6: Mandate of Heaven also came out the same year MoE did (actually 8 months earlier), MM6 was the first fully 3D title of its series, and it was head and shoulders better in visual quality, gameplay and story than MoE could have ever dreamed of being.
So now instead of comparing King's Quest to Monkey Island--from the first screenshot I ever saw of MoE, I'm instead comparing it to Might & Magic and Tomb Raider. Why?!? Why should I even be made to compare these series? They shouldn't even be in the same category.
That brings us back to the debate on if King's Quest should have tried evolving into a more action/rpg-oriented game with some classic puzzle solving elements which was the whole point.
Also, initially in all the pre-release promo shots and videos it was advertised as Mask of Eternity and the subtitle was "from the King's Quest universe." I bet you any money the suits wanted a great big King's Quest logo on there so that it would sell more.
Also, initially in all the pre-release promo shots and videos it was advertised as Mask of Eternity and the subtitle was "from the King's Quest universe." I bet you any money the suits wanted a great big King's Quest logo on there so that it would sell more.
Some of the early KQ7 promo's also left off "King's Quest" from the title as well. I'm not sure how we should look at 'promotional' material exactly.
Actually it was only one promo/video included in Roberta William's Anthology that had the "Mask of Eternity: From the world of King's Quest promo screen. The Fall 1996 issue of Interaction, the first issue to include the ingame shots, that came out about a month later, already was calling it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
The suits in 1996 included Ken Williams! Ken Williams was one of the ones calling it King's Quest 8, or King's Quest: Mask of Eternity. He was also seemingly one of the biggest advocates of getting rid of adventure game genre at that time, or turning the games into something new, that would be 'more successful'. Based on his interviews between 1995 - 1996, before he left Sierra.
*sigh* My real beef with MoE is that it looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone, and by the time MoE came out there were already 3 Tomb Raider games. So, where once King's Quest was, in my mind, a contender against Monkey Island as the best adventure game series of all time--now Mask of Eternity is pitting itself against the popularity of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider? Monkey Island and Tomb Raider are such disparate entities that... well, I don't even know where to begin. Mask of Eternity feels more like a a spin-off than a core series title and should have only been treated as such
Reviews at the time claim that visually, MOE was played with a Voodoo card, that the game actually had some technical and visual improvements over tomb raider. Some of it had to do with animation, and animation morphing technology, and lyp-synching technology included in the game.
Also the earliest Tomb Raider games, the first 2, didn't initially have 3D accelerator support. There were also more 'polygons' per each character in MOE over Tomb Raider II. Which was also something reviews pointed out. But only compared graphics, not really gameplay.
Mask of Eternity came out about the same time as Tomb Raider 3. But no reviewer really ever compared them, since the gameplay is quite a bit different. As far as I know Tomb Raider 3 just uses the Tomb Raider II engine, but with addition of 3D accellerator support. So the character models were largely just as blocky as in TR2 (fewer polygons than MOE).
This is a shot from Tomb Raider II;
Here is a shot from Tomb Raider III (which as far as I know uses an unmodified Tomb Raider II engine, but added 3d Accellerator support)
One thing I can say, is that Sierra did a little better job with the texture mapping, and levels looked a little better constructed than in the Tomb Raider games. The sprites matched up with nearby sprites a little bit better. Notice the vines textures in the Tomb Raider II shots for example, look noticeably disconnected (jarringly so). There are definitely alot more noticeable lines between textures in Tomb Raider over KQ8. The textures were largey blurry/blobby masses and quite undefined. Mask of Eternity actually had hi-def (for the time) textures, most were well defined (again only accessible if you played the game on a 3DFX Voodoo card).
Here is an image of the east tower played with 3DFX emulator (showing hi-def textures);
Here is an images of Connor in KQ8, with his 'hi-res' leather armor (more defined than Lara's textures). Still blocky by today's standards, but remember still had more polygons than Lara Croft had, was technologically superior at the time. Another thing to remember, is that there were more animations included for Connor than Lara. Though many of those animations are only used in in-engine cutscenes.
No seriously when it came to graphics most reviewers agreed that KQ8 was one of the best looking games when it came out. Better looking than most other 3D games out there. Not surprising since Sierra was winning 3D awards for the engine the game was based upon (3Space) at the time.
Note: Although I'd say Lara has better hair!
Now that I think about it, Might and Magic 6: Mandate of Heaven also came out the same year MoE did (actually 8 months earlier), MM6 was the first fully 3D title of its series, and it was head and shoulders better in visual quality, gameplay and story than MoE could have ever dreamed of being.
Actually it isn't full 3d, all the NPC and enemy sprites are 2D much like the previous Might and Magic games, but pushed into SVGA. It has more in common with Betrayal of Antara, vs. Betrayal at Krondor visually.
Frankly it is no where near the same quality as KQ8's visuals technologically.
One thing to keep in mind about Tomb Raider gameplay is that the levels are largely claustrophobic, and linear tunnels. There are designed with alot of platforming (jumping, rope swings, hand climbing, etc) in mind. Jumping makes up a good 60% of the game. These are all real-time jumping, you could over jump or miss a jump. Tomb Raider 3 added some more open ended vehicular levels (but these offer a largely different style of gameplay than anything in MOE). She could also swim. The combat in the game was real time, while she would automatically target enemies, you had to face the enemies to target them. You fired guns using a 'firing key'. This was a pure action combat system. A true TR clone was the fairly successful, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine (which maintained most of the same gameplay styles).
There is actually very little TR type platforming in KQ8. Jumping is largely pointless except in a couple of spots . There are very few spots with real-time jumping, the main example is a series of platforms in a lava lake in the Barren Region. Generally you can walk around to most places, or make a single jump between to cross a divide, with a rather large landing zone on the other side (jumping onto the mausoleum in Daventry for example). There is automatic jumping sequence for a couple of puzzles, that were similar to a puzzle design from Torin's Passage (and other earlier adventure games). You cannot actually overjump or underjump, as the game automatically makes you jump to the next platform of your choosing.
In MOE the levels are generally flat, large and open ended areas to explore. There is no hand climbing. The only climbing is limited to using the rope and hook. He does have a back flip (for slightly higher jump). So his actual athletic abilities are quite limited compared to Lara Croft. I'd say jumping takes up not much more than 2% of the gameplay, five at that most.
Connor cannot swim.
Combat in MOE took its inspiration more from Diablo-style point and click battle, or the later Quest for Glory games. Just click on an enemy until it dies. So there is a certain aspect of 'turn-based' combat in the game. It's very slow paced, and not very action-packed.
One thing to keep in mind about Tomb Raider gameplay is that the levels are largely claustrophobic, and linear tunnels.
I don't think so. Claustrophobic is just about the last word I would use to describe Tomb Raider. And only a very few levels from the first four Tomb Raider games could accurately be described as "tunnels". The layouts of most levels were not linear at all, and some were quite intricate, with criss-crossing paths and multiple choices for which path to take first, not knowing where it would end up and when you'd get back to exploring the other paths. Also, because the gameplay was focused on jumping and other ambulatory challenges, you have to take vertical space into account -- I remember some levels, both indoor and outdoor ones, that were vertically huge. (I think recent TRs are more linear than the earlier ones, especially Legend and even Anniversary, in which quite a few levels are pretty much on a single path and the visual clues for how to get from point A to point B are more obvious.)
I don't think it's quite fair to say that Mask of Eternity "looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone", anyway. It seems clear it was trying to be something different, with quests and NPC dialogs, rather than platforming, along with the combat. I see some truth, though, in Chyron8472's general point that MOE was less unique (in the combined effect of graphics, art style, gameplay, etc.) as a 3D third-person action-adventure game than the earlier KQs were in the realm of 2D adventures. But that might say more about the genres than it does about the games themselves, as the same could probably be said of, for instance, Infernal Machine and Fate of Atlantis.
I don't think so. Claustrophobic is just about the last word I would use to describe Tomb Raider. And only a very few levels from the first four Tomb Raider games could accurately be described as "tunnels". The layouts of most levels were not linear at all, and some were quite intricate, with criss-crossing paths and multiple choices for which path to take first, not knowing where it would end up and when you'd get back to exploring the other paths. Also, because the gameplay was focused on jumping and other ambulatory challenges, you have to take vertical space into account -- I remember some levels, both indoor and outdoor ones, that were vertically huge. (I think recent TRs are more linear than the earlier ones, especially Legend and even Anniversary, in which quite a few levels are pretty much on a single path and the visual clues for how to get from point A to point B are more obvious.)
I don't think it's quite fair to say that Mask of Eternity "looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone", anyway. It seems clear it was trying to be something different, with quests and NPC dialogs, rather than platforming, along with the combat. I see some truth, though, in Chyron8472's general point that MOE was less unique (in the combined effect of graphics, art style, gameplay, etc.) as a 3D third-person action-adventure game than the earlier KQs were in the realm of 2D adventures. But that might say more about the genres than it does about the games themselves, as the same could probably be said of, for instance, Infernal Machine and Fate of Atlantis.
Well, bear in mind that, for example, KQ5 wasn't the first 256 color, Point 'N Click Adventure game. It was the first KQ like that. But if I recall correctly, one of LucasArt's games beat Roberta/KQ to the punch as far as that goes.
KQ6 was largely the same graphically as KQ5 and I don't know what the main competition in 1992 was--What were some other big Adventure game titles from 1992?
KQ7 had Roberta doing a cartoony style, and if you read her letter to Sierra, she bases the interface off a mix of games she'd recently played, to make it more accessible for the growing number of computer owners. There was one game in particular she kept mentioning--Baggins would know.
It's not like Sierra always led in every aspect. And Roberta did plan on having KQ8 be 3D as early as 1994. As early as late 1996 it already had a similar look to the final game. So I wouldn't call it a clone. It's a hybrid really. I don't consider it a Quake-clone action game, or a Diablo-clone RPG. It's really a wonderful hybrid of different styles, made with the wonderful talent of Roberta and Sierra. It deserved the KQ moniker, IMO.
I don't think so. Claustrophobic is just about the last word I would use to describe Tomb Raider. And only a very few levels from the first four Tomb Raider games could accurately be described as "tunnels". The layouts of most levels were not linear at all, and some were quite intricate, with criss-crossing paths and multiple choices for which path to take first, not knowing where it would end up and when you'd get back to exploring the other paths. Also, because the gameplay was focused on jumping and other ambulatory challenges, you have to take vertical space into account -- I remember some levels, both indoor and outdoor ones, that were vertically huge. (I think recent TRs are more linear than the earlier ones, especially Legend and even Anniversary, in which quite a few levels are pretty much on a single path and the visual clues for how to get from point A to point B are more obvious.)
Well, I'll take your word for it. What little I played seemed to be practically indoors, or in box canyons. But regardless, the gameplay of Tomb Raider and Infernal Machine is very different than MOE, in that both are based on jumping/jump climbing/rope swinging making up quite a bit of the gameplay. Whereas in MOE, jumping is very limited.
I have played Infernal Machine, and while there are some open ended areas, I always felt many of the levels seemed fairly linear, especially once you get into the temples, caves, canyons or whatever. There was 'backtracking' as some tunnels would lead you back to a central area via a circular path, but in general you were pushed in a single direction through the levels.
Maybe TR was less linear than Infernal Machine?
particular she kept mentioning--Baggins would know.
Legend of Kyrandia which was also made around the time of KQ5.
It's not like Sierra always led in every aspect. And Roberta did plan on having KQ8 be 3D as early as 1994. As early as late 1996 it already had a similar look to the final game. So I wouldn't call it a clone. It's a hybrid really. I don't consider it a Quake-clone action game, or a Diablo-clone RPG. It's really a wonderful hybrid of different styles, made with the wonderful talent of Roberta and Sierra. It deserved the KQ moniker, IMO.
I think its biggest weakness was it was a bit too ambitious for the technology she had on hand. Many of the ideas I think were quite interesting at the time, but they were not polished enough. Combat is slow paced (calling it 'action' is almost hyperbole), she never got swimming to work (which might have given it more of Tomb Raider feel?), and they never got the 'scripted-events' working right, so cutscenes are limited to conversations, and a couple of prerendered movies. There are no live events, really
On the other hand, some of the physic based/inventory puzzles are some of my most favorite puzzles in the series. Using fire, ice, or other physical phenomena to solve puzzles.
I like that it attempted to maintain the inventory and cursor interactions from adventures. Although its a shame that its based on the KQ8 style cursor.
So now instead of comparing King's Quest to Monkey Island--from the first screenshot I ever saw of MoE, I'm instead comparing it to Might & Magic and Tomb Raider. Why?!? Why should I even be made to compare these series? They shouldn't even be in the same category.
MoE is supposed to be King's Quest. King's Quest is supposed to be an adventure game series. I love adventure games. I love action-RPG's and platformers. What I hate is that Mask of Eternity is such a departure from the style that is King's Quest, that comparing Mask of Eternity to KQ7 is like comparing Tomb Raider to Monkey Island. Even if Mask of Eternity was/is a good game, it doesn't come close to matching the genre and style that King's Quest is known for.
So, comparing MoE to KQ7, regardless of KQ7's flaws, is almost an insult to adventure gaming in general as the two games are so disparate in style.
Well that's just being genre-ist. lol Not really anything to do with King's Quest since you just said yourself that it doesn't matter if MOE is a good game you just despise it for not being an adventure.
This was interesting definition given in the game box on the reference card;
"Final Note: King's Quest: Mask of Eternity is an Adventure game. Follow the story, talk to everyone, explore, explore, and explore! If you see monsters, protect and defend yourself. If you find something you can take, take it! Most of all have fun, enjoy, and save often!
Well, in the first 2 KQ games, you could kill, there were random monster encounters all the way up to KQ4. The "No-Violence" rule didn't really become a "rule" until KQV. It was the preferred option previously, but you were allowed to kill, both innocent and non-innocent things. You could kill the goat in KQ1, the witch, the dragon; the lion in KQ2, the Monk (though you'd be killed for killing a priest), Dracula. In KQ3 you 'kill' Medusa and the Dragon; In KQ4 you kill Lolotte and in KQV you kill Mordack at the end; In KQVI, you kill the minotaur.
There was always a certain level of violence in the KQ games--The earlier games were much freer with it.
In some ways, KQ8 reminds me of 1 and 2. It's set in a much freer, more open world--The worlds of KQ5-7 are very closed, structured, etc. Like in KQ1, you're not the King. The primary quest isn't to stop a bad guy, but to get "treasures" (swap the Mask pieces with the three Treasures). You can kill, and be killed, in a world full of monsters who might be around every corner/in the next scene. Daventry is a broken land--by magic in KQ8, by poverty and famine in KQ1--restored to life by the Hero at the end.
Yes, the typical level of early (first four) Tomb Raider games was much less linear than those of Infernal Machine. And Infernal Machine was less linear than quite a few other third-person games of roughly the same era. I would cite American McGee's Alice, for instance. Visually, you had the illusion of a vast gameworld but you were pretty much led on a string along a single path, especially in the outdoor levels. Also Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time trilogy -- lots of platforming but not much exploration.
I think there's some cause and effect there. One of the most common criticisms of Tomb Raider games (from reviewers, not the fans) was the amount of backtracking players had to do. Paw made a similar complaint about Mask of Eternity in his video, and modern adventure games still get criticized for it. Backtracking practically became a dirty word in gaming, which is unfortunate because it kinda goes hand-in-hand with exploration -- I regard the "explorability" of TR and MOE as strengths of those games, not weaknesses. But developers responded and third-person games became more and more linear. The seventh Tomb Raider, Legend, was practically a clone, gameplay-wise, of Prince of Persia with a little James Bond (eg. Everything or Nothing, a surprisingly fun game) thrown in.
Interestingly, we've kind of come full circle with the trend toward open-world sandbox games. Of course with today's technology, the worlds can be dynamically populated and more responsive to player action. So even though I logged thousands of GTA miles "backtracking" through Vice City, it didn't really seem like it -- at least not until I got tired of it.
Well, in the first 2 KQ games, you could kill, there were random monster encounters all the way up to KQ4. The "No-Violence" rule didn't really become a "rule" until KQV. It was the preferred option previously, but you were allowed to kill, both innocent and non-innocent things. You could kill the goat in KQ1, the witch, the dragon; the lion in KQ2, the Monk (though you'd be killed for killing a priest), Dracula. In KQ3 you 'kill' Medusa and the Dragon; In KQ4 you kill Lolotte and in KQV you kill Mordack at the end; In KQVI, you kill the minotaur.
There was always a certain level of violence in the KQ games--The earlier games were much freer with it.
You couldn't just kill anything in the earlier KQ games. You couldn't kill the gnome in kq2, the wizard in kq1, the bandits in kq3 or 5, the ogres in kq4, the pirates in kq3 or Manannan in kq3.... The earlier games were not "much freer with violence." You could only kill certain things at certain times, and were in fact usually penalized in points for doing so. You also couldn't jump at will or solve sliding block puzzles, and certainly Daventry in MoE looks nothing at all like Daventry in KQ1.
You couldn't just kill anything in the earlier KQ games. You couldn't kill the gnome in kq2, the wizard in kq1, the bandits in kq3 or 5, the ogres in kq4, the pirates in kq3 or Manannan in kq3.... The earlier games were not "much freer with violence." You could only kill certain things at certain times, and were in fact usually penalized in points for doing so. You also couldn't jump at will or solve sliding block puzzles, and certainly Daventry in MoE looks nothing at all like Daventry in KQ1.
Like I said, freer. I never said that KQ1 and KQ2 were/are action games...But who knows what Roberta might've done then, had she the technology? In any event, you could kill innocent creatures. You couldn't kill everything or everyone in sight, but the same is true in KQ8. You kill bad guys, yes. But you can't kill any innocent or good character.
As to "jumping at will" and "solving sliding block puzzles"--In KQ1SCI, you can jump. But I don't think sliding block puzzles could've been done in early games given the technological limitations.
And Daventry in KQV's intro doesn't look like the Daventry we see in KQ1. The terrain is very much different. Daventry in KQ7 (in the intro) doesn't look like the Daventry we see know in KQ1. Is it not possible that KQ8 takes place in a different part of Daventry than KQ1 does? After all, the blocked off road in KQ8 has a sign which points to "Daventry". I think the manual says that Connor lives in a village outlying Daventry proper.
a vast gameworld but you were pretty much led on a string along a single path, especially in the outdoor levels. Also Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time trilogy -- lots of platforming but not much exploration.
Ya, true. Although the second game in the trilogy was more open ended, and alot of backtracking in two time zones. But the levels themselves were pretty small, corridors punctuated by a large vertical rooms.
I never said that KQ1 and KQ2 were/are action games...But who knows what Roberta might've done then, had she the technology? In any event, you could kill innocent creatures. You couldn't kill everything or everyone in sight, but the same is true in KQ8. You kill bad guys, yes. But you can't kill any innocent or good character.
Ironically Sierra used to call those random monsters in KQ1/KQ2, "arcade/action sequences". They were meant to make you try to escape as fast as you could. If you weren't lucky, they'd appear when you were in the middle of the screen!
Its interesting that Roberta did include narration if you tried to 'kill them'. But the narrator tells you that Graham was way too weak or unskilled to fight them, not that he wouldn't if he could have. Since the game is clear that they are evil, like the witch (which he had no problem killing, and will give you highest points). It's obvious that Roberta included the thought of 'killing' them in the game, and simple made it impossible. Good way to save development time really, not have to add in extra animations or such.
There is also some debate if the goat kills the troll in KQ1. That's the required method to get by the troll. I think one of the hintbooks written by Roberta says it did. Other sources leave it less clear.
On a side, note another character you can kill in KQ games, is the Yeti in KQ5. Through a seemingly non-violent pie to the face.
Also another amusing trivia, in KQ2 for the apple II, Dracula makes out a blood-curdling scream while Graham is violently hammering the nail into his chest! Probably one of the more violent deaths in any KQ game, from an aural standpoint (visually there is some blocky blood for a second or two, before he turns to dust, IIRC as well).
Here is Roberta's comparison between encounters in previous games, and those in KQ8 in 1997;
I have been reading with interest all of the various comments that everybody has had about KQ8 (Mask of Eternity). I find it interesting that everybody has their own ideas about what King's Quest IS. And everybody seems to have a bit different idea. It seems, on this board, anyway, that quite a few people have the idea that King's Quest is (or should be) non-violent...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And it must be cute, funny, have fairytales in it, and have lots of puzzles and inventory objects. First of all, I have to say that King's Quest comes from ME and each one is different and has its own flavor. Some have a darker tone, and others have a lighter tone. Some touch upon violence, and some don't. King's Quest reflects the mood that I am in when I go to tackle another one.
King's Quest really is a reflection of me and how I'm feeling about the subject and upon the reference material I am using and how I approach the subject. Basically, King's Quest comes from me and my heart and it always isn't going to be exactly the same, because I'm not always exactly the same, and I, like most people, feel a need for a change of pace and a sense of moving forward and of trying and experiencing something new. With KQ7, I was in a "Disney-esque" mood. Some people really liked it, others didn't. Earlier King's Quest's reflected my moods during those times: KQ3 was very dark, and it utilized lots of magic and magic spells with the basic idea of finding ingredients for "black magic" spells and then casting those spells. (Certain religious groups were upset with me over that one!) KQ1 certainly had violence. Sir Graham had a dagger and could kill the dragon (and it didn't get you "stuck," by the way, if you did so), and you could also kill the goat. It's true that I also had non-violent ways of dealing with those situations, but, that's because I chose to handle it that way for that particular game. I've gotten into trouble over the years for all the various ways that my main characters can "die." And they die a lot! I am known for changing course a lot, and changing my style a lot. I like change, and I like to keep people guessing. KQ7 felt very Disney-esque, and I felt like doing something different for KQ8 but yet, still keeping a "King's Quest" feel to the game. Each game in the King's Quest family has been different. Almost each time I do a new King's Quest, people get up in arms and say it's going to be "different" and won't feel right. Yet, each time, it DOES wind up feeling like King's Quest but each in its own way...and people just kind of KNOW that when they are playing it.
That's because I know, in my heart, and what I am feeling, that it is, indeed, King's Quest. The components that make a King's Quest are (in my mind, anyway and since I am the creator of the series, I guess that holds some weight): A land, or lands, of high fantasy; fantasy creatures from myth, legends, and/or fairytales both good and bad; situations to be found in those same types of stories; a "quest" type story; a calamity in the land with one "hero" to "save the kingdom"; a story of the "good" hero against the "evil" bad guy; a story that everyone can relate to, i.e., a "reason" for having the hero go out and risk his or her life for "saving the kingdom"; interesting worlds to explore; high interactivity; interesting characters; great animation; great visuals and music. Within that general framework, I feel that I can have some "leeway" to accomplish those tasks. In the case of KQ8 I chose to give this game more of a "Tolkien-esque" feel rather than a "Disney-esque" feel. But each of the above elements is true for KQ8 as they were for KQ1 through 7. KQ8 indeed has a story, actually, a much more profound story than prior King's Quests. It is a new telling of the ultimate "quest" the quest for the most powerful, spiritual, benevolent item of all; the Mask of Eternity. This story takes its cue from two sources: the Quest for the Grail, and the Christian story of the struggle between God and Lucifer. When we say that the story is very dark that's really not true; it's just that the story is more profound and seriously looks at the struggle between good and evil. Rather than taking a bubbly, Disney view of good and evil, I chose to look at the struggle between good and evil from a more serious, traditional, almost spiritual, viewpoint. If you look at the traditional stories of the Grail and even in past Christian legend, you find that it is not light-hearted, gooey, and bubbly. Those stories are filled with conflict, peril, finding ones own morality, proving oneself a hero by overcoming evil creatures of Chaos, but yet proving oneself virtuous and good with all things good. That is the theme with this game. Connor is indeed a new character within the world of Daventry. Currently, he has no connection to King Graham and his family, but that doesn't mean that King Graham is not aware of him...and what he's going to do to help Daventry. This is, instead, a story of Connor and a story of how one young man of "common" background can rise to the situation and prove himself to be the true hero which can save the world. It is the traditional story of the young "initiate" who becomes stronger through proving his mettle, his virtue, surviving perils, overcoming evil and in the end can even conquer the ultimate evil. By doing so, he will restore the land and all of the people, and good creatures and animals within it. The Mask of Eternity is the "key." It is the source of all Power, all Order, all Truth, and all Light. It belongs in its place in the "Realm of the Sun." It has been broken into five pieces and distributed throughout the world. A mysterious evil (guy) has destroyed it and taken over the Realm of the Sun. Darkness has now settled over the land and all people (mortals) have been turned to stone, while creatures of darkness have risen from the very cracks and crevices of the earth at the instigation of this evil guy. Now Chaos reigns in all the various regions of the world: In Daventry (where all people have been turned to stone, including King Graham and his family); in the Dimension of Death (where even the Judge of the Dead has lost control of his guards and the souls); in the swamp (where the evil swamp witch has poisoned the swamp water and has all the good swamp creatures in her thrall); in the underground Realm of the Gnomes (where the industrious gnomes are willing to sell you items to help in your quest, but have also lost some control to the rock demons and an evil dragon); in the Barrens (where the trading post dwarfling has lost his "business" to the predations of an evil basilisk and the savagemen block your way to the Frosty Mountains); in the Frosty Mountains (where travel is impossible without the commandeering the controls of a flying crystal dragon, and the snow nymphs need relief from the evil Ice Lord); and finally in the Realm of the Sun (where the bad guy has taken over the domain of the Archons and the Mask of Eternity....this bad guy, the ultimate source of the terrible evil and darkness which has overcome the world). Connor must overcome all of these problems while recovering the pieces of the Mask and returning the Mask (in whole) back to its realm to its altar. Not until it has been returned will green and light return to the world. Not until then will the Realm of the Sun "shine" again and the waters flow.... I feel very proud of this game and the story which goes with it. Do NOT gain any preconceived ideas which may be wrong about this game from some preliminary screen shots which you will see at this early date. As time goes on we will supply you with more screen shots which will show other aspects of this game which are not "fighting" oriented. The reason it appears that this game is all about that is because we have not ever done a game which has that element so we're concentrating on that element right now. The other elements; the story elements, the character elements, the animation elements, the inventory object elements, the puzzle elements...are all stuff we've done before and will be much easier for us to put in place....we just haven't done those yet.....therefore, you're getting a skewed view of this game which is WRONG. I plan on keeping in touch with everyone and endeavoring to answer questions. I will try to check in a couple of times a week. Thanks for your patience in reading through my long-winded explanation of KQ8. Hopefully, this will have helped answer any nagging questions about "Mask of Eternity."
As to "jumping at will" and "solving sliding block puzzles"--In KQ1SCI, you can jump. But I don't think sliding block puzzles could've been done in early games given the technological limitations.
Sliding block puzzles go back to old text adventure games. There is a rather complicated one in Zork 3, involving a maze. They have also appeared in a few other graphic adventure games over the years.
But never appeared in any previous King's Quest game (other than a very minor box puzzle in KQ3).
You might also remember a variation on a box pushing puzzle in SQ1, to get up into a vent! Quite a few games had the 'push a box' to make a step, or open a passage way kind of box/pushing pushing puzzles. There is also one in Broken Sword 2 early on in the game!
Now if you are talking about the jumping pillar puzzles? Those appear in earlier adventure games, but most closely resemble one particular one in Torin's Passage.
Daventry in MoE looks nothing at all like Daventry in KQ1.
Daventry in each of the games have always looked different... Or geography was mixed up. KQ3 shares some common features from KQ1, but they are all in the wrong location.
You can see how mixed up Daventry is in this map (which I've placed the KQ3 versions of the places in the locations where they existed in KQ1);
KQ5's daventry looks nothing like Daventry in KQ3, nor the one in KQ1.
Hell even the two Daventry's in KQ1 or its remakes are different.
Daventry in the intro of KQ7 looks nothing like any previous game in the series.
There generally has never been any consistency between the various versions of Daventry throughout the series. Roberta never really seemed to care about consistency.
Also MOE is the Town of Daventry, or a town in Daventry. The towns of Daventry were first mentioned back in KQ1 manual, and the KQ2 manual, but never seen.
Obviously we knew the town existed, as it was mentioned in an earlier game. Obviously since we never saw the town, its going to be located in a different area of Daventry. That different area isn't going to look the same as Daventry from previous game.
This is about the lamest complaint ever! Because most people should be thrilled to see new locations (especially locations only briefly mentioned in earlier game material)!
On a related note even the Castle Daventry is not consistent throughout the series, many physical differences in each game (as far as layout, architecture or stonework).
Ok, here is a new image that includes KQ3 and KQ5 daventry locations layed out over KQ1 map;
Note, that I placed the Hill overlooking Castle Daventry over a section of the Raging River from KQ1, that showed the Castle in the distance (note that there never was a hill overlooking Daventry in KQ1 or KQ3, as the river actually passed south through that section). It's just north of the dry river bend/Rumplestiltksin's house seen in KQ3 (which in KQ3 we can tell although dry, the bend travels north, much as it did in KQ).
I put the lake Graham picked the flower in KQ5 up on northern lake in KQ1 based on the information given in the KQ6 hintbook, that states that Graham was hiking near Lake Maylie, when his family was kidnapped.
Lake Maylie is the lake just north of Castle Daventry in KQ1.
This map further shows how scrambled up, and how different Daventry looks in each game of the series.
Here is the map from KQ3, to get an idea where KQ3 put the locations, next to each each other, and connected (notice the chasm, the wall, plants, rocks, and the two parts of the castle).
I would add the KQ7 version of Daventry, but I have no clues on where in Daventry its trying to portray exactly. Since there is no known large waterfall, cliff, a plateau in Daventry in any other KQ game (except for The Waterfall in KQ8). Nor have we seen a road lined with trees (other than that road below the Hill to castle daventry in KQ5) in any previous game. Nor have we seen a deep valley within daventry, that is completely overgrown with forest either.
While there is a waterfall coming from a mountain/plateau in KQ8, I don't think the waterfall is meant to be the same waterfall in KQ7; as the valley below is much too forested, and has no signs of civilization in that game, whereas the valley in KQ8 shows signs of ancient civilization (the old Castlekeep Ruins, the Tomb of Sir James, an extensive grave yard and mausoleum with an ancient portal to the Dimension of Death). It's even mentioned that Connor, and some of the other villagers grew up there.
There is however, circumstantial evidence in KQ7 that the location where Rosella sings, and the 'castle garden' with the pond are likely nearby each other (perhaps the path through the trees leads to the garden). Note, that Rosella holds a red rose both when she is above the cliff, and later when she is in the garden (she loses the rose to a gust of wind). This would suggest that both scenes probably do not take too long apart from each other. Valanice can also be seen tending the plants, which would also suggest that it is a garden (even without the Companion confirming it is the castle garden). These would also seem to suggest that the castle garden must be up on a mountain/plateau in KQ7 (just like in KQ8)... This would seem to suggest that the densely forested valley near the castle garden and the valley where Connor's village is located are two separate valleys, but the waterfalls are flowing from the same source (it's interesting to note that in one concept art for early version of KQ8's map, there was evidence of 2-3 rivers coming off the moat, and flowing down from Daventry's castle).
Based on mixed messages in the game maps, and manual, Connor's village is either located south of Castle Daventry, or to the north of Castle Daventry. The Swamp is implied to be north of the castle, as the Gnome Realm is said to be north of the swamp, based on where they locations appear on the world map, this would make them somewhat north east of the castle. The world map appears to be aligned such that right side of the map is north, and the left side is south.
Connor's village even appears to be 'north' of the castle on the main world map, when alligned with the location given for Gnome Realm. However, in the Daventry map, the blocked road to Castle Daventry, and the secret passage into the castle, is on the 'top/north' side of the map. which would suggest either that the village is south of Castle Daventry, or that the magic map is aligned with South at the top and North at the bottom.
Most other magic maps in the game, align the top of the map as meaning 'north', and the bottom as 'south'. At least one character gives directions to landmarks based on the cardinal directions (and this corresponds to the top being north, and bottom being south on those particular maps). In most cases the player does appear to heading from south to north, in each land (starting with DoD), to reach the next land. This is represented by the player heading, 'right' on the world map. From the Gnome realm, you are apparently warped to the west to reach Barren Regions, and then you west through the Fire Dwarf Lair in the southwest edge of the reach to reach elevator up to the Frozen Reaches. Through the Frozen Reaches, you travel north to reach the Paradise Lost.
This path seems to follow the turned directions on the world map almost directly (though the world map is aligned differently). So basically when Connor starts heading 'west', he starts heading 'up' on the world map. When he starts heading north again in Frozen Reaches, he ends up in the Paradise Lost on the right side of the world map.
So really the only map that's confusing based on the directions given both in the manual and in-game is map of Connor's village itself. If the top is 'north' on that map, the village would have to be south of Castle Daventry. If the village is north of Castle Daventry, then the top is aligned to the south, and the bottom aligned to the north.
I see many people make the claim that KQ8 really is a decent enough game, if only they hadn't slapped the Kings Quest name on there.
Personally, I disagree with that - it's not only because it's labeled Kings Quest that I dislike it... it's simply because it's a really uninspired, slow, dull and uninteresting game... with clunky controls on top of all that.
Granted, the game is *playable*... you can play it all the way through and even though the story is bland and uninspired, it still somewhat makes sense within the context of the game.
However, I still find it an awfully bad game... not because it's a KQ game, not even because of how it's not an adventure game... but because it's so damn mediocre.
That's really the worst crime a game can commit, in my opinion - being completely dull and mediocre in every way.
Refreshingly honest opinion. I don't agree with you on all your points (I do agree it has clunky controls), but its an honest opinion.
I found alot of games (early third person 3-d) from the 1997-1998 era were clunky...
Lots of reviews used to call TR games as clunky as well! Especially if you were playing the PC versions of the games...
Here is a belated March 1999 reviews for TR3 and KQ8 in Maximum PC (it gave both games poor reviews, both it talks about those 'poor controls'!). It's only a little more forgiving for MOE (it even agrees that Roberta took the right direction, just the presentation had problems)...
Scroll up a page or two in the same magazine, for an early commentary on 3rd verson genre vs. first person games (apparently 3rd person 3D games were still pretty new at that point). It seems to suggest that all 3rd person games at that time tended to have 'clunky' controls in contrast to the more precise controls of First person games. So they would definitely be clunky by today's standards.
It's interesting but I've read reviews by present reviewers that look back at the old 2-D KQ games, expecially the old AGI ones and call those games 'clunky' too (but newer games get that description too sometimes)! One of reasons Roberta chose to streamline the interface in KQ7, was because of an opinion of previous games being 'clunky'...
I appreciate your dedication to prove that MoE is a good game. However for myself, I can't overlook the fact that it just isn't remotely in the style King's Quest is known for.
I don't want to be able to compare King's Quest to Tomb Raider. It just seems so... wrong. Further, the comparison of whether KQ7 or MoE is a "better game" rather irritates me, because in my opinion MoE is so different that it shouldn't even be included in comparisons of quality with actual adventure games like KQ7. For me, it would be like if someone created a King's Quest board game and then talked about whether it was better or worse than KQ7.
There is no 'proof' that it is a good game. Nor is there 'proof' that it is a bad game.
It's either a good game to some people, or a bad game to other people.
That's simply how games are!
In the same way, to many the game was definitely the right direction for the 'evolution' of 'adventure' games. To others it was a total failure at evolving 'adventure' games.
I actually hope in time to catelog all positive and negative reviews from fans and players for each of the games of the series. Give an overview of all the strengths and weaknesses people have said about each game in the series. Those who think they are 'bad' games, or those who argue they are 'good' games! It really paints a colourful and developed picture of how these games were viewed by the public.
Here is an interview from Roberta from March 1997 Newsweek where she tried to explains the conondrum she was reaching by taking the direction she was taking, rather than the direction she went with Phantasmagoria;
March 1997;
I've always felt that the adventure-game genre was sort of mine. Other people have dealt with it and been very successful, but most times I was able to define where the genre would go next. With my next game, Mask of Eternity--we're trying to have it out by Christmas--I'm hoping that what I'm doing now is the beginning of the final answer
Is this the next King's Quest?
Yes. In all the previous games we explored a script-oriented approach to telling people an interactive story. I always felt like every game I did would have a more intricate story, a richer feel, more characterization, more music. But I think I went as far as you can go with the story approach and still be a game. If you go any further, you go into moviedom. I hit a wall. I'm totally backing off that. I think the true right answer is to give people the widest possible means of exploring that you can get. So in this new game I'm trying out 3-D worlds, new worlds where players can venture anywhere they want to go. But in order to accommodate this total freedom in exploration, I have to back off the story and go more free-form. It's the hardest project I've ever worked on.
Why is it so hard?
How can we do it and still keep somewhat of a semblance of a story going? What technology do we use? In Phantasmagoria I used almost 3,000 pictures, and each one was as pretty as I could possibly make it. But now we want people to explore, to see what's there all around them. I can do that, but the pictures won't be as pretty. Right now computers can't handle that. But my dream is that what we're working on now will be the kernel of what people will be playing 17 years from now.
It kind of reminds me of the arguement people are having over the direction the Jurassic Park game is taking!
My point is that MoE is too different a game to allow proper comparison, and it annoys me that Sierra tried to package MoE as a core series game when in truth it's nothing like the other games.
My point is that MoE is too different a game to allow proper comparison, and it annoys me that Sierra tried to package MoE as a core series game when in truth it's nothing like the other games.
KQ7 was very much unlike the previous games; should it have had the KQ label taken off it too? KQ5 was also very different--no text? No parser? Silly puzzles? Where's the interactivity?
I think that adventure games are really their own worst enemies. They often wonder why the genre is dead, but they have only themselves to blame for it's death. Closemindedness killed the adventure genre. And sadly, it will probably kill the KQ series all over again when TT's game comes out. Just like KQ8, many have seemed to decided to dislike it already, without seeing a single screenshot.
Roberta actually is the one who tried to categorize it as a core series game, not Sierra. She wanted all that stuff you don't like in it from the moment she thought of developing it. She knew it would probably annoy some core fans (she realized that many of her new ideas in each previous KQ game pushed away some of her core fans).
She only tried to pull her name from it, when the Davidsons tried to take over control, when they tried to get her to get rid of the violence and religious themes. It was actually conservative censorship that she was upset with the 'suits' over Sierra for! In January 1997 she regained control.
"Davidsons ‘killing’ Phantasmagoria as it was still going strong: True.
Two teams working on KQ8 at the same time: Partially true. There really was only one team, but I was assigned several ‘managers’ to work above me and those managers were told to not really listen to me and do things their way (presumably, Davidsons’ way?). Hence, the frustration on my part and the fact that KQ8 suffered as a result.
Roerta Williams"
-Ken W
Roberta does what Roberta does! She never really cared what others thought! She did what she thought would be a good idea at the time, and what she though people would find fun. She was receiving resistance for her ideas both from the fans and the suits in Sierra!
Ken actually promoted ideas of adding in action ("violence") from the get go (since he thought Adventure games as people knew them were dead, and would have to evolve to survive or stay dead);
Chris Matthews quoting his dad's thoughts in spring 1997 on why King's Quest had to evolve in the market (Interaction, Spring 1997);
"The traditional adventure game is dead."...it's time to change adventure games at least as much as the gamers themselves have changed over the last few years. It's time to make them "less pretentious. More open-ended, faster paced, and just more fun to play than they have been." After all..., "what's the use of creating these super-serious, overly literary, and downright studious games when the major audience that will play them played a Nintendo or a Sega last year? These folks are used to playing games where the correct answer to any problem might be jumping over something, hitting it with a hammer, or maybe even shooting it with a big bazooka. Why hassle through all the literary pretense when most of today's gamers just want to blow something up."
Infact, there were people in interviews that were already complaining that adventure games were tired, and old... They wondered why she bothered to even make KQ8 even (here is one interview for example from Adventure Gamers, IIRC);
After eight games, don't you think the King's Quest series is getting a bit old? Will you ever consider starting a brand-new series from scratch with an entirely different and original plot and characters? If so, what technologies will this game use? Let's wait to answer that question after King's Quest: Mask of Eternity has shipped. I think you will find that we were very successful in breathing new life into a series which could be construed as "getting a bit old." It is totally a breath of fresh air. It is like nothing else but yet feels very much like King's Quest. We may have accomplished the "impossible." I truly believe that this newest, latest iteration of King's Quest will be the best-selling yet! As far as starting a brand-new series from scratch with an entirely different and original plot and characters: I've done that many times in my career, and in the future ... who knows?
-.- MoE wasn't even in the same genre as the rest of the series. KQ7 is a point-and-click adventure game. It just has different animation and a slightly different interface.
KQ7's genre, was "3D Adventure", a new genre she was trying to define.
Or as described in the reference card;
King's Quest: Mask of Eternity is an Adventure game. Follow the story, talk to everyone, explore, explore, and explore! If you see monsters, protect and defend yourself. If you find something you can take, take it! Most of all have fun, enjoy, and save often!
Remember that interview I posted above from NewsWeek? Roberta believed she owned the Adventure game genre, and that she was the one who could define the direction it took!
I quote it again in part;
I've always felt that the adventure-game genre was sort of mine. Other people have dealt with it and been very successful, but most times I was able to define where the genre would go next.
That being said, the 'Adventure' genre has always been filled with its strange hybrids. Beyond Zork was an Adventure with RPG elements (kinda like KQ8). Quest for Glory 1-4 were adventure games with RPG elements (usually just classified as 'Adventures' by Sierra). There was also Azrael's Tear which was a first person Adventure, with some RPG/action elements! In more modern times, there has been Dreamfall! Indiana Jones Adventure games had combat, etc.
Not everyone likes those games, but that's not the point! Alot of people did!
KQ7 is a point-and-click adventure game. It just has different animation and a slightly different interface.
It's also less serious and more cartoony than any previous KQ game. It's less realistic, characters can be flattened, fall from from super high, and still survive! Except where being flattened is intended to be a death scene oddly enough Believe me, it was also largely seen as the least liked KQ by fans and critics... Roberta claims she got negative letters for it all the time, more than she got for KQ8 apparently. If KQ6 was considered the highpoint, many consider KQ7 the lowpoint.
-.- MoE wasn't even in the same genre as the rest of the series. KQ7 is a point-and-click adventure game. It just has different animation and a slightly different interface.
And an utterly different tone (much lighter than any KQ game), and an utterly different gameplay system, and a different formula (chapter based, no real death, two characters), an ENTIRELY different interface (no icons, no narrator, no descriptions of the items). The game is closer to a Disney game with the KQ logo slapped on it than any other KQ game.
Plus you list off the fact it has no narrator, that is absolutely huge change (one that I'm not too happy with, and another change KQ8 kept).
It also completely lacks King Graham. Rosella's and Valanice's personalities are quite a bit different than any previous game...
Rosella can be described in the game as petulent, spoiled, and rude... She has more in common with a disney princess than the cool, collected girl we saw in KQ4. Even Edgar's personality doesn't even seem to match the personality he had in KQ4...
It makes zero connection to any previous KQ game (other than KQ4), there is no connection made to KQ6, the previous game in the series, explaining its relationship to that game. This is an arguement made for KQ8 as well mind you (though it at least that game made a nod back to Graham, Valanice and the Magic Mirror, and Castle Daventry). Even Connor makes a node to the rest of the family at one point as well (although brief).
Oh ya there is another thing the game lacks, the magic mirror, and Castle Daventry!... The magic mirror in nearly every KQ other than KQ5... (when the castle is stolen before Graham can consult it).
All previous KQ games at least tried to connect each gaem to the previous game in some small way (though never in great detail, so that the game could stand alone on its own merits). KQ2 says it takes place a year or two after KQ1. KQ3 says it takes place about 18 years after KQ2. KQ4 takes place directly after KQ3. KQ5 says it takes place a year after KQ4. KQ6 says it takes place six months after KQ5.
KQ7 could take place before KQ5 or after KQ6 really...
no descriptions of the items
That's actually a very noticeable loss...
I was very happy when KQ8 brought back the item descriptions actually! Even if Connor's descriptions are kinda short.
Nah, seriously have I mentioned that when I first played KQ7, I found the game to be a total let down? It was so removed from KQ6, that I was really turned off... Later when I played KQ8, I felt like it was moving moving closer towards the direction set by KQ6. It wasn't perfect, but it felt closer to the more realistic KQ charm of KQ4-6 to me than KQ7 ever did... I would have loved to see where Roberta would have taken KQ9, had she been given the chance...
KQ7 is my least favorite KQ, and I say that with all honesty... A total letdown...
Oh and ya, the story is shallow, its boring, and its extremely childish...
...voice acting, might be nearly as bad as KQ5, for the numbers of annoying voices (and that is quite a feat)...
My point is that MoE is too different a game to allow proper comparison, and it annoys me that Sierra tried to package MoE as a core series game when in truth it's nothing like the other games.
This just sounds like genre hate to me. King's Quest doesn't have to be adventure all the time. Indeed, it isn't going to be now seeing as Telltale has the license.
Comments
I have to admit though, that my second favorite series is Gabriel Knight. I don't think they ever really recaptured the magic of the first game, but they had a fantastic engaging story.
I guess it's really the intrigue / fantasy story element that I love. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I want a mindless game I play things other than adventure games.
Just my 2 cents
I can't wait to see what TTG comes up with!
I personally don't mind that.
According to whom?
It's interesting to hear you say that when the vast majority of people (including Paw) seem to think that, while MoE was decent in its own right, it doesn't come close to the feel of what a canon KQ game should be. At best, it's the black sheep of the series. At worst, it should be called Mask of Eternity and have "King's Quest" removed from the title. MoE doesn't even have Josh Mandel voicing King Graham, and even the AGDI and IA remakes recruited him. For crying out loud, Paw even points out how the 3D flythrough of AGDI's remakes look more recognizable as King's Quest than MoE's Daventry does.
KQ7, while having cartoon-style animation and more kid-style humor (waits for Dashing to rant about CMI's style versus MI2), has an art style that's as timeless as Curse of Monkey Island, and doesn't include combat. If one were to replace Retry-upon-death with Save/Restore and the one-click cursor with KQ5/6's cursor options, KQ7 wouldn't have nearly as many nay-sayers.
And I actually think the quality of art and animation in KQ7 is rather sloppy and poor. And I've heard opinions from many artists and animators that agree with me. Nothing like CMI which was extremely well done. Just because they're both exaggerated and cartoony doesn't make them both automatically have the same "timeless" art style. I always thought the animations in KQ7 were rather clumsy and inconsistent in that they were disproportionate from moment to moment at a time. Actually, I think the same for Torin's Passage. Sierra didn't do that as well as LucasArts did. LucasArts nailed that style long before the SVGA era.
You have to remember though, there is a three year gap between KQ7 and CMI. Three years is a long time, technologically speaking.
A better comparison, time wise, would be Larry 7 and CMI, as Love for Sail came out in '96 and CMI came out in '97.
If you show me a screenshot of KQ7 I would instantly know where that is at. Show me one on MoE and chances are it's a generically textured blob of ugly that could be everywhere.
Personally I think retro 3D graphics ala Doom or Quake or KQ8 have a quaint (as one friend put it), nostalgic sort of quality to them.
Consider these screenshots from an early version of KQ8:
My feeling is that from KQ1-7, the graphics and sound were being pushed forward into becoming better and better as the series progressed, KQ7's (and KQ5's) flaws not withstanding. Then we get MoE, which graphically felt like a large step backward visually. Sure, it was 3D, but 3D technology was in its near-infancy at the time. We go from nice, quality 2D visuals to a large blocky, clumsy and ugly 3D style.
*sigh* My real beef with MoE is that it looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone, and by the time MoE came out there were already 3 Tomb Raider games. So, where once King's Quest was, in my mind, a contender against Monkey Island as the best adventure game series of all time--now Mask of Eternity is pitting itself against the popularity of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider? Monkey Island and Tomb Raider are such disparate entities that... well, I don't even know where to begin. Mask of Eternity feels more like a a spin-off than a core series title and should have only been treated as such.
...Now that I think about it, Might and Magic 6: Mandate of Heaven also came out the same year MoE did (actually 8 months earlier), MM6 was the first fully 3D title of its series, and it was head and shoulders better in visual quality, gameplay and story than MoE could have ever dreamed of being.
So now instead of comparing King's Quest to Monkey Island--from the first screenshot I ever saw of MoE, I'm instead comparing it to Might & Magic and Tomb Raider. Why?!? Why should I even be made to compare these series? They shouldn't even be in the same category.
Also, initially in all the pre-release promo shots and videos it was advertised as Mask of Eternity and the subtitle was "from the King's Quest universe." I bet you any money the suits wanted a great big King's Quest logo on there so that it would sell more.
Actually it was only one promo/video included in Roberta William's Anthology that had the "Mask of Eternity: From the world of King's Quest promo screen. The Fall 1996 issue of Interaction, the first issue to include the ingame shots, that came out about a month later, already was calling it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
The suits in 1996 included Ken Williams! Ken Williams was one of the ones calling it King's Quest 8, or King's Quest: Mask of Eternity. He was also seemingly one of the biggest advocates of getting rid of adventure game genre at that time, or turning the games into something new, that would be 'more successful'. Based on his interviews between 1995 - 1996, before he left Sierra.
Reviews at the time claim that visually, MOE was played with a Voodoo card, that the game actually had some technical and visual improvements over tomb raider. Some of it had to do with animation, and animation morphing technology, and lyp-synching technology included in the game.
Also the earliest Tomb Raider games, the first 2, didn't initially have 3D accelerator support. There were also more 'polygons' per each character in MOE over Tomb Raider II. Which was also something reviews pointed out. But only compared graphics, not really gameplay.
Mask of Eternity came out about the same time as Tomb Raider 3. But no reviewer really ever compared them, since the gameplay is quite a bit different. As far as I know Tomb Raider 3 just uses the Tomb Raider II engine, but with addition of 3D accellerator support. So the character models were largely just as blocky as in TR2 (fewer polygons than MOE).
This is a shot from Tomb Raider II;
Here is a shot from Tomb Raider III (which as far as I know uses an unmodified Tomb Raider II engine, but added 3d Accellerator support)
One thing I can say, is that Sierra did a little better job with the texture mapping, and levels looked a little better constructed than in the Tomb Raider games. The sprites matched up with nearby sprites a little bit better. Notice the vines textures in the Tomb Raider II shots for example, look noticeably disconnected (jarringly so). There are definitely alot more noticeable lines between textures in Tomb Raider over KQ8. The textures were largey blurry/blobby masses and quite undefined. Mask of Eternity actually had hi-def (for the time) textures, most were well defined (again only accessible if you played the game on a 3DFX Voodoo card).
Here is an image of the east tower played with 3DFX emulator (showing hi-def textures);
Here is an images of Connor in KQ8, with his 'hi-res' leather armor (more defined than Lara's textures). Still blocky by today's standards, but remember still had more polygons than Lara Croft had, was technologically superior at the time. Another thing to remember, is that there were more animations included for Connor than Lara. Though many of those animations are only used in in-engine cutscenes.
No seriously when it came to graphics most reviewers agreed that KQ8 was one of the best looking games when it came out. Better looking than most other 3D games out there. Not surprising since Sierra was winning 3D awards for the engine the game was based upon (3Space) at the time.
Note: Although I'd say Lara has better hair!
Actually it isn't full 3d, all the NPC and enemy sprites are 2D much like the previous Might and Magic games, but pushed into SVGA. It has more in common with Betrayal of Antara, vs. Betrayal at Krondor visually.
Frankly it is no where near the same quality as KQ8's visuals technologically.
There is actually very little TR type platforming in KQ8. Jumping is largely pointless except in a couple of spots . There are very few spots with real-time jumping, the main example is a series of platforms in a lava lake in the Barren Region. Generally you can walk around to most places, or make a single jump between to cross a divide, with a rather large landing zone on the other side (jumping onto the mausoleum in Daventry for example). There is automatic jumping sequence for a couple of puzzles, that were similar to a puzzle design from Torin's Passage (and other earlier adventure games). You cannot actually overjump or underjump, as the game automatically makes you jump to the next platform of your choosing.
In MOE the levels are generally flat, large and open ended areas to explore. There is no hand climbing. The only climbing is limited to using the rope and hook. He does have a back flip (for slightly higher jump). So his actual athletic abilities are quite limited compared to Lara Croft. I'd say jumping takes up not much more than 2% of the gameplay, five at that most.
Connor cannot swim.
Combat in MOE took its inspiration more from Diablo-style point and click battle, or the later Quest for Glory games. Just click on an enemy until it dies. So there is a certain aspect of 'turn-based' combat in the game. It's very slow paced, and not very action-packed.
I don't think so. Claustrophobic is just about the last word I would use to describe Tomb Raider. And only a very few levels from the first four Tomb Raider games could accurately be described as "tunnels". The layouts of most levels were not linear at all, and some were quite intricate, with criss-crossing paths and multiple choices for which path to take first, not knowing where it would end up and when you'd get back to exploring the other paths. Also, because the gameplay was focused on jumping and other ambulatory challenges, you have to take vertical space into account -- I remember some levels, both indoor and outdoor ones, that were vertically huge. (I think recent TRs are more linear than the earlier ones, especially Legend and even Anniversary, in which quite a few levels are pretty much on a single path and the visual clues for how to get from point A to point B are more obvious.)
I don't think it's quite fair to say that Mask of Eternity "looks and feels like a bad Tomb Raider clone", anyway. It seems clear it was trying to be something different, with quests and NPC dialogs, rather than platforming, along with the combat. I see some truth, though, in Chyron8472's general point that MOE was less unique (in the combined effect of graphics, art style, gameplay, etc.) as a 3D third-person action-adventure game than the earlier KQs were in the realm of 2D adventures. But that might say more about the genres than it does about the games themselves, as the same could probably be said of, for instance, Infernal Machine and Fate of Atlantis.
Well, bear in mind that, for example, KQ5 wasn't the first 256 color, Point 'N Click Adventure game. It was the first KQ like that. But if I recall correctly, one of LucasArt's games beat Roberta/KQ to the punch as far as that goes.
KQ6 was largely the same graphically as KQ5 and I don't know what the main competition in 1992 was--What were some other big Adventure game titles from 1992?
KQ7 had Roberta doing a cartoony style, and if you read her letter to Sierra, she bases the interface off a mix of games she'd recently played, to make it more accessible for the growing number of computer owners. There was one game in particular she kept mentioning--Baggins would know.
It's not like Sierra always led in every aspect. And Roberta did plan on having KQ8 be 3D as early as 1994. As early as late 1996 it already had a similar look to the final game. So I wouldn't call it a clone. It's a hybrid really. I don't consider it a Quake-clone action game, or a Diablo-clone RPG. It's really a wonderful hybrid of different styles, made with the wonderful talent of Roberta and Sierra. It deserved the KQ moniker, IMO.
Well, I'll take your word for it. What little I played seemed to be practically indoors, or in box canyons. But regardless, the gameplay of Tomb Raider and Infernal Machine is very different than MOE, in that both are based on jumping/jump climbing/rope swinging making up quite a bit of the gameplay. Whereas in MOE, jumping is very limited.
I have played Infernal Machine, and while there are some open ended areas, I always felt many of the levels seemed fairly linear, especially once you get into the temples, caves, canyons or whatever. There was 'backtracking' as some tunnels would lead you back to a central area via a circular path, but in general you were pushed in a single direction through the levels.
Maybe TR was less linear than Infernal Machine?
Legend of Kyrandia which was also made around the time of KQ5.
I think its biggest weakness was it was a bit too ambitious for the technology she had on hand. Many of the ideas I think were quite interesting at the time, but they were not polished enough. Combat is slow paced (calling it 'action' is almost hyperbole), she never got swimming to work (which might have given it more of Tomb Raider feel?), and they never got the 'scripted-events' working right, so cutscenes are limited to conversations, and a couple of prerendered movies. There are no live events, really
On the other hand, some of the physic based/inventory puzzles are some of my most favorite puzzles in the series. Using fire, ice, or other physical phenomena to solve puzzles.
I like that it attempted to maintain the inventory and cursor interactions from adventures. Although its a shame that its based on the KQ8 style cursor.
MoE is supposed to be King's Quest. King's Quest is supposed to be an adventure game series. I love adventure games. I love action-RPG's and platformers. What I hate is that Mask of Eternity is such a departure from the style that is King's Quest, that comparing Mask of Eternity to KQ7 is like comparing Tomb Raider to Monkey Island. Even if Mask of Eternity was/is a good game, it doesn't come close to matching the genre and style that King's Quest is known for.
So, comparing MoE to KQ7, regardless of KQ7's flaws, is almost an insult to adventure gaming in general as the two games are so disparate in style.
http://www.sierragamers.com/uploads/24082/The_Games/kings_quest_8_e_spine.jpg
This was interesting definition given in the game box on the reference card;
There was always a certain level of violence in the KQ games--The earlier games were much freer with it.
In some ways, KQ8 reminds me of 1 and 2. It's set in a much freer, more open world--The worlds of KQ5-7 are very closed, structured, etc. Like in KQ1, you're not the King. The primary quest isn't to stop a bad guy, but to get "treasures" (swap the Mask pieces with the three Treasures). You can kill, and be killed, in a world full of monsters who might be around every corner/in the next scene. Daventry is a broken land--by magic in KQ8, by poverty and famine in KQ1--restored to life by the Hero at the end.
Yes, the typical level of early (first four) Tomb Raider games was much less linear than those of Infernal Machine. And Infernal Machine was less linear than quite a few other third-person games of roughly the same era. I would cite American McGee's Alice, for instance. Visually, you had the illusion of a vast gameworld but you were pretty much led on a string along a single path, especially in the outdoor levels. Also Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time trilogy -- lots of platforming but not much exploration.
I think there's some cause and effect there. One of the most common criticisms of Tomb Raider games (from reviewers, not the fans) was the amount of backtracking players had to do. Paw made a similar complaint about Mask of Eternity in his video, and modern adventure games still get criticized for it. Backtracking practically became a dirty word in gaming, which is unfortunate because it kinda goes hand-in-hand with exploration -- I regard the "explorability" of TR and MOE as strengths of those games, not weaknesses. But developers responded and third-person games became more and more linear. The seventh Tomb Raider, Legend, was practically a clone, gameplay-wise, of Prince of Persia with a little James Bond (eg. Everything or Nothing, a surprisingly fun game) thrown in.
Interestingly, we've kind of come full circle with the trend toward open-world sandbox games. Of course with today's technology, the worlds can be dynamically populated and more responsive to player action. So even though I logged thousands of GTA miles "backtracking" through Vice City, it didn't really seem like it -- at least not until I got tired of it.
You couldn't just kill anything in the earlier KQ games. You couldn't kill the gnome in kq2, the wizard in kq1, the bandits in kq3 or 5, the ogres in kq4, the pirates in kq3 or Manannan in kq3.... The earlier games were not "much freer with violence." You could only kill certain things at certain times, and were in fact usually penalized in points for doing so. You also couldn't jump at will or solve sliding block puzzles, and certainly Daventry in MoE looks nothing at all like Daventry in KQ1.
Like I said, freer. I never said that KQ1 and KQ2 were/are action games...But who knows what Roberta might've done then, had she the technology? In any event, you could kill innocent creatures. You couldn't kill everything or everyone in sight, but the same is true in KQ8. You kill bad guys, yes. But you can't kill any innocent or good character.
As to "jumping at will" and "solving sliding block puzzles"--In KQ1SCI, you can jump. But I don't think sliding block puzzles could've been done in early games given the technological limitations.
And Daventry in KQV's intro doesn't look like the Daventry we see in KQ1. The terrain is very much different. Daventry in KQ7 (in the intro) doesn't look like the Daventry we see know in KQ1. Is it not possible that KQ8 takes place in a different part of Daventry than KQ1 does? After all, the blocked off road in KQ8 has a sign which points to "Daventry". I think the manual says that Connor lives in a village outlying Daventry proper.
Ironically Sierra used to call those random monsters in KQ1/KQ2, "arcade/action sequences". They were meant to make you try to escape as fast as you could. If you weren't lucky, they'd appear when you were in the middle of the screen!
Its interesting that Roberta did include narration if you tried to 'kill them'. But the narrator tells you that Graham was way too weak or unskilled to fight them, not that he wouldn't if he could have. Since the game is clear that they are evil, like the witch (which he had no problem killing, and will give you highest points). It's obvious that Roberta included the thought of 'killing' them in the game, and simple made it impossible. Good way to save development time really, not have to add in extra animations or such.
There is also some debate if the goat kills the troll in KQ1. That's the required method to get by the troll. I think one of the hintbooks written by Roberta says it did. Other sources leave it less clear.
On a side, note another character you can kill in KQ games, is the Yeti in KQ5. Through a seemingly non-violent pie to the face.
Also another amusing trivia, in KQ2 for the apple II, Dracula makes out a blood-curdling scream while Graham is violently hammering the nail into his chest! Probably one of the more violent deaths in any KQ game, from an aural standpoint (visually there is some blocky blood for a second or two, before he turns to dust, IIRC as well).
Here is Roberta's comparison between encounters in previous games, and those in KQ8 in 1997; Sliding block puzzles go back to old text adventure games. There is a rather complicated one in Zork 3, involving a maze. They have also appeared in a few other graphic adventure games over the years.
But never appeared in any previous King's Quest game (other than a very minor box puzzle in KQ3).
You might also remember a variation on a box pushing puzzle in SQ1, to get up into a vent! Quite a few games had the 'push a box' to make a step, or open a passage way kind of box/pushing pushing puzzles. There is also one in Broken Sword 2 early on in the game!
Now if you are talking about the jumping pillar puzzles? Those appear in earlier adventure games, but most closely resemble one particular one in Torin's Passage.
Daventry in each of the games have always looked different... Or geography was mixed up. KQ3 shares some common features from KQ1, but they are all in the wrong location.
You can see how mixed up Daventry is in this map (which I've placed the KQ3 versions of the places in the locations where they existed in KQ1);
KQ5's daventry looks nothing like Daventry in KQ3, nor the one in KQ1.
Hell even the two Daventry's in KQ1 or its remakes are different.
Daventry in the intro of KQ7 looks nothing like any previous game in the series.
There generally has never been any consistency between the various versions of Daventry throughout the series. Roberta never really seemed to care about consistency.
Also MOE is the Town of Daventry, or a town in Daventry. The towns of Daventry were first mentioned back in KQ1 manual, and the KQ2 manual, but never seen.
Obviously we knew the town existed, as it was mentioned in an earlier game. Obviously since we never saw the town, its going to be located in a different area of Daventry. That different area isn't going to look the same as Daventry from previous game.
This is about the lamest complaint ever! Because most people should be thrilled to see new locations (especially locations only briefly mentioned in earlier game material)!
On a related note even the Castle Daventry is not consistent throughout the series, many physical differences in each game (as far as layout, architecture or stonework).
Note, that I placed the Hill overlooking Castle Daventry over a section of the Raging River from KQ1, that showed the Castle in the distance (note that there never was a hill overlooking Daventry in KQ1 or KQ3, as the river actually passed south through that section). It's just north of the dry river bend/Rumplestiltksin's house seen in KQ3 (which in KQ3 we can tell although dry, the bend travels north, much as it did in KQ).
I put the lake Graham picked the flower in KQ5 up on northern lake in KQ1 based on the information given in the KQ6 hintbook, that states that Graham was hiking near Lake Maylie, when his family was kidnapped.
Lake Maylie is the lake just north of Castle Daventry in KQ1.
This map further shows how scrambled up, and how different Daventry looks in each game of the series.
Here is the map from KQ3, to get an idea where KQ3 put the locations, next to each each other, and connected (notice the chasm, the wall, plants, rocks, and the two parts of the castle).
I would add the KQ7 version of Daventry, but I have no clues on where in Daventry its trying to portray exactly. Since there is no known large waterfall, cliff, a plateau in Daventry in any other KQ game (except for The Waterfall in KQ8). Nor have we seen a road lined with trees (other than that road below the Hill to castle daventry in KQ5) in any previous game. Nor have we seen a deep valley within daventry, that is completely overgrown with forest either.
While there is a waterfall coming from a mountain/plateau in KQ8, I don't think the waterfall is meant to be the same waterfall in KQ7; as the valley below is much too forested, and has no signs of civilization in that game, whereas the valley in KQ8 shows signs of ancient civilization (the old Castlekeep Ruins, the Tomb of Sir James, an extensive grave yard and mausoleum with an ancient portal to the Dimension of Death). It's even mentioned that Connor, and some of the other villagers grew up there.
There is however, circumstantial evidence in KQ7 that the location where Rosella sings, and the 'castle garden' with the pond are likely nearby each other (perhaps the path through the trees leads to the garden). Note, that Rosella holds a red rose both when she is above the cliff, and later when she is in the garden (she loses the rose to a gust of wind). This would suggest that both scenes probably do not take too long apart from each other. Valanice can also be seen tending the plants, which would also suggest that it is a garden (even without the Companion confirming it is the castle garden). These would also seem to suggest that the castle garden must be up on a mountain/plateau in KQ7 (just like in KQ8)... This would seem to suggest that the densely forested valley near the castle garden and the valley where Connor's village is located are two separate valleys, but the waterfalls are flowing from the same source (it's interesting to note that in one concept art for early version of KQ8's map, there was evidence of 2-3 rivers coming off the moat, and flowing down from Daventry's castle).
But here is the intro for you to watch for yourself;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P8UITu8Faw
Based on mixed messages in the game maps, and manual, Connor's village is either located south of Castle Daventry, or to the north of Castle Daventry. The Swamp is implied to be north of the castle, as the Gnome Realm is said to be north of the swamp, based on where they locations appear on the world map, this would make them somewhat north east of the castle. The world map appears to be aligned such that right side of the map is north, and the left side is south.
Connor's village even appears to be 'north' of the castle on the main world map, when alligned with the location given for Gnome Realm. However, in the Daventry map, the blocked road to Castle Daventry, and the secret passage into the castle, is on the 'top/north' side of the map. which would suggest either that the village is south of Castle Daventry, or that the magic map is aligned with South at the top and North at the bottom.
Most other magic maps in the game, align the top of the map as meaning 'north', and the bottom as 'south'. At least one character gives directions to landmarks based on the cardinal directions (and this corresponds to the top being north, and bottom being south on those particular maps). In most cases the player does appear to heading from south to north, in each land (starting with DoD), to reach the next land. This is represented by the player heading, 'right' on the world map. From the Gnome realm, you are apparently warped to the west to reach Barren Regions, and then you west through the Fire Dwarf Lair in the southwest edge of the reach to reach elevator up to the Frozen Reaches. Through the Frozen Reaches, you travel north to reach the Paradise Lost.
This path seems to follow the turned directions on the world map almost directly (though the world map is aligned differently). So basically when Connor starts heading 'west', he starts heading 'up' on the world map. When he starts heading north again in Frozen Reaches, he ends up in the Paradise Lost on the right side of the world map.
So really the only map that's confusing based on the directions given both in the manual and in-game is map of Connor's village itself. If the top is 'north' on that map, the village would have to be south of Castle Daventry. If the village is north of Castle Daventry, then the top is aligned to the south, and the bottom aligned to the north.
Personally, I disagree with that - it's not only because it's labeled Kings Quest that I dislike it... it's simply because it's a really uninspired, slow, dull and uninteresting game... with clunky controls on top of all that.
Granted, the game is *playable*... you can play it all the way through and even though the story is bland and uninspired, it still somewhat makes sense within the context of the game.
However, I still find it an awfully bad game... not because it's a KQ game, not even because of how it's not an adventure game... but because it's so damn mediocre.
That's really the worst crime a game can commit, in my opinion - being completely dull and mediocre in every way.
I found alot of games (early third person 3-d) from the 1997-1998 era were clunky...
Lots of reviews used to call TR games as clunky as well! Especially if you were playing the PC versions of the games...
Here is a belated March 1999 reviews for TR3 and KQ8 in Maximum PC (it gave both games poor reviews, both it talks about those 'poor controls'!). It's only a little more forgiving for MOE (it even agrees that Roberta took the right direction, just the presentation had problems)...
http://books.google.com/books?id=2gEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT87&dq=mask+of+eternity&hl=en&ei=dvRbTtCVHovYiAL49L3BDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mask%20of%20eternity&f=false
Scroll up a page or two in the same magazine, for an early commentary on 3rd verson genre vs. first person games (apparently 3rd person 3D games were still pretty new at that point). It seems to suggest that all 3rd person games at that time tended to have 'clunky' controls in contrast to the more precise controls of First person games. So they would definitely be clunky by today's standards.
It's interesting but I've read reviews by present reviewers that look back at the old 2-D KQ games, expecially the old AGI ones and call those games 'clunky' too (but newer games get that description too sometimes)! One of reasons Roberta chose to streamline the interface in KQ7, was because of an opinion of previous games being 'clunky'...
It's interesting how opinions change over time!
I don't want to be able to compare King's Quest to Tomb Raider. It just seems so... wrong. Further, the comparison of whether KQ7 or MoE is a "better game" rather irritates me, because in my opinion MoE is so different that it shouldn't even be included in comparisons of quality with actual adventure games like KQ7. For me, it would be like if someone created a King's Quest board game and then talked about whether it was better or worse than KQ7.
It's either a good game to some people, or a bad game to other people.
That's simply how games are!
In the same way, to many the game was definitely the right direction for the 'evolution' of 'adventure' games. To others it was a total failure at evolving 'adventure' games.
I actually hope in time to catelog all positive and negative reviews from fans and players for each of the games of the series. Give an overview of all the strengths and weaknesses people have said about each game in the series. Those who think they are 'bad' games, or those who argue they are 'good' games! It really paints a colourful and developed picture of how these games were viewed by the public.
Here is an interview from Roberta from March 1997 Newsweek where she tried to explains the conondrum she was reaching by taking the direction she was taking, rather than the direction she went with Phantasmagoria;
It kind of reminds me of the arguement people are having over the direction the Jurassic Park game is taking!
KQ7 was very much unlike the previous games; should it have had the KQ label taken off it too? KQ5 was also very different--no text? No parser? Silly puzzles? Where's the interactivity?
I think that adventure games are really their own worst enemies. They often wonder why the genre is dead, but they have only themselves to blame for it's death. Closemindedness killed the adventure genre. And sadly, it will probably kill the KQ series all over again when TT's game comes out. Just like KQ8, many have seemed to decided to dislike it already, without seeing a single screenshot.
She only tried to pull her name from it, when the Davidsons tried to take over control, when they tried to get her to get rid of the violence and religious themes. It was actually conservative censorship that she was upset with the 'suits' over Sierra for! In January 1997 she regained control.
Ken even confirmed that today 8-29-2011;
http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=10982.0
Roberta does what Roberta does! She never really cared what others thought! She did what she thought would be a good idea at the time, and what she though people would find fun. She was receiving resistance for her ideas both from the fans and the suits in Sierra!
Ken actually promoted ideas of adding in action ("violence") from the get go (since he thought Adventure games as people knew them were dead, and would have to evolve to survive or stay dead);
Chris Matthews quoting his dad's thoughts in spring 1997 on why King's Quest had to evolve in the market (Interaction, Spring 1997);
Infact, there were people in interviews that were already complaining that adventure games were tired, and old... They wondered why she bothered to even make KQ8 even (here is one interview for example from Adventure Gamers, IIRC);
-.- MoE wasn't even in the same genre as the rest of the series. KQ7 is a point-and-click adventure game. It just has different animation and a slightly different interface.
Or as described in the reference card;
Remember that interview I posted above from NewsWeek? Roberta believed she owned the Adventure game genre, and that she was the one who could define the direction it took!
I quote it again in part;
That being said, the 'Adventure' genre has always been filled with its strange hybrids. Beyond Zork was an Adventure with RPG elements (kinda like KQ8). Quest for Glory 1-4 were adventure games with RPG elements (usually just classified as 'Adventures' by Sierra). There was also Azrael's Tear which was a first person Adventure, with some RPG/action elements! In more modern times, there has been Dreamfall! Indiana Jones Adventure games had combat, etc.
Not everyone likes those games, but that's not the point! Alot of people did!
It's also less serious and more cartoony than any previous KQ game. It's less realistic, characters can be flattened, fall from from super high, and still survive! Except where being flattened is intended to be a death scene oddly enough
And an utterly different tone (much lighter than any KQ game), and an utterly different gameplay system, and a different formula (chapter based, no real death, two characters), an ENTIRELY different interface (no icons, no narrator, no descriptions of the items). The game is closer to a Disney game with the KQ logo slapped on it than any other KQ game.
It also completely lacks King Graham. Rosella's and Valanice's personalities are quite a bit different than any previous game...
Rosella can be described in the game as petulent, spoiled, and rude... She has more in common with a disney princess than the cool, collected girl we saw in KQ4. Even Edgar's personality doesn't even seem to match the personality he had in KQ4...
It makes zero connection to any previous KQ game (other than KQ4), there is no connection made to KQ6, the previous game in the series, explaining its relationship to that game. This is an arguement made for KQ8 as well mind you (though it at least that game made a nod back to Graham, Valanice and the Magic Mirror, and Castle Daventry). Even Connor makes a node to the rest of the family at one point as well (although brief).
Oh ya there is another thing the game lacks, the magic mirror, and Castle Daventry!... The magic mirror in nearly every KQ other than KQ5... (when the castle is stolen before Graham can consult it).
All previous KQ games at least tried to connect each gaem to the previous game in some small way (though never in great detail, so that the game could stand alone on its own merits). KQ2 says it takes place a year or two after KQ1. KQ3 says it takes place about 18 years after KQ2. KQ4 takes place directly after KQ3. KQ5 says it takes place a year after KQ4. KQ6 says it takes place six months after KQ5.
KQ7 could take place before KQ5 or after KQ6 really...
That's actually a very noticeable loss...
I was very happy when KQ8 brought back the item descriptions actually! Even if Connor's descriptions are kinda short.
Nah, seriously have I mentioned that when I first played KQ7, I found the game to be a total let down? It was so removed from KQ6, that I was really turned off... Later when I played KQ8, I felt like it was moving moving closer towards the direction set by KQ6. It wasn't perfect, but it felt closer to the more realistic KQ charm of KQ4-6 to me than KQ7 ever did... I would have loved to see where Roberta would have taken KQ9, had she been given the chance...
KQ7 is my least favorite KQ, and I say that with all honesty... A total letdown...
Oh and ya, the story is shallow, its boring, and its extremely childish...
...voice acting, might be nearly as bad as KQ5, for the numbers of annoying voices (and that is quite a feat)...
This just sounds like genre hate to me. King's Quest doesn't have to be adventure all the time. Indeed, it isn't going to be now seeing as Telltale has the license.
o snap