-Only one goal in mind. Everything else you figure out on your own as you discover the world.
-The world has to be big and full of life and obstacles to get in your way to block you from that goal. Don't give the WHOLE world away all at once, but a lot of it. There has to be some excitement to see new areas, which is what puzzles like getting rid of the snake and fixing the boat in KQ5 were all about. Getting to that new area at last!
-The game has to be dangerous and cause real feelings of suspense, thrill, and excitement. There has to be a possibility of utter failure in the gaming experience if this is to work.
I'm skeptical of any large post that people say is "required reading," but... yeah. This sums it up really well.
This gives me the idea that in order to work episodically and maintain that KQ feel, red herrings have to be set up in earlier episodes. Say in "Episode 1," you come across an angry beaver troll that's preventing you from entering a jungle - you're going to think that this is a puzzle to solve. The catch would be that you don't even get the item you need to get past this beaver troll until Episode 3.
How is that frustrating? It's an adventure game. It's supposed to be difficult. The better the puzzles the better the game. More obstacles means more puzzles; more game!
Listen, we all love KQ, yeah, but come on, let's be honest...It's 2011. All of that cutesy, bright, family friendly Disney-ish crap is so 1990. This is the Jane Jensen age, not the silly bright old Roberta Williams or Walt Disney age. Psh.
This is the modern age, and these are darker times than the bright and sunny 1990s were. KQ needs to be revamped for the darker, more gritty, more emo-centric 2010s. Who really needs all that family friendly nonsense when you can have a dark story with complex characters and a complex storyline? Adventure games are about thinking, dammit! In the original games, you didn't think, you simply had an enjoyable experience--That's so hollow, so fake, such a farce! What good is an adventure game if it doesn't have a mind bending plot and deep characters who have real emotions?
I say ditch all that Disney, fairy tale stuff. This ain't 1984. This is 2011. Out with that old, crappy lighthearted stuff.
No. It's a new day. The old, light hearted, illogical, silly KQ "family friendly" formula isn't going to cut it anymore. This isn't 1990. You can't get away with throwing pies in a Yeti's face anymore. This is 2011. The post family friendly era.These are serious times. Serious times require serious games.
The Kings Quest series started moving in that direction with Mask of Eternity, in that way I'm happy it was the last KQ game so the trend could not continue.
Anakin, you should really check out this team. They're making a game that seems to adhere to your design philosophy. I think you guys would really click.
Anakin, you should really check out this team. They're making a game that seems to adhere to your design philosophy. I think you guys would really click.
OMG. This is lyke...EXACTLY rite up my alley!
I'll download the game later. I have to go to Hot Topic to get some new eyeliner and some bandages to cover up the scars on my wrist. But this game looks mad kewl! I can almost...relate...to it.
How is that frustrating? It's an adventure game. It's supposed to be difficult. The better the puzzles the better the game. More obstacles means more puzzles; more game!
Yeah, it's strange how the adventure game genre in recent times (anything later than the 1990s is 'recent times' for me ) has seen so many extremely easy games... even easier than most games in other genres often.
So that's a bit strange when considering that back in the 'golden era' of adventure gaming, this genre was known for having very difficult games, oftentimes much more difficult than a big percentage of games in other genres.
Adventure games have taken a 180 degree turn when it comes to difficulty, it would seem.
Maybe that's why adventures died. Developers started giving gamers what they thought they wanted; easier puzzles. Eventually gamers got bored with them and moved on to more challenging genres. Now we've come full circle but we're skipping a step and going straight to easy puzzles this time....are we trying to kill adventures faster?
One thing that seems to be happening now is adventure games, being so easy, are starting to attract a new audience - people that mostly play casual games :eek:
And for many of these people, the current level of difficulty is exactly what they want... which may pose the danger that developers will start aiming at this group instead and keep making the games ridiculously easy :eek:
I hope my little 'conspiracy theory' here is just me taking things too far, it would be horrible should that happen.
The public doesn't ever know what it wants. And when it does, a lot of times what it wants isn't good for it.
A famous anecdote about the ancient Greek artist Polykleitos says it all.
After having devised his canon of proportions for the ideal human figure, he created a sculpture in which to illustrate his "perfect" system. In order to prove the supremacy of his system, he asked the public to give him a list of things they wanted to see in their "ideal" sculpture, and then made a sculpture in which he included every one of their demands. He then revealed both sculptures together. The public adored one of them, and laughed at the other. Satisfied with this reaction, Polykleitos addressed the crowds and said, "ah, but the one you laugh at is the one that you have made, but the one you adore, I have made." Or something like that--I paraphrase.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that people don't know shit. Artists have to make their own choices and follow their own ideas. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks donkey balls.
That said, Telltale had better include hard puzzles, large explorable areas, and deaths in their KQ game, or so help me I'll...;)
The public doesn't ever know what it wants. And when it does, a lot of times what it wants isn't good for it.
That said, Telltale had better include hard puzzles, large explorable areas, and deaths in their KQ game, or so help me I'll...;)
The irony of it all! Maybe it's because when developer's give what the fans want they don't do it right because it's not what they would have done. You only know what you do best well.
The public doesn't ever know what it wants. And when it does, a lot of times what it wants isn't good for it.
A famous anecdote about the ancient Greek artist Polykleitos says it all.
After having devised his canon of proportions for the ideal human figure, he created a sculpture in which to illustrate his "perfect" system. In order to prove the supremacy of his system, he asked the public to give him a list of things they wanted to see in their "ideal" sculpture, and then made a sculpture in which he included every one of their demands. He then revealed both sculptures together. The public adored one of them, and laughed at the other. Satisfied with this reaction, Polykleitos addressed the crowds and said, "ah, but the one you laugh at is the one that you have made, but the one you adore, I have made." Or something like that--I paraphrase.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that people don't know shit. Artists have to make their own choices and follow their own ideas. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks donkey balls.
That said, Telltale had better include hard puzzles, large explorable areas, and deaths in their KQ game, or so help me I'll...;)
Well yeah, if you take all of the desires of everyone of course you're going to end up with a massive pile of junk. Input is not inherently bad, and people do know what they enjoy. The problem is trying to please everyone.
I agree the MusicallyInspired hit the nail on the head.
The big thing I noticed when playing Back to the Future Ep1 (my first Telltale game) is that it was very goal-oriented. Don't get me wrong I loved the game, and it kinda worked for BTTF, but in King's Quest you had on overall goal. You weren't told "do this, now do this" (well a little of that from Lolotte maybe)
You had a large world to explore. You could do thing in different orders. You had to figure out the sub-goals for yourself. That's King's Quest.
I would like to see optional acts of kindness. In Mask of Eternity there were hidden mini quests to help others. There was no reward (other than EXP and a hint) but it helped reinforce the protagonist's charter.
For example in the land of the dead there was a lost girl who was trying to find her brother. You could help her get back home. (You could also look for her brother, but it was just a tragic side note.) You didn't receive anything for helping her but if you returned to her home she was always there to thank you for saving her.
I agree the MusicallyInspired hit the nail on the head.
The big thing I noticed when playing Back to the Future Ep1 (my first Telltale game) is that it was very goal-oriented. Don't get me wrong I loved the game, and it kinda worked for BTTF, but in King's Quest you had on overall goal. You weren't told "do this, now do this" (well a little of that from Lolotte maybe)
You had a large world to explore. You could do thing in different orders. You had to figure out the sub-goals for yourself. That's King's Quest.
Not all of Telltale's games are that easy; Back to the Future is looked down upon many Telltale veteran fans for being way too easy, simplistic, and linear. If you want a better representation of Telltale's games, check out their other series such as Sam and Max or Monkey Island. Don't get me wrong; the whole goal orientation is fairly common in all Telltale games, just know that Back to the Future is a bad example to look to as a general representation for Telltale's work as a whole.
He didn't say that made it easy, just different from King's Quest. The sub-goal game mechanic is in all of Telltale's games. I hope it's not in King's Quest.
KQ1 and KQ4 had subgoals but it was all part of the main goal. Both had the sub goals of finding three treasures! KQ4 had also had the main goals of finding magic fruit, and returning Genesta's medallion. Optional goals included returning the the three treasures (freeing the unicorn, locking away Pandora's Box, and bringing the hen back to Genesta)
KQ2 is certainly made up of subgoals, as the idea is to find three keys, with a door riddle suggesting where each is kept. Reading each riddle then changed the world unlocking new characters or areas. For example you cannot enter the antique store until you have read the second door, and started the second subgoal, or you cannot reach the castle until you have read the third door to unlock the third goal!
kQ8 had quite a few sub goals in each new land. The main sub goals of each land was usually finding a way to save the land from some threat! But also to find a way to escape the land and move on. The primary goal was to find the hidden piece of the Mask in each land.
KQ7 had quite a few sub goals these were goals for each chapter, leading to a cliff hanger. You're sub goal was pretty much explained by characters. This is one reason it's one of the most dumbed down games in the series.
The design documents for KQ6 actually has descriptions of KQ6 being built on a system of subgoals and chapters but they are quite organic and hidden that the player can't tell where each begins! For example the first subgoals is to learn where you are, and find a way off the first island. Another chapter begins after you speak to the oracle who actually gives you two possible goals, either entering the castle via the short path or opening up the long path! There are apparently other scripted 'subgoals' hidden in the narrative that open up depending on actions, such as getting the magic map, also unlocks Sing-Sing, which the subgoals is to use to contact Cassima. These small scripted subgoals often have an impact on the ending! Jollo/Lampseller are also tied to one of the scripted events.
KQ3 has a couple of goals. The primary one is to escape the wizard. The subgoals are to finish a series of spells, described in full detail in the book. Then a new goals are added; escape Llewdor, escape pirates, find a way through the mountains, and save sister and Kingdom from dragon. Granted due to the fact that the game holds your hand and tells you what each goal is, it actually gained quite a bit of criticism back in the day in reviews!
KQ5 had kind of intermediate goals, like find treasures in the desert, find stolen heart in the woods, find a way into the mountains, find a way over the mountains to the sea. Find a way to Mordack's island, find a way into the castle, and finally find a way to defeat the wizard.
Actually after KQ7, and KQ8, KQ5 is probably the most linear episodic game in the series, if telltale wanted to find a way to split up each game by smaller regions, leading up to the final area. But this would expecting Telltale to go beyond their norm, and actually choose not to reuse assets, and progress into new areas each game. We haven't really seen that. Tales of MI probably had the most diverse world in a Telltale game, but even it reused the first island in the last two chapters.
Yes, but they don't tell you what to do every single step of the way. In a Telltale game you always know what you're supposed to do. With the possible exception of S&M Season 2, I can't quite remember but there may have been some sub-goal ambiguity there.
Either way, as much as either style may blur the lines and break their own rules both are still quite separate.
Yes, but they don't tell you what to do every single step of the way.
This is exactly what makes Telltale games less fun than the old adventures. No exploration to find the next task. Just hand holding from point A to point B. Every Telltale game I've played is guilty of that to varying degrees, including Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island.
A lot of people hated Full Throttle, actually. But at least it has more interactions than just "click here." And it doesn't tell you what to do for every single screen. In fact, I remember being quite stuck in Full Throttle a few times.
And even if you're right, Full Throttle is not King's Quest.
This is exactly what makes Telltale games less fun than the old adventures. No exploration to find the next task. Just hand holding from point A to point B. Every Telltale game I've played is guilty of that to varying degrees, including Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island.
I couldn't agree more, and this is exactly where I feel the weakness and limitations of episodic games is. In the Telltale games you have a very confined sandbox, a limited selection of locations in each episode.
In Sierra, especially KQ 1-6, you have large areas to explore and some places you can't progress in until later. That fact alone makes it more challenging, and in my opinion, more fun.
I came to think of Isle of Wonder in KQ6; you can't start exploring the island until you have the 5 required items to trick the gnomes.
That's one of the reasons why episodic gaming might not be suitable for the KQ franchise, and I'd much rather see it released as a single game, or less episodes with much more content in them.
I would actually accept that. I would be ok with a 3-episode KQ series spanned around 2-3 months for each episode. Then, at least, there would be no excuse.
I would actually accept that. I would be ok with a 3-episode KQ series spanned around 2-3 months for each episode. Then, at least, there would be no excuse.
That's not a bad idea.. I imagine Telltale are still sticking with the 5 episodes though.
I came to think of Isle of Wonder in KQ6; you can't start exploring the island until you have the 5 required items to trick the gnomes.
That's one of the reasons why episodic gaming might not be suitable for the KQ franchise, and I'd much rather see it released as a single game, or less episodes with much more content in them.
Since the gnomes serve as 'guards' that keep you from exploring the world any further, they would seem like an 'episodic threshold' to overcome, non? i.e., fetching the 5 items would be the main part of episode I, fooling the gnomes would be the climax of episode I, and exploring the Isle of Wonder would be episode II.
Except that you would have to open the game to other islands to get the other items (at least the flower).
The one part where TellTale might consider longer episodes with more content in each is that they have gone away from the pay per episode buisness model. You pay for the full season up front so I doubt it would make much difference to modify the episode layout. If it were a pay per episode plan, they would want MANY short episodes to milk you for the most money as possible.
I never was interested in the Kings Quest franchise but almost everytime i see this topic floating around, i'm wondering why the hell Kings Quest and not Space Quest instead?!
Not that the Space Quest games were brilliant but at least the setting and at least the possible potential is a lot more interesting.
Is it due to that Kings Quest was around before Space Quest? Are there different plans for Space Quest? Licence/money issues? Is it like those Nintendo decisions based on stats like that more people like/haveing dogs than cats so they go for dog games? No science fiction fans at Telltale? ...
King's Quest is more well-known, was Sierra's first adventure franchise (first third-person, free-roaming adventure franchise) and was the first game to invent such a style, and was Sierra's flagship series and mascot.
Why not Space Quest? Well, you could just as easily say why not Gabriel Knight, Laura Bow, or Police Quest.
The first Kings Quest was in a shape that i would definately prefer playing a textadventure with a decent parser instead. Thinking of those it also could be an interesting task reviving one of those as a point&click adventure game.
Gabriel Knight could have been interesting but it would be a different direction, maybe more the one TT is taking with the zombie and the Fables franchises already. I feel left out when the intention of making a Kings Quest adventure is that they want to provide a franchise for the old skool adventurers as the sierra adventures of those days simply sucked.
And Police Quest was just a pile of garbage. On the other side Laura Bow could have been interesting. I have to think of the Blackwell serie now. Anyway a lot better than a Kings Quest.
I sometimes think that within all these years only a certain percentage of the players have evolved and the developers are still making games for kids only. I would mind less if it at least would be done in a entertaining way but it often just turns out to be stupid. Story driven games often feel like teenager minded and experienced persons are trying to tell you something about life. It's nonsense and therefore more and more adults are turning away from quite a number of games.
I think this is the beauty of games like Tetris, Torchlight, ... they don't try pretend to be something they aren't, like BTTF for instance does. They are just plain simple and because they are polished , the mechanics work, ... they are a lot of fun. Now if someone really tries to build a game on aspects like story, characters then it would be very much welcome if they at least try to do it in a convincing way. Nostalgia only, doesn't drive a game anymore, at least it doesn't work for me.
Why are a few small indie productions able to deliver a adventure gaming experience where you don't feel like an idiot if you're older than a teenager and why isn't TT often able to?
Comments
I'm skeptical of any large post that people say is "required reading," but... yeah. This sums it up really well.
This gives me the idea that in order to work episodically and maintain that KQ feel, red herrings have to be set up in earlier episodes. Say in "Episode 1," you come across an angry beaver troll that's preventing you from entering a jungle - you're going to think that this is a puzzle to solve. The catch would be that you don't even get the item you need to get past this beaver troll until Episode 3.
This is the modern age, and these are darker times than the bright and sunny 1990s were. KQ needs to be revamped for the darker, more gritty, more emo-centric 2010s. Who really needs all that family friendly nonsense when you can have a dark story with complex characters and a complex storyline? Adventure games are about thinking, dammit! In the original games, you didn't think, you simply had an enjoyable experience--That's so hollow, so fake, such a farce! What good is an adventure game if it doesn't have a mind bending plot and deep characters who have real emotions?
I say ditch all that Disney, fairy tale stuff. This ain't 1984. This is 2011. Out with that old, crappy lighthearted stuff.
No. It's a new day. The old, light hearted, illogical, silly KQ "family friendly" formula isn't going to cut it anymore. This isn't 1990. You can't get away with throwing pies in a Yeti's face anymore. This is 2011. The post family friendly era.These are serious times. Serious times require serious games.
http://www.tsl-game.com/
OMG. This is lyke...EXACTLY rite up my alley!
I'll download the game later. I have to go to Hot Topic to get some new eyeliner and some bandages to cover up the scars on my wrist. But this game looks mad kewl! I can almost...relate...to it.
Yeah, it's strange how the adventure game genre in recent times (anything later than the 1990s is 'recent times' for me
So that's a bit strange when considering that back in the 'golden era' of adventure gaming, this genre was known for having very difficult games, oftentimes much more difficult than a big percentage of games in other genres.
Adventure games have taken a 180 degree turn when it comes to difficulty, it would seem.
And for many of these people, the current level of difficulty is exactly what they want... which may pose the danger that developers will start aiming at this group instead and keep making the games ridiculously easy :eek:
I hope my little 'conspiracy theory' here is just me taking things too far, it would be horrible should that happen.
A famous anecdote about the ancient Greek artist Polykleitos says it all.
After having devised his canon of proportions for the ideal human figure, he created a sculpture in which to illustrate his "perfect" system. In order to prove the supremacy of his system, he asked the public to give him a list of things they wanted to see in their "ideal" sculpture, and then made a sculpture in which he included every one of their demands. He then revealed both sculptures together. The public adored one of them, and laughed at the other. Satisfied with this reaction, Polykleitos addressed the crowds and said, "ah, but the one you laugh at is the one that you have made, but the one you adore, I have made." Or something like that--I paraphrase.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that people don't know shit. Artists have to make their own choices and follow their own ideas. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks donkey balls.
That said, Telltale had better include hard puzzles, large explorable areas, and deaths in their KQ game, or so help me I'll...;)
The irony of it all! Maybe it's because when developer's give what the fans want they don't do it right because it's not what they would have done. You only know what you do best well.
Well yeah, if you take all of the desires of everyone of course you're going to end up with a massive pile of junk.
The big thing I noticed when playing Back to the Future Ep1 (my first Telltale game) is that it was very goal-oriented. Don't get me wrong I loved the game, and it kinda worked for BTTF, but in King's Quest you had on overall goal. You weren't told "do this, now do this" (well a little of that from Lolotte maybe)
You had a large world to explore. You could do thing in different orders. You had to figure out the sub-goals for yourself. That's King's Quest.
For example in the land of the dead there was a lost girl who was trying to find her brother. You could help her get back home. (You could also look for her brother, but it was just a tragic side note.) You didn't receive anything for helping her but if you returned to her home she was always there to thank you for saving her.
Not all of Telltale's games are that easy; Back to the Future is looked down upon many Telltale veteran fans for being way too easy, simplistic, and linear. If you want a better representation of Telltale's games, check out their other series such as Sam and Max or Monkey Island. Don't get me wrong; the whole goal orientation is fairly common in all Telltale games, just know that Back to the Future is a bad example to look to as a general representation for Telltale's work as a whole.
KQ2 is certainly made up of subgoals, as the idea is to find three keys, with a door riddle suggesting where each is kept. Reading each riddle then changed the world unlocking new characters or areas. For example you cannot enter the antique store until you have read the second door, and started the second subgoal, or you cannot reach the castle until you have read the third door to unlock the third goal!
kQ8 had quite a few sub goals in each new land. The main sub goals of each land was usually finding a way to save the land from some threat! But also to find a way to escape the land and move on. The primary goal was to find the hidden piece of the Mask in each land.
KQ7 had quite a few sub goals these were goals for each chapter, leading to a cliff hanger. You're sub goal was pretty much explained by characters. This is one reason it's one of the most dumbed down games in the series.
The design documents for KQ6 actually has descriptions of KQ6 being built on a system of subgoals and chapters but they are quite organic and hidden that the player can't tell where each begins! For example the first subgoals is to learn where you are, and find a way off the first island. Another chapter begins after you speak to the oracle who actually gives you two possible goals, either entering the castle via the short path or opening up the long path! There are apparently other scripted 'subgoals' hidden in the narrative that open up depending on actions, such as getting the magic map, also unlocks Sing-Sing, which the subgoals is to use to contact Cassima. These small scripted subgoals often have an impact on the ending! Jollo/Lampseller are also tied to one of the scripted events.
KQ3 has a couple of goals. The primary one is to escape the wizard. The subgoals are to finish a series of spells, described in full detail in the book. Then a new goals are added; escape Llewdor, escape pirates, find a way through the mountains, and save sister and Kingdom from dragon. Granted due to the fact that the game holds your hand and tells you what each goal is, it actually gained quite a bit of criticism back in the day in reviews!
KQ5 had kind of intermediate goals, like find treasures in the desert, find stolen heart in the woods, find a way into the mountains, find a way over the mountains to the sea. Find a way to Mordack's island, find a way into the castle, and finally find a way to defeat the wizard.
Actually after KQ7, and KQ8, KQ5 is probably the most linear episodic game in the series, if telltale wanted to find a way to split up each game by smaller regions, leading up to the final area. But this would expecting Telltale to go beyond their norm, and actually choose not to reuse assets, and progress into new areas each game. We haven't really seen that. Tales of MI probably had the most diverse world in a Telltale game, but even it reused the first island in the last two chapters.
Either way, as much as either style may blur the lines and break their own rules both are still quite separate.
This is exactly what makes Telltale games less fun than the old adventures. No exploration to find the next task. Just hand holding from point A to point B. Every Telltale game I've played is guilty of that to varying degrees, including Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island.
Bt
And even if you're right, Full Throttle is not King's Quest.
I did get stuck trying to get into the junkyard.
I couldn't agree more, and this is exactly where I feel the weakness and limitations of episodic games is. In the Telltale games you have a very confined sandbox, a limited selection of locations in each episode.
In Sierra, especially KQ 1-6, you have large areas to explore and some places you can't progress in until later. That fact alone makes it more challenging, and in my opinion, more fun.
I came to think of Isle of Wonder in KQ6; you can't start exploring the island until you have the 5 required items to trick the gnomes.
That's one of the reasons why episodic gaming might not be suitable for the KQ franchise, and I'd much rather see it released as a single game, or less episodes with much more content in them.
That's not a bad idea.. I imagine Telltale are still sticking with the 5 episodes though.
Since the gnomes serve as 'guards' that keep you from exploring the world any further, they would seem like an 'episodic threshold' to overcome, non? i.e., fetching the 5 items would be the main part of episode I, fooling the gnomes would be the climax of episode I, and exploring the Isle of Wonder would be episode II.
The one part where TellTale might consider longer episodes with more content in each is that they have gone away from the pay per episode buisness model. You pay for the full season up front so I doubt it would make much difference to modify the episode layout. If it were a pay per episode plan, they would want MANY short episodes to milk you for the most money as possible.
Not that the Space Quest games were brilliant but at least the setting and at least the possible potential is a lot more interesting.
Is it due to that Kings Quest was around before Space Quest? Are there different plans for Space Quest? Licence/money issues? Is it like those Nintendo decisions based on stats like that more people like/haveing dogs than cats so they go for dog games? No science fiction fans at Telltale? ...
Why not Space Quest? Well, you could just as easily say why not Gabriel Knight, Laura Bow, or Police Quest.
The first Kings Quest was in a shape that i would definately prefer playing a textadventure with a decent parser instead. Thinking of those it also could be an interesting task reviving one of those as a point&click adventure game.
Gabriel Knight could have been interesting but it would be a different direction, maybe more the one TT is taking with the zombie and the Fables franchises already. I feel left out when the intention of making a Kings Quest adventure is that they want to provide a franchise for the old skool adventurers as the sierra adventures of those days simply sucked.
And Police Quest was just a pile of garbage. On the other side Laura Bow could have been interesting. I have to think of the Blackwell serie now. Anyway a lot better than a Kings Quest.
I sometimes think that within all these years only a certain percentage of the players have evolved and the developers are still making games for kids only. I would mind less if it at least would be done in a entertaining way but it often just turns out to be stupid. Story driven games often feel like teenager minded and experienced persons are trying to tell you something about life. It's nonsense and therefore more and more adults are turning away from quite a number of games.
I think this is the beauty of games like Tetris, Torchlight, ... they don't try pretend to be something they aren't, like BTTF for instance does. They are just plain simple and because they are polished , the mechanics work, ... they are a lot of fun. Now if someone really tries to build a game on aspects like story, characters then it would be very much welcome if they at least try to do it in a convincing way. Nostalgia only, doesn't drive a game anymore, at least it doesn't work for me.
Why are a few small indie productions able to deliver a adventure gaming experience where you don't feel like an idiot if you're older than a teenager and why isn't TT often able to?