I think we can say within relative safety margins that KQ won't have QTE, but that doesn't mean they're not going to fail to deliver a satisfying puzzle experience with the same lazy puzzle design mentality they've put into the past two titles (and looks like a third is upcoming).
I would agree with this, at least I can't imagine Telltale would use QTEs as the predominant gameplay mechanism in KQ.
Presumably because they know their games are atrocious messes that no one would buy with any knowledge of what the game is actually like?
The thing is, lots of people don't consider them atrocious messes. Whether we like it or not, there is a market for trivially interactive content-delivery systems masquerading as games.
Look at it this way, if it sucks it sucks. It'll die quickly and nobody will remember it. KQ will find a new home one day. It doesn't really matter in the end.
See previous comment. There is a worst-case scenario for which you haven't accounted. BTTF might have sucked in all possible ways of assessing it as a game; nobody is going to remember it twenty-five years from now, unlike KQ and other Sierra titles that are still regarded fondly by so many gamers. But given the financial success of BTTF, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if TTG gets the rights and makes a second season.
We continued the 'items that would've been useful in previous KQ games' thing in the pawnshop in TSL, as well. If you look at the shelves directly behind Hakim, you'll get a few references. (Actually one of them, web-be-gone, we turned into an in-game item eventually!)
Gods, the more I read this thread, the less interested I think I am becoming in the game. Largely because of the way many people in here are reacting to ideas or simply stating how they feel about things in the previous games.
Puzzles so difficult they take days to figure out? No thanks, I did that in the 80's and 90's. I'm all up for looking at things in a different way, but "Moon Logic" as a trope was created for a reason, and early adventure games had a lot of that. Don't get me started on many of the games which had seemingly unwinnable scenarios because you literally would have to call up for help before you even conceived of what might be the right solution.
Games are too easy? Easy games aren't fun? It's easier to make games easy than it is hard? Wow, talking out your asses much? I'm not trying to be rude, but gods-damn, that sounds so freaking wrong. I've been playing games for going on 30 years, and if anything, pulling back the "difficulty" in general has been a blessing. Not because it allows more "casual" gamers to play, but because it means that people who don't have time to master a game are actually able to beat it. You know, those of us with lives, outside interests, and less-than-perfect reflexes. It's also ridiculously easy for games to be made hard, as many games these days have quite a lot of instances of unbalanced gameplay where you hit brick walls of difficulty, or the gameplay can't make up its mind, or developers thing Easy and Normal are just enemies with less HP.
I'm sorry, but that really strikes a nerve with me when people bitch about how easy games are getting, when in many cases I think games are getting harder. Just not for the same reasons they were hard in the old days.
Anyways, back to King's Quest. I see some of you guys condemn those who thought KQ7 was fun and enjoyable, and that honestly makes me sick. You praise a game for giving the player a hefty penalty upon making a mistake, when it's crap like that which was driving people away from the genre. I know some of you guys aren't gonna like this, but it was the lack of constant death hanging over your head that made a lot of people like the LucasArts style of adventure gaming.
Sure, saving constantly is a good idea, but why should I have to have tons of save slots just cause every screen can potentially kill me? That's not only bothersome, but it breaks the illusion of actually being there. I don't know what kind of rose-tinted glasses some of you are wearing, but the fact is that many people did NOT enjoy unwinnable scenarios. Heck, I was very glad when we stopped having to constantly rely on the keyboard for everything. I did rather miss the typing and such, but I sure didn't miss dying cause I couldn't type fast enough.
I'm sorry if I've stepped on some toes, it's just.. the topic of difficulty in modern gaming, and the way some people cling to the notion that everyone loves ridiculous challenges or inane logic puzzles kind of gets to me. It tends to make me kind of upset. Probably cause I lived through that era and didn't enjoy it much then, either. Sure, I enjoy older games far more than most modern ones and will replay NES, SNES, and Genesis games quite often. I wish I could enjoy more older PC games, though GOG is helping fix that.. but I don't miss how hair-pullingly frustrating a lot of older games could be. I don't miss scouring magazines for clues, wasting money on hints, relying on trial-and-error or pixel perfect precision to get the job done.
As per the topic itself: What I want from TTG's King's Quest is for a fun and engrossing entry to the series that both makes me think back fondly to older games, while giving me a new story/adventure either with characters I love or set in a world I enjoyed living in for a while. I don't want something like KQ1-4, but I could do without KQ8. I sincerely doubt we'd get something like it, but if they wanted an actiony game, they could do worse than getting inspiration for the gameplay style of something like Soul Reaver. But what I enjoy most about TTG's entries is the gameplay they already provide, so I won't be complaining if we get something like Monkey Island or Sam & Max.
Honestly, I think we should all just quit speculating and let them surprise us. The more we debate or hype ourselves up, the more we'll be disappointed if it isn't what we are imagining. It's one of the reasons I largely avoid learning about games I'm interested in. I'd certainly rather be pleasently surprised or nonplussed than let down.
I think you're very much missing the point of the "too easy" argument.
First of all, there's a big difference between games in general getting easier (as in, taking less time to master a set of skills needed in order to beat certain enemies or bosses, etc.) and point-and-click adventure games getting so dumbed down that they might as well be movies where the player periodically has to click "unpause" to keep the story going.
Did you play Back to the Future? Because that's pretty much all that game was. The amount of hotspots in a given area was usually countable on one hand. Did you play Jurassic Park? Watch an LP sometime if you haven't, because that's the same experience you'd get playing it. Telltale's last few games have been increasingly like extended cutscenes with small points of interaction in between.
That's NOT what we want from King's Quest. Can you honestly say that's what you'd want out of a new KQ game? We want to be able to explore a world that feels interactive, where nearly everything in a given area is clickable. We want that world to be more than a few rooms strung together by cutscenes that outnumber gameplay sequences. And we want puzzles that make us think--that require us to consider all the items in our inventory and how they might be combined and used on various areas of the environment.
In Telltale's last true point-and-click game (Back to the Future,) the player rarely had more than three things in his inventory at a given time, and rarely had to deal with any puzzles whose solutions weren't "click one of your three items on one of the three hotspots in the room" or "exhaust all dialog options." Seriously, those aren't even puzzles. What critical thought do they require AT ALL??
Nobody really honestly expects Telltale to create a game with moon logic and dead-ends. Most of the arguments in this thread have been about whether or not certain notorious puzzles in the old games REALLY were illogical, or whether or not dead ends could be justified BACK THEN. Nobody is seriously saying "Please, Telltale, give us a game where I can miss something at the beginning, play the rest of the game, and then not be able to finish it because of that thing I missed at the beginning."
What we are saying, is "Please, Telltale, give us a game that captures the feel of open-ended exploration, world interactivity, and satisfying puzzle-solving of the original games, with familiar, well-written characters that we know and love." We're even okay with them expanding on the story elements, as long as it doesn't come at the sacrifice of all the things that made the old King's Quest games great (see my previous sentence.)
So please, get off your high horse. We've all been playing games just as long as you have, and have just as much a right to our opinions on things as you do. If you take the time to read our opinions carefully, you might even find that our ideas about what made a King's Quest game awesome aren't all that different in the first place.
Hiroshi - you've just pulled a switcharoo and taken a debate about puzzle difficulty and switched that out into an attack on game difficulty overall.
There is a huge difference between saying, 'I want this game to be harder than the current crop of Tell tale games" and "I want this game to be as hard as possible".
As Lambonius pointed out, TT's latest games have been ridiculously easy. there is a huge difference between moon logic and having to actually think and not just clikc on one of 5 spots on the screen.
The entire point of most of the threads here is that TT has gotten away from adventure games in general and started creating quicktime event movies. The thread over on the walking dead game is showing signs of the same issues that plagued BttF. Many of us have hoped for years for a new official entry in the series, and many of us would rather not have one at all then see a light weight cartoon fantasy slideshow that we just click through.
No, I'm not talking out of my ass, and I really don't see any justification for accusing me of doing so because I'm of the opinion that adventure games are getting too easy and that I find easy games boring.
The gist of my posts and similar ones is a simple request that TTG's game be made so that it can be enjoyed by those of us who like challenging Sierra-style gameplay, and that it not cater solely to those who played Sierra games in spite of the difficult puzzles or new audiences unused to such gameplay.
I might actually start to worry that this request is unreasonable if someone ever came and presented an argument that doesn't include...
...because it means that people who don't have time to master a game are actually able to beat it. You know, those of us with lives, outside interests, and less-than-perfect reflexes.
You praise a game for giving the player a hefty penalty upon making a mistake, when it's crap like that which was driving people away from the genre. I know some of you guys aren't gonna like this, but it was the lack of constant death hanging over your head that made a lot of people like the LucasArts style of adventure gaming.
single-cause hypotheses to explain complex phenomena...
In other news, over in the walking dead forum they released some info the other day in regards to the first episode that boils down to:
"2 hours"
"It doesn't have a lot of barriers"
"We want you to finish it."
Sounds a lot like a movie to me..... and makes me worry that TellTale is only going further down the rabbit hole.
That's part of my problem with the chapters in KQ7 they often took less than 2 hours... Most puzzles were pointed out to you in some fashion... Either characters that ask for a specific item (from a specific location), or flat out obvious solutions... Most characters only appear when they are related to a particular puzzle solution...
Granted most of KQ games can be finished in less than few hours... But most had good puzzles (the main time sink)...
KQ3 (probably the worst puzzle design in the entire series, or lack of true in inventory puzzles) takes place in real time (minus timer pausing during spell cast typing). I generally complete it with no more than two hours on the timer.... KQ4 (some of the best puzzle design of the series) also works in real time (with one event pushing time foreward after you complete certain conditions). I've never actually timed the timer but I suspect it takes no more than 3-4 hours for the 24 hour period to elapse... Typing pauses the timer I think.
Although on he one hand that's an arguement that in some ways total play time for four or five episodes last longer than the actual total content of early games... But unfortunately including cases of dumbed down and/or overused/unoriginal rehashed/recycled puzzle design.
Though also take into account the early games had less cutscenes/conversations/exposition and spent more of that time on puzzles... So in someways 'more actual gameplay' in the same amount of time. So a three hour game was more puzzle solving than the story itself. Whereas in modern games a single episode maybe 3 hours but contain more exposition than gameplay...
Who knows how much total actual gameplay exists over the course of the entire 4-5 episodes... It might end up having a similar number of puzzles as early adventure games, but most of extra time (as in beyond he time it takes to solve the puzzles) taken up by exposition...
In other news, over in the walking dead forum they released some info the other day in regards to the first episode that boils down to:
"2 hours"
"It doesn't have a lot of barriers"
"We want you to finish it."
Sounds a lot like a movie to me..... and makes me worry that TellTale is only going further down the rabbit hole.
This isn't really unexpected, though, is it? I thought it became clear somewhere between the releases of BTTF and JP that Telltale's design philosophy calls for trivially interactive content-delivery systems. I don't see them ever making another adventure game except possibly with properties that have a history as adventure games, and even then I'm not sure what to expect.
This isn't really unexpected, though, is it? I thought it became clear somewhere between the releases of BTTF and JP that Telltale's design philosophy calls for trivially interactive content-delivery systems. I don't see them ever making another adventure game except possibly with properties that have a history as adventure games, and even then I'm not sure what to expect.
Unexpected? No.
Disappointing? yes.
I happen to be a walking dead fan as well, and I would simply rather read a side story or watch the TV show over guiding some character around a world without "many barriers" (ie: challenge).
They are getting into rats nest by tackling these properties that have cult followings. From JP, to BttF, to Walking Dead, and KQ - what I simply don't get is who they are targeting with these games? How many people are going to play a walking dead game that aren't fans of the series? To the average person it would simply appear to be another zombie game. And both BttF and JP rely on nostalgia from the series to carry them - as neither have any recent movies to highlight the series with a new crowd.
Finally, KQ is very specific property. If you don't design it with the original fans in mind, then who the hell do they expect to play it?
The problem is there are way too many Telltale fanboys who will accept anything TTG does just because there hasn't been an official King's Quest in years. I can't stand the argument "At least they're doing something with it! We have a new King's Quest game!" What's the point if it's nothing at all like the originals? That's my fear. I'd rather see it stay dead with dignity than be revived as a joke and a hollow shell of what it once was.
agreed 100%. Those who are happy "something is being done with it" fail to realize that bad games can (and will) damage the series and any chance for future revivals.
However, on the other end of the spectrum is they end up creating a game that has mainstream appeal, and great success. Which hen continues onto its own sequels. But it may not be loved by the many of the long core fans.
That might be worse for many KQ fans as it might insure that KQ never returns back to the original style. But exists on as something else.
Realize that Telltale games seems to churn out games although not always critically appealing to professional critics, seem to appeal with more mass market casual gaming market... Where they see great success, and it seems to influence designers further than that road. It's quicker, cheaper, and more productive for them. That's how capitalism works, develop for the greater audience... Even if that turns out to be pandering to thr lowest common denominator...
In response to some of the questions aimed my way, no I have not played anything by Telltale since Sam & Max season 3 cause my computer cannot handle it, and even that had to be played at a relative's house. I've been interested in playing BttF and JP, but haven't been able to find a way to play them yet, unless I can somehow rent them for the Xbox or something (which I haven't been able to).
So when I hear people talking about how "easy" the games seem, the only games that spring to mind are stuff like Tales and TDP, neither of which seemed too easy although I'll admit they weren't terribly hard; in fact, they were just right in my eyes.
In regards to not wanting KQ to be a "series of flashing lights you click on" or however you described it, I can understand that completely. However, I don't want them to get the kind of idea that.. say.. Capcom had when they made Megaman 9. "Oh, people want old school action, that must mean they want it unbelievably hard, insta-kills everywhere, and pixel perfect reflexes." And then deliver a game that was, for me, a whole lot harder and less enjoyable than the NES games had been. Thankfully they fixed that with 10, but I think you get what I mean.
I think some of you may have misinterpreted my generalizing for specific people, and I know I shouldn't generalize but it's been hard to break out of that habit once you fall into it. And gods have I fallen into it the last few years, what with unrelenting cynicism and pessimism constantly cropping into my posts.
I didn't mean for the post to be an "all out attack" on people, and I do apologize that it apparently came out that way. Although, Thom-22, instead of simply dissecting what I said with little quips that sound like you're quoting from a dictionary, going into more detail would've been nice. That just made you seem.. pompous.
In regards to difficulty.. well, it IS something I'm really touchy about, and yes I did go off on a tirade about it and I let it start consuming my post which wasn't my original intention, but I never really notice when I'm switching gears/topics in the middle of my writing, I'm afraid.
The fact is, I DO see a lot of people complain about difficulty and games today. So when I heard you guys saying stuff about TTG's being easy, and as I said I hadn't played the last two games so I didn't know you were being specific about them, I thought you were talking about all their games being easy. Which sounded to me like you guys didn't want TTG to make this at all because you didn't like how they make games.
If that's not what you were implying, I apologize.
Just because it's too hard and frustrating for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else too. Many of us complain about game difficulty nowadays being to EASY. Between checkpoints, rechargeable health, in-game hints, there's nothing that provides a challenge anymore. A lot of us enjoyed the difficulty of the early games, however difficult to believe that must be to you.
And I don't like how TTG has been making games lately. They're getting worse with each release.
I don't know.. I think they are just doing new things... I think they will return to form with Kings Quest... and then hopefully another Sam and Max.. and I dare to wish for a second season of Tales of Monkey Island.
Although, Thom-22, instead of simply dissecting what I said with little quips that sound like you're quoting from a dictionary, going into more detail would've been nice. That just made you seem.. pompous.
... the topic of difficulty in modern gaming, and the way some people cling to the notion that everyone loves ridiculous challenges or inane logic puzzles kind of gets to me.
I don't think anyone has that notion in the first place, let alone clinging to it. In fact, I'm a great believer in variety and think the range of video games -- in terms of genre, ease, length, etc. -- available today is a wonderful thing; there's something for everyone. Do you think every game should be (non-optionally) easy? If so, then aren't you going to the opposite extreme of what you so vigorously denounced in your post? If not, if you allow that some adventure games can be designed to satisfy those who like the challenge, then why not this one?
A new King's Quest game, more than any other prospective title I can think of, deserves to be on the difficult end of the spectrum. (With devices employed, eg. a hint system, to make it optionally easier for those who prefer it.) Because of its pedigree, because its fan base is unbelievably intact after all these years and at least some substantial portion appreciated the challenges offered in the original games. You say that what we say sounds wrong. Well, the idea that a new KQ game would be tailored for people who played the originals in spite of finding the puzzles too difficult, rather than for those who truly enjoyed them, is what sounds totally wrong to me.
You're of course not the first person to describe Sierra-style gameplay using terms like "ridiculous" and "inane". But that doesn't mean those things are objectively quantifiable; they're a matter of opinion and neither of us is qualified to know where any particular puzzle falls except for ourselves. Personally, I always found the vast majority of puzzles in KQ to be perfectly reasonable, and very little that I would call ridiculous or inane. Moreover, I would rather play a game where I might run into the odd ridiculous puzzle than one where I'm led by the hand to self-contained, bland and simplistic puzzles as in Telltale's last two games. You're welcome to disagree with that -- and I know plenty of adventure gamers who would indeed disagree. But if you think I'm talking out of my ass for having that preference, well, I would say that's pretty narrow-minded.
If you look at the puzzle design in episodes 1 and 4 of Tales of Monkey Island by Mike Stemmle it was kind of perfect. They've got Jurassic Park, Back to the Future & Walking Dead which seems to be stories, not games, but I'm pretty confident they'd return to adventure game mechanics for a King's Quest game. I think its noble Telltale want to make story and writing a focus in games, because its basically non-existent in most of these shooters etc. I think they've probably got the balance wrong though, because if I wanted just story I could watch the TV show or movie, the reason I play a video game is because I want to feel like I have some control over what happens.
I would rather play a game where I might run into the odd ridiculous puzzle than one where I'm led by the hand to self-contained, bland and simplistic puzzles as in Telltale's last two games. You're welcome to disagree with that -- and I know plenty of adventure gamers who would indeed disagree. But if you think I'm talking out of my ass for having that preference, well, I would say that's pretty narrow-minded.
This.
The fact that bugs abound increasingly with each game release, BTTF is super fricken easy, and that Jurassic Park and The Walking Dead are just QTE movies isn't helping the situation.
If you look at the puzzle design in episodes 1 and 4 of Tales of Monkey Island by Mike Stemmle it was kind of perfect. They've got Jurassic Park, Back to the Future & Walking Dead which seems to be stories, not games, but I'm pretty confident they'd return to adventure game mechanics for a King's Quest game. I think its noble Telltale want to make story and writing a focus in games, because its basically non-existent in most of these shooters etc. I think they've probably got the balance wrong though, because if I wanted just story I could watch the TV show or movie, the reason I play a video game is because I want to feel like I have some control over what happens.
I would still say that even in Tales (my favorite Telltale game) the puzzles never approached anything I'd call challenging. I'd like to see at least a bit more complexity for a KQ game. LOGICAL complexity, but more complexity nonetheless.
Honestly though, it's not enough that Telltale just "return to form" with KQ. Their "form" isn't good enough for KQ, nor is it even the correct KIND of form. There is a MAJOR style discrepancy between Telltale's hotspot & dialog tree focused style of adventure gaming and Sierra's interactive world style adventure gaming.
I simply lament the inevitable--Telltale is going to shoehorn King's Quest characters into their typical (easy, simplistic, barely interactive) adventure game shell--and it is going to SUCK BALLS.
King's Quest puzzles were never all that complex... Many required a working knowledge of obscure fairy tales and myth...
Others 'pop culture'... yes, cream pies are somethign you throw in the face as a comedy routine, not necessarily something to eat....
The most complex often went more towards 'moon logic'...
There aren't even all that many 'combine item' or 'uncombine item' puzzles in the games (a few more in the later games)...
Still other puzzlers were even 'spelled' out for you in the manual (KQ3), or given big hints in the manuals(KQ6 Guidebook actually alludes and gives hints to several ingame puzzles, not just the copy protection).
Now, Space Quest, that series has some complex puzzle design...!
KQ has also heavily relied on figuring out what an NPC needed so you could get an item off them to give to a completely different NPC in need.. "trading puzzles."
Often you to ask them what they needed, if they could talk, they'd let you know. Often what they needed related as I said before on knowing fairy tales.
One of my favorite KQ memories was solving (tricking) all the sensory gnomes in KQ6.. I thought I was a clever kid that day... good thing they didn't use their senses all at once.
Honestly though, it's not enough that Telltale just "return to form" with KQ. Their "form" isn't good enough for KQ, nor is it even the correct KIND of form. There is a MAJOR style discrepancy between Telltale's hotspot & dialog tree focused style of adventure gaming and Sierra's interactive world style adventure gaming.
King's Quest puzzles were never all that complex...
It's not necessarily about the complexity of puzzles taken individually, but the overall complexity of the gameworld -- how many ways you have to interact with it; how the puzzles, or rather their components and clues, are diffused throughout; how many are exposed at any given time, etc.
All of the above is especially true for players who find that immersion depends on the qualities of the gameworld rather than those of the story (not that those two things aren't interrelated). Telltale seems to have either little regard for or understanding of these kind of gamers. But it's essentially what underlies the negative reviews of Jurassic Park, which showed a remarkable degree of consistency in praising the story while criticizing the experience.
One of my favorite KQ memories was solving (tricking) all the sensory gnomes in KQ6.. I thought I was a clever kid that day... good thing they didn't use their senses all at once.
One of my favorite KQ puzzles as well. I like wordplay puzzles but you don't see them so much anymore.
It's not necessarily about the complexity of puzzles taken individually, but the overall complexity of the gameworld -- how many ways you have to interact with it; how the puzzles, or rather their components and clues, are diffused throughout; how many are exposed at any given time, etc.
All of the above is especially true for players who find that immersion depends on the qualities of the gameworld rather than those of the story (not that those two things aren't interrelated). Telltale seems to have either little regard for or understanding of these kind of gamers. But it's essentially what underlies the negative reviews of Jurassic Park, which showed a remarkable degree of consistency in praising the story while criticizing the experience.
As usual, thom-22 perfectly articulates EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thanks, thom!
Thanks, Lamb. Backatcha. Have you played Gemini Rue? I think it's a good example of a game where the puzzles aren't difficult but it still plays like an adventure. There's no hand-holding -- the player always has to take the initiative to figure out how to progress. The puzzles aren't self-contained -- you really have to explore to get the lay of the land, so to speak, and understand the situation (story) before you can solve them. It has multiple modes of interaction where you're responsible for the characters' eyes, voice, hands and feet, and they were used in interesting ways. Plus the threat of death and some shooting sequences enhanced the experience. I thought it was very immersive, as I was compelled to think like the character the whole time I was playing. Easy in a sense, but not simplistic and way more than mindless clicking and watching. Wondering if any other Sierra fans liked this game?
Huh.. thought I had made a post in here, but it's not here. I might've closed out the window before I finished or hit previous and thought it was posted. (I've done that twice this week)
Essentially, I said we should agree to disagree - this was especially towards Thom - as I can see we have different tastes and gaming styles. Where as I put the overall storyline, characters, light challenge (to say nothing of music or voice acting) as key features in my games (particularly adventure games).. it would seem a number of the KQ fans here on this board (and likely elsewhere) prefer the games to be very difficult with a greater emphasis on mind-boggling puzzles. Which isn't to say I'm generalizing, but that's what I'm picking up as I read what's been said.
I have nothing against the earlier games, and indeed enjoy them, but I think KQ5-7 hit that sweet spot that I found most appealing. I certainly was stumped on occasion in KQ7, but never got to the point where I wanted to give up cause I'd spent over an hour wandering out aimlessly - something that could kill you in earlier games if you weren't careful.
I also ended the post by saying that if the Telltale KQ is anywhere along the lines of 5-7, I'll be happy. I don't really think Adventure games should need a difficulty setting, but I suppose that might be the only way some people will be satisfied. I think Simon the Sorcerer 2 did that pretty well, actually.. the Harder setting moved some of the items to other locations, added some new items, and gave puzzles more steps to completion.
No, you are generalizing by saying we want mind-boggling puzzles. Nobody said that. We just said we want a challenge. None of this adventure lite crap.
I suppose it depends on what you see as acceptable levels for challenging puzzles or gameplay. What you or somebody else may think of as "just right" I or other may find "mind-boggling" or highly frustrating.
Which isn't to say that I'm a simpleton or a dullard, I just don't seem to pick up the patterns people claim to see within the adventure game genre. Thinking of Simon the Sorcerer 2, and when I played it on Hard first I found it to be almost too difficult at times. Yet I'd frequently hear people say that the game was just "more of the same" and very easy if you'd played lots of adventure games. However, having played lots of adventure games, I didn't feel that was the case at all.
If I am generalizing, I'm certainly not aware of it at the time. Even now I'm not entirely certain that I'm actually doing it. As per what I said earlier in this post.
Personally from my perspective, it not that some of modern adventure games have 'become less challenging'... the problem is they have recycled puzzles I've seen in other games a dozen times... so those puzzles are neither innovative nor challenging at this point...
The creativity and originality just isn't there anymore...
it would seem a number of the KQ fans here on this board (and likely elsewhere) prefer the games to be very difficult with a greater emphasis on mind-boggling puzzles. Which isn't to say I'm generalizing, but that's what I'm picking up as I read what's been said.
Then either you need to get your eyesight checked, or you have serious reading comprehension problems.
Nowhere, in any of the above posts that responded to your initial rant, did anyone say they wanted moon logic puzzles. It has been explicitly explained several times (most concisely by thom-22 a few posts up from here) what we meant by "complexity" in an adventure game.
These guys absolutely "get" adventure games--what made them good, what mistakes designers made, why Telltale's games suck balls (okay, they don't explicitly say that, but their description of good adventure game puzzle design is essentially the polar opposite of the puzzles in Telltale's games.) Such a great video. I can't WAIT for this project. I might just have to go find another bucket or two of money to throw at it.
Then either you need to get your eyesight checked, or you have serious reading comprehension problems.
Nowhere, in any of the above posts that responded to your initial rant, did anyone say they wanted moon logic puzzles. It has been explicitly explained several times (most concisely by thom-22 a few posts up from here) what we meant by "complexity" in an adventure game.
You know, both you and Thom seem to be very rude. I know I was a bit rude in my original post in here but a lot of that was frustration at what I was reading lashing out. I apologized for it. I don't consistently call your mental or physical capabilities into question, and I'm getting quite tired of it the repeated badgering. I'm trying to have a discussion, not an argument (though I know it doesn't always seem that way). I have Tourette Syndrome and Diabetes, so I sometimes suffer from mood swings and don't always realize when I'm being overly rude or meanspirited, but I always try to apologize afterwards when I've re-read my message or someone has pointed it out. What's your excuse?
I did read the other posts and when I saw how highly people were praising some of the games that I personally felt were the hardest entries in the series (such as KQ3) or saying how easy KQ7 was, it seemed to me what you or others were saying is that you like ridiculously hard puzzles which included quite a few that did indeed incorporate "moon logic" as the trope goes. I certainly didn't use the term back in the day, but it's definitely the way I'd describe a variety of puzzles in the series, particularly the more headache-inducing ones.
Perhaps we need a separate discussion for things like "what puzzles did you find overly complex?" or "what did you feel was easier than other parts?" Because apparently I have been unable to gleam this information from previous messages in this thread.
I apologized for my rudeness earlier, I've yet to see you do the same or even stop. I'm not trying to start a fight, but that's certainly what you seem to be doing.
EDIT: Just noticed your little comment about Telltale's games "sucking balls". If you don't like them, why are you even here?
Lambonius being rude, is Lambonius being Lambonius... Pay him no mind... I generally ignore him when he gets that way .
Rude is probably his middle name...
In anycase,
the hardest entries in the series (such as KQ3)
Personally the only 'difficulty' in that game imo, comes from the watching the timer, and making sure you don't screw up in front of Manannan...
The puzzles are mainly 'laughable' and the way the game was written, you might as well have been reading a walkthrough...
The game doesn't even really have many puzzles traditional... Instead puzzles are replaced with a treasure hunt for items listed in the manual (yes most items in the game are associated with spells, and those spell ingredients are listed in the manual)... So there isn't even much 'discovery' as there could have been, if you had to figure out what items you can get on your own...
After you find all the items needed for the spells, its relatively obvious that spells will be used to solve nearly every other puzzle in the game... You are told how and where every spell is properly used in the spell book. I.E. storm brew must be used in a foggy/misty area. Knowing that, there is only one other spell with an 'offensive' capability that could be used against the evil wizard... Beyond that, about the only thing in the game that you are not explicitely told to get in the manual is the porridge, although it does suggest you need to have some kind of food you can hide the cat cookie in to disguise it... (which might as well be telling you you need the porridge, since none of the foods in the house count).
I suppose the game might be more difficulty if you don't read the manual, but at some point you will have to, to prepare the spells... Those spells make up 99% of the puzzles in the game...
I'd place KQ3 as some of the worst puzzle design of the series, not so much because they aren't interesting puzzles, but because the puzzles are almost fully exposed to you, including solutions in the manual, due to the nature of the puzzles...
Overall, my memories of KQ1-4 are shaky at best. I generally just remember having a tough time, but these were also my first time plays a Sierra game besides a chunk of KQ6 some years earlier and Adventure games in general. I suppose it's one of the reasons that I like the later games more, because I don't remember having as many snags or frustrating moments - although KQ5 did get to me a couple times, I'm pretty sure.
I kind of miss the days when the manuals were really interesting to read and gave you more insight into the games. These days many manuals are paper thin or have 10 pages in 4 languages. :<
Comments
I would agree with this, at least I can't imagine Telltale would use QTEs as the predominant gameplay mechanism in KQ.
The thing is, lots of people don't consider them atrocious messes. Whether we like it or not, there is a market for trivially interactive content-delivery systems masquerading as games.
See previous comment. There is a worst-case scenario for which you haven't accounted. BTTF might have sucked in all possible ways of assessing it as a game; nobody is going to remember it twenty-five years from now, unlike KQ and other Sierra titles that are still regarded fondly by so many gamers. But given the financial success of BTTF, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if TTG gets the rights and makes a second season.
Puzzles so difficult they take days to figure out? No thanks, I did that in the 80's and 90's. I'm all up for looking at things in a different way, but "Moon Logic" as a trope was created for a reason, and early adventure games had a lot of that. Don't get me started on many of the games which had seemingly unwinnable scenarios because you literally would have to call up for help before you even conceived of what might be the right solution.
Games are too easy? Easy games aren't fun? It's easier to make games easy than it is hard? Wow, talking out your asses much? I'm not trying to be rude, but gods-damn, that sounds so freaking wrong. I've been playing games for going on 30 years, and if anything, pulling back the "difficulty" in general has been a blessing. Not because it allows more "casual" gamers to play, but because it means that people who don't have time to master a game are actually able to beat it. You know, those of us with lives, outside interests, and less-than-perfect reflexes. It's also ridiculously easy for games to be made hard, as many games these days have quite a lot of instances of unbalanced gameplay where you hit brick walls of difficulty, or the gameplay can't make up its mind, or developers thing Easy and Normal are just enemies with less HP.
I'm sorry, but that really strikes a nerve with me when people bitch about how easy games are getting, when in many cases I think games are getting harder. Just not for the same reasons they were hard in the old days.
Anyways, back to King's Quest. I see some of you guys condemn those who thought KQ7 was fun and enjoyable, and that honestly makes me sick. You praise a game for giving the player a hefty penalty upon making a mistake, when it's crap like that which was driving people away from the genre. I know some of you guys aren't gonna like this, but it was the lack of constant death hanging over your head that made a lot of people like the LucasArts style of adventure gaming.
Sure, saving constantly is a good idea, but why should I have to have tons of save slots just cause every screen can potentially kill me? That's not only bothersome, but it breaks the illusion of actually being there. I don't know what kind of rose-tinted glasses some of you are wearing, but the fact is that many people did NOT enjoy unwinnable scenarios. Heck, I was very glad when we stopped having to constantly rely on the keyboard for everything. I did rather miss the typing and such, but I sure didn't miss dying cause I couldn't type fast enough.
I'm sorry if I've stepped on some toes, it's just.. the topic of difficulty in modern gaming, and the way some people cling to the notion that everyone loves ridiculous challenges or inane logic puzzles kind of gets to me. It tends to make me kind of upset. Probably cause I lived through that era and didn't enjoy it much then, either. Sure, I enjoy older games far more than most modern ones and will replay NES, SNES, and Genesis games quite often. I wish I could enjoy more older PC games, though GOG is helping fix that.. but I don't miss how hair-pullingly frustrating a lot of older games could be. I don't miss scouring magazines for clues, wasting money on hints, relying on trial-and-error or pixel perfect precision to get the job done.
As per the topic itself: What I want from TTG's King's Quest is for a fun and engrossing entry to the series that both makes me think back fondly to older games, while giving me a new story/adventure either with characters I love or set in a world I enjoyed living in for a while. I don't want something like KQ1-4, but I could do without KQ8. I sincerely doubt we'd get something like it, but if they wanted an actiony game, they could do worse than getting inspiration for the gameplay style of something like Soul Reaver. But what I enjoy most about TTG's entries is the gameplay they already provide, so I won't be complaining if we get something like Monkey Island or Sam & Max.
Honestly, I think we should all just quit speculating and let them surprise us. The more we debate or hype ourselves up, the more we'll be disappointed if it isn't what we are imagining. It's one of the reasons I largely avoid learning about games I'm interested in. I'd certainly rather be pleasently surprised or nonplussed than let down.
I think you're very much missing the point of the "too easy" argument.
First of all, there's a big difference between games in general getting easier (as in, taking less time to master a set of skills needed in order to beat certain enemies or bosses, etc.) and point-and-click adventure games getting so dumbed down that they might as well be movies where the player periodically has to click "unpause" to keep the story going.
Did you play Back to the Future? Because that's pretty much all that game was. The amount of hotspots in a given area was usually countable on one hand. Did you play Jurassic Park? Watch an LP sometime if you haven't, because that's the same experience you'd get playing it. Telltale's last few games have been increasingly like extended cutscenes with small points of interaction in between.
That's NOT what we want from King's Quest. Can you honestly say that's what you'd want out of a new KQ game? We want to be able to explore a world that feels interactive, where nearly everything in a given area is clickable. We want that world to be more than a few rooms strung together by cutscenes that outnumber gameplay sequences. And we want puzzles that make us think--that require us to consider all the items in our inventory and how they might be combined and used on various areas of the environment.
In Telltale's last true point-and-click game (Back to the Future,) the player rarely had more than three things in his inventory at a given time, and rarely had to deal with any puzzles whose solutions weren't "click one of your three items on one of the three hotspots in the room" or "exhaust all dialog options." Seriously, those aren't even puzzles. What critical thought do they require AT ALL??
Nobody really honestly expects Telltale to create a game with moon logic and dead-ends. Most of the arguments in this thread have been about whether or not certain notorious puzzles in the old games REALLY were illogical, or whether or not dead ends could be justified BACK THEN. Nobody is seriously saying "Please, Telltale, give us a game where I can miss something at the beginning, play the rest of the game, and then not be able to finish it because of that thing I missed at the beginning."
What we are saying, is "Please, Telltale, give us a game that captures the feel of open-ended exploration, world interactivity, and satisfying puzzle-solving of the original games, with familiar, well-written characters that we know and love." We're even okay with them expanding on the story elements, as long as it doesn't come at the sacrifice of all the things that made the old King's Quest games great (see my previous sentence.)
So please, get off your high horse. We've all been playing games just as long as you have, and have just as much a right to our opinions on things as you do. If you take the time to read our opinions carefully, you might even find that our ideas about what made a King's Quest game awesome aren't all that different in the first place.
There is a huge difference between saying, 'I want this game to be harder than the current crop of Tell tale games" and "I want this game to be as hard as possible".
As Lambonius pointed out, TT's latest games have been ridiculously easy. there is a huge difference between moon logic and having to actually think and not just clikc on one of 5 spots on the screen.
The entire point of most of the threads here is that TT has gotten away from adventure games in general and started creating quicktime event movies. The thread over on the walking dead game is showing signs of the same issues that plagued BttF. Many of us have hoped for years for a new official entry in the series, and many of us would rather not have one at all then see a light weight cartoon fantasy slideshow that we just click through.
No, I'm not talking out of my ass, and I really don't see any justification for accusing me of doing so because I'm of the opinion that adventure games are getting too easy and that I find easy games boring.
The gist of my posts and similar ones is a simple request that TTG's game be made so that it can be enjoyed by those of us who like challenging Sierra-style gameplay, and that it not cater solely to those who played Sierra games in spite of the difficult puzzles or new audiences unused to such gameplay.
I might actually start to worry that this request is unreasonable if someone ever came and presented an argument that doesn't include...
false dichotomies...
delusions of persecution...
single-cause hypotheses to explain complex phenomena...
and imaginary strawmen.
"2 hours"
"It doesn't have a lot of barriers"
"We want you to finish it."
Sounds a lot like a movie to me..... and makes me worry that TellTale is only going further down the rabbit hole.
Granted most of KQ games can be finished in less than few hours... But most had good puzzles (the main time sink)...
KQ3 (probably the worst puzzle design in the entire series, or lack of true in inventory puzzles) takes place in real time (minus timer pausing during spell cast typing). I generally complete it with no more than two hours on the timer.... KQ4 (some of the best puzzle design of the series) also works in real time (with one event pushing time foreward after you complete certain conditions). I've never actually timed the timer but I suspect it takes no more than 3-4 hours for the 24 hour period to elapse... Typing pauses the timer I think.
Although on he one hand that's an arguement that in some ways total play time for four or five episodes last longer than the actual total content of early games... But unfortunately including cases of dumbed down and/or overused/unoriginal rehashed/recycled puzzle design.
Though also take into account the early games had less cutscenes/conversations/exposition and spent more of that time on puzzles... So in someways 'more actual gameplay' in the same amount of time. So a three hour game was more puzzle solving than the story itself. Whereas in modern games a single episode maybe 3 hours but contain more exposition than gameplay...
Who knows how much total actual gameplay exists over the course of the entire 4-5 episodes... It might end up having a similar number of puzzles as early adventure games, but most of extra time (as in beyond he time it takes to solve the puzzles) taken up by exposition...
This isn't really unexpected, though, is it? I thought it became clear somewhere between the releases of BTTF and JP that Telltale's design philosophy calls for trivially interactive content-delivery systems. I don't see them ever making another adventure game except possibly with properties that have a history as adventure games, and even then I'm not sure what to expect.
Unexpected? No.
Disappointing? yes.
I happen to be a walking dead fan as well, and I would simply rather read a side story or watch the TV show over guiding some character around a world without "many barriers" (ie: challenge).
They are getting into rats nest by tackling these properties that have cult followings. From JP, to BttF, to Walking Dead, and KQ - what I simply don't get is who they are targeting with these games? How many people are going to play a walking dead game that aren't fans of the series? To the average person it would simply appear to be another zombie game. And both BttF and JP rely on nostalgia from the series to carry them - as neither have any recent movies to highlight the series with a new crowd.
Finally, KQ is very specific property. If you don't design it with the original fans in mind, then who the hell do they expect to play it?
That might be worse for many KQ fans as it might insure that KQ never returns back to the original style. But exists on as something else.
Realize that Telltale games seems to churn out games although not always critically appealing to professional critics, seem to appeal with more mass market casual gaming market... Where they see great success, and it seems to influence designers further than that road. It's quicker, cheaper, and more productive for them. That's how capitalism works, develop for the greater audience... Even if that turns out to be pandering to thr lowest common denominator...
So when I hear people talking about how "easy" the games seem, the only games that spring to mind are stuff like Tales and TDP, neither of which seemed too easy although I'll admit they weren't terribly hard; in fact, they were just right in my eyes.
In regards to not wanting KQ to be a "series of flashing lights you click on" or however you described it, I can understand that completely. However, I don't want them to get the kind of idea that.. say.. Capcom had when they made Megaman 9. "Oh, people want old school action, that must mean they want it unbelievably hard, insta-kills everywhere, and pixel perfect reflexes." And then deliver a game that was, for me, a whole lot harder and less enjoyable than the NES games had been. Thankfully they fixed that with 10, but I think you get what I mean.
I think some of you may have misinterpreted my generalizing for specific people, and I know I shouldn't generalize but it's been hard to break out of that habit once you fall into it. And gods have I fallen into it the last few years, what with unrelenting cynicism and pessimism constantly cropping into my posts.
I didn't mean for the post to be an "all out attack" on people, and I do apologize that it apparently came out that way. Although, Thom-22, instead of simply dissecting what I said with little quips that sound like you're quoting from a dictionary, going into more detail would've been nice. That just made you seem.. pompous.
In regards to difficulty.. well, it IS something I'm really touchy about, and yes I did go off on a tirade about it and I let it start consuming my post which wasn't my original intention, but I never really notice when I'm switching gears/topics in the middle of my writing, I'm afraid.
The fact is, I DO see a lot of people complain about difficulty and games today. So when I heard you guys saying stuff about TTG's being easy, and as I said I hadn't played the last two games so I didn't know you were being specific about them, I thought you were talking about all their games being easy. Which sounded to me like you guys didn't want TTG to make this at all because you didn't like how they make games.
If that's not what you were implying, I apologize.
And I don't like how TTG has been making games lately. They're getting worse with each release.
To elaborate on one of my quips, then...
I don't think anyone has that notion in the first place, let alone clinging to it. In fact, I'm a great believer in variety and think the range of video games -- in terms of genre, ease, length, etc. -- available today is a wonderful thing; there's something for everyone. Do you think every game should be (non-optionally) easy? If so, then aren't you going to the opposite extreme of what you so vigorously denounced in your post? If not, if you allow that some adventure games can be designed to satisfy those who like the challenge, then why not this one?
A new King's Quest game, more than any other prospective title I can think of, deserves to be on the difficult end of the spectrum. (With devices employed, eg. a hint system, to make it optionally easier for those who prefer it.) Because of its pedigree, because its fan base is unbelievably intact after all these years and at least some substantial portion appreciated the challenges offered in the original games. You say that what we say sounds wrong. Well, the idea that a new KQ game would be tailored for people who played the originals in spite of finding the puzzles too difficult, rather than for those who truly enjoyed them, is what sounds totally wrong to me.
You're of course not the first person to describe Sierra-style gameplay using terms like "ridiculous" and "inane". But that doesn't mean those things are objectively quantifiable; they're a matter of opinion and neither of us is qualified to know where any particular puzzle falls except for ourselves. Personally, I always found the vast majority of puzzles in KQ to be perfectly reasonable, and very little that I would call ridiculous or inane. Moreover, I would rather play a game where I might run into the odd ridiculous puzzle than one where I'm led by the hand to self-contained, bland and simplistic puzzles as in Telltale's last two games. You're welcome to disagree with that -- and I know plenty of adventure gamers who would indeed disagree. But if you think I'm talking out of my ass for having that preference, well, I would say that's pretty narrow-minded.
This.
The fact that bugs abound increasingly with each game release, BTTF is super fricken easy, and that Jurassic Park and The Walking Dead are just QTE movies isn't helping the situation.
I would still say that even in Tales (my favorite Telltale game) the puzzles never approached anything I'd call challenging. I'd like to see at least a bit more complexity for a KQ game. LOGICAL complexity, but more complexity nonetheless.
Honestly though, it's not enough that Telltale just "return to form" with KQ. Their "form" isn't good enough for KQ, nor is it even the correct KIND of form. There is a MAJOR style discrepancy between Telltale's hotspot & dialog tree focused style of adventure gaming and Sierra's interactive world style adventure gaming.
I simply lament the inevitable--Telltale is going to shoehorn King's Quest characters into their typical (easy, simplistic, barely interactive) adventure game shell--and it is going to SUCK BALLS.
Prove me wrong, Telltale. PROVE ME WRONG!
Others 'pop culture'... yes, cream pies are somethign you throw in the face as a comedy routine, not necessarily something to eat....
The most complex often went more towards 'moon logic'...
There aren't even all that many 'combine item' or 'uncombine item' puzzles in the games (a few more in the later games)...
Still other puzzlers were even 'spelled' out for you in the manual (KQ3), or given big hints in the manuals(KQ6 Guidebook actually alludes and gives hints to several ingame puzzles, not just the copy protection).
Now, Space Quest, that series has some complex puzzle design...!
Exactly what I was thinking.
It's not necessarily about the complexity of puzzles taken individually, but the overall complexity of the gameworld -- how many ways you have to interact with it; how the puzzles, or rather their components and clues, are diffused throughout; how many are exposed at any given time, etc.
All of the above is especially true for players who find that immersion depends on the qualities of the gameworld rather than those of the story (not that those two things aren't interrelated). Telltale seems to have either little regard for or understanding of these kind of gamers. But it's essentially what underlies the negative reviews of Jurassic Park, which showed a remarkable degree of consistency in praising the story while criticizing the experience.
ADD:
As usual, thom-22 perfectly articulates EXACTLY what I was thinking. Thanks, thom!
Would I love something more similar to KQ6? Of course. Is it gonna happen? Not likely.
Essentially, I said we should agree to disagree - this was especially towards Thom - as I can see we have different tastes and gaming styles. Where as I put the overall storyline, characters, light challenge (to say nothing of music or voice acting) as key features in my games (particularly adventure games).. it would seem a number of the KQ fans here on this board (and likely elsewhere) prefer the games to be very difficult with a greater emphasis on mind-boggling puzzles. Which isn't to say I'm generalizing, but that's what I'm picking up as I read what's been said.
I have nothing against the earlier games, and indeed enjoy them, but I think KQ5-7 hit that sweet spot that I found most appealing. I certainly was stumped on occasion in KQ7, but never got to the point where I wanted to give up cause I'd spent over an hour wandering out aimlessly - something that could kill you in earlier games if you weren't careful.
I also ended the post by saying that if the Telltale KQ is anywhere along the lines of 5-7, I'll be happy. I don't really think Adventure games should need a difficulty setting, but I suppose that might be the only way some people will be satisfied. I think Simon the Sorcerer 2 did that pretty well, actually.. the Harder setting moved some of the items to other locations, added some new items, and gave puzzles more steps to completion.
Which isn't to say that I'm a simpleton or a dullard, I just don't seem to pick up the patterns people claim to see within the adventure game genre. Thinking of Simon the Sorcerer 2, and when I played it on Hard first I found it to be almost too difficult at times. Yet I'd frequently hear people say that the game was just "more of the same" and very easy if you'd played lots of adventure games. However, having played lots of adventure games, I didn't feel that was the case at all.
If I am generalizing, I'm certainly not aware of it at the time. Even now I'm not entirely certain that I'm actually doing it. As per what I said earlier in this post.
The creativity and originality just isn't there anymore...
Then either you need to get your eyesight checked, or you have serious reading comprehension problems.
Nowhere, in any of the above posts that responded to your initial rant, did anyone say they wanted moon logic puzzles. It has been explicitly explained several times (most concisely by thom-22 a few posts up from here) what we meant by "complexity" in an adventure game.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/24/double-fine-kickstarter-adds-new-rewards-schafer-and-gilbert-ta/
These guys absolutely "get" adventure games--what made them good, what mistakes designers made, why Telltale's games suck balls (okay, they don't explicitly say that, but their description of good adventure game puzzle design is essentially the polar opposite of the puzzles in Telltale's games.) Such a great video. I can't WAIT for this project. I might just have to go find another bucket or two of money to throw at it.
You know, both you and Thom seem to be very rude. I know I was a bit rude in my original post in here but a lot of that was frustration at what I was reading lashing out. I apologized for it. I don't consistently call your mental or physical capabilities into question, and I'm getting quite tired of it the repeated badgering. I'm trying to have a discussion, not an argument (though I know it doesn't always seem that way). I have Tourette Syndrome and Diabetes, so I sometimes suffer from mood swings and don't always realize when I'm being overly rude or meanspirited, but I always try to apologize afterwards when I've re-read my message or someone has pointed it out. What's your excuse?
I did read the other posts and when I saw how highly people were praising some of the games that I personally felt were the hardest entries in the series (such as KQ3) or saying how easy KQ7 was, it seemed to me what you or others were saying is that you like ridiculously hard puzzles which included quite a few that did indeed incorporate "moon logic" as the trope goes. I certainly didn't use the term back in the day, but it's definitely the way I'd describe a variety of puzzles in the series, particularly the more headache-inducing ones.
Perhaps we need a separate discussion for things like "what puzzles did you find overly complex?" or "what did you feel was easier than other parts?" Because apparently I have been unable to gleam this information from previous messages in this thread.
I apologized for my rudeness earlier, I've yet to see you do the same or even stop. I'm not trying to start a fight, but that's certainly what you seem to be doing.
EDIT: Just noticed your little comment about Telltale's games "sucking balls". If you don't like them, why are you even here?
Rude is probably his middle name...
In anycase,
Personally the only 'difficulty' in that game imo, comes from the watching the timer, and making sure you don't screw up in front of Manannan...
The puzzles are mainly 'laughable' and the way the game was written, you might as well have been reading a walkthrough...
The game doesn't even really have many puzzles traditional... Instead puzzles are replaced with a treasure hunt for items listed in the manual (yes most items in the game are associated with spells, and those spell ingredients are listed in the manual)... So there isn't even much 'discovery' as there could have been, if you had to figure out what items you can get on your own...
After you find all the items needed for the spells, its relatively obvious that spells will be used to solve nearly every other puzzle in the game... You are told how and where every spell is properly used in the spell book. I.E. storm brew must be used in a foggy/misty area. Knowing that, there is only one other spell with an 'offensive' capability that could be used against the evil wizard... Beyond that, about the only thing in the game that you are not explicitely told to get in the manual is the porridge, although it does suggest you need to have some kind of food you can hide the cat cookie in to disguise it... (which might as well be telling you you need the porridge, since none of the foods in the house count).
I suppose the game might be more difficulty if you don't read the manual, but at some point you will have to, to prepare the spells... Those spells make up 99% of the puzzles in the game...
I'd place KQ3 as some of the worst puzzle design of the series, not so much because they aren't interesting puzzles, but because the puzzles are almost fully exposed to you, including solutions in the manual, due to the nature of the puzzles...
KQ6 did the spell system much better...
I kind of miss the days when the manuals were really interesting to read and gave you more insight into the games. These days many manuals are paper thin or have 10 pages in 4 languages. :<