Do you wish that there will never be a new KQ game?
Does anyone else here actively hope and wish that another KQ game--whether by TT or any group that is not the fans--is never, ever made?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
If they don't do it right, they shouldn't do it at all. I'm not actively wishing for them to drop the project, but if it turns out as something that could have been called any other game at all but for the KQ brand slapped on it and starring Graham, I will have wished that they had dropped it. Especially if it feels less like Sierra and more like LucasArts, because the point of this project is not to prove that devs from LucasArts can make a better Sierra adventure than devs from Sierra could.
I've been interested in Mage's Initiation ever since AGDI announced it back when KQ3 first came out. They seem to be taking forever to get it done, and it's a for profit project through their commercial brand, Himalaya Studios. They took forever on fan games, yes. But if they're taking forever on commercially profitable stuff, then I don't see how they would be better than TTG other than that TTG is more modern and AGDI is more old-school.
I'm just saying that if AGDI had obtained the rights when TTG did, and announced it when TTG did, I don't think AGDI would be done with it by now either, even considering that they don't have many other projects to work on like TTG does. That's not excusig TTG for taking this long, though.
Bt
Himalaya, Please no... I don't really like their art style in comparison to the classic KQ games. Although perhaps that could be improved if they had an actual budget to work with. So I'll give, that that could be improved.
Secondly their KQ games (barring their KQ1 remake) have very little to do with the classic series, being almost a complete reimagining with many plot divergences.
Would I like to see them make the The Father's Acension game alluded to in part 2 and Part 3? Sure, it would be nice to see how they would have taken that story. But don't want it being considered a continuation of the true King's Quest series...
However, some members of AGDI have said in the past if they made a commerical KQ game (or remake of KQ2, KQ3, etc) it wouldn't have anything to do with the Father, and would remain closer to the original KQ games. This I actually support, as I want continuation to be a continuation of the official games, not any fan game or remake. But how true it sticks to the original games is based in many factors, and is a matter of opinion.
So you have a catch-22 conundrum really. The Father idea is an idea that would remain in the realm of the fan games. But they don't want to do another Fan Game. Yet if they went commericial with KQ it would stick closer to the original stories instead, so no closure to the Father storyline.
So people can't have it both ways.
"Egos" doesn't really cover why that would be a very difficult goal. There are a lot of complicated legal, business, financial, administrative, and creative details to trying to do something like that. "Too many cooks in the kitchen" comes to mind. Everyone could have a really great idea, but just deciding whose vision to go with would be a long and trying process. Then what role do the others play? How about what engine to use, what art style? Who do those tools belong to, ultimately? Whose site is this game hosted on? How is income from the sales split? Who answers to who?
These may seem like "ego" issues, and while that can play a role, it's really got a lot to do with coordination. We can idealize that everyone will get along and it'll all "sort itself out" but realistically, that won't happen. It's a lot of voices and you need only one or a few to be the one(s) leading the choir, here.
Impossible? No. But I'm just saying it would be a difficult and complicated task that goes far beyond the potential clash of "ego".
I think all the issues you mention could be settled with meetings. I really think, in terms of the long run, a joined company of sorts would not only be good for the adventure genre--as all the companies that would (ideally) be involved are INCREDIBLY talented (POS, IA, AGDI)--but you wouldn't be working on just one game. In the long run, with shared resources at your disposal, each studio could work harder, with larger budgets and more tools, to create better games.
Let me draft out a basic idea, to address some of your concerns:
1) Each company would form one joint company, but all companies would retain both their creative autonomy as well as their individual brands, IE Phoenix Online would still be Phoenix Online, IA would still be IA. All that would be shared are production resources and distribution, as well as possibly an R&D department and if it was wanted, a shared PR department. Only "functional" departments would be shared--not creative departments.
2) All of the company heads would form a sort of "Board of Directors." Each with equal say. Every year or so, this Board could convene to elect a Chairman, who would act basically as an "overseer" of sorts. A majority of the board, or a 2/3rds majority, would have to elect the Chairman. This Board would NOT make any creative decisions for the individual studios. It would only address "big" issues--Like for example, the addition of another company to the corporation, which would be voted on. It would be very loose sort of oversight.
Alternatively, this Board could elect, in the same fashion, someone OUTSIDE of the company--think a CEO or someone from some other company, someone respected by the majority with more experience--who the majority agreed on. For example, the Board could hire someone like Ken Williams or an ex-Sierra person to act as the Chairman. Something along those lines, electing someone outside of the Board so there's no domination by one company over the other or any conflict of interests.
3) Each company would follow it's own creative vision. None of the joint companies would have any influence over any one company's creative direction--Unless one company wanted help or guidance from another. Once again, only non-creative functions are shared. You'd all use your own art styles, engine, etc. Just like while being a subsidiary of Sierra, Dynamix used it's own engines, so did Papyrus, etc.
4) As for site--each individual company would retain it's own site. The joint company would have it's own, separate site.
5) Income from sales could be divided based on resources shared and allocated.
6) Department heads of each company would answer to their respective CEOs and/or Presidents.
7) Some core members from EACH company would work as employees of the joint company. A headquarters of sorts.
The idea is very rough and requires refinement of course--I am no expert in these matters. What I would do is look at the business model and financial set up Sierra had at it's peak. Between 1990 and 1995, Sierra acquired around 12 different companies. Each company functioned as a studio of Sierra--"Part of the Sierra Family." Yet despite being subsidiaries, each company retained it's creative autonomy, it's own branding and marketing, it's own physical location, and it's own management. All that was shared was sales, resources and distribution.
If any of you ever did consider any idea like this, I'd consult Ken Williams. He's great at this kind of stuff--Joint companies, mergers, etc--Making one company into a "Family" of companies. Think of the company culture and structure of Sierra prior to 1996.
I'm just thinking long term here. All of the fan groups have in common the fact that they are all inspired directly by Sierra, all of them love Sierra style adventure games. The various groups all could do something better together, could create something lasting in the long run, could really grow and become a big time player in the game industry, especially in the adventure game corner of the industry.
A big joint company could also, if they ever wanted to, negotiate easier with Activision. Rather than ten tiny fan groups all equally wanting the KQ license, for example, one moderately sized joint company with strong resources and connections, could be in a better position to negotiate.
This is a free market. We all want to do what it is that we want to do. That's the beauty of it. Just because McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's all make burgers doesn't mean they should form up one Super Burger company.
Bt
Sorry. I just want to see one of these companies grow powerful as a commercial company.....That's all I want. A great, powerful, commercial adventure game company that makes adventure games in the style of Sierra's games--Like TT makes adventure games in a style akin to LucasArts. That's all I'd like to see. A spiritual successor to Sierra get as big as TT has.
A true successor to Sierra would have to have some members of the original Sierra teams...
Some of these Kickstarter projects started by classic Sierra directors and team members are the true successors to the Sierra style... Although they may not necessairly copy Sierra style entirely. The Coles for example have said that Hero-U will intentionally be avoiding the style of Quest For Glory series, and will be something new.
A bigger, more powerful company = more funding, employees and resources to develop an even better game (or games), be it in terms of the game's size or scope or graphics or detail or art style, etc. For example, in 1990 a company with the size and financial strength that Sierra had say in 1983, couldn't have produced KQ5 or 6. KQ5's budget for example was $1 million and it was a state of the art game. It takes big budgets to produce "big" games, to produce state of the art sort of games. To produce A++ quality titles, you have to have a very nice sized budget.
Why are we trusting anyway that all of these games by these ex-Sierra people will be quality titles, budget notwithstanding, to play Devil's Advocate for a moment? All of the people you mentioned have either not done a game in many years, or were last involved in subpar projects, or at the very least, games that got mixed reviews. I'm sure they'll be great personally, I have faith in all of them and am especially excited for SpaceVenture, but it is the same sort of skepticism that some have to the (impossible) idea of Roberta Williams ever producing a KQ9--Skepticism based on how KQ8 turned out.
When I say a new Sierra, I don't mean I want all the original Sierra designers under one roof again. That'd be like a reunion of an old band--the magic wouldn't be there again a second time, or wouldn't be the same. What I mean is having people who are young, talented, with fresh, sharp and younger minds and ideas, who actively play video games and know the modern industry, working together to make games in a Sierra influenced style.
That said, I realize my dream of a merger will likely never happen, so in any case, I'll definitely be buying Cognition and Infamous Quests and SpaceVenture and whatever else the Sierra alumni and Sierra fan groups cook up on their own.
And those former Sierra employees are a 'safer bet', as it were, because they've proven themselves already. People know their names, they can check out their previous works.
And I'll echo much of what everyone else said. It's very impractical on top of being nigh-impossible to oragnize, even if everyone was interested in doing so. So, like you said, enjoy the products we're all coming out with on our own and how each company is going to have its own unique style, story, flair, and so forth, to add more variety to the gaming world, and to adventure games in particular.
I think that's the best any of us can do at this point.
It is worth pointing out though, that through this whole "successful" fan-game process, real-world connections have been made between the original Sierra developers and the fan groups, and those certainly have the potential to coalesce into something cool in the future. Jane Jensen working with POS on Cognition is a prime example.
A "bigger company" is the difference between the early Telltale Games (which I found refreshing), and the current ones (which I find formulaic)
Freedom to design a game as a designer actually desires becomes less possible as a company gets bigger. Freedom to explore ideas, developing for niche genres (newsflash, p&c adventure games are a niche genre right now), creativity in general... these are all hallmarks of smaller companies.
A wish for a large, "well funded", super-company that is cranking out adventure games is an ignorant and/or naive request with no eye towards previous companies that have been in that position, or current ones. When a company becomes big, they either crank out yearly sequels to the 2-3 IP's with wide variations in quality, or they find a specific formula and repeat it until the industry moves on without them. Ironically, depending on if your a fan of the later KQ games or not, you could blame Sierra of falling in either trap.
Posting solely for the purpose of pointing out spotty grammar in a post made two weeks ago is a much, MUCH larger fail than the grammar issue you're pointing out.
Spirits of Mist
And Creatures of Bog:
Transform Debbie82
To the shape of a Frog.
The new Telltale games are like the QTE-filled "Dragon's Lair" game, but much easier and with more dialogue. In other words, they are like interactive movies and the game worlds offer the player almost no opportunity for exploration.
They are NOT adventure games. Telltale may have improved upon previous interactive movies, but their games lack a lot of what makes adventure games so special. Yet Telltale wants us to believe that we should all be jumping for joy because they have agreed to step in and save the day by serving up some of this interactive movie stuff while calling it King's Quest as a way to make a few bucks? As Judge Judy once said, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
As for the idea that only dumbed down, interactive movie–style games will find success with a wide audience, come back to me when Telltale stops relying on existing, immensely popular intellectual property and releases something original. Also, I think this year will see at least a couple more traditional adventure games (not based on already-popular comics or books, mind you) become notable successes.
I want to see a new KQ made by a team that actually loves traditional adventure games. Given what Telltale's Dave Grossman has had to say about King's Quest and classic adventure gaming, that would rule out Telltale.
Me too, though I have been underwhelmed by the Hero-U previews and don't feel too enthused about getting that one.
The one to really watch is the new Larry game, IMO. I think that's going to be one of the bigger success stories of the bunch. For all his alleged, questionable online drama antics, it's worth noting that Paul Trowe did impressively manage to get the LSL rights, Al Lowe, Josh Mandel, a Grammy-nominated composer, a great development team in NFusion, etc., and it looks like he may just pull off a hit. The previews look solid.
I think it is ludicrous that it is costing them this much money and taking this long to simply redraw the various levels in LSL1.
Yea yea, I get that it is a bit more complex then that, but in that same time period - completely unique games with completely unique stories have made huge progress, and are on track to release around the same time (if not before).
Companies like Tierra/AGDI and Infamous re-released older games, kept the same nostalgic styles, and improved upon them - all for the low low cost of free.
One can only hope this new HD remake doesn't have the same problem.
Telltale's only "interactive movie game" seems to be Jurassic Park. Granted, Back to the Future is very easy, and quite buggy, but I wouldn't compare it, Sam & Max, nor Tales of Monkey Island directly with QTE games such as Dragon's Lair, Star Trek: Borg or A Fork in the Tale. I haven't played a whole lot of The Walking Dead, but it is very good from what I've played, and its QTE moments have changing impact on the story which gives them meaning rather than feeling like forcibly scripted button presses. To be honest, I prefer them over the arcade sequences in the AGDI KQ games (the escape on seahorse in KQ2+ comes to mind).
On the other hand, Telltale is not widely well known for their old-school style (quite the contrary, in fact); we know nothing of their KQ dev team's personal interest in Sierra games; nor do we know if they're planning to cater to nostalgic KQ5/6 fans or else to have in mind that the KQ games endeavored to change as technology improved. So, there's no evidence to support that their KQ game would be loved at all by the existing KQ fanbase.