I think its improper to be continually comparing Tales of Monkey Island to King's Quest. Because of the island-hopping nature of ALL Monkey Island games, Telltale's model fit rather nicely. It was not much of a stretch at all to get a game that fits both the traditional format of a Monkey Island game and the traditional format of a Telltale game--because honestly, the formats aren't that different. Yes, Tales was their best game, but it had more to do with the variety of locations, the quality of the writing, the strength and complexity of the puzzles, etc, than any crazy tricks they did with their standard format. They basically took the Telltale format and slapped a Monkey Island skin on it. They just happened to also add great music, writing, voice acting, and most importantly, complex puzzles to it which made it really shine.
King's Quest on the other hand is, as we've said, entirely different from a Monkey Island game, and of course, entirely different from Telltale's usual game. Capturing the "feel" of a King's Quest game is going to be much, MUCH harder for them. And they always say how important it is to capture the "feel" of whatever license it is they are working on at the time. I just happen to think there is no possible way for them to succeed using the same format they have always used for their games, given the fundamentally different design of a KQ game versus your standard Lucasarts game.
Well, since this thread seems to have turned into "What do you want Telltale's KQ to be like?", I may as well pitch in. I realize most of what I'm saying won't happen, but let me dream.
For starters, they need to ditch the episodic format. I don't just mean releasing every episode at once like with Jurassic Park (though that's a good start), I mean completely abandoning any idea of this being episodic. Take the resources that'd go to making five small games and make one large game instead.
Like Cez said, a big part of the appeal to adventure games back in the day is that, with the limited technology of the time, games had to be small, yet adventure games felt big without actually being big. (This is also probably why adventure games fell out of style, now that genuinely big games are possible.) Zork gave people a huge world full of tiny things to explore, and it did it without graphics. Any given Telltale episode is much, much larger than Zork, or KQ1, but it doesn't actually feel larger, and I feel like a big part of that is because they're so adherent to making their games episodic.
The closest Telltale has ever come to that "Man, this game is big!" feeling old adventure games could pull off was exploring Flotsam Island in Episodes 1 and 4 of ToMI. Sure, most of it was because of that stupid maze, but I felt like I was walking through a huge island, and I liked that. When I entered Club 41 in Episode 5, I was excited about the possibility of exploring the island again, but as soon as I head for the door I get an excuse about how it's not safe to go outside. The point is, making your games episodic comes with some pretty extreme constraints, and that goes completely against the spirit of King's Quest. I want a big world to wander around, and I want lots of things to examine, and if Telltale can't do that in an episodic game, then I don't want an episodic game.
As for the content of the game itself...I don't think I really have the right to talk too much about that. I'm not a game designer. Whatever mistakes Telltale might make with this game, if I was in their position I'd probably end up making a lot more. However, I will say this much:
When you're continuing an existing franchise, be it making a movie adaptation of a book or the newest installment in a classic video game series, there's one rule that I think is fairly constant. Ignoring your predecessors is bad (if nothing else, Telltale, this new game had better have lots of deaths), but slavishly mimicking them isn't much better. The main problem with anything that uses nostalgia as a selling point is that in an effort to please the fans they just do the exact same thing the old stuff did. If you just copy what's already been done, though, it means you're not even trying to make something better. I love the King's Quest series to death, but that doesn't mean it has no flaws that could be improved on. Most people don't like unwinnable situations, or long twisty narrow paths where a single misstep makes you fall to your death, or puzzles with solutions only a complete madman could figure out on his own. Just for a few examples. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Telltale should try to be faithful to the series, but at the same time keep in mind that there's such a thing as too faithful.
Not true. Scenarios where it's possible to screw up and present you with a situation where you can't finish the game are great and add an extra layer of challenge and realism. Like eating the pie in KQ5 or even small ones like entering the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 without all the items.
An adventure game should reward you for exploring and trying to pick up every item you can interact with. Your own fault for heading up the mountain unprepared.
or long twisty narrow paths where a single misstep makes you fall to your death
Gamers nowadays just don't know how to use their arrow keys. The long twisty path down Manannan's mountain and the cave down from the clouds in KQ1 had their charms. And I certainly wouldn't want to be without the awesome falling deaths in KQ5. And besides, all you had to do was save regularly and there should be no problem. What are you complaining about?
or puzzles with solutions only a complete madman could figure out on his own
Like...what exactly? All puzzles in KQ can be solved with logical reasoning and by exploring. Difficult challenges doesn't make them unreasonable or illogical.
Dynamix was designing their own engine for their own game (Red Baron II/Starsiege). Sierra wanted that new version early, and Dynamix wasn't ready to release it on the market. Remember new engines take plenty of time to actually develop, before they are used for games themselves...
Think of how long it is taking for ID Software to design new engines, and how long it takes for that engine to be released to other companies to start using them... ID Tech 5 engine for example, the one being used in Doom 4, has been in development since before 2007... The earliest usable version was shown in 2007, and its still in development now in 2011!
Doom 4 will probably not be released until sometime 2012 or so (i'd be surprised it it makes it out by Christmas 2011)... It will be quite a bit of time before any other companies have access to the engine to start using it for their games.
Keep in mind that engines and games are always two separate development cycles... It took years for Valve to design the Half-life engine (even though it was built on a highly modified Quake engine). Although since it was built on Quake, the game itself's development probably started alot sooner? It also took years for Halflife 2 Source engine (even it was based off a highly modified version of the Quake engine) to be completed!
Sierra wanted to push the engine beyond what Dynamix was designing it to do (simulator games)... Dynamix was still designing that game engine for their own games, and it wasn't ready for those, let alone the more complicated game Sierra wanted to use it...
Thus Sierra was forced to use an earlier previously released version, and modify it.
I think its improper to be continually comparing Tales of Monkey Island to King's Quest. Because of the island-hopping nature of ALL Monkey Island games, Telltale's model fit rather nicely. It was not much of a stretch at all to get a game that fits both the traditional format of a Monkey Island game and the traditional format of a Telltale game--because honestly, the formats aren't that different.
More importantly every single Monkey Island is chapter based, with 4-5 chapters telling the story.
The closest Telltale has ever come to that "Man, this game is big!" feeling old adventure games could pull off was exploring Flotsam Island in Episodes 1 and 4 of ToMI. Sure, most of it was because of that stupid maze, but I felt like I was walking through a huge island, and I liked that.
If you look at MI1 for example, Melee Island wasn't really all that large, nor had much exploration... The largest part of the island was taken up by a 'stupid maze'!... The later island, Monkey Island itself only had 3-4 places to explore, and another 'stupid maze' (hell).
In later MI games, its quite similar in that usually you only have a overhead map, and only 2-4 places to explore on the islands. Although 'stupid mazes' were less common, as the series progressed... (until TOMI that is)
More importantly every single Monkey Island is chapter based, with 4-5 chapters telling the story.
If you look at MI1 for example, Melee Island wasn't really all that large, nor had much exploration... The largest part of the island was taken up by a 'stupid maze'!... The later island, Monkey Island itself only had 3-4 places to explore, and another 'stupid maze' (hell).
In later MI games, its quite similar in that usually you only have a overhead map, and only 2-4 places to explore on the islands. Although 'stupid mazes' were less common, as the series progressed... (until TOMI that is)
True, I forgot about the chapter thing.
The mazes in Tales were probably my least favorite parts of the game. Especially the parts where you had to follow the wind direction (due in no small part to the animation for the weather vane being broken--at least in the Mac version.) They really felt like cheap filler to me. On the plus side though, each screen was more or less unique, so at least the visuals were decent.
The mazes in Tales were probably my least favorite parts of the game. Especially the parts where you had to follow the wind direction (due in no small part to the animation for the weather vane being broken--at least in the Mac version.) They really felt like cheap filler to me. On the plus side though, each screen was more or less unique, so at least the visuals were decent.
Couldn't the mazes in KQ5 and KQ6 be considered filler?
Couldn't the mazes in KQ5 and KQ6 be considered filler?
Absolutely. But in my mind, their implementation made more sense in the context of 90s era adventure gaming. That said, I've honestly never been much of a fan of mazes in any adventure games, ever. The labyrinth in KQ6 was somewhat interesting because of the items and puzzles scattered throughout, but I definitely was not a fan of the maze beneath Mordack's castle in KQ5. Despite the fact that I like KQ5 best out of all the KQ games, I think that section is its lowest point.
Scenarios where it's possible to screw up and present you with a situation where you can't finish the game are great and add an extra layer of challenge and realism. Like eating the pie in KQ5 or even small ones like entering the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 without all the items.
An adventure game should reward you for exploring and trying to pick up every item you can interact with. Your own fault for heading up the mountain unprepared.
There are certainly some people who enjoy the challenge of dead ends, but I think it's safe to say that MOST gamers find dead ends frustrating. Even in Sierra's heyday, there were plenty of dead-end detractors.
Personally, I find the extra "challenge" of dead ends fairly artificial. Most of the time, the player has no way of knowing what they did wrong and learning from their mistake.
Like...what exactly? All puzzles in KQ can be solved with logical reasoning and by exploring. Difficult challenges doesn't make them unreasonable or illogical.
I don't get this. I just don't get it. A pie in the face of a monster is actually a pretty logical line of thinking in a cartoon game. Sure it's not a slapstick comedy game or Loony Toons or something, but it's not THAT far fetched either.
Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.
Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.
Bt
Let's not resort to insults, okay?
I haven't finished KQ5 yet, so I dunno about the build-up to that puzzle, but it does sound kind of weird. If I were in that situation, I would draw my sword or run or something. Throwing a pie could anger it.
I haven't finished KQ5 yet, so I dunno about the build-up to that puzzle, but it does sound kind of weird. If I were in that situation, I would draw my sword or run or something. Throwing a pie could anger it.
But it makes perfect sense! In the guide "How to survive a Yeti attack", it's even recommended to have a custard pie handy. Throwing a pie at the attacking Yeti is one of the 99 acceptable ways of killing a Yeti, it's the one listed right after showing it a Chuck Norris action figure.
Yeah, if you can't figure out that you can throw a pie in something's face, press the 'esc' key and a Rhesus Monkey will come out and hit you on the head with a tack-hammer because you are an idiot.
Bt
Especially since it is also one of the only throwable objects in your inventory at that point.
Yeti-pie-in-the-face is a classic KQ puzzle solution. Totally in keeping with the rest of the series, too, where you use a cookie to defeat a wizard, mint candies to defeat a genie, etc. In fact, name me a King's Quest game that DOESN'T use dessert to defeat a main baddie!
Yeti-pie-in-the-face is a classic KQ puzzle solution. Totally in keeping with the rest of the series, too, where you use a cookie to defeat a wizard, mint candies to defeat a genie, etc. In fact, name me a King's Quest game that DOESN'T use dessert to defeat a main baddie!
To be fair, those other two desserts-for-the-win situations had build up to them, such that the solutions were clear. You don't run into anything pre-Yeti that would hint at the pie being the solution.
That said, pie-the-Yeti is far from the worst offender in that game. That honor is a tie between 'cheese powers the wand machine' and 'honey and emeralds will catch you an elf'.
Even the honecomb/emerald/elf thing has a sense of logic to it. It's just a bit far-fetched. The cheese in the machine, however, makes absolutely no sense.
Even the honecomb/emerald/elf thing has a sense of logic to it. The cheese in the machine, however, makes absolutely no sense.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but the honey/emerald/elf thing works in the context of the game world and in the context of King's Quest. It makes sense and has logic. Yes, it's a little odd, but it makes sense once you realize what you need to do. It's been my experience that people who harp on and on about that puzzle are not the people who grew up playing King's Quest games as they were released.
I'll grant you the cheese one though. That one is totally a boner of a solution.
All right, if you exclude KQ7 (which isn't a very good game) then every puzzle has a logical solution. I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.
I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.
You're right--KQ7 is a terrible game. I always thought the "take the faux shop with a grain of salt" puzzle was actually one of the more clever ones that the game had to offer though. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
All right, if you exclude KQ7 (which isn't a very good game) then every puzzle has a logical solution. I always had problems with the salt and the faux shop anyway.
What puzzles in KQ7 don't have logical solutions?
And why would you have problems with "take the faux shop with a grain of salt"? Falderal is a place in which sillyness or various idioms/similes are taken literally. Such as a "mockingbird," a "bull in a china shop," and "take [it] with a grain of salt." Besides the nature of the town of Falderal itself, to "take [something] with a grain of salt" means to view something with skepticism while the word faux actually means false.
That seems perfectly straightforward to me.
I'm just not sure what puzzles in KQ7 are so hard to figure out, especially when compared to KQ5.
I really do think that you guys pick on KQ7 primarily because it seems the popular thing to do. In my opinion, it has a lot more going for it in terms of puzzles and story than KQ5 does. Certainly the animation isn't the smoothest, there are instant retries upon death, a one click cursor interface, and no adjustment for walking speed... but the voice acting is better than KQ5, the story is more interesting, there are no dead-ends, and no fricken moon-logic puzzles like cheese-powered wand machines.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but the honey/emerald/elf thing works in the context of the game world and in the context of King's Quest. It makes sense and has logic. Yes, it's a little odd, but it makes sense once you realize what you need to do. It's been my experience that people who harp on and on about that puzzle are not the people who grew up playing King's Quest games as they were released.
I'll grant you the cheese one though. That one is totally a boner of a solution.
A modern game can't only appeal to fans of the series though. If it only works in the context of people who have previously played, you'll have problems with wider appeal.
You say "wider appeal" and I hear "gameplay like in BTTF."
That totally scares me. I don't want a King's Quest for the casual gamer.
There's a difference between the "casual gamer" and the "modern gamer." We can't stay in 1990 if we want the series to survive. A commercial game can't just be made for a small tiny niche of hardcore fans. King's Quest in it's time was accessible to the computer game players of it's era--It wasn't just reserved for a tiny group of people.
Hell, they got rid of the parser to make KQ more accessible to the then growing PC game market, to the "casual gamer" who didn't want to type and think as much--and KQ5 and KQ6 are among the fans' favorite games in the series. The idea that King's Quest wasn't modern or accessible or aimed at having "wider appeal" in it's time is just rewriting history.
I think what Chyron means is that we don't want an overly-simplified game like BTTF was. If we get a single-click interface in a game that's 95% cutscenes and 5% clicking then blood will be spilled, of that I can assure you.
I think what Chyron means is that we don't want an overly-simplified game like BTTF was. If we get a single-click interface in a game that's 95% cutscenes and 5% clicking then blood will be spilled, of that I can assure you.
I don't think we'll be getting that, but I also don't think we'll be getting KQ5 or KQ6 in terms of gameplay either.
It may not have been a puzzle in the sense of using an item with another item, but the worst offender as illogical crap in a KQ game for me is definitely the bridle in KQ4. I read in an interview later that it was specifically put there to drum up phone calls to their hint line.
Also, the eagle feather in KQ3 was a huge problem for me. I left the wizard's house three times and wandered around aimlessly trying to find that feather, before returning all the way back up the hill again and going through another day's chores to go try again. the 4th time I climbed down the mountain that bloody eagle finally flew by and dropped his feather. No puzzle should hinge on an item which appears randomly and has the ability to be so rare.
I will try and find it - this was years ago I read this and it may have been in a magazine. I am googling keywords to try and find a reference to this, but having no luck yet. I'll keep looking though.
I found this article that is kinda interesting. Apparently one version of the Sierra Automated Hintline had unique voice actors for each game. For example a 'old miner' for Gold Rush, and 'English Knight' for King Graham.
Hmm, too bad there are no recordings of these hint keepers out there, eh? I've love to hear what they sounded like.
Bump. In February it will have been a year since this has been announced...Any inkling, idea, rumor or little hint as to when we will hear ANYTHING? A screenshot, a piece of concept art--Anything?
Bump. In February it will have been a year since this has been announced...Any inkling, idea, rumor or little hint as to when we will hear ANYTHING? A screenshot, a piece of concept art--Anything?
It's kind of frustrating that we've hardly heard a peep from them about KQ, but at the same time it could mean that they're just putting a lot of time into development and making a deeper game... Well, I can dream at least.
Comments
King's Quest on the other hand is, as we've said, entirely different from a Monkey Island game, and of course, entirely different from Telltale's usual game. Capturing the "feel" of a King's Quest game is going to be much, MUCH harder for them. And they always say how important it is to capture the "feel" of whatever license it is they are working on at the time. I just happen to think there is no possible way for them to succeed using the same format they have always used for their games, given the fundamentally different design of a KQ game versus your standard Lucasarts game.
For starters, they need to ditch the episodic format. I don't just mean releasing every episode at once like with Jurassic Park (though that's a good start), I mean completely abandoning any idea of this being episodic. Take the resources that'd go to making five small games and make one large game instead.
Like Cez said, a big part of the appeal to adventure games back in the day is that, with the limited technology of the time, games had to be small, yet adventure games felt big without actually being big. (This is also probably why adventure games fell out of style, now that genuinely big games are possible.) Zork gave people a huge world full of tiny things to explore, and it did it without graphics. Any given Telltale episode is much, much larger than Zork, or KQ1, but it doesn't actually feel larger, and I feel like a big part of that is because they're so adherent to making their games episodic.
The closest Telltale has ever come to that "Man, this game is big!" feeling old adventure games could pull off was exploring Flotsam Island in Episodes 1 and 4 of ToMI. Sure, most of it was because of that stupid maze, but I felt like I was walking through a huge island, and I liked that. When I entered Club 41 in Episode 5, I was excited about the possibility of exploring the island again, but as soon as I head for the door I get an excuse about how it's not safe to go outside. The point is, making your games episodic comes with some pretty extreme constraints, and that goes completely against the spirit of King's Quest. I want a big world to wander around, and I want lots of things to examine, and if Telltale can't do that in an episodic game, then I don't want an episodic game.
As for the content of the game itself...I don't think I really have the right to talk too much about that. I'm not a game designer. Whatever mistakes Telltale might make with this game, if I was in their position I'd probably end up making a lot more. However, I will say this much:
When you're continuing an existing franchise, be it making a movie adaptation of a book or the newest installment in a classic video game series, there's one rule that I think is fairly constant. Ignoring your predecessors is bad (if nothing else, Telltale, this new game had better have lots of deaths), but slavishly mimicking them isn't much better. The main problem with anything that uses nostalgia as a selling point is that in an effort to please the fans they just do the exact same thing the old stuff did. If you just copy what's already been done, though, it means you're not even trying to make something better. I love the King's Quest series to death, but that doesn't mean it has no flaws that could be improved on. Most people don't like unwinnable situations, or long twisty narrow paths where a single misstep makes you fall to your death, or puzzles with solutions only a complete madman could figure out on his own. Just for a few examples. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Telltale should try to be faithful to the series, but at the same time keep in mind that there's such a thing as too faithful.
Not true. Scenarios where it's possible to screw up and present you with a situation where you can't finish the game are great and add an extra layer of challenge and realism. Like eating the pie in KQ5 or even small ones like entering the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 without all the items.
An adventure game should reward you for exploring and trying to pick up every item you can interact with. Your own fault for heading up the mountain unprepared.
Gamers nowadays just don't know how to use their arrow keys. The long twisty path down Manannan's mountain and the cave down from the clouds in KQ1 had their charms. And I certainly wouldn't want to be without the awesome falling deaths in KQ5. And besides, all you had to do was save regularly and there should be no problem. What are you complaining about?
Like...what exactly? All puzzles in KQ can be solved with logical reasoning and by exploring. Difficult challenges doesn't make them unreasonable or illogical.
It wasn't a 'failure' of Dynamix really.
Dynamix was designing their own engine for their own game (Red Baron II/Starsiege). Sierra wanted that new version early, and Dynamix wasn't ready to release it on the market. Remember new engines take plenty of time to actually develop, before they are used for games themselves...
Think of how long it is taking for ID Software to design new engines, and how long it takes for that engine to be released to other companies to start using them... ID Tech 5 engine for example, the one being used in Doom 4, has been in development since before 2007... The earliest usable version was shown in 2007, and its still in development now in 2011!
Doom 4 will probably not be released until sometime 2012 or so (i'd be surprised it it makes it out by Christmas 2011)... It will be quite a bit of time before any other companies have access to the engine to start using it for their games.
Keep in mind that engines and games are always two separate development cycles... It took years for Valve to design the Half-life engine (even though it was built on a highly modified Quake engine). Although since it was built on Quake, the game itself's development probably started alot sooner? It also took years for Halflife 2 Source engine (even it was based off a highly modified version of the Quake engine) to be completed!
Sierra wanted to push the engine beyond what Dynamix was designing it to do (simulator games)... Dynamix was still designing that game engine for their own games, and it wasn't ready for those, let alone the more complicated game Sierra wanted to use it...
Thus Sierra was forced to use an earlier previously released version, and modify it.
More importantly every single Monkey Island is chapter based, with 4-5 chapters telling the story.
If you look at MI1 for example, Melee Island wasn't really all that large, nor had much exploration... The largest part of the island was taken up by a 'stupid maze'!... The later island, Monkey Island itself only had 3-4 places to explore, and another 'stupid maze' (hell).
In later MI games, its quite similar in that usually you only have a overhead map, and only 2-4 places to explore on the islands. Although 'stupid mazes' were less common, as the series progressed... (until TOMI that is)
True, I forgot about the chapter thing.
The mazes in Tales were probably my least favorite parts of the game. Especially the parts where you had to follow the wind direction (due in no small part to the animation for the weather vane being broken--at least in the Mac version.) They really felt like cheap filler to me. On the plus side though, each screen was more or less unique, so at least the visuals were decent.
Couldn't the mazes in KQ5 and KQ6 be considered filler?
Absolutely. But in my mind, their implementation made more sense in the context of 90s era adventure gaming. That said, I've honestly never been much of a fan of mazes in any adventure games, ever. The labyrinth in KQ6 was somewhat interesting because of the items and puzzles scattered throughout, but I definitely was not a fan of the maze beneath Mordack's castle in KQ5. Despite the fact that I like KQ5 best out of all the KQ games, I think that section is its lowest point.
There are certainly some people who enjoy the challenge of dead ends, but I think it's safe to say that MOST gamers find dead ends frustrating. Even in Sierra's heyday, there were plenty of dead-end detractors.
Personally, I find the extra "challenge" of dead ends fairly artificial. Most of the time, the player has no way of knowing what they did wrong and learning from their mistake.
Pie and Yeti, that is all.
I don't get this. I just don't get it. A pie in the face of a monster is actually a pretty logical line of thinking in a cartoon game. Sure it's not a slapstick comedy game or Loony Toons or something, but it's not THAT far fetched either.
Bt
Let's not resort to insults, okay?
I haven't finished KQ5 yet, so I dunno about the build-up to that puzzle, but it does sound kind of weird. If I were in that situation, I would draw my sword or run or something. Throwing a pie could anger it.
Btw, there is no sword...
But it makes perfect sense! In the guide "How to survive a Yeti attack", it's even recommended to have a custard pie handy. Throwing a pie at the attacking Yeti is one of the 99 acceptable ways of killing a Yeti, it's the one listed right after showing it a Chuck Norris action figure.
Especially since it is also one of the only throwable objects in your inventory at that point.
Yeti-pie-in-the-face is a classic KQ puzzle solution. Totally in keeping with the rest of the series, too, where you use a cookie to defeat a wizard, mint candies to defeat a genie, etc. In fact, name me a King's Quest game that DOESN'T use dessert to defeat a main baddie!
To be fair, those other two desserts-for-the-win situations had build up to them, such that the solutions were clear. You don't run into anything pre-Yeti that would hint at the pie being the solution.
That said, pie-the-Yeti is far from the worst offender in that game. That honor is a tie between 'cheese powers the wand machine' and 'honey and emeralds will catch you an elf'.
Bt
Yeah, I'm sorry, but the honey/emerald/elf thing works in the context of the game world and in the context of King's Quest. It makes sense and has logic. Yes, it's a little odd, but it makes sense once you realize what you need to do. It's been my experience that people who harp on and on about that puzzle are not the people who grew up playing King's Quest games as they were released.
I'll grant you the cheese one though. That one is totally a boner of a solution.
You're right--KQ7 is a terrible game. I always thought the "take the faux shop with a grain of salt" puzzle was actually one of the more clever ones that the game had to offer though. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
What puzzles in KQ7 don't have logical solutions?
And why would you have problems with "take the faux shop with a grain of salt"? Falderal is a place in which sillyness or various idioms/similes are taken literally. Such as a "mockingbird," a "bull in a china shop," and "take [it] with a grain of salt." Besides the nature of the town of Falderal itself, to "take [something] with a grain of salt" means to view something with skepticism while the word faux actually means false.
That seems perfectly straightforward to me.
I'm just not sure what puzzles in KQ7 are so hard to figure out, especially when compared to KQ5.
I really do think that you guys pick on KQ7 primarily because it seems the popular thing to do. In my opinion, it has a lot more going for it in terms of puzzles and story than KQ5 does. Certainly the animation isn't the smoothest, there are instant retries upon death, a one click cursor interface, and no adjustment for walking speed... but the voice acting is better than KQ5, the story is more interesting, there are no dead-ends, and no fricken moon-logic puzzles like cheese-powered wand machines.
A modern game can't only appeal to fans of the series though. If it only works in the context of people who have previously played, you'll have problems with wider appeal.
That totally scares me. I don't want a King's Quest for the casual gamer.
There's a difference between the "casual gamer" and the "modern gamer." We can't stay in 1990 if we want the series to survive. A commercial game can't just be made for a small tiny niche of hardcore fans. King's Quest in it's time was accessible to the computer game players of it's era--It wasn't just reserved for a tiny group of people.
Hell, they got rid of the parser to make KQ more accessible to the then growing PC game market, to the "casual gamer" who didn't want to type and think as much--and KQ5 and KQ6 are among the fans' favorite games in the series. The idea that King's Quest wasn't modern or accessible or aimed at having "wider appeal" in it's time is just rewriting history.
I don't think we'll be getting that, but I also don't think we'll be getting KQ5 or KQ6 in terms of gameplay either.
Bt
Also, the eagle feather in KQ3 was a huge problem for me. I left the wizard's house three times and wandered around aimlessly trying to find that feather, before returning all the way back up the hill again and going through another day's chores to go try again. the 4th time I climbed down the mountain that bloody eagle finally flew by and dropped his feather. No puzzle should hinge on an item which appears randomly and has the ability to be so rare.
I found this article that is kinda interesting. Apparently one version of the Sierra Automated Hintline had unique voice actors for each game. For example a 'old miner' for Gold Rush, and 'English Knight' for King Graham.
Hmm, too bad there are no recordings of these hint keepers out there, eh? I've love to hear what they sounded like.
I'm looking forward to updates for this game however...
It's kind of frustrating that we've hardly heard a peep from them about KQ, but at the same time it could mean that they're just putting a lot of time into development and making a deeper game... Well, I can dream at least.