Josh Mandel and Telltale
What if it turns out that Josh Mandel has a contract to work on the new King's Quest games for Telltale?
What would people think?
Edit: mispelled Telltale in the topic title, can someone fix that?
What would people think?
Edit: mispelled Telltale in the topic title, can someone fix that?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Done.
In what capacity?
Now for the REAL question: What is Howie Mandel's involvement going to be??
Peeing in a bottle of apple juice.
Hahaha...nice. Hi, Josh.
Bt
Going on their recent games, that is exactly what they will do.
And seeing as Josh is currently actively working on other professional adventure game projects, it seems unlikely that he would ALSO be working with Telltale on their bastardization of this hallowed series.
Have you seen a screenshot of the game already? A demo? A piece of gameplay? A leaked design document or "script"? If not, how can you tell that it is a "bastardization"?
If you can submit to me one single Telltale game that was ever anywhere close to as good as the adventure games of the 1990s, I'll happily rescind that statement.
But if you hate TT and the fact that they have the license, why do you hang around here? I don't really like Blizzard Entertainment; As such, I have no intentions of joining a Blizzard forum to talk about how I feel they suck or how I feel resentful that Blizzard still exists while Sierra died under the same parent company.
For the same reason people slow down to watch a car accident.
You act like this game is going to be the worst game of all time...I mean seriously, as a very traditionalist KQ fan, could it be worse than KQ8 was? Worse than KQ7? I just think you're being as unfair to this project as I was to TSL. I'd rather a "different" KQ game than no KQ game at all.
So do I but I'm willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt until a screenshot or a demo or a trailer proves otherwise. I don't see why we can't give the game that?
It's like, would you prefer if Activision handled a new KQ game itself? Or if it was farmed out to some action studio who knows nothing about adventure games, like LSL: MCL was?
You could say "Well, it's better that it stays dead then." For you, perhaps. I don't feel we ever got a truly fitting next chapter to the series. I love KQ8 for what it is, but it's not the KQ8 that it could've or should've been.
The problem with Sierra's death is that it left a lot of great series and great characters in limbo. SQ6 leaves Roger totally in limbo; KQ7 still leaves stories to be told. I want to see some official continuation to their stories. Perhaps I'm just not ready to consign KQ to be something of the past and am willing to give the game a benefit of the doubt on that basis.
I don't see any loss in giving it a chance. At worst, it's a bad game...And? If it's a bad game, we still have the originals to love. If it's a good game, we have a chance for the series to continue on as it should've and be revived. I see no loss either way.
So do I but I'm willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt until a screenshot or a demo or a trailer proves otherwise. I don't see why we can't give the game that?
It's like, would you prefer if Activision handled a new KQ game itself? Or if it was farmed out to some action studio who knows nothing about adventure games, like LSL: MCL was?
You could say "Well, it's better that it stays dead then." For you, perhaps. I don't feel we ever got a truly fitting next chapter to the series. I love KQ8 for what it is, but it's not the KQ8 that it could've or should've been. And Roberta never considered KQ8 to be "The End."
The problem with Sierra's death is that it left a lot of great series and great characters in limbo. SQ6 leaves Roger totally in limbo, and a SQ7 was made but the suits wouldn't allow it; KQ7 still leaves stories to be told; Larry 8 was planned and scrapped by suits, as were Torin's Passage sequels. I want to see some official continuation to their stories. Perhaps I'm just not ready to consign KQ to be something of the past and am willing to give the game a benefit of the doubt on that basis.
I don't see any loss in giving it a chance. At worst, it's a bad game...And? If it's a bad game, we still have the originals to love. If it's a good game, we have a chance for the series to continue on as it should've and be revived. I see no loss either way.
That's very nice. Good for you!
I was merely saying why some hang around here even though they haven't been the greatest Telltale fans ever. I'm wondering, though. Why do you consider Telltale to be more worthy, than some action studio or whatever, to do King's Quest more justice than anybody else? Surely not just because it's finally a new King's Quest game. I just don't see how it's any different than an action studio picking it up. The styles are very very different either way. Telltale may have roots in adventures but they're games haven't been so much really at all. Why are they different to you? I'm just asking.
1: They are almost identical in structure. Small screens, a few clickable items, episodic in nature, etc..
2: More recent games have begun to rely heavily on quick time events.
Other than maybe Poker Night at the Inventory, they all fall into this category. For some licenses this is great, and for others it fails.
Over the past several months, the fine folks here in these forums have made it very clear what they expect and hope for in a KQ games.
Short episodic screens with a few clickable items and quick time events has never once been mentioned on anyone's wishlist.
So while we all have this glimmer of hope in the back of our heads that telltale will break their formula for this series and release something the fans have asked for, it would be delusional to think there is a good chance of that happening.
Too long, didn't read? There is evidence in every game TT has released that their version of KQ would not be something I, or many others here, would be interested in. There is no evidence what-so-ever that they will break formula and release something I desire.
If they want to change my mind, then they need to release a screenshot or details that proves me wrong - not the other way around. I am the consumer, and it is telltales job to make me want to buy the game. You seem to think it is your job to be excited and happy over a project you know nothing about in the face of the fact that all similar projects are not something that would generally be considered acceptable in the world of King's Quest type gameplay.
Still Too long, didn't read? There is absolutely no reason to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt' at this point.
We've had dark KQ's, light KQ's, we've had KQ's with the parser interface, KQ games with an icon based interface, KQ games with a single cursor; KQ games with day and night cycles, KQ games with multiple endings, KQ games with a chapter based design, KQ games with two protagonists; KQ games with a radio ready theme song and mature themes; a KQ game with RPG elements. I don't see anything wrong with a KQ game having the elements you mentioned, especially the quick time segments.
Roberta as she went on wanted the KQ series to become ever more cinematic and accessible, hence the change from Parser to Point & Click and I always did feel it was a step in the right direction, moving toward more cinematic gameplay.
As I said, we've already had all different types of KQ games. Some are total purists and feel the Parser Gameplay system is what defines KQ type gameplay and that the point and click interface of KQ5-6 dumbed the series down; Others love it; Some love KQ5, some love KQ6, some love KQ7, some even love KQ8. Even if this game is DIFFERENT, I don't see that that is such a bad thing. Change is not always a negative. Even if DIFFERENT, it could still be very good.
TT at the very least is known for keeping the tone and atmosphere of the series they pick up, even those against this game have given them that much--And at this point, as long as it FEELS like a King's Quest, as long as it looks like one, has a fairy tale and fantasy core, has that MAGIC feel, contains characters, plotlines or elements of fairy tales, myths, legends, and classic literature, has the Royal Family as the protagonist(s), I will accept it as a KQ game. I am not a stickler for gameplay styles.
I would trust TT over any other commercial group out there right now to capture the tone and atmosphere of the King's Quest games.
Roberta once defined what she feels constitutes a KQ game:
I stand by her definition.
and:
I'm also not sure I'd describe them as having 'mature' or 'adult' themes. Which seem to imply something else entirely! Except for maybe a certain easter egg in KQ2
Maybe you mean injecting elements of the 'epic' or 'epic poetry' (KQ6 took on some of the greek epics such as Orpheus and KQ8 was inspired a bit on Tolkien, King Arthur, a bit of Gilgamesh) or 'high fantasy'. But that's about it.
Here's the thing: When I say the "feel" of the game, I mean, for me the "tone" and the atmosphere are what makes the magic. The atmosphere, tone, setting, etc--That's what makes the "feel" of the game for me. Not so much the gameplay, because like I said, games 1-4 have rather different gameplay mechanics from 5-6--They are much more complex, much less accessible than 5 and 6; 7 and 8 have very different gameplay mechanics from the others--Yet all have the same tone, atmosphere, feel, the same sort of "You're in a magic world of wonders" sort of feel to them. Even KQ8, as different as it is, has that same sort of "KQ magic" that VERY few other games have captured. For me it's not about how the game is presented in gameplay as it is in characters, world, story, etc.
Consider TSL--In terms of gameplay it is a PERFECT modernization of the classic KQ5-6 style. It has the classic Sierra gameplay style of KQ5-6, but with a modern twist to it. But at the same time, the tone and feel of the game, the atmosphere, the entire package is very different than any KQ game--More an emphasis on grittiness and the backgrounds/emotions of the characters, etc, more grey morality--And that's why for some it doesn't FEEL like a KQ game should, despite having the gameplay style of the most beloved games. I'm not against the game anymore because I feel the fans can make any interpretation of the series that they want at this point, so to Cesar, Katie and others, please don't take my use of TSL as an attack on the game--I'm just using it as an example of "gameplay vs. tone" in terms of creating the atmosphere of a KQ game.
IMO, the way TT does things is a natural evolution for the adventure genre. Sierra themselves were moving in a similar direction with games like Phantasmagoria and KQ7. It's proven to be a viable way, as well, in terms of the revival of the genre. I have little doubt that had Roberta stayed at the helm of the KQ series past 1998, it would've taken a very similar trajectory as TT's games. Not exactly the same of course--but something along similar lines. That's why I accept such a change in gameplay.
The story of the adventure genre, at least, KQ's contribution to the genre, is a story of it being increasingly "dumbed down". The introduction of fully animated graphics with KQ1 came at the expense of harder puzzles and more intricate stories found in the text adventures, and some reviews noted this at the time--that it wasn't a game for "more experienced adventurers" but instead a game better suited for novices to the genre. A more accessible adventure game. Not only that, but the introduction of graphics dumbed down the world of an adventure game for the player when you consider it. With a text adventure, you were given a little bit of a description of the setting and your surroundings--And the rest was left for you to fill in with your imagination. With the introduction of graphics, this was taken away for the most part. The world was no longer one you could imagine, but a world presented in front of you in great detail--And the narrator filled in FOR YOU whatever details were more minute visually.
Then with SCI, it was dumbed down a bit further--in KQ1SCI, rather than typing "Look", all you had to do was right click and a description of your surroundings or of an object was given to you.
Then came KQ5-6 and the gameplay was VERY dumbed down, to make it more accessible for the growing range of computer owners. Instead of having to toy with the Parser, type and figure your way around, you had icons which could provide the functions of the Parser. You had a clearly designated walking path pre-set for your character, removing the ability to fully explore the world as you could in KQ1-4. The world was made smaller in terms of where you could explore (of course the game worlds of KQ5-6 had more screens, but you couldn't go EVERYWHERE as you could in earlier in games), the gameplay was rendered more linear, and the number of interactive areas declined--Consider the number of places in KQ5 where you get the infamous red X if you click your eyes or hand on it. People complained at the time too about it dumbing down the genre.
In KQ7, this continued even further, again to make the game more accessible due to changing demographics amidst complaints from some that the interface of KQ5-6 was "clunky". The several icons of KQ5-6 were thus narrowed down to a single do-all cursor. The puzzles were simplified. The narrator was eliminated and thus almost all interaction with the world in the traditional adventure sense (having your surroundings described for you, how an object feels, etc etc) was removed. More linearity, more emphasis on character-character interactions rather than character-object interactions, etc. I don't see KQ7 as being all THAT different from a TT game, actually.
KQ8 was much the same as KQ7 in terms of core gameplay (forgetting for a moment the RPG and action elements)--one cursor does all, etc. But you could do much more in terms of the world--a fully 3D world totally free for your exploration with Connor acting at times as a sort of narrator, describing objects if you clicked on them; Less linear gameplay in some ways, freer exploration. But again--at it's core--it was simple gameplay, less traditional puzzles, etc.
That's why I don't object to this game as much as some do. I see the sort of games TT makes as an evolution--the way the genre was moving before it "died"--to a more cinematic sort of feel. Within the framework TT which works in, there is room to make things more interactive, etc. But it's not that far from where KQ7--in many people's eyes the last "true" KQ game--was headed.
I disagree--The genre was evolving, but the fan base was stuck on the 1990 VGA point and click model and didn't really want to accept anything different, despite several different kinds of offerings. Myst style gameplay wasn't really accepted; Phantasmagoria style gameplay was only tolerated for a brief time; trying to mix the adventure genre with other genres ala KQ8 was despised. I think at times that the biggest threat to the survival and evolution of the adventure game genre are adventure game fans.
What are the biggest hits in the KQ fandom? Fan games that keep the KQ5/6 format and either retain or expand upon the tone of KQ6. Even beyond that, look at the games that fan studios have developed on their own, their original properties--All have the Sierra sort of interface or Sierra circa 1990 style artwork. I think the sense of nostalgia and love for a very certain period of adventure games' development has inhibited adventure game evolution.
As I pointed out, the adventure genre, as per KQ/Sierra, was heading more and more in the direction of moviegames.
The adventure genre never truly "died"; However, the fanbase and thus potential sale threshold for adventure games is far outshined by other genres such as action and RPGs. The core fanbase of adventure gamers has never left--The sale numbers are still the same as they were in 1990. Selling 500,000 copies of a game in 1990 was a massive hit--And that is about how much KQ5 sold, and about how much a good adventure game today would sell. But that's peanuts compared to say 3 or 4 million for an action game or an RTS or a Sim sort of game.
The adventure gamer was either someone who first had a computer when most others didn't--Basically, "geeks", or someone who had the patience to spend hours doing this or that puzzle. The majority of modern gamers don't want to spend hours solving a puzzle; most gamers want to be able to kill in the games they play. Modern gamers want instant gratification; Adventure Games don't give you that. The genre didn't "die" because any specific change; It didn't die at all, but was simply eclipsed by games which were in the end cheaper to produce and which made more, because of the change in the demographics of gamers.
As Roberta herself said once:
I'm not sure there ever was a 'monolithic' fan base (or any 'consensus')... Almost every 'new' game was drawing in new fans, and splitting others from the 'flock'.
I had several friends who were big KQ fans back when they were first released, that don't care about KQ now, because they moved onto newer games and IPs as technology advanced... Those included some that just 'grew out of' gaming in general, developed different interests. Still those are anecdotal and not necessarily the 'rule'....
Actually, the last two sold more than any previous game in the series except maybe KQ5, KQ5 was said to have seriously outsold KQ6, KQ5 initially sold 500,000 copies and was the bestselling computer game for the next five years after its release (1995?) (so apparently even beat initial sells of KQ6 and KQ7). Roberta once said in an interview that KQ8 sold double the previous two games, and apparently KQ7 sold double of KQ6... A couple of years later Sierra, under Vivendi was even going to make KQ9... What killed KQ really was that Sierra died itself... It lingering death killed Space Quest 7 and several other classic adventure games at the time (and over the following years)...
So keep in mind, if sells were any indication, even when KQ6 was released, the fandom may have already been halved or more, less than when compared to when KQ5 was released, and its initial sells... In anycase we have data from Sierra itself (though not specific numbers for each game), in which they state KQ6 was less successful than KQ5, and possibly even the later games (although arguebly it received better general reviews than KQ5, and KQ7!).
KQ7 had possibly the worst reviews, but it was more successful than KQ6 in sales... KQ8 was more successful than KQ7 in sales apparently, and even Grim Fandango (if Roberta is to be believed), and most professional reviews considered it average to excellent...
KQ1 remake was largely hated by the fans on its release, and didn't sell many copies at all. Most people received copies through later released KQ collections. Though now there are many fans (new?) that like it...
As for the fans? And popularity? Again that's hard to tell, because many of the oldest KQ fans were already moving away from KQ and aventure games in general into new genres... What was left was a 'niche' crowd, who wanted classic adventures to continue on. When the rest of the industry knew they just couldn't compete in the new market.
But seriously, I doubt anyone is going to find honest statistical data out there that would break down history of the 'fans' who they were, where they came from, demographics etc...
Infact I wouldn't be surprised if we are actually the minority, the elite, the most devoted of the fandom! A special breed!
If you discount gameplay as you've said you do, then, no, you're not really standing by the whole statement. The lack of exploration and interactivity in Telltale's recent offerings (not to mention that these things were not really strong points in TT's earlier good adventures) is exactly why I'm skeptical of their ability/desire to make a KQ game that does justice to Roberta's vision in the originals.
"Interesting worlds to explore" is not at all how I would describe BTTF (and maybe it wasn't important for that property), but in Jurassic Park there was no exploration of the gameworld at all. You were basically "exploring" the (excruciatingly boring) characters through dialogs. Do you have a Roberta quote about KQ/adventure games that is consistent with that?
TT's "evolution" for the adventure genre is no more or less "natural" than any other. All you're saying is that you like that particular style (lots of people do; I've never denied that) but your Roberta-based justification just doesn't wash. I think it's more reasonable to view the streamlined interface of KQ7 as an anomaly. Did Sierra adopt that widely around the time or afterward? GK3 (which I recently played and thoroughly enjoyed) had even more modes of interaction than a standard KQ and Love for Sail brought back (partially) a text parser!
Moreover, despite the interface KQ7 did not deviate from Sierra's emphasis on large, open areas the player is meant to explore on their own terms. And you've conveniently left out the fact that KQ7 was not the last game: I believe Mask of Eternity, and it's genre shift, was due in part to Roberta's desire to take exploration and interactivity to a whole new level. She was not going in the same direction as TT -- the idea that shrinking the gameworld into an invisible-walled corridor with nothing but dialogs, mundane tasks, and an occasional self-contained puzzle is either "natural" or would have been sanctioned by Roberta is ludicrous.
Let me finally add that I have nothing against cinematic-ness. Most games and game-types have become more cinematic over time and AFAIC that's a good thing; I would cite it as a "positive" about Telltale's earlier games. It's TT's determination to provide a cinematic experience at the expense of providing a satisfying gaming experience -- the total subjugation of gameplay to content delivery -- that I loathe. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Roberta, no matter how much she said about wanting games to be more cinematic, would have ever taken such an extreme approach.
Anakin - you repeatedly say that King's Quest can be "anything", and then you proceed to list a multitude of things you believe it has been.
For me, and me alone, the number one defining characteristic is a large, interesting, dynamic world and a long quest leading through it. All the core KQ games (1-6) have one time characters that come and go, random happenstances, and "dangerous" areas (whether it is a graveyard at night, Manannan's room, or just a spiral staircase you have to climb).
And just as Thom-22 has mentioned, that is the antithesis of a TT game.
I recently played through the first Episode of BttF.... The environments were extremely bland and boring. The town square, where you spend so much time very slowly walking around, has no life to it what so ever. Its flat, the polygons are extremely simple and not interesting at all to look at, there are no dynamic events, and the color palate is boring.
Even "dynamic" scenes like holding into a fast moving car and trying to free Doc quickly reveal themselves to be a simple screen with 3 positions you can slide to, and like 2 objects to interact with.
I also played the first episode of the Walking Dead when it was released, and while they did a much better job of creating atmosphere for the game, it still could be broken down into a formula of:
Main room
1 or 2 small offshoot rooms
Move between them trying to find something usable
Talk to everyone repeatedly
Use one of 3 items you can pick up to solve puzzle
The only addition to The Walking Dead games were the choices... however I am getting the impression that the choices don't make that big of a difference in the end.... Ultimately there is no "right" choice, and considering anyone can beat the game no matter what choices they made... it turns it into more of a "Well, I saved so and so, so they are still in the party and the other guy is dead". Or, 'I trusted so-and-so, so now this other guy doesn't trust me'. Does any of that actually affect the gameplay at all? Not really. In the end, no matter what choice the user makes, we all know they will end up going through the same environments as the guy who made the other choice. TT isn't going to program an entirely different set of events and places for the guy who made choice A, rather choice A and B will lead to the same next stop with different reactions from the survivors. So the one thing that makes the Walking Dead universe intense (the moral quandries), appears to be a simple illusion of choice in the game.
What I do not want is 'the illusion' of a large interesting world to explore. I do not want a town square from BttF that is boring, bland, and serves only to slow me down from walking from location to location. I do not want KQ to be an experience that I simply watch and get to hit a button every so often, like the QTE's in JP and Walking Dead. I do not want the game to present me with inconsequential choices that don't change anything but the supporting cast.
What I do want is a large, detailed, world full of interesting characters, dynamic events, and clever puzzles. What I want, is nostalgia. There a ton of other adventure games I can play if I don't want a KQ game. And with the current resurgences of adventure games, I can find beautiful detailed worlds like in the Whispered World or I can find humor in Tim Schafer's work. I play KQ for what KQ was.
If the game isn't going to be traditional King's Quest, then honestly, they are just using the license to try and get sales with no repsect what-so-ever for the fans of the series.
Why even bother using the license if they are going to shoehorn it into what could have been Sam and Max at the Renaissance Fair?