I enjoyed the Strong Bad games too -- I wasn't familiar with the characters when I started playing the series, but now I have little PVC Homestar Runner figures watching over my desk.
Rather Dashing, Trogdor, and that whole sequence are taken directly out of Peasant's Quest. Pretty much... It's also quite a bit more silly than King's Quest, a complete parody...
Wasn't Trogdor first introduced in a Strong Bad E-Mail?
The poll options are not collectively exhaustive of all/most responses to the question at hand.
No, I don't want the game cancelled, but I am not "open-minded" about it either. I am skeptical and frustratedly calloused toward TTG about it.
Yes, I would rather the series ended with just the 7 core (point-and-click) games.
Yes, I think AGDI/IA would have been truer to the franchise with the finished product than TTG will be, but I think they would also take for-fricken-ever getting around to completing it, even if it was their only project;
so No, I don't think another fan group deserves the license instead.
Your poll is too restrictive about the choice of motivation behind which answer is given, so it is not a properly balanced selection which is why I have not voted.
Also, what I want and what happens are two different things:
I want such a game to be as true to the core series as possible (of which I don't personally include MoE);
I want the developers to realize and implement what aspects of the original games that hardcore fans loved most about them, rather than targeting casual gamers;
I want to know how the project is progressing, since it is currently the only project TTG is (supposedly) working on that I care about whatsoever;
and I want the game to be developed/released in a reasonably timely fashion.
I resent the implication that only "hardcore" fans liked the unique features of Sierra style adventure games. There are plenty of of adventure game fans (enough to pledge hundreds of thousands of dollars to those kickstarters) who aren't so hardcore that they would, say, devote years of their lives to creating faithful point-and-click VGA-style remakes of 16 color parser games. It's not a matter of being a "hardcore" fan of Sierra style adventure games. It's simply being a fan of GOOD point and click adventure games, in any style.
Telltale simply doesn't make good point and click adventure games anymore. Period.
I resent the implication that only "hardcore" fans liked the unique features of Sierra style adventure games. There are plenty of of adventure game fans (enough to pledge hundreds of thousands of dollars to those kickstarters) who aren't so hardcore that they would, say, devote years of their lives to creating faithful point-and-click VGA-style remakes of 16 color parser games. It's not a matter of being a "hardcore" fan of Sierra style adventure games. It's simply being a fan of GOOD point and click adventure games, in any style.
Telltale simply doesn't make good point and click adventure games anymore. Period.
I would have to agree with this. It's not only hardcore fans. Sierra was indeed unique, and I too have a BIG soft spot for the VGA era Sierra games. In truth, Sierra's adventure games are really the ONLY adventure games I like, except for LA's Indy games and Myst. I tried but could never get into other adventure games.
Sierra had an awesome interface, an awesome way of presenting the story and game, the puzzles, etc--No adventure game I've ever played has lived up to Sierra's standard. I
I guess if I were to re-evaluate why I've been so open minded about TT's KQ is because I don't want KQ to stay dead. I love it, and I'm very open minded, so long as a game retains the spirit and atmosphere of the series or retains the magic in some way--even if in a meager way--I'd support it. I guess I'm starved for KQ, who knows?
I've always been very flexible in terms of game formats--I loved KQ7 and KQ8 which strayed from the VGA era formula greatly. And I also do have a liking for the "interactive movie" kind of adventure game--I loved Phantas. To be honest, I love the idea of a KQ game in the interactive movie format (I don't mean live action, but the interactive movie feel) of Phantas so long as it retained the spirit--if it didn't go too dark. My big gripe with BTTF for example was that the world seemed too limited and too repetitive and that the game held you by the hand and that there was too much focus on characters instead of exploration. But the format itself--an interactive movie--could work with KQ, if done right, if the world was still large and interactive, if it was challenging, etc.
The poll options are not collectively exhaustive of all/most responses to the question at hand.
...
Your poll is too restrictive about the choice of motivation behind which answer is given, so it is not a properly balanced selection which is why I have not voted.
Seriously. This isn't a poll; it's a temper tantrum.
There are plenty of posts in this forum wherein people have explained (in sometimes excruciating detail, or maybe that's just my posts LOL) why and how they have arrived with negative feelings toward Telltale making a KQ game. Different mindsets, different starting points, different conclusions.
Read them, and then construct a poll in which there's an honest attempt to devise choices covering the opinions that people actually have rather than paranoid delusions about their motivations. Then you'll have a poll in which people might actually care to place a vote. (Except I think it's already been done, somewhere down the list.)
But the format itself--an interactive movie--could work with KQ, if done right, if the world was still large and interactive, if it was challenging, etc.
In the way I've been using the term, "interactive movie" is mutually exclusive with large (assuming you mean non-linearly large) and challenging. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say "interactive movie".
In the way I've been using the term, "interactive movie" is mutually exclusive with large (assuming you mean non-linearly large) and challenging. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say "interactive movie".
Hmm.
Something sort of like the direction in terms of format that KQ7 was taking things in (I don't mean cartoony graphics or tone) but with a narrator and increased interactivity. Something I suppose like BTTF but much harder with a narrator and the ability to die, with real puzzles, but with the sort of cinematic feel BTTF has. What do you mean by non-linerarly large, in terms of the world?
Sierra/Roberta had always dreamed of KQ and adventure games becoming more and more cinematic, more like a movie where you were the actor, director, and audience all at once. I'd like to find some happy, more modernized, medium between TT's approach, the approach of the VGA era games, and the approach Sierra was taking with games like KQ7 and Phantas. Some perfect combination which is both "modern" yet also traditional enough so as not to piss everyone off. I want to see something NEW done to the genre, in some ways, while not straying too far away from KQ's traditional boundaries.
Hmm.
Something sort of like the direction in terms of format that KQ7 was taking things in (I don't mean cartoony graphics or tone) but with a narrator and increased interactivity. Something I suppose like BTTF but much harder with a narrator and the ability to die, with real puzzles, but with the sort of cinematic feel BTTF has. What do you mean by non-linerarly large, in terms of the world?
The size of the gameworld means little to me if it's nothing but a single corridor. Put a true-to-life model of Route 66 from LA to Chicago in a game and it would be huge, but if it's nothing but the highway there's no real exploration, and that's not an adventure to me. It's hard to see what you're getting at when you explain by reference only: like game x except this, like game y except that.
Sierra/Roberta had always dreamed of KQ and adventure games becoming more and more cinematic, more like a movie where you were the actor, director, and audience all at once.
Well then Telltale has been trying to fulfill Roberta's dream. Except it has resulted in less interactivity, and you keep saying "more". I'm not sure that you can fully reconcile the two, that trying to do both won't automatically result in something less than either. I mean, it's been tried long before Telltale and mostly rejected, as PC Gamer noted in a recent review:
Yes, Jurassic Park: The Game is an unwelcome trip back to the interactive movies of the ’90s, somehow surviving their extermination like one final smallpox virus hiding in a dung beetle’s arse. It’s 3D instead of FMV, but you’re still stuck doing little but hitting keys as they flash on screen and trying to convince yourself you’re in control.
Telltale said during development they wanted JP to be like you were directing a movie. But that's not the movie-related job players ended up with, also accurately depicted by PC Gamer (emphasis added):
You’re the projectionist, your only real job being to keep the film running smoothly until the end credits finally roll.
Presumably Roberta had something different in mind, but it's meaningless without some proof of concept. If you think you know what it is, then explain it in concrete terms.
Telltale's use of the cinematic camera, dialog close-ups, its talent in crafting cut-scenes, staging scripted events etc. are all things I really appreciated about Telltale's adventure games (along with above-average writing). KQ7 did some things along those lines much more than its predecessors, other adventure game developers were doing and continued to do the same, but Telltale really brought a level of quality that I would be happy to see in a King's Quest game.
But those things are just trappings. They can enhance an already good game but they're not a substitute for one. It seems the praise Telltale received for those things went to their head and they began (at least as early as The Devil's Playhouse) emphasizing the trappings and neglecting interactivity. And this was not a failure of execution, it was a deliberate design decision, to make "cinematic adventures" (or what I think are more accurately described as trivially interactive content-delivery systems).
So I don't know if a Sierra-style game with Telltale's trademark cinematic-ness ca. 2008, or at least pre-BTTF, is close to what you mean by a happy medium. It sounds good to me, but they have to get the Sierra-style game part right first! I will remain skeptical, and even negative, until I see some indication that Telltale is willing to do that.
One last quote from PC Gamer, because I can't resist:
Dear interactive movies: Go away, go away, go away. And get eaten by dinosaurs. Thank you very much.
I resent the implication that only "hardcore" fans liked the unique features of Sierra style adventure games.
I was referring to hardcore gamers in contrast to "casual" gamers. Which is to say, games for casual gamers are often extremely low in difficulty and perhaps not very complex either. Compared to hardcore gamers who play games because it is their hobby/passion and so have a higher standard.
EDIT: Although, there may be more of a continuum between "casual" and "hardcore" wherein people may be mostly one but a bit of the other, but I would still consider Dave Grossman's grandmother (as referred to in a different thread) as being a casual gamer (if a gamer at all,) and I don't want her to be the target market for TTG's King's Quest.
I was referring to hardcore gamers in contrast to "casual" gamers. Which is to say, games for casual gamers are often extremely low in difficulty and perhaps not very complex either. Compared to hardcore gamers who play games because it is their hobby/passion and so have a higher standard.
EDIT: Although, there may be more of a continuum between "casual" and "hardcore" wherein people may be mostly one but a bit of the other, but I would still consider Dave Grossman's grandmother (as referred to in a different thread) as being a casual gamer (if a gamer at all,) and I don't want her to be the target market for TTG's King's Quest.
The bolded is ironic. If I recall correctly (Baggins will hopefully set me right on this if not), part of the reason the parser was done away with and simplified to the point and click interface we all love was so that it'd reach computer-illiterate people.
And even then, apparently, Sierra was receiving complaints about the point n' click interface (of KQ5-6) which led to the implementation of the interface in KQ7 and Phantasmagoria. Several years ago, Ken Williams on his forums released for fans a Roberta from December 1992 to Sierra pushing for this sort of single cursor, simplified interface--She did a lot of research into a lot of other adventure games, and compared their interface to Sierra's own--and mentioned her MOTHER'S ability to play (IE, the non-gamer) as an intended audience.
A quote: "On the plus side, Kyrandia's interface is very simple, easy to learn and use. It's easier and more intuitive than Sierra's standard adventure game interface. In fact, it's so easy, even my mother could sit down and start playing this game with essentially no help (my mother is about the most computer illiterate person in the world!). Even though Sierra's interface is labeled "easy to learn", it's really not quite as easy to learn as we think--it took my mother quite a while to get my mother used to the interface in KQV, and even then she never really did seem comfortable (I don't think she could master the more complex interfaces of the first three games at all!)
Why do I keep mentioning my mother, for pete's sake? If she's not computer literate, who cares? But the big question is: are we selling to computer literate people, or computer illiterate people? Two years ago, my answer would have been "computer literate." Now I believe within two years' time it's going to be mostly "computer illiterate". Therefore, if I think that my mother would have trouble with the more complex interfaces of the first three games, but she would be able to easily understand Kyrandia's interface--or some semblance thereof--wouldn't that direction be the way to head?
The size of the gameworld means little to me if it's nothing but a single corridor. Put a true-to-life model of Route 66 from LA to Chicago in a game and it would be huge, but if it's nothing but the highway there's no real exploration, and that's not an adventure to me. It's hard to see what you're getting at when you explain by reference only: like game x except this, like game y except that.
Well then Telltale has been trying to fulfill Roberta's dream. Except it has resulted in less interactivity, and you keep saying "more". I'm not sure that you can fully reconcile the two, that trying to do both won't automatically result in something less than either. I mean, it's been tried long before Telltale and mostly rejected, as PC Gamer noted in a recent review:
Telltale said during development they wanted JP to be like you were directing a movie. But that's not the movie-related job players ended up with, also accurately depicted by PC Gamer (emphasis added):
Presumably Roberta had something different in mind, but it's meaningless without some proof of concept. If you think you know what it is, then explain it in concrete terms.
Telltale's use of the cinematic camera, dialog close-ups, its talent in crafting cut-scenes, staging scripted events etc. are all things I really appreciated about Telltale's adventure games (along with above-average writing). KQ7 did some things along those lines much more than its predecessors, other adventure game developers were doing and continued to do the same, but Telltale really brought a level of quality that I would be happy to see in a King's Quest game.
But those things are just trappings. They can enhance an already good game but they're not a substitute for one. It seems the praise Telltale received for those things went to their head and they began (at least as early as The Devil's Playhouse) emphasizing the trappings and neglecting interactivity. And this was not a failure of execution, it was a deliberate design decision, to make "cinematic adventures" (or what I think are more accurately described as trivially interactive content-delivery systems).
So I don't know if a Sierra-style game with Telltale's trademark cinematic-ness ca. 2008, or at least pre-BTTF, is close to what you mean by a happy medium. It sounds good to me, but they have to get the Sierra-style game part right first! I will remain skeptical, and even negative, until I see some indication that Telltale is willing to do that.
One last quote from PC Gamer, because I can't resist:
You mean the very same PC Gamer that wrote this review?
Just because Telltale didn't get it right with Jurassic Park, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to get it right.
With a franchise that fits with what Telltale wants to do, as The Walking Dead does, it's not really surprising they'd get it right there. It doesn't tell us thing one about whether they can get the Sierra style right.
I have never maintained that it's a question of ability; it's a question of desire, intent, willingness. After all, I have always been enthusiastic and appreciative that Telltale got Sam & Max right, infusing it with their own style in a way that both fit the property and enhanced it.
Interesting, Anakin. I never read that before. Thanks for posting that. It seems that I just plain hate where the game industry is right now. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this as I don't mean it as such, but it is my opinion. Catering to computer-illiterate people has, in my opinion, ruined gaming. At least for me. I rather enjoyed it more when the focus was solely on computer-literate people. Those are the people for which adventure games were made to begin with. It separated the arcade players from the computer users who enjoyed the same level of interactivity but on a different plane altogether. Those are the kind of adventures I've always loved more than any other.
I've honestly never had THAT much respect for Roberta as a game designer, really. A lot of her ideas I've never agreed with, and this is further proof. There were always other people involved with King's Quest, though, and she was never the sole designer of any one game (not anything after KQ2, surely, at least). I mean, she's alright and everything but she's not the adventure designer icon that Ron Gilbert is looked on as, for instance. I don't really tend to reference Roberta when I try to defend my preference in adventure design from King's Quest or Sierra anyway.
But what I said earlier sums it up nicely, in light of what Roberta said in that letter: I'd rather games were made for computer-literate people. Period. That statement speaks volumes about everything in game design from hard puzzles, deaths, dead ends, mazes, gameplay, etc. It's the kind of person that can automatically gravitate and adapt to an interface immediately so much - so that it's not even an issue - and are already engrossed in the game itself without having to get used to anything. These people already have a way of seeing patterns in puzzles and sequences more than the computer-illiterate would. They know how the games work and so things that would constantly annoy the "casual gamer" would be far more forgivable.
I never ever wanted anybody who couldn't "get" adventure games to ever actually play them lol. I'm not saying that people who aren't computer-illiterate can't "get" or even enjoy that type of adventure. But that just means that they were computer-literate and didn't know it. Or at least had a mind to understand and appreciate those types of adventure games, and so they are "inducted" into that group, instead of complaining about how illogical the puzzles were or how obtrusive the interface was, or how confusing the mazes were, etc. That's what adventure games WERE. We're in a world where people want to dilute a game of all frustrations until there's nothing left at all! I submit that it is those frustrations that MAKE an adventure game so enjoyable at the end of the day. It's like the difference between people who understand computer programming and those that just will not get it. Programmers have fun solving problems while non-programmers are just frustrated the entire time that they can't get a simple function right, wishing that there were an "easier way". You can derive a million examples from this. I believe adventures are no different.
Sadly, making games solely (or even mostly) for computer-literate people will probably never ever happen again to any great degree. In that light, it really has been the end of my kind of adventure for quite some time now, no matter how it returns to any great degree. I wish computers would go back to the computer-literate. Which I still have hopes that might happen, once everybody gets a tablet or palm device and throws out their desktops and laptops. But gaming will now forever be for everyone, where once it used to be only to a certain group. I feel a new sense of humility from having been a part of that relatively short era. It's something that will probably never come again.
Interesting, Anakin. I never read that before. Thanks for posting that. It seems that I just plain hate where the game industry is right now. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this as I don't mean it as such, but it is my opinion.
I don't like where the gaming industry is at this point either.
Catering to computer-illiterate people has, in my opinion, ruined gaming. At least for me. I rather enjoyed it more when the focus was solely on computer-literate people. Those are the people for which adventure games were made to begin with. It separated the arcade players from the computer users who enjoyed the same level of interactivity but on a different plane altogether. Those are the kind of adventures I've always loved more than any other.
Agreed again. But here's the thing. The focus was on computer literate people because the majority of the people who owned computers and thus played video games were the computer geeks, the computer literate. In 1984 when KQ1 was released, computers weren't something owned by everybody. As such, they could make games which tailored to the person more dedicated to spending hours solving puzzles, the person with more patience and a less "instant gratification attitude", and still make money. That can't happen today for the most part.
Ever since around the early 1990s, as the larger demographic of people (who aren't as well read, literate or just plain patient as those who bought computers in the '80s were), the main consumer of games have become the "computer illiterate." And sadly gaming is a business, so it's either evolve, keep up, die, or accept being in a niche market (which is kind of a Catch 22. You can't make multi million dollar budget adventure games if your games aren't making millions of dollars). A shooter or RPG is much cheaper to make and earns a lot more. The adventure game market never disappeared; the genre never died--It's just that the core demographic of people who likes adventure games is and has ALWAYS BEEN smaller than the market for more dumbed down games. In 1990, KQ5 became the best selling game of all time after it sold around 500,000 or so copies. It held that title for five years. Today, that number would be peanuts--Nothing.
Also consider that Roberta was a part of Sierra, which by 1992 was a publicly traded company on NASDAQ. You have shareholders to appease, and if you don't please them, if you don't make hits, you fold. Add to this a rapidly changing game industry. It is either move with the market, move ahead of the market, jump on a bandwagon, evolve or die. In some cases, Sierra and Roberta chose to jump on a bandwagon (all of their mid 90s Myst Clones, their educational software, simulation games, etc), in some cases they tried to evolve (with KQ7 and KQ8), in others they tried to jump ahead of the curve (Phantas and their interactive movies). It's change or die, sadly.
IMO, You can't fault Roberta for trying to keep the genre alive, to evolve it, in the face of changing times and changing demographics. You may not like the evolution and that is your right, but the adventure genre was ALWAYS changing. From text games with violence in the games, to the parser games, to VGA, to 3D, etc. Always changing in it's styles, formats, etc. It is only in the 1990s that fans became rigid and would only accept a narrow definition of an "adventure game". I'd rather her attempts at trying to keep adventure games "relevant", than Sierra just callously shutting down all the adventure game groups and sacking everybody like they did under Vivendi in 1999.
I've honestly never had THAT much respect for Roberta as a game designer, really. A lot of her ideas I've never agreed with, and this is further proof. There were always other people involved with King's Quest, though, and she was never the sole designer of any one game (not anything after KQ2, surely, at least). I mean, she's alright and everything but she's not the adventure designer icon that Ron Gilbert is looked on as, for instance. I don't really tend to reference Roberta when I try to defend my preference in adventure design from King's Quest or Sierra anyway.
She was actually the sole designer until KQ6. KQs 1-5 are solely Roberta in terms of design, story and writing. The only reason she deferred to Jane Jensen with VI was because she felt she'd used up all her good ideas with KQ5 and felt tired of the series and wanted to do other things (Scary Tales, an early version of what became Phantasmagoria, and another, aborted project). She shared KQ7 with Lorelei Shannon, who seemed to do what Roberta wanted. She reasserted creative control with KQ8 and had it taken from her because the company was sold. I'd say the only reason she isn't as looked on as Ron Gilbert is is because his career was more prolific and because Roberta has been out of the game and has been pretty much a recluse since 1999. But before that, remember, she was called the "Queen of Adventure Games." She had a stellar reputation, she was a legend. But since 1999 she is a literal non-entity nowadays in the gaming industry. She hasn't even given any interview since 2006, nor has she played a game since 1998. She, along with Scott and Josh were my favorite designers at Sierra.
But what I said earlier sums it up nicely, in light of what Roberta said in that letter: I'd rather games were made for computer-literate people. Period. That statement speaks volumes about everything in game design from hard puzzles, deaths, dead ends, mazes, gameplay, etc. It's the kind of person that can automatically gravitate and adapt to an interface immediately so much - so that it's not even an issue - and are already engrossed in the game itself without having to get used to anything. These people already have a way of seeing patterns in puzzles and sequences more than the computer-illiterate would. They know how the games work and so things that would constantly annoy the "casual gamer" would be far more forgivable.
I never ever wanted anybody who couldn't "get" adventure games to ever actually play them lol. I'm not saying that people who aren't computer-illiterate can't "get" or even enjoy that type of adventure. But that just means that they were computer-literate and didn't know it. Or at least had a mind to understand and appreciate those types of adventure games, and so they are "inducted" into that group, instead of complaining about how illogical the puzzles were or how obtrusive the interface was, or how confusing the mazes were, etc. That's what adventure games WERE. We're in a world where people want to dilute a game of all frustrations until there's nothing left at all! I submit that it is those frustrations that MAKE an adventure game so enjoyable at the end of the day. It's like the difference between people who understand computer programming and those that just will not get it. Programmers have fun solving problems while non-programmers are just frustrated the entire time that they can't get a simple function right, wishing that there were an "easier way". You can derive a million examples from this. I believe adventures are no different.
Sadly, making games solely (or even mostly) for computer-literate people will probably never ever happen again to any great degree. In that light, it really has been the end of my kind of adventure for quite some time now, no matter how it returns to any great degree. I wish computers would go back to the computer-literate. Which I still have hopes that might happen, once everybody gets a tablet or palm device and throws out their desktops and laptops. But gaming will now forever be for everyone, where once it used to be only to a certain group. I feel a new sense of humility from having been a part of that relatively short era. It's something that will probably never come again.
I agree with you completely, but market place realities are market place realities. It is sad--and unlike you I never got to experience that era as you did.
There is a quote from Roberta, about the dumbing down of games, you might agree with, this is from 1999:
"Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one. There's also the influence of the game consoles as well. So most of these people have gotten used to shoot-em' up kind of games on the consoles. Now they want to get that kind of experience on their computers.
Does this mean that the original crowd still isn't there? Probably not, however, there are much fewer of them. And the numbers for a good selling computer game are much harder to reach now. Something that sold 300,000 copies then, would be a lame selling game today. The other side of it is that adventure games, to do them right, probably have some of the highest production costs around. It doesn't appear that in today's world, that our demographics will change anytime soon. Now I do think that there is some hope on the internet. It's my feeling that a lot of people who were in love with their computers, are now hanging out online.."
And on KQ8, btw:
"When discussing the transition from 2D to 3D for King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity, I can only say that we were on to the right idea of switching to 3D. However, the implementation was not exactly correct. In 20/20 hindsight, I would have omitted the RPG (role-playing) aspects and would have stuck with more traditional adventure game elements. I would have thought more in terms of physical puzzles that could be done better in 3D than in 2D, but, still, I wouldn't have changed the game so dramatically just because I was switching from 2D to 3D. But, what do they say about 20/20 hindsight?"
And on adventure games:
....I have to say that my definition of an adventure game is really an interactive story set with puzzles and obstacles to solve and worlds to explore. I believe that the 'true' adventure game genre will never die any more than any type of storytelling would ever die. Sometimes, I think that something 'new' may come along for awhile and take away attention from longer, story-oriented genres, like movies took attention away from books for awhile, and TV took attention away from movies for awhile. Things like that. One thing that I always like to say is that, for awhile, it looked like book reading was dead (especially for young people), but Harry Potter proved that one wrong! And then there's the Da Vinci Code. I remember in the 60s and the 70s, TV watching was really big and movie going was less important than it had been in decades prior. But, in the 80s and 90s, movie going bounced back big time and TV sank a bit. These things go in phases, but a good story never dies. An adventure game is really nothing more than a good story set with engaging puzzles that fit seamlessly in with the story and the characters, and looks and sounds beautiful. I do not think there is a need to try and make it 'multi-player' or any of those things. It just takes a good adventure game designer (someone who knows and understands how to write a game play 'script' in an interactive way), with a game company that will 'go out on a ledge' and support that designer and give them the desired tools to create such a game, and I think that, as in the 'olden' days of the 80s and 90s, adventure games would be as popular as ever, if not more so. I think that Ken is right when he says that there is too much of the same thing and not much creativity put into today's computer games because the game publishers and marketers are too afraid to go there, and so, are actually restricting creativity. There is no doubt in my mind that given the right designer with the proper amount of budget and support from a top game publisher, an adventure game of the highest standards would set the computer game world on fire. One day, it will happen.
Yes, you basically just repeated with everything you said the whole point I was trying to get across. I know all of that. I said all of that.
As for Roberta, I know everything up to 5 was her idea, but that doesn't mean she was the only one putting it all together on her own. I seriously doubt that. Maybe in the AGI days, but probably not for KQ4 and certainly not for KQ5. I'm talking gameplay and puzzle design here, not story and dialogue writing. Either way, King's Quest wasn't my favourite Sierra series anyway. Space Quest was always better.
Yes, you basically just repeated with everything you said the whole point I was trying to get across. I know all of that. I said all of that.
As for Roberta, I know everything up to 5 was her idea, but that doesn't mean she was the only one putting it all together on her own. I seriously doubt that. Maybe in the AGI days, but probably not for KQ4 and certainly not for KQ5. I'm talking gameplay and puzzle design here, not story and dialogue writing. Either way, King's Quest wasn't my favourite Sierra series anyway. Space Quest was always better.
Well, I'm glad we agree.....
On Roberta:
On KQ3, she is given sole credit as designer.
On KQ4, she is given sole credit as designer and writer.
On KQ5, she is listed as sole designer and producer.
Only on KQ6 did it begin where she shared creative duties and it was always clearly listed. And it has always been maintained that she was given more leeway and creative control than other Sierra designers. She also said she began her design documents by writing the puzzles, and then designing the story around the puzzles and the gameplay, working outward to the story. The games for her were CENTERED around the puzzles. The story came last. So I think it's safe to say that she was indeed responsible for KQ1-5. Plus given the leeway she had, she had complete creative control over the other aspects--Meaning she could veto any scene or art design, she'd probably go over any art design or musical piece, etc. I mean let's give credit where it is due--She did pioneer the genre greatly.
Was the SQ series better written? Yes, in large measure, I'd say, more cohesively written, etc. Wittier, cleverer, less random. More focused. But it also had the benefit of picking up on the formats begun by Roberta. Like with SQ6. All of the bugs--animation wise--which plagued KQ7 were generally tweaked by the time SQ6 came out--Because KQ7 acted as the test ground for the new technology and design styles, which other Sierra adventure games would implement.
I love all of the Quest series, except for LSL and Police Quest. Gabriel Knight has never been quite my cup of tea. We all have our favorites, though, and for me, I'll always admire Roberta Williams more than the rest--I'll always love KQ just a bit more than SQ.
"When discussing the transition from 2D to 3D for King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity, I can only say that we were on to the right idea of switching to 3D. However, the implementation was not exactly correct. In 20/20 hindsight, I would have omitted the RPG (role-playing) aspects and would have stuck with more traditional adventure game elements. I would have thought more in terms of physical puzzles that could be done better in 3D than in 2D, but, still, I wouldn't have changed the game so dramatically just because I was switching from 2D to 3D. But, what do they say about 20/20 hindsight?"
Keep in mind this quote is from 2006 or so. The first time her 'hindsight' kicked in!
Up to 2003 (at least up to the interviews up to that time that I've read), she was heavily defending her choice to add the "RPG" content! LOL.
I love all of the Quest series, except for LSL and Police Quest. Gabriel Knight has never been quite my cup of tea. We all have our favorites, though, and for me, I'll always admire Roberta Williams more than the rest--I'll always love KQ just a bit more than SQ.
I have my reservations about LSL, but man Police Quest especially the first three were great (I prefer the original over the remake for PQ1)... Ya they were procedural, but they had the quirky Quest series humor of most of the Sierra Quest games... Puns when died etc. Injokes to other Sierra quest games! King Graham is referenced in both PQ1 and PQ2... It was a nice blend of serious and silly!
PQ4 on the other hand lost alot of that... It was far too serious... No sense of connection to earlier PQ titles... It felt like a totally different franchise...
I'll always admire Roberta Williams more than the rest--I'll always love KQ just a bit more than SQ.
I have a hard time picking between SQ and KQ as my favorite quest series. I love each one equally... I think I used to like SQ a little more than KQ because the plotlines were more cohesively linked together. I.E. returning characters the norm, similar to Monkey Island.
On the other hand, after I got access to the wide world of King's Quest expanded universe (I had the KQ6 hintbook when that game came out, I read the three novels when they were released as well), but especially after picking up my first copy of King's Quest Companion back in the mid-2000s (that was the 3rd edition btw), I gained a better respect for the world that makes up KQ as a whole. Some of these second party authors brought a sense of depth and life to the KQ series, that the main series was lacking by itself. Backhistories for characters, lands, and even items!
While I picked up the other expanded material for SQ, QFG, Gabriel Knight, and PQ even, none of them reached the quality of the KQ related material! As far as the sense of scope, boing beyond the games!
You can't trust the credits given to the designers on the game boxes. Josh Mandel has long since exposed that Sierra had a "star/celebrity" designer PR system where they advertised someone as the lead and sole designer even if they had next to nothing to do with it, to appeal to the fanbase and sell more copies. Space Quest 6, for instance, doesn't mention Josh Mandel anywhere and gives Scott Murphy all the credit when he only finished it up towards the end after Josh left the company. Josh also designed most of Freddy Pharkas, as I understand it, and also Laura Bow 2. Yet those games are credited solely to Al Lowe and Roberta Williams respectively. Of course Roberta veto-ed everything on her games. She conceived and created King's Quest, after all. But that doesn't mean she came up with everything.
Also, I don't necessarily mean that SQ was better written, even though I may consider that true. I just mean that the Space Quest series as a whole is, in my opinion, better than the King's Quest series. In every aspect of design. Atmosphere, puzzle design, characterization, creativity, dialogue, humour (obviously), background art, music, etc. I consider all aspects, not just writing.
You can't trust the credits given to the designers on the game boxes. Josh Mandel has long since exposed that Sierra had a "star/celebrity" designer PR system where they advertised someone as the lead and sole designer even if they had next to nothing to do with it, to appeal to the fanbase and sell more copies. Space Quest 6, for instance, doesn't mention Josh Mandel anywhere and gives Scott Murphy all the credit when he only finished it up towards the end after Josh left the company. Josh also designed most of Freddy Pharkas, as I understand it, and also Laura Bow 2. Yet those games are credited solely to Al Lowe and Roberta Williams respectively. Of course Roberta veto-ed everything on her games. She conceived and created King's Quest, after all. But that doesn't mean she came up with everything.
Also, I don't necessarily mean that SQ was better written, even though I may consider that true. I just mean that the Space Quest series as a whole is, in my opinion, better than the King's Quest series. In every aspect of design. Atmosphere, puzzle design, characterization, creativity, dialogue, humour (obviously), background art, music, etc. I consider all aspects, not just writing.
By the same token, couldn't Scott and Mark have had a lot of help which was not credited? It seems like you're trying to make Roberta out to be George Lucas--a fraud, a hack who got more credit than he was due. The fact is, when she didn't have a leading creative role, it was credited as such. For example, Jane Jensen wrote the dialogue and text for KQ6--And is credited as such. If it was all about advertising, the fact that Jane wrote the bulk of KQ6 wouldn't have been let out. Lorelei Shannon wrote the entire script for KQ7, with Roberta only contributing the story, characters and design ideas--and is credited as such. Once again, if Roberta had outside help, she gave credit. She is also listed last on the list of the three directors of KQ7.
I'm not talking about credits listed on game boxes or in advertising. I'm talking about credits given in the game's credits themselves.
Also, with Josh Mandel and Scott it seems that Josh's name being excluded from SQ6's advertising was out of spite as he quit the company leaving them with an unfinished game. Oddly though, the Holiday '94 issue of InterAction talks about SQ6 and has Scott and Josh heavily talked about as co-designers. That Josh was the new "Guy from Andromeda" alongside Scott.
Also while Josh's name was kept out of the advertising, he was given credit in the game's credits. I just watched the end of a longplay to confirm it. It says:
Designed by Josh Mandel
Scott Murphy
Advertising is one thing. What really counts are the credits in the games themselves.
Laura Bow 2. Yet those games are credited solely to Al Lowe and Roberta Williams respectively. Of course Roberta veto-ed everything on her games. She conceived and created King's Quest, after all. But that doesn't mean she came up with everything.
One mystery is who was behind this bit of script in the KQ2 files
"She is even more lovely than she appeared in the mirror. Her long auburn hair tumbles down to cover her large firm breasts. Her erect nipples are one of the indications that her warm thighs would welcome your tender kisses."
Actually, most of the design interviews suggest that Roberta Williams wrote the text in KQ2 (just not the manual).
Although that bit sounds something more like Al Lowe would have done in LSL. He was just the musician for the game and writer of the KQ2 hintbook. IIRC, it was his work on KQ2 music that led to him getting the right to produce the first LSL!
As for the credits (the ones for the later games in the series are not necessarily complete);
King's Quest I Credits
King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown
AGI Version
Designed & Written by Roberta Williams
Original Version Charles Tingley Ken MacNeill Chris Iden
New Version Jeff Stephenson Sol Ackerman Chris Iden
Graphics Doug MacNeill Greg Rowland
Thanks to Linda Ackerman Mark Crowe Robert Heitman Scott Murphy
Documentation Roberta Williams
King's Quest I Sci Credits
SCI Version
Game Designer Roberta Williams
Producer Josh Mandel
Art Designer William D. Skirvin
Illustrated by Jeff Crowe Cindy Walker Jennifer Shontz
Programmed by Jerry Shaw, Gary Kamigawachi, Randy MacNeill, Raoul Said, Chad Bye, Oliver Brelsford, Mark Wilden
Development System Jeff Stephenson, Robert E. Heitman, Pablo Ghenis, John Hartin, Dan Foy, Larry Scott, John Rettig, Corinna Abdul Corey Cole, Mark Hood, Eric Hart
Composer Ken Allen
Quality Assurance Chris Carr and the rest of the gang
King's Quest II Credits
King's Quest II: Romancing the Throne
Designed & Written by Roberta Williams
Development System Jeff Stephenson Chris Iden Robert Heitman
Game Logic Ken Williams Sol Ackerman Chris Iden Scott Murphy Dale Carlson
Graphics Doug MacNeill Mark Crowe
Documenation Annette Childs
Music Al Lowe
King's Quest III Credits
King's Quest III: To Heir is Human
Written & Designed by Roberta Williams
Programming Al Lowe Bob Heitman Bob Kernaghan
Graphics Doug MacNeill Mark Crowe
Music Margaret Lowe
Story Annette Childs
Documentation Annette Childs
King's Quest IV Credits
King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella
Written & Designed by Roberta Williams
Game Development System Jeff Stephenson Robert Heitman Pablo Ghenis Chris Iden Paul Krasno
Music Development System Stuart Goldstein
Programming Ken Koch John Hamilton Chane Fullmer Chris Hoyt Teresa Baker
Animation & Background Scenes Carolly Hauksdottir William Skirvin Jerry Moore
Documentation Jerry Albright
King's Quest V Credits
King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder
Executive Producer Ken Williams
Creative Director Bill Davis
Game Designer & Producer Roberta Williams
Art Designer Andy Hoyos
Lead Programmer Chris Iden
Composers Mark Seibert Ken Allen
Documentation Bridget McKenna
Creative Consultant William D. Skirvin
Artists Ernie Chan, Douglas Herring, Jeff Crowe, William D. Skirvin, Maurice Morgan, Vas Nokhoudian, Barry T. Smith, Cindy Walker, Deena Benz, Tamra Dayton, Dana Dean, Roger Hardy Jr., Harry McLaughlin, Jennifer Shontz, Deanna Yhalkee, Jim Larson, Cheryl Loyd, Jerry Moore, Cheryl Sweeney, Eric Kasner, Hector Martinez, Richard D. Zeigler-Martin
Programmers Chris Iden, Chris Hoyt, Robert W. Lindsley, Raoul Said, Doug Oldfield, Carlos Escobar, Oliver Brelsford
Development System Jeff Stephenson, Robert E. Heitman, Pablo Ghenis, Corey Cole, Dan Foy, John Rettig, John Hartin, Larry Scott, Eric Hart, J. Mark Hood
Music/Sound Effects Mark Seibert Ken Allen
King's Quest VI Credits
King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Written, Designed, & Directed by Roberta Williams Jane Jensen
Producer, Director, & Art Designer William D. Skirvin
Composer Chris Braymen
Text & Dialogue Jane Jensen
Senior Artists Michael Hutchison John Shroades
Team Artists Russell Truelove Deanna Yhalkee
Senior Programmer Robert W. Lindsley
Team Programmers Randy MacNeill Robert L. Mallory Victor Sadauskas
Team Quality Assurance Robin Bradley
Guidebook Writer Jane Jensen
Guidebook Illustration John Shroades
Guidebook Designer Mark Empey
Additional Artists Darlou Gams, Tim Loucks, Rick Morgan, Jennifer Shontz, Cindy Walker, Karin A. Young
Opening Cartoon by Kronos: Stanley Liu, Albert Co
Cinematography Rod Fung Bob Ballew
Additional Music & Sound Effects Dan Kehler, Mark Seibert, Rick Spurgeon, Nightingale Songs
Additional Programmers Doug Oldfield Carlos Escobar
Additional Quality Assurance Mike Brosius John Ratcliffe
Technical Support Rob Koeppel
Special Thanks Tammy Dargan Rebecca Sebastian Fresno State University
King's Quest VII credits
Designed by Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Written by Lorelei Shannon
Script by Lorelei Shannon
Story by Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Based on original characters created by Roberta Williams
Directors Andy Hoyos, Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Producer Mark Seibert
Art Director Andy Hoyos
Director of Animation Marc Hudgins
Lead Programmers Oliver Brelsford, Tom DeSalvo
Musicians Neal Grandstaf, Dan Kehler, Mark Seibert, Jay Usher
Voice Director (Voice Casting and Direction) Lorelei Shannon
Quality Assurance Lead Dan Woolard
In-House Animation - Chapter 6 Steven Gregory, Sherry Wheeler, Jason Zayas
King's Quest 8 credits
Credits Team Mask
Designer/Writer Roberta Williams
Producer/Director/Co-Designer Mark Seibert
Art Director Jason Piel
Animation Director Jason Zayas
Programmers Adam Szofran Alan Clark David Wenger Jeff Orkin Jeff Pobst Jim Edwards John McKinnie Scott Bodenbender 3D Artists Barry Sundt Bob Munsil William Todd Bryan
Animators Ethan Walker John Piel Marc Vulcano Ray Bornstein
Quality Assurance Lead Jennifer Keenan
Sound FX & Additional Music Ben Houge
Additional help from: Al Eufrasio John Shroades Layne Gifford Mark Martino Mikhail Agadzhanov Rob Kenny Steve Conrad William O’Brien
Additional Credits
Voice Director Roberta Williams Mark Seibert
Voice Casting Roberta Williams Mark Seibert
Voice Auditions VoiceCaster Burbank, CA
Voice Recording Hollywood Recording Services
Voice Recording Engineer Mark Howlett
DREAMS Software Specialist Ben Houge
Original Music Composed & Performed By Kevin Manthei Ben Houge Mark Seibert
Opening, Closing and Flight to Temple Movies Digital Post Graphics Seattle, WA 39
Packaging Dan Amdur Jim Veevert
Documentation Mark Seibert Cheryl Sweeney Roberta Williams
Quality Assurance Manager: Gary Stevens
Assistant Manager: Ken Eaton
Lead: Bernadette Pryor
Engineer: Erinn Hamilton
PC Technician: Pat Callahan
Compatibility: Byron Hummel
Analysts: Ishmael Burns, Julie Bazuzi, Marc Nagel, Kate Powell, Noel Prude
Beta Testers Kate Ashley, Chris Canavan, Alan Chan, Lars Christen, Robert Glover, Mark Goodman, Chris Kateff, Geoff Keighley, Noah Koontz, Linda Lindley, Wes Litt, Tom Marley, Sherry Marshall, Steve Martin, Jeff Miller, Michael O’Brien, Michael Piontek, Della Rodgers, Mike Shavelson, Charles Solen, Corey Vanderlaan, Robin Ward, Stuart Young Special Thanks To Mark Hood, Scott Lynch, Jim Murphy, Zippy the Incredibly Inflatable Spitting Wonder Llama, The World Famous Talking Bear, --and all the moms, dads, husbands, wives, girlfriends, boy friends, & significant others without whom this game would have been completed months earlier.
No to fan groups getting the game.... no more black cloak conspiracies, thank you.
No to cancelling... Having another KQ to play should be fun or at least entertaining (if it turns out to be more like a movie than a game)... Even if it pales to the originals...
I don't get the 'stay dead' mentality. It shouldn't matter what comes out to those crowd, because it should still be considered 'dead' to them if the new one doesn't turn out the way they want it... they still have the old ones to play.
Agreed with the fan notion. As much as I am grateful for the fans to revive the KQ series, the games aren't as good as the SQ fan games. I think it is harder for fans to do a fan KQ game as oppose to an SQ one since the KQ fans do not grasp the tone of the official KQ games. The fan games aren't as good since they could not balance the serious dark aspects of the KQ elements with the light-hearted elements - the fan games tend to be too dark.
I think what makes KQ KQ are the light hearted elements. If a fan group approaches the series like a satrical fairy tale story like Shrek, it would be more in line with the KQ games. The SQ fans get SQ since I believe SQ stayed mostly consistent throughout its original run despite its change in humor in part 5 and 6.
I'm curious, how do you feel about IA's KQ3 remake (as opposed to AGDI's KQ3Redux)?
I actually like it since it stayed faithful to the original game. However, I didn't like the sprites and character animation for Alexander. I understand that the game is getting a major face lift with a better Alexander sprite in version 3. Strangely enough, I also like the AGDI version; I like the added journal subplot, though the Father reference was a bit of a turnoff - I understand why they added him in the AGDI remake. I thought the Medusa subplot was a bit silly - I understand why they added it, however.
When I meant KQ fangames, I meant TSL and AGDI's KQ 2 - the games that tried to rewrite the KQ mythology. The three other remakes are good, however.
Making new KQ fangames is fine as long as the games try to stay faithful to the original source. Not kissing butt (I know that you are part of the IA team,) but I like how IA handles the fangames since the team compliments the original source as oppose to retconning it. I think creating a Kingdom of Sorrow game based on the novel is a great idea since I assume it would stay faithful to the original source material.
I was talking to Baggins via PM on why I think the SQ fangames are better than the KQ fangames. I believe the SQ fangames are better because for the most part, they compliment the existing SQ canon. TSL and the second AGDI KQ games, on the other hand, tries to rewrite the game's mythos.
I actually like it since it stayed faithful to the original game. However, I didn't like the sprites and character animation for Alexander. I understand that the game is getting a major face lift with a better Alexander sprite in version 3. Strangely enough, I also like the AGDI version; I like the added journal subplot, though the Father reference was a bit of a turnoff - I understand why they added him in the AGDI remake. I thought the Medusa subplot was a bit silly - I understand why they added it, however.
When I meant KQ fangames, I meant TSL and AGDI's KQ 2 - the games that tried to rewrite the KQ mythology. The three other remakes are good, however.
Making new KQ fangames is fine as long as the games try to stay faithful to the original source. Not kissing butt (I know that you are part of the IA team,) but I like how IA handles the fangames since the team compliments the original source as oppose to retconning it. I think creating a Kingdom of Sorrow game based on the novel is a great idea since I assume it would stay faithful to the original source material.
The only thing I thought was weird in KQ2 AGDI was the changing how certain characters acted (shopkeeper,red riding hood, dracula). Still liked how it worked out though.
It looks active. but it also looks like they have only two people working on it.. I personally want SOMEONE to do a decent talkie version of 4... I hope they dont get burnt out and see it through.
Personally I actually like the look of the early 16 color SCI games... To the point that I don't really care about remakes. I'd probably play a fan remake just to give it a try. But I'd go back to the original.
I prefer the original QFG2 for example. The original is less 'complicated', and easier to level, combat is easier, etc. There is less excess to wade through... The parser worked better...
But seriously if all the teams that have ever worked in a KQ4 remake got together, and combined their talents, they probably could have gotten a remake done this decade... Seriously this is like the 3rd or 4th group claiming to be making a remake?
It looks active. but it also looks like they have only two people working on it.. I personally want SOMEONE to do a decent talkie version of 4... I hope they dont get burnt out and see it through.
Yeah. They seem to at least be as far along as Magic Mirror Games is (whose website is back up again.)
Comments
Wasn't Trogdor first introduced in a Strong Bad E-Mail?
Sure was.
Your poll is too restrictive about the choice of motivation behind which answer is given, so it is not a properly balanced selection which is why I have not voted.
Also, what I want and what happens are two different things:
Telltale simply doesn't make good point and click adventure games anymore. Period.
I would have to agree with this. It's not only hardcore fans. Sierra was indeed unique, and I too have a BIG soft spot for the VGA era Sierra games. In truth, Sierra's adventure games are really the ONLY adventure games I like, except for LA's Indy games and Myst. I tried but could never get into other adventure games.
Sierra had an awesome interface, an awesome way of presenting the story and game, the puzzles, etc--No adventure game I've ever played has lived up to Sierra's standard. I
I guess if I were to re-evaluate why I've been so open minded about TT's KQ is because I don't want KQ to stay dead. I love it, and I'm very open minded, so long as a game retains the spirit and atmosphere of the series or retains the magic in some way--even if in a meager way--I'd support it. I guess I'm starved for KQ, who knows?
I've always been very flexible in terms of game formats--I loved KQ7 and KQ8 which strayed from the VGA era formula greatly. And I also do have a liking for the "interactive movie" kind of adventure game--I loved Phantas. To be honest, I love the idea of a KQ game in the interactive movie format (I don't mean live action, but the interactive movie feel) of Phantas so long as it retained the spirit--if it didn't go too dark. My big gripe with BTTF for example was that the world seemed too limited and too repetitive and that the game held you by the hand and that there was too much focus on characters instead of exploration. But the format itself--an interactive movie--could work with KQ, if done right, if the world was still large and interactive, if it was challenging, etc.
Seriously. This isn't a poll; it's a temper tantrum.
There are plenty of posts in this forum wherein people have explained (in sometimes excruciating detail, or maybe that's just my posts LOL) why and how they have arrived with negative feelings toward Telltale making a KQ game. Different mindsets, different starting points, different conclusions.
Read them, and then construct a poll in which there's an honest attempt to devise choices covering the opinions that people actually have rather than paranoid delusions about their motivations. Then you'll have a poll in which people might actually care to place a vote. (Except I think it's already been done, somewhere down the list.)
In the way I've been using the term, "interactive movie" is mutually exclusive with large (assuming you mean non-linearly large) and challenging. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say "interactive movie".
Hmm.
Something sort of like the direction in terms of format that KQ7 was taking things in (I don't mean cartoony graphics or tone) but with a narrator and increased interactivity. Something I suppose like BTTF but much harder with a narrator and the ability to die, with real puzzles, but with the sort of cinematic feel BTTF has. What do you mean by non-linerarly large, in terms of the world?
Sierra/Roberta had always dreamed of KQ and adventure games becoming more and more cinematic, more like a movie where you were the actor, director, and audience all at once. I'd like to find some happy, more modernized, medium between TT's approach, the approach of the VGA era games, and the approach Sierra was taking with games like KQ7 and Phantas. Some perfect combination which is both "modern" yet also traditional enough so as not to piss everyone off. I want to see something NEW done to the genre, in some ways, while not straying too far away from KQ's traditional boundaries.
The size of the gameworld means little to me if it's nothing but a single corridor. Put a true-to-life model of Route 66 from LA to Chicago in a game and it would be huge, but if it's nothing but the highway there's no real exploration, and that's not an adventure to me. It's hard to see what you're getting at when you explain by reference only: like game x except this, like game y except that.
Well then Telltale has been trying to fulfill Roberta's dream. Except it has resulted in less interactivity, and you keep saying "more". I'm not sure that you can fully reconcile the two, that trying to do both won't automatically result in something less than either. I mean, it's been tried long before Telltale and mostly rejected, as PC Gamer noted in a recent review:
Telltale said during development they wanted JP to be like you were directing a movie. But that's not the movie-related job players ended up with, also accurately depicted by PC Gamer (emphasis added):
Presumably Roberta had something different in mind, but it's meaningless without some proof of concept. If you think you know what it is, then explain it in concrete terms.
Telltale's use of the cinematic camera, dialog close-ups, its talent in crafting cut-scenes, staging scripted events etc. are all things I really appreciated about Telltale's adventure games (along with above-average writing). KQ7 did some things along those lines much more than its predecessors, other adventure game developers were doing and continued to do the same, but Telltale really brought a level of quality that I would be happy to see in a King's Quest game.
But those things are just trappings. They can enhance an already good game but they're not a substitute for one. It seems the praise Telltale received for those things went to their head and they began (at least as early as The Devil's Playhouse) emphasizing the trappings and neglecting interactivity. And this was not a failure of execution, it was a deliberate design decision, to make "cinematic adventures" (or what I think are more accurately described as trivially interactive content-delivery systems).
So I don't know if a Sierra-style game with Telltale's trademark cinematic-ness ca. 2008, or at least pre-BTTF, is close to what you mean by a happy medium. It sounds good to me, but they have to get the Sierra-style game part right first! I will remain skeptical, and even negative, until I see some indication that Telltale is willing to do that.
One last quote from PC Gamer, because I can't resist:
I was referring to hardcore gamers in contrast to "casual" gamers. Which is to say, games for casual gamers are often extremely low in difficulty and perhaps not very complex either. Compared to hardcore gamers who play games because it is their hobby/passion and so have a higher standard.
EDIT: Although, there may be more of a continuum between "casual" and "hardcore" wherein people may be mostly one but a bit of the other, but I would still consider Dave Grossman's grandmother (as referred to in a different thread) as being a casual gamer (if a gamer at all,) and I don't want her to be the target market for TTG's King's Quest.
The bolded is ironic. If I recall correctly (Baggins will hopefully set me right on this if not), part of the reason the parser was done away with and simplified to the point and click interface we all love was so that it'd reach computer-illiterate people.
And even then, apparently, Sierra was receiving complaints about the point n' click interface (of KQ5-6) which led to the implementation of the interface in KQ7 and Phantasmagoria. Several years ago, Ken Williams on his forums released for fans a Roberta from December 1992 to Sierra pushing for this sort of single cursor, simplified interface--She did a lot of research into a lot of other adventure games, and compared their interface to Sierra's own--and mentioned her MOTHER'S ability to play (IE, the non-gamer) as an intended audience.
A quote: "On the plus side, Kyrandia's interface is very simple, easy to learn and use. It's easier and more intuitive than Sierra's standard adventure game interface. In fact, it's so easy, even my mother could sit down and start playing this game with essentially no help (my mother is about the most computer illiterate person in the world!). Even though Sierra's interface is labeled "easy to learn", it's really not quite as easy to learn as we think--it took my mother quite a while to get my mother used to the interface in KQV, and even then she never really did seem comfortable (I don't think she could master the more complex interfaces of the first three games at all!)
Why do I keep mentioning my mother, for pete's sake? If she's not computer literate, who cares? But the big question is: are we selling to computer literate people, or computer illiterate people? Two years ago, my answer would have been "computer literate." Now I believe within two years' time it's going to be mostly "computer illiterate". Therefore, if I think that my mother would have trouble with the more complex interfaces of the first three games, but she would be able to easily understand Kyrandia's interface--or some semblance thereof--wouldn't that direction be the way to head?
You mean the very same PC Gamer that wrote this review?
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/the-walking-dead-game-review/
Just because Telltale didn't get it right with Jurassic Park, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to get it right.
With a franchise that fits with what Telltale wants to do, as The Walking Dead does, it's not really surprising they'd get it right there. It doesn't tell us thing one about whether they can get the Sierra style right.
I have never maintained that it's a question of ability; it's a question of desire, intent, willingness. After all, I have always been enthusiastic and appreciative that Telltale got Sam & Max right, infusing it with their own style in a way that both fit the property and enhanced it.
I've honestly never had THAT much respect for Roberta as a game designer, really. A lot of her ideas I've never agreed with, and this is further proof. There were always other people involved with King's Quest, though, and she was never the sole designer of any one game (not anything after KQ2, surely, at least). I mean, she's alright and everything but she's not the adventure designer icon that Ron Gilbert is looked on as, for instance. I don't really tend to reference Roberta when I try to defend my preference in adventure design from King's Quest or Sierra anyway.
But what I said earlier sums it up nicely, in light of what Roberta said in that letter: I'd rather games were made for computer-literate people. Period. That statement speaks volumes about everything in game design from hard puzzles, deaths, dead ends, mazes, gameplay, etc. It's the kind of person that can automatically gravitate and adapt to an interface immediately so much - so that it's not even an issue - and are already engrossed in the game itself without having to get used to anything. These people already have a way of seeing patterns in puzzles and sequences more than the computer-illiterate would. They know how the games work and so things that would constantly annoy the "casual gamer" would be far more forgivable.
I never ever wanted anybody who couldn't "get" adventure games to ever actually play them lol. I'm not saying that people who aren't computer-illiterate can't "get" or even enjoy that type of adventure. But that just means that they were computer-literate and didn't know it. Or at least had a mind to understand and appreciate those types of adventure games, and so they are "inducted" into that group, instead of complaining about how illogical the puzzles were or how obtrusive the interface was, or how confusing the mazes were, etc. That's what adventure games WERE. We're in a world where people want to dilute a game of all frustrations until there's nothing left at all! I submit that it is those frustrations that MAKE an adventure game so enjoyable at the end of the day. It's like the difference between people who understand computer programming and those that just will not get it. Programmers have fun solving problems while non-programmers are just frustrated the entire time that they can't get a simple function right, wishing that there were an "easier way". You can derive a million examples from this. I believe adventures are no different.
Sadly, making games solely (or even mostly) for computer-literate people will probably never ever happen again to any great degree. In that light, it really has been the end of my kind of adventure for quite some time now, no matter how it returns to any great degree. I wish computers would go back to the computer-literate. Which I still have hopes that might happen, once everybody gets a tablet or palm device and throws out their desktops and laptops. But gaming will now forever be for everyone, where once it used to be only to a certain group. I feel a new sense of humility from having been a part of that relatively short era. It's something that will probably never come again.
I don't like where the gaming industry is at this point either.
Agreed again. But here's the thing. The focus was on computer literate people because the majority of the people who owned computers and thus played video games were the computer geeks, the computer literate. In 1984 when KQ1 was released, computers weren't something owned by everybody. As such, they could make games which tailored to the person more dedicated to spending hours solving puzzles, the person with more patience and a less "instant gratification attitude", and still make money. That can't happen today for the most part.
Ever since around the early 1990s, as the larger demographic of people (who aren't as well read, literate or just plain patient as those who bought computers in the '80s were), the main consumer of games have become the "computer illiterate." And sadly gaming is a business, so it's either evolve, keep up, die, or accept being in a niche market (which is kind of a Catch 22. You can't make multi million dollar budget adventure games if your games aren't making millions of dollars). A shooter or RPG is much cheaper to make and earns a lot more. The adventure game market never disappeared; the genre never died--It's just that the core demographic of people who likes adventure games is and has ALWAYS BEEN smaller than the market for more dumbed down games. In 1990, KQ5 became the best selling game of all time after it sold around 500,000 or so copies. It held that title for five years. Today, that number would be peanuts--Nothing.
Also consider that Roberta was a part of Sierra, which by 1992 was a publicly traded company on NASDAQ. You have shareholders to appease, and if you don't please them, if you don't make hits, you fold. Add to this a rapidly changing game industry. It is either move with the market, move ahead of the market, jump on a bandwagon, evolve or die. In some cases, Sierra and Roberta chose to jump on a bandwagon (all of their mid 90s Myst Clones, their educational software, simulation games, etc), in some cases they tried to evolve (with KQ7 and KQ8), in others they tried to jump ahead of the curve (Phantas and their interactive movies). It's change or die, sadly.
IMO, You can't fault Roberta for trying to keep the genre alive, to evolve it, in the face of changing times and changing demographics. You may not like the evolution and that is your right, but the adventure genre was ALWAYS changing. From text games with violence in the games, to the parser games, to VGA, to 3D, etc. Always changing in it's styles, formats, etc. It is only in the 1990s that fans became rigid and would only accept a narrow definition of an "adventure game". I'd rather her attempts at trying to keep adventure games "relevant", than Sierra just callously shutting down all the adventure game groups and sacking everybody like they did under Vivendi in 1999.
She was actually the sole designer until KQ6. KQs 1-5 are solely Roberta in terms of design, story and writing. The only reason she deferred to Jane Jensen with VI was because she felt she'd used up all her good ideas with KQ5 and felt tired of the series and wanted to do other things (Scary Tales, an early version of what became Phantasmagoria, and another, aborted project). She shared KQ7 with Lorelei Shannon, who seemed to do what Roberta wanted. She reasserted creative control with KQ8 and had it taken from her because the company was sold. I'd say the only reason she isn't as looked on as Ron Gilbert is is because his career was more prolific and because Roberta has been out of the game and has been pretty much a recluse since 1999. But before that, remember, she was called the "Queen of Adventure Games." She had a stellar reputation, she was a legend. But since 1999 she is a literal non-entity nowadays in the gaming industry. She hasn't even given any interview since 2006, nor has she played a game since 1998. She, along with Scott and Josh were my favorite designers at Sierra.
I agree with you completely, but market place realities are market place realities. It is sad--and unlike you I never got to experience that era as you did.
There is a quote from Roberta, about the dumbing down of games, you might agree with, this is from 1999:
"Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one. There's also the influence of the game consoles as well. So most of these people have gotten used to shoot-em' up kind of games on the consoles. Now they want to get that kind of experience on their computers.
Does this mean that the original crowd still isn't there? Probably not, however, there are much fewer of them. And the numbers for a good selling computer game are much harder to reach now. Something that sold 300,000 copies then, would be a lame selling game today. The other side of it is that adventure games, to do them right, probably have some of the highest production costs around. It doesn't appear that in today's world, that our demographics will change anytime soon. Now I do think that there is some hope on the internet. It's my feeling that a lot of people who were in love with their computers, are now hanging out online.."
And on KQ8, btw:
"When discussing the transition from 2D to 3D for King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity, I can only say that we were on to the right idea of switching to 3D. However, the implementation was not exactly correct. In 20/20 hindsight, I would have omitted the RPG (role-playing) aspects and would have stuck with more traditional adventure game elements. I would have thought more in terms of physical puzzles that could be done better in 3D than in 2D, but, still, I wouldn't have changed the game so dramatically just because I was switching from 2D to 3D. But, what do they say about 20/20 hindsight?"
And on adventure games:
As for Roberta, I know everything up to 5 was her idea, but that doesn't mean she was the only one putting it all together on her own. I seriously doubt that. Maybe in the AGI days, but probably not for KQ4 and certainly not for KQ5. I'm talking gameplay and puzzle design here, not story and dialogue writing. Either way, King's Quest wasn't my favourite Sierra series anyway. Space Quest was always better.
Well, I'm glad we agree.....
On Roberta:
On KQ3, she is given sole credit as designer.
On KQ4, she is given sole credit as designer and writer.
On KQ5, she is listed as sole designer and producer.
Only on KQ6 did it begin where she shared creative duties and it was always clearly listed. And it has always been maintained that she was given more leeway and creative control than other Sierra designers. She also said she began her design documents by writing the puzzles, and then designing the story around the puzzles and the gameplay, working outward to the story. The games for her were CENTERED around the puzzles. The story came last. So I think it's safe to say that she was indeed responsible for KQ1-5. Plus given the leeway she had, she had complete creative control over the other aspects--Meaning she could veto any scene or art design, she'd probably go over any art design or musical piece, etc. I mean let's give credit where it is due--She did pioneer the genre greatly.
Was the SQ series better written? Yes, in large measure, I'd say, more cohesively written, etc. Wittier, cleverer, less random. More focused. But it also had the benefit of picking up on the formats begun by Roberta. Like with SQ6. All of the bugs--animation wise--which plagued KQ7 were generally tweaked by the time SQ6 came out--Because KQ7 acted as the test ground for the new technology and design styles, which other Sierra adventure games would implement.
I love all of the Quest series, except for LSL and Police Quest. Gabriel Knight has never been quite my cup of tea. We all have our favorites, though, and for me, I'll always admire Roberta Williams more than the rest--I'll always love KQ just a bit more than SQ.
Keep in mind this quote is from 2006 or so. The first time her 'hindsight' kicked in!
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/KQ8_development#Roberta_Williams_Interview_2006
Up to 2003 (at least up to the interviews up to that time that I've read), she was heavily defending her choice to add the "RPG" content! LOL.
I have my reservations about LSL, but man Police Quest especially the first three were great (I prefer the original over the remake for PQ1)... Ya they were procedural, but they had the quirky Quest series humor of most of the Sierra Quest games... Puns when died etc. Injokes to other Sierra quest games! King Graham is referenced in both PQ1 and PQ2... It was a nice blend of serious and silly!
PQ4 on the other hand lost alot of that... It was far too serious... No sense of connection to earlier PQ titles... It felt like a totally different franchise...
I have a hard time picking between SQ and KQ as my favorite quest series. I love each one equally... I think I used to like SQ a little more than KQ because the plotlines were more cohesively linked together. I.E. returning characters the norm, similar to Monkey Island.
On the other hand, after I got access to the wide world of King's Quest expanded universe (I had the KQ6 hintbook when that game came out, I read the three novels when they were released as well), but especially after picking up my first copy of King's Quest Companion back in the mid-2000s (that was the 3rd edition btw), I gained a better respect for the world that makes up KQ as a whole. Some of these second party authors brought a sense of depth and life to the KQ series, that the main series was lacking by itself. Backhistories for characters, lands, and even items!
While I picked up the other expanded material for SQ, QFG, Gabriel Knight, and PQ even, none of them reached the quality of the KQ related material! As far as the sense of scope, boing beyond the games!
Also, I don't necessarily mean that SQ was better written, even though I may consider that true. I just mean that the Space Quest series as a whole is, in my opinion, better than the King's Quest series. In every aspect of design. Atmosphere, puzzle design, characterization, creativity, dialogue, humour (obviously), background art, music, etc. I consider all aspects, not just writing.
By the same token, couldn't Scott and Mark have had a lot of help which was not credited? It seems like you're trying to make Roberta out to be George Lucas--a fraud, a hack who got more credit than he was due. The fact is, when she didn't have a leading creative role, it was credited as such. For example, Jane Jensen wrote the dialogue and text for KQ6--And is credited as such. If it was all about advertising, the fact that Jane wrote the bulk of KQ6 wouldn't have been let out. Lorelei Shannon wrote the entire script for KQ7, with Roberta only contributing the story, characters and design ideas--and is credited as such. Once again, if Roberta had outside help, she gave credit. She is also listed last on the list of the three directors of KQ7.
I'm not talking about credits listed on game boxes or in advertising. I'm talking about credits given in the game's credits themselves.
Also, with Josh Mandel and Scott it seems that Josh's name being excluded from SQ6's advertising was out of spite as he quit the company leaving them with an unfinished game. Oddly though, the Holiday '94 issue of InterAction talks about SQ6 and has Scott and Josh heavily talked about as co-designers. That Josh was the new "Guy from Andromeda" alongside Scott.
Also while Josh's name was kept out of the advertising, he was given credit in the game's credits. I just watched the end of a longplay to confirm it. It says:
Designed by
Josh Mandel
Scott Murphy
Advertising is one thing. What really counts are the credits in the games themselves.
As to Laura Bow 2, these are the ingame credits:
Producer/Director:
Bruce Balfour
Writer:
Josh Mandel
Additional Written Material:
Lorelei Shannon
Special Thanks to:
Scott Murphy (among others)
In game credits for Freddy Pharkas:
Game Designers:
Al Lowe
Josh Mandel
Director/Producer:
Josh Mandel
Actually, most of the design interviews suggest that Roberta Williams wrote the text in KQ2 (just not the manual).
Although that bit sounds something more like Al Lowe would have done in LSL. He was just the musician for the game and writer of the KQ2 hintbook. IIRC, it was his work on KQ2 music that led to him getting the right to produce the first LSL!
As for the credits (the ones for the later games in the series are not necessarily complete);
King's Quest I Credits
King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown
AGI Version
Designed & Written by Roberta Williams
Original Version Charles Tingley Ken MacNeill Chris Iden
New Version Jeff Stephenson Sol Ackerman Chris Iden
Graphics Doug MacNeill Greg Rowland
Thanks to Linda Ackerman Mark Crowe Robert Heitman Scott Murphy
Documentation Roberta Williams
King's Quest I Sci Credits
SCI Version
Game Designer Roberta Williams
Producer Josh Mandel
Art Designer William D. Skirvin
Illustrated by Jeff Crowe Cindy Walker Jennifer Shontz
Programmed by Jerry Shaw, Gary Kamigawachi, Randy MacNeill, Raoul Said, Chad Bye, Oliver Brelsford, Mark Wilden
Development System Jeff Stephenson, Robert E. Heitman, Pablo Ghenis, John Hartin, Dan Foy, Larry Scott, John Rettig, Corinna Abdul Corey Cole, Mark Hood, Eric Hart
Composer Ken Allen
Quality Assurance Chris Carr and the rest of the gang
King's Quest II Credits
King's Quest II: Romancing the Throne
Designed & Written by Roberta Williams
Development System Jeff Stephenson Chris Iden Robert Heitman
Game Logic Ken Williams Sol Ackerman Chris Iden Scott Murphy Dale Carlson
Graphics Doug MacNeill Mark Crowe
Documenation Annette Childs
Music Al Lowe
King's Quest III Credits
King's Quest III: To Heir is Human
Written & Designed by Roberta Williams
Programming Al Lowe Bob Heitman Bob Kernaghan
Graphics Doug MacNeill Mark Crowe
Music Margaret Lowe
Story Annette Childs
Documentation Annette Childs
King's Quest IV Credits
King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella
Written & Designed by Roberta Williams
Game Development System Jeff Stephenson Robert Heitman Pablo Ghenis Chris Iden Paul Krasno
Music Development System Stuart Goldstein
Programming Ken Koch John Hamilton Chane Fullmer Chris Hoyt Teresa Baker
Animation & Background Scenes Carolly Hauksdottir William Skirvin Jerry Moore
Documentation Jerry Albright
King's Quest V Credits
King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder
Executive Producer Ken Williams
Creative Director Bill Davis
Game Designer & Producer Roberta Williams
Art Designer Andy Hoyos
Lead Programmer Chris Iden
Composers Mark Seibert Ken Allen
Documentation Bridget McKenna
Creative Consultant William D. Skirvin
Artists Ernie Chan, Douglas Herring, Jeff Crowe, William D. Skirvin, Maurice Morgan, Vas Nokhoudian, Barry T. Smith, Cindy Walker, Deena Benz, Tamra Dayton, Dana Dean, Roger Hardy Jr., Harry McLaughlin, Jennifer Shontz, Deanna Yhalkee, Jim Larson, Cheryl Loyd, Jerry Moore, Cheryl Sweeney, Eric Kasner, Hector Martinez, Richard D. Zeigler-Martin
Programmers Chris Iden, Chris Hoyt, Robert W. Lindsley, Raoul Said, Doug Oldfield, Carlos Escobar, Oliver Brelsford
Development System Jeff Stephenson, Robert E. Heitman, Pablo Ghenis, Corey Cole, Dan Foy, John Rettig, John Hartin, Larry Scott, Eric Hart, J. Mark Hood
Music/Sound Effects Mark Seibert Ken Allen
King's Quest VI Credits
King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Written, Designed, & Directed by Roberta Williams Jane Jensen
Producer, Director, & Art Designer William D. Skirvin
Composer Chris Braymen
Text & Dialogue Jane Jensen
Senior Artists Michael Hutchison John Shroades
Team Artists Russell Truelove Deanna Yhalkee
Senior Programmer Robert W. Lindsley
Team Programmers Randy MacNeill Robert L. Mallory Victor Sadauskas
Team Quality Assurance Robin Bradley
Guidebook Writer Jane Jensen
Guidebook Illustration John Shroades
Guidebook Designer Mark Empey
Additional Artists Darlou Gams, Tim Loucks, Rick Morgan, Jennifer Shontz, Cindy Walker, Karin A. Young
Opening Cartoon by Kronos: Stanley Liu, Albert Co
Cinematography Rod Fung Bob Ballew
Additional Music & Sound Effects Dan Kehler, Mark Seibert, Rick Spurgeon, Nightingale Songs
Additional Programmers Doug Oldfield Carlos Escobar
Additional Quality Assurance Mike Brosius John Ratcliffe
Technical Support Rob Koeppel
Special Thanks Tammy Dargan Rebecca Sebastian Fresno State University
King's Quest VII credits
Designed by Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Written by Lorelei Shannon
Script by Lorelei Shannon
Story by Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Based on original characters created by Roberta Williams
Directors Andy Hoyos, Lorelei Shannon, Roberta Williams
Producer Mark Seibert
Art Director Andy Hoyos
Director of Animation Marc Hudgins
Lead Programmers Oliver Brelsford, Tom DeSalvo
Musicians Neal Grandstaf, Dan Kehler, Mark Seibert, Jay Usher
Voice Director (Voice Casting and Direction) Lorelei Shannon
Quality Assurance Lead Dan Woolard
In-House Animation - Chapter 6 Steven Gregory, Sherry Wheeler, Jason Zayas
King's Quest 8 credits
Credits Team Mask
Designer/Writer Roberta Williams
Producer/Director/Co-Designer Mark Seibert
Art Director Jason Piel
Animation Director Jason Zayas
Programmers Adam Szofran Alan Clark David Wenger Jeff Orkin Jeff Pobst Jim Edwards John McKinnie Scott Bodenbender 3D Artists Barry Sundt Bob Munsil William Todd Bryan
Animators Ethan Walker John Piel Marc Vulcano Ray Bornstein
Quality Assurance Lead Jennifer Keenan
Sound FX & Additional Music Ben Houge
Additional help from: Al Eufrasio John Shroades Layne Gifford Mark Martino Mikhail Agadzhanov Rob Kenny Steve Conrad William O’Brien
Additional Credits
Voice Director Roberta Williams Mark Seibert
Voice Casting Roberta Williams Mark Seibert
Voice Auditions VoiceCaster Burbank, CA
Voice Recording Hollywood Recording Services
Voice Recording Engineer Mark Howlett
DREAMS Software Specialist Ben Houge
Original Music Composed & Performed By Kevin Manthei Ben Houge Mark Seibert
Opening, Closing and Flight to Temple Movies Digital Post Graphics Seattle, WA 39
Packaging Dan Amdur Jim Veevert
Documentation Mark Seibert Cheryl Sweeney Roberta Williams
Quality Assurance Manager: Gary Stevens
Assistant Manager: Ken Eaton
Lead: Bernadette Pryor
Engineer: Erinn Hamilton
PC Technician: Pat Callahan
Compatibility: Byron Hummel
Analysts: Ishmael Burns, Julie Bazuzi, Marc Nagel, Kate Powell, Noel Prude
Beta Testers Kate Ashley, Chris Canavan, Alan Chan, Lars Christen, Robert Glover, Mark Goodman, Chris Kateff, Geoff Keighley, Noah Koontz, Linda Lindley, Wes Litt, Tom Marley, Sherry Marshall, Steve Martin, Jeff Miller, Michael O’Brien, Michael Piontek, Della Rodgers, Mike Shavelson, Charles Solen, Corey Vanderlaan, Robin Ward, Stuart Young Special Thanks To Mark Hood, Scott Lynch, Jim Murphy, Zippy the Incredibly Inflatable Spitting Wonder Llama, The World Famous Talking Bear, --and all the moms, dads, husbands, wives, girlfriends, boy friends, & significant others without whom this game would have been completed months earlier.
Yes, it is. I believe he just died recently.
Bt
Agreed with the fan notion. As much as I am grateful for the fans to revive the KQ series, the games aren't as good as the SQ fan games. I think it is harder for fans to do a fan KQ game as oppose to an SQ one since the KQ fans do not grasp the tone of the official KQ games. The fan games aren't as good since they could not balance the serious dark aspects of the KQ elements with the light-hearted elements - the fan games tend to be too dark.
I think what makes KQ KQ are the light hearted elements. If a fan group approaches the series like a satrical fairy tale story like Shrek, it would be more in line with the KQ games. The SQ fans get SQ since I believe SQ stayed mostly consistent throughout its original run despite its change in humor in part 5 and 6.
I actually like it since it stayed faithful to the original game. However, I didn't like the sprites and character animation for Alexander. I understand that the game is getting a major face lift with a better Alexander sprite in version 3. Strangely enough, I also like the AGDI version; I like the added journal subplot, though the Father reference was a bit of a turnoff - I understand why they added him in the AGDI remake. I thought the Medusa subplot was a bit silly - I understand why they added it, however.
When I meant KQ fangames, I meant TSL and AGDI's KQ 2 - the games that tried to rewrite the KQ mythology. The three other remakes are good, however.
Making new KQ fangames is fine as long as the games try to stay faithful to the original source. Not kissing butt (I know that you are part of the IA team,) but I like how IA handles the fangames since the team compliments the original source as oppose to retconning it. I think creating a Kingdom of Sorrow game based on the novel is a great idea since I assume it would stay faithful to the original source material.
I was talking to Baggins via PM on why I think the SQ fangames are better than the KQ fangames. I believe the SQ fangames are better because for the most part, they compliment the existing SQ canon. TSL and the second AGDI KQ games, on the other hand, tries to rewrite the game's mythos.
The only thing I thought was weird in KQ2 AGDI was the changing how certain characters acted (shopkeeper,red riding hood, dracula). Still liked how it worked out though.
http://www.kq4remake.com/
It looks active. but it also looks like they have only two people working on it.. I personally want SOMEONE to do a decent talkie version of 4... I hope they dont get burnt out and see it through.
I prefer the original QFG2 for example. The original is less 'complicated', and easier to level, combat is easier, etc. There is less excess to wade through... The parser worked better...
But seriously if all the teams that have ever worked in a KQ4 remake got together, and combined their talents, they probably could have gotten a remake done this decade... Seriously this is like the 3rd or 4th group claiming to be making a remake?
I do hope they finish it. It looks great!
Anyways, I voted. I am open to the series being continued in any manner, officially or unofficially, here or elsewhere.
KATIE. AHEM. CABAL-KIBOSH? CAPISCE?
Bt