After reading what has transpired since my last post it seems quite clear to me that the master of KQ lore (BagginsKQ) has laid the smackdown on you guys as far as the numbering system in KQ goes.
I remember those magazine adverts with KQVIII explicitly labeled on them. And I remember Roberta always referring to it as that.
Either way, attempting to argue that KQ8 was not part of the main series is fairly daft. Roberta wrote it, directed it, released it, and considers it the 8th game in the series. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but you also can't go and attempt to relegate it to 'spin-off' status just because it changed engines and approach.
Escape from Monkey Island is the 4th game in its series (whether it says 4 or not in the title). It wasn't developed by the original authors, it introduced very awkward 3d tank-style controls, it had a whole section called 'monkey-combat' that was heavily criticized, and is generally considered the worst of the series - and yet no one is running around calling it a bloody spin-off.
I think the fact of whether it's canonically the 8th chapter or not in the series should be decided by if the number is in the game itself in runtime. I don't think it is, however, I'll still call it 8.
I think the fact of whether it's canonically the 8th chapter or not in the series should be decided by if the number is in the game itself in runtime. I don't think it is, however, I'll still call it 8.
If you went by kind of 'logic' (can it even be called 'logic'?), then Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness is not part of the QFG. Police Quest: Open Season, Police Quest: SWAT, and Police Quest: SWAT 2, would not be 'Police Quest' games. Leisure Suit Larry Looking for Love in Several Wrong Places wouldn't be a Larry game, because it doesn't have a number, etc...
None of the Dr. Brain games would be part of the same series, as they are not numbered...
Personally I'd say the 'series name' such as "Quest for Glory", or "King's Quest", or "Police Quest'', or "Dr. Brain" is a dead giveaway to which games are part of their respective series.
But wait, that doesn't even work! Uh, The Beast Within, is the 'The Beast Within"! The only thing pointing out that its a 'a Gabriel Knight game is a note on the box! Lost Secrets of the Rainforest, doesn't have anything pointing out that its an EcoQuest game, but its clearly a sequel to the previous game... The Dagger of Amon Ra, is the The Dagger of Amon Ra, and the fact that it is the sequel, is only mentioned on the box... But its not called Laura Bow 2 anywhere on the box Etc, Etc...
Uh, what about the Conquests series, where each game is clearly different, covering separate stories (Arthur, and Robin Hood)? Or, the Mixed-Up series, that's similarly covers two different themes (Mother Goose, and Fairy Tales)? Both fo these examples have the series names, but neither 'stories' have anything to do with each other... But they each make up a 'series'...
At least KQ8, sticks to the idea of 'saving Daventry', and saving other lands from Daventry... It has King Graham, and even a nod to Valanice (even an obscure reference to the rest of the family if you know where to look)... It clearly occurs in the same universe as King's Quest... Yes, it covers an area of Daventry never shown in previous games, but several of the previous games mention the town of Daventry, but it was never shown until KQ8! Also Connor starts out wearing a clothes that look just like King's Graham's outfit (sans Adventurer's Cap), or Alexander's in KQ5. His story that of being a lowly knight peasant saving the kingdom, mirrors somewhat the story that started King's Quest, the Quest for the Crown!, when Graham was not but a lowly knight! If you are honest with yourself, there are alot more themes in the game, that are taken from the King's Quest developmental structure! "Exploration", "inspiration from Mythology/fairy tales", etc...
The ideas of encountered enemies (that serve very little puzzle purposes, other than to get in your way), goes back to the wolves, wizards, ogre, dwarves, flying witches of the original game, or wolf, hagatha, dwarf, and enchanter of second, etc (few seem to know this, but in KQ1 and KQ2, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to 'kill' those enemies, but it points out that "Graham" is too weak, or unskilled to fight them. He would if he could though... he kills the witch through trickery)... Roberta just chose to add new features, that she couldn't do in previous games... I'm pretty sure if she could have made KQ1 in 3D that those random encounters would have to include combat, simply to be able to eliminate them as a threat, or they'd follow you around everywhere (more than likely they would no longer be random)! She actually said something similar during one of her interviews/posts during the development of KQ8...
If you want a truly crazy example, then what about the Final Fantasy series, where each game, has very little to do with the previous in story or themes, and its one of the most misnamed oxymoronic named series ever, as each 'fantasy' or in some cases, 'scifi' is not the final one in the series (in some cases you have those sequels to the 'sequels', X-2, etc)! In recent games, the combat style turned into a more MMO style action-rpg style, from the original turn-based interface...
I think the fact of whether it's canonically the 8th chapter or not in the series should be decided by if the number is in the game itself in runtime. I don't think it is, however, I'll still call it 8.
I say the author gets to decide on what is canonical and what is not. No one here on this board has any right to make such judgement. The inmates are taking over the asylum when they decide that they know so much better than the original author that they decide to start renumbering and re-canonizing the stories.
However, if we are at a consensus that we can decide what does and doesn't count these days, then I will be the first to say that the last season of Lost was a "spin-off" and completely unrelated to the series at large. I hope Telltale gets the Lost license one day just so i can rage on the forums for days and days about that season finale.
I recognize the eighth game as part of the Kings Quest world.. but I also do think of it more of a spinoff.. and not only because it was a different style of game... but also because you didn't play as anyone in the royal family.
I don't really want to get into the "is it 8 or not" bull crap, so I'm gonna change the flow a little bit.
I don't really understand the hatred for King's Quest VII, because at the time it was one of my favourite games. Keep in mind I first played it around 1998 as part of the King's Quest Collection because I didn't get my own computer (previously played V on the NES and VI at a friend's house) until 1996, when the games were a little harder to find.
I personally find KQ3 to be one of the least enjoyable games for me primarily cause I also found it to be one of the hardest. I don't care much for having to make quick decisions, follow time-based puzzles, and the threat of death constantly looming over me. It was one of the reasons I enjoyed many of LucasArts games (the lack of death penalties), although it certainly pushed me into the "have to save constantly" phase of gaming in the 90's that I'd started going towards with later SNES and early PSX RPGs.
Don't make that out as me thinking it was poorly made, cause I liked the concept and the idea of playing a boy using improvised magic to defeat his wizard master. I just wasn't terribly keen on the execution of some of the puzzles.
Getting back to KQ7 for a moment. I really liked that we were getting to play not only as Rosella for a second time, but also finally being able to play as her mother; which meant we'd finally played as everyone in the family. I loved the art style, the voice acting, the music, and the characters. I suppose I could... no, really, I can't see the issue with the artwork in KQ7. I do sketches from time to time, and if I could be even half as good as the stuff in this game, I'd be happy as hell. The irony, I suppose, is that I find the art direction of cartoons like Home Movies to be abysmal, but that's cause I think the shaky-line animation is amateurish.
My other favourite game? King's Quest VI, probably cause it was my first true taste of the series and would be what got me into adventure (or point & click) game in general. I must have played that game for weeks before I finally beat it the first time. Actually, I take that back, because it was at a friend's house it was most likely months since I didn't have the chance to play it often. If I hadn't played it, I'd have never gotten interested in the genre, which led me to Myst, which led me to LucasArts, Cyan/RedOrb Entertainment & Sierra when I got my computer.
On second thought, I think I will tempt fate by commenting on KQ8. I've always thought of it as KQ8, but never felt that it fit into the series. As Irishmile says, not only does it depart from the gameplay style but it also has little to do with the royal family. When I first heard about it via the teaser trailers and interviews and such from other games, I didn't even realize you'd be playing as someone else. I kind of thought you might be playing Graham's grandson (cause I thought there was a bit where you saw an old King Graham talking to the player). Mind you, this was over 10 years ago and my memories are fuzzy.
I recall being excited, but nervous. It wasn't going to be like the other games, and I'd never played a game of that style on a PC. I remember eventually getting it years later, discovering it had a fatal bug which could render the game unplayable in the second area (which I naturally found). I couldn't even run it on my computer, I had to use my cousin's slightly better computer (mainly cause mine was dying). I was so disappointed with what I eventually played.
Looking back, I know what they were trying to accomplish because I played a game that very much felt like the embodiment of the concept and style: Legacy of Kain - Soul Reaver. Probably the second one, if I wanna be more precise. It had that mix of combat, puzzles, and exploration, as well as feeling similar to the sense of adventure they were trying to go for with MoE.
I can't say I hated the game, cause I never even got to finish it, but as Irish said, I accept it as part of the series, but it still feels like a spin-off. I tried to enjoy what I could, which wasn't much.. but it's like asking me what I thought of the Star Wars Droids/Ewoks cartoons in regards to the Clone Wars CGI cartoon. Sure, they're both set in the Star Wars universe, but they're so different it's like apples and oranges.
Very good read from 2003... if you want a better idea, why both Roberta and Ken believed the direction KQ8 took, was best for the Adventure game genre, and that it needed to evolve... He felt the future for it to succeed would be something with neither 'puzzles', but neither fully action either... With more direct control of the world and the 'story' itself. He didn't even like the use of the term 'adventure games' (thought the term was misleading to what they really wanted entertainment to be)...
Sierra's motto, was "Entertainment, not games". They were wanting to move more towards interactive stories (apparently more like Telltale in some ways) (hopefully ultimately replace the film industry).
It also includes his plans that had Sierra continued under him, he would have probably eliminated the traditional adventure games altogether...
Here are many of the highlights;
Ken: "The adventure game needs to be re-invented to succeed. Doing more of the same with a new plot wouldn't cut it, beyond selling a few Sierra fans. My #1 skill at Sierra was in pushing people to innovate. There is too much copycatting in the industry today. No one has the courage to do something completely different. I don't think Sierra (or, anyone) will do an adventure game anytime soon. If they do something like what Sierra did, it will be at best a mediocre success. My guess is that companies no this, but no one wants to go out on a limb with something completely different."
"Imagine Super Mario quality animation, and the ability to interact with the world, but with realistic characters, and mature plots. But, a story game - not a action game, and not a puzzle game. Focus on characters and plot. That said, I would launch two different projects to reinvent the market, and my second idea might be the bigger one.
I like the idea of where infocom was going. There were the inklings of an idea in their text games - which was to focus on artificial intelligence. If the same effort were coupled with todays computers - perhaps a game could be built that is a VERY accurate simulation. I like the idea of an environment with unpredictable characters. The problem with multi-player is that most people don't like multi-player environments. I think that through having truly smart NPCs, something that could be done that gives the best of both worlds; single and multi-player games. If I personally did a game, this is the area I would focus on. The problem is that games become puzzle games at some point. It's the player versus the traps left by the designer. I have a lot of ideas on how to build credible intelligent characters."
"I always thought the future of storytelling was on the computer. I predicted that computer games would be bigger than films, and still believe there is huge potential with story-telling games - if done correctly. Watching a story from the inside is more exciting than from the outside. Phantasmagoria was a first step towards where I thought the future was. It's disappointing that we blew it with Phantasmagoria II and shot the category."
"By the way: I always hated the word "adventure game". Phantasmagoria was a horror game. It worked when it scared you, and didn't when it felt like a "puzzle" or "adventure" game. Larry worked when you laughed. It was a "comedy" game. It didn't work when it felt like an "adventure" game. Decide the emotion you are going for; tears, laughter, fear, etc - and go for it. Do what makes the emotion, and blow off the rest. In some cases my own designers forgot the rule, and those were the weak parts of the games."
By the time Sierra was sold, it was mostly a non-game company. In about 1990 I made the decision to focus away from games. This came about as a result of a discussion with Bill Gates himself. It's a bit of a long story, but we had been talking about Sierra and Microsoft doing a project together when I got bold enough to ask Bill if he would ever consider buying Sierra (I had always had tremendous respect for Microsoft, and would have teamed up with them in a minute). His answer changed Sierra's future. People at Sierra remember this meeting well, because I came back and changed the company dramatically. Bill said that he had just noted the bankruptcy of United Artists. His contention was that they were in a hit driven business, and that ultimately in a hit driven business you run into a time of no hits. Sierra lived and died with the best seller charts. Fortunately, the charts were very good to us, but Bill's contention was they had also been good to United Artists. Ultimately, you run out of hits and die.
It might take a hundred years, as was the case with United Artists, but it always happens. My goal with Sierra was to create a company that would live forever. I didn't want to be a "hit machine". I set a new goal for Sierra to exit the hit business, and reorganized the company around a new vision to be 1/3rd education, 1/3rd productivity and 1/3rd perennial products. The first two categories should be obvious, but the last needs some explaining. My goal was to find products that could be "rev'ed" each year, such as Microsoft's Flight Simulator, or Electronic Arts Madden Football. I wanted to find an array of products that could be done better each year. Flight (and other) Simulators fit this category, as did construction sets. Products like Caesar fit this definition. The Incredible Machine. By the time the company was sold, I had about 80-90% of revenue that matched my vision. It's not clear that I would have continued in adventure games at all. My guess is that this vision won't make me popular with adventure gamers, but it was working. My focus was on building a company that would live forever. The new owners had different ideas and scrapped many products I considered key to this vision. I wish they had at least asked where I was trying to steer the company."
Chris brought something similar up in Interaction magazine back in 1997 that his father told him (while Ken Williams was still at Sierra). He left the company ultimately around November 1997;
"The traditional adventure game is dead."...it's time to change adventure games at least as much as the gamers themselves have changed over the last few years. It's time to make them "less pretentious. More open-ended, faster paced, and just more fun to play than they have been." After all..., "what's the use of creating these super-serious, overly literary, and downright studious games when the major audience that will play them played a Nintendo or a Sega last year? These folks are used to playing games where the correct answer to any problem might be jumping over something, hitting it with a hammer, or maybe even shooting it with a big bazooka. Why hassle through all the literary pretense when most of today's gamers just want to blow something up."
people get mad when the industry at large declares adventure games to be dead, yet here is sierra themselves predating everyone with that statement.
It seems incredibly short sighted to severe ties so completely with what established the company in the first place. I completely agree that diversifying (at the time) was the way to go, but that does not mean you have to abandon the adventure game genre completely (or attempt to redefine it).
The adventure game company cranks out games that fall anywhere between good and mediocre shit on a constant basis, and they seem to be doing just fine for the past 10 years.
Seems to me that the people at sierra were horrible at predicting where the industry was going. At one point they threw so many eggs into the FMV basket, that they were doomed to loose out when the very brief fmv fad crumbled.
I'm sure some of you remember the CD-I - a 'console' that focused on FMV games and productivity software. it totally bombed, and interestingly, it sounds like they had the same MO as Ken there did. So even if they hadn't sold, he was sinking the damned company.
Cendent put a nail in the coffin with their make believe accounting practices.
Long story short - you failed Ken. the company did not last forever, and even if it had followed your business plan - it was doomed to fail the the rest of the fmv\productivity software industry.
people get mad when the industry at large declares adventure games to be dead, yet here is sierra themselves predating everyone with that statement.
It seems incredibly short sighted to severe ties so completely with what established the company in the first place. I completely agree that diversifying (at the time) was the way to go, but that does not mean you have to abandon the adventure game genre completely (or attempt to redefine it).
The adventure game company cranks out games that fall anywhere between good and mediocre shit on a constant basis, and they seem to be doing just fine for the past 10 years.
Seems to me that the people at sierra were horrible at predicting where the industry was going. At one point they threw so many eggs into the FMV basket, that they were doomed to loose out when the very brief fmv fad crumbled.
I'm sure some of you remember the CD-I - a 'console' that focused on FMV games and productivity software. it totally bombed, and interestingly, it sounds like they had the same MO as Ken there did. So even if they hadn't sold, he was sinking the damned company.
Cendent put a nail in the coffin with their make believe accounting practices.
Long story short - you failed Ken. the company did not last forever, and even if it had followed your business plan - it was doomed to fail the the rest of the fmv\productivity software industry.
Actually, it was not short sighted, since adventure games are a niche genre now. In the 80s to early 1990s, they were a leading genre. By 1996, the genre was losing steam pretty rapidly. It was being outpaced by action games, shooters and RPGs like Diablo. It was passe. And for a company like Sierra, to make a "Sierra quality" adventure game (is in, a quality level on par with the industry if they had continued as time moved on. You don't tend to see a lot of adventure games with A+ graphics or the like nowadays, whereas in the early 90s, adventure games were the forefront on the technical side of things), it would've cost more to make than they would've earned back. Which is counterproductive for a company, especially one which is responsible to shareholders. Part of the reason action and other genres took over was because they were cheaper to make.
Actually, they had a lot good predictions, for example, Ken wanting to do online gaming as early as 1990; Ken's plan to move Sierra into console gaming if he had stayed on; The fact that Sierra could program games for DVD as early as 1996 amongst many other things.
Actually, the company wasn't sinking when he sold it. It was the market share leader in PC games and was one of the largest computer game companies, with over 1,000 employees and around 1,500 or more when he left. Sierra's main competitors in that period were considered to be Microsoft and EA. That should tell you something about what a powerhouse they were.
Also, you're missing one key component here. He also wanted to move into the action, RPG and simulator genres, as well as have franchises that could be revamped every year, like the Madden or Nascar series. Sierra's series, Front Page Sports, was at the time (96-97) the leading sports series. Consider that his last major decision was to agree to have Sierra distribute Half Life--which turned out to be a huge hit and critically acclaimed. His original deal with Valve stipulated that Sierra, and not Valve, would exclusively own the rights to Half Life--meaning they could've used that series forever. One of Sierra's later leaders sold back the rights to Valve.
As far as FMV games, Ken was done with those games by 1996. After Phantasmagoria II came out, he declared that Sierra was not going to make any further FMV games. '96 is right about when the trend ended.
What killed Sierra was the Cendant scandal (that pretty much crushed Sierra's profitability, which resulted in Sierra's CEOs having to make cutback after cutback and tons of layoffs to save money) and it's ripple effects, and a series of inefficient CEOs who had no idea how to truly run Sierra.
Ken and Roberta were right about one thing... I don't think there has been anything innovative to come along in adventure game genre since Sierra died...
Sure the 'episodic' format was 'innovative' to a degree... But even now its old and tired...
The closest to what Ken wanted (fully interactive world/environment/adventure game/action/less puzzle game), was probably Shenmue series, but even that series was never completed... It was highly praised as one of the best adventures ever (personally never got a chance to play it, but the reviews were so promising)...
The changing AI thing, open-ended changing story sorta happened in Blade Runner game (where no two games were alike), but that was one of the last Adventure games before the industry died...
Yes, there have been some 'good' (but not necessarily excellent) adventure games, nothing innovative, but excellent story, and world. Not necessarily great puzzle design though (in some cases rehashed/recycled puzzles from the pit of adventure gaming in general). But most of these made little money, or were failures in the market (lacking mainstream appeal, that could see a second coming of Adventure gaming of sorts)...
All that we have left is a very small niche market (adventures still do not have the mainstream appeal), which includes an even smaller 'fan game' following inside of it, and most of these are in a purpetual timewarp stuck back in 1992... For all intents and purposes Adventure game genre is 'undead', or on a 'respirator'....
Do you realize the most mainstream of adventure games in the last 10 years, are probably the Nancy Drew games? They are so formulic, mass-produced, full of stupid mini-arcade games... They are really story or genre I have little interest in...
Then there is the casual adventures (aka Puzzle-Adventures), which many argue are nothing like traditional adventures, many are 'hidden picture' hunts (though they are slowly evolving closer to classic adventures)... They are actually pretty mainstream, and in a sense may be the main chance for an adventure game comeback... Rumor has it that former Access employees are working on a new Tex Adventure game (it may or may not include voices/FMV), but will be designed for the casual adventure market...
As far as FMV games, Ken was done with those games by 1996. After Phantasmagoria II came out, he declared that Sierra was not going to make any further FMV games. '96 is right about when the trend ended.
While true, its interesting to see back in 2003, he felt had Phantas II not been a failure or an abyssmal game in its own right, it seems he had ideas that would have innovated the FMV genre even further...
I remember reading in one interview, Roberta was hoping to do something that would merge 3D with the FMV genre, like essentially map/project FMV onto 3D characters that could be viewed from all sides, but look like the real person! Their facial expressions would be there actual facial expressions as they were filmed. With game world also created by projecting/mapping actual photographed/filmed scenery onto 3D objects. Really ahead of its time, definitely not entirely feasible back in late 1990s... Holodeck comes to mind (but inside your monitor)! But games are finally getting to a point where the 3D objects are smooth enough, round enough and realistic enough, that some kind of 'mapped/projected' FMV could be feasible... We are almost to a point where the realism might actually get get past the uncanny valley, by actually being able to portray 'real3D, and 'real people', as well as fully computer generated people...
Ken and Roberta were right about one thing... I don't think there has been anything innovative to come along in adventure game genre since Sierra died...
Sure the 'episodic' format was 'innovative' to a degree... But even now its old and tired...
The closest to what Ken wanted (fully interactive world/environment/adventure game/action/less puzzle game), was probably Shenmue series, but even that series was never completed... It was highly praised as one of the best adventures ever (personally never got a chance to play it, but the reviews were so promising)...
The changing AI thing, open-ended changing story sorta happened in Blade Runner game (where no two games were alike), but that was one of the last Adventure games before the industry died...
Yes, there have been some 'good' (but not necessarily excellent) adventure games, nothing innovative, but excellent story, and world. Not necessarily great puzzle design though (in some cases rehashed/recycled puzzles from the pit of adventure gaming in general). But most of these made little money, or were failures in the market (lacking mainstream appeal, that could see a second coming of Adventure gaming of sorts)...
All that we have left is a very small niche market (adventures still do not have the mainstream appeal), which includes an even smaller 'fan game' following inside of it, and most of these are in a purpetual timewarp stuck back in 1992... For all intents and purposes Adventure game genre is 'undead', or on a 'respirator'....
Do you realize the most mainstream of adventure games in the last 10 years, are probably the Nancy Drew games? They are so formulic, mass-produced, full of stupid mini-arcade games... They are really story or genre I have little interest in...
Then there is the casual adventures (aka Puzzle-Adventures), which many argue are nothing like traditional adventures, many are 'hidden picture' hunts (though they are slowly evolving closer to classic adventures)... They are actually pretty mainstream, and in a sense may be the main chance for an adventure game comeback... Rumor has it that former Access employees are working on a new Tex Adventure game (it may or may not include voices/FMV), but will be designed for the casual adventure market...
While true, its interesting to see back in 2003, he felt had Phantas II not been a failure or an abyssmal game in its own right, it seems he had ideas that would have innovated the FMV genre even further...
I remember reading in one interview, Roberta was hoping to do something that would merge 3D with the FMV genre, like essentially map/project FMV onto 3D characters that could be viewed from all sides, but look like the real person! Their facial expressions would be there actual facial expressions as they were filmed. With game world also created by projecting/mapping actual photographed/filmed scenery onto 3D objects. Really ahead of its time, definitely not entirely feasible back in late 1990s... Holodeck comes to mind (but inside your monitor)! But games are finally getting to a point where the 3D objects are smooth enough, round enough and realistic enough, that some kind of 'mapped/projected' FMV could be feasible... We are almost to a point where the realism might actually get get past the uncanny valley, by actually being able to portray 'real3D, and 'real people', as well as fully computer generated people...
If Sierra run by Ken and Roberta Williams had stayed alive, I firmly believe they could've made video games a truly respected artform, something great and dignified like films are. They were pioneering and heading in that direction as it was.
The problem with FMV isn't the format, it's that in the 1990s, the technology to make a credible FMV game just wasn't there yet. Sierra was probably the best at it. But I do think FMV deserves a come back, with today's technology.
I'd argue Wing Commander were some of the best FMV games... Better than Sierra even... Better cast of actors... But the movies were used to tell the story through cutscenes, and had little impact on the actual gameplay itself, other than a few communications popups to give you orders or from wingman.
Some say Access with its Tex Murphy games was superior to Sierra as well when it came to FMV. Although much of the acting was intentionally corny for humor and affect. They wanted a kind of b-movie feel. But they went with big name actors. Plus they had found a way to incorporate filmed characters into the real-time 3D engine used in the games. Kind like 2D cutouts though, but still realistic enough. Note: Access is noteable for its dead-end technology though innovative at the time, use of internal speaker to create voice overs, and even high quality music... they called it RealSound. Even had instructions for using an allegator clip to connect a the internal speaker up to a HIFI speaker system...
Also Tex Murphy: Overseer (1998) the last game was relatively successful, they were going to make another sequel (Overseer ended in a cliffhanger), but Microsoft bought their company with plan to close it down. They closed it at the moment they bought it. They apparently saw it as a competitive threat to the market they invisioned.
FMV games were dead before 96. So Ken was a little late realizing this. 93 was the year of the full on FMV push, with the 3DO, Sega CD, and CD-I all competing. Digital Pictures led the crap parade.
And what is this about better tech making better FMV games? An FMV game is an FMV game no matter how good the cameras or compression are. You might as well play Jurassic Park if you like FMV games. The reason they failed (even with great stories, acting, voice work) is because they are extremely limited by their nature.
Simply animating filmed sprites and using FMV in cut scenes does not make a game a true FMV game. But even that style of FMV is incredibly dated. "Filmed games" went right out with the 90's. First, game publishers got tired of putting out games that were upwards of 8 cd's long. Second, CG allows much smoother and more stylized presentation.
I worked as in software retail from 94-98, and I can tell you first hand that Sierra was becoming king of the shovelware. Whenever the sierra rep came around she had a trunk of shitty games and productivity software she couldn't get rid of. Meanwhile companies like Bullfrog, Blizzard, and Maxis took over by released innovative games that didn't rely on gimmicks like FMV.
Only digitized adventure game that I ever felt pulled it off right was Harvester, and that is primarily because it stylized it into a surreal 1950's suburb where everything just felt wrong yet looked mundane.
And all this talk about innovative adventure games seems extremely narrow scoped to me. First you have to define an adventure game, and in this case it tends to be inventory/dialogue puzzles in a story driven game. How "innovative" can you be with that before it changes into another genre? Many RPG's have very distinctive adventure elements to them. Many strategy games likewise.
2 years ago I built a complete collection of every dos adventure game and the number of genre-blurring titles is nuts. There are puzzle games that have adventuring aspects (like Gobliiins), there are FPS games with adventuring aspects (System Shock), and there are RPG's that blur the line as well (such as several of SSI's D&D games).
Its not that adventure games have not had any innovation, it is that innovation naturally changes the genre to something else. Isn't this exactly what Ken said above, and why Roberta built KQ8 the way she did?
And yes, I believe Sierra would have still failed spectacularly even if Ken hadn't sold. I saw how horrid their software releases were by 98. One or two hits like Half Life would not have been enough to offset everything else. Anyone who is willing the change the entire direction of their company because of a conversation with Bill Gates is questionable. And anyone who thinks they can build a company that will "last forever" is a damned idiot.
Keep in mind adventure games were unsuccessful then, and they still are compared to other mainstream genres... Adventure games those that are still made still tend to make up the shovelware market... The only ones that have seen a bit more success did so through the digital download market, rather than shipped out physical games...
But companies still shy away from them, or change genres as that's the only way for the games to survive in the current market, and see success.
Indie companies tend to be a little more innovative, and open to release older genres but cost is low for whatever reason (lower overhead?). They don't see the success of mainstream releases unless the casual like angry birds, but I digress... Some of these indie games are more on exploration, discovery, and story rather than puzzles...
Also FMV never fully died, it just became a element or tool used in many different genres that aren't necessarily advertised as FMV themselves. Like Wing Commander III-V (1996-1998 or so), the games themselves were 3D combat sim engine, the FMV was used only for cutscenes (and a few ingame radio communications). Many modern games still use elements of FMV. It's not an advertising factor, it's just a tool at this point for style, as it's common and cheap to do now...
Interactive movie on the other hand, that was dying early on... Was it really that innovative?! They had light gun games and the Don Bluth arcade games since like the 70's... They aren't much different than the interactive novella and make choice books... Strange that it's making a comeback in 3D gaming engines...
One of the very few FMV games I really liked were the Journeyman Project games. Hard adventure too. But I think they did it way better than Sierra did. Mostly because of the first person perspective. I'd even go so far as to call the Myst series (minus Uru and End of Ages) an FMV series.
They were definitely excellent... I was always a bit disappointed they only released the remake of the first game, Pegasus Prime on Mac.... I've wanted to play that game for years.
Ya, many of the Myst/Riven games utilize FMV... and it was those games that inspired alot of clones (good and bad) with FMV... See Zork Nemesis, and Zork: Grand Inquisitor (both were well done)...
And all this talk about innovative adventure games seems extremely narrow scoped to me. First you have to define an adventure game, and in this case it tends to be inventory/dialogue puzzles in a story driven game. How "innovative" can you be with that before it changes into another genre? Many RPG's have very distinctive adventure elements to them. Many strategy games likewise.
Its not that adventure games have not had any innovation, it is that innovation naturally changes the genre to something else. Isn't this exactly what Ken said above, and why Roberta built KQ8 the way she did?
This is so true. It's analogous to organic evolution, which occurs not by the transformation of large monolithic entities, but in speciation events. i would argue that there were numerous speciation events in the early days of graphic adventures that produced a whole class of genres (with influences from other sources as well, of course). It really isn't surprising that the main line of adventure games still exists in a largely un-innovated state, much like the coelacanth , and innovations in puzzle-solving gameplay are coming from outside the genre.
Nor is it surprising that adventure games were abandoned by major publishers. Public tastes change and the money follows. Many genres are in the same boat and like adventures more or less survive or are being revived by indie developers. Even in between Sierra's demise and today's indie revolution, there were non-major publishers that continued to produce adventure games. (Many of which were Myst-clone snoozefests, but still... )
Many of these quotes from the Williamses strike me as useless for analytical purposes because Roberta thought she could define adventure gaming and disavow it at the same time. She might have truly believed that her vision for the eighth KQ title would be the equivalent of "evolving the genre", but by the later 90's King's Quest had ceased to be the definitive adventure game to all but die-hard Sierra fans. Evolving the genre was beyond her capacity at that point, although she and Sierra might very well have pioneered newer ones if she had stayed in the industry.
In hindsight at least, KQ8 is nothing more than a rather mundane case of a major publisher transitioning a game series from a decreasingly popular genre to a more profitable one, with little to no impact on the evolution of either.
Gods.. Journeyman Project, Myst 1-4, GK2.. games I love. I always find it sad when people feel the need to remind me that they're a "dead" genre, so to speak. I rarely find adventure games dull or repetitive as long as the writing is good. Interactive stories, I think, is a term I once heard used. Though they may have been talking more of the text-venture type of game, it still could be applied to adventure games in general, whether they're FMV, sprites, or animation.
It's hard to sit on the sidelines and hear the world declare something you enjoyed as "dead" or "boring" or even "uninspired" when much of the stuff outside that genre seemed just as boring and uninspired as the things they were claiming to be superior to.
I read that stuff that Ken said, and it made me feel like the industry was trying to tell me what I should like or what I'm supposed to think is popular. I've never held much truck with people in these companies claiming to know exactly what will and won't be good. Kind of like how they keep saying Disco is dead, yet I still listen to it quite often and I frequently saw people wearing bell-bottom pants in highschool and college back in the last 90's & early 2000's.
I'm all for wanting to get the game industry more respect or trying to establish some of it as an artform or even a superior story-telling device, but abandoning what came before simply cause it's not that interesting to some people is just.. seems short-sighted. Things like to come around in circles, and I think people fail to realize this.
Gods.. Journeyman Project, Myst 1-4, GK2.. games I love. I always find it sad when people feel the need to remind me that they're a "dead" genre, so to speak. I rarely find adventure games dull or repetitive as long as the writing is good. Interactive stories, I think, is a term I once heard used. Though they may have been talking more of the text-venture type of game, it still could be applied to adventure games in general, whether they're FMV, sprites, or animation.
It's hard to sit on the sidelines and hear the world declare something you enjoyed as "dead" or "boring" or even "uninspired" when much of the stuff outside that genre seemed just as boring and uninspired as the things they were claiming to be superior to.
I read that stuff that Ken said, and it made me feel like the industry was trying to tell me what I should like or what I'm supposed to think is popular. I've never held much truck with people in these companies claiming to know exactly what will and won't be good. Kind of like how they keep saying Disco is dead, yet I still listen to it quite often and I frequently saw people wearing bell-bottom pants in highschool and college back in the last 90's & early 2000's.
I'm all for wanting to get the game industry more respect or trying to establish some of it as an artform or even a superior story-telling device, but abandoning what came before simply cause it's not that interesting to some people is just.. seems short-sighted. Things like to come around in circles, and I think people fail to realize this.
I understand your point of view, and feel much the same way about many things. However, if you're a CEO of a company, no matter emotionally invested in a product, or a genre or whatever, that you previously put out--If said genre or product stops selling, any reasonable businessman will abandon it.
I read that stuff that Ken said, and it made me feel like the industry was trying to tell me what I should like or what I'm supposed to think is popular. I've never held much truck with people in these companies claiming to know exactly what will and won't be good.
It's unfortunate.
Similar things were going on at LucasArts, where adventure games in general were abandoned in favor of Star Wars shovelware, and how they cancelled Sam & Max: Freelance Police quite close to launch because of "marketplace realities."
King's Quest 5 or 6 are widely regarded as the best. People who don't like dead ends or "moon logic" prefer 6. 4 isn't too bad either but there's a parser. You might also want to start right at the beginning with the free licensed AGDI remakes of KQ1, 2, and 3, remade in the style of KQ5/KQ6. The KQ2 remake, however, is heavily modified because the original didn't really have much going for it plot-wise. It was more like the first game. There are no dead ends in these remakes. IA also made a KQ3 remake. Links:
I read that stuff that Ken said, and it made me feel like the industry was trying to tell me what I should like or what I'm supposed to think is popular. I've never held much truck with people in these companies claiming to know exactly what will and won't be good.
Hiroshi the problem was we are the niche, we are the minority. Yes we love adventures. I even love the hybrid adventure games too (the small list is adventure with RPG elements from Beyond Zork to KQ8, to Adventure games with combat action Dreamfall for example, or adventures with arcade mini games Space Quest series for example). I also like other genres a well (I'm not an adventure only player).
Sierra wasn't telling us what we had to play, they were changing with the times to focus on what the majority wanted to play, and were buying... They wanted to make what was most popular and sold more in the industry. They didn't to just break even or lose money on game production. That meant adventure gamers were left out.
Yes, much of that stuff became 'shovelware', but perhaps not after they made their 'killing' first...
Kings Quest 5 is the easiest pick-up point as it has a fully integrated mouse driven system.
However, if you take the official/unofficial remakes into account you can go all the way back and start with Kings Quest sci release which ported the mouse system back.
Or, if your not afraid of a parsar interface and typing your commands you could always attempt them in their originals form.
Personally, I think I would play
KQ1 Sci - official sierra release - easy to download this version all over the net...
KQ2 AGDI - fan release (free)
KQ3 AGDI - fan release (free, though some may feel the Infanous Adventure KQ3 is 'purer')
KQ4 - this one is tricky as it has no 100% gui driven version, but the parsar interface is quite a bit better than the previous entries... I'd suggest giving it a shot though just to see how things used to be. You could always use a walk through for the first few screens to get an idea of how it works.
KQ5 -KQ8 - original versions, all available on Good old Games relatively cheap. KQ8 is optional, as some here consider it a spin-off...lol. Spin-off or not, it is a very different game from the other KQ games.
The only caveat to that is I would say I find the Win 3.1 version of KQ6 to be my favorite, but it can be a real bear to get running properly unless you install windows 3.1 into dosbox and then install the game from there.
Sierra has plenty of other great games, both in and out of the Quest series, but KQ is the one that got the train moving.
The Leisure Suit Larry games are being remade in HD with Al Lowe's help, so you may want to wait on that before pursing those games. They were considered "erotic adventures", but other than some easter eggs in part 7 there was no real nudity, and by today's movie standards the games feel "flirty" rather than erotic.
The Space Quest series is a hilarious Sci-Fi parody series staring an unlikely janitor. I'd probably recommend this series after finishing up Kings Quest, or in between KQ games.
SQ1 - Sierra SCI official release
SQ2 - Infamous Adventures fan release
SQ3 - same black hole as KQ4, requires parsar as no fan remake exists
SQ4-SQ6 - available on GoG as a pack, all have full mouse/GUI control.
The Police Quest series is extremely procedural, but manages to be both a thriller and slightly educational at the same time. Loosing the game because you didn't walk around your car before driving off, or not checking your gun at the door properly can be a bit much for some players though.
And finally, there are the adventure/RPG game hybrid series, Quest for Glory. I have not played this series myself, but it looks great and has a humongous fan base. Part 1 has an official sci remake, part two was remade by agdi, part three is parsar I believe, and part 4 is a full out cd adventure.
I hope this helps you get started. Others will have their own opinions on how you should play. i assume some will suggest you play them in their original form, parsar and all, instead of remakes or sci versions... but I feel it can be alienating for someone who has no experience with that. You could always try the original first and if it is too frustrating, play the sci/remake versions. Let us know how your games go - I'd love to talk the series through with someone as they are experiencing it for the first time.
Personally I recommend playing the official games, to get the real story/original puzzles, and then playing the fan games to get the fan fiction, and see the changes.
If you have a choice between playing original games and the official remakes, play the originals first, and then work your way into the remake. Again to see the story as it was originally told (evolution of the series), and then then the updated story/new puzzles...
This way you can better appreciate the evolution of the series.
There are alot of major changes made in several of the fan games, that don't always mesh with the official storyline (the natural evolution of the series)... If you do find yourself enjoying the 'fan fiction' divergences, you might find yourself disappointed later on, that none of the later games take the fan fiction into account.
On the other hand, those 'changes' are more fun, if you have played the entire original series first (as there are alot of references to later/previous games in the series), these references won't make much sense unlesss you know the official storyline, as they are nods and homages that play off the official storyline, though they change things in a different direction.
Basically to really enjoy KQ2 remake by AGDI, and KQ3 remake, its best to have played all the originals through including KQ8. As those remakes reference elements from nearly every game of the series. Those references won't mean anything to you if you play the series in order from the fan remakes, into the later games...
Also I believe in continuing to support the originals games (by buying them officially)... One of the reasons why fan games were allowed to have fan licenses by the owners of Sierra games, was it was believed that their existence wouldn't cut into continued sales of the originals (infact lead people to buy the originals).
And finally, there are the adventure/RPG game hybrid series, Quest for Glory. I have not played this series myself, but it looks great and has a humongous fan base. Part 1 has an official sci remake, part two was remade by agdi, part three is parsar I believe, and part 4 is a full out cd adventure
Keep in mind that the last game in the series, 5 does away with the adventure side of the hybrid, and goes straight to Action/RPG genre. The humor and interesting story is still there though!
The only caveat to that is I would say I find the Win 3.1 version of KQ6 to be my favorite, but it can be a real bear to get running properly unless you install windows 3.1 into dosbox and then install the game from there.
Works fairly flawlessly and painlessly in ScummVM.
I've always wanted to play one of the Sierra games in a somewhat misguided attempt to prove that not everyone in the Xbox generation is an idiot, plus I've always enjoyed adventures games as far back as I remember probably starting when I got some of the HE adventures games when I was like a toddler.
BTW, you can play the first of the AGI official games on Sarien.net, semi-officially (the unofficial stuff, is the 'multiplayer' stuff). They got a license from Activision to upload the first of each series. Though technically Activison doesn't own the rights to Gold Rush! (that belongs to the Software Farm, original designers own the rights) or Black Cauldron (that belongs to Disney), or the Leisure Suit Larry games.
So ya, technically Sarien.net may be pirating California: Gold Rush! and Black Cauldron (as Activision doesn't hold the rights to those games)... They no longer have the Larry games, as Activision doesn't hold the rights to that game.
You can get the original games (all eight) at GoG.com or Steam (the first seven).
Keep in mind, GOG lacks the remake of KQ1, and Steam lacks the original of KQ1. The intent of the GOG collections was to highlight the developmental history of the games from the original KQ1 to the last (KQ8).
Another problem with the Steam release is that KQ7 version included in it, isn't compatible with 64-bit windows.
If you don't have any prior experience with a text parser, then I would recommend starting with the AGDI remakes of KQ1 and KQ2. Even if it initially seems that this is not your kind of game, stick it out with the first one because the second is an absolutely awesome Sierra-style gaming experience. Understand going in that you're not getting story canon (you can get that later if desired) but KQ games do not require any deep understanding of canon as you move from one to the next.
the second is an absolutely awesome Sierra-style gaming experience. Understand going in that you're not getting story canon (you can get that later if desired) but KQ games do not require any deep understanding of canon as you move from one to the next.
I really don't recommend jumping into KQ2:Romancing the Stones from AGDI, without having played the rest of the series first (canon series first in order)... There are many references that require knowledge of later games in the series including KQ3, KQ6, and KQ8. There are even a few nods to KQ4, and KQ7 as well. Maybe even KQ5.
The AGDI remakes of KQ2 and KQ3 are designed in such a way, that to best enjoy them, you would have to know everything about the official series first.
King's Quest 3 from Infamous Adventures fewer direct references to any other games in the series directly (other than some KQ5/KQ6 easter eggs/nods). So there is less worry, that you'll miss the references from some of the 'easter eggs', or be 'spoiled' by foreknowledge of future events in the series...
I'd think of it much as how its always best to read books series in 'publishing' order, as opposed to 'chronological', as often there are nods to things that are best understood if you have read the first published book first.
For example, in some ways Narnia flows better if you read them in the order they were written. As that is how the references build upon each other. Although in hindsight, C.S. Lewis preferred reading them in 'chronological' order.
With Tolkien's works, its better to read them in published order, of Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, HoME (slightly more optional, and not all of it is relevent to Middle Earth history) and then Children of Hurin (though this can be read in place of the same chapter in Silmarillion for the extended tale). Then it is to try to read them in a linear chronological fashion. As Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales contain 'spoilers' for earlier books in the series.
I really don't recommend jumping into KQ2:Romancing the Stones from AGDI, without having played the rest of the series first (canon series first in order)... There are many references that require knowledge of later games in the series including KQ3, KQ6, and KQ8. There are even a few nods to KQ4, and KQ7 as well. Maybe even KQ5.
The AGDI remakes of KQ2 and KQ3 are designed in such a way, that to best enjoy them, you would have to know everything about the official series first.
Well, I do recommend them and I disagree with that last statement.
Sorry, Baggins, but the details of canon are never going to be as important to me as they are to you. That's simply not what the games meant to me. (The wholesale changes in story-telling style and tone in a certain other fan-made non-remake game is a different matter, about which I agree with you completely.)
I think it's far more important to prevent the possibility that a new player gets turned off to KQ/Sierra by the text parser, dead ends, and the older style of graphics than it is to make sure that they start with canon.
It seems were are discussing two very different things...
The wholesale changes in story-telling style and tone in a certain other fan-made non-remake game is a different matter, about which I agree with you completely.)
Personally, I'd say the tone of the KQ2 fan remake, and KQ3 Redux remake are different than the tone of the original games they were designed after... Darker in tone in some ways, more 'moody and angst'...
The 'good vampire' plotline leans to far on modern holywood vampire (more Twilight than Dracula), instead of the traditional vampire myth... The idea of a young innocent girl being turned into an undead vampire (with very little direct impact on the story ethically) instead of given that choice goes against style Roberta Williams (more black and white sense of morality) was known for, except for you look at Phantasmagoria... In some ways its more Gabriel night/Jane Jensen than Roberta's King's Quest (point of note even Roberta admitted that KQ6 was not in her style, and more influenced by Jane Jensen).
This quest seems to have a darker, more ominous tone than the other King’s Quests; it is also more wordy. Is there a reason?
I was thinking that same thing the other day, but I don’t believe we made it intentionally ominous. It just turned out that way.
The reason it’s more wordy is that I didn’t write the text. This is the first time I have had a collaborator. Jane Jensen wrote all the script, and we worked on the story line and character together. We spent a month working together before Ken and I left on a two-month vacation to France.
Jane has a different style than I do, and maybe she is more text oriented. Even her design documents were four times as thick as mine usually are - her fingers just fly on a word processor.
Roberta also tended to lean on christian myth & black and white moral choices, so her priests were good, and vampires were evil... Samhain was a god of death (a conservative christian myth/propaganda from 1700s about Pagans and Druids that Wiccans actually find as prejudiced towards their beliefs...)...
Both AGDI and TSL rely too much on the concepts of Black Cloak Society, and there involvement witih 'everything' that has happened during the series... There manipulations are forced into being the motive behind nearly every other game in the series past and future (this is one of the reasons I recommend playing the original series in order first to be able catch these references, and not be spoiled)...
Graham is ancestor/reincarnation of an ancient super race in TSL (Leo the Noble) and he's the ancestor of ancient super race in AGDI (Leginimor and Granthithor)...
The Father is ancient, and the leading member of a super race from Daventry's ancient past... Shadrack is ancient, and the leading member of a super race from Daventry's past... Both are destined to battle with Graham in the present...
In both stories the Black Cloaks and royal family are destined to fight each other over millennia, until a prophecy is fulfilled...
In both games, the villains are concerned with obtaining ancient treasures to regain their ultimate and dark powers (Pandora's Box and The Item)....
I always find there is a certain level of fanboyism that people seem to overlook the similiarties between both stories, and play favorites to which ever series they are fans with (there are TSL fanboys that think that game is better, and there are AGDI fanboys that think that game is better, although they share many of the same concepts)...
Personally I don't find both stories all that original (and are representive of much that is fan fiction (mary/gary stus and all))...
Personally I'm looking forward to MusicallyInspired's KQ2 remake, as I think he's going to get it right... Not resort to any fan fiction cliches...
Personally, I'd say the tone of the KQ2 fan remake, and KQ3 Redux remake are different than the tone of the original games they were designed after... Darker in tone in some ways, more 'moody and angst'...
The overall tone of AGDI's remakes doesn't seem remarkably different from the originals, or moody or angsty, to me. The Father stuff was enjoyable as a transient departure from canon, but pretty much went in one ear and out the other; I never felt like I was being hammered over the head with it. I was immersed in the beautiful gameworld and the general idea of the quest, not the details or comparative analysis with other kinds of fiction.
Comments
I remember those magazine adverts with KQVIII explicitly labeled on them. And I remember Roberta always referring to it as that.
Either way, attempting to argue that KQ8 was not part of the main series is fairly daft. Roberta wrote it, directed it, released it, and considers it the 8th game in the series. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but you also can't go and attempt to relegate it to 'spin-off' status just because it changed engines and approach.
Escape from Monkey Island is the 4th game in its series (whether it says 4 or not in the title). It wasn't developed by the original authors, it introduced very awkward 3d tank-style controls, it had a whole section called 'monkey-combat' that was heavily criticized, and is generally considered the worst of the series - and yet no one is running around calling it a bloody spin-off.
If you went by kind of 'logic' (can it even be called 'logic'?), then Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness is not part of the QFG. Police Quest: Open Season, Police Quest: SWAT, and Police Quest: SWAT 2, would not be 'Police Quest' games. Leisure Suit Larry Looking for Love in Several Wrong Places wouldn't be a Larry game, because it doesn't have a number, etc...
None of the Dr. Brain games would be part of the same series, as they are not numbered...
Personally I'd say the 'series name' such as "Quest for Glory", or "King's Quest", or "Police Quest'', or "Dr. Brain" is a dead giveaway to which games are part of their respective series.
But wait, that doesn't even work! Uh, The Beast Within, is the 'The Beast Within"! The only thing pointing out that its a 'a Gabriel Knight game is a note on the box! Lost Secrets of the Rainforest, doesn't have anything pointing out that its an EcoQuest game, but its clearly a sequel to the previous game... The Dagger of Amon Ra, is the The Dagger of Amon Ra, and the fact that it is the sequel, is only mentioned on the box... But its not called Laura Bow 2 anywhere on the box Etc, Etc...
Uh, what about the Conquests series, where each game is clearly different, covering separate stories (Arthur, and Robin Hood)? Or, the Mixed-Up series, that's similarly covers two different themes (Mother Goose, and Fairy Tales)? Both fo these examples have the series names, but neither 'stories' have anything to do with each other... But they each make up a 'series'...
At least KQ8, sticks to the idea of 'saving Daventry', and saving other lands from Daventry... It has King Graham, and even a nod to Valanice (even an obscure reference to the rest of the family if you know where to look)... It clearly occurs in the same universe as King's Quest... Yes, it covers an area of Daventry never shown in previous games, but several of the previous games mention the town of Daventry, but it was never shown until KQ8! Also Connor starts out wearing a clothes that look just like King's Graham's outfit (sans Adventurer's Cap), or Alexander's in KQ5. His story that of being a lowly knight peasant saving the kingdom, mirrors somewhat the story that started King's Quest, the Quest for the Crown!, when Graham was not but a lowly knight! If you are honest with yourself, there are alot more themes in the game, that are taken from the King's Quest developmental structure! "Exploration", "inspiration from Mythology/fairy tales", etc...
The ideas of encountered enemies (that serve very little puzzle purposes, other than to get in your way), goes back to the wolves, wizards, ogre, dwarves, flying witches of the original game, or wolf, hagatha, dwarf, and enchanter of second, etc (few seem to know this, but in KQ1 and KQ2, the game doesn't penalize you for trying to 'kill' those enemies, but it points out that "Graham" is too weak, or unskilled to fight them. He would if he could though... he kills the witch through trickery)... Roberta just chose to add new features, that she couldn't do in previous games... I'm pretty sure if she could have made KQ1 in 3D that those random encounters would have to include combat, simply to be able to eliminate them as a threat, or they'd follow you around everywhere (more than likely they would no longer be random)! She actually said something similar during one of her interviews/posts during the development of KQ8...
If you want a truly crazy example, then what about the Final Fantasy series, where each game, has very little to do with the previous in story or themes, and its one of the most misnamed oxymoronic named series ever, as each 'fantasy' or in some cases, 'scifi' is not the final one in the series (in some cases you have those sequels to the 'sequels', X-2, etc)! In recent games, the combat style turned into a more MMO style action-rpg style, from the original turn-based interface...
Bt
I say the author gets to decide on what is canonical and what is not. No one here on this board has any right to make such judgement. The inmates are taking over the asylum when they decide that they know so much better than the original author that they decide to start renumbering and re-canonizing the stories.
However, if we are at a consensus that we can decide what does and doesn't count these days, then I will be the first to say that the last season of Lost was a "spin-off" and completely unrelated to the series at large. I hope Telltale gets the Lost license one day just so i can rage on the forums for days and days about that season finale.
I don't really understand the hatred for King's Quest VII, because at the time it was one of my favourite games. Keep in mind I first played it around 1998 as part of the King's Quest Collection because I didn't get my own computer (previously played V on the NES and VI at a friend's house) until 1996, when the games were a little harder to find.
I personally find KQ3 to be one of the least enjoyable games for me primarily cause I also found it to be one of the hardest. I don't care much for having to make quick decisions, follow time-based puzzles, and the threat of death constantly looming over me. It was one of the reasons I enjoyed many of LucasArts games (the lack of death penalties), although it certainly pushed me into the "have to save constantly" phase of gaming in the 90's that I'd started going towards with later SNES and early PSX RPGs.
Don't make that out as me thinking it was poorly made, cause I liked the concept and the idea of playing a boy using improvised magic to defeat his wizard master. I just wasn't terribly keen on the execution of some of the puzzles.
Getting back to KQ7 for a moment. I really liked that we were getting to play not only as Rosella for a second time, but also finally being able to play as her mother; which meant we'd finally played as everyone in the family. I loved the art style, the voice acting, the music, and the characters. I suppose I could... no, really, I can't see the issue with the artwork in KQ7. I do sketches from time to time, and if I could be even half as good as the stuff in this game, I'd be happy as hell. The irony, I suppose, is that I find the art direction of cartoons like Home Movies to be abysmal, but that's cause I think the shaky-line animation is amateurish.
My other favourite game? King's Quest VI, probably cause it was my first true taste of the series and would be what got me into adventure (or point & click) game in general. I must have played that game for weeks before I finally beat it the first time. Actually, I take that back, because it was at a friend's house it was most likely months since I didn't have the chance to play it often. If I hadn't played it, I'd have never gotten interested in the genre, which led me to Myst, which led me to LucasArts, Cyan/RedOrb Entertainment & Sierra when I got my computer.
On second thought, I think I will tempt fate by commenting on KQ8. I've always thought of it as KQ8, but never felt that it fit into the series. As Irishmile says, not only does it depart from the gameplay style but it also has little to do with the royal family. When I first heard about it via the teaser trailers and interviews and such from other games, I didn't even realize you'd be playing as someone else. I kind of thought you might be playing Graham's grandson (cause I thought there was a bit where you saw an old King Graham talking to the player). Mind you, this was over 10 years ago and my memories are fuzzy.
I recall being excited, but nervous. It wasn't going to be like the other games, and I'd never played a game of that style on a PC. I remember eventually getting it years later, discovering it had a fatal bug which could render the game unplayable in the second area (which I naturally found). I couldn't even run it on my computer, I had to use my cousin's slightly better computer (mainly cause mine was dying). I was so disappointed with what I eventually played.
Looking back, I know what they were trying to accomplish because I played a game that very much felt like the embodiment of the concept and style: Legacy of Kain - Soul Reaver. Probably the second one, if I wanna be more precise. It had that mix of combat, puzzles, and exploration, as well as feeling similar to the sense of adventure they were trying to go for with MoE.
I can't say I hated the game, cause I never even got to finish it, but as Irish said, I accept it as part of the series, but it still feels like a spin-off. I tried to enjoy what I could, which wasn't much.. but it's like asking me what I thought of the Star Wars Droids/Ewoks cartoons in regards to the Clone Wars CGI cartoon. Sure, they're both set in the Star Wars universe, but they're so different it's like apples and oranges.
Very good read from 2003... if you want a better idea, why both Roberta and Ken believed the direction KQ8 took, was best for the Adventure game genre, and that it needed to evolve... He felt the future for it to succeed would be something with neither 'puzzles', but neither fully action either... With more direct control of the world and the 'story' itself. He didn't even like the use of the term 'adventure games' (thought the term was misleading to what they really wanted entertainment to be)...
Sierra's motto, was "Entertainment, not games". They were wanting to move more towards interactive stories (apparently more like Telltale in some ways) (hopefully ultimately replace the film industry).
It also includes his plans that had Sierra continued under him, he would have probably eliminated the traditional adventure games altogether...
Here are many of the highlights;
Chris brought something similar up in Interaction magazine back in 1997 that his father told him (while Ken Williams was still at Sierra). He left the company ultimately around November 1997;
It seems incredibly short sighted to severe ties so completely with what established the company in the first place. I completely agree that diversifying (at the time) was the way to go, but that does not mean you have to abandon the adventure game genre completely (or attempt to redefine it).
The adventure game company cranks out games that fall anywhere between good and mediocre shit on a constant basis, and they seem to be doing just fine for the past 10 years.
Seems to me that the people at sierra were horrible at predicting where the industry was going. At one point they threw so many eggs into the FMV basket, that they were doomed to loose out when the very brief fmv fad crumbled.
I'm sure some of you remember the CD-I - a 'console' that focused on FMV games and productivity software. it totally bombed, and interestingly, it sounds like they had the same MO as Ken there did. So even if they hadn't sold, he was sinking the damned company.
Cendent put a nail in the coffin with their make believe accounting practices.
Long story short - you failed Ken. the company did not last forever, and even if it had followed your business plan - it was doomed to fail the the rest of the fmv\productivity software industry.
Actually, it was not short sighted, since adventure games are a niche genre now. In the 80s to early 1990s, they were a leading genre. By 1996, the genre was losing steam pretty rapidly. It was being outpaced by action games, shooters and RPGs like Diablo. It was passe. And for a company like Sierra, to make a "Sierra quality" adventure game (is in, a quality level on par with the industry if they had continued as time moved on. You don't tend to see a lot of adventure games with A+ graphics or the like nowadays, whereas in the early 90s, adventure games were the forefront on the technical side of things), it would've cost more to make than they would've earned back. Which is counterproductive for a company, especially one which is responsible to shareholders. Part of the reason action and other genres took over was because they were cheaper to make.
Actually, they had a lot good predictions, for example, Ken wanting to do online gaming as early as 1990; Ken's plan to move Sierra into console gaming if he had stayed on; The fact that Sierra could program games for DVD as early as 1996 amongst many other things.
Actually, the company wasn't sinking when he sold it. It was the market share leader in PC games and was one of the largest computer game companies, with over 1,000 employees and around 1,500 or more when he left. Sierra's main competitors in that period were considered to be Microsoft and EA. That should tell you something about what a powerhouse they were.
Also, you're missing one key component here. He also wanted to move into the action, RPG and simulator genres, as well as have franchises that could be revamped every year, like the Madden or Nascar series. Sierra's series, Front Page Sports, was at the time (96-97) the leading sports series. Consider that his last major decision was to agree to have Sierra distribute Half Life--which turned out to be a huge hit and critically acclaimed. His original deal with Valve stipulated that Sierra, and not Valve, would exclusively own the rights to Half Life--meaning they could've used that series forever. One of Sierra's later leaders sold back the rights to Valve.
As far as FMV games, Ken was done with those games by 1996. After Phantasmagoria II came out, he declared that Sierra was not going to make any further FMV games. '96 is right about when the trend ended.
What killed Sierra was the Cendant scandal (that pretty much crushed Sierra's profitability, which resulted in Sierra's CEOs having to make cutback after cutback and tons of layoffs to save money) and it's ripple effects, and a series of inefficient CEOs who had no idea how to truly run Sierra.
Sure the 'episodic' format was 'innovative' to a degree... But even now its old and tired...
The closest to what Ken wanted (fully interactive world/environment/adventure game/action/less puzzle game), was probably Shenmue series, but even that series was never completed... It was highly praised as one of the best adventures ever (personally never got a chance to play it, but the reviews were so promising)...
The changing AI thing, open-ended changing story sorta happened in Blade Runner game (where no two games were alike), but that was one of the last Adventure games before the industry died...
Yes, there have been some 'good' (but not necessarily excellent) adventure games, nothing innovative, but excellent story, and world. Not necessarily great puzzle design though (in some cases rehashed/recycled puzzles from the pit of adventure gaming in general). But most of these made little money, or were failures in the market (lacking mainstream appeal, that could see a second coming of Adventure gaming of sorts)...
All that we have left is a very small niche market (adventures still do not have the mainstream appeal), which includes an even smaller 'fan game' following inside of it, and most of these are in a purpetual timewarp stuck back in 1992... For all intents and purposes Adventure game genre is 'undead', or on a 'respirator'....
Do you realize the most mainstream of adventure games in the last 10 years, are probably the Nancy Drew games? They are so formulic, mass-produced, full of stupid mini-arcade games... They are really story or genre I have little interest in...
Then there is the casual adventures (aka Puzzle-Adventures), which many argue are nothing like traditional adventures, many are 'hidden picture' hunts (though they are slowly evolving closer to classic adventures)... They are actually pretty mainstream, and in a sense may be the main chance for an adventure game comeback... Rumor has it that former Access employees are working on a new Tex Adventure game (it may or may not include voices/FMV), but will be designed for the casual adventure market...
While true, its interesting to see back in 2003, he felt had Phantas II not been a failure or an abyssmal game in its own right, it seems he had ideas that would have innovated the FMV genre even further...
I remember reading in one interview, Roberta was hoping to do something that would merge 3D with the FMV genre, like essentially map/project FMV onto 3D characters that could be viewed from all sides, but look like the real person! Their facial expressions would be there actual facial expressions as they were filmed. With game world also created by projecting/mapping actual photographed/filmed scenery onto 3D objects. Really ahead of its time, definitely not entirely feasible back in late 1990s... Holodeck comes to mind (but inside your monitor)! But games are finally getting to a point where the 3D objects are smooth enough, round enough and realistic enough, that some kind of 'mapped/projected' FMV could be feasible... We are almost to a point where the realism might actually get get past the uncanny valley, by actually being able to portray 'real3D, and 'real people', as well as fully computer generated people...
If Sierra run by Ken and Roberta Williams had stayed alive, I firmly believe they could've made video games a truly respected artform, something great and dignified like films are. They were pioneering and heading in that direction as it was.
Some say Access with its Tex Murphy games was superior to Sierra as well when it came to FMV. Although much of the acting was intentionally corny for humor and affect. They wanted a kind of b-movie feel. But they went with big name actors. Plus they had found a way to incorporate filmed characters into the real-time 3D engine used in the games. Kind like 2D cutouts though, but still realistic enough. Note: Access is noteable for its dead-end technology though innovative at the time, use of internal speaker to create voice overs, and even high quality music... they called it RealSound. Even had instructions for using an allegator clip to connect a the internal speaker up to a HIFI speaker system...
Also Tex Murphy: Overseer (1998) the last game was relatively successful, they were going to make another sequel (Overseer ended in a cliffhanger), but Microsoft bought their company with plan to close it down. They closed it at the moment they bought it. They apparently saw it as a competitive threat to the market they invisioned.
And what is this about better tech making better FMV games? An FMV game is an FMV game no matter how good the cameras or compression are. You might as well play Jurassic Park if you like FMV games. The reason they failed (even with great stories, acting, voice work) is because they are extremely limited by their nature.
Simply animating filmed sprites and using FMV in cut scenes does not make a game a true FMV game. But even that style of FMV is incredibly dated. "Filmed games" went right out with the 90's. First, game publishers got tired of putting out games that were upwards of 8 cd's long. Second, CG allows much smoother and more stylized presentation.
I worked as in software retail from 94-98, and I can tell you first hand that Sierra was becoming king of the shovelware. Whenever the sierra rep came around she had a trunk of shitty games and productivity software she couldn't get rid of. Meanwhile companies like Bullfrog, Blizzard, and Maxis took over by released innovative games that didn't rely on gimmicks like FMV.
Only digitized adventure game that I ever felt pulled it off right was Harvester, and that is primarily because it stylized it into a surreal 1950's suburb where everything just felt wrong yet looked mundane.
And all this talk about innovative adventure games seems extremely narrow scoped to me. First you have to define an adventure game, and in this case it tends to be inventory/dialogue puzzles in a story driven game. How "innovative" can you be with that before it changes into another genre? Many RPG's have very distinctive adventure elements to them. Many strategy games likewise.
2 years ago I built a complete collection of every dos adventure game and the number of genre-blurring titles is nuts. There are puzzle games that have adventuring aspects (like Gobliiins), there are FPS games with adventuring aspects (System Shock), and there are RPG's that blur the line as well (such as several of SSI's D&D games).
Its not that adventure games have not had any innovation, it is that innovation naturally changes the genre to something else. Isn't this exactly what Ken said above, and why Roberta built KQ8 the way she did?
And yes, I believe Sierra would have still failed spectacularly even if Ken hadn't sold. I saw how horrid their software releases were by 98. One or two hits like Half Life would not have been enough to offset everything else. Anyone who is willing the change the entire direction of their company because of a conversation with Bill Gates is questionable. And anyone who thinks they can build a company that will "last forever" is a damned idiot.
But companies still shy away from them, or change genres as that's the only way for the games to survive in the current market, and see success.
Indie companies tend to be a little more innovative, and open to release older genres but cost is low for whatever reason (lower overhead?). They don't see the success of mainstream releases unless the casual like angry birds, but I digress... Some of these indie games are more on exploration, discovery, and story rather than puzzles...
Also FMV never fully died, it just became a element or tool used in many different genres that aren't necessarily advertised as FMV themselves. Like Wing Commander III-V (1996-1998 or so), the games themselves were 3D combat sim engine, the FMV was used only for cutscenes (and a few ingame radio communications). Many modern games still use elements of FMV. It's not an advertising factor, it's just a tool at this point for style, as it's common and cheap to do now...
Interactive movie on the other hand, that was dying early on... Was it really that innovative?! They had light gun games and the Don Bluth arcade games since like the 70's... They aren't much different than the interactive novella and make choice books... Strange that it's making a comeback in 3D gaming engines...
Ya, many of the Myst/Riven games utilize FMV... and it was those games that inspired alot of clones (good and bad) with FMV... See Zork Nemesis, and Zork: Grand Inquisitor (both were well done)...
This is so true. It's analogous to organic evolution, which occurs not by the transformation of large monolithic entities, but in speciation events. i would argue that there were numerous speciation events in the early days of graphic adventures that produced a whole class of genres (with influences from other sources as well, of course). It really isn't surprising that the main line of adventure games still exists in a largely un-innovated state, much like the coelacanth
Nor is it surprising that adventure games were abandoned by major publishers. Public tastes change and the money follows. Many genres are in the same boat and like adventures more or less survive or are being revived by indie developers. Even in between Sierra's demise and today's indie revolution, there were non-major publishers that continued to produce adventure games. (Many of which were Myst-clone snoozefests, but still...
Many of these quotes from the Williamses strike me as useless for analytical purposes because Roberta thought she could define adventure gaming and disavow it at the same time. She might have truly believed that her vision for the eighth KQ title would be the equivalent of "evolving the genre", but by the later 90's King's Quest had ceased to be the definitive adventure game to all but die-hard Sierra fans. Evolving the genre was beyond her capacity at that point, although she and Sierra might very well have pioneered newer ones if she had stayed in the industry.
In hindsight at least, KQ8 is nothing more than a rather mundane case of a major publisher transitioning a game series from a decreasingly popular genre to a more profitable one, with little to no impact on the evolution of either.
It's hard to sit on the sidelines and hear the world declare something you enjoyed as "dead" or "boring" or even "uninspired" when much of the stuff outside that genre seemed just as boring and uninspired as the things they were claiming to be superior to.
I read that stuff that Ken said, and it made me feel like the industry was trying to tell me what I should like or what I'm supposed to think is popular. I've never held much truck with people in these companies claiming to know exactly what will and won't be good. Kind of like how they keep saying Disco is dead, yet I still listen to it quite often and I frequently saw people wearing bell-bottom pants in highschool and college back in the last 90's & early 2000's.
I'm all for wanting to get the game industry more respect or trying to establish some of it as an artform or even a superior story-telling device, but abandoning what came before simply cause it's not that interesting to some people is just.. seems short-sighted. Things like to come around in circles, and I think people fail to realize this.
I understand your point of view, and feel much the same way about many things. However, if you're a CEO of a company, no matter emotionally invested in a product, or a genre or whatever, that you previously put out--If said genre or product stops selling, any reasonable businessman will abandon it.
It's unfortunate.
Similar things were going on at LucasArts, where adventure games in general were abandoned in favor of Star Wars shovelware, and how they cancelled Sam & Max: Freelance Police quite close to launch because of "marketplace realities."
http://agdinteractive.com/
http://infamous-adventures.com/
You can get the original games (all eight) at GoG.com or Steam (the first seven).
Sierra wasn't telling us what we had to play, they were changing with the times to focus on what the majority wanted to play, and were buying... They wanted to make what was most popular and sold more in the industry. They didn't to just break even or lose money on game production. That meant adventure gamers were left out.
Yes, much of that stuff became 'shovelware', but perhaps not after they made their 'killing' first...
However, if you take the official/unofficial remakes into account you can go all the way back and start with Kings Quest sci release which ported the mouse system back.
Or, if your not afraid of a parsar interface and typing your commands you could always attempt them in their originals form.
Personally, I think I would play
KQ1 Sci - official sierra release - easy to download this version all over the net...
KQ2 AGDI - fan release (free)
KQ3 AGDI - fan release (free, though some may feel the Infanous Adventure KQ3 is 'purer')
KQ4 - this one is tricky as it has no 100% gui driven version, but the parsar interface is quite a bit better than the previous entries... I'd suggest giving it a shot though just to see how things used to be. You could always use a walk through for the first few screens to get an idea of how it works.
KQ5 -KQ8 - original versions, all available on Good old Games relatively cheap. KQ8 is optional, as some here consider it a spin-off...lol. Spin-off or not, it is a very different game from the other KQ games.
The only caveat to that is I would say I find the Win 3.1 version of KQ6 to be my favorite, but it can be a real bear to get running properly unless you install windows 3.1 into dosbox and then install the game from there.
Sierra has plenty of other great games, both in and out of the Quest series, but KQ is the one that got the train moving.
The Leisure Suit Larry games are being remade in HD with Al Lowe's help, so you may want to wait on that before pursing those games. They were considered "erotic adventures", but other than some easter eggs in part 7 there was no real nudity, and by today's movie standards the games feel "flirty" rather than erotic.
The Space Quest series is a hilarious Sci-Fi parody series staring an unlikely janitor. I'd probably recommend this series after finishing up Kings Quest, or in between KQ games.
SQ1 - Sierra SCI official release
SQ2 - Infamous Adventures fan release
SQ3 - same black hole as KQ4, requires parsar as no fan remake exists
SQ4-SQ6 - available on GoG as a pack, all have full mouse/GUI control.
The Police Quest series is extremely procedural, but manages to be both a thriller and slightly educational at the same time. Loosing the game because you didn't walk around your car before driving off, or not checking your gun at the door properly can be a bit much for some players though.
And finally, there are the adventure/RPG game hybrid series, Quest for Glory. I have not played this series myself, but it looks great and has a humongous fan base. Part 1 has an official sci remake, part two was remade by agdi, part three is parsar I believe, and part 4 is a full out cd adventure.
I hope this helps you get started. Others will have their own opinions on how you should play. i assume some will suggest you play them in their original form, parsar and all, instead of remakes or sci versions... but I feel it can be alienating for someone who has no experience with that. You could always try the original first and if it is too frustrating, play the sci/remake versions. Let us know how your games go - I'd love to talk the series through with someone as they are experiencing it for the first time.
If you have a choice between playing original games and the official remakes, play the originals first, and then work your way into the remake. Again to see the story as it was originally told (evolution of the series), and then then the updated story/new puzzles...
This way you can better appreciate the evolution of the series.
There are alot of major changes made in several of the fan games, that don't always mesh with the official storyline (the natural evolution of the series)... If you do find yourself enjoying the 'fan fiction' divergences, you might find yourself disappointed later on, that none of the later games take the fan fiction into account.
On the other hand, those 'changes' are more fun, if you have played the entire original series first (as there are alot of references to later/previous games in the series), these references won't make much sense unlesss you know the official storyline, as they are nods and homages that play off the official storyline, though they change things in a different direction.
Basically to really enjoy KQ2 remake by AGDI, and KQ3 remake, its best to have played all the originals through including KQ8. As those remakes reference elements from nearly every game of the series. Those references won't mean anything to you if you play the series in order from the fan remakes, into the later games...
Also I believe in continuing to support the originals games (by buying them officially)... One of the reasons why fan games were allowed to have fan licenses by the owners of Sierra games, was it was believed that their existence wouldn't cut into continued sales of the originals (infact lead people to buy the originals).
Keep in mind that the last game in the series, 5 does away with the adventure side of the hybrid, and goes straight to Action/RPG genre. The humor and interesting story is still there though!
Works fairly flawlessly and painlessly in ScummVM.
BTW, you can play the first of the AGI official games on Sarien.net, semi-officially (the unofficial stuff, is the 'multiplayer' stuff). They got a license from Activision to upload the first of each series. Though technically Activison doesn't own the rights to Gold Rush! (that belongs to the Software Farm, original designers own the rights) or Black Cauldron (that belongs to Disney), or the Leisure Suit Larry games.
http://www.sarien.net/
So ya, technically Sarien.net may be pirating California: Gold Rush! and Black Cauldron (as Activision doesn't hold the rights to those games)... They no longer have the Larry games, as Activision doesn't hold the rights to that game.
http://www.softwarefarm.com/gr_collector.htm
Keep in mind, GOG lacks the remake of KQ1, and Steam lacks the original of KQ1. The intent of the GOG collections was to highlight the developmental history of the games from the original KQ1 to the last (KQ8).
Another problem with the Steam release is that KQ7 version included in it, isn't compatible with 64-bit windows.
Humongous Entertainment?
I really don't recommend jumping into KQ2:Romancing the Stones from AGDI, without having played the rest of the series first (canon series first in order)... There are many references that require knowledge of later games in the series including KQ3, KQ6, and KQ8. There are even a few nods to KQ4, and KQ7 as well. Maybe even KQ5.
The AGDI remakes of KQ2 and KQ3 are designed in such a way, that to best enjoy them, you would have to know everything about the official series first.
King's Quest 3 from Infamous Adventures fewer direct references to any other games in the series directly (other than some KQ5/KQ6 easter eggs/nods). So there is less worry, that you'll miss the references from some of the 'easter eggs', or be 'spoiled' by foreknowledge of future events in the series...
I'd think of it much as how its always best to read books series in 'publishing' order, as opposed to 'chronological', as often there are nods to things that are best understood if you have read the first published book first.
For example, in some ways Narnia flows better if you read them in the order they were written. As that is how the references build upon each other. Although in hindsight, C.S. Lewis preferred reading them in 'chronological' order.
With Tolkien's works, its better to read them in published order, of Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, HoME (slightly more optional, and not all of it is relevent to Middle Earth history) and then Children of Hurin (though this can be read in place of the same chapter in Silmarillion for the extended tale). Then it is to try to read them in a linear chronological fashion. As Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales contain 'spoilers' for earlier books in the series.
Well, I do recommend them and I disagree with that last statement.
Sorry, Baggins, but the details of canon are never going to be as important to me as they are to you. That's simply not what the games meant to me. (The wholesale changes in story-telling style and tone in a certain other fan-made non-remake game is a different matter, about which I agree with you completely.)
I think it's far more important to prevent the possibility that a new player gets turned off to KQ/Sierra by the text parser, dead ends, and the older style of graphics than it is to make sure that they start with canon.
Personally, I'd say the tone of the KQ2 fan remake, and KQ3 Redux remake are different than the tone of the original games they were designed after... Darker in tone in some ways, more 'moody and angst'...
The 'good vampire' plotline leans to far on modern holywood vampire (more Twilight than Dracula), instead of the traditional vampire myth... The idea of a young innocent girl being turned into an undead vampire (with very little direct impact on the story ethically) instead of given that choice goes against style Roberta Williams (more black and white sense of morality) was known for, except for you look at Phantasmagoria... In some ways its more Gabriel night/Jane Jensen than Roberta's King's Quest (point of note even Roberta admitted that KQ6 was not in her style, and more influenced by Jane Jensen).
Roberta also tended to lean on christian myth & black and white moral choices, so her priests were good, and vampires were evil... Samhain was a god of death (a conservative christian myth/propaganda from 1700s about Pagans and Druids that Wiccans actually find as prejudiced towards their beliefs...)...
Both AGDI and TSL rely too much on the concepts of Black Cloak Society, and there involvement witih 'everything' that has happened during the series... There manipulations are forced into being the motive behind nearly every other game in the series past and future (this is one of the reasons I recommend playing the original series in order first to be able catch these references, and not be spoiled)...
Graham is ancestor/reincarnation of an ancient super race in TSL (Leo the Noble) and he's the ancestor of ancient super race in AGDI (Leginimor and Granthithor)...
The Father is ancient, and the leading member of a super race from Daventry's ancient past... Shadrack is ancient, and the leading member of a super race from Daventry's past... Both are destined to battle with Graham in the present...
In both stories the Black Cloaks and royal family are destined to fight each other over millennia, until a prophecy is fulfilled...
In both games, the villains are concerned with obtaining ancient treasures to regain their ultimate and dark powers (Pandora's Box and The Item)....
I always find there is a certain level of fanboyism that people seem to overlook the similiarties between both stories, and play favorites to which ever series they are fans with (there are TSL fanboys that think that game is better, and there are AGDI fanboys that think that game is better, although they share many of the same concepts)...
Personally I don't find both stories all that original (and are representive of much that is fan fiction (mary/gary stus and all))...
Personally I'm looking forward to MusicallyInspired's KQ2 remake, as I think he's going to get it right... Not resort to any fan fiction cliches...
The overall tone of AGDI's remakes doesn't seem remarkably different from the originals, or moody or angsty, to me. The Father stuff was enjoyable as a transient departure from canon, but pretty much went in one ear and out the other; I never felt like I was being hammered over the head with it. I was immersed in the beautiful gameworld and the general idea of the quest, not the details or comparative analysis with other kinds of fiction.