Paw's KQ Mask of Eternity retrospective

edited August 2011 in Kings Quest Game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiEmtrjW_sk&feature=feedu

I so agree with him. If it wasn't named KQ, it would have been a decent game imho.

EDIT: Damn topic title typo >_>

Comments

  • edited August 2011
    Ya the reviews have always been mixed in such a way that it divided the KQ community there are those that think it's a great King's Quest game and those who think it's a great game but not a great KQ game. Most reviews were relatively positive most over 70% and many over 90% in comparison to KQ7 that got an aggregate score of about 40% by most reviewers.

    Both sides will never come to an agreement over the game!

    I fall more to the side that's a great KQ game, one of my favorites even, after KQ6. It moved back towards KQ6's less childish style! I even accept the move towards a more QFG-style game. Not something I'd want to see happen alot, but I think would be fun in the occasional KQ game.
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited August 2011
    EDIT: Damn topic title typo >_>

    Fix'd. :)

    I was never interested in KQ8, because I was a point & click nut and generally neither liked nor played 3D action-type games. I was interested in solving puzzles, not hacking my way through obstacles. Because of that, for me nothing in KQ8 would have been enough to make up for the style of gameplay.

    It may have been a decent game in and of itself, but as a KQ game I feel like it was too much of a departure from what made the previous games popular. It meant KQ entered a genre in which I just had no interest. Which is fine I guess - it's just a game I don't want to play.
  • edited August 2011
    So you are making a judgment without actually playing the game? That's like judging a book by it's cover!

    Remember people have played it are mixed on it, either love the game and it's puzzles or they don't. But they played it and because of that they had the chance to make their decision and opinion in a honest way.

    Also the combat in the game is really very simplistic and easy... Especially if on easy mode. Quest for Glory (which was one of the inspiration for the games combat and RPG elements) has far more complicated and more action packed battle systems. All combat in KQ8 is based on 'point and click', and clicking until the enemy falls over. Enemies pose little risk, it's very difficult to actually die from enemies in the game, even on hard. Combat is not skill based, it also doesn't require aiming.

    But puzzle wise (not counting the spell fetch quests which are only there to strengthen your character or the Torin's Passage (1995) style tile puzzles), the game actually has some of my favorite puzzles in the entire series, some that require thinking towards physics. Like using fire to melt ice, and then ice to freeze the water! Or using an axe to cut down a tree to stop the flow of water to a mill!

    The game has a wide open exploration of the early KQ 1-4 that later games lost as the new lands became more claustrophobic in scope.

    I also remember KQ1 and KQ2 tossed enemies at you in over world but all you could do was avoid them (as the narrator explained in KQ1, Graham was too weak or not skilled enough to defend himself!). They are there to get in the way (the sorcerer), to kill you (wolf, witch, and ogre) or lead to unwinnable game (if the dwarf takes any of the three great treasured). So to me personally I saw the enemies in KQ8 as a kind of a nod back to KQ1 (and the wolf, Hagatha, and enchanter in KQ2). But unlike Graham, Connor actually could defend himself! Roberta claimed that some of the bigger enemies were sort of a nod back to the Dragon and Giant in KQ1 (which could be defeated!), but Connor chooses or is fated (prophecied) to take a more violent approach since he's combating truly evil creatures. Mark Seibert saw the combat as a nod back to the sword fight in KQ6. Ironically the ultimate evil in the game cannot be killed through violent means!

    Another similarity between the heros of KQ1 and KQ8 is that both are knights of low or little nobility trying to save Daventry (which has fallen on bar times) for the king of the realm. In the case of KQ1, Graham saves the kingdom to help king Edward. In the case of Connor it is to save the kingdom for King Graham (to restore him)! He becomes a knight in the last 3rd of the game! Interestingly both Graham and Connor share the same title of Sir Knight in KQ1SCI and KQ8!
  • edited August 2011
    Sometimes you can make judgments on books without reading them. Not by its cover but by knowing what genre it is. For instance, I will never read romance novels. Not even the best one ever written.
  • edited August 2011
    Romance novels

    Dracula is a "romance novel" (not betwen Dracula and any other character mind you), as is the The House of Seven Gables. Both may also be classified under 'gothic' (don't confuse with "Goth").

    Romance as a genre had a different meaning back in victorian times!

    I would never read one of the modern low class, 'baudy' "Harlequin" "romance novels'!

    But I have no problem reading old classics!

    Even still some of the things we now consider classics, were the 'baudy' dime novels of there day! Not fit for the upper class sensibilities! Many of what might have been considered a baudy "romance" back then, might be considered classics now (and not so 'baudy')!

    But still, when it comes to KQ8, most people make judgement based on "pictures" of one aspect of the game. Without knowledge that there is much more to the game than that! Really not even a clear picture on how went about implimenting that aspect of the game!

    As Roberta pointed out;
    July 7, 1997:

    I have been reading with interest all of the various comments that everybody has had about KQ8 (Mask of Eternity). I find it interesting that everybody has their own ideas about what King's Quest IS. And everybody seems to have a bit different idea. It seems, on this board, anyway, that quite a few people have the idea that King's Quest is (or should be) non-violent...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And it must be cute, funny, have fairytales in it, and have lots of puzzles and inventory objects. First of all, I have to say that King's Quest comes from ME and each one is different and has its own flavor. Some have a darker tone, and others have a lighter tone. Some touch upon violence, and some don't. King's Quest reflects the mood that I am in when I go to tackle another one.

    King's Quest really is a reflection of me and how I'm feeling about the subject and upon the reference material I am using and how I approach the subject. Basically, King's Quest comes from me and my heart and it always isn't going to be exactly the same, because I'm not always exactly the same, and I, like most people, feel a need for a change of pace and a sense of moving forward and of trying and experiencing something new. With KQ7, I was in a "Disney-esque" mood. Some people really liked it, others didn't. Earlier King's Quest's reflected my moods during those times: KQ3 was very dark, and it utilized lots of magic and magic spells with the basic idea of finding ingredients for "black magic" spells and then casting those spells. (Certain religious groups were upset with me over that one!) KQ1 certainly had violence. Sir Graham had a dagger and could kill the dragon (and it didn't get you "stuck," by the way, if you did so), and you could also kill the goat. It's true that I also had non-violent ways of dealing with those situations, but, that's because I chose to handle it that way for that particular game. I've gotten into trouble over the years for all the various ways that my main characters can "die." And they die a lot! I am known for changing course a lot, and changing my style a lot. I like change, and I like to keep people guessing. KQ7 felt very Disney-esque, and I felt like doing something different for KQ8 but yet, still keeping a "King's Quest" feel to the game. Each game in the King's Quest family has been different. Almost each time I do a new King's Quest, people get up in arms and say it's going to be "different" and won't feel right. Yet, each time, it DOES wind up feeling like King's Quest but each in its own way...and people just kind of KNOW that when they are playing it.

    That's because I know, in my heart, and what I am feeling, that it is, indeed, King's Quest. The components that make a King's Quest are (in my mind, anyway and since I am the creator of the series, I guess that holds some weight): A land, or lands, of high fantasy; fantasy creatures from myth, legends, and/or fairytales both good and bad; situations to be found in those same types of stories; a "quest" type story; a calamity in the land with one "hero" to "save the kingdom"; a story of the "good" hero against the "evil" bad guy; a story that everyone can relate to, i.e., a "reason" for having the hero go out and risk his or her life for "saving the kingdom"; interesting worlds to explore; high interactivity; interesting characters; great animation; great visuals and music. Within that general framework, I feel that I can have some "leeway" to accomplish those tasks. In the case of KQ8 I chose to give this game more of a "Tolkien-esque" feel rather than a "Disney-esque" feel. But each of the above elements is true for KQ8 as they were for KQ1 through 7. KQ8 indeed has a story, actually, a much more profound story than prior King's Quests. It is a new telling of the ultimate "quest" the quest for the most powerful, spiritual, benevolent item of all; the Mask of Eternity. This story takes its cue from two sources: the Quest for the Grail, and the Christian story of the struggle between God and Lucifer. When we say that the story is very dark that's really not true; it's just that the story is more profound and seriously looks at the struggle between good and evil. Rather than taking a bubbly, Disney view of good and evil, I chose to look at the struggle between good and evil from a more serious, traditional, almost spiritual, viewpoint. If you look at the traditional stories of the Grail and even in past Christian legend, you find that it is not light-hearted, gooey, and bubbly. Those stories are filled with conflict, peril, finding ones own morality, proving oneself a hero by overcoming evil creatures of Chaos, but yet proving oneself virtuous and good with all things good. That is the theme with this game. Connor is indeed a new character within the world of Daventry. Currently, he has no connection to King Graham and his family, but that doesn't mean that King Graham is not aware of him...and what he's going to do to help Daventry. This is, instead, a story of Connor and a story of how one young man of "common" background can rise to the situation and prove himself to be the true hero which can save the world. It is the traditional story of the young "initiate" who becomes stronger through proving his mettle, his virtue, surviving perils, overcoming evil and in the end can even conquer the ultimate evil. By doing so, he will restore the land and all of the people, and good creatures and animals within it. The Mask of Eternity is the "key." It is the source of all Power, all Order, all Truth, and all Light. It belongs in its place in the "Realm of the Sun." It has been broken into five pieces and distributed throughout the world. A mysterious evil (guy) has destroyed it and taken over the Realm of the Sun. Darkness has now settled over the land and all people (mortals) have been turned to stone, while creatures of darkness have risen from the very cracks and crevices of the earth at the instigation of this evil guy. Now Chaos reigns in all the various regions of the world: In Daventry (where all people have been turned to stone, including King Graham and his family); in the Dimension of Death (where even the Judge of the Dead has lost control of his guards and the souls); in the swamp (where the evil swamp witch has poisoned the swamp water and has all the good swamp creatures in her thrall); in the underground Realm of the Gnomes (where the industrious gnomes are willing to sell you items to help in your quest, but have also lost some control to the rock demons and an evil dragon); in the Barrens (where the trading post dwarfling has lost his "business" to the predations of an evil basilisk and the savagemen block your way to the Frosty Mountains); in the Frosty Mountains (where travel is impossible without the commandeering the controls of a flying crystal dragon, and the snow nymphs need relief from the evil Ice Lord); and finally in the Realm of the Sun (where the bad guy has taken over the domain of the Archons and the Mask of Eternity....this bad guy, the ultimate source of the terrible evil and darkness which has overcome the world). Connor must overcome all of these problems while recovering the pieces of the Mask and returning the Mask (in whole) back to its realm to its altar. Not until it has been returned will green and light return to the world. Not until then will the Realm of the Sun "shine" again and the waters flow.... I feel very proud of this game and the story which goes with it. Do NOT gain any preconceived ideas which may be wrong about this game from some preliminary screen shots which you will see at this early date. As time goes on we will supply you with more screen shots which will show other aspects of this game which are not "fighting" oriented. The reason it appears that this game is all about that is because we have not ever done a game which has that element so we're concentrating on that element right now. The other elements; the story elements, the character elements, the animation elements, the inventory object elements, the puzzle elements...are all stuff we've done before and will be much easier for us to put in place....we just haven't done those yet.....therefore, you're getting a skewed view of this game which is WRONG. I plan on keeping in touch with everyone and endeavoring to answer questions. I will try to check in a couple of times a week. Thanks for your patience in reading through my long-winded explanation of KQ8. Hopefully, this will have helped answer any nagging questions about "Mask of Eternity."

    Yep, all those parents that refused to play KQ3, or allow their children to play, and even criticized it, because they read about the magic system from the box!

    They are just as bad!

    I would never take the word of someone who hadn't played the game over, those who have!

    As we know there are plenty of examples of critics loving the game (stating it remained quite true to KQ)! There were those critics that disliked the game after playing it (saying it didn't remain to true to KQ)! There were those who lie inbetween!

    So this is a game for someone to truly make a decision and valid opinion (at least one I would take seriously) requires them to actually play it!
  • edited August 2011
    BagginsKQ wrote: »
    So you are making a judgment without actually playing the game? That's like judging a book by it's cover!

    Oh, please. Everyone is entitled to "judge" for themselves whether or not they want to play a game -- or read a book or watch a movie -- based on their own personal preferences. If puzzlebox already knows he/she doesn't care for combat, then he/she doesn't need to play KQ8 to know "it's just a game I don't want to play". I don't think you're doing KQ any favor by responding to such a statement as if it were a condemnation.
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited August 2011
    BagginsKQ wrote: »
    So you are making a judgment without actually playing the game? That's like judging a book by it's cover!

    Eh, I'm not really judging it. It's not that I think it's bad for what it is, just that I have to make my purchasing decisions somehow, and KQ8 doesn't seem like a game I want to spend my time and money on. :)
  • edited August 2011
    So ya you are exactly like the Christian parents who chose not to play KQ3, because they didn't want to spend time or money on the Satanic, "magic"!

    Everyone can have their reasons for choosing not to play a game or choosing to spend there money on it!

    On a side note, you could also download two playable demos of KQ8, one that covers the first world (kingdom of Daventry), and the second world (Dimension of Death)! Those were free, and I think also give a good idea what the game is like! By playing both, would give a person a good idea on how to judge the game! If one doesn't like the first third of the game, they are less likely to enjoy the rest of the game! Although personally the third world is one of my top favorites!

    With movies there is usually trailers!

    With books free chapters or first page chapter blurbs (a short paragraph from the boon used as a hook)!

    There is usually something to allow the consumer to 'demo' the product in some way!
  • edited August 2011
    BagginsKQ wrote: »
    So ya you are exactly like the Christian parents who chose not to play KQ3, because they didn't want to spend time or money on the Satanic, "magic"!

    Wow. That's...seriously?
  • edited August 2011
    Yep, according to Roberta that really happened! It's Roberta's own analogy for those who made judgements about KQ8 without playing it!
  • edited August 2011
    I...don't think it's an accurate comparison. Nor do I think it applies to why puzzlebox declined to play it.
  • edited August 2011
    Roberta William's response to people complaining about combat being added to KQ, her comparisons;
    KQ3 was very dark, and it utilized lots of magic and magic spells with the basic idea of finding ingredients for "black magic" spells and then casting those spells. (Certain religious groups were upset with me over that one!) KQ1 certainly had violence. Sir Graham had a dagger and could kill the dragon (and it didn't get you "stuck," by the way, if you did so), and you could also kill the goat. It's true that I also had non-violent ways of dealing with those situations, but, that's because I chose to handle it that way for that particular game. I've gotten into trouble over the years for all the various ways that my main characters can "die." And they die a lot! I am known for changing course a lot, and changing my style a lot. I like change, and I like to keep people guessing. KQ7 felt very Disney-esque, and I felt like doing something different for KQ8 but yet, still keeping a "King's Quest" feel to the game. Each game in the King's Quest family has been different. Almost each time I do a new King's Quest, people get up in arms and say it's going to be "different" and won't feel right. Yet, each time, it DOES wind up feeling like King's Quest but each in its own way...and people just kind of KNOW that when they are playing it.

    The full post in which she went off on the fans, to defend her vision in the old Sierra forums is posted in a previous post! She was not happy! She promised to post regulary, but after her fans basically starters calling for her 'head'. She pretty much avoided the MOE forums. It may very well be because her 'fans' and the occasional threats from the more crazy ones, that drove her more toward the private life, and limited interaction with the public!

    The other game she had been known to get defensive over with the fans over was KQ7, as it was nearly universally critically panned (40% rating aggregate)! She claimed to have received alot of negative letters over it!
  • edited August 2011
    BagginsKQ, I respect your opinion and all, but you are completely derailing this topic.
    It almost seems like "your way, or the highway".

    This isn't a I hate/love KQ8 topic. This is a topic about a reviewer who shows why at least half of the KQ fanbase felt betrayed or dissapointed with MoE. Heck, he says it is a good game, just that it has almost nothing to do with KQ sans some minor cameo's.
  • edited August 2011
    All I've done is point out the mixed views from the the critics (which there certainly is a division) and Roberta's own sometimes defensive answers to fan's complaints (judge her how you will)!
  • edited August 2011
    In getting back to said original topic, I think Paw did a very good job of summing up why people didn't like MoE. Also I've very much enjoyed his KQ retrospective series in general, and I can't wait for the next section on the KQ Legacy, especially being part of the TSL team :)
  • edited August 2011
    KatieHal wrote: »
    In getting back to said original topic, I think Paw did a very good job of summing up why people didn't like MoE. Also I've very much enjoyed his KQ retrospective series in general, and I can't wait for the next section on the KQ Legacy, especially being part of the TSL team :)

    I suppose he will review TSL once episode 4 is out, with the remakes most likely in his upcoming review.
    ANy hint when TSL ep 4 is? /wink
  • edited August 2011
    Not quite, but keep your eyes & ears peeled ;)

    I can imagine the next one (for Paw's series) might take a bit--there are a good number of fangames to play! KQ1 remake, KQ2+, KQ3R, IA's KQ3, TSL...plus some other things that will fall under the 'legacy' topic!
  • edited August 2011
    I'm just saying, if you don't like a particular genre you can know ahead of time that you won't enjoy it.
  • edited August 2011
    I played MOE recently - bought it off GoG. I hated it. Didn't matter if it had the KQ title or not, I thought it was a steaming pile of Meercat dung. It sucked. It was just a game that left me seriously wanting. Some games just suck.


    Bt
  • edited August 2011
    Appealing to authority is a flawed form of debate.
  • edited August 2011
    Actually it depends on what type of 'authority' one appeals to, and the way the 'authority' is being appealed to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    It depends on

    1. if the authority being appealed to is an 'appropriate/legitmate' expert on the subject or not.

    2. If there is a consensus among legitimate 'authorities/experts' on the subject.

    Is "Paws" a 'legitimate expert? ...and is there a consensus among 'legitimate experts"? Who knows!

    I would argue there never was any consensus since this game has been loved and loathed by the so-called 'experts' (game critics)! ...and fans alike! Most may have been more positive about it, but many weren't. There is no consensus!
  • edited August 2011
    And there MUST be a CONSENSUS! Lord knows the sheeple can't play a game and make up their own mind! They must be TOLD what to do!


    Bt
  • edited August 2011
    BagginsKQ wrote: »
    Actually it depends on what type of 'authority' one appeals to, and the way the 'authority' is being appealed to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    It depends on

    1. if the authority being appealed to is an 'appropriate/legitmate' expert on the subject or not.

    2. If there is a consensus among legitimate 'authorities/experts' on the subject.

    Is "Paw" a 'legitimate expert? ...and is there a consensus among 'legitimate experts"? Who knows!
    And there MUST be a CONSENSUS! Lord knows the sheeple can't play a game and make up their own mind! They must be TOLD what to do!

    Actually, sometimes acclaim/scorn from critics in general can be misleading. I can say first hand that I've seen movies, which were highly praised by critics, that I simply loathed. Also, there are movies that critics complain at length about that I find I truly enjoy watching.

    Further, not all critics can even agree and it's sometimes hard to know who has legitimate concern and who is just nitpicking for the sake of it.


    I'll give examples:
    • No Country for Old Men. I hated this movie. Boring, boring, boring... ugh, don't get me started. It won academy awards, which was a reason why my dad and I chose to watch it (as opposed to something else) when we went to the theater, but boy were we ever sorry for doing so.
    • Roland Emmerich movies. They're "popcorn movies", and I find I enjoy most (though not all) of them rather a lot, so long as my suspension of disbelief is firmly intact.
    • Final Fantasy XII. Gamespot liked it; GameTrailers hated it. Sure, it's different in various ways to past FF installments, but I liked it quite a lot.
    • Final Fantasy X. It gained critical praise throughout, but I hate it for any and all reasons already given by Spoony.

    Certainly, there's something to be said for taking critics' views into account when choosing what to watch/play, but often you really do need to take such opinions with a grain of salt.


    EDIT: this being said, I enjoy Paw's entire retrospective on the KQ series, and I heartily agree with his assessment of MoE.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.