I've been saying this for years now. Adventure games were popular (relatively speaking) back in the day because they were pushing the technology. When you wanted to show off your new 386, you bought the latest King's Quest game. Even after the advent of first-person shooters, games such as Phantasmagoria and Gabriel Knight 2 came in and were the best-looking games around.
Current fans of the genre like to say that it was always all about the story and characters, because they want to feel as if adventure games are the "intelligent" genre and that they are more cultured than those adolescent FPS players. But as I've said ad nauseum, that is not the case.
There was a thread in the main forum here recently about multiplayer adventure games. Many people pooh-poohed the idea, saying that cooperative adventure games are not possible for various reasons. There was a thread elsewhere about the possibility of open-world adventure games. This was pooh-poohed as well, because adventure games simply cannot be done in an open-world environment.
That's the anti-innovative thinking that we're dealing with, and it's why the genre has been in this gross rut for over a decade. It's arguably devolved since 1999, and until the players and developers get out of this box and start innovating again, adventure games are going to remain a cute little niche casual genre.
Another thing I seem to recall Roberta or Ken mentioning in an interview that many of the things we now consider standard Adventure game traits, like the item trading and inventory were created due to limitations in the technology. It was a way to infuse interactivity in a technology that didn't allow for much direct onscreen player interaction (somewhat ironic that those features are considered by some fans of the genre as epitomizing higher levels of interactivity in games via everday objects, as opposed to "shooting/killing" in many other genres).
When technology became advanced to the 'half-life' era or even N64 action/adventures, and some RPGS, Ken was praising those as the future (and that adventure game as people knew it was going to be dead), as those kinds of games infused the kind of interactivity the Williams only dreamed about back when they started Adventure games. He believed in time those types of games would replace adventure games.
Roberta believed the important thing was creating towards some kind of 'interactive story' (she didn't really like the term 'games') utilizing latest technology, and opening up new forms of interactivity for the user. For a while there was a dream to merge and overtake Hollywood in the story telling industry. That ideal lead to things like Phantasmagoria and other interactive movie style games from Sierra (which argueably have more to do that the average FMV game). These games were like watching a movie, but essentially making the 'player' the director, controlling the direction of the movie.
There are 2 arguments that can be made saything that they did not do the right thing. First, they knew Roberta Williams would turn them down and so all they did was try to make people think they did the right thing (they got you to buy in). Second, they perhaps wanted to bring her in, she saw their direction and said, "I don't want to work with them on that, the direction is awful!" She then turned them down and once again, it would show the direction TellTale is taking is something she did not want to be a part of. If they would have offered her 100% control of the project, she might have actually come onboard. Until I hear they offered her that, I think it is just for press and they think we as fans are too stupid to know the difference.
I just want to point out that none of this post is accurate. It's just pessimistic.
All of our communication with designers related to previous King's Quest games has been positive.
Our designers recognize that King's Quest cannot be handled in the same fashion as games like Monkey Island and Sam n Max.
We reached out to Roberta Williams to get insight about what she felt was core to the games rather than simply relying on our experience from the gamer side of the screen.
She declined to participate because she has truly put the series behind her. She supports our endeavors.
I just want to point out that none of this post is accurate. It's just pessimistic.
I would say more cynical, but that's just semantics. As for pessimistic, I am. Until we actually see something, anything for that matter, what else can we do? We can speculate and worry. You guys have not done anything to give me any reason to be optimistic.
They haven't done anything to make you pessimistic, either. The only thing they've released about the game is that they approached Roberta Williams about it. And what did you do upon hearing that information? You took the press release and came up with two completely wild theories based on absolutely nothing at all (and don't say they were just theories, you explained what you really thought at the end of your post).
I mean, I guess you COULD say you're basing your cynicism off of telltale's past games, but Sinaz already clarified that the developers are well aware that they have to take a different direction with this game. So, you really don't have any ground to stand on at the moment.
I don't base my cynicism on anything except I don't really trust what people say. Thats more of my personality than anything else. I am waiting to see what they are doing before I make any conclusions. Without seeing anything, I don't know what they are doing and can only speculate. I assume then worst and thus can't be disappointed in the end, perhaps happily surprised even.
I don't dislike JD Straw. I don't consider him a liar.
...but frankly, I can't believe a subjective assessment of an unfinished product from a designer whose only other work I've played was Back to the Future: Episode 3. I don't think he WANTS to provide something that will disappoint other King's Quest fans, but I don't have faith that his own ideas or the demands of higher management or simple time crunch won't work to undermine that ideal. I am WATCHING the development, I am not entirely giving up on it nor am I going to directly insult anyone working on the project. But I do ask for the understanding that, as adventure gamers, we feel we have been shunned and burned too badly once already, that this company has yet to really prove itself with a Sierra franchise, and our skepticism leads us to want to see something substantial. The PR message has to be combined with advertising and gameplay-related press, as soon as these things can be released, featuring the various features and design philosophies that separate this from other Telltale games, Back to the Future ESPECIALLY.
The PR message has to be combined with advertising and gameplay-related press, as soon as these things can be released, featuring the various features and design philosophies that separate this from other Telltale games, Back to the Future ESPECIALLY.
Exactly. When they first announced that they would be making a KQ game, they hinted that more was to come at E3. All we got was a PR message with nothing else. I am waiting to see what they will show us with regards to game play, etc. and until they do, I will continue to be pessimistic and cynical. Prove me wrong TellTale, don't just say that I am wrong, show me something.
I'm of the exact opposite point of view. Everything I've seen gives me reason to believe that Tell Tale will produce a worthy game in the King's Quest series.
There's two key elements that give me this belief:
1) Tales of Monkey Island. This game fit right into the style of the earlier Monkey Island games, and might just beat out Curse for my favorite Monkey Island game (haven't played it in years, so it's hard to be sure). This says something important about Tell Tale Games. They didn't just crank out another Sam & Max game and call it Monkey Island. They tailored the game to fit the existing series. I see no reason they won't continue to do the same here.
2) I don't put the King's Quest games on a pedestal. I've been playing through them again recently (made it through the first five so far), and while most of them are enjoyable, they're not these perfectly executed gems some people seem to think they are. King's Quest V, in particular, was not a lot of fun for me, despite fond childhood memories of the game. I think a lot of people here have painted over the flaws, creating ideal games in their mind that nothing TTG (or Roberta Willaims, for that matter) could compete with.
Regardless of their flaws, we love the KQ games just the way they are......except for KQ7 and MOE, for the most part (I don't actually have a problem with the latter).
Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of the games, or else I wouldn't be here. I've just noticed a lot of people hold up the King's Quest games like they're an impossible standard for TTG to reach.
It's less like they're an impossible standard, and more like they're a standard that Telltale simply doesn't WANT to reach. We've all read about Dave Grossman's mother-in-law one too many times and seen the catastrophic effect this kind of perspective has had on the company's output. It's also true that the King's Quest games were, frankly, the most technologically advanced of their time, and Telltale's will be....let's say less than that for the modern generation.
Technology for technology's sake doesn't make a great game. Cutting edge technology would add very little to an adventure game at this point. I mean, I loved ADGI's remake of King's Quest 2. Some minor issues aside, I think it sits well among the official entries in the series, but it's hardly pushing the envelope when it comes to technology.
As for the articles about his mother-in-law, I hadn't read them before. Having looked over them, I'm forced to ask "so what?" Unless I'm missing something, he discovered that non-gamers have difficulty figuring out how to play an adventure game, and managed to make Sam & Max: Season 2 more intuitive for them while not sacrificing gameplay. If this means the tutorial scene at the beginning involves Graham explaining how the inventory system works, I'll survive.
It's less like they're an impossible standard, and more like they're a standard that Telltale simply doesn't WANT to reach.
This is my thought (concern, reason for skepticism), too. Not just because of the mother-in-law thing but also how Telltale has been defining itself in what seems like every recent interview/article I've seen as producers of cinematic games focused on narrative and character. That's a long way from the "focus on the under-represented adventure game market" that Telltale adopted at its inception.
If you focus too much on cinematic presentation, a cohesive single-experience narrative and stimulating emotional investment in the character(s), it seems to me the natural result is a narrow-pathed gameworld with limited interactivity and simplistic obstacles to advancement. I don't believe it was an accident, or a failure of execution, that this is exactly how BTTF turned out, and why gameplay was lacking at various points in the The Devil's Playhouse for that matter.
Until there is direct evidence that Telltale intends to focus KQ development on things that make for good games, rather than on things that make for good movies, I believe skepticism is entirely warranted.
thom, you make a good argument, and I definitely agree with you on the need to balance cinematics with good, solid gameplay. I certainly don't blame you for being concerned or skeptical.
I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their ways or anything. It's too early to really know anything about the game one way or another, but I'm optimistic. Life's more fun that way.
I think there are some good points in this thread. We know Telltale's focus is story, so we are all interested in how they will handle the gameplay for a King's Quest game.
Maybe it just means that the game will not reference back too much to the originals, so it will be a good jumping on point. I'm glad they approached Williams, as I believe it shows that they have a genuine interest in trying to keep it in the same vein as the older games.
I'm of the exact opposite point of view. Everything I've seen gives me reason to believe that Tell Tale will produce a worthy game in the King's Quest series.
There's two key elements that give me this belief:
1) Tales of Monkey Island. This game fit right into the style of the earlier Monkey Island games, and might just beat out Curse for my favorite Monkey Island game (haven't played it in years, so it's hard to be sure). This says something important about Tell Tale Games. They didn't just crank out another Sam & Max game and call it Monkey Island. They tailored the game to fit the existing series. I see no reason they won't continue to do the same here.
2) I don't put the King's Quest games on a pedestal. I've been playing through them again recently (made it through the first five so far), and while most of them are enjoyable, they're not these perfectly executed gems some people seem to think they are. King's Quest V, in particular, was not a lot of fun for me, despite fond childhood memories of the game. I think a lot of people here have painted over the flaws, creating ideal games in their mind that nothing TTG (or Roberta Willaims, for that matter) could compete with.
::Raises his shield and prepares to be attacked::
I just want to say that the term "flaw" is very subjective, especially when it comes to gaming. I love King's Quest V for the very same reasons that other people seem to dislike it...
I just want to say that the term "flaw" is very subjective, especially when it comes to gaming. I love King's Quest V for the very same reasons that other people seem to dislike it...
I just have to say how much I appreciate your signature.
I just have to say how much I appreciate your signature.
Thanks! I just didn't want to be associated with someone else. Unfortunately the Daventry name was already taken on those other forums... but I'm only active on this one and the Sierra Help Forums anyway, so it wasn't too big of a loss.
King's Quest 8: Mask of Eternity, follows one of the inhabitants of Daventry as he fights to save the world, and King Graham and his family, after most of the humans have been turned to stone.
It was very Doom-esque, with few true puzzles, and hence is not considered by fans to be a true sequel. It IS official canon, though.
It was very Doom-esque, with few true puzzles, and hence is not considered by fans to be a true sequel. It IS official canon, though
It's actually has just as many true puzzles as many of the early KQ... they just get overshadowed by the amount of new action content, like the rpg combat, jumping, the Torin's Passage style tile puzzles, and box pushing... The game is absolutely huge and takes several hours/days to complete...
Comments
Did it have poisonous snakes in it?
Another thing I seem to recall Roberta or Ken mentioning in an interview that many of the things we now consider standard Adventure game traits, like the item trading and inventory were created due to limitations in the technology. It was a way to infuse interactivity in a technology that didn't allow for much direct onscreen player interaction (somewhat ironic that those features are considered by some fans of the genre as epitomizing higher levels of interactivity in games via everday objects, as opposed to "shooting/killing" in many other genres).
When technology became advanced to the 'half-life' era or even N64 action/adventures, and some RPGS, Ken was praising those as the future (and that adventure game as people knew it was going to be dead), as those kinds of games infused the kind of interactivity the Williams only dreamed about back when they started Adventure games. He believed in time those types of games would replace adventure games.
Roberta believed the important thing was creating towards some kind of 'interactive story' (she didn't really like the term 'games') utilizing latest technology, and opening up new forms of interactivity for the user. For a while there was a dream to merge and overtake Hollywood in the story telling industry. That ideal lead to things like Phantasmagoria and other interactive movie style games from Sierra (which argueably have more to do that the average FMV game). These games were like watching a movie, but essentially making the 'player' the director, controlling the direction of the movie. Well it does have snakes, and Medusa!
I just want to point out that none of this post is accurate. It's just pessimistic.
All of our communication with designers related to previous King's Quest games has been positive.
Our designers recognize that King's Quest cannot be handled in the same fashion as games like Monkey Island and Sam n Max.
We reached out to Roberta Williams to get insight about what she felt was core to the games rather than simply relying on our experience from the gamer side of the screen.
She declined to participate because she has truly put the series behind her. She supports our endeavors.
I would say more cynical, but that's just semantics. As for pessimistic, I am. Until we actually see something, anything for that matter, what else can we do? We can speculate and worry. You guys have not done anything to give me any reason to be optimistic.
I mean, I guess you COULD say you're basing your cynicism off of telltale's past games, but Sinaz already clarified that the developers are well aware that they have to take a different direction with this game. So, you really don't have any ground to stand on at the moment.
...but frankly, I can't believe a subjective assessment of an unfinished product from a designer whose only other work I've played was Back to the Future: Episode 3. I don't think he WANTS to provide something that will disappoint other King's Quest fans, but I don't have faith that his own ideas or the demands of higher management or simple time crunch won't work to undermine that ideal. I am WATCHING the development, I am not entirely giving up on it nor am I going to directly insult anyone working on the project. But I do ask for the understanding that, as adventure gamers, we feel we have been shunned and burned too badly once already, that this company has yet to really prove itself with a Sierra franchise, and our skepticism leads us to want to see something substantial. The PR message has to be combined with advertising and gameplay-related press, as soon as these things can be released, featuring the various features and design philosophies that separate this from other Telltale games, Back to the Future ESPECIALLY.
Exactly. When they first announced that they would be making a KQ game, they hinted that more was to come at E3. All we got was a PR message with nothing else. I am waiting to see what they will show us with regards to game play, etc. and until they do, I will continue to be pessimistic and cynical. Prove me wrong TellTale, don't just say that I am wrong, show me something.
There's two key elements that give me this belief:
1) Tales of Monkey Island. This game fit right into the style of the earlier Monkey Island games, and might just beat out Curse for my favorite Monkey Island game (haven't played it in years, so it's hard to be sure). This says something important about Tell Tale Games. They didn't just crank out another Sam & Max game and call it Monkey Island. They tailored the game to fit the existing series. I see no reason they won't continue to do the same here.
2) I don't put the King's Quest games on a pedestal. I've been playing through them again recently (made it through the first five so far), and while most of them are enjoyable, they're not these perfectly executed gems some people seem to think they are. King's Quest V, in particular, was not a lot of fun for me, despite fond childhood memories of the game. I think a lot of people here have painted over the flaws, creating ideal games in their mind that nothing TTG (or Roberta Willaims, for that matter) could compete with.
::Raises his shield and prepares to be attacked::
As for the articles about his mother-in-law, I hadn't read them before. Having looked over them, I'm forced to ask "so what?" Unless I'm missing something, he discovered that non-gamers have difficulty figuring out how to play an adventure game, and managed to make Sam & Max: Season 2 more intuitive for them while not sacrificing gameplay. If this means the tutorial scene at the beginning involves Graham explaining how the inventory system works, I'll survive.
This is my thought (concern, reason for skepticism), too. Not just because of the mother-in-law thing but also how Telltale has been defining itself in what seems like every recent interview/article I've seen as producers of cinematic games focused on narrative and character. That's a long way from the "focus on the under-represented adventure game market" that Telltale adopted at its inception.
If you focus too much on cinematic presentation, a cohesive single-experience narrative and stimulating emotional investment in the character(s), it seems to me the natural result is a narrow-pathed gameworld with limited interactivity and simplistic obstacles to advancement. I don't believe it was an accident, or a failure of execution, that this is exactly how BTTF turned out, and why gameplay was lacking at various points in the The Devil's Playhouse for that matter.
Until there is direct evidence that Telltale intends to focus KQ development on things that make for good games, rather than on things that make for good movies, I believe skepticism is entirely warranted.
I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their ways or anything. It's too early to really know anything about the game one way or another, but I'm optimistic. Life's more fun that way.
I just want to say that the term "flaw" is very subjective, especially when it comes to gaming. I love King's Quest V for the very same reasons that other people seem to dislike it...
I just have to say how much I appreciate your signature.
Thanks! I just didn't want to be associated with someone else. Unfortunately the Daventry name was already taken on those other forums... but I'm only active on this one and the Sierra Help Forums anyway, so it wasn't too big of a loss.
It was very Doom-esque, with few true puzzles, and hence is not considered by fans to be a true sequel. It IS official canon, though.
It's actually has just as many true puzzles as many of the early KQ... they just get overshadowed by the amount of new action content, like the rpg combat, jumping, the Torin's Passage style tile puzzles, and box pushing... The game is absolutely huge and takes several hours/days to complete...