At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me explain... It's a matter of progression: (snip)
So you can see why we are suspicious about decline in quality of TTG's products.
Okay, fair enough. (My point was that the comment I was addressing didn't give any of these reasons, just complained about the packaging and pricing.)
Still, I don't fully agree about the decline in quality. Maybe I'm just getting older, and busier, but I don't really have time for games that require me to spend days getting nowhere. I want to be able to get through a couple of puzzles in an evening, and not have to use a walkthrough. I thought the Telltale games, especially BTTF, were just the right difficulty for that. I still found BTTF challenging, but I didn't get stuck for long periods of time or have to consult a walkthrough.
I think the problem with the difficulty in older games -- yes, including King's Quest -- is that it is not "legitimate" difficulty. I often find myself resorting to the old point-and-click routine of trying every object with every other object. That sort of difficulty is not enjoyable, because you aren't actually working anything out logically. So I am personally happy to play a Telltale game with the difficulty of BTTF.
As for the QTEs, I agree (with pretty much the whole industry) they suck. Jurassic Park wasn't really an adventure game. Oh well -- I doubt they'll put QTEs in King's Quest. It wouldn't fit the theme at all.
That's the problem. More and more people just keep developing extremely short attention spans. We only have enough time to work out a game in one evening! Or one week tops! God forbid we have to take a few months to finish a game! Lives were just as busy back in the 80s and nobody ever complained. We're just running a mile a minute now and we can't stop or slow down. The video game industry is catering to that, which I disagree with.
I think the problem with the difficulty in older games -- yes, including King's Quest -- is that it is not "legitimate" difficulty. I often find myself resorting to the old point-and-click routine of trying every object with every other object. That sort of difficulty is not enjoyable, because you aren't actually working anything out logically. So I am personally happy to play a Telltale game with the difficulty of BTTF.
If you thought the difficulty was "not enjoyable" and "not legitimate", then why did you play them? I think the "illegitimacy" of KQ's difficulty is way overblown. Lots of people enjoyed the tricky puzzles and the need to thoroughly explore and experiment before you knew how to progress.
I understand that many people like easier games these days, and there are many easy games for them to play. Why should this particular game, building on a distinctive legacy that was enjoyed by so many, be made in spite of that legacy instead of appealing to it? Be made for people who complain about the originals' difficulty level rather than those who relished it?
Suggesting that KQ be turned into a casual game with trivial BTTF-style interactions is the equivalent of someone suggesting that a great novel series be continued as magazine articles because she doesn't have time to read novels, or someone suggesting a film series known for deep philosophical content be continued as action flicks because he doesn't want to think that hard. Fans of those series would be justifiably outraged at such ideas, especially as there already are a ton of magazines/movies that would be more suitable for people who prefer that kind of thing.
If you thought the difficulty was "not enjoyable" and "not legitimate", then why did you play them? I think the "illegitimacy" of KQ's difficulty is way overblown. Lots of people enjoyed the tricky puzzles and the need to thoroughly explore and experiment before you knew how to progress.
I understand that many people like easier games these days, and there are many easy games for them to play. Why should this particular game, building on a distinctive legacy that was enjoyed by so many, be made in spite of that legacy instead of appealing to it? Be made for people who complain about the originals' difficulty level rather than those who relished it?
Suggesting that KQ be turned into a casual game with trivial BTTF-style interactions is the equivalent of someone suggesting that a great novel series be continued as magazine articles because she doesn't have time to read novels, or someone suggesting a film series known for deep philosophical content be continued as action flicks because he doesn't want to think that hard. Fans of those series would be justifiably outraged at such ideas, especially as there already are a ton of magazines/movies that would be more suitable for people who prefer that kind of thing.
Well written thom-22. It got me thinking, I fundamentally played lucasarts games and sierra games differently. My entire approach was different.
With a game like DoTT or Full Throttle, I just meandered around, trying to pick up items, and clicking on objects. I basically just sat back and enjoyed the scenery and the witty dialogue.
With KQ however, I was much more calculating in what I did. In KQ6, right off the bat when I came to the tree and had to choose a path, I was very reluctant to go towards the castle. It seemed too obvious, and I felt the need to go towards the less obvious village. I also trained myself to watch for characters animations and new people in scenes I had visited before. I also saved anytime I did anything even remotely needed.
Long story short, it was more tense... there was more on the line.
That is not to say one style of game is better than the other. I just think both styles have their place, and I think the root of my issue with a KQ remake is the possible loss of this aspect which would lead it to just being another wander & click game.
The joys of a lucasarts game for me was the art and dialogue while the primary joy of a sierra game for me was solving a puzzle, maze, etc without dying...
I agree with exo; part of King's Quest (or any adventure game where death was a facet) was knowing that things could take a turn for the worst at any moment. You did have to be cautious. An adventure game where you can't die has a much more "laid back" feeling. This is OK for something like Monkey Island, but part of the King's Quest experience was death, the sense of danger.
Now, on the other hand, I also feel that dead ends are simply bad game design; no player should be forced to go through that aggravation. That doesn't mean that players should have their hand held through the whole game. If a player makes a mistake that doesn't quite warrant death, but should still be problematic for them, perhaps a better solution would be to force a hard puzzle, or a harder solution to a puzzle. Make it seem like a punishment, but still allow the player to progress if they try hard enough.
Let's use King's Quest 5 as an example. There are countless ways to dead end yourself in that game, more than any adventurer should have to put up with. Still, could you imagine what the game would be like if this happened?
*Player has just made the snake on the mountain path go away. He tries to go into the mountains...*
Narrator: Graham hesitates! Is he truly ready to scale the dangerous mountains? Perhaps not...
Yeah, that would really add to the sense of danger and suspension of disbelief...
If a game doesn't challenge a player enough, he's bored. If he's challenged beyond reason, he's frustrated. Look, Telltale; try not to hold the player's hand in this one, but don't arbitrarily punish them either. KQ6 is considered the best by most fans not just for its better story, but also for its better puzzle design. Use that as a example.
I think a great way to not only add replay value, but also challenge to an adventure game would be to make one in which there were multiple possible outcomes, with varying levels of "goodness" that changed based on how you solved certain puzzles or handled certain situations. If you missed a crucial item in the beginning, the game would still be completable, you just wouldn't get the best ending. Kind of taking a page from Mass Effect (with the exception of the 3rd game's ending(s), which are just...well...epic, epic, fails.)
I would be into a KQ game that stripped out dead ends in favor of multiple endings or solutions. I think that's the way to go in this day and age.
I would be into a KQ game that stripped out dead ends in favor of multiple endings or solutions. I think that's the way to go in this day and age.
That is basically what KQ6 and 7 did, though granted they both have only 2 possible endings. And probably not as much variation in puzzle solving as you're implying it would have.
That is basically what KQ6 and 7 did, though granted they both have only 2 possible endings. And probably not as much variation in puzzle solving as you're implying it would have.
You're right--they did start to go that way, but then they just...stopped.
Nowadays, especially in the wake of "player-choice" type games like Mass Effect, I think adventure game replay value could really be revitalized. Of course, a company like Telltale, with their shit quality standards and short development times, is not likely to be the company that takes this step.
You're right--they did start to go that way, but then they just...stopped.
Nowadays, especially in the wake of "player-choice" type games like Mass Effect, I think adventure game replay value could really be revitalized. Of course, a company like Telltale, with their shit quality standards and short development times, is not likely to be the company that takes this step.
I think it is a good idea, but that it'll also be challenging for a developer to pull off. This is more because of economics than design challenges; for better or worse, in today's market an adventure game can't be expected to sell more than a couple hundred thousand copies, and making multiple paths is expensive.
It would be cool if TTG did if for KQ, but given the episodic structure of the game and their tight release schedules I sort of doubt it will happen. At the moment, Tim Schaefer's project is probably with the one with the best chance of trying something like this. It's certainly worth suggesting when the backer forums open up.
I agree with exo; part of King's Quest (or any adventure game where death was a facet) was knowing that things could take a turn for the worst at any moment. You did have to be cautious. An adventure game where you can't die has a much more "laid back" feeling. This is OK for something like Monkey Island, but part of the King's Quest experience was death, the sense of danger.
Now, on the other hand, I also feel that dead ends are simply bad game design; no player should be forced to go through that aggravation. That doesn't mean that players should have their hand held through the whole game. If a player makes a mistake that doesn't quite warrant death, but should still be problematic for them, perhaps a better solution would be to force a hard puzzle, or a harder solution to a puzzle. Make it seem like a punishment, but still allow the player to progress if they try hard enough.
Let's use King's Quest 5 as an example. There are countless ways to dead end yourself in that game, more than any adventurer should have to put up with. Still, could you imagine what the game would be like if this happened?
*Player has just made the snake on the mountain path go away. He tries to go into the mountains...*
Narrator: Graham hesitates! Is he truly ready to scale the dangerous mountains? Perhaps not...
Yeah, that would really add to the sense of danger and suspension of disbelief...
If a game doesn't challenge a player enough, he's bored. If he's challenged beyond reason, he's frustrated. Look, Telltale; try not to hold the player's hand in this one, but don't arbitrarily punish them either. KQ6 is considered the best by most fans not just for its better story, but also for its better puzzle design. Use that as a example.
Also, the fact that KQ6 is very dark. A REAL KQ game--not some silly family friendly game--Needs lots of darkness and sadness and sorrow. Take note Telltale. There's only one real KQ game, and that's called KQ6.
KQ6 is not very dark. It's probably the most Disney-like of them all (and successfully so). Many people say KQ4 is dark, just because of zombies. Personally I don't see any of them as dark (besides MOE, and that's only in atmosphere, not story).
KQ6 is not very dark. It's probably the most Disney-like of them all (and successfully so). Many people say KQ4 is dark, just because of zombies. Personally I don't see any of them as dark (besides MOE, and that's only in atmosphere, not story).
What? No it's not. It's modererately dark, perhaps.
Like TSL? Pardon me, but what you're saying sounds overly dramatic for a King's Quest game (which is why I refuse to play TSL. ever.)
KQ6 was dark and gritty, sort of like The Dark Knight...Very true to life. Very realistic. Jane Jensen is an artistic genius who knows what life is: Life is darkness, sorrow and pain. Roberta Williams was just a hack who made baby stories. This is 2012. Not 1990. Leave your family friendly nonsense in 1990 and come to 2012. There's no room for that escapist light hearted fun crap now.
I was being more facetious than anything. Sort of mocking the pedestal KQ6 is put on.
I just prefer more adventurous stories to heavier, more grounded ones. It's why I prefer Star Wars (1977) to The Empire Strikes Back, for example.
Yes yes yes, aside from the horrible attempts at mimicking Disney's animation, I still believe that KQ6 is much closer to a Disney movie in tone (a few of the 90s ones and earlier) than KQ7 by far. KQ7 was disjointed, confusing, and annoying on many levels. KQ6 felt more like a structured Disney-like adventure than KQ7 ever did.
KQ6 has a few dark elements yes, but then so do a lot of Disney movies. But KQ6 is not DARK. And it is a fantastic game. Just not what I consider the best in the series. There's certainly no reason to hate it. You just hate it because it's your fad. You can't come up with a genuine reason other than you hate it.
Also, I find the first Star Wars ok. Empire is better, but Jedi was my favourite.
I personally really enjoyed KQ7. I dug the art style and the whole mood/tone of the game. The most memorable area for me was Ooga Booga land. I realize that the game felt different from other KQ games, but I thought it was done really well.
KQ6 was dark and gritty, sort of like The Dark Knight...Very true to life.
Again, no it's not. The land of the dead is dark and gritty, but it is supposed to be. It's akin to the Greek Realm of Hades, complete with the ferryman Charon, and the River Styx. The atmosphere of this one small area does not make the whole game dark and gritty, especially considering that the entrance to the underworld can be livened up by playing a round of 'Dem Bones.
Very realistic.
Yes, anthropomorphic guard dogs, Jollo's hi-res dialogue picture, and the entire cast of The Isle of Wonder are very realistic. Sure.
Jane Jensen is an artistic genius who knows what life is: Life is darkness, sorrow and pain.
Indeed, she is. No, it isn't.
Life it what you make of it. To say that KQ6 is primarily indicative of the sorrow and pain of life is totally missing the style of the game. Yes, Cassima's parents were killed by the bad guy. Do we see it? No. We get told about it by Jollo, who--while I do like him--has a voice that can't help but sound bright and cheery even when he's sad. Do we also see into the mirror as Death watches it? No. We do have narration about it which is saddening, but while we do feel sorry for Samhain, we also feel triumphant in his humbling because he is so arrogant and callous. This feeling of triumph breaks through the grit, as we are not left to wallow in pity over Samhain's fate.
Roberta Williams was just a hack who made baby stories. This is 2012. Not 1990. Leave your family friendly nonsense in 1990 and come to 2012. There's no room for that escapist light hearted fun crap now.
Okay, here is where I catch on to the facetiousness of your argument. Although I'm not sure then if your facetious tone suggests then that you believe Jane Jensen really isn't a good storyteller. I have not played Gabriel Knight, but I will say that I greatly prefer KQ6 over KQ5 (though that might be largely due to KQ5's voice-acting).
"It's akin to the Greek Realm of Hades, complete with the ferryman Charon, and the River Styx. The atmosphere of this one small area does not make the whole game dark and gritty, especially considering that the entrance to the underworld can be livened up by playing a round of 'Dem Bones."
It's more H.R. Geiger than traditional "Greek' technically... It incorporates elements of 'Greek', with a bit of 18th century pseudo-celtic/druidism, and a few other sources...
Yes, Cassima's parents were killed by the bad guy. Do we see it? No. We get told about it by Jollo, who--while I do like him--has a voice that can't help but sound bright and cheery even when he's sad.
Actually you learn about Cassima's parents murders from the Oracle, and from the parents ghosts themselves...
Jollo only distrusts the Vizier, doesn't like him, but has no proof he has done anything wrong. From Jollo's perspective 'the parents died in their sleep from heartbreak from losing Cassima'.
Yes, anthropomorphic guard dogs,
Saladin himself is not a goofy character, he is very regal if anything, almost lion-like... Very serious, very devoted, very determined...
I have not played Gabriel Knight, but I will say that I greatly prefer KQ6 over KQ5 (though that might be largely due to KQ5's voice-acting).
An easy way to compare without voice acting (which isn't really fair to comparing gameplay and such) is to compare the two disk versions of the games for a fair assessment.
Personally I'd have to say the disk version of KQ5 is better than the cd version... It might have helped the cd version if it had offered the choice to switch between text and voice like in KQ6 cd version... Even better would have been to have a 'both' choice...
There are a few minor changes in text between KQ5 versions simply to incorporate more voice acting parts, or slight narrative changes.
Floppy version has better character closeups for the Antony and Beetrice, that shows more of their bodies.
Also, all of the soundtrack is in MIDI, as opposed to all of the cutscenes in the CD version being lo-fi digital recordings of MT-32 audio. I like to have it all in real MT-32.
Again, no it's not. The land of the dead is dark and gritty, but it is supposed to be. It's akin to the Greek Realm of Hades, complete with the ferryman Charon, and the River Styx. The atmosphere of this one small area does not make the whole game dark and gritty, especially considering that the entrance to the underworld can be livened up by playing a round of 'Dem Bones.
Yes, anthropomorphic guard dogs, Jollo's hi-res dialogue picture, and the entire cast of The Isle of Wonder are very realistic. Sure.
Indeed, she is. No, it isn't.
Life it what you make of it. To say that KQ6 is primarily indicative of the sorrow and pain of life is totally missing the style of the game. Yes, Cassima's parents were killed by the bad guy. Do we see it? No. We get told about it by Jollo, who--while I do like him--has a voice that can't help but sound bright and cheery even when he's sad. Do we also see into the mirror as Death watches it? No. We do have narration about it which is saddening, but while we do feel sorry for Samhain, we also feel triumphant in his humbling because he is so arrogant and callous. This feeling of triumph breaks through the grit, as we are not left to wallow in pity over Samhain's fate.
Okay, here is where I catch on to the facetiousness of your argument. Although I'm not sure then if your facetious tone suggests then that you believe Jane Jensen really isn't a good storyteller. I have not played Gabriel Knight, but I will say that I greatly prefer KQ6 over KQ5 (though that might be largely due to KQ5's voice-acting).
Yes, I don't like her as a storywriter. I think her style is pretentious, "faux epic", overwrought and overly verbose crap. The Gabriel Knight games bored me, something which is very hard for a Sierra game to do.
KQ6 is overly verbose? Okay, I've never heard someone complain about an adventure game having too much dialogue, especially a King's Quest game.
Also, "faux epic?" KQ6 is a beat-the-bad-guy, save-the-princess quest. By overwrought, you're saying the plot is overly-complicated? I can't even figure out where you're getting that from.
Yes, I don't like her as a storywriter. I think her style is pretentious, "faux epic", overwrought and overly verbose crap. The Gabriel Knight games bored me, something which is very hard for a Sierra game to do.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Admit it. You're just using arguments made by other people without any basis of comprehension as to why. Jane Jensen isn't overly verbose at all. Have you even played her games? Jane Jensen is good at what she does. There are just people who dislike what she does. Plain and simple. Doesn't mean she does it badly.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Admit it. You're just using arguments made by other people without any basis of comprehension as to why. Jane Jensen isn't overly verbose at all. Have you even played her games? Jane Jensen is good at what she does. There are just people who dislike what she does. Plain and simple. Doesn't mean she does it badly.
I just find KQ6 more verbose as opposed to the previous games. The writing style is more clinical and less "to the point" and simplistic. I find the plot a little overdone, and the tone dissimilar from the past games in a negative way. As far as her own games, they honestly bore me. It just feels like she tries too hard to make her games epic. It comes off ham fisted. Yes, I have played Gabriel Knight I and II. I didn't like them. At all. I felt they had none of the charm of KQ, SQ, LSL, Quest for Glory, Conquests of Camelot and many of Sierra's other "Golden Era" games. The only other big Sierra series I didn't like was PQ. And it isn't because her games are dark or more mature--I quite liked Phantasmagoria and the Laura Bow games. It's just her writing style and the way her games are executed is really not to my liking at all.
King's Quest 6 is amazing. It's got good storytelling, has a great villain, unlike the crappy villian of 7, and beautiful animation and art design, unlike 7's over the top cutesyness. KQ6 wasn't what I would call over the top dark, but it was slightly dark. However, it also had it's cute moments and it's lighthearted moments. King's Quest 6's blend of light and dark was perfect, making a great game, something 7 sorely lacked.
I think KQ6 is a fantastic game. I'll even go as far as to say it was the most well-written story in the series. I just prefer KQ5 because it feels much more like an adventure, which I prefer as far as King's Quest goes and its story also really gripped me. The voice acting wasn't great, no, but the feeling of going on a journey was spectacular.
Why does this kind of shit always devolve into a Jane Jensen/KQ6 vs The World discussion. It's tired. And old.
I could give a fart.
I want to know more about Tell Tale's King's Quest. TELL US MORE, TELLTALE.
Bt
It's what puts you into the corner of either liking what KQ was pre 1992 (Simple, fun, fairy tale inspired), or liking KQ6 and everything that comes as a result of it: All of it's smaller universe, Father, Black Society "everything is tied together" crap. It's the game that opened the door for all of the fan fanfiction crapola.
It's like the choice between the original Star Wars trilogy, and the "Special Editions" and Prequels.
Comments
Okay, fair enough. (My point was that the comment I was addressing didn't give any of these reasons, just complained about the packaging and pricing.)
Still, I don't fully agree about the decline in quality. Maybe I'm just getting older, and busier, but I don't really have time for games that require me to spend days getting nowhere. I want to be able to get through a couple of puzzles in an evening, and not have to use a walkthrough. I thought the Telltale games, especially BTTF, were just the right difficulty for that. I still found BTTF challenging, but I didn't get stuck for long periods of time or have to consult a walkthrough.
I think the problem with the difficulty in older games -- yes, including King's Quest -- is that it is not "legitimate" difficulty. I often find myself resorting to the old point-and-click routine of trying every object with every other object. That sort of difficulty is not enjoyable, because you aren't actually working anything out logically. So I am personally happy to play a Telltale game with the difficulty of BTTF.
As for the QTEs, I agree (with pretty much the whole industry) they suck. Jurassic Park wasn't really an adventure game. Oh well -- I doubt they'll put QTEs in King's Quest. It wouldn't fit the theme at all.
If you thought the difficulty was "not enjoyable" and "not legitimate", then why did you play them? I think the "illegitimacy" of KQ's difficulty is way overblown. Lots of people enjoyed the tricky puzzles and the need to thoroughly explore and experiment before you knew how to progress.
I understand that many people like easier games these days, and there are many easy games for them to play. Why should this particular game, building on a distinctive legacy that was enjoyed by so many, be made in spite of that legacy instead of appealing to it? Be made for people who complain about the originals' difficulty level rather than those who relished it?
Suggesting that KQ be turned into a casual game with trivial BTTF-style interactions is the equivalent of someone suggesting that a great novel series be continued as magazine articles because she doesn't have time to read novels, or someone suggesting a film series known for deep philosophical content be continued as action flicks because he doesn't want to think that hard. Fans of those series would be justifiably outraged at such ideas, especially as there already are a ton of magazines/movies that would be more suitable for people who prefer that kind of thing.
*standing ovation*
With a game like DoTT or Full Throttle, I just meandered around, trying to pick up items, and clicking on objects. I basically just sat back and enjoyed the scenery and the witty dialogue.
With KQ however, I was much more calculating in what I did. In KQ6, right off the bat when I came to the tree and had to choose a path, I was very reluctant to go towards the castle. It seemed too obvious, and I felt the need to go towards the less obvious village. I also trained myself to watch for characters animations and new people in scenes I had visited before. I also saved anytime I did anything even remotely needed.
Long story short, it was more tense... there was more on the line.
That is not to say one style of game is better than the other. I just think both styles have their place, and I think the root of my issue with a KQ remake is the possible loss of this aspect which would lead it to just being another wander & click game.
The joys of a lucasarts game for me was the art and dialogue while the primary joy of a sierra game for me was solving a puzzle, maze, etc without dying...
Now, on the other hand, I also feel that dead ends are simply bad game design; no player should be forced to go through that aggravation. That doesn't mean that players should have their hand held through the whole game. If a player makes a mistake that doesn't quite warrant death, but should still be problematic for them, perhaps a better solution would be to force a hard puzzle, or a harder solution to a puzzle. Make it seem like a punishment, but still allow the player to progress if they try hard enough.
Let's use King's Quest 5 as an example. There are countless ways to dead end yourself in that game, more than any adventurer should have to put up with. Still, could you imagine what the game would be like if this happened?
*Player has just made the snake on the mountain path go away. He tries to go into the mountains...*
Narrator: Graham hesitates! Is he truly ready to scale the dangerous mountains? Perhaps not...
Yeah, that would really add to the sense of danger and suspension of disbelief...
If a game doesn't challenge a player enough, he's bored. If he's challenged beyond reason, he's frustrated. Look, Telltale; try not to hold the player's hand in this one, but don't arbitrarily punish them either. KQ6 is considered the best by most fans not just for its better story, but also for its better puzzle design. Use that as a example.
I would be into a KQ game that stripped out dead ends in favor of multiple endings or solutions. I think that's the way to go in this day and age.
That is basically what KQ6 and 7 did, though granted they both have only 2 possible endings. And probably not as much variation in puzzle solving as you're implying it would have.
You're right--they did start to go that way, but then they just...stopped.
Nowadays, especially in the wake of "player-choice" type games like Mass Effect, I think adventure game replay value could really be revitalized. Of course, a company like Telltale, with their shit quality standards and short development times, is not likely to be the company that takes this step.
I think it is a good idea, but that it'll also be challenging for a developer to pull off. This is more because of economics than design challenges; for better or worse, in today's market an adventure game can't be expected to sell more than a couple hundred thousand copies, and making multiple paths is expensive.
It would be cool if TTG did if for KQ, but given the episodic structure of the game and their tight release schedules I sort of doubt it will happen. At the moment, Tim Schaefer's project is probably with the one with the best chance of trying something like this. It's certainly worth suggesting when the backer forums open up.
Also, the fact that KQ6 is very dark. A REAL KQ game--not some silly family friendly game--Needs lots of darkness and sadness and sorrow. Take note Telltale. There's only one real KQ game, and that's called KQ6.
Wut?
Like TSL? Pardon me, but what you're saying sounds overly dramatic for a King's Quest game (which is why I refuse to play TSL. ever.)
KQ6 was dark and gritty, sort of like The Dark Knight...Very true to life. Very realistic. Jane Jensen is an artistic genius who knows what life is: Life is darkness, sorrow and pain. Roberta Williams was just a hack who made baby stories. This is 2012. Not 1990. Leave your family friendly nonsense in 1990 and come to 2012. There's no room for that escapist light hearted fun crap now.
Has nothing to do with you guys, I just really dislike KQ6.
I was being more facetious than anything. Sort of mocking the pedestal KQ6 is put on.
I just prefer more adventurous stories to heavier, more grounded ones. It's why I prefer Star Wars (1977) to The Empire Strikes Back, for example.
Yes yes yes, aside from the horrible attempts at mimicking Disney's animation, I still believe that KQ6 is much closer to a Disney movie in tone (a few of the 90s ones and earlier) than KQ7 by far. KQ7 was disjointed, confusing, and annoying on many levels. KQ6 felt more like a structured Disney-like adventure than KQ7 ever did.
KQ6 has a few dark elements yes, but then so do a lot of Disney movies. But KQ6 is not DARK. And it is a fantastic game. Just not what I consider the best in the series. There's certainly no reason to hate it. You just hate it because it's your fad. You can't come up with a genuine reason other than you hate it.
Also, I find the first Star Wars ok. Empire is better, but Jedi was my favourite.
I always thought Don Bluth's best films were on par with Disney, personally.
Actually some of the Don Bluth stuff is darker than Disney...
And bonus.... anyone else play this old school adventure game? It was "ok" I have it still... have not played it in years.
Yes, anthropomorphic guard dogs, Jollo's hi-res dialogue picture, and the entire cast of The Isle of Wonder are very realistic. Sure.
Indeed, she is. No, it isn't.
Life it what you make of it. To say that KQ6 is primarily indicative of the sorrow and pain of life is totally missing the style of the game. Yes, Cassima's parents were killed by the bad guy. Do we see it? No. We get told about it by Jollo, who--while I do like him--has a voice that can't help but sound bright and cheery even when he's sad. Do we also see into the mirror as Death watches it? No. We do have narration about it which is saddening, but while we do feel sorry for Samhain, we also feel triumphant in his humbling because he is so arrogant and callous. This feeling of triumph breaks through the grit, as we are not left to wallow in pity over Samhain's fate.
Okay, here is where I catch on to the facetiousness of your argument. Although I'm not sure then if your facetious tone suggests then that you believe Jane Jensen really isn't a good storyteller. I have not played Gabriel Knight, but I will say that I greatly prefer KQ6 over KQ5 (though that might be largely due to KQ5's voice-acting).
It's more H.R. Geiger than traditional "Greek' technically... It incorporates elements of 'Greek', with a bit of 18th century pseudo-celtic/druidism, and a few other sources...
Actually you learn about Cassima's parents murders from the Oracle, and from the parents ghosts themselves...
Jollo only distrusts the Vizier, doesn't like him, but has no proof he has done anything wrong. From Jollo's perspective 'the parents died in their sleep from heartbreak from losing Cassima'.
Saladin himself is not a goofy character, he is very regal if anything, almost lion-like... Very serious, very devoted, very determined...
An easy way to compare without voice acting (which isn't really fair to comparing gameplay and such) is to compare the two disk versions of the games for a fair assessment.
There are a few minor changes in text between KQ5 versions simply to incorporate more voice acting parts, or slight narrative changes.
Floppy version has better character closeups for the Antony and Beetrice, that shows more of their bodies.
Yes, I don't like her as a storywriter. I think her style is pretentious, "faux epic", overwrought and overly verbose crap. The Gabriel Knight games bored me, something which is very hard for a Sierra game to do.
Also, "faux epic?" KQ6 is a beat-the-bad-guy, save-the-princess quest. By overwrought, you're saying the plot is overly-complicated? I can't even figure out where you're getting that from.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Admit it. You're just using arguments made by other people without any basis of comprehension as to why. Jane Jensen isn't overly verbose at all. Have you even played her games? Jane Jensen is good at what she does. There are just people who dislike what she does. Plain and simple. Doesn't mean she does it badly.
I just find KQ6 more verbose as opposed to the previous games. The writing style is more clinical and less "to the point" and simplistic. I find the plot a little overdone, and the tone dissimilar from the past games in a negative way. As far as her own games, they honestly bore me. It just feels like she tries too hard to make her games epic. It comes off ham fisted. Yes, I have played Gabriel Knight I and II. I didn't like them. At all. I felt they had none of the charm of KQ, SQ, LSL, Quest for Glory, Conquests of Camelot and many of Sierra's other "Golden Era" games. The only other big Sierra series I didn't like was PQ. And it isn't because her games are dark or more mature--I quite liked Phantasmagoria and the Laura Bow games. It's just her writing style and the way her games are executed is really not to my liking at all.
I guess I don't like what 'she does'.
I could give a fart.
I want to know more about Tell Tale's King's Quest. TELL US MORE, TELLTALE.
Bt
It's what puts you into the corner of either liking what KQ was pre 1992 (Simple, fun, fairy tale inspired), or liking KQ6 and everything that comes as a result of it: All of it's smaller universe, Father, Black Society "everything is tied together" crap. It's the game that opened the door for all of the fan fanfiction crapola.
It's like the choice between the original Star Wars trilogy, and the "Special Editions" and Prequels.