I believe that Sierra's KQ2 had so little story that it would have felt like half of a game to have been remade 1:1. I also welcomed the changes as it added a level of newness to the game, given that the solutions to puzzles are correspondingly more complex and I didn't know right away how to beat the game.
Yes, it changed a lot. A controversial amount. But Chyron is right, the original was so empty that remaking it would have been boring. Instead they decided to try something a little bolder and grander. I was a fan of KQ2+ long before I was ever brought on board to help with KQ3R, so I'm not just being biased.
Making something on par with the storytelling and extensive game content of KQ6 seems like a much more fun way to go from both a design perspective and a player's perspective. I, for one, am glad that I got to experience a "new" King's Quest adventure. It was familiar yet foreign. A remake of something I wanted to see yet also a brand new game in many ways. It filled both voids for me. And, despite how you think of the style of the story or how much they added/changed, it was all done pretty darn well.
The only thing I dislike about it is how it changes things in OTHER games. If it had only changed stuff contained to KQ2--IE, Dracula, Hagatha--Then I'd just view it as an alternative telling of the story. Which is cool--After all, there are tons of different versions of real world fairy tales, for example.
But it changes stuff that relates to the other games--I do not at all like the whole Father and Prohecy storylines. One thing I hate is trying to tie all the games and villains together...It makes the universe of the series much smaller and limited than it should be IMO. And it just comes off as bad fanfiction.
But the other stuff is cool--the Sharkee segemnt is fun; The night segments are awesome. It is a great game and a new experience and the writers do capture the KQ spirit/feel/tone. I just do not like stuff like the Father/1000 year long prophecies. Also a minor beef is turning Little Red Riding Hood into a sexy vampire girl. That's just a WTF moment.
It doesn't really change anything. It fills in empty plot points that were never explained. Which to be fair is an equally, but entirely altogether different, issue. Some people like the tying together of plot elements. And for a fangame it really just makes the players who appreciate it go "Ah cool! They referenced other KQ games!" It's not meant to really tie it all together, it's just to get those reactions. I know I had them. Paw had them to when playing through the remakes. I appreciated it. But it doesn't matter anyway, because it isn't canon.
It doesn't really change anything. It fills in empty plot points that were never explained. Which to be fair is an equally, but entirely altogether unrelated, issue.
It does change things dude. Dracula is clearly a baddie that you kill in the original. He's turned into a nice guy. Little Riding Hood is simply the character of fairy tales. She's turned into Little Red Riding Hood/"Possum" by day, a sexy vampire girl by night. The kindly, pious, good Monk who aids Graham in his quest is turned into an evil, blood thirsty werewolf. The Antique Shop owner is turned from a woman just wanting her pet back to an evil witch wannabe who kills said "pet" for a spell.
I'm not talking about that. You said you didn't mind that as much. What you said was you specifically had a problem with it changing the plot elements of other KQ games, which it doesn't. It just fills in unexplained plot points from those games. It could very well have been true. There's nothing in those games to refute it is what I'm saying. That's what I mean when I say it didn't change anything.
Of course it changed the elements of KQ2! That's obvious, I think.
If you consider the monk and Dracula to be as important and iconic as Luthor and Superman, than yes. But they were only random side characters in the original KQ2. I don't really consider that intruding on anything since they really don't matter to the KQ universe.
I'm not talking about that. You said you didn't mind that as much. What you said was you specifically had a problem with it changing the plot elements of other KQ games, which it doesn't. It just fills in unexplained plot points from those games. It could very well have been true. There's nothing in those games to refute it is what I'm saying. That's what I mean when I say it didn't change anything.
Of course it changed the elements of KQ2! That's obvious, I think.
I think the whole Father and Prophecy storyline DOES indeed change the whole context of the series. It turns it from a series of standalone adventures into adventures happening due to the machinations of an unseen evil villain throughout the whole series along with a curse made by said unseen villain, and some sort of 1,000 old prophecy regarding Daventry's first King. It just reeks of bad fanfiction.
If you consider the monk and Dracula to be as important and iconic as Luthor and Superman, than yes. But they were only random side characters in the original KQ2. I don't really consider that intruding on anything since they really don't matter to the KQ universe.
Pretty much every side character you encounter in the original game is changed in some way or another....
And they do matter....The Monk gives you the cross which protects you and you get the third and final key after killing Dracula, which enabled you to meet Valanice and finish the game. The journey to Dracula's castle and killing him is integral to the game.
They really weren't so random, Red Riding hood actually is brought up and tied to two separate characters. she mentions that her basket was stolen by a wolf, she refers to grandmother, and asks you to find her basket, and grandma refers to her as well, based on certain actions you make.
Dracula is brought up by several different characters, including the monk, in Grandma's house, the ghoul, and the ghosts, etc.
He is a more developed villain than Hagatha in the game really!
The monk and church are important part of the end of the story in the original as well. It's a simple scene, but one of my favorites in the entire series!
Actually, you didn't have to kill Dracula. It gave you more points, but you could easily enough go through the entire game without even encountering him.
Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it. KQ2+ definitely changes the context of the series there's no argument on that, but it doesn't actually change any plot points. That's the only distinction I was trying to make.
Actually, you didn't have to kill Dracula. It gave you more points, but you could easily enough go through the entire game without even encountering him.
Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it. KQ2+ definitely changes the context of the series there's no argument on that, but it doesn't actually change any plot points. That's the only distinction I was trying to make.
Wouldn't The Father's curse directly cause the kidnapping of Alexander, Graham's heart attack in IV and Graham seemingly being without an heir at the end of KQ7 (With Alex living in the Green Isles and Rosella presumably living in Etheria)?
Yes, Baggins. I'm not suggesting KQ2+ didn't change plot elements for KQ2. I've already said that. But none of those things affect the other games in the least because you never see those characters again.
Wouldn't The Father's curse directly cause the kidnapping of Alexander, Graham's heart attack in IV and Graham seemingly being without an heir at the end of KQ7 (With Alex living in the Green Isles and Rosella presumably living in Etheria)?
Yes, but that doesn't CHANGE anything. Only the fact that you now know the reason behind the kidnapping of Alexander and an soon-to-be heirless Graham's heart attack. The reasons for these things were never explained. They just happened. In the case of Alex's kidnapping, we know that Manannan gets a new slave every 18 years, but it doesn't CHANGE any plot elements by saying that this time around The Father suggested Alex as his next slave.
My point (again) is that you can play KQ2+ and take in its story and lore without it affecting your gameplay experiences in other King's Quest games. It doesn't cause any contradictions or plot holes. Not that it doesn't change the context. It certainly does.
KQ4 manual actually suggests that Manannan enjoyed watching the dragon's destruction of Daventry, doesn't it? That would seem to imply a reason why he chose Alexander in a way...
Other than a few contradictions with backstories given in the manuals, sierra hintbooks (written by Roberta, or other main KQ directors), and other other official Sierra published sources...
Obviously its different than the original or Companion's version of events (so I won't go there)...
About the biggest mistake I noticed with AGDI's games, was that KQ3R states that Lolotte and Malicia are sisters... This is specifically said not to be the case in KQ7. Edgar states he is not related to Lolotte! If she had been a sister of Malicia, she would have been his aunt! Both Titania and Oberon state, she is some evil fairy, that kidnapped their son, again denying any relationship between them!
Personally I always found KQ2 AGI to be very boring and aggravating game. In the manual, Hagatha is captures Valanice and locks her up in a tower. Now after hearing that wouldn't you think she'd be the game's main villain since you have to rescue Valanice? Amazingly all you do is get the nightingale back from her and you hear nothing about Hagatha again. Very disappointing. The only going across the bridge three times was frustrating too cause you could get yourself stuck by crossing one too many times and what if you needed to go back to reread the hint about the next key? Yes AGDI changed who was good and who was bad but that really didn't change anything for the rest of the games in the series. I found KQ2+ much more entertaining than the original.
I actually enjoy AGDI's explanation of why Alexander seems to have creepy stalker issues at the beginning of KQ6. For his family's fate to have been set as such to compel him to move elsewhere makes more sense than to be inexplicably infatuated with a woman he only met once for a few minutes.
I understand the disconnect in KQ2 might have to do with the fact, that Roberta didn't write the manual. She only designed the game.
The manual was written by Annette Childs later on, before the game was published!
Notice that KQ1 received two manual stories too! The original is simpler and fits closer to the description given by Edward in the the game... In KQ1 original, the treasures weren't stolen from Edward... Infact, he sends Graham out to find treasures he's only 'heard about through ancient legends'!
The witch has no connection to any treasure in that version of the story... and is just a random 'baddie' that invaded the land according to the manual.
The newer manual, written about a year or two later, by Roberta herself, doesn't quite fit with how Edward describes the treasures in the game itself! It added in the more detailed concept that the treasures were stolen from Edward... But this wasn't updated in the game (Edward still describes that he's heard of 'legendary treasures', and he wants them, that he thinks will help Daventry).
The KQ1 remake moved closer to Roberta's manual story's description of the treasures. Edward finally states that they were stolen from the kingdom. Still the witch is not really connected into the story at all within the game... The game just calls her a 'witch', and there is no mention that she stole a treasure.
Likewise it looks like with KQ2, Roberta had her own version of the story, where Dracula was more central to the game's plot, and Annette attempted to make Hagatha more central but Roberta never included that idea in the game itself! There are no references connecting Hagatha to Valanice in the game at all.
I understand the disconnect in KQ2 might have to do with the fact, that Roberta didn't write the manual. She only designed the game.
The manual was written by Annette Childs later on, before the game was published!
Notice that KQ1 received two manual stories too! The original is simpler and fits closer to the description given by Edward in the the game... In KQ1 original, the treasures weren't stolen from Edward... Infact, he sends Graham out to find treasures he's only 'heard about through ancient legends'!
Wow I never knew that about KQ1 or 2. Personally I felt like I was playing a different game than the manual. Too bad they didn't organize it better.
It was always my understanding that Edgar was never ever related to Lolotte, but that he was abducted much like Alexander was. Malicia is definitely canonically related to Edgar, though?
Also I don't know much about Annette Childs but what I have figured out, she is apparently only did the documenation for several Sierra games, and may have helped design the the box for KQ3.
She later apparently moved onto Cinemaware, and did documenation for Rocket Ranger.
I don't know if she was a Sierra employee or freelance...
was always my understanding that Edgar was never ever related to Lolotte, but that he was abducted much like Alexander was. Malicia is definitely canonically related to Edgar, though?
In KQ7, Malicia is Edgar's aunt! Titania is Edgar's mom. Titania and Malicia are sisters! Lolotte is not related to any of them!
Strangely AGDI states that Lolotte is Malicia's younger sister! Which would mean that in that game Titania would be their sister (though Titania isn't mentioned at all)! It would mean Edgar was Lolotte's nephew... which doesn't fit with what KQ7 says! http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Lolotte%27s_letter
It's a giant Picard facepalm, which means that the attempt at humor is ruined by the fact that you have to bother to horizontally scroll or zoom out to see it properly.
I take that back. I zoomed Firefox all the way out and the image is still too big to fit entirely on the screen.
...okay, when you post something, it does show you your post after submitting it. I don't see how people can post huge images without realizing it.
Comments
The difference being remastery of old material and creation of new material.
The important thing in either case is to be consistent with the established patterns/themes/trends, etc. laid down by previous installments.
Sierra King's Quest games aren't overly laden with drama, nor do they visit previous lands.
KQ2+ had too much cheesy drama, like The Father, 1000 year prophecies, a good vampire... and evil monk...
It changed too much, imo...
Making something on par with the storytelling and extensive game content of KQ6 seems like a much more fun way to go from both a design perspective and a player's perspective. I, for one, am glad that I got to experience a "new" King's Quest adventure. It was familiar yet foreign. A remake of something I wanted to see yet also a brand new game in many ways. It filled both voids for me. And, despite how you think of the style of the story or how much they added/changed, it was all done pretty darn well.
But it changes stuff that relates to the other games--I do not at all like the whole Father and Prohecy storylines. One thing I hate is trying to tie all the games and villains together...It makes the universe of the series much smaller and limited than it should be IMO. And it just comes off as bad fanfiction.
But the other stuff is cool--the Sharkee segemnt is fun; The night segments are awesome. It is a great game and a new experience and the writers do capture the KQ spirit/feel/tone. I just do not like stuff like the Father/1000 year long prophecies. Also a minor beef is turning Little Red Riding Hood into a sexy vampire girl. That's just a WTF moment.
It does change things dude. Dracula is clearly a baddie that you kill in the original. He's turned into a nice guy. Little Riding Hood is simply the character of fairy tales. She's turned into Little Red Riding Hood/"Possum" by day, a sexy vampire girl by night. The kindly, pious, good Monk who aids Graham in his quest is turned into an evil, blood thirsty werewolf. The Antique Shop owner is turned from a woman just wanting her pet back to an evil witch wannabe who kills said "pet" for a spell.
Of course it changed the elements of KQ2! That's obvious, I think.
It clearly wouldn't be the same story...
I think the whole Father and Prophecy storyline DOES indeed change the whole context of the series. It turns it from a series of standalone adventures into adventures happening due to the machinations of an unseen evil villain throughout the whole series along with a curse made by said unseen villain, and some sort of 1,000 old prophecy regarding Daventry's first King. It just reeks of bad fanfiction.
Pretty much every side character you encounter in the original game is changed in some way or another....
And they do matter....The Monk gives you the cross which protects you and you get the third and final key after killing Dracula, which enabled you to meet Valanice and finish the game. The journey to Dracula's castle and killing him is integral to the game.
Dracula is brought up by several different characters, including the monk, in Grandma's house, the ghoul, and the ghosts, etc.
He is a more developed villain than Hagatha in the game really!
The monk and church are important part of the end of the story in the original as well. It's a simple scene, but one of my favorites in the entire series!
Anyway, I'm not dogmatic about it. KQ2+ definitely changes the context of the series there's no argument on that, but it doesn't actually change any plot points. That's the only distinction I was trying to make.
Wouldn't The Father's curse directly cause the kidnapping of Alexander, Graham's heart attack in IV and Graham seemingly being without an heir at the end of KQ7 (With Alex living in the Green Isles and Rosella presumably living in Etheria)?
But you "must kill the evil monk in KQ2+! with the poison dart!
Even if you count 'less than optimal points' as 'canon'... The fan game, makes killing the monk mandatory!, and thus required points!
Personally I consider 'full points' to be the optimal story path.
Yes, but that doesn't CHANGE anything. Only the fact that you now know the reason behind the kidnapping of Alexander and an soon-to-be heirless Graham's heart attack. The reasons for these things were never explained. They just happened. In the case of Alex's kidnapping, we know that Manannan gets a new slave every 18 years, but it doesn't CHANGE any plot elements by saying that this time around The Father suggested Alex as his next slave.
My point (again) is that you can play KQ2+ and take in its story and lore without it affecting your gameplay experiences in other King's Quest games. It doesn't cause any contradictions or plot holes. Not that it doesn't change the context. It certainly does.
Other than a few contradictions with backstories given in the manuals, sierra hintbooks (written by Roberta, or other main KQ directors), and other other official Sierra published sources...
Obviously its different than the original or Companion's version of events (so I won't go there)...
About the biggest mistake I noticed with AGDI's games, was that KQ3R states that Lolotte and Malicia are sisters... This is specifically said not to be the case in KQ7. Edgar states he is not related to Lolotte! If she had been a sister of Malicia, she would have been his aunt! Both Titania and Oberon state, she is some evil fairy, that kidnapped their son, again denying any relationship between them!
The manual was written by Annette Childs later on, before the game was published!
Notice that KQ1 received two manual stories too! The original is simpler and fits closer to the description given by Edward in the the game... In KQ1 original, the treasures weren't stolen from Edward... Infact, he sends Graham out to find treasures he's only 'heard about through ancient legends'!
The witch has no connection to any treasure in that version of the story... and is just a random 'baddie' that invaded the land according to the manual.
The newer manual, written about a year or two later, by Roberta herself, doesn't quite fit with how Edward describes the treasures in the game itself! It added in the more detailed concept that the treasures were stolen from Edward... But this wasn't updated in the game (Edward still describes that he's heard of 'legendary treasures', and he wants them, that he thinks will help Daventry).
The KQ1 remake moved closer to Roberta's manual story's description of the treasures. Edward finally states that they were stolen from the kingdom. Still the witch is not really connected into the story at all within the game... The game just calls her a 'witch', and there is no mention that she stole a treasure.
Likewise it looks like with KQ2, Roberta had her own version of the story, where Dracula was more central to the game's plot, and Annette attempted to make Hagatha more central but Roberta never included that idea in the game itself! There are no references connecting Hagatha to Valanice in the game at all.
Wow I never knew that about KQ1 or 2. Personally I felt like I was playing a different game than the manual. Too bad they didn't organize it better.
Also I don't know much about Annette Childs but what I have figured out, she is apparently only did the documenation for several Sierra games, and may have helped design the the box for KQ3.
She later apparently moved onto Cinemaware, and did documenation for Rocket Ranger.
I don't know if she was a Sierra employee or freelance...
In KQ7, Malicia is Edgar's aunt! Titania is Edgar's mom. Titania and Malicia are sisters! Lolotte is not related to any of them!
Strangely AGDI states that Lolotte is Malicia's younger sister! Which would mean that in that game Titania would be their sister (though Titania isn't mentioned at all)! It would mean Edgar was Lolotte's nephew... which doesn't fit with what KQ7 says!
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Lolotte%27s_letter
I don't know something as coincidental as Lolotte and Titania are both green?
Lolotte:
It gets worse, some go as far to assume Genesta is a fourth sister
http://tvwiki.tv/wiki/King's_Quest
What do you expect from the fans!
I mean some think Manannan, Valanice, and Alexander are related!
Next you'll be telling me that Darth Vader was really Luke Skywalker's father and Princess Leia was his sister! PSHAW!!
Seriously, that image is 3300 pixels wide. How did he not notice that?
Pay attention to how big your images are!
Bt
I take that back. I zoomed Firefox all the way out and the image is still too big to fit entirely on the screen.
...okay, when you post something, it does show you your post after submitting it. I don't see how people can post huge images without realizing it.
I'm sure it broke someone's computer tho.
and raise you a