No, I'm not bullying anyone who has a different opinion. I'm merely stating why I find their opinion to be sophomoric and idiotic.
I hope you aren't referring to me... I don't think I said anything as such in this topic.
So far no one has replied to my example of Metal Gear transitioning into 3D with massive success and has kept ALMOST ALL elements of the MSX games.
My suggestion is that KQ can do the same if the devs are competent.
Why should I back up my statement with more than this? I write straight to the point without resorting to walls of text.
I know some people here are "orthodox" fans of the series, which is fine, but please accept that the series is seriously outdated and needs some fixing. Unwinnable-by-design is not acceptable anymore.
I'll respond - I don't care for the Metal Gear Solid games. I much prefer the originals - sure, a lot of people do like the Metal Gear Solid games, but the milieu of that game lent itself to a more serious and "darker" tone. It was always a military based, infiltration game. Even the MSX and NES versions had a serious tone - even if localization errors made "I feel asleep" silly.
King's Quest has always been a fairy-tale fantasy adventure. Throwing darker motivations, and more "adult" themes onto it is grafting material on to a base that doesn't deserve it. It's like putting a taco on top of a cake, because it's "Darker™ and more Gritty™".
Bt
PS Oh, also, referencing TVTropes renders all arguments and points completely and utterly invalid.
I'll respond - I don't care for the Metal Gear Solid games. I much prefer the originals - sure, a lot of people do like the Metal Gear Solid games, but the milieu of that game lent itself to a more serious and "darker" tone. It was always a military based, infiltration game. Even the MSX and NES versions had a serious tone - even if localization errors made "I feel asleep" silly.
King's Quest has always been a fairy-tale fantasy adventure. Throwing darker motivations, and more "adult" themes onto it is grafting material on to a base that doesn't deserve it. It's like putting a taco on top of a cake, because it's "Darker™ and more Gritty™".
Bt
PS Oh, also, referencing TVTropes renders all arguments and points completely and utterly invalid.
I agree with you for the most part, but I do think an evolution ala Mask did keep the fantasy adventure feel. The story was simple much like the previous games--Bad guy does something which threatens Kingdom--but it did it with a more serious tone, without being "gritty" or having adult themes. If the first 7 KQ games were "The Hobbit", KQ8 was "The Lord of the Rings"--And I think that sort of more serious, more action based transition was appropriate, though it should've been done slower, over the course of a few games perhaps. But the word "gritty" shouldn't be associated with an official KQ game. A fan game is fine--Fans can do whatever they want. But I wouldn't describe Mask as gritty--there's no in depth thing about the character's feelings or emotions. Mask is the proper way to do a "grown up" KQ game.
Well, MOE can't be an example of a "proper" anything. It had a fair share of problems and things it could have improved upon. I think the same game with better graphics, a classic inventory system with classic adventure-style puzzles, and more interesting combat and/or arcade action sequences would have been fantastic. As it is, it falls short of what it could be. But it could have been better.
Well, MOE can't be an example of a "proper" anything. It had a fair share of problems and things it could have improved upon. I think the same game with better graphics, a classic inventory system with classic adventure-style puzzles, and more interesting combat and/or arcade action sequences would have been fantastic. As it is, it falls short of what it could be. But it could have been better.
Yes I agree completely, I just meant the general direction. It's a shame. The story contained in the game, along with the dialogue, was probably Roberta's true masterpiece. It didn't have any of the "cheese" of the earlier games or "moon logic", it had a lot of layers (It wasn't just superficial placements of other mythologies into the game like the early KQ games were). It had the "wide open world/big adventure" feel of KQ5 while expanding on the maturity of KQ6 without being shallow. Such a direction, albeit refined as you said, would be a great approach. I tend to look at Mask as a transitional game, the way KQ5 was; rough around the edges because it was the first of it's kind in the series.
Actually, I think the story was the most lackluster of the entire series. Even KQ1. Could have used some work. Didn't really care about Conner, Sarah, or Lucreto. We were just slapped with these new characters and were expected to be connected to them. Doesn't work that way. Some of the ideas were great, though. I loved the idea of a mysterious random wizard using his magic to partially survive the curse and give you pointers. Lots of fantastic ideas that could have been much better.
Actually, I think the story was the most lackluster of the entire series. Even KQ1. Could have used some work. Didn't really care about Conner, Sarah, or Lucreto. We were just slapped with these new characters and were expected to be connected to them. Doesn't work that way. Some of the ideas were great, though. I loved the idea of a mysterious random wizard using his magic to partially survive the curse and give you pointers. Lots of fantastic ideas that could have been much better.
Well, replace Connor say with Alexander...I mean in KQ1, all we're told in the original is that Graham is a knight. He doesn't speak much at all, and we don't know anything about him. Sort of like Connor, he's a blank slate; he's a tanner, but as the story unfolds, so does him being noble not in blood, but in deed. Sarah was just in the into cutscene...And I don't see why Lucreto isn't interesting. His story is very much akin to the whole Paradise Lost thing: Basically an angel who wanted the power of God for himself. That's a pretty trope , similar to the Grand Vizier wanting control of a Kingdom trope used in KQ6.
Yes, but we know nothing about Lucreto. He has no dialogue, no character arc, and barely any on-screen time other than the intro and the very end when he finally speaks to you. With Alhazred he had face time throughout the entire game and we really got to know him and hate him (or love him, depending how masochistic and sadistic you are). Lucreto was ultimately forgettable.
And at least KQ1 had a decent back story for the reasons behind the quest (even if it was only in the manual).
a classic inventory system with classic adventure-style puzzles
It had the classic inventory system (actually more like KQ7 than say KQ6 inventory style), with click item on something else adventure-style puzzles.
They just feel so far apart from each other, since so much exploration and combat occured in inbetween the puzzles themselves.
It also included alot of Torin's Passage style maze/trap/lava puzzle and chess-like puzzles (kinda like the ones in Zork series)... Which weren't common in any earlier KQ game (only KQ6 had its trap maze, but it was different)...
He has no dialogue, no character arc, and barely any on-screen time other than the intro and the very end when he finally speaks to you.
Actually he has a scene in nearly every world of the game. In which he has dialogue in those scenes. Those scenes also built up a character arc for him. There is about 7-8 appearances total through the game, which develop his character.
You might have overlooked these scenes, they are optional for the most part. They require you clicking on the right place, or being in the right place.
His backstory is discussed quite a bit in several other scenes with the Archon Uriel (similar to learning information from the Oracles in previous games), the Oracle of the Tree, and the marble archons near the end of the game. As well as information about Lucreto given you by the Henchmen you encounter throughout the game.
He has about as many appearances than Malicia had in KQ7 (About five to seven total; 2-3 underground, twice in her house, once in ooga booga, and the ending), or more than Mordack had in KQ5 (3 total)... ...or really more than you saw Alhazred in KQ6 (four total, two cutscenes (with Shamir in his office), a meeting with him, and ending sequence)!
Infact, given his number of appearances, and how many other characters discuss him and his backstory. He is probably one of the most developed villain characters in the entire King's Quest series (without having to resort to any expanded universe material). He is probably as developed as Alhazred and Malicia; while Alhazred didn't have as many appearances, there is alot of characters who refer to him, and give us backstory for him (similar in fashion to Lucreto in this way).
Malicia's background is somewhat explained in the game, but mostly comes from material only mentioned in the official Hintbook. But she does get quite a bit of interaction with many of the characters in the game, and many are able to tell you about her. So she's up there with Lucreto and Alhazred as far as involvement in the game world past and present as mentioned in the game by most of the characters (so you still don't have to go to any outside source to learn alot about her). Unfortunately she's a rather silly villain ...
Not even Mordack, Hagatha, or Manannan got that much background as they do, don't get as many characters referring to their involvement in the world (with those latter two you have to at least go into the manuals to get their backstories). I guess Manannan does a little, as you learn by listening into animal conversations (but most of the animals all state the same thing about him).
Lolotte, has good four to five interactions with the main character, spread throughout entire KQ4, and also one of the more developed villains the series. We know some of her background via interactions with Seven Dwarfs and Genesta. But other than that, she isn't brought into the plot by most other characters in any fashion, to the extent that Lucreto or Alhazred received.
I'm pretty neutral in this debate; as I've said before, I'm just interested in seeing a fresh take on King's Quest. But a thought crossed my mind that might illuminate everyone's perspective on the matter. Do these things, in any order you like:
1) Watch the MGM "The Wizard of Oz" with Judy Garland
2) Watch the Disney "Return to Oz" with Fairuza Balk
Same fictional universe. Some of the same characters. I would even argue that both films have their strong points. But they are VERY different in tone and sensibility; they were made at different times by different people, with different technologies at hand.
3) Ask yourself -- is either of these films more "Oz" than the other?
Yeah, but there are only the two Oz movies--in the case of KQ, we have 5, arguably even 6 or 7 entries that share a common light-hearted tone, and one that doesn't. The argument that we're disputing is essentially arguing in favor of taking the one out of 8 games with a darker tone and using that as a jumping off point for the new game that is supposed to appeal to old fans and new players alike. It doesn't make sense.
Even KQ8 is relatively lighthearted compared to other games in the series, and in comparison to other game series. Roberta placed her kind of inherent sillyness or whimsy into most of the good characters an even into some of the lesser villains. Some argue that KQ3 is the darkest in someways. Even KQ4 in some ways.
Although I'd argue it is the fan games try to make the series dark and "gritty". .
I wouldn't call any of AGDI or IA's games dark at all. KQ2+ is moody at best. But not dark or gritty. It's very whimsical in more places than not and also very storybook-colourful. Even TSL has light-hearted moments. But the core plot is definitely dark in that case.
Yeah, but there are only the two Oz movies--in the case of KQ, we have 5, arguably even 6 or 7 entries that share a common light-hearted tone, and one that doesn't. The argument that we're disputing is essentially arguing in favor of taking the one out of 8 games with a darker tone and using that as a jumping off point for the new game that is supposed to appeal to old fans and new players alike. It doesn't make sense.
The point I was trying to make is that there should be room in any fictional universe for different interpretations of the source material. There should be something recognizably consistent at the heart of each work, but "tone" isn't really the distinguishing factor some people seem to think it is.
I think there's room in the KQ world for Graham to have an adventure where he helps rescue a mama bunny's children from a thicket, as well as one where he rescues his own children from an evil wizard. And either of those stories could be told in a light-hearted vein (bumbling wizard) or dark (bunny-devouring grues.) I don't think I'd expect or want to see a story where Graham kidnaps and kills someone else's children; that seems to me TOO dark for KQ, even if he were under a spell of some kind.
Graham kidnaps and kills someone else's children; that seems to me TOO dark for KQ, even if he were under a spell of some kind.
Already happened, in KQ3 He sent up to 17 young virgins to their deaths to be sacrificed to the three-headed dragon! I would have to assume they were 'someone' else's children!
Already happened, in KQ3 He sent up to 17 young virgins to their deaths to be sacrificed to the three-headed dragon! I would have to assume they were 'someone' else's children!
I dunno, that Graham gets around a lot and he works awfully fast. How long is it between the time he forces his way into Valanice's tower and the time he kisses her? About 30 seconds? We know what that King is Questing for, awwwwyeah.
I think for me, it belittles the crisis at hand. Like how in KG5 Graham acts as if his family being captured happens everyday and his dialog and
VA , not to mention his actions don't match the situation.
I don't know if it makes sense or if I worded it correctly...
I totally get what you're saying. There's no denying that King's Quest games have that incongruity about them. But you know what? Fiction is full of such incongruities, and most games and game types suffer from similar non-realism. Do you think it's a coincidence that you always have just enough time (and bullets and health potions, etc.) to do everything you need to do to prevent the bad guys from blowing up the world or killing all the hostages? Regardless of what the character is facing on screen, the point of gaming is for the player sitting in front of the screen to have fun along the way.
Think about Indiana Jones or James Bond: they go on urgent missions to save the world from Nazis/Commies/terrorists yet still have time for dalliances with whatever women happen to be on hand. So Graham stops to help rats and shoemakers and hungry eagles instead of for martinis and a quickie. It's all just escapist fiction and there's nothing non-adult about it.
The thing is, this isn't really a series anymore. It's not like we've had ongoing installments from a stable development team; rather, we've had nothing, at least not official, for 15 years. The series isn't stale; it's dormant and needs to be revived first.
Moreover, I think your concept of "the times" is actually outdated. Game development has been opened up way beyond a handful of big publishers all trying for the big bucks with AAA titles in copycat genres. The "times" of today encompass many new and old aspects of gaming, an explosion in game-type variety -- indie gaming, retro gaming, classic gaming, and yes, point-and-click adventure gaming -- all of which are as appropriate for the times as any of the examples you've cited.
And variety is what this is all about to me, not nostalgia. We've lost so much variety in adventure gameplay from the Golden Age of the late 80's to mid 90's, as all the third-person adventures that have come out in the past decade or so are Lucasarts clones. So making a Sierra-style adventure is a bold step in and of itself, and is the only appropriate bold step I can see.
I like 3D action-adventure/RPG games. Very much. Often more so than pure adventures. I embraced the transition with the Indy franchise and wish Lucasarts would make another one. I would, under different circumstances or in the future, accept a KQ game that continued Mask's genre transition. (It would sure as hell be preferable to transition to the "cinematic adventure" genre, AKA trivially interactive content-delivery system, AKA point-and-click-where-you're told-to-click.) But this is not the right development studio to be doing that with the first King's Quest game in 15 years. The only action gameplay element they've ever demonstrated is QTE's, which, IMO, can supplement but are not a substitute for a fixed set of action-oriented character capabilities. The latter is crucial for making a good action-adventure or RPG, as is a chase camera for that matter, another thing Telltale has never done.
If you want something new, why do you want an old name like King's Quest on it?
Next effin' question.
I'm not sure why I bothered posting when this is the best response anyway. If you want survival horror, there are plenty of them out there. If you want an RPG, well, it seems like a new one is released every other week on Steam. There is absolutely no sense in reviving a franchise by making a game for people who didn't like it the way it was in the first place.
The car shooting sequence in the early Sam and Max felt tacked on (simply because the original had car surfing). It was also incredibly boring and a waste of time.
Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...
I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.
There was that kind of frogger type game in Bone part 1...
But ya, not that many 'action gameplay elements'.
There was also that First-Person thing in Episode 5 of SBCG4AP. Allegedly, there was suppose some sortive minigame like thing in Max's Mind in The Devil's Playhouse. Though it got cut.
Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...
I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.
Yeah, forgot about those. Arcade and on-rails driving games don't really qualify a studio for full-fledged action-adventure development, though.
I liked the driving games in Telltale's Sam & Max. They were a totally franchise-appropriate addition, well implemented and fun. Even though mini-games are not strictly adventure-game-type puzzles, they add welcome variety IMO when used sparingly and suitably.
The car shooting sequence in the early Sam and Max felt tacked on (simply because the original had car surfing). It was also incredibly boring and a waste of time.
Seems to me that's exactly the kind of thinking that took Telltale from Sam & Max to JP:TG and TWD. Now, I understand that not every player is going to find every segment of a game to be fun. But a waste of time? That's Telltale's attitude toward anything that doesn't contribute to the linear delivery of the cinematic experience they want all players to have, where gameplay is dictated by each story element, leading to ad hoc, one-at-a-time "activities" instead of interconnected challenges in an interactivity-rich gameworld.
The Sam & Max driving/arcade sequences are an example (a minor one) of what I mean when talking about how so much variety in adventure gaming has been lost since the 1990's. Each studio had their own twists that expanded -- and sometimes went beyond -- the base of traditional adventure puzzles. (I believe Telltale operated in that vein during the early Sam & Max years, bringing some creativity to puzzle design -- derivative of Lucasarts, yes, but with a style of their own -- and it's why I became such a huge fan of the company.) It's the adventure gaming community itself that demanded standardization and left us with nothing but cookie-cutter games.
Even today when I see discussions of what an adventure game should be, someone always posts a long list of puzzle-types and other elements that must always be excluded and I just have to barf. In this very forum we have repeated calls to eliminate dead-ends, "unfair" :rolleyes: deaths, "obscure" :rolleyes: puzzles, precarious mobility situations, yadda yadda. Hammer that fucker down until it looks like a right and proper twenty-first century generic adventure!
Meanwhile other character-in-gameworld-based genre fans (though obviously not all developers and publishers) have embraced variety and cross-over gameplay. I don't even outright object to judicious use of QTE's in adventure games. In fact, the QTE's associated with dinosaur encounters were the only redeeming feature of JP:TG IMO. (My objections have always been about its linear and non-explorable gameworld and its simplistic and isolated puzzles.)
Oh, wow, I went off on another gameplay/design philosophy tangent. Sorry. I'll stop now, go hop in the De Soto, and head for Memory Lane.
Well I liked the minigame sequences in Space Quest series, I felt they were better handled. I also like the arcade sequences in the Conquests series, they also felt well-integrated. The same can be said for the arcadey bits in Quest for Glory as well.
Lucasarts I think did a good job at integrating arcade sequences as well, I had alot of fun in Full Throttle and two classic Indiana Jones graphic adventures...
They felt more integrated into the storyline, and less of the do this to 'collect stickers' that have little to do with the game at hand...
It may have Dark and Gritty themes, but they really don't take themselves too seriously. They managed to combine Lovecraftian themes, vampires and other Eastern European horror story elements without going all over-the-top melodramatic with them. The game retained its sense of humor, cheekiness and fun while dealing with a darker setting.
Because Dark Elements really have no place in a King's Quest game. Not to the extent at which QFGIV had them. It's a cheap gimmick used these days to make a game "more mature". People have been trying to shoe-horn darker elements on to KQ's with mixed results for a long time.
A "dark" King's Quest... isn't King's Quest. As I've said before, why do you want something new with an old name on it?
Plus, ALL of the QFG games had undertones of dark fantasy and violence--QFG4 just brought that to the forefront more than the others did. But as Bt mentioned, it's also a damn funny game, arguably the funniest in the series. It really wasn't as big a departure as you're making it out to be.
So KQ5 had only one locale? Except for Kq1, all other KQ games had you travel to different realms outside Daventry and multiple locales. i don't get your statement.
You also make it sound like KQ had no seriousness at all. It does; but it also has it's share of humor and lightheartedness, not unlike QfG in my opinion.
QFG was about a single atmosphere, and locality for each game.
KQ was about exploring new locales in each game as well. Daventry was often used as a starting point or ending point. But the primary focus was on a new locale or locales.
As far as atmosphere, a single KQ took what I'll describe as the 'theme park' approach. That different sections of each land represented a diffented 'atmosphere'.
KQ6-8 made the 'theme park' approach even more seperated in that each island in KQ6, and each land in KQ7 and KQ8 shared different distinct themes and atmospheres.
KQ5 can be described as breaking things up in a 'theme park' manner as well. In that it broke up thematic locations such as the Endless Desert, the Dark Forest, Serenia proper, the Mountains, the beach and ocean, and the Mordack's Island.
In the earliest games its a little less noticeable but even exist their as well. KQ1 had its main land, its Land of the Clouds, its land of the leprechauns. In the remake it added a darker part of the forest, and lighter parts of the forest with different atmosphers in both.
In KQ2, you had themes surrounding the three keys to unlock the doors. The undersea region, the mountain, and finally the 'darker' Dracula's island sequence. But Kolyma as a whole was pretty similar in atmosphere, outside of those sequences. There are a couple of other places within the land of note, that offer their own unique theme. Such as Grandma's House, or the Antique store, etc.
Then you jump into the Enchanted Islands where atmosphere changes.
In KQ3, you have the desert, main Llewdor (which has several areas of note with varying themes), the pirate sequence across the ocean, the beach and mountains, and finally Daventry, and Cloudland. But the latter two areas hearken back to the original KQ1.
In KQ4 you had distinct dark forest areas, that get progressively darker, as you head east, and areas of meadowland, the haunted house and graveyard, the ocean, the desert island, Genesta's Island, the swamp. The mountains and Lollotes' Castle. Each with a unique theme. This is probably the first game to start developing more of a 'theme park' style land development, but its not as clearly divided as later games in the series are.
Quest for Glory IV was the "darkest" of the series, yet it is considered by fans the best of the 5 games (or tied with QfG1).
It had dark mature themes yet retained all the attributes that made the series famous.
Does this count for anything in my "dark/gritty" argument?
Why are you not getting that this isn't about dark/gritty games in general but about King's Quest in particular, ie. that what QFG was is irrelevant to what KQ should be? The Dig was dark and gritty, so Monkey Island should have been dark and gritty, too?
Baggins makes a good point about how there was some differentiation in tone or feel of different areas in each (or most) of the games, and I think that's a good way to go.
Personally, and this is probably semantics, I never found anything "dark" or "gritty" in any KQ ever -- rather I would describe things like Mordack's castle and the graveyard in KQ4 and even the underworld in KQ6 as "spooky". Having a spooky section in the new game would be fine with me. I don't think anyone's suggesting that there be a cheesy or sappy fairy tale scene around every damn corner.
So KQ5 had only one locale? Except for Kq1, all other KQ games had you travel to different realms outside Daventry and multiple locales. i don't get your statement.
You completely missed the point. I'm not really talking about locales. QFG's whole shtick was that each game explored a different atmosphere and style. This was reflected in the locales it chose in each game. King's Quest has pretty much always been fantasy. I think KQ6 and KQ7 were the only ones to explore areas we've never seen before. But even KQ6, while being influenced by Arabian mythology and atmosphere is still very classic fantasy. And KQ7, while a little crazy and zany, is still exploring and journeying through a strange fantasy land with magical creatures and places. It's never gone beyond this.
I know that KQ5 explored a series of locales, one of the things I love about it. KQ3 did as well. But it never changed in tone throughout the entire series.
You also make it sound like KQ had no seriousness at all. It does; but it also has it's share of humor and lightheartedness, not unlike QfG in my opinion.
Now you're just picking at straws. I don't think any of us are saying there's no humour. In fact we're defending the fact that it has humour. They were merely stating that QFG is one of the funniest Sierra series they ever put out and that the "darkness" of QFG4 was more tounge-in-cheek than actual grit. It was still funny. Because that was its thing. It stuck to what it was known for. That's the whole point we're trying to make here.
Technically "fairy tales", "myths", "literary classics" ("horror" was sometimes an inspiration), and 'legends" with a few 'legendary epics' thrown in. These are subcategories under 'fantasy' but are a might more specific.
But even KQ6, while being influenced by Arabian mythology and atmosphere is still very classic fantasy.
To be perfectly honest Arabian mythology only had some minor influence on one island in KQ6, Isle of the Crown (even there it was fairly marginal).
Every other island was based on a number of things including sort of pseudo-French motif on the Isle of the Beast, the Greco-Roman/Cretian on the Isle of Sacred Mountain... Alice and Wonderland for the Isle of Wonder... 18th century romantic concept of 'druidic culture' on the Isle of Mists... Realm of the Dead is a combination of few different sources, but relies more on a H.R. Giger style theme.
Like I said before KQ especially the later games from KQ5 up to KQ8 rely more on a series of themed areas, based on multiple cultural influence.
KQ7 has several lands all based on different cultural themes each uniquely divided, including Meso-American in the Desert. Some Greco-Roman aspects in the Bountfiul Woods. Ooga Booga is sort of Tim Burtonesque with some Washington Irving thrown in. Falderal/Nonsense Land is more of a "Looking Glass/Wonderland or Oz" with some other influences thrown in (Chicken Little for example). Fairy Court is a bit of medieval and renaisance legends. Etc...
BTW, least you forget, KQ5's desert region is largely inspired off of Arabian Nights tales as well with a touch of Petra. The Dark Forest is motif in various fairy tales. Serenia itself is loosely central European in style.
Now you're just picking at straws. I don't think any of us are saying there's no humour. In fact we're defending the fact that it has humour. They were merely stating that QFG is one of the funniest Sierra series they ever put out and that the "darkness" of QFG4 was more tounge-in-cheek than actual grit. It was still funny. Because that was its thing. It stuck to what it was known for. That's the whole point we're trying to make here.
You are right... Quest for Glory is about punning and joke making in nearly every line of diologue. It never really took itself serious at all.
King's Quest was quite the oposite in many ways. With the main characters and narrator often taking everything serious. While humor exists, it's not the focus of the story itself. At least the main characters tend to treat the events they are in on a serious note.
Comments
I hope you aren't referring to me... I don't think I said anything as such in this topic.
So far no one has replied to my example of Metal Gear transitioning into 3D with massive success and has kept ALMOST ALL elements of the MSX games.
My suggestion is that KQ can do the same if the devs are competent.
Why should I back up my statement with more than this? I write straight to the point without resorting to walls of text.
I know some people here are "orthodox" fans of the series, which is fine, but please accept that the series is seriously outdated and needs some fixing. Unwinnable-by-design is not acceptable anymore.
Have a good read with this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/KingsQuestVAbsenceMakesTheHeartGoYonder
King's Quest has always been a fairy-tale fantasy adventure. Throwing darker motivations, and more "adult" themes onto it is grafting material on to a base that doesn't deserve it. It's like putting a taco on top of a cake, because it's "Darker™ and more Gritty™".
Bt
PS Oh, also, referencing TVTropes renders all arguments and points completely and utterly invalid.
I agree with you for the most part, but I do think an evolution ala Mask did keep the fantasy adventure feel. The story was simple much like the previous games--Bad guy does something which threatens Kingdom--but it did it with a more serious tone, without being "gritty" or having adult themes. If the first 7 KQ games were "The Hobbit", KQ8 was "The Lord of the Rings"--And I think that sort of more serious, more action based transition was appropriate, though it should've been done slower, over the course of a few games perhaps. But the word "gritty" shouldn't be associated with an official KQ game. A fan game is fine--Fans can do whatever they want. But I wouldn't describe Mask as gritty--there's no in depth thing about the character's feelings or emotions. Mask is the proper way to do a "grown up" KQ game.
Yes I agree completely, I just meant the general direction. It's a shame. The story contained in the game, along with the dialogue, was probably Roberta's true masterpiece. It didn't have any of the "cheese" of the earlier games or "moon logic", it had a lot of layers (It wasn't just superficial placements of other mythologies into the game like the early KQ games were). It had the "wide open world/big adventure" feel of KQ5 while expanding on the maturity of KQ6 without being shallow. Such a direction, albeit refined as you said, would be a great approach. I tend to look at Mask as a transitional game, the way KQ5 was; rough around the edges because it was the first of it's kind in the series.
Well, replace Connor say with Alexander...I mean in KQ1, all we're told in the original is that Graham is a knight. He doesn't speak much at all, and we don't know anything about him. Sort of like Connor, he's a blank slate; he's a tanner, but as the story unfolds, so does him being noble not in blood, but in deed. Sarah was just in the into cutscene...And I don't see why Lucreto isn't interesting. His story is very much akin to the whole Paradise Lost thing: Basically an angel who wanted the power of God for himself. That's a pretty trope , similar to the Grand Vizier wanting control of a Kingdom trope used in KQ6.
And at least KQ1 had a decent back story for the reasons behind the quest (even if it was only in the manual).
They just feel so far apart from each other, since so much exploration and combat occured in inbetween the puzzles themselves.
It also included alot of Torin's Passage style maze/trap/lava puzzle and chess-like puzzles (kinda like the ones in Zork series)... Which weren't common in any earlier KQ game (only KQ6 had its trap maze, but it was different)...
Actually he has a scene in nearly every world of the game. In which he has dialogue in those scenes. Those scenes also built up a character arc for him. There is about 7-8 appearances total through the game, which develop his character.
You might have overlooked these scenes, they are optional for the most part. They require you clicking on the right place, or being in the right place.
His backstory is discussed quite a bit in several other scenes with the Archon Uriel (similar to learning information from the Oracles in previous games), the Oracle of the Tree, and the marble archons near the end of the game. As well as information about Lucreto given you by the Henchmen you encounter throughout the game.
He has about as many appearances than Malicia had in KQ7 (About five to seven total; 2-3 underground, twice in her house, once in ooga booga, and the ending), or more than Mordack had in KQ5 (3 total)... ...or really more than you saw Alhazred in KQ6 (four total, two cutscenes (with Shamir in his office), a meeting with him, and ending sequence)!
Infact, given his number of appearances, and how many other characters discuss him and his backstory. He is probably one of the most developed villain characters in the entire King's Quest series (without having to resort to any expanded universe material). He is probably as developed as Alhazred and Malicia; while Alhazred didn't have as many appearances, there is alot of characters who refer to him, and give us backstory for him (similar in fashion to Lucreto in this way).
Malicia's background is somewhat explained in the game, but mostly comes from material only mentioned in the official Hintbook. But she does get quite a bit of interaction with many of the characters in the game, and many are able to tell you about her. So she's up there with Lucreto and Alhazred as far as involvement in the game world past and present as mentioned in the game by most of the characters (so you still don't have to go to any outside source to learn alot about her). Unfortunately she's a rather silly villain
Not even Mordack, Hagatha, or Manannan got that much background as they do, don't get as many characters referring to their involvement in the world (with those latter two you have to at least go into the manuals to get their backstories). I guess Manannan does a little, as you learn by listening into animal conversations (but most of the animals all state the same thing about him).
Lolotte, has good four to five interactions with the main character, spread throughout entire KQ4, and also one of the more developed villains the series. We know some of her background via interactions with Seven Dwarfs and Genesta. But other than that, she isn't brought into the plot by most other characters in any fashion, to the extent that Lucreto or Alhazred received.
1) Watch the MGM "The Wizard of Oz" with Judy Garland
2) Watch the Disney "Return to Oz" with Fairuza Balk
Same fictional universe. Some of the same characters. I would even argue that both films have their strong points. But they are VERY different in tone and sensibility; they were made at different times by different people, with different technologies at hand.
3) Ask yourself -- is either of these films more "Oz" than the other?
Although I'd argue it is the fan games try to make the series dark and "gritty".
The point I was trying to make is that there should be room in any fictional universe for different interpretations of the source material. There should be something recognizably consistent at the heart of each work, but "tone" isn't really the distinguishing factor some people seem to think it is.
I think there's room in the KQ world for Graham to have an adventure where he helps rescue a mama bunny's children from a thicket, as well as one where he rescues his own children from an evil wizard. And either of those stories could be told in a light-hearted vein (bumbling wizard) or dark (bunny-devouring grues.) I don't think I'd expect or want to see a story where Graham kidnaps and kills someone else's children; that seems to me TOO dark for KQ, even if he were under a spell of some kind.
Already happened, in KQ3
I dunno, that Graham gets around a lot and he works awfully fast. How long is it between the time he forces his way into Valanice's tower and the time he kisses her? About 30 seconds? We know what that King is Questing for, awwwwyeah.
I totally get what you're saying. There's no denying that King's Quest games have that incongruity about them. But you know what? Fiction is full of such incongruities, and most games and game types suffer from similar non-realism. Do you think it's a coincidence that you always have just enough time (and bullets and health potions, etc.) to do everything you need to do to prevent the bad guys from blowing up the world or killing all the hostages? Regardless of what the character is facing on screen, the point of gaming is for the player sitting in front of the screen to have fun along the way.
Think about Indiana Jones or James Bond: they go on urgent missions to save the world from Nazis/Commies/terrorists yet still have time for dalliances with whatever women happen to be on hand. So Graham stops to help rats and shoemakers and hungry eagles instead of for martinis and a quickie. It's all just escapist fiction and there's nothing non-adult about it.
The thing is, this isn't really a series anymore. It's not like we've had ongoing installments from a stable development team; rather, we've had nothing, at least not official, for 15 years. The series isn't stale; it's dormant and needs to be revived first.
Moreover, I think your concept of "the times" is actually outdated. Game development has been opened up way beyond a handful of big publishers all trying for the big bucks with AAA titles in copycat genres. The "times" of today encompass many new and old aspects of gaming, an explosion in game-type variety -- indie gaming, retro gaming, classic gaming, and yes, point-and-click adventure gaming -- all of which are as appropriate for the times as any of the examples you've cited.
And variety is what this is all about to me, not nostalgia. We've lost so much variety in adventure gameplay from the Golden Age of the late 80's to mid 90's, as all the third-person adventures that have come out in the past decade or so are Lucasarts clones. So making a Sierra-style adventure is a bold step in and of itself, and is the only appropriate bold step I can see.
I like 3D action-adventure/RPG games. Very much. Often more so than pure adventures. I embraced the transition with the Indy franchise and wish Lucasarts would make another one. I would, under different circumstances or in the future, accept a KQ game that continued Mask's genre transition. (It would sure as hell be preferable to transition to the "cinematic adventure" genre, AKA trivially interactive content-delivery system, AKA point-and-click-where-you're told-to-click.) But this is not the right development studio to be doing that with the first King's Quest game in 15 years. The only action gameplay element they've ever demonstrated is QTE's, which, IMO, can supplement but are not a substitute for a fixed set of action-oriented character capabilities. The latter is crucial for making a good action-adventure or RPG, as is a chase camera for that matter, another thing Telltale has never done.
I'm not sure why I bothered posting when this is the best response anyway. If you want survival horror, there are plenty of them out there. If you want an RPG, well, it seems like a new one is released every other week on Steam. There is absolutely no sense in reviving a franchise by making a game for people who didn't like it the way it was in the first place.
I seriously tried for several minutes to single out a portion of that amazing post to quote, but damn--it was impossible.
Case closed.
Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...
I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.
There was that kind of frogger type game in Bone part 1...
But ya, not that many 'action gameplay elements'.
There was also that First-Person thing in Episode 5 of SBCG4AP. Allegedly, there was suppose some sortive minigame like thing in Max's Mind in The Devil's Playhouse. Though it got cut.
Yeah, forgot about those. Arcade and on-rails driving games don't really qualify a studio for full-fledged action-adventure development, though.
I liked the driving games in Telltale's Sam & Max. They were a totally franchise-appropriate addition, well implemented and fun. Even though mini-games are not strictly adventure-game-type puzzles, they add welcome variety IMO when used sparingly and suitably.
Seems to me that's exactly the kind of thinking that took Telltale from Sam & Max to JP:TG and TWD. Now, I understand that not every player is going to find every segment of a game to be fun. But a waste of time? That's Telltale's attitude toward anything that doesn't contribute to the linear delivery of the cinematic experience they want all players to have, where gameplay is dictated by each story element, leading to ad hoc, one-at-a-time "activities" instead of interconnected challenges in an interactivity-rich gameworld.
The Sam & Max driving/arcade sequences are an example (a minor one) of what I mean when talking about how so much variety in adventure gaming has been lost since the 1990's. Each studio had their own twists that expanded -- and sometimes went beyond -- the base of traditional adventure puzzles. (I believe Telltale operated in that vein during the early Sam & Max years, bringing some creativity to puzzle design -- derivative of Lucasarts, yes, but with a style of their own -- and it's why I became such a huge fan of the company.) It's the adventure gaming community itself that demanded standardization and left us with nothing but cookie-cutter games.
Even today when I see discussions of what an adventure game should be, someone always posts a long list of puzzle-types and other elements that must always be excluded and I just have to barf. In this very forum we have repeated calls to eliminate dead-ends, "unfair" :rolleyes: deaths, "obscure" :rolleyes: puzzles, precarious mobility situations, yadda yadda. Hammer that fucker down until it looks like a right and proper twenty-first century generic adventure!
Meanwhile other character-in-gameworld-based genre fans (though obviously not all developers and publishers) have embraced variety and cross-over gameplay. I don't even outright object to judicious use of QTE's in adventure games. In fact, the QTE's associated with dinosaur encounters were the only redeeming feature of JP:TG IMO. (My objections have always been about its linear and non-explorable gameworld and its simplistic and isolated puzzles.)
Oh, wow, I went off on another gameplay/design philosophy tangent. Sorry. I'll stop now, go hop in the De Soto, and head for Memory Lane.
Lucasarts I think did a good job at integrating arcade sequences as well, I had alot of fun in Full Throttle and two classic Indiana Jones graphic adventures...
They felt more integrated into the storyline, and less of the do this to 'collect stickers' that have little to do with the game at hand...
Quest for Glory IV was the "darkest" of the series, yet it is considered by fans the best of the 5 games (or tied with QfG1).
It had dark mature themes yet retained all the attributes that made the series famous.
Does this count for anything in my "dark/gritty" argument?
Bt
A "dark" King's Quest... isn't King's Quest. As I've said before, why do you want something new with an old name on it?
Bt
Plus, ALL of the QFG games had undertones of dark fantasy and violence--QFG4 just brought that to the forefront more than the others did. But as Bt mentioned, it's also a damn funny game, arguably the funniest in the series. It really wasn't as big a departure as you're making it out to be.
You also make it sound like KQ had no seriousness at all. It does; but it also has it's share of humor and lightheartedness, not unlike QfG in my opinion.
KQ was about exploring new locales in each game as well. Daventry was often used as a starting point or ending point. But the primary focus was on a new locale or locales.
As far as atmosphere, a single KQ took what I'll describe as the 'theme park' approach. That different sections of each land represented a diffented 'atmosphere'.
KQ6-8 made the 'theme park' approach even more seperated in that each island in KQ6, and each land in KQ7 and KQ8 shared different distinct themes and atmospheres.
KQ5 can be described as breaking things up in a 'theme park' manner as well. In that it broke up thematic locations such as the Endless Desert, the Dark Forest, Serenia proper, the Mountains, the beach and ocean, and the Mordack's Island.
In the earliest games its a little less noticeable but even exist their as well. KQ1 had its main land, its Land of the Clouds, its land of the leprechauns. In the remake it added a darker part of the forest, and lighter parts of the forest with different atmosphers in both.
In KQ2, you had themes surrounding the three keys to unlock the doors. The undersea region, the mountain, and finally the 'darker' Dracula's island sequence. But Kolyma as a whole was pretty similar in atmosphere, outside of those sequences. There are a couple of other places within the land of note, that offer their own unique theme. Such as Grandma's House, or the Antique store, etc.
Then you jump into the Enchanted Islands where atmosphere changes.
In KQ3, you have the desert, main Llewdor (which has several areas of note with varying themes), the pirate sequence across the ocean, the beach and mountains, and finally Daventry, and Cloudland. But the latter two areas hearken back to the original KQ1.
In KQ4 you had distinct dark forest areas, that get progressively darker, as you head east, and areas of meadowland, the haunted house and graveyard, the ocean, the desert island, Genesta's Island, the swamp. The mountains and Lollotes' Castle. Each with a unique theme. This is probably the first game to start developing more of a 'theme park' style land development, but its not as clearly divided as later games in the series are.
Why are you not getting that this isn't about dark/gritty games in general but about King's Quest in particular, ie. that what QFG was is irrelevant to what KQ should be? The Dig was dark and gritty, so Monkey Island should have been dark and gritty, too?
Baggins makes a good point about how there was some differentiation in tone or feel of different areas in each (or most) of the games, and I think that's a good way to go.
Personally, and this is probably semantics, I never found anything "dark" or "gritty" in any KQ ever -- rather I would describe things like Mordack's castle and the graveyard in KQ4 and even the underworld in KQ6 as "spooky". Having a spooky section in the new game would be fine with me. I don't think anyone's suggesting that there be a cheesy or sappy fairy tale scene around every damn corner.
You completely missed the point. I'm not really talking about locales. QFG's whole shtick was that each game explored a different atmosphere and style. This was reflected in the locales it chose in each game. King's Quest has pretty much always been fantasy. I think KQ6 and KQ7 were the only ones to explore areas we've never seen before. But even KQ6, while being influenced by Arabian mythology and atmosphere is still very classic fantasy. And KQ7, while a little crazy and zany, is still exploring and journeying through a strange fantasy land with magical creatures and places. It's never gone beyond this.
I know that KQ5 explored a series of locales, one of the things I love about it. KQ3 did as well. But it never changed in tone throughout the entire series.
Now you're just picking at straws. I don't think any of us are saying there's no humour. In fact we're defending the fact that it has humour. They were merely stating that QFG is one of the funniest Sierra series they ever put out and that the "darkness" of QFG4 was more tounge-in-cheek than actual grit. It was still funny. Because that was its thing. It stuck to what it was known for. That's the whole point we're trying to make here.
To be perfectly honest Arabian mythology only had some minor influence on one island in KQ6, Isle of the Crown (even there it was fairly marginal).
Every other island was based on a number of things including sort of pseudo-French motif on the Isle of the Beast, the Greco-Roman/Cretian on the Isle of Sacred Mountain... Alice and Wonderland for the Isle of Wonder... 18th century romantic concept of 'druidic culture' on the Isle of Mists... Realm of the Dead is a combination of few different sources, but relies more on a H.R. Giger style theme.
Like I said before KQ especially the later games from KQ5 up to KQ8 rely more on a series of themed areas, based on multiple cultural influence.
KQ7 has several lands all based on different cultural themes each uniquely divided, including Meso-American in the Desert. Some Greco-Roman aspects in the Bountfiul Woods. Ooga Booga is sort of Tim Burtonesque with some Washington Irving thrown in. Falderal/Nonsense Land is more of a "Looking Glass/Wonderland or Oz" with some other influences thrown in (Chicken Little for example). Fairy Court is a bit of medieval and renaisance legends. Etc...
BTW, least you forget, KQ5's desert region is largely inspired off of Arabian Nights tales as well with a touch of Petra. The Dark Forest is motif in various fairy tales. Serenia itself is loosely central European in style.
You are right... Quest for Glory is about punning and joke making in nearly every line of diologue. It never really took itself serious at all.
King's Quest was quite the oposite in many ways. With the main characters and narrator often taking everything serious. While humor exists, it's not the focus of the story itself. At least the main characters tend to treat the events they are in on a serious note.