Adventure Gamers Interview

edited March 2011 in Kings Quest Game
The Daves (Grossman and Felton) were interviewed by Adventure Gamers. Guess what came up?
What do you think makes a Sierra game different from a LucasArts game? Will the stylistic differences affect how you approach the King’s Quest license?
The danger in a Sierra game always seemed more palpable and immediate than in one from LucasArts. Partly this was because LucasArts games took great pains to reassure you that you wouldn’t die and couldn’t do anything wrong, while Sierra games took a certain delight in all of the ways that you might die or otherwise fail that was part of the fun. Lucas games were largely exploratory, while Sierra titles had more of an element of challenge, including a more distinctly puzzley focus, situations with time constraints, and so on.

A good trick for us will be to preserve those elements of peril, challenge, and yes, death, but also hopefully do something to address the frustration that unfortunately tended to come along with them all too often and alienate some of the players (maybe if the game just saves and hits “restore” for you automatically that will be enough).

Thoughts?

Comments

  • edited March 2011
    I always liked the system in Kyrandia 3 where if you died you could just hit second chance. You still died but you really weren't annoyed by it.

    Dying has never been all that bad (look at: every video game ever). Stupid puzzles (not hard puzzles, stupid puzzles that are illogical) and unfair dead ends make games frustrating.

    Or if you have the IQ of a badger.
  • edited March 2011
    Hmm, interesting how they define, "exploration".
  • edited March 2011
    Yeah Sierra really was far more of a worldbuilding, exploratory game maker than Lucas was.

    I doubt exploration will feature heavily in an episodic game though.
  • edited March 2011
    Oh, don't get Lucasarts wrong, I felt there was plenty of exploration in the Monkey Island games (you progressed to new regions as you went on). Zak Mckracken was all about exploration around Earth, and even Mars. Even the Indiana Jones games had that globe-trotting feel to it. Come to think of it even Sam and Max had you exploring the mad side of the United States (with lots of varied environments). The DIG, was very exploratory. I think there was a sense of exploration in Loom. I also felt like I was exploring a large thoughtout world in Grim Fandango as well.

    Then Lucasarts had the self-contained adventures where you explored a limited area (Maniac Mansion games). These types didn't have much 'exploration', but basic settings used for the sake of hte story.

    Then there was full throttle, alot of it was essentially interactive cutscenes, and action sequences. So I didn't get much of an 'exploration vibe' to it.
  • edited March 2011
    It really sounds like they want to do the series justice. I think they realize that they can't dumb down this franchise the way they have BttF. And they've confirmed that they've reached out to multiple ex-Sierra people. I, for one, am pretty excited to see what they come up with.
  • edited March 2011
    It sounds good regarding the death scenes, but I worry due to LucasArts being identified more with exploration here.

    For me, it was the LA games that focused almost solely on puzzles, and the exploration posed no challenge at all. Often you just walked over to the next screen.

    Sierra games had possibilities for very detailed exploration, and this is a big part of the appeal for me. Also, the emphasis on time constraints is not an important part of the Sierra magic in my book.

    The very worst-case reading of this statement would be: little freedom of exploration, focus on puzzles and time constraints. Note that this is probably not the right reading!
  • edited March 2011
    I don't know, exploration in many Sierra games involved, "walking over to the next screen", or clicking on an icon on a map (similar to Sam and Max, Zak McKracken, or Indiana Jones:FOA).

    KQ was probably the exception to the rule. Most other sierra games were fairly linear (SQ or GK for example).

    Hmm, interesting that this interview confirms that the game will be a continuation of KQ canon.
  • edited March 2011
    Looking at the whole interview, I feel even more that the worst-case reading is not correct! Yes, I think King's Quest is in good hands.

    And how terrific they will be picking up the existing story world!! I feel excited all over again!
  • edited March 2011
    I've been excited since I first heard about the game. I'm still very much excited. I don't expext to to be another copy of previous KQ game, but I'm sure it will still be fun and entertaining.
  • edited March 2011
    Despite this interview (meant to calm raging fans for PR) Telltale is still going to have to prove itself to me that it can do KQ justice than just making promises and vague statements. At least they're acknowledging death. I don't understand how he thought LucasArts games were more exploratory than Sierra games, though. Maybe just because of the fact that you can't fail in a LucasArts games means to them that there's more of a chance for exploration? I don't know.
  • edited March 2011
    Despite this interview (meant to calm raging fans for PR) Telltale is still going to have to prove itself to me that it can do KQ justice than just making promises and vague statements. At least they're acknowledging death. I don't understand how he thought LucasArts games were more exploratory than Sierra games, though. Maybe just because of the fact that you can't fail in a LucasArts games means to them that there's more of a chance for exploration? I don't know.

    Maybe he means in reference to the ability to "explore" in those games without having to worry as much about dying if you fell 4 feet off a flight of stairs or something. Personally the lack of "pressure" in those games is one of the reasons I always liked the Sierra brands better.
  • edited March 2011
    Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. And I agree. The lack of pressure made LucasArts games boring sometimes where a Sierra game wouldn't be. At least you could do something to entertain yourself by finding different ways to die if you were stuck! lol In a LucasArts game if you're stuck....you're....stuck.
  • edited March 2011
    (Valiento, me too - I meant this confirms that my excitement has a secure foundation.)
  • edited March 2011
    At the very least, this makes it clear that TTG is hearing the fans' thoughts & fears that have been expressed here about challenging puzzles and including deaths, etc.
  • EmilyEmily Telltale Alumni
    edited March 2011
    Despite this interview (meant to calm raging fans for PR)...

    Actually, the point was to get answers to questions that tons of fans are curious about. Not every King's Quest fan is enraged that Telltale has this license. A lot of people are actually excited about it.
    It sounds good regarding the death scenes, but I worry due to LucasArts being identified more with exploration here.

    I didn't take his answer to mean that exploration only exists in LucasArts games, just that in those games you can explore without an element of danger. In the Sierra games you also explore, but are aware that danger could be around any corner (which of course led to "save early, save often"!) It's a different type of exploration.

    I personally am not a fan of death scenes and wouldn't mind if they went away completely... but I don't expect Telltale's KQ games to submit to my personal list of demands, no matter how big a fan I am. The most important takeaway here is that Telltale's listening to the audience's feedback (some of which is conflicting) and taking it into account during the design process.
  • edited March 2011
    It is as I expected it would be. I never had doubt that TTG wanted to do the series justice, and keep it true to the spirit of the rest of the games. I wouldn't mind a retry button after deaths. In the interview, Grossman mentioned that employees at Telltale are fans of other Sierra series :) I hope this means a potential Space Quest some day. I also liked how he said he wants the game to fit in the King's Quest canon.
  • edited March 2011
    I rather enjoyed this little bit of the interview:

    AG: Have you been following The Silver Lining and AGD Interactive’s King’s Quest remakes? Did these projects play any role in your decision to make new KQ games?

    DG: Yes—in fact Cesar Bittar from Phoenix Online used to work here at Telltale, which is how I personally got my first look at The Silver Lining. The fact that the King’s Quest community is enthusiastic enough to put in the kind of time and sweat that it takes to make games like that gives me a lot of confidence that a new KQ title is a good idea. Of course, I also know that that audience will have high and specific expectations that we’ll have to live up to. But what else is new?
  • edited March 2011
    I'm personally worried about what they'll do to "do something to address the frustration that unfortunately tended to come along with [the sense of peril, challenge, death] all too often and alienate some of the players".

    After all, they're saying in the Jurassic Park previews that they feel the title has puzzle-solving and brain teasers in it, and their chosen gameplay footage is simplistic to the point of being insulting. And remember what "players" we're talking about not wanting to alienate. When it's Grossman talking, we're referring to not wanting to "frustrate" or "alienate" people who don't know that the cursor showing up means you can play, don't know things can be behind doors, don't want to think cleverly or within the confines of a universe's logic, feel no inclination to explore or be inquisitive, don't understand the concept of an idle animation, can't fathom the concept of a UI, don't want to play video games in the first place, and on the whole sees playing video games as a frightening and intimidating activity on the whole. I don't want to hear "We're going to have puzzles, but also we gotta be careful not to alienate players". That could put the game anywhere on a very diverse set of points along a spectrum. I want to hear something solid, what little that sounds "comforting" here comes off as an empty platitude to me, especially since it's next to the same sort of thing that insults the genre by calling it an unintuitive and inaccessible beast.
  • edited March 2011
    I'm mostly concerned about the art style. I know it won't look like an old sierra game, but I think it needs some serious Sierra touches that we haven't really seen from TT before. I think dieing is important but it shouldn't be as brutal as it was in the old days, it needs to be a lot less detrimental to your progress if your not constantly saving. Replaying an hour or more of a game because you screwed up is not fun. I don't care if I die on every screen, it just needs (and I think it will) a "retry" button.
  • edited March 2011
    hey thanks for posting that interview.
  • edited March 2011
    i wasn't worried about TT pooling their resources by hiring ex sierra employees and bringing back certain game elements that made KQ popular since it seems that they have the capacity to do so. What I was worried about is the end product. I like the TT Sam and Max games, but they feel different than Hit the Road. It isn't nostalga, but I guess it is the direction they took the story in and how they handled episodic games at the time. I hope KQ feels like a KQ game even if all the previous KQ were inconsistent in direction if you know what I mean.
  • edited March 2011
    They say that don't want to alienate one group of people (the ones who want games to be easy IMHO). This scares me because they in turn might alienate all of the other fans. If they give an option to turn on and off an automatic save/do over feature, they might actually find some success. This would allow old school sierra fans to play it their way, and those who want a more kq7 style without a chance of dead ends...etc. can have it. I don't know/think Telltale will go through the trouble of making the game work both ways like that, but it might be the only option to be successful.
  • edited March 2011
    I wish there was an autosave feature on this forum. My relatively long post just went kaboom after clicking "Submit reply" took me to a blank page.
  • edited March 2011
    I don't understand why they have like 5 intricate levels of hints that you can get, and yet the puzzles are still cake. The way to go is pretty clear. Make the game reasonably difficult, and have the option for casual gamers to have a basically constant walkthrough provided, along with every notch in-between.
  • edited March 2011
    Emily wrote: »
    Actually, the point was to get answers to questions that tons of fans are curious about.

    How is that different from what I said?
    Not every King's Quest fan is enraged that Telltale has this license. A lot of people are actually excited about it.

    I never said everyone was enraged. I never even said I was enraged. It was a great interview that did its job. People were wanting official answers and they were given. Whether it's just 'market-speak' or from-the-heart down-to-earth answers to the fans we'll just have to wait and see.
    I didn't take his answer to mean that exploration only exists in LucasArts games, just that in those games you can explore without an element of danger.

    That was my thought as well.
    I personally am not a fan of death scenes and wouldn't mind if they went away completely... but I don't expect Telltale's KQ games to submit to my personal list of demands, no matter how big a fan I am. The most important takeaway here is that Telltale's listening to the audience's feedback (some of which is conflicting) and taking it into account during the design process.

    That's a great sign indeed. We'll see how it all turns out.
  • EmilyEmily Telltale Alumni
    edited March 2011
    I took the comment about the interview being "meant to calm raging fans for PR" as an implication that it was just lip service. Glad to hear that's not what you meant!
  • edited March 2011
    I'm personally not entirely sure that it's not. I get that they have nothing to show right now, but I honestly have trouble trusting comments that are right next to nebulously scary comments. It just leaves me wondering which one weighs more strongly, "We totally want to be cool to the license" or "But we don't want to alienate people who are frightened by video games and never want to play one in their entire lives".
  • edited March 2011
    I think self-confidence and not trying too hard to please everyone are admirable qualities in games as well as people. Not advocating arrogance or insensitivity - those are the mirror universe versions of the qualities I mean. Pretty much like Kirk and the mirror Kirk.

    To continue the analogy between games and people, the (possibly unfortunate) fact is that desperation tends to be unappealing. So a game that seems desperate to please may be off-putting for that reason...

    Throwing in psychology, meaningful relationships practically depend on requiring one to adjust something about oneself; they are forged when we willingly step out of our comfort zones into somewhat unknown territory in order to approach more closely something or someone that attracts us.

    But this cannot happen if the person or game pre-empts that personal investment by being too "user-friendly". I know the intentions are good and I am not for user-unfriendliness. Again, that is the mirror universe exaggeration. But I think we all know (or can imagine) how oppressive it is if someone is constantly checking that your every need is met - including imagined ones.

    "Are you sure you are perfectly comfortable even though you do not have a glass of water?" The chances are they would have been, had it not been for this question. Not making such offers is not inconsiderate - it is considerate because you are respecting the other individual's personal space and placing that before your own need to show overt consideration.
  • edited March 2011
    I think self-confidence and not trying too hard to please everyone are admirable qualities in games as well as people. Not advocating arrogance or insensitivity - those are the mirror universe versions of the qualities I mean. Pretty much like Kirk and the mirror Kirk.

    To continue the analogy between games and people, the (possibly unfortunate) fact is that desperation tends to be unappealing. So a game that seems desperate to please may be off-putting for that reason...

    Throwing in psychology, meaningful relationships practically depend on requiring one to adjust something about oneself; they are forged when we willingly step out of our comfort zones into somewhat unknown territory in order to approach more closely something or someone that attracts us.

    But this cannot happen if the person or game pre-empts that personal investment by being too "user-friendly". I know the intentions are good and I am not for user-unfriendliness. Again, that is the mirror universe exaggeration. But I think we all know (or can imagine) how oppressive it is if someone is constantly checking that your every need is met - including imagined ones.

    "Are you sure you are perfectly comfortable even though you do not have a glass of water?" The chances are they would have been, had it not been for this question. Not making such offers is not inconsiderate - it is considerate because you are respecting the other individual's personal space and placing that before your own need to show overt consideration.

    Love your post man
  • edited March 2011
    Thanks, doom saber! Unfortunately I have personal experience of not getting this right myself. (I think I was mainly rephrasing what other posters have said, though.)
  • edited March 2011
    It's great to hear they plan to stay true to the source material. I'd like to think that being based on a classic adventure game licence they will aim to make it harder than the average Telltale fare to appease the old fans who are used to more of a challenge but I guess only time will tell.
  • edited March 2011
    Woodsyblue wrote: »
    It's great to hear they plan to stay true to the source material.

    I have to wonder though, are there really any circumstances where Telltale would say, "Oh yeah, we're totally planning to change it COMPLETELY. Source material and longtime fans can SUCK IT!" ;)
  • edited March 2011
    Lambonius wrote: »
    I have to wonder though, are there really any circumstances where Telltale would say, "Oh yeah, we're totally planning to change it COMPLETELY. Source material and longtime fans can SUCK IT!" ;)

    A lot of people have been questioning if Telltale will stay true to the Sierra model of Adventure games or follow the LucasArts model which they've used for pretty much all their games so far. I should have said I'm glad they confirmed that they are following the Sierra model. That's one less factor fans have to worry about for this upcoming project.
  • edited March 2011
    Woodsyblue wrote: »
    A lot of people have been questioning if Telltale will stay true to the Sierra model of Adventure games or follow the LucasArts model which they've used for pretty much all their games so far. I should have said I'm glad they confirmed that they are following the Sierra model. That's one less factor fans have to worry about for this upcoming project.

    I don't think they've confirmed anything. All they've said is they are going to try and be "true to the source material," which of course, is completely subjective and could mean any number of things.
  • edited March 2011
    Yeah. "True to the source material" could mean they just want to get the world and characters right(which nobody really is doubting them on), but they could diverge as much as they want from there. Seriously, this isn't really an answer, just a platitude. There's nothing concrete in it, nothing with actual weight. Saying "Nah it's okay, we won't screw up" is different than making a solid promise of any real value. Not that they can't or won't, but the answers in this interview simply don't say anything.
  • edited March 2011
    I am optimistic.. I KNOW there are going to be some things in this I am not going to like.. and there are going to be things that I really like... I imagine I will feel like I did when I played ToMI... mixed nostalgia and trepidation... but the overall experience will be something enjoyable and something I will play over and over as the years go by.

    But I am a fan that is willing to accept some changes as long as they are not too great... I do not have a strict definition of what a KQ game HAS to be to be enjoyable and still a KQ game.
  • edited March 2011
    The difference for me with TMI is that a lot of the original creators and developers of Monkey Island worked on TMI. It was a "getting the band back together" kind of thing. All the people that work at Telltale are KQ fans. Not actual former developers. Hopefully they managed to get Josh and/or Roberta in to help actually DESIGN it and not just something like a "Professor of Monkey-ology".
Sign in to comment in this discussion.