You asked what things would be like if any of those people were around still making games. Well Jane is, and she still follows the style pretty closely, so it's a safe assumption that if everybody else were still around they'd probably be following a similar model too. Play Gray Matter (if you can stand it, poor kid having to see characters with emotions and stuff, ew gross) and then play Back to the Future. See the difference?
The name of the thread is "If Sierra was still around...." I know your game's script seems like it was written by people who lack reading comprehension, but I didn't think this malady extended to all of TSL's stuff.
If Sierra was still around (and since they owned the rights, the designers making them would have to either contract with them as Roberta did, or be employees), Jane, in making a KQ game, would be operating under Sierra's rules. Not only that, but also...Not all designers did the games the same exact way as Jane even in the Sierra days, so, no, I doubt Josh, Roberta or Lorelei Shannon would do a Grey Matter esque game.
Having emotions in a game is one thing. Jensen's and your approach is another. But you knew that
And as late as King's Quest 8, Roberta Williams was trying to make a game that was an adventure with puzzles. More action than previously, but not as much as we ended up with.
Source your quotation. I don't recall it, and so it could be anything from entirely fabricated in your world in which fan games are a looming threat to humanity, to a misunderstanding of a simple ideal for portfolio diversification.
I don't really care for it, honestly.
Bigger than "They would have essentially turned into the spiritual successors to their closest competitors"? I doubt it.
"And lastly, here's another interesting little story that amazingly no one seems to know: By the time Sierra was sold, it was mostly a non-game company. In about 1990 I made the decision to focus away from games. This came about as a result of a discussion with Bill Gates himself. It's a bit of a long story, but we had been talking about Sierra and Microsoft doing a project together when I got bold enough to ask Bill if he would ever consider buying Sierra (I had always had tremendous respect for Microsoft, and would have teamed up with them in a minute). His answer changed Sierra's future.
People at Sierra remember this meeting well, because I came back and changed the company dramatically. Bill said that he had just noted the bankruptcy of United Artists. His contention was that they were in a hit driven business, and that ultimately in a hit driven business you run into a time of no hits. Sierra lived and died with the best seller charts. Fortunately, the charts were very good to us, but Bill's contention was they had also been good to United Artists. Ultimately, you run out of hits and die. It might take a hundred years, as was the case with United Artists, but it always happens. My goal with Sierra was to create a company that would live forever. I didn't want to be a "hit machine".
I set a new goal for Sierra to exit the hit business, and reorganized the company around a new vision to be 1/3rd education, 1/3rd productivity and 1/3rd perennial products. The first two categories should be obvious, but the last needs some explaining. My goal was to find products that could be "rev'ed" each year, such as Microsoft's Flight Simulator, or Electronic Arts Madden Football. I wanted to find an array of products that could be done better each year. Flight (and other) Simulators fit this category, as did construction sets. Products like Caesar fit this definition. The Incredible Machine.
By the time the company was sold, I had about 80-90% of revenue that matched my vision. It's not clear that I would have continued in adventure games at all. My guess is that this vision won't make me popular with adventure gamers, but it was working. My focus was on building a company that would live forever. The new owners had different ideas and scrapped many products I considered key to this vision. I wish they had at least asked where I was trying to steer the company."
Also, from the same interview, on adventure games:
A-T: "Sierra was famous for all the adventures it produced over the years. What makes adventure games something special for you?"
Ken: "I always thought the future of storytelling was on the computer. I predicted that computer games would be bigger than films, and still believe there is huge potential with story-telling games - if done correctly. Watching a story from the inside is more exciting than from the outside. Phantasmagoria was a first step towards where I thought the future was. It's disappointing that we blew it with Phantasmagoria II and shot the category."
A-T: "I can't hear this question anymore, but I have to ask it: are adventures dead?"
Ken: "Asked, and answered - see above."
A-T: "But arguably they are not what they used to be. What do you think is needed to make them stronger again?"
Ken: "Imagine Super Mario quality animation, and the ability to interact with the world, but with realistic characters, and mature plots. But, a story game - not a action game, and not a puzzle game. Focus on characters and plot. That said, I would launch two different projects to reinvent the market, and my second idea might be the bigger one.
I like the idea of where infocom was going. There were the inklings of an idea in their text games - which was to focus on artificial intelligence. If the same effort were coupled with todays computers - perhaps a game could be built that is a VERY accurate simulation. I like the idea of an environment with unpredictable characters. The problem with multi-player is that most people don't like multi-player environments. I think that through having truly smart NPCs, something that could be done that gives the best of both worlds; single and multi-player games. If I personally did a game, this is the area I would focus on. The problem is that games become puzzle games at some point. It's the player versus the traps left by the designer. I have a lot of ideas on how to build credible intelligent characters."
A-T: "I'm sure you've played the LucasArts adventures. Now be honest: did you like them? What was your favorite?"
Ken: "I did play those, and thought they were at least as good as ours. I think we out-marketed LucasArts. My favourite was Loom. I thought it was an incredible product. I wanted to buy the rights from them to do a sequel, but never did."
A-T: "Console gaming or PC gaming?"
Ken: "Had I stayed at Sierra, I would have focused on multi-player (massively so) games, and consoles. The new game consoles are awesome."
Actually, it was Sierra's own management (Dave Grenewetzki) that decided to move away from adventure games. This wasn't some order from CUC, Cendant or Vivendi.
Also, Ken Williams himself said he was gradually moving the company away from adventure games while he was CEO. He had Sierra's future mapped out as early as 1990 and it was to include a gradual move away from adventure games.
I know you're a TSL fanboy, but that's a big leap of logic there.
Dave Grenewetzki was president of Sierra AFTER it was sold. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the owner was CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi, but in any case it doesn't make sense to separate "Sierra's own management" and "Sierra's owner" in the way that you did. Grenewetzki was reporting to a higher-up, either at CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi. The fact that Sierra was owned by someone else means that they were no longer an independent company with autonomous management. There are at least half a dozen Ken Williams interviews out there supporting this, not to mention the whole story with Mask of Eternity's development cycle.
Dave Grenewetzki was president of Sierra AFTER it was sold. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the owner was CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi, but in any case it doesn't make sense to separate "Sierra's own management" and "Sierra's owner" in the way ythat ou did. Grenewetzki was reporting to a higher-up, either at CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi. The fact that Sierra was owned by someone else means that they were no longer an independent company with autonomous management. There are at least half a dozen Ken Williams interviews out there supporting this fact.
It doesn't mean, however, that EVERY SINGLE DECISION MADE by the CEO post 1996 was actually made by CUC, Cendant or Vivendi.
It was Vivendi. Grenewetzki came on board with Sierra in mid-1998 while they were still owned by Cendant. They were sold to Havas in 1998, which was a subsidiary of Vivendi. Grenewetzki decided to stop adventure games sometime in either late 1998 or early 1999 and closed off 4 studios as well as stopped the production of Sierra's magazine, InterAction--All on the same day.
SQ7 was cancelled around October 1997, but the news was given to Scott Murphy on Christmas Eve 1998. None of Sierra's management was keen on adventure games starting around the mid 1990s. Ken was saying as early as 1996 while CEO that the adventure game genre was dead and it was time to move on.
It doesn't mean, however, that EVERY SINGLE DECISION MADE by the CEO post 1996 was actually made by CUC, Cendant or Vivendi.
Now I never said that, did I? What's with all the aggression? I was just pointing out that there were definitely different factors at play in the late 90s, and I didn't think your comment acknowledged that.
Now I never said that, did I? What's with all the aggression? I was just pointing out that there were definitely different factors at play in the late 90s, and I didn't think your comment acknowledged that.
Different factors? Sure.
But there was a growing anti-adventure game sentiment at Sierra even before the sale to CUC, while Ken was on board. The tide of the larger game industry was turning on adventure games in the wake of Wolfenstein, Doom, Tomb Raider Quake.
Yeah.... KQ became an action RPG and Police Quest became SWAT a strategy game.... Sierra was changing... as was Lucasarts... Who can really say where they would have ended up... its possible we would be all here talking about a TTG kings quest game commissioned by Sierra just like Lucasarts did with Monkey Island.
Yeah.... KQ became an action RPG and Police Quest became SWAT a strategy game.... Sierra was changing... as was Lucasarts... Who can really say where they would have ended up... its possible we would be all here talking about a TTG kings quest game commissioned by Sierra just like Lucasarts did with Monkey Island.
I agree with you here. It's possible that Sierra would have gotten out of the adventure genre regardless of the owner because the marketplace itself was changing. But I like to think that maybe King's Quest VIII would have been a different game if Sierra hadn't been sold, plus maybe Space Quest VII and the next Leisure Suit Larry (and Torin's Passage?) may have been commissioned. If these products had done well, then maybe the marketplace would have left room for adventure games? Just optimistic speculation of course.
I agree with you here. It's possible that Sierra would have gotten out of the adventure genre regardless of the owner because the marketplace itself was changing. But I like to think that maybe King's Quest VIII would have been a different game if Sierra hadn't been sold, plus maybe Space Quest VII and the next Leisure Suit Larry (and Torin's Passage?) may have been commissioned. If these products had done well, then maybe the marketplace would have left room for adventure games? Just speculation of course.
Adventure games weren't doing well period. Not just for Sierra, but well enough for any big company. Which is why even now the only companies designing them are smaller companies.
Geoff: Speaking of adventure games, from what I've heard you have practically declared the "adventure game is dead," at least as we currently know it. Do you think the market has changed that drastically over the past decade to a point where users no longer want icons and huge blurbs of text?
Ken: "I absolutely do. I am proud of the adventure games we've just released, like Rama, Larry 7 and Lighthouse, but, I see these as the end of a whole generation for Sierra, and the industry. We, and others, have evolved the adventure game to the point where you just can't do further evolution. We've pushed this horse as far as it can go. It's time for revolution -- not evolution. I compare this time to when Sierra started making adventure games with graphics, and Infocom thought we were idiots. At that time, all adventure games were text based. The idea of an adventure with graphics seemed silly. Infocom didn't recognize that the market was changing and kept flogging a dead horse -- which resulted in them dying. I think the change we need to make is at least as radical as the one we made over a decade ago. Once again, there are those who are in love with status quo and point at how well we are doing. I should point out that Infocom had 8 of the top 10 selling products within 12 months of their bankruptcy. We tried live action to see if that represented the future, and had our biggest hit ever with Phantasmagoria -- but, I'm not convinced. There are things about live action I like and things I don't -- maybe this is where we'll settle out for the next decade, but I don't think so. I think what Roberta is doing for King’s Quest 8 is more likely to represent the future."
How can we know they wouldn't go in a better direction than Telltale is taking it? I was excited with where Roberta took MOE and I was quite interested to see how else King's Quest would innovate the gaming industry in the future (it was always innovating everything with every game!). Sadly, it fell apart. But we'll never know now will we? What we do know is what kind of games Telltale have made in the past, what they've said in the past, their design philosophy and business model, what they're doing now, and with that, a pretty good idea of what they're going to do later on. That's a lot more substantial than "what would Sierra have done."
All I know is what I like and how I like it. Sierra pretty much always brought that most of the time. It declined a little after 95/96 but I always pictured that as a natural dip that every creative force takes now and then. There's no reason why Sierra couldn't have upped their game again by taking things into a better direction. Telltale aren't doing this. They aren't innovating anything. They're not taking any risks. They're not doing anything DIFFERENT at all. Just making a bunch of movies with different titles that are quite true to their original names, but have zero gameplay experiences. Excellent stories, but no gameplay. And this is all intentional. With King's Quest, half of the tone and the feel of the series was the gameplay. This is what worries me.
They're not doing anything DIFFERENT at all. Just making a bunch of movies with different titles that are quite true to their original names, but have zero gameplay experiences. Excellent stories, but no gameplay. With King's Quest, half of the tone and the feel of the series was the gameplay. This is what worries me.
That's the thought I've been trying to assemble. Telltale has a proven formula that works perfectly for them so they don't really have a whole lot of reason to change it. I think that's where the concern about KQ comes from for many of us, we are hoping that Telltale will do something different from their norm for this game, but they're pretty predictable so far and their pattern doesn't look to be heading in a direction that hardcore KQ fans would be expecting.
How can we know they wouldn't go in a better direction than Telltale is taking it? I was excited with where Roberta took MOE and I was quite interested to see how else King's Quest would innovate the gaming industry in the future (it was always innovating everything with every game!). Sadly, it fell apart. But we'll never know now will we? What we do know is what kind of games Telltale have made in the past, what they've said in the past, their design philosophy and business model, what they're doing now, and with that, a pretty good idea of what they're going to do later on. That's a lot more substantial than "what would Sierra have done."
All I know is what I like and how I like it. Sierra pretty much always brought that most of the time. It declined a little after 95/96 but I always pictured that as a natural dip that every creative force takes now and then. There's no reason why Sierra couldn't have upped their game again by taking things into a better direction. Telltale aren't doing this. They aren't innovating anything. They're not taking any risks. They're not doing anything DIFFERENT at all. Just making a bunch of movies with different titles that are quite true to their original names, but have zero gameplay experiences. Excellent stories, but no gameplay. And this is all intentional. With King's Quest, half of the tone and the feel of the series was the gameplay. This is what worries me.
Considering in one of the last major interviews, where he addressed what he'd do with adventure games if he was still in charge of Sierra, he said Phantas (an interactive movie) was a big step in the right direction.
Absolutely Phantasmagoria was a step in the right direction, I just don't know that the systems were in place for things to keep moving nicely that way. I look at a game like Heavy Rain as the final destination for the path that Phantasmagoria was on.
Adventure games weren't doing well period. Not just for Sierra, but well enough for any big company. Which is why even now the only companies designing them are smaller companies.
Geoff: Speaking of adventure games, from what I've heard you have practically declared the "adventure game is dead," at least as we currently know it. Do you think the market has changed that drastically over the past decade to a point where users no longer want icons and huge blurbs of text?
Ken: "I absolutely do. I am proud of the adventure games we've just released, like Rama, Larry 7 and Lighthouse, but, I see these as the end of a whole generation for Sierra, and the industry. We, and others, have evolved the adventure game to the point where you just can't do further evolution. We've pushed this horse as far as it can go. It's time for revolution -- not evolution. I compare this time to when Sierra started making adventure games with graphics, and Infocom thought we were idiots. At that time, all adventure games were text based. The idea of an adventure with graphics seemed silly. Infocom didn't recognize that the market was changing and kept flogging a dead horse -- which resulted in them dying. I think the change we need to make is at least as radical as the one we made over a decade ago. Once again, there are those who are in love with status quo and point at how well we are doing. I should point out that Infocom had 8 of the top 10 selling products within 12 months of their bankruptcy. We tried live action to see if that represented the future, and had our biggest hit ever with Phantasmagoria -- but, I'm not convinced. There are things about live action I like and things I don't -- maybe this is where we'll settle out for the next decade, but I don't think so. I think what Roberta is doing for King’s Quest 8 is more likely to represent the future."
Keep in mind that this was written when Robera still had full control over the game (at least that's how Ken's comments make it seem). So it may have turned out differently, perhaps invigorating the declining genre instead.
Keep in mind that this was written when Robera still had full control over the game (at least that's how Ken's comments make it seem). So it may have turned out differently, perhaps invigorating the declining genre instead.
It was still going to be 3D. There was still going to be action and violence in KQ8, just perhaps not to the extent of the released game--She wanted there to be violence. The plot and dialogue was written by her and intended to be more like JRR Tolkien or Malory than Disney. The main character was still going to be Connor. KQ fans still would've hated it as even in her vision, it still deviated from the norm in many ways. The major differences between what Roberta invisioned and what came out seemed to have been:
2 whole worlds/levels (cut for budget and technology)
Full exploration of Castle Daventry in full (cut due to time and the fact that it wasn't really necessary)
More violence.
Also...That interview was Dec '96. At that point, he says in the interview, the game wasn't even playable yet. So it would've probably been another year or so. I think in the InterAction issue from Fall 1996, they said KQ8 had a tentative date of Christmas 1997. By that time, Quake had come out; Tomb Raider had come out; Both had revolutionized the industry.
Consider that plenty of great adventure games (in many different variations on the genre) came out between 1996 and 1999 like The Last Express, Blade Runner, Grim Fandango, Broken Sword, LSL 7, Riven (and all of the Myst clones of the era), QF5, Fable and many others, and none of them were big enough hits to save the genre. It wasn't that they were bad games, but the adventure game fanbase was small compared to the newer, more "SATISFACTION NOW" action/RPG adventure gamer fanbase.
Roberta talked about this once. She blamed the fall of the adventure genre on different demographics buying computers--demographics of people who were less willing to take hours thinking out a game or spending hours trying to solve one puzzle.
It was still going to be 3D. There was still going to be action and violence in KQ8, just perhaps not to the extent of the released game--She wanted there to be violence. The plot and dialogue was written by her and intended to be more like JRR Tolkien or Malory than Disney. The main character was still going to be Connor. KQ fans still would've hated it as even in her vision, it still deviated from the norm in many ways. The major differences between what Roberta invisioned and what came out seemed to have been:
2 whole worlds/levels (cut for budget and technology)
Full exploration of Castle Daventry in full (cut due to time and the fact that it wasn't really necessary)
More violence.
I disagree. I think Roberta's original vision was vastly different from what was released. As I understand it, combat was added in later and was Mark Seibert's idea, not hers. There were three completely different designs for MOE (i.e. two full re-designs). Who's to say how the original concept developed to completion would have turned out? Some of the earliest screenshots released (from Interaction) made it seem more like a traditional adventure game than anything else.
It was still going to be 3D. There was still going to be action and violence in KQ8, just perhaps not to the extent of the released game--She wanted there to be violence. The plot and dialogue was written by her and intended to be more like JRR Tolkien or Malory than Disney. The main character was still going to be Connor. KQ fans still would've hated it as even in her vision, it still deviated from the norm in many ways. The major differences between what Roberta invisioned and what came out seemed to have been:
2 whole worlds/levels (cut for budget and technology)
Full exploration of Castle Daventry in full (cut due to time and the fact that it wasn't really necessary)
More violence.
I don't think you can speak for all KQ fans, because you certainly don't speak for me.
I think Anakin likes to pick and choose the information that suits his opinion most. He's the one, if I'm not mistaken, who pointed out all those facts about MOE and how Roberta lost control eventually and made a bargain to keep her name on the box. He knows very well all this information, he just uses it as he sees fit.
Like I said before, I loved the idea of where MOE was ending up. I was excited to play it. I like MOE as it is now too, but I imagine I would have loved it better if Roberta had seen the whole thing through to the end with full creative control.
I think Anakin likes to pick and choose the information that suits his opinion most. He's the one, if I'm not mistaken, who pointed out all those facts about MOE and how Roberta lost control eventually and made a bargain to keep her name on the box. He knows very well all this information, he just uses it as he sees fit.
Like I said before, I loved the idea of where MOE was ending up. I was excited to play it. I like MOE as it is now too, but I imagine I would have loved it better if Roberta had seen the whole thing through to the end with full creative control.
I was thinking this myself. It's well known fact now that Roberta lost control of the game. You know this, I know this. So how can you say her original vision wasn't that different?
I would love to see Mask of Eternity redone as a more standard point/click game with less action elements and more of the classic adventure feeling to it. The open exploration was nice, but I felt like it was hindered a bit since most of the time I was looking for stuff to kill rather than puzzles to solve.
I disagree. I think Roberta's original vision was vastly different from what was released. As I understand it, combat was added in later and was Mark Seibert's idea, not hers. There were three completely different designs for MOE (i.e. two full re-designs). Who's to say how the original concept developed to completion would have turned out? Some of the earliest screenshots released (from Interaction) made it seem more like a traditional adventure game than anything else.
The earliest info from mid 1996 (from the same InterAction interview I think you're referring to) mentions combat and has the famous screenshot of the Hydra in the Daventry lake (which was cut). Roberta always intended there to be action...Just the AMOUNT of action is what changed.
Mark Seibert definitely had to do with there being MORE action, I agree with that....But Roberta herself seemed to want action in the game, and even defended the idea of violence and killing in KQ game in a huge post on the MoE boards in July 1997 in response to internet critics.
According to Talkspot interviews from 1998, there were three designs because a lot of the game had to be chopped, changed and rearranged etc due to budget and technology concerns. Some of the stuff Roberta wanted to do just wasn't technologically feasible at the time.
Plus, the game's design process was disorganized. The way game's engine was being designed by one division of Sierra (Dynamix), while the actual game was being designed by Sierra itself in Bellevue, WA. And Dynamix ended up being way behind schedule which cost time and money and led to stuff being cut. It was done very haphazardly.
The earliest info from mid 1996 (from the same InterAction interview I think you're referring to) mentions combat and has the famous screenshot of the Hydra in the Daventry lake (which was cut). Roberta always intended there to be action...Just the AMOUNT of action is what changed.
Mark Seibert definitely had to do with there being MORE action, I agree with that....But Roberta herself seemed to want action in the game, and even defended the idea of violence and killing in KQ game in a huge post on the MoE boards in July 1997 in response to internet critics.
According to Talkspot interviews from 1998, there were three designs because a lot of the game had to be chopped, changed and rearranged etc due to budget and technology concerns. Some of the stuff Roberta wanted to do just wasn't technologically feasible at the time.
Plus, the game's design process was disorganized. The way game's engine was being designed by one division of Sierra (Dynamix), while the actual game was being designed by Sierra itself in Bellevue, WA. And Dynamix ended up being way behind schedule which cost time and money and led to stuff being cut. It was done very haphazardly.
I disagree. I think Roberta's original vision was vastly different from what was released. As I understand it, combat was added in later and was Mark Seibert's idea, not hers. There were three completely different designs for MOE (i.e. two full re-designs). Who's to say how the original concept developed to completion would have turned out? Some of the earliest screenshots released (from Interaction) made it seem more like a traditional adventure game than anything else.
Actually by the time hey were showing pictures they were were already showing enemies many of which made it into the released game. The non-combat stage of development was apparently back in early 1995. They we're already discussing combat by the time of the pictures and InterAction discussed the game.
Listen to the talkspot interviews it's there that Mark and Roberta claim it was Mark's idea to add combat originally. Roberta initially wasn't going to have combat. But Mark thought things were too empty between puzzles, nothing to do, nothing to interact with. He suggested the combat (and potions/weapons) to make things more interesting. Roberta claims she questioned it at first and had to be convinced to include it.
Actually by the time hey were showing pictures they were were already showing enemies many of which made it into the released game. The non-combat stage of development was apparently back in early 1995. They we're already discussing combat by the time of the pictures and InterAction discussed the game.
Yup.
Valiento, do you know if any info came out in magazines about KQ8 before the Fall '96 InterAction? i mean other gaming magazines?
Also..I had this magazine way back in 1997 (I was in first grade and was showing KQ8 to friends) which had a long article/preview about KQ8 and had the famous Hydra picure. It had the picture of the swordfight from KQ6. I wish I could remember the magazine.
Actually by the time hey were showing pictures they were were already showing enemies many of which made it into the released game. The non-combat stage of development was apparently back in early 1995. They we're already discussing combat by the time of the pictures and InterAction discussed the game.
Listen to the talkspot interviews it's there that Mark and Roberta claim it was Mark's idea to add combat originally. Roberta initially wasn't going to have combat. But Mark thought things were too empty between puzzles, nothing to do, nothing to interact with. He suggested the combat (and potions/weapons) to make things more interesting. Roberta claims she questioned it at first and had to be convinced to include it.
I don't think the game was even in development in early 1995, as Phantasmagoria hadn't even been released yet, and King's Quest VII was still a new title.
Regardless of when combat was added, my main point is that it's not in our position to say how Roberta's original vision compared with the game that was released. I just know that the original vision was different. I remember, for example, that the Swamp Witch was going to be an actual, interactive character instead of just a "boss" you have to kill in order to progress in the game.
Actually Roberta discusses how she was already planning for Mask while working on Phant, just before it's release during one of the interviews. It was mostly just brainstorming at that point.
Actually Roberta discusses how she was already planning for Mask while working on Phant, just before it's release during one of the interviews. It was mostly just brainstorming at that point.
Right, for example she had already decided it was going to be 3D as early as 1994 or 1995. Phantasmagoria came out in July 1995 and it was probably finished for a couple of months (except for post production) which gives her much of 1995 to be thinking up a new KQ.
She said KQ8 was a "three year project" and it came out in 1998 so it started development in 1995.
Right, for example she had already decided it was going to be 3D as early as 1994 or 1995. Phantasmagoria came out in July 1995 and it was probably finished for a couple of months (except for post production) which gives her much of 1995 to be thinking up a new KQ.
She said KQ8 was a "three year project" and it came out in 1998 so it started development in 1995.
Yes, three year project exactly. That's late 1995 to late 1998. Not early 1995.
Actually Roberta discusses how she was already planning for Mask while working on Phant, just before it's release during one of the interviews. It was mostly just brainstorming at that point.
I'd like to see your source please.
Anyway, I've said all I'm going to regarding this topic. There's no point quibbling about when combat was added or when development began (that's not the main issue I was targetting anyway). As I've said already on multiple occasions, you weren't there and neither was I. Plus we're talking about how the project was intended to be (i.e. in Roberta mind). Unless you're Roberta or have the ability to get inside her head, there's no point in further speculation.
It's mentioned in an article in InterAction don't rembember the issue off the top if my head. I think it was in article concerning Phant as I remember.
I think there is a difference between brainstorming ideas
for a new game and actual hard development. Talk is cheap, that doesn't mean artists and programmers were out in force.
Ok, but Anakin's original claim was that Roberta's original vision was essentially the same as the product that was released. Do you, given all the information that's out there regarding MOE and its development, honestly believe that?
I know I said I wouldn't be posting here, but I just wanted to ask you for your candid opinion before I considered this conversation closed.
I don't know what her 'original' vision is, I think the vision changed several times, and she adapted things to the circumstances as she went.
The game went through three main development phases, and its unclear which part of that you could consider her "original ideas". We can only really discuss idividual ideas, and what her and other designers on the project have said about it individual changes.
The witch thing.... It was apparently just a scripted cutscene event, but was never completed. It would have apparently still lead to a boss battle once inside the fortress ('she would have lured you in'). So all they really did was move the fight outside. Granted more background, even noninteractive, interaction, for the witch would have been nice.
I also don't think some of the stuff we know were her original ideas were necessarily good ideas... I have to agree with Mark Seibert that filling in large open areas of empty space with combat to make things more interesting, was a good idea. Others argue that combat should have been left out completely... But I think Mark's reasoning is valid, empty space would have been boring..
Cool, thanks for explaining your viewpoint. By "original vision" I mean what Roberta intended the game to be before she was pressured to make changes/before other people started added their own ideas to the project (what Ken openly describes happened). I've never, ever heard that the additional witch parts was just a cut scene - I actually talked to Roberta on the phone during the Talkspot specials and asked about that specifically, and she explained that there was much more she wanted to do with the character but it got cut for one reason or another. But anyway, it seems you agree that the vision changed to accomodate the circumstances. (i.e. the product she set out to make was not the product that was delivered). That was my whole point to begin with.
Mark Seibert: Well, it was in the design at one time"
"Roberta Williams:The swamp witch turned into a beautiful lady? I don't remember that in the design?
"Mark Seibert: Remember in the design, she was going to be like this siren, she was going to be this beautiful woman, that if you followed her up into the top of the tower, she would..."
Roberta Williams:"Oh that's right."
"Mark Seibert: "That was a long time ago"
Roberta Williams:"That was long...that was like two designs before the design that we...I tell you...I didn't remember that, that is amazing...little bit of trivia that is true."
"Actually I think if we could go back into the design, I think I would advocate doing more with her. I think she was much more fun character. I think I would have liked to have been able to see her inside her castle, and to do some things with her in there. Which we had originally planned, but it's one of those things. It's always painful to see the leftover design that gets left on the cutting room floor, and you just think about that. The Swamp Witch is real fun.
Most of her answer in the talkspot interview was basically made in 'hindsight', she couldn't even remember what they initially had planned to do with the character, suggesting it wasn't that important.
Other sources such as the "making of video", and a few offhand references in the magazines, suggest she would have just been another boss, once she "exposed herself". Granted we don't really know what if anything happened between her moving from the entrance to the "top of the tower", where she "exposed herself". But there is little evidence, of any puzzles involved.
I don't remember if she added anything more about it in the third Talkspot interview... Shame that episode is lost...
By "original vision" I mean what Roberta intended the game to be before she was pressured to make changes/before other people started added their own ideas to the project (what Ken openly describes happened).
Seriously we don't have much idea what she was "pressured into doing", other than a few offhand comments that she didn't necessarily want combat early on, and Mark Seibert convinced her to include it. An idea I completely agree with Mark Seibert on.
She was also convinced that some things were just not feasible with the limitations of the technology they had, especially when Dynamix failed to deliver the advanced and updated game engine on time, that they needed to make the actual playable game. They were forced to then make a new engine from scratch, which really threw things off (and caused quite a few things to be cut for time). They couldn't actually go about scripting until they had an actual game engine. Most of what you see screenshots on early phase was actually just a level editing software for the Dynamix 3Space engine (but it lacked scripting, or interativity).
"I think I would have liked to have been able to see her inside her castle, and to do some things with her in there. Which we had originally planned, but it's one of those things. It's always painful to see the leftover design that gets left on the cutting room floor, and you just think about that. The Swamp Witch is real fun."
I think this supports exactly what I'm saying.
Regarding the changes she was forced into/loss of control, read Ken's thoughts on the game. It has been posted here somewhere.
Yes, but that comment seems to be made in 'hindsight', it doesn't support if that was the ideas she had initially. She's claiming if she could go back to that part, this is "what she would like to do". This doesn't mean that is what she intially would have 'liked to do' when they were developing that part (she couldn't even rememember what they had initially planned, as Mark had to remind her, that she was going to lead him up to the top of the tower).
The problem is, when it comes to most of the later interviews, about what coulda shoulda happened, everything is in 'hindsight'.
Especially Ken's thoughts on the matter, is seems even more colored with hindsight. His comments are extremely broad, lack specifics. Mark Seibert and Roberta have been far more open about specifics concerning problems during the game's development, and most of that openess appeared in the Talkspot interviews.
In some cases Ken's comments and Mark's and Roberta's comments do not mesh... I don't want to accuse any of them of lieing, but Mark was far more specific about particulars, and doesn't seem to have a reason to 'lie', he has never actually tried to defend the weaknesses in the game (and has been open about them, and in many cases apologizing). Roberta herself on the other hand almost went out of her way to happily defend the game (see talkspot inteviews, JustAdventure interviews, etc), although she was open about problems during the development. She was especially adament about defending the position that it was 'her game' (though some questioned her on that position). But I wouldn't accuse her of lieing either... It's just alot more complicated than Ken's comments would make it.
Comments
The name of the thread is "If Sierra was still around...." I know your game's script seems like it was written by people who lack reading comprehension, but I didn't think this malady extended to all of TSL's stuff.
If Sierra was still around (and since they owned the rights, the designers making them would have to either contract with them as Roberta did, or be employees), Jane, in making a KQ game, would be operating under Sierra's rules. Not only that, but also...Not all designers did the games the same exact way as Jane even in the Sierra days, so, no, I doubt Josh, Roberta or Lorelei Shannon would do a Grey Matter esque game.
Having emotions in a game is one thing. Jensen's and your approach is another. But you knew that
"And lastly, here's another interesting little story that amazingly no one seems to know:
By the time Sierra was sold, it was mostly a non-game company. In about 1990 I made the decision to focus away from games. This came about as a result of a discussion with Bill Gates himself. It's a bit of a long story, but we had been talking about Sierra and Microsoft doing a project together when I got bold enough to ask Bill if he would ever consider buying Sierra (I had always had tremendous respect for Microsoft, and would have teamed up with them in a minute). His answer changed Sierra's future.
People at Sierra remember this meeting well, because I came back and changed the company dramatically. Bill said that he had just noted the bankruptcy of United Artists. His contention was that they were in a hit driven business, and that ultimately in a hit driven business you run into a time of no hits. Sierra lived and died with the best seller charts. Fortunately, the charts were very good to us, but Bill's contention was they had also been good to United Artists. Ultimately, you run out of hits and die. It might take a hundred years, as was the case with United Artists, but it always happens. My goal with Sierra was to create a company that would live forever. I didn't want to be a "hit machine".
I set a new goal for Sierra to exit the hit business, and reorganized the company around a new vision to be 1/3rd education, 1/3rd productivity and 1/3rd perennial products. The first two categories should be obvious, but the last needs some explaining. My goal was to find products that could be "rev'ed" each year, such as Microsoft's Flight Simulator, or Electronic Arts Madden Football. I wanted to find an array of products that could be done better each year. Flight (and other) Simulators fit this category, as did construction sets. Products like Caesar fit this definition. The Incredible Machine.
By the time the company was sold, I had about 80-90% of revenue that matched my vision. It's not clear that I would have continued in adventure games at all. My guess is that this vision won't make me popular with adventure gamers, but it was working. My focus was on building a company that would live forever. The new owners had different ideas and scrapped many products I considered key to this vision. I wish they had at least asked where I was trying to steer the company."
http://www.adventure-treff.de/artikel/interviews/ken_williams_e.php
Also, from the same interview, on adventure games:
A-T: "Sierra was famous for all the adventures it produced over the years. What makes adventure games something special for you?"
Ken: "I always thought the future of storytelling was on the computer. I predicted that computer games would be bigger than films, and still believe there is huge potential with story-telling games - if done correctly. Watching a story from the inside is more exciting than from the outside. Phantasmagoria was a first step towards where I thought the future was. It's disappointing that we blew it with Phantasmagoria II and shot the category."
A-T: "I can't hear this question anymore, but I have to ask it: are adventures dead?"
Ken: "Asked, and answered - see above."
A-T: "But arguably they are not what they used to be. What do you think is needed to make them stronger again?"
Ken: "Imagine Super Mario quality animation, and the ability to interact with the world, but with realistic characters, and mature plots. But, a story game - not a action game, and not a puzzle game. Focus on characters and plot. That said, I would launch two different projects to reinvent the market, and my second idea might be the bigger one.
I like the idea of where infocom was going. There were the inklings of an idea in their text games - which was to focus on artificial intelligence. If the same effort were coupled with todays computers - perhaps a game could be built that is a VERY accurate simulation. I like the idea of an environment with unpredictable characters. The problem with multi-player is that most people don't like multi-player environments. I think that through having truly smart NPCs, something that could be done that gives the best of both worlds; single and multi-player games. If I personally did a game, this is the area I would focus on. The problem is that games become puzzle games at some point. It's the player versus the traps left by the designer. I have a lot of ideas on how to build credible intelligent characters."
A-T: "I'm sure you've played the LucasArts adventures. Now be honest: did you like them? What was your favorite?"
Ken: "I did play those, and thought they were at least as good as ours. I think we out-marketed LucasArts. My favourite was Loom. I thought it was an incredible product. I wanted to buy the rights from them to do a sequel, but never did."
A-T: "Console gaming or PC gaming?"
Ken: "Had I stayed at Sierra, I would have focused on multi-player (massively so) games, and consoles. The new game consoles are awesome."
Dave Grenewetzki was president of Sierra AFTER it was sold. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the owner was CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi, but in any case it doesn't make sense to separate "Sierra's own management" and "Sierra's owner" in the way that you did. Grenewetzki was reporting to a higher-up, either at CUC, Cendant, or Vivendi. The fact that Sierra was owned by someone else means that they were no longer an independent company with autonomous management. There are at least half a dozen Ken Williams interviews out there supporting this, not to mention the whole story with Mask of Eternity's development cycle.
It doesn't mean, however, that EVERY SINGLE DECISION MADE by the CEO post 1996 was actually made by CUC, Cendant or Vivendi.
It was Vivendi. Grenewetzki came on board with Sierra in mid-1998 while they were still owned by Cendant. They were sold to Havas in 1998, which was a subsidiary of Vivendi. Grenewetzki decided to stop adventure games sometime in either late 1998 or early 1999 and closed off 4 studios as well as stopped the production of Sierra's magazine, InterAction--All on the same day.
SQ7 was cancelled around October 1997, but the news was given to Scott Murphy on Christmas Eve 1998. None of Sierra's management was keen on adventure games starting around the mid 1990s. Ken was saying as early as 1996 while CEO that the adventure game genre was dead and it was time to move on.
Now I never said that, did I? What's with all the aggression? I was just pointing out that there were definitely different factors at play in the late 90s, and I didn't think your comment acknowledged that.
Different factors? Sure.
But there was a growing anti-adventure game sentiment at Sierra even before the sale to CUC, while Ken was on board. The tide of the larger game industry was turning on adventure games in the wake of Wolfenstein, Doom, Tomb Raider Quake.
I agree with you here. It's possible that Sierra would have gotten out of the adventure genre regardless of the owner because the marketplace itself was changing. But I like to think that maybe King's Quest VIII would have been a different game if Sierra hadn't been sold, plus maybe Space Quest VII and the next Leisure Suit Larry (and Torin's Passage?) may have been commissioned. If these products had done well, then maybe the marketplace would have left room for adventure games? Just optimistic speculation of course.
Adventure games weren't doing well period. Not just for Sierra, but well enough for any big company. Which is why even now the only companies designing them are smaller companies.
Ken Williams, 1996 interview (while still running Sierra): http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19970524212628/http://www.gameslice.com/interview/ken.html
Geoff: Speaking of adventure games, from what I've heard you have practically declared the "adventure game is dead," at least as we currently know it. Do you think the market has changed that drastically over the past decade to a point where users no longer want icons and huge blurbs of text?
Ken: "I absolutely do. I am proud of the adventure games we've just released, like Rama, Larry 7 and Lighthouse, but, I see these as the end of a whole generation for Sierra, and the industry. We, and others, have evolved the adventure game to the point where you just can't do further evolution. We've pushed this horse as far as it can go. It's time for revolution -- not evolution. I compare this time to when Sierra started making adventure games with graphics, and Infocom thought we were idiots. At that time, all adventure games were text based. The idea of an adventure with graphics seemed silly. Infocom didn't recognize that the market was changing and kept flogging a dead horse -- which resulted in them dying. I think the change we need to make is at least as radical as the one we made over a decade ago. Once again, there are those who are in love with status quo and point at how well we are doing. I should point out that Infocom had 8 of the top 10 selling products within 12 months of their bankruptcy. We tried live action to see if that represented the future, and had our biggest hit ever with Phantasmagoria -- but, I'm not convinced. There are things about live action I like and things I don't -- maybe this is where we'll settle out for the next decade, but I don't think so. I think what Roberta is doing for King’s Quest 8 is more likely to represent the future."
All I know is what I like and how I like it. Sierra pretty much always brought that most of the time. It declined a little after 95/96 but I always pictured that as a natural dip that every creative force takes now and then. There's no reason why Sierra couldn't have upped their game again by taking things into a better direction. Telltale aren't doing this. They aren't innovating anything. They're not taking any risks. They're not doing anything DIFFERENT at all. Just making a bunch of movies with different titles that are quite true to their original names, but have zero gameplay experiences. Excellent stories, but no gameplay. And this is all intentional. With King's Quest, half of the tone and the feel of the series was the gameplay. This is what worries me.
That's the thought I've been trying to assemble. Telltale has a proven formula that works perfectly for them so they don't really have a whole lot of reason to change it. I think that's where the concern about KQ comes from for many of us, we are hoping that Telltale will do something different from their norm for this game, but they're pretty predictable so far and their pattern doesn't look to be heading in a direction that hardcore KQ fans would be expecting.
Considering in one of the last major interviews, where he addressed what he'd do with adventure games if he was still in charge of Sierra, he said Phantas (an interactive movie) was a big step in the right direction.
Yeah, don't even bother playing the demo of this game.
Too bad so sad that AGDI didn't get the license. Haha.
Keep in mind that this was written when Robera still had full control over the game (at least that's how Ken's comments make it seem). So it may have turned out differently, perhaps invigorating the declining genre instead.
It was still going to be 3D. There was still going to be action and violence in KQ8, just perhaps not to the extent of the released game--She wanted there to be violence. The plot and dialogue was written by her and intended to be more like JRR Tolkien or Malory than Disney. The main character was still going to be Connor. KQ fans still would've hated it as even in her vision, it still deviated from the norm in many ways. The major differences between what Roberta invisioned and what came out seemed to have been:
2 whole worlds/levels (cut for budget and technology)
Full exploration of Castle Daventry in full (cut due to time and the fact that it wasn't really necessary)
More violence.
Also...That interview was Dec '96. At that point, he says in the interview, the game wasn't even playable yet. So it would've probably been another year or so. I think in the InterAction issue from Fall 1996, they said KQ8 had a tentative date of Christmas 1997. By that time, Quake had come out; Tomb Raider had come out; Both had revolutionized the industry.
Consider that plenty of great adventure games (in many different variations on the genre) came out between 1996 and 1999 like The Last Express, Blade Runner, Grim Fandango, Broken Sword, LSL 7, Riven (and all of the Myst clones of the era), QF5, Fable and many others, and none of them were big enough hits to save the genre. It wasn't that they were bad games, but the adventure game fanbase was small compared to the newer, more "SATISFACTION NOW" action/RPG adventure gamer fanbase.
Roberta talked about this once. She blamed the fall of the adventure genre on different demographics buying computers--demographics of people who were less willing to take hours thinking out a game or spending hours trying to solve one puzzle.
I disagree. I think Roberta's original vision was vastly different from what was released. As I understand it, combat was added in later and was Mark Seibert's idea, not hers. There were three completely different designs for MOE (i.e. two full re-designs). Who's to say how the original concept developed to completion would have turned out? Some of the earliest screenshots released (from Interaction) made it seem more like a traditional adventure game than anything else.
I don't think you can speak for all KQ fans, because you certainly don't speak for me.
Like I said before, I loved the idea of where MOE was ending up. I was excited to play it. I like MOE as it is now too, but I imagine I would have loved it better if Roberta had seen the whole thing through to the end with full creative control.
I was thinking this myself. It's well known fact now that Roberta lost control of the game. You know this, I know this. So how can you say her original vision wasn't that different?
The earliest info from mid 1996 (from the same InterAction interview I think you're referring to) mentions combat and has the famous screenshot of the Hydra in the Daventry lake (which was cut). Roberta always intended there to be action...Just the AMOUNT of action is what changed.
Mark Seibert definitely had to do with there being MORE action, I agree with that....But Roberta herself seemed to want action in the game, and even defended the idea of violence and killing in KQ game in a huge post on the MoE boards in July 1997 in response to internet critics.
According to Talkspot interviews from 1998, there were three designs because a lot of the game had to be chopped, changed and rearranged etc due to budget and technology concerns. Some of the stuff Roberta wanted to do just wasn't technologically feasible at the time.
Plus, the game's design process was disorganized. The way game's engine was being designed by one division of Sierra (Dynamix), while the actual game was being designed by Sierra itself in Bellevue, WA. And Dynamix ended up being way behind schedule which cost time and money and led to stuff being cut. It was done very haphazardly.
Whatever man, to each his own opinion.
Listen to the talkspot interviews it's there that Mark and Roberta claim it was Mark's idea to add combat originally. Roberta initially wasn't going to have combat. But Mark thought things were too empty between puzzles, nothing to do, nothing to interact with. He suggested the combat (and potions/weapons) to make things more interesting. Roberta claims she questioned it at first and had to be convinced to include it.
Yup.
Valiento, do you know if any info came out in magazines about KQ8 before the Fall '96 InterAction? i mean other gaming magazines?
Also..I had this magazine way back in 1997 (I was in first grade and was showing KQ8 to friends) which had a long article/preview about KQ8 and had the famous Hydra picure. It had the picture of the swordfight from KQ6. I wish I could remember the magazine.
I don't think the game was even in development in early 1995, as Phantasmagoria hadn't even been released yet, and King's Quest VII was still a new title.
Regardless of when combat was added, my main point is that it's not in our position to say how Roberta's original vision compared with the game that was released. I just know that the original vision was different. I remember, for example, that the Swamp Witch was going to be an actual, interactive character instead of just a "boss" you have to kill in order to progress in the game.
Right, for example she had already decided it was going to be 3D as early as 1994 or 1995. Phantasmagoria came out in July 1995 and it was probably finished for a couple of months (except for post production) which gives her much of 1995 to be thinking up a new KQ.
She said KQ8 was a "three year project" and it came out in 1998 so it started development in 1995.
Yes, three year project exactly. That's late 1995 to late 1998. Not early 1995.
I'd like to see your source please.
Anyway, I've said all I'm going to regarding this topic. There's no point quibbling about when combat was added or when development began (that's not the main issue I was targetting anyway). As I've said already on multiple occasions, you weren't there and neither was I. Plus we're talking about how the project was intended to be (i.e. in Roberta mind). Unless you're Roberta or have the ability to get inside her head, there's no point in further speculation.
See you in other, more worthwhile topics.
I think there is a difference between brainstorming ideas
for a new game and actual hard development. Talk is cheap, that doesn't mean artists and programmers were out in force.
I know I said I wouldn't be posting here, but I just wanted to ask you for your candid opinion before I considered this conversation closed.
The game went through three main development phases, and its unclear which part of that you could consider her "original ideas". We can only really discuss idividual ideas, and what her and other designers on the project have said about it individual changes.
The witch thing.... It was apparently just a scripted cutscene event, but was never completed. It would have apparently still lead to a boss battle once inside the fortress ('she would have lured you in'). So all they really did was move the fight outside. Granted more background, even noninteractive, interaction, for the witch would have been nice.
I also don't think some of the stuff we know were her original ideas were necessarily good ideas... I have to agree with Mark Seibert that filling in large open areas of empty space with combat to make things more interesting, was a good idea. Others argue that combat should have been left out completely... But I think Mark's reasoning is valid, empty space would have been boring..
Most of her answer in the talkspot interview was basically made in 'hindsight', she couldn't even remember what they initially had planned to do with the character, suggesting it wasn't that important.
Other sources such as the "making of video", and a few offhand references in the magazines, suggest she would have just been another boss, once she "exposed herself". Granted we don't really know what if anything happened between her moving from the entrance to the "top of the tower", where she "exposed herself". But there is little evidence, of any puzzles involved.
I don't remember if she added anything more about it in the third Talkspot interview... Shame that episode is lost...
Seriously we don't have much idea what she was "pressured into doing", other than a few offhand comments that she didn't necessarily want combat early on, and Mark Seibert convinced her to include it. An idea I completely agree with Mark Seibert on.
She was also convinced that some things were just not feasible with the limitations of the technology they had, especially when Dynamix failed to deliver the advanced and updated game engine on time, that they needed to make the actual playable game. They were forced to then make a new engine from scratch, which really threw things off (and caused quite a few things to be cut for time). They couldn't actually go about scripting until they had an actual game engine. Most of what you see screenshots on early phase was actually just a level editing software for the Dynamix 3Space engine (but it lacked scripting, or interativity).
I think this supports exactly what I'm saying.
Regarding the changes she was forced into/loss of control, read Ken's thoughts on the game. It has been posted here somewhere.
Ok, see you in other topics, for real this time.
The problem is, when it comes to most of the later interviews, about what coulda shoulda happened, everything is in 'hindsight'.
Especially Ken's thoughts on the matter, is seems even more colored with hindsight. His comments are extremely broad, lack specifics. Mark Seibert and Roberta have been far more open about specifics concerning problems during the game's development, and most of that openess appeared in the Talkspot interviews.
In some cases Ken's comments and Mark's and Roberta's comments do not mesh... I don't want to accuse any of them of lieing, but Mark was far more specific about particulars, and doesn't seem to have a reason to 'lie', he has never actually tried to defend the weaknesses in the game (and has been open about them, and in many cases apologizing). Roberta herself on the other hand almost went out of her way to happily defend the game (see talkspot inteviews, JustAdventure interviews, etc), although she was open about problems during the development. She was especially adament about defending the position that it was 'her game' (though some questioned her on that position). But I wouldn't accuse her of lieing either... It's just alot more complicated than Ken's comments would make it.