Sierra was always ahead of their time with innovative ideas. Were there even MMO's in 98? There were very very few if any. Which means they'd have no real model to copy from. Which means THEY would have invented what an MMO would be.
Sierra had The Realm, as far back as 1996! It was kinda like Quest for Glory, but had the whole talk to man, read a note style fetch quests. It was in many ways similar to QFG4 as far as the way you explored the world (screen by screen like most Sierra adventure games). So uh ya, Sierra did invent what what an MMO is to this day!!!
So um ya, Sierra already had been 'revolutionary' as far as MMO's went. Could Roberta had taken it further? Who knows....
That being said no one knows when Roberta planned the MMO aspect of the game, was it before Mark Seibert recommended the enemies? Or was it after?
...the boring talk-man-find-objective puzzles they are today.
Hmm, you just described many of the puzzles in both KQ7 and KQ8, and even Quest for Glory V... Roberta was still ahead of most people, but her puzzle types (as well as others in Sierra) were turning/simplified more towards to glorified fetch quests...
It's no wonder Telltalle has turned towards the model Roberta herself was turning towards in her games... They have just turned to the far extreme of that direction... Like you have said they could look at KQ7's model (and elements of KQ8), use it to make this game, and claim they remain trued to the series!
a little more on the exploration and it would have been even better.
Also, you said that KQ8 should have more exploration? It's actually the most exploratory of all the KQ games! I'd say more so than any previous game in the series! (with the exception of maybe the first four games). Each 'world' is extremely huge, with nearly as many locations to find as in most of the early KQ games (1-4) in each of those areas. You aren't pointed in any particular direction in most cases, and have to discover the items on your own (with the exception of an occasional character or scroll telling you to find specific ingredients to some spell).
KQ5 and KQ6 had more claustrophobic areas, with kind of more linear exploration with one screen next to another screen (or two), rather than screens in all four directions (with the exception of Serenia/Desert). KQ3 became more claustrophobic and linear once you left Llewdor (which luckily was more than half the game).
Beyond that many of the weapons in KQ8 were special items used in puzzle solutions, and not simply weapons for hacking and slashing, or shooting to kill! The combat itself wasn't merely use projectiles on all enemies, or swords in all enemies. Some were better killed by projectiles and not hand weapons, many were completely immune to projectiles. So you had to learn the right weapons for the situation!
In other instances weapons were used in unconventional ways (i.e. not as a weapon). A throwing hammer used to throw a switch to cross a bridge, a axe to cut down a tree, a hammer to break a lock (ok KQ5 had that puzzle too, ), icebow to freeze water, a bow to cut a rope to raise a gate, etc! These were unique ideas, and I can't think of any other game that utilized weapons in such utilarian ways (other than Zelda perhaps).
Granted I do agree, if the bosses or individual enemies were more compelling and complicated in Zelda, where you had to take advantage of items collected in the proverbial 'dungeon' to expose their weaknesses, that would have been great to see in KQ8! Zelda had been doing that for years. Then again it would have been even less like any previous KQ than KQ8 had been.
BTW, according to interviews Roberta had her eyes for development on KQ8 based more on Mario 64, Quake, and Doom. Luckily it was not anything like Quake or Doom (first person shooters with nothing but key/switch puzzles), and was more than Mario 64 (except for those stupid tile/platform/box puzzles)...
Combat turned slightly more towards Diablo style point and click interface (which was largely popular back then).
KQ3 was probably the worst of the 'books/scrolls'' telling you pretty much every item you needed to find, (almost all puzzles were spell ingredients, or items needed to hold spell ingredients), or based on those spells (told how and described the types of locations where the spells could be used). Sierra got alot of complaints because of that! Forced them to change things in the sequels.
I never liked KQ7, KQ8 could (and should) have been better and I don't play the Quest for Glory's. What I meant was, they could have continued to innovate with more successful MMO titles (if done properly without suits involved as much as they were at the time). Sierra continued to refine everything they innovated. Everybody else just copied them. If the MMO's today are truly a result of what Sierra did then they aren't innovating anything. My point is, Sierra would have done better if continuing with Ken at the helm.
And we don't know for sure if it would have even gone in an MMO direction.
Actually, for many of Roberta's more compelling ideas, technology was a hindrence. They couldn't get the game engine they wanted). The engine they were basing much of their early ideas on, was one that was being designed third party by Dynamix (and switched to some other engine as a quick fix). Dynamix was taking too long to finish it. The game engine they forced into using couldn't handle certain ideas like underwater, or water based physics like currents. The powers that be that owned the game didn't want to raise the budget, or extend the development time any longer (it was apparently already over budget and had been given an extra year of developing time). So when they talk about too many people cooking the pot, this is partly to do with the fact that half of the KQ8 team were over at Dynamix, and the other half was at Sierra. One hand didn't know what the other hand was doing! Add to the fact that there was a third group, the Sierra's new owners (the suits) over in France (and the new Sierra president in their pocket), that were pushing for the game's quick release, due to budget concerns, and time (forcing other changes), not listening to Ken or Roberta's advice. So truly there were too many cooks in the kitchen!
Many of Roberta's ideas were added back in the game when she reasserted control in the last year. But they were modified somewhat. Characters were merged, or replaced with alternative characters (that didn't exist in the earliest design concepts). The hermit (with knowledge of all things about the Mask of Eternity), and its crystal of truth (or whatver it was called) for example was split into the Wizard and the hermit in the Realm of the Gnomes. So the final game got two characters for one in that instance. The wood nymph and his sprites got modified into the will of the whisps and King Mudge.
Some of the enemies that were cut, were simply that enemies, to be killed rather defeated through puzzle solutions. The Leprechaun/Red Hat Goblin were both the same character, but they couldn't decide what they wanted that boss to be. It ended up being turned into the Spriggan with the armor (according to Mark Seibert)! At least with the Red Hat Goblin version of that character, some speculate that the player might have encountered more than once through the game (although this hasn't been confirmed).
No one really knows what her plans were for individual puzzles, although few of the behind the scenes information and interviews suggests even more physic based/ action based puzzles, as opposed to classic style inventory puzzles. Especially in the cut underwater level!
The witch would have had a more introductory sequence leading you into her tower, before she changed forms, and started the boss battle! It's not a puzzle, but it would have been a more compelling introduction (this is truly missed).
Castle Daventry may have been extended, not for puzzle purposes, but simply for setting the scenery (would have given a few more places to explore). Giving you a better idea how much damage 'the cataclysm' had caused on the kingdom. You could have gone into the bedroom of Rosella for example!
I think the thing lost that would have improved the game probably the most, is the loss of a compelling ending sequence! It's hinted at by the Oracle of the Tree, but never realized in the released game. That is Connnor was to return to Daventry, and meet King Graham. The torch may haven been passed (Connor becoming the knight of Daventry, that Graham used to be)!
Some ideas were changed simply due to evolution of the story. Connor went from being a nameless statue, to a fisherman's son (Connor mac Lyrr), finally to the tanner (Connor of Daventry) he was in the final release. The exact timing of these changes were made is unclear. The statue idea goes back as far as 1995 or so (when she was first talking about the 3-d "Doom" KQ, someone mentioned above).
BTW, I love KQ8, if anyone wants to know more, I've been putting together a behind the scenes development history of the game (as well as other games) over on the King's Quest Omnipedia.
Most are probably surprised to learn, that nearly each game in the series, had alot of early ideas, that were cut for various reasons. Budget concerns, lack of time in the development cycle, or technology limitations. Quite a few ideas that were going to be in the original KQ1, ended up going into KQ2 for example!
KQ7 also lost quite a few things before its release, including at least one or two other areas. As well as a longer ending sequence, and several encounters. Many of these things can be found in the game's files!
There were a handful of things completely changed or removed from KQ5 as well!
Rarely have we received the games as the developers had initially envisioned!
My point is, Sierra would have done better if continuing with Ken at the helm.
I'd be careful with proclamation. Ken has been on record of admitting had he still owned the company he would have done away with adventure games, went more towards console style action/arcade games, and more productivity software. He was starting to believe that he needed to emulate what was becoming popular out there and less risk taking to make his company more successful and money making.
I recommend checking out his editorials in the later Interaction magazines for examples. Success was going to his head. It was that success that made him forget what truly made them successful. It was that success that lead the mistake of selling off the company as well. He was literally transforming into one of the Suits that plagued the company in it's final years.
He specifically said he wanted to stop taking risks? That's sad to hear. He was do adamant about innovating technology and gameplay. And "you can't innovate without taking risks".
Ya, its sad really eh? Sierra was losing its heart, and entrepreneurial spirit, I'd say even before they sold it off to a small degree. Especially that last year Ken remained on after he sold it.
He thought Adventure games were dead, and wanted to emulate genres that had become more successful, and less risky. Half-life was one of those (although arguably the developers of that game still had an innovative spirit).
In one of his last editorials in Interaction, he admits to being a little late to the party, in adding certain genres to Sierra's portfolio (FPS, RPG, and Strategy games, and Console, etc, IIRC). That he had overlooked their coming popularity, and other companies beat them to the punch at least innovating the technology of those genres.
I think he also said that the Japanese-style RPGs (Final Fantasy VII types) and FPS were the future evolution of Adventure games, and other companies had innovated them before they had.
BTW, I noticed you said you never played Quest for Glory? Shame on you! If you like KQ, that series has many things in common! You are truly missing out!
I never liked KQ7, KQ8 could (and should) have been better and I don't play the Quest for Glory's.
King's Quest 7 was definitely one of the weakest in the series, but alot of the puzzles took me awhile and were more than pick up object and give it to person A. I had so much trouble with that desert. Yes it barely acknowledges the rest of the series, but I never thought it was a horrible game.
To me the quest for Glory series is one of the best series sierra ever released and I'd recommend playing them. Yes it is a RPG but there is alot adventure game puzzles in the first four.
I liked it yes, but I would have liked it a lot more if I didn't have to spend so much time waiting for areas to load and unload, or for the game to restart after locking up in one place or another.
I never said I never played them, I said I don't play them. I played through and beat the first game and tried starting the second but just lost heart. I know what they're all about, but they just aren't my particular brand of tea. Maybe someday I'll get through them all.
The thing I like about QFG is same thing I like about KQ, quite a bit of the material was inspired by fairy tales and myth.
Back to KQ8, here is a good answer from Roberta Williams from 1999 why she decided to make KQ so much differently;
Mask of Eternity has to be one of the most controversial games ever released (next to Phantasmagoria!). Either the critics love it (Just Adventure voted it best action/adventure game of the year) or they loathe it. There does not seem to be any middle ground. To what do you attribute this wide and at times emotional difference of opinions?
The question you asked above is the reason King's Quest: Mask of Eternity was different. The adventure game as we all know and love it is a dead animal, except for those of us who love and revere them. The problem is that those of us who love and revere them are becoming a smaller and smaller audience. If I had created King's Quest 8 exactly the same as the other prior seven, it might have gotten great reviews and kudos from its biggest fans, but it wouldn't have sold as many copies as it has ... I'm sure of that. The people who seem to hate Mask of Eternity are, ironically, King's Quest's biggest fans, and the people who seem to love it are those people who have never played an adventure game before, but who have played lots of other types of games ... especially more action games.
The idea was to bring a brand new audience into adventure game playing--those who would never even consider playing an adventure game. The idea was to show all of these "new" gamers that there is another type of game out there--the adventure game--and that it, too, can be cool. Rather than the hard-core adventure gamers out there being mad at me for "tinkering" with the adventure game, they should understand that, rather than just sitting around and doing the same old thing, I was trying to bring new blood into the genre ... thereby trying to keep it from dying. Times change, and tastes change ... they just do, and you've gotta do what you've gotta do to try and reach the biggest possible audience to keep a genre alive.
One final comment on this: Even though in reviews of "pure" adventure games--places where an adventure game is an adventure game, and never the twain shall meet with other types of genres--Grim Fandango seems to garner great reviews while Mask of Eternity is a dud, a traitor, and a terrible game ... Mask of Eternity has outsold Grim Fandango two to one. What does that prove? It proves that I was successful in bringing in new people to the adventure game marketplace, which is good for all concerned, but ... it also means that there will probably be some changes in the adventure game that today's big fans of adventure games will have to accept. The old-style adventure game that we all know and love will just not cut it in today's world.
If you remember the context that at the time, 1996 or so, Ken wanted to do away with the Adventure game genre since it clearly wasn't successful as it previously been, you can get a better idea why KQ8 and even QFG5 were different than previous games in the genre and were moving more towards standard RPG or Tomb Raideresque/RPG Action Adventure.
Adventures games are only "dead" to major publishers. The genre is alive (if not well) through any number of indie developers. I'll bet there are many more people playing adventure games today than there were 20 years ago, in absolute terms. It's only relative to other genres that adventure gaming has gotten smaller. So Roberta's statement makes more sense this way:
...you've gotta do what you've gotta do to try and reach the biggest possible audience to keep a genre large publishing company alive.
As a fan of the full spectrum of adventure/action-adventure/action games, I've always been cognizant that the latter two evolved (in part) from the former. You have a character with a set of abilities exploring a gameworld and using those abilities to overcome challenges embedded in the gameworld. As technology advanced, the range of possible challenges expanded. Gameplay expanded to encompass combat and movement challenges ("platforming") and not just point-and-click puzzle-solving. It's important to remember, though, that just because one thing evolves from another, it doesn't automatically mean that the original thing is obsolete or undesirable. (So adventure gaming is like the coelacanth -- it might seem "primitive" and "un-evolved", but it's a perfectly viable species in its own niche. ) Also, the recent emergence of the action-puzzler style of game shows that there is still interest in and demand for puzzle-solving gameplay, if not for adventure games.
So the revival of KQ is kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand adventure game production as a whole, being so small, isn't very innovative; yet Telltale is one of the more innovative companies within that market. (Unfortunately, its recent innovative direction, the adventure game as glorified content delivery system, isn't particularly appealing to me, but that's another thread.) But really, no truly innovative game developer in the relevant genres, one capable of taking Mask of Eternity as the jumping off point, would have picked up a franchise this old anyway; they'd be more likely to invent their own IP.
While all this history and speculation is interesting, the KQ9 that Ken and Roberta would have made 12 years ago can never ever be made, not even by Ken and Roberta, not today. We can't revive Sierra itself or its innovative capacity. I think the games themselves and what they meant to their fans -- what they still mean to the fans -- are far more important considerations for developers attempting to continue the KQ series than anything the Williams have said, either prospectively or retrospectively, about the franchise.
Its been said by some at Sierra that many of things we consider Adventure game standby interfaces like parser, action, verb, or icon bar for actions were only used because of technological limitations to show many of those same actions on screen in a real time format. It added realism where action games of that time were too primitive to allow for any sophisticated interaction. That had they had access to more sophisticated technology they would have avoided using them.
As game technology evolved to incorporate more realistic actions, on screen, the classic adventure game interfaces became largely obselete. Were replaced with real time action such as in the FPS genres or expansive Japanese style rpgs. Hence why Ken wanted to push towards those, as the 'future', while retiring classic adventure game genre.
This of course overlooked that adventure games often had the user interacting in mundane way, such as interacting with everyday or mundane objects (like a stove or a toilet). As opposed to moving about like a ninja, or shooting guns! In some ways interactivity was downgraded in these more action oriented games.
There are exceptions, such as the Thief series, Splinter Cell, or Deus Ex offered a large scope and multiple solutions to problems, and unique exploratory and adventure feel, but in a real time world! KQ8 was attempting to go to that direction (but fell short in a few ways). On the one hand, it did maintain some of the classic KQ/adventure interface in some ways (at least the KQ7 style interface), which some of these other games lacked.
Most of those games actually were well received among the adventure game fans, as havign adventure game ethic, despite not being true adventure games, nor intended to be!
I've always liked MoE, just because it's a fun game. The puzzles are fairly simple, and the plot moreso, but as mentioned before, there's a certain "Zelda" feel to it. For what it is, it's not a bad game.
But try to convince me it's a sequel to KQ7 and my brain does somersaults. I'd sooner believe it to be a "Quest for Glory" sequel. I think MoE should have been the beginning of it's own franchise. It would have been far better received if all that stigma wasn't attached to it.
All the plots in KQ games are simple, KQ6 and KQ8 probably as deep as the plots go in the official games... The latter games deepness comes from the symbolism imbedded in the story. That's not saying much as far as KQ games are concerned.
There are actually some puzzles in KQ8 that requiring a little thinking outside the box. For example the pouring water into a slot, and freezing it to make a lever! These physical based puzzles were not simply fetch quests!
For that matter most KQ games had few things connecting them together other than a few characters linking them together into small groupings.
KQ2 has almost nothing to do with KQ1 plot wise.
KQ3 brought the gnome back, but he had little to do with his first appearance. The game has almost little to do with KQ2 plotwise.
KQ5 brought Manannan back, so is the first to partially build on a previous game in any meaningful way.. KQ6 took place were KQ5 left off in some ways (KQ5 and KQ6 are the two most clearly connected stories, with KQ3 following closely).
KQ7 brought back Edgar, but the plot had little to do with KQ4's plot. Not even any Graham, which most would argue is a KQ staple (his scene was cut even). There is nothing linking it to KQ6 at all (it's not a very good sequel, some debate it might even take place before KQ6 chronologically).
KQ4 begins where KQ3 left off but the stories have little connecting them together. He story has little to do with KQ3, except that they take place after each other. Again stand alone!
KQ8 brought back Graham, and Valanice (or at least a painting) and the magic mirror. Plus a single reference to Graham's family, and ideas such as Castle Daventry, and a new location in he kingdom of Daventry. Like most KQ games it quickly goes into unrelated new territory/lands and characters. As far as thematically it has more in common with KQ1. If you remember Graham was just a knight becoming a hero, helping Edward. In KQ8 Connor becomes a knight and a hero, helping King Graham. It's almost as the series came full circle in themes.
Only the fan games have tried to connect everything and the kitchen sink together in convoluted ways.
Maybe Datadog was talking more about the atmosphere or tone or "feel" of Mask, rather than the story or plot, being something of a departure from its predecessor. While all kinds of things about KQ varied from game to game, I think a case could be made that no two sequential titles in the series differ more than KQ7 and Mask, even if you don't count gameplay differences.
Well I think the tone and atmosphere is an intentional and essential part of the story being told! If everything was bright and happy the 'the cataclysm' wouldn't have been effectively portrayed.
The game still has it's whimsical characters though!
But you bring up a good point many of the critics that lambast KQ7 is because the tone and atmosphere was a major departure from KQ6. Which many consider the highlight of the series! It went from a serious story, to something overly silly.
Actually Roberta was questioned why KQ6 had a much darker tone than any previous games in the series in one interview (Official Book of King's Quest VI). She admitted that was something Jane Jensen helped bring into the story.
I always felt KQ8 moved back towards the more serious mood of KQ1 remake, KQ5, KQ6, and even KQ4.
I liked the game, but not as a KQ game.
Maybe if it was a "sidegame" instead (Like Lufia & The Ruins of Lore) of a main series game.... And less buggy of course.
I think had Roberta made KQ9, the game world wouldn't have had such a dark atmosphere (that was there for the sake of the religiously apocalyptic storyline). But she said combat was probably there to stay (to bring in the widest audience)!
She discussed the possibility of a love triangle between Connor, Rosella and Edgar. That she would have to choose between them. She believed it would add drama and humor! So perhaps the game would have been more of a fairy tale of romance and chivalry, a hero that slays an evil dragon to save a princess! I suppose whoever won her heart would win the kingdom. Would their have been two possible endings, depending on the player's choice?! So room for more French fairy tales and myth? A bit of Guinevere, Launceloy & Author and Maid Marian/Robin Hood?
It's amusing but in KQ8 there are hints that why he liked Sarah, he also apparently liked Julia the town bartender, and the game kind of pokes fun that he might even be bit of a womanizer via certain Easter eggs!
In KQ1, you can kill:
The goat
The dragon
The bridge troll
The witch
The giant (in Cloudland)
in KQ1, you MUST kill:
The Witch
The Bridge Troll
In KQ2, you can kill:
The Monk
The Lion
Dracula
The Snake
In KQ2, you must kill:
Dracula
Now, KQ8 operates on a similar principle, except altered a bit:
In the game, you encounter a lot of monsters. But you don't HAVE to kill them all. The only monsters you have to kill are the Bosses, and every level has a boss. You have to survive being around the various monsters yes, but you can easily run away.
Consider the scenes in KQ1 and KQ2--The encounters with the random Enchanters and Dwarvish thieves. They're presented as "exciting" situations and you have to get out of there fast. A similar principle could go for the non-Boss monsters in KQ8--Just escape them as quick as you can.
Every game required at least one death, usually two. A sub-boss and a boss. Think for example of the Yeti and Mordack in KQ5.
I just don't see the action in KQ8 as being all that different than the previous games. It's just the perspective that's different--the 3D.
I wouldn't really count 'killing the monk' exactly. It's more an easter egg. Considering when you do it, the game developers step in to smite you dead! Infact, you are killed by the developers before you can kill the monk, for simply thinking about it! So technically you can't kill the monk!
On a side note, in the earliest games. "kill dwarf', "kill wolf", "kill sorcerer/enchanter", "kill troll", "kill ogre", "push/kill hagatha", "kill rat" are all valid verb noun combinations in the games that return text responses. The response in most of these is that Graham would probably do it, if he wasn't so weak or unskilled! If he could, he would have no quelms of defeating them since they are all apparently evil beings! Even "kill leprechauns" garners a response that they are projected by magic preventing you from defeating them!
Likewise if you push "kill man/woman" or "kill gnome", (in presence of characters in KQ1) or likewise "kill girl/women" (in presence of old lady/Grandma/Riding Hood/Valanice in KQ2) the game asks why Graham would be so cruel or variations there of! These characters represent good characters!
If you try to 'kill mermaid" I think she just swims off, and if you try "kill neptune" he kills you for your troubles!
In contrast in KQ3, if you try to 'kill anyone' the game pretty much says, it is not in your nature to be violent, or that you are not cruel like your master, or such variations. Even if you try to 'kill manannan' in his sleep!
I forget what the game says in KQ4, if you try to type 'kill ____"(creature). But 'kill woman with arrowis a viable phrase at the end of the game IIRC, to shoot lolotte.
The later KQ8 threads should be merged into this one;
As per GuruGuru's thread policy;
First off, please make sure a similar thread doesn't already exist. This forum isn't that large yet, so this shouldn't be too difficult, and we do have a search function. We mods have to track down and merge duplicate threads, so not only does not posting duplicate threads keep the forums less cluttered and running more smoothly, it makes it much easier for us to keep track of things
The KQ8 Remake thread is good separate topoic though, but maybe the Bedouin Connor thread could be merged into that one.
John Shroades: I was the art director on Mask when it started. Mask had a big influence on why I and others left Sierra. It was obvious Sierra had, unfortunately, lost touch with the direction of the game industry in the mid 90's. In my opinion adventure games are like interactive picturebooks for adults, which isn't a bad thing. But they need to have a very interesting abbriviated story and beautiful and interesting environments to play in. The disappointing decisioin to force Mask into a 3d engine before 3d was ready for that kind of experience couldn't deliver the visuals needed. You must admit, in the mid 90's the game audience started demanding a deeper or more fast paced experience and the slow story experience was a smaller audience that was difficult for game companies to justify production for. That experience is making somewhat of a comeback in the found item games on Facebook. I never played Mask, but I know it was a forced project trying to use a technology that wasn't ready to deliver that kind of experience.
Good post, and opinions actually. Of course he doesn't bring up the point that it was Roberta Williams who pushed the 3D thing! But we must remember it is her 'fault' (if you find it a negative!).
On the other hand... If 3D games were never made because they were 'ugly', and "3D wasn't ready" at the time, we may never had progressed to 'better 3D'! It's the early 3D that were used as testing tubes that lead to our modern HD 3D!
He does bring up the excellent point that even if KQ8 came out 2D it would have likely been a flop, because the main gaming audience had moved on to faster more exciting material.
BTW, IIRC. John Shroades was the art director early on in production? He left early, and art went to someone else. Most of John Shroades work in the game was cut IIRC, and reimagined. Only a few things like the frost demons more or less remained close to how they appeared when Shroades was involved.
So this post does give us some interesting insight into why he left!
That experience is making somewhat of a comeback in the found item games on Facebook.
Is he talking about 'hidden object' games? Like those casual games, that require to look for random junk hidden in a picture?
I never played Mask, but I know it was a forced project trying to use a technology that wasn't ready to deliver that kind of experience.
Well, Roberta apparently had alot of internal criticism from her staff for her ideas. Even Mark Seibert pointed out in the Making of KQ8 videos that many of her ideas were unfeasible, and impossible with the technology they had at the time. But Roberta believed they could do it. Who knows, but this may part of the "too many cooks" problem that some say she had. Too many people trying to curb her ideas, even if the concern was true and justified.
Eh I think what he wrote kinda rambles to be honest.
It was obvious Sierra had, unfortunately, lost touch with the direction of the game industry in the mid 90's.
Actually, KQ8 was Sierra's way of trying to remain in touch with the game industry's direction in the mid 90s. As were games like Phantasmagoria, Lighthouse, Rama, their Nascar series, and others and signing other games like Half Life. If they'd lost touch with the industry, they'd still have been putting out VGA/cartoon style adventures, IMO.
In my opinion adventure games are like interactive picturebooks for adults, which isn't a bad thing. But they need to have a very interesting abbriviated story and beautiful and interesting environments to play in.
I think that's overly simplifying adventure games. And Mask has an "interesting abbreviated story" As to beautiful and interesting enviroments---they were interesting and very much rooted in the same background of folklore, legends and myth that KQ had always been founded upon. As far as beauty goes, you weren't going to get much 'beauty' with mid/late 90s 3D.
The disappointing decisioin to force Mask into a 3d engine before 3d was ready for that kind of experience couldn't deliver the visuals needed.
Perhaps. But this sort of contradicts his statement about Sierra losing sight of where the industry was going. Sierra knew early on that 3D was the future. And they tried to adapt KQ to that future.
You must admit, in the mid 90's the game audience started demanding a deeper or more fast paced experience and the slow story experience was a smaller audience that was difficult for game companies to justify production for.
I'd say a fast paced story experience is found in KQ8. And if slow paced story experience games was a smaller audience, what of the success of Baldur's Gate, which came out the same year as KQ8?
That experience is making somewhat of a comeback in the found item games on Facebook. I never played Mask, but I know it was a forced project trying to use a technology that wasn't ready to deliver that kind of experience.
If he's not even played Mask, how can he come to all these kinds of conclusions?
Yeah, what does he know. He only worked for Sierra On Line and worked on Mask Of Eternity. In the capacity as an art director. Pretty weak qualifications.
Yeah, what does he know. He only worked for Sierra On Line and worked on Mask Of Eternity. In the capacity as an art director. Pretty weak qualifications.
Bt
He says he's never even played the finished product...He worked on the game in the first version of it. The game went through three different versions with three different design documents, which from what I've read were quite different from the final game. That'd be like me judging the 1977 Star Wars by the first draft of it's script without ever actually having watched the finished film. And what of the fact that he worked for Sierra or worked on Q8? Does that somehow render his opinion infallible and above any critique?
It is true that they (Roberta) were (was) trying to do things with MOE that just weren't entirely possible at the time. I'm all for pushing the envelope, but that sounds like they were pushing a bit too much. I think the problem with Sierra was that it was too far ahead of its time for its own good.
for the last 3 to 4 years of their existence, the only envelope pushing sierra did was too the bank.
I mean - look - lucasarts and sierra were both run into the ground. But LA did it by crawling completely up the star wars franchises ass. And as horrible as many of those games were, people just don't talk about the demise of LA with the same vitriol as they do Sierra.
I think it has a lot to do wit the asinine statement Ken made towards the end (his imaginary "forever" company), the way they treated their IP developers (Lowe, 2 guys fom Andromeda), and the fact they were willing to bastardize their most popular franchises in an attempt to gain new fans - seemingly without regard to previous fans of the series.
Whether KQ8 was good or not becomes irrelevant if the original fans don't care to play it.
They love to talk about the sales figures of KQ8, but I feel they can be very misleading, especially compared to a game like Grim Fandango. Sierra loved to put titles down to budget prices, while LA did not. So where a predominant amount of KQ8 sales at the $10 price point or under? If so, it doesn't matter how many copies were sold, because the actual sales figure itself would be the same or lower.
Also - the 2 to 1 sales is only for the year of release - and, Roberta is the only source for this "fact". So, even if true, it does not speak towards:
A: International sales numbers
B: Total sales (after year 1)
C: Actual monetary sales, not numerical.
Also, I don't see any groups reverse engineering the kq8 code to get it running properly on modern pc's. On the other hand, the ResidualVM project is coming along nicely...
Also Grim Fandango was in bargain bins in less than a year after its release as well, probably less than a few months even (literally due to it being an abyssmal failure in the market)... As I remember most adventure games ended up that way back then ... The game failed (but most adventure games did at the time), and is described as one of those 'overlooked games'/'best games no one played'. It may actually be one of the biggest flops in gaming history even by some accounts, and the biggest flop for an adventure game!
Which would have looked great in the trophy case if that wasn’t being used as storage for unsold game boxes. The game sold so poorly, and was so good, that it is remembered as signalling the death of the adventure game genre in the 1990s.
Grim sold about a total of 95,000 copies in North America up to year 2003 (compared to average action game at the time which sold 300,000 or more), sold between, a rather vague estimate of between 100,000 and 500,000 copies world wide. Again most action games at that time were selling 2-3 times that amount in much less time. There simply was no profit in the adventure game market at the time, and companies wanted cheap, and quick profits.
Critically acclaimed, award winning ... commercial failure. It is the game you meant to play but didn't until it became hard to find and fell off the shelves, another single wailing the bargain bin blues: Grim Fandango.
However, the sales records did not match the praise; numbers have varied widely over the years, ranging from nearly 100,000 to just shy of 500,000. Still, early on the consensus was the game was "sort of a flop."
KQ8 they were still selling about 50% off from original $59.99 price point at least year after its release from what I recall. But that included their website... (ya Sierra games were often way over priced in comparison to other companies) There were probably other stores that put it into the bargain bins with the other adventures (if they couldn't sell them, and needed to clear their shelves). But not alot of stores tended to carry pc titles for very long. So finding it in a store became less likely the further time from its release. Most of my local stores such as Gamestop stopped carrying PC games altogether (there was no resell value in PC titles), unless you specifically preordered the game.
Based on vague statements I've been able to glean from old magazines, and through interviews, KQ8 may have sold roughly between 400,000 but less than one million (according to Roberta it was supposed to have sold double the previous game KQ7, but probably sold less than Phantasmagoria, which she clamed was her top selling game ever). However, its unclear if she is counting only domestic sales or combining sales worldwide.
Again, I'd argue that Sierra's prices for games were ridiculously higher than most competing companies.
As for review wise, both games Grim and KQ8 got mostly positive reviews. But again ultimately Grim was was considered a flop... Ultimately KQ8 was pretty much a flop as well. It might have sold more than average adventure game, but it probably didn't sell more than the average action game at the time either... Companies were only concerned with the bottom line. KQ8 might not have been a success, but it at least didn't win awards for or is remembered for epically failing like Grim did...
KQ8 was only slightly more marketable because it enticed action gamer or rpg markets somewhat with its hybrid material (action fans were the main demographic at the time), and not just the Adventure game market. But in the end that didn't really save it. Although there was an attempt around 2001/2 or so to make KQ9, as another action game (more in the vein of Zelda). But that never went anywhere.
The exact figures for GK3 aren't known, but it probably wasn't as successful as KQ8 (based on Sierra's "bestselling lists" in the old interaction magazines that as I recall placed KQ8 above GK3 in order), but the first two games sold for about 300,000 copies total (possibly worldwide, but that's not clear). That's roughly 150,000 copies. You can probably chalk up the sales for KQ8 as well as the higher sales for earlier King's Quest in general, due to Roberta being more well known and more respected producer than Jane Jensen was.
Speaking of success by sales figures, KQ5 was apparently top selling computer game for some five years after its release (500,000 copies upon initial release), even outsold KQ6 (which sold for about 300,000 copies initial release IIRC)... It wasn't until Phantasmagoria as far as I know, that that record was beaten (that game sold about 1 million copies on initial release). Roberta was hard to beat when it came to sales figures in the Adventure genre. The total worldwide sales for King's Quest series games as a whole combining the sales for the first 7 games was said to be around 7 million copies (although we have no details how they came to the figure, and it probably does include 'bargain' sales of the collections as well). KQ1 had sold up to 1984 about 500,000 copies as well (according to the 1984 release box). KQ4 is said to have outsold the first three games in the series.
Overall King's Quest was considered the best selling Adventure game series of all time, and each game in the series were generally best sellers.
I don't see any groups reverse engineering the kq8 code to get it running properly on modern pc's. On the other hand, the ResidualVM project is coming along nicely...
There actually is at least one person modifying KQ8 to add stereoscopic 3D support and new higher resolutions oddly enough, from what I understand. It's not going easy for them though. The engine is notoriously buggy, and resistant.
Also there are several groups (including GOG) that have been 'fixing/fixed' (modifying the files, adding in Glide wrapper support etc) it to run on modern machines, and even eliminate the loading times. It certainly has its niche following.
Keep in mind, the GOG version still has load times, and it also requires detection of a CD drive, or virtual drive to run.
The installer for Sierrahelp removes load times, and patches quite a few of the games crashes, and automatically installs Glide support through a wrapper.
Zeckenseck's glide wrapper even has a specific KQ8:MOE mode setup for the game to help with compatibility. There is also a way to double the resolution to higher resolutions through the options.
Here is an interesting quote from Roberta from December 1998;
Did you think KQ8 needed to move to 3D to progress, or do you think it would have been as successful, or would have worked as a 2D game?
"...Well, my experience...and I think its a really good question, my experience in playing this particular game, is that after you have played at least half the game, and you start getting used to it used to the interface, and driving Connor around, and the camera, it just begins to feelso much more immersive, to me, to me, much more immersive than even the older games. I can acknowledge we could have done a better job in many ways, but it is the first of a new type of adventure game certainly for Sierra. Just learning how to design in 3D, and I just think there are some things we did right, and some things we did wrong. To me the exploration and immersiveness of 3D is so much more, I just, I don't think I could personally go back to 2D... Ya... I think so...the worlds are going to have the capability of being able to feel much more real, and as the technology improves and as the computing power of computers improve, its going to get better and better. But you need to play a little through it, and get a little more through it and I think you'll agree." -Roberta Williams, Talkspot interview, part 2, December 1998
He says he's never even played the finished product...He worked on the game in the first version of it. The game went through three different versions with three different design documents, which from what I've read were quite different from the final game. That'd be like me judging the 1977 Star Wars by the first draft of it's script without ever actually having watched the finished film. And what of the fact that he worked for Sierra or worked on Q8? Does that somehow render his opinion infallible and above any critique?
That he worked for them means he has firsthand knowledge of what was going on during development and of the game itself.
I'll tell you straight-out I've never played the finished, released versions of TSL episodes 3 and 4, or at least not the full episodes start to finish. Does that somehow invalidate my knowledge of the game or what development of those was like? Of course it doesn't, I'm one of the designers of the thing and a director of the company!
John Shroades left development half way through, they replaced him with Jason Piel. Much of the artwork was changed at that point, and much of Shroades work was replaced. Only a few elements from Shroades design were retained (including the design and appearance of the artifact, the Mask of Eternity itself) The finished game has almost nothing to do with the versions Shroades worked on.
You can see videos of the earlier work Shroades worked on directly in the first making of video from 1996.
Shroades left early 1997 or so, this is acknowledged in the game if you look at the gravestone graphics, which state;
HERE LIES
JOHN SHROADES
ART DIRECTOR
AD1996-1997
Roberta describing the Mask and John Shroades design;
"...and so I looked back at, like Mesopotamia had their big god, who was a sun god, and he was shown by his symbol was a golden disk with wings. If you look at our mask that we have here, he is golden, and gold has been symbolic of the sun, because it's an incoruptible material, it always shines, it never tarnishes. You can see he sort of has that sun look, the rays are coming out from him. The wings above his eyes came from the old Mesopotamian god,the "winged disk"...and also the beard comes from the lion and Leo, and lions have also been associated with God, and sun gods, and the sun in ancient religions, and is also a very powerful male symbol...and so I took those ideas and worked with a very good artist, who is working for sierra, by the name of John Shroades, and he, I gave him all those ideas, and I gave him different masks, he could look at and the different symbology of various masks, ancient masks, and he came up with this, and I just think it's a very strong symbol."-Roberta Williams, Talk Spot 2.
Keep in mind the 3D engine Shroades was using in 1996, early 1997 version was even more primitive than the version they were using in the final game! Already outdated by the time they were showing it (Dynamix already had several more advanced engines in the works at the time). They were using the old Red Baron I engine. It used alot of 2D sprites for background objects. More like doom, but inbetween Quake in ability. A mix of 2D with a few added 3D elements (such as the character models, and geography). It was even more technically limited than the final release engine (which they had essentially built from scratch).
The final release version although primitive by today's standards did have elements that pushed the technology of the computers of the day back then. But obviously didn't 'age' well when compared to modern games.
That he worked for them means he has firsthand knowledge of what was going on during development and of the game itself.
I'll tell you straight-out I've never played the finished, released versions of TSL episodes 3 and 4, or at least not the full episodes start to finish. Does that somehow invalidate my knowledge of the game or what development of those was like? Of course it doesn't, I'm one of the designers of the thing and a director of the company!
Actually a better comparison would probably be someone like Akril who worked on early version of the game when it was known as "King's Quest IX: Every Cloak Has a Silver Lining", but later left the team, and then commenting on the finalized game (The Silver Lining) based only on knowledge of the earlier version (without having actually played it).
I bring Akril up as an example of individual who was part of development of a very different version of the game, but not part of the development of the final version of the game.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Realm_Online
So um ya, Sierra already had been 'revolutionary' as far as MMO's went. Could Roberta had taken it further? Who knows....
That being said no one knows when Roberta planned the MMO aspect of the game, was it before Mark Seibert recommended the enemies? Or was it after?
Hmm, you just described many of the puzzles in both KQ7 and KQ8, and even Quest for Glory V... Roberta was still ahead of most people, but her puzzle types (as well as others in Sierra) were turning/simplified more towards to glorified fetch quests...
It's no wonder Telltalle has turned towards the model Roberta herself was turning towards in her games... They have just turned to the far extreme of that direction... Like you have said they could look at KQ7's model (and elements of KQ8), use it to make this game, and claim they remain trued to the series!
Also, you said that KQ8 should have more exploration? It's actually the most exploratory of all the KQ games! I'd say more so than any previous game in the series! (with the exception of maybe the first four games). Each 'world' is extremely huge, with nearly as many locations to find as in most of the early KQ games (1-4) in each of those areas. You aren't pointed in any particular direction in most cases, and have to discover the items on your own (with the exception of an occasional character or scroll telling you to find specific ingredients to some spell).
KQ5 and KQ6 had more claustrophobic areas, with kind of more linear exploration with one screen next to another screen (or two), rather than screens in all four directions (with the exception of Serenia/Desert). KQ3 became more claustrophobic and linear once you left Llewdor (which luckily was more than half the game).
Beyond that many of the weapons in KQ8 were special items used in puzzle solutions, and not simply weapons for hacking and slashing, or shooting to kill! The combat itself wasn't merely use projectiles on all enemies, or swords in all enemies. Some were better killed by projectiles and not hand weapons, many were completely immune to projectiles. So you had to learn the right weapons for the situation!
In other instances weapons were used in unconventional ways (i.e. not as a weapon). A throwing hammer used to throw a switch to cross a bridge, a axe to cut down a tree, a hammer to break a lock (ok KQ5 had that puzzle too,
Granted I do agree, if the bosses or individual enemies were more compelling and complicated in Zelda, where you had to take advantage of items collected in the proverbial 'dungeon' to expose their weaknesses, that would have been great to see in KQ8! Zelda had been doing that for years. Then again it would have been even less like any previous KQ than KQ8 had been.
BTW, according to interviews Roberta had her eyes for development on KQ8 based more on Mario 64, Quake, and Doom. Luckily it was not anything like Quake or Doom (first person shooters with nothing but key/switch puzzles), and was more than Mario 64 (except for those stupid tile/platform/box puzzles)...
Combat turned slightly more towards Diablo style point and click interface (which was largely popular back then).
KQ3 was probably the worst of the 'books/scrolls'' telling you pretty much every item you needed to find, (almost all puzzles were spell ingredients, or items needed to hold spell ingredients), or based on those spells (told how and described the types of locations where the spells could be used). Sierra got alot of complaints because of that! Forced them to change things in the sequels.
And we don't know for sure if it would have even gone in an MMO direction.
Actually, for many of Roberta's more compelling ideas, technology was a hindrence. They couldn't get the game engine they wanted). The engine they were basing much of their early ideas on, was one that was being designed third party by Dynamix (and switched to some other engine as a quick fix). Dynamix was taking too long to finish it. The game engine they forced into using couldn't handle certain ideas like underwater, or water based physics like currents. The powers that be that owned the game didn't want to raise the budget, or extend the development time any longer (it was apparently already over budget and had been given an extra year of developing time). So when they talk about too many people cooking the pot, this is partly to do with the fact that half of the KQ8 team were over at Dynamix, and the other half was at Sierra. One hand didn't know what the other hand was doing! Add to the fact that there was a third group, the Sierra's new owners (the suits) over in France (and the new Sierra president in their pocket), that were pushing for the game's quick release, due to budget concerns, and time (forcing other changes), not listening to Ken or Roberta's advice. So truly there were too many cooks in the kitchen!
Many of Roberta's ideas were added back in the game when she reasserted control in the last year. But they were modified somewhat. Characters were merged, or replaced with alternative characters (that didn't exist in the earliest design concepts). The hermit (with knowledge of all things about the Mask of Eternity), and its crystal of truth (or whatver it was called) for example was split into the Wizard and the hermit in the Realm of the Gnomes. So the final game got two characters for one in that instance. The wood nymph and his sprites got modified into the will of the whisps and King Mudge.
Some of the enemies that were cut, were simply that enemies, to be killed rather defeated through puzzle solutions. The Leprechaun/Red Hat Goblin were both the same character, but they couldn't decide what they wanted that boss to be. It ended up being turned into the Spriggan with the armor (according to Mark Seibert)! At least with the Red Hat Goblin version of that character, some speculate that the player might have encountered more than once through the game (although this hasn't been confirmed).
No one really knows what her plans were for individual puzzles, although few of the behind the scenes information and interviews suggests even more physic based/ action based puzzles, as opposed to classic style inventory puzzles. Especially in the cut underwater level!
The witch would have had a more introductory sequence leading you into her tower, before she changed forms, and started the boss battle! It's not a puzzle, but it would have been a more compelling introduction (this is truly missed).
Castle Daventry may have been extended, not for puzzle purposes, but simply for setting the scenery (would have given a few more places to explore). Giving you a better idea how much damage 'the cataclysm' had caused on the kingdom. You could have gone into the bedroom of Rosella for example!
I think the thing lost that would have improved the game probably the most, is the loss of a compelling ending sequence! It's hinted at by the Oracle of the Tree, but never realized in the released game. That is Connnor was to return to Daventry, and meet King Graham. The torch may haven been passed (Connor becoming the knight of Daventry, that Graham used to be)!
Some ideas were changed simply due to evolution of the story. Connor went from being a nameless statue, to a fisherman's son (Connor mac Lyrr), finally to the tanner (Connor of Daventry) he was in the final release. The exact timing of these changes were made is unclear. The statue idea goes back as far as 1995 or so (when she was first talking about the 3-d "Doom" KQ, someone mentioned above).
BTW, I love KQ8, if anyone wants to know more, I've been putting together a behind the scenes development history of the game (as well as other games) over on the King's Quest Omnipedia.
Most are probably surprised to learn, that nearly each game in the series, had alot of early ideas, that were cut for various reasons. Budget concerns, lack of time in the development cycle, or technology limitations. Quite a few ideas that were going to be in the original KQ1, ended up going into KQ2 for example!
KQ7 also lost quite a few things before its release, including at least one or two other areas. As well as a longer ending sequence, and several encounters. Many of these things can be found in the game's files!
There were a handful of things completely changed or removed from KQ5 as well!
Rarely have we received the games as the developers had initially envisioned!
For more see here;
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Game_development
I'd be careful with proclamation. Ken has been on record of admitting had he still owned the company he would have done away with adventure games, went more towards console style action/arcade games, and more productivity software. He was starting to believe that he needed to emulate what was becoming popular out there and less risk taking to make his company more successful and money making.
I recommend checking out his editorials in the later Interaction magazines for examples. Success was going to his head. It was that success that made him forget what truly made them successful. It was that success that lead the mistake of selling off the company as well. He was literally transforming into one of the Suits that plagued the company in it's final years.
He thought Adventure games were dead, and wanted to emulate genres that had become more successful, and less risky. Half-life was one of those (although arguably the developers of that game still had an innovative spirit).
In one of his last editorials in Interaction, he admits to being a little late to the party, in adding certain genres to Sierra's portfolio (FPS, RPG, and Strategy games, and Console, etc, IIRC). That he had overlooked their coming popularity, and other companies beat them to the punch at least innovating the technology of those genres.
I think he also said that the Japanese-style RPGs (Final Fantasy VII types) and FPS were the future evolution of Adventure games, and other companies had innovated them before they had.
BTW, I noticed you said you never played Quest for Glory? Shame on you! If you like KQ, that series has many things in common! You are truly missing out!
King's Quest 7 was definitely one of the weakest in the series, but alot of the puzzles took me awhile and were more than pick up object and give it to person A. I had so much trouble with that desert. Yes it barely acknowledges the rest of the series, but I never thought it was a horrible game.
To me the quest for Glory series is one of the best series sierra ever released and I'd recommend playing them. Yes it is a RPG but there is alot adventure game puzzles in the first four.
Back to KQ8, here is a good answer from Roberta Williams from 1999 why she decided to make KQ so much differently;
If you remember the context that at the time, 1996 or so, Ken wanted to do away with the Adventure game genre since it clearly wasn't successful as it previously been, you can get a better idea why KQ8 and even QFG5 were different than previous games in the genre and were moving more towards standard RPG or Tomb Raideresque/RPG Action Adventure.
As a fan of the full spectrum of adventure/action-adventure/action games, I've always been cognizant that the latter two evolved (in part) from the former. You have a character with a set of abilities exploring a gameworld and using those abilities to overcome challenges embedded in the gameworld. As technology advanced, the range of possible challenges expanded. Gameplay expanded to encompass combat and movement challenges ("platforming") and not just point-and-click puzzle-solving. It's important to remember, though, that just because one thing evolves from another, it doesn't automatically mean that the original thing is obsolete or undesirable. (So adventure gaming is like the coelacanth -- it might seem "primitive" and "un-evolved", but it's a perfectly viable species in its own niche.
So the revival of KQ is kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand adventure game production as a whole, being so small, isn't very innovative; yet Telltale is one of the more innovative companies within that market. (Unfortunately, its recent innovative direction, the adventure game as glorified content delivery system, isn't particularly appealing to me, but that's another thread.) But really, no truly innovative game developer in the relevant genres, one capable of taking Mask of Eternity as the jumping off point, would have picked up a franchise this old anyway; they'd be more likely to invent their own IP.
While all this history and speculation is interesting, the KQ9 that Ken and Roberta would have made 12 years ago can never ever be made, not even by Ken and Roberta, not today. We can't revive Sierra itself or its innovative capacity. I think the games themselves and what they meant to their fans -- what they still mean to the fans -- are far more important considerations for developers attempting to continue the KQ series than anything the Williams have said, either prospectively or retrospectively, about the franchise.
As game technology evolved to incorporate more realistic actions, on screen, the classic adventure game interfaces became largely obselete. Were replaced with real time action such as in the FPS genres or expansive Japanese style rpgs. Hence why Ken wanted to push towards those, as the 'future', while retiring classic adventure game genre.
This of course overlooked that adventure games often had the user interacting in mundane way, such as interacting with everyday or mundane objects (like a stove or a toilet). As opposed to moving about like a ninja, or shooting guns! In some ways interactivity was downgraded in these more action oriented games.
There are exceptions, such as the Thief series, Splinter Cell, or Deus Ex offered a large scope and multiple solutions to problems, and unique exploratory and adventure feel, but in a real time world! KQ8 was attempting to go to that direction (but fell short in a few ways). On the one hand, it did maintain some of the classic KQ/adventure interface in some ways (at least the KQ7 style interface), which some of these other games lacked.
Most of those games actually were well received among the adventure game fans, as havign adventure game ethic, despite not being true adventure games, nor intended to be!
But try to convince me it's a sequel to KQ7 and my brain does somersaults. I'd sooner believe it to be a "Quest for Glory" sequel. I think MoE should have been the beginning of it's own franchise. It would have been far better received if all that stigma wasn't attached to it.
There are actually some puzzles in KQ8 that requiring a little thinking outside the box. For example the pouring water into a slot, and freezing it to make a lever! These physical based puzzles were not simply fetch quests!
For that matter most KQ games had few things connecting them together other than a few characters linking them together into small groupings.
KQ2 has almost nothing to do with KQ1 plot wise.
KQ3 brought the gnome back, but he had little to do with his first appearance. The game has almost little to do with KQ2 plotwise.
KQ5 brought Manannan back, so is the first to partially build on a previous game in any meaningful way.. KQ6 took place were KQ5 left off in some ways (KQ5 and KQ6 are the two most clearly connected stories, with KQ3 following closely).
KQ7 brought back Edgar, but the plot had little to do with KQ4's plot. Not even any Graham, which most would argue is a KQ staple (his scene was cut even). There is nothing linking it to KQ6 at all (it's not a very good sequel, some debate it might even take place before KQ6 chronologically).
KQ4 begins where KQ3 left off but the stories have little connecting them together. He story has little to do with KQ3, except that they take place after each other. Again stand alone!
KQ8 brought back Graham, and Valanice (or at least a painting) and the magic mirror. Plus a single reference to Graham's family, and ideas such as Castle Daventry, and a new location in he kingdom of Daventry. Like most KQ games it quickly goes into unrelated new territory/lands and characters. As far as thematically it has more in common with KQ1. If you remember Graham was just a knight becoming a hero, helping Edward. In KQ8 Connor becomes a knight and a hero, helping King Graham. It's almost as the series came full circle in themes.
Only the fan games have tried to connect everything and the kitchen sink together in convoluted ways.
The game still has it's whimsical characters though!
But you bring up a good point many of the critics that lambast KQ7 is because the tone and atmosphere was a major departure from KQ6. Which many consider the highlight of the series! It went from a serious story, to something overly silly.
Actually Roberta was questioned why KQ6 had a much darker tone than any previous games in the series in one interview (Official Book of King's Quest VI). She admitted that was something Jane Jensen helped bring into the story.
I always felt KQ8 moved back towards the more serious mood of KQ1 remake, KQ5, KQ6, and even KQ4.
Maybe if it was a "sidegame" instead (Like Lufia & The Ruins of Lore) of a main series game.... And less buggy of course.
She discussed the possibility of a love triangle between Connor, Rosella and Edgar. That she would have to choose between them. She believed it would add drama and humor! So perhaps the game would have been more of a fairy tale of romance and chivalry, a hero that slays an evil dragon to save a princess! I suppose whoever won her heart would win the kingdom. Would their have been two possible endings, depending on the player's choice?! So room for more French fairy tales and myth? A bit of Guinevere, Launceloy & Author and Maid Marian/Robin Hood?
It's amusing but in KQ8 there are hints that why he liked Sarah, he also apparently liked Julia the town bartender, and the game kind of pokes fun that he might even be bit of a womanizer via certain Easter eggs!
The goat
The dragon
The bridge troll
The witch
The giant (in Cloudland)
in KQ1, you MUST kill:
The Witch
The Bridge Troll
In KQ2, you can kill:
The Monk
The Lion
Dracula
The Snake
In KQ2, you must kill:
Dracula
Now, KQ8 operates on a similar principle, except altered a bit:
In the game, you encounter a lot of monsters. But you don't HAVE to kill them all. The only monsters you have to kill are the Bosses, and every level has a boss. You have to survive being around the various monsters yes, but you can easily run away.
Consider the scenes in KQ1 and KQ2--The encounters with the random Enchanters and Dwarvish thieves. They're presented as "exciting" situations and you have to get out of there fast. A similar principle could go for the non-Boss monsters in KQ8--Just escape them as quick as you can.
Every game required at least one death, usually two. A sub-boss and a boss. Think for example of the Yeti and Mordack in KQ5.
I just don't see the action in KQ8 as being all that different than the previous games. It's just the perspective that's different--the 3D.
On a side note, in the earliest games. "kill dwarf', "kill wolf", "kill sorcerer/enchanter", "kill troll", "kill ogre", "push/kill hagatha", "kill rat" are all valid verb noun combinations in the games that return text responses. The response in most of these is that Graham would probably do it, if he wasn't so weak or unskilled! If he could, he would have no quelms of defeating them since they are all apparently evil beings! Even "kill leprechauns" garners a response that they are projected by magic preventing you from defeating them!
Likewise if you push "kill man/woman" or "kill gnome", (in presence of characters in KQ1) or likewise "kill girl/women" (in presence of old lady/Grandma/Riding Hood/Valanice in KQ2) the game asks why Graham would be so cruel or variations there of! These characters represent good characters!
If you try to 'kill mermaid" I think she just swims off, and if you try "kill neptune" he kills you for your troubles!
In contrast in KQ3, if you try to 'kill anyone' the game pretty much says, it is not in your nature to be violent, or that you are not cruel like your master, or such variations. Even if you try to 'kill manannan' in his sleep!
I forget what the game says in KQ4, if you try to type 'kill ____"(creature). But 'kill woman with arrowis a viable phrase at the end of the game IIRC, to shoot lolotte.
The later KQ8 threads should be merged into this one;
As per GuruGuru's thread policy;
The KQ8 Remake thread is good separate topoic though, but maybe the Bedouin Connor thread could be merged into that one.
Bam.
Bt
Where did that quote come from, just out of curiosity?
Bt
On the other hand... If 3D games were never made because they were 'ugly', and "3D wasn't ready" at the time, we may never had progressed to 'better 3D'! It's the early 3D that were used as testing tubes that lead to our modern HD 3D!
He does bring up the excellent point that even if KQ8 came out 2D it would have likely been a flop, because the main gaming audience had moved on to faster more exciting material.
BTW, IIRC. John Shroades was the art director early on in production? He left early, and art went to someone else. Most of John Shroades work in the game was cut IIRC, and reimagined. Only a few things like the frost demons more or less remained close to how they appeared when Shroades was involved.
So this post does give us some interesting insight into why he left!
Is he talking about 'hidden object' games? Like those casual games, that require to look for random junk hidden in a picture?
Well, Roberta apparently had alot of internal criticism from her staff for her ideas. Even Mark Seibert pointed out in the Making of KQ8 videos that many of her ideas were unfeasible, and impossible with the technology they had at the time. But Roberta believed they could do it. Who knows, but this may part of the "too many cooks" problem that some say she had. Too many people trying to curb her ideas, even if the concern was true and justified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOPd_wVpuqI
(look about 48 seconds into the video)
Eh I think what he wrote kinda rambles to be honest.
Actually, KQ8 was Sierra's way of trying to remain in touch with the game industry's direction in the mid 90s. As were games like Phantasmagoria, Lighthouse, Rama, their Nascar series, and others and signing other games like Half Life. If they'd lost touch with the industry, they'd still have been putting out VGA/cartoon style adventures, IMO.
I think that's overly simplifying adventure games. And Mask has an "interesting abbreviated story" As to beautiful and interesting enviroments---they were interesting and very much rooted in the same background of folklore, legends and myth that KQ had always been founded upon. As far as beauty goes, you weren't going to get much 'beauty' with mid/late 90s 3D.
Perhaps. But this sort of contradicts his statement about Sierra losing sight of where the industry was going. Sierra knew early on that 3D was the future. And they tried to adapt KQ to that future.
I'd say a fast paced story experience is found in KQ8. And if slow paced story experience games was a smaller audience, what of the success of Baldur's Gate, which came out the same year as KQ8?
If he's not even played Mask, how can he come to all these kinds of conclusions?
His statements are very vague to be honest.
Bt
He says he's never even played the finished product...He worked on the game in the first version of it. The game went through three different versions with three different design documents, which from what I've read were quite different from the final game. That'd be like me judging the 1977 Star Wars by the first draft of it's script without ever actually having watched the finished film. And what of the fact that he worked for Sierra or worked on Q8? Does that somehow render his opinion infallible and above any critique?
I mean - look - lucasarts and sierra were both run into the ground. But LA did it by crawling completely up the star wars franchises ass. And as horrible as many of those games were, people just don't talk about the demise of LA with the same vitriol as they do Sierra.
I think it has a lot to do wit the asinine statement Ken made towards the end (his imaginary "forever" company), the way they treated their IP developers (Lowe, 2 guys fom Andromeda), and the fact they were willing to bastardize their most popular franchises in an attempt to gain new fans - seemingly without regard to previous fans of the series.
Whether KQ8 was good or not becomes irrelevant if the original fans don't care to play it.
They love to talk about the sales figures of KQ8, but I feel they can be very misleading, especially compared to a game like Grim Fandango. Sierra loved to put titles down to budget prices, while LA did not. So where a predominant amount of KQ8 sales at the $10 price point or under? If so, it doesn't matter how many copies were sold, because the actual sales figure itself would be the same or lower.
Also - the 2 to 1 sales is only for the year of release - and, Roberta is the only source for this "fact". So, even if true, it does not speak towards:
A: International sales numbers
B: Total sales (after year 1)
C: Actual monetary sales, not numerical.
Also, I don't see any groups reverse engineering the kq8 code to get it running properly on modern pc's. On the other hand, the ResidualVM project is coming along nicely...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-ceo-talks-game-killing-legend-brutalizing-6199534
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/gaming/20_overlooked_pc_gaming_classics_and_how_play_them_now?page=0,2
http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/36097-5-biggest-flops-in-video-game-history.html
Grim sold about a total of 95,000 copies in North America up to year 2003 (compared to average action game at the time which sold 300,000 or more), sold between, a rather vague estimate of between 100,000 and 500,000 copies world wide. Again most action games at that time were selling 2-3 times that amount in much less time. There simply was no profit in the adventure game market at the time, and companies wanted cheap, and quick profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_gaming#Grim_Fandango
http://web.archive.org/web/20071022075824/http://justadventure.com/articles/Not_Playing/Part_4.shtm
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_139/2994-Walk-Dont-Run
KQ8 they were still selling about 50% off from original $59.99 price point at least year after its release from what I recall. But that included their website... (ya Sierra games were often way over priced in comparison to other companies) There were probably other stores that put it into the bargain bins with the other adventures (if they couldn't sell them, and needed to clear their shelves). But not alot of stores tended to carry pc titles for very long. So finding it in a store became less likely the further time from its release. Most of my local stores such as Gamestop stopped carrying PC games altogether (there was no resell value in PC titles), unless you specifically preordered the game.
Based on vague statements I've been able to glean from old magazines, and through interviews, KQ8 may have sold roughly between 400,000 but less than one million (according to Roberta it was supposed to have sold double the previous game KQ7, but probably sold less than Phantasmagoria, which she clamed was her top selling game ever). However, its unclear if she is counting only domestic sales or combining sales worldwide.
Again, I'd argue that Sierra's prices for games were ridiculously higher than most competing companies.
As for review wise, both games Grim and KQ8 got mostly positive reviews. But again ultimately Grim was was considered a flop... Ultimately KQ8 was pretty much a flop as well. It might have sold more than average adventure game, but it probably didn't sell more than the average action game at the time either... Companies were only concerned with the bottom line. KQ8 might not have been a success, but it at least didn't win awards for or is remembered for epically failing like Grim did...
KQ8 was only slightly more marketable because it enticed action gamer or rpg markets somewhat with its hybrid material (action fans were the main demographic at the time), and not just the Adventure game market. But in the end that didn't really save it. Although there was an attempt around 2001/2 or so to make KQ9, as another action game (more in the vein of Zelda). But that never went anywhere.
The exact figures for GK3 aren't known, but it probably wasn't as successful as KQ8 (based on Sierra's "bestselling lists" in the old interaction magazines that as I recall placed KQ8 above GK3 in order), but the first two games sold for about 300,000 copies total (possibly worldwide, but that's not clear). That's roughly 150,000 copies. You can probably chalk up the sales for KQ8 as well as the higher sales for earlier King's Quest in general, due to Roberta being more well known and more respected producer than Jane Jensen was.
Speaking of success by sales figures, KQ5 was apparently top selling computer game for some five years after its release (500,000 copies upon initial release), even outsold KQ6 (which sold for about 300,000 copies initial release IIRC)... It wasn't until Phantasmagoria as far as I know, that that record was beaten (that game sold about 1 million copies on initial release). Roberta was hard to beat when it came to sales figures in the Adventure genre. The total worldwide sales for King's Quest series games as a whole combining the sales for the first 7 games was said to be around 7 million copies (although we have no details how they came to the figure, and it probably does include 'bargain' sales of the collections as well). KQ1 had sold up to 1984 about 500,000 copies as well (according to the 1984 release box). KQ4 is said to have outsold the first three games in the series.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/KQ4_development#Character
Overall King's Quest was considered the best selling Adventure game series of all time, and each game in the series were generally best sellers.
There actually is at least one person modifying KQ8 to add stereoscopic 3D support and new higher resolutions oddly enough, from what I understand. It's not going easy for them though. The engine is notoriously buggy, and resistant.
Also there are several groups (including GOG) that have been 'fixing/fixed' (modifying the files, adding in Glide wrapper support etc) it to run on modern machines, and even eliminate the loading times. It certainly has its niche following.
http://www.sierrahelp.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=6&start=20
Keep in mind, the GOG version still has load times, and it also requires detection of a CD drive, or virtual drive to run.
The installer for Sierrahelp removes load times, and patches quite a few of the games crashes, and automatically installs Glide support through a wrapper.
Zeckenseck's glide wrapper even has a specific KQ8:MOE mode setup for the game to help with compatibility. There is also a way to double the resolution to higher resolutions through the options.
That he worked for them means he has firsthand knowledge of what was going on during development and of the game itself.
I'll tell you straight-out I've never played the finished, released versions of TSL episodes 3 and 4, or at least not the full episodes start to finish. Does that somehow invalidate my knowledge of the game or what development of those was like? Of course it doesn't, I'm one of the designers of the thing and a director of the company!
You can see videos of the earlier work Shroades worked on directly in the first making of video from 1996.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/KQ8_development#Making_of_Mask_of_Eternity
Shroades left early 1997 or so, this is acknowledged in the game if you look at the gravestone graphics, which state;
Roberta describing the Mask and John Shroades design;
Keep in mind the 3D engine Shroades was using in 1996, early 1997 version was even more primitive than the version they were using in the final game! Already outdated by the time they were showing it (Dynamix already had several more advanced engines in the works at the time). They were using the old Red Baron I engine. It used alot of 2D sprites for background objects. More like doom, but inbetween Quake in ability. A mix of 2D with a few added 3D elements (such as the character models, and geography). It was even more technically limited than the final release engine (which they had essentially built from scratch).
The final release version although primitive by today's standards did have elements that pushed the technology of the computers of the day back then. But obviously didn't 'age' well when compared to modern games.
Actually a better comparison would probably be someone like Akril who worked on early version of the game when it was known as "King's Quest IX: Every Cloak Has a Silver Lining", but later left the team, and then commenting on the finalized game (The Silver Lining) based only on knowledge of the earlier version (without having actually played it).
I bring Akril up as an example of individual who was part of development of a very different version of the game, but not part of the development of the final version of the game.