...and some people wonder if Thief 4 will see the light of day or is just the latest major vaporware project since Duke Nukem Forever (although its not even close to reaching the time it took for that game to be released).
Reading through this thread, there is a distinct pattern.
Those of us who have been here and were posting for the past 2 years tend to fall on the side of "not looking likely" in regards to a KQ release. And then there is a whole crowd of names I've never seen before posting on about how TT *must* be working on it....
I don't know if it was BT's offer of QFI (which any self respecting ass in this forum should have already bought by now - we are talking like $15 people), but holy hell, where did all these TT fan's come from? When The Walking Dead released, did they flood out of that forum and look for new bandwagons to jump on?
For all the new people, I encourage you to go back and read the same pedantic arguments we have been having for two years. Here are the highlights:
* TT can't make a good KQ game based on *anything* they have previously released
* KQ 8 *IS* a numbered sequel in the KQ universe, not a spin-off, not an unofficial game, etc
* The bridle in KQ4 is one of the most obscure and badly designed puzzles ever, and if you disagree I will personally haunt you
* The episodic style is not good for a game in the vein of KQ, which relies on large, open-ended worlds, and exploration (not 3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles)
More ambiguously, it was generally decided that:
* TT, or anyone else who tackles the KQ license, should just reboot the series. KQ8 would be a confusing and difficult to follow-up.
* Either KQ5 or 6 was the best game yet, depends on if you like custard pies and anal retentive owls or disney songs better.
and finally, my own thought:
* It really doesn't matter if they reboot it, if it is episodic, or anything else above. Because if they somehow DO manage to release this game, it will fail in the eyes of 95% of the KQ fans here anyways. Just like you can't take a lucasarts game and shove it into an agi text parsar world, you also can't take a series that relies on difficulty, death, and complex puzzles and shove it into the current TT mold.
BT - if you ever have to give a free version of QFI out, change the main character to a fat douchebag wearing a shirt that says, "cheap prick". Also, make it so that they die every 10 minutes if they don't type in, "get on knees and suck off telltale".
BT - if you ever have to give a free version of QFI out, change the main character to a fat douchebag wearing a shirt that says, "cheap prick". Also, make it so that they die every 10 minutes if they don't type in, "get on knees and suck off telltale".
HAHAHAHAHA! I love it. We could probably just edit the sprites already made for Jan....
I don't know if it was BT's offer of QFI (which any self respecting ass in this forum should have already bought by now - we are talking like $15 people), but holy hell, where did all these TT fan's come from? When The Walking Dead released, did they flood out of that forum and look for new bandwagons to jump on?
Well, speaking for myself, I've been following Telltale for a long time. I just didn't bother posting on the forums before The Walking Dead. I don't post on a lot of internet forums in general. I started with TWD because (A) I found myself with more time on my hands when I started playing it and (B) it's unlike previous Telltale titles in being the sort of story that really encourages discussion and debate.
More to the point, so what if people are just jumping on because of The Walking Dead? Isn't it a good thing that more people are getting interested in adventure games? This is the kind of attitude that's kept the genre marginalized for the last fifteen years. Any time someone new comes along who hasn't played an outdated game from the '80s, there are too many fans who just say, "you're not allowed in our secret clubhouse."
TT can't make a good KQ game based on *anything* they have previously released
That's insane. Telltale has built its whole company on licensed games. Including the revival of series from LucasArts' golden age of adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island. And, while The Walking Dead is an obvious exception, most of their games have been based on light-hearted fantasy worlds, just like King's Quest is. Frankly, I can't think of any game developer in the industry today that would be a more perfect fit for a new King's Quest game.
KQ 8 *IS* a numbered sequel in the KQ universe, not a spin-off, not an unofficial game, etc
It's actually *NOT* a numbered sequel. The official title is King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, not King's Quest 8. But I take it that your point is that MoE is official KQ canon. Which is, sadly, true. I really wish we could all just pretend it never happened. But for now, we have to assume that MoE is actually canonical.
The episodic style is not good for a game in the vein of KQ, which relies on large, open-ended worlds, and exploration (not 3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles)
The same could have been said of Monkey Island, and yet it made the transition to episodic games just fine. Just because the series has traditionally had longer stories in a time when game developers were willing to invest bigger budgets in adventure games is no reason to think it can't be made episodic. Frankly, "3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles" sounds to me like a far more entertaining adventure game than Mask of Eternity.
It really doesn't matter if they reboot it, if it is episodic, or anything else above. Because if they somehow DO manage to release this game, it will fail in the eyes of 95% of the KQ fans here anyways.
There's a good chance that that's true. Which is sad. But unfortunately, there are a lot of fans who are so stuck in the past they can't enjoy a new game that isn't riddled with the kinds of horrible design flaws most of us were glad to leave behind decades ago but are now, for some reason, remembered fondly based purely on nostalgia. The way I see it, that's their loss. The rest of us will enjoy experiencing a classic King's Quest tale without the frustration of dying every five minutes because there was a pixel we missed five hours earlier in the game.
That's insane. Telltale has built its whole company on licensed games. Including the revival of series from LucasArts' golden age of adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island. And, while The Walking Dead is an obvious exception, most of their games have been based on light-hearted fantasy worlds, just like King's Quest is. Frankly, I can't think of any game developer in the industry today that would be a more perfect fit for a new King's Quest game.
To add to that, a ton of Walking Dead fans were saying similar things before Telltale's Walking Dead came out: because Telltale was known for light-hearted adventure games, they wouldn't be able to make a game to do TWD justice. We all know how that turned out.
The reason many believe that Telltale can't produce a quality KQ game because of their past titles is because of the idea that their past titles are nothing like King's Quest and King's Quest will never work in TT's formula. We're not talking about story tone and plot, we're talking game puzzle and world mechanics and functionality. TT is actually good at storywriting for the most part.
Also, The same cannot be said for Tales. Tales works in episodic format very well because Monkey Island already has chapters in each game. also, many of the people working on Tales worked on the original games. Also again, Monkey Island is not King's Quest. Have you even played King's Quest? Any of them? MOE doesn't really count in this discussion. Say what you want about bad game designs, many of those things that you seem to hate are what made King's Quest what it was and what made fans love it for years. You mess with that it's not going to be pretty.
I (being a man who has played all of the kings quests), feel that kings quest could possibly be an episodic game. Imagine, if you will, the kingdom of Daventry fully available to the player at the beginning of the first episode. Where the episodes are not separate areas (unlike Tales of Monkey Island, where the location changed in each episode), but instead continuations of the story. Sierra did this in the game "Freddy Pharkas Frontier Pharmacist". The entire town of Coarsegold was available to the player at the start, but each chapter was a problem/epidemic that Freddy had to solve with what was already there. It worked very well in that sierra game and I imagine it can work with a new Kings Quest game.
Telltale's game could never be the original Kings Quest. It would undoubtedly be different than the previous kings quest games. However, honestly the Kings Quest we all know and love, changed through the course of it's saga. After the first game many changes were made: one game had real time (4), a few games changed their protagonist (3,4,7), the text parser was dropped for a mouse based gui (4-7), the game's story became more linear than just 'find three things', one added an annoying owl helper (I use the word helper loosely)(5). These are just some of the examples of how the game evolved over time. If Telltale were to make a Kings Quest episodic series, it would simply be another change over time. Telltale has not failed me yet, and if they make a Kings Quest game I have no doubt it would do sierra proud.
It wasn't all good progress, though. It eventually evolved for the worse. KQ7, and to a greater extend KQ8, were not improvements to the series in my opinion (despite the fact that I enjoyed KQ8).
I don't think they're working on it.
True, Telltale doesn't reveal too much about upcoming games, but Fables hasn't been nearly as secretive as King's Quest until now. We know for example that Mike Stemmle is handling Fables, he also posted in the dedicated forum as soon as the section was opened, more than a year ago.
No designer/writer/producer has ever posted anything about King's Quest.
More to the point, so what if people are just jumping on because of The Walking Dead? Isn't it a good thing that more people are getting interested in adventure games? This is the kind of attitude that's kept the genre marginalized for the last fifteen years. Any time someone new comes along who hasn't played an outdated game from the '80s, there are too many fans who just say, "you're not allowed in our secret clubhouse."
Hey, guess what. See that thing way over your head? Yea, that was my point, you totally missed it. I don't give a shit if you want to join the "secret clubhouse". It's not so secret. It's a public friggin forum that has been dead for quite some time. I was simply pointing out that in the debate over whether or not this game would actually be released, that it was interesting to me that those of us who have been discussing the game at length for quite some time are all the very skeptical ones, while the new batch of fellows are all very optimistic. It's not a value judgement, it is a factual observation.
That's insane. Telltale has built its whole company on licensed games. Including the revival of series from LucasArts' golden age of adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island. And, while The Walking Dead is an obvious exception, most of their games have been based on light-hearted fantasy worlds, just like King's Quest is. Frankly, I can't think of any game developer in the industry today that would be a more perfect fit for a new King's Quest game.
As musicallyinspired pointed out, it has nothing to do with it being a light hearted fantasy world. It has to do with the fact that KQ games are large, open world games, full of characters, complex puzzles, disastrous consequences, and somewhat tricky mechanics. Again, you totally missed the point. I have played at least 1-2 episodes from every series TT has released. None of them are open world, none of them have complex puzzles, none of them are even difficult for that matter (I have never spent more than an hour or 2 on any episode, and I've never had to consult a walkthrough). And in recent times they have gone heavy on the quicktime bullshit.
I only got two episodes into BttF, because frankly, it was a boring ass world. The town square in episode one is static, not detailed, and takes way too long to traverse from one side to the other. I spent more time walking around in that game from one of the three available locations to one of the other three locations then I did actually dealing with any puzzles.
Jurassic Park was just a joke. Sam N Max was fun, until it got repetitive after 3 seasons. Walking Dead's "moral" choices are contrived, and really don't affect anything. Save this person? Then that person hates you. Save the other person? Now a different person hates you. None of it really effects where the game is going, what scenes take place in what order, or how the game world at large plays out. The most interesting thing about it was seeing what percentage of people picked different choices at the end. And what do you have without the moral choices? A small gameworld, with 2-3 puzzles, and a handful of conversations you can have.... oh... hey.... like every single TT game to date.
You cited Tales from MI, yet this is a LucasArts style game. Again, as has been pointed out, these were always presented in chapters. And the puzzles in Tales do not compare to those of the core games. The game was fun, humorous, and a nice short distraction, but it was also a TT game with MI thrown in... just like every game they release... They run a formula, and while that works for some people and some licenses, KQ simply isn't suited for it.
It's actually *NOT* a numbered sequel. The official title is King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, not King's Quest 8. But I take it that your point is that MoE is official KQ canon. Which is, sadly, true. I really wish we could all just pretend it never happened. But for now, we have to assume that MoE is actually canonical.
Roberta herself specifically stated that Mask of Eternity is synonymous for King's Quest 8. We've been over all this shit already, there are entire threads devoted to it. Please feel free to indulge in one of them, but don't bring that shit back up in here. The whole reason I brought it up is because it is one of many, admittedly retarded, debates that has already been put to bed around here. If your going to crash our "secret clubhouse", at least don't be a retard while your at it.
For the record, there was also quite a bit of official press material that is labeled as King's Quest 8, not MoE. Baggins is like, some creepy collector of all this stuff. He has black magic contacts and arcane knowledge. Defy him, and you are liable to received a 4,000 word response beat down. But you would know that already if you didn't walk in just to say that everything that makes KQ enjoyable to us is crap, and should all be scrapped for a light hearted romp through jackass land.
The same could have been said of Monkey Island, and yet it made the transition to episodic games just fine. Just because the series has traditionally had longer stories in a time when game developers were willing to invest bigger budgets in adventure games is no reason to think it can't be made episodic. Frankly, "3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles" sounds to me like a far more entertaining adventure game than Mask of Eternity.
If the goal is to simply make a KQ game that is more entertaining that MoE, then the bar is already set so low that we should all just go home. It is fucking sad to me that you have to go and find potentially the worst game in the series and use *that* as the mark that TT might be able to push past. Nobody here wants another KQ8. Nobody anywhere wants another KQ8. Nobody here, there, or anywhere, is going to look at a TT game and rationalize any shortcomings by saying, "Well... at least it's better than 8....". The reason for this is quite simple - nobody is anxiously awaiting a TT KQ game based on their love of KQ8. While everyone here may have a different favorite KQ game, part 5 and 6 are two of the most loved. So *these* are generally the games that still define the series. KQ7 wasn't bad, imho, but it was also such a departure from a tonal standpoint (and artistically) from the much darker KQ6, that it sort of stands apart from the rest.
There's a good chance that that's true. Which is sad. But unfortunately, there are a lot of fans who are so stuck in the past they can't enjoy a new game that isn't riddled with the kinds of horrible design flaws most of us were glad to leave behind decades ago but are now, for some reason, remembered fondly based purely on nostalgia. The way I see it, that's their loss. The rest of us will enjoy experiencing a classic King's Quest tale without the frustration of dying every five minutes because there was a pixel we missed five hours earlier in the game.
There is nothing sad about loving a franchise for what it was, and hoping/expecting that any resurrections of it are true to what made you love the series in the first place.
If it is your standpoint that the old KQ games are purely loved for nostalgia, and at their core they are "riddled with horrible design flaws", then you really have no business here. If all you want from a KQ game is a light hearted fantasy, then you don't actually *want* a KQ game. KQ games were NEVER known for their stories. What planet are you from if *that* is what defines it for you?
And please, pray tell, what are all these horrible design flaws that we are all looking over with rose tinted glasses? Pixel hunting? That was indigenous to nearly all adventure games of the time period, so is it your stance that the entire genre as it stood in the 90's was "horrible flawed"?
No wonder you like recent TT games. You don't have to use that little brain of yours. They do it all for you. You get to just click through conversations and get through a quicktime event or 2, and then monkey clap for yourself for solving a "puzzle".
And for the record, I will say that no one who has been in this thread for any amount of time "left behind these games decades ago". I for one still play through the KQ games every few years, and I am positive many others her do as well. I also still go back and play lots of adventure games from that time period that I missed.
All you have done here is show how little you understand of what made the KQ series popular in the first place, and then divorced all that out of the formula, and boiled what was left down to a "light hearted fantasy".
So if that is all you want, go petition TT to make you a My Little Pony game. Then you get all the light hearted fantasy you want, without shitting all over a franchise that is much more then simply a "light hearted fantasy"
I don't see why you even want TT to make a KQ game, as you come across as hating the entire series, as well as the mechanics that made it popular. What, were you 6 back then? No patience? Couldn't read yet? I don't get it.
I don't think they're working on it.
True, Telltale doesn't reveal too much about upcoming games, but Fables hasn't been nearly as secretive as King's Quest until now. We know for example that Mike Stemmle is handling Fables, he also posted in the dedicated forum as soon as the section was opened, more than a year ago.
No designer/writer/producer has ever posted anything about King's Quest.
Well, the TTG Designer JD Straw (Sinaz20) posted a lot of "personal" thoughts on KQ, but it was more then a year ago. He was "trying to compile a lot of research material to build a reference library for the eventual team." (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=481683#post481683)
The most significant post he wrote about the game itself is his last one on KQ board:
All of our communication with designers related to previous King's Quest games has been positive.
Our designers recognize that King's Quest cannot be handled in the same fashion as games like Monkey Island and Sam n Max.
We reached out to Roberta Williams to get insight about what she felt was core to the games rather than simply relying on our experience from the gamer side of the screen.
She declined to participate because she has truly put the series behind her. She supports our endeavors.
What happened since 06/24/2011 nobody knows - that was the last time JD Straw or any other TTG staff posted anything about the game, as far as I know.
Ah yes, I remember that post. It was a bright day for me. Not only did they admit it could not be handled in the same way, but Roberta was also out of the picture. While she gets credit for what KQ once was, I have never had much confidence in her returning to the series. It's not like a LSL game, where all you really need is Al Lowe's humor. Roberta was pretty clear even back in the 90's that she wanted to move away from the SCI style (not just art, but also gameplay). While KQ8 had it's own troubles, and there was a bit of a power struggle there at times, it was still a game she put out. And she also put out KQ7. Again, the game isn't inherently bad, but I think musicallyinclined put it best when you said it wasn't exactly a positive evolution for the series. Then, when you take into account where she was going with her other series, like phantasmagoria... well, you see a huge departure on all fronts (technologically, gameplay, story-wise) from what KQ was. In a lot of ways she reminds me of George Lucas. The guy seemed to have a phase where he was creating quite a few interesting properties. But the longer he got to sit with them, develop them, and mess with them, the farther he pushed them away from what had originally made them interesting in the first place.
And I think that this also is exactly the nail in the coffin.
Exhibit A:
"Game can't be handled in the same fashion as previous games."
Does anyone here truly think they will develop a new engine, or gameplay style for this property? Why go through all that work when they can keep buying up licenses like JP and BttF and shoving them into the same mold. Walking Dead's success will bring more companies to the table looking to expand their properties to all the markets that TT games reach. One of the huge benefits to their current engine/platform is that it can be played across so many devices.
Exhibit B:
This forum.
Who is the audience for a King's Quest game? Well, apart from a few random buys here and there, it is people who are already familiar with King's Quest. For all the reason's listed in the forums over the past 2 years, the most engaged fanbase of KQ don't feel TT is a good fit. The companies history, lack of info, and current releases are all direct evidence against a good KQ game. The only defense provided *ever* here in the forums was, 'give them a chance, maybe it will be good.".... which isn't really a defense at all, it is hoping against hope that the stars will align.
If a hefty percentage of the people familiar with the franchise don't buy it, then what chance does it have with the general public... to whom it may appear to be a generic fantasy game?
So does it make business sense to develop a new engine or gameplay model for a series that TT's style to date doesn't suit? Or does it make more sense to continue acquiring properties that more easily fit into their current mold, have a wider fan base, and don't require extra development work.
Everyone here, except magodesky, would like to have a great KQ game (he wants an interactive storybook). So the criticisms that are leveled are not to shoot down any possibility of a good TellTale release, rather they exist to guide. Games like QFI are a direct result of the desire for games of that era, and to a certain extent so is Tim Schafer's current project.
I, would love to be wrong about TT. I would love for them to release a game that shocks the adventure gaming community and is not derivative of the current state of things. I'd like to believe in a loving god and heaven too, but some things just aren't rational based on observed experiences.
Well, the TTG Designer JD Straw (Sinaz20) posted a lot of "personal" thoughts on KQ, but it was more then a year ago. He was "trying to compile a lot of research material to build a reference library for the eventual team."
Whooops, I stand corrected.
And yet... that "eventual" doesn't sound good...
Regarding the "can it fit an episodic format" question:
On reflection it occurs to me that at least KQ6 (and I suppose KQ7 as well) already were heavily chapter-based, transparently so for the former and explicitly for the latter. I personally enjoyed KQ6 the best of the entire series, and while KQ7 had many flaws, the chapter system was not one of them, so I don't see TT's format itself as being particular problematic.
I agree that the general open-world of the earlier games is missing in all of TT's games (and often stiflingly so), and is something that they'd benefit from re-examining as a whole. I assume the intent is to spread out design and development over the course of the release schedule rather than front-loading it, which may make it impossible, but KQ would feel more like KQ if they could manage to build most if not all of the world up-front to provide a larger playable area.
Of course the largest point of contention will probably always be the unforgiving deaths. That's really just going to be subjective. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them improve on the checkpoint/retry system used in KQ7; it would allow frequent and gruesome ends, but still keep to the relatively easy-going TT style. The older KQ games (and indeed, most of the AGI games) relied often on arbitrary or unfair difficulty in order to stand-in for a challenge. IME, the nostalgia for that sort of gameplay doesn't hold up so well today. Those games are artefacts (and ones which I hold a special fondness for) but I'm quite happy that in general game design has improved and relies less on such crutches.
I have to disagree with KQ7's chapter system not being a flaw.
Due to the nature of solving puzzles with different items, I remember loosing my save once, using their chapter system to get back to the stupid like town with the moon made of cheese, and having a completely different inventory than what I had when I was there.
Anytime you have items you earlier acquired that need to be used later, if there is any variation in how those items can be used, it breaks the whole chapter system.
I'm not sure I see how KQ6 was chapter based. There were islands.... but you could travel to them in any order. The key was having the right items or knowledge to gain entry. But that is like any adventure game. Technically you could leave the castle in KQ3 anytime you wanted... but if you didn't do it at the right time, you died. So is that chapter based? Simply because some gameplay takes place in a castle, then later it is in a town, and then later it is on a ship, etc...? Or is that just scenario changes?
TellTales chapters are very self contained. The Walking Dead was the first game to come along that took anything you did previously into account, and carried that over. Unfortunately, the game *had* to progress in a linear fashion and all choices come to the same ends, otherwise you create exponentially different endings, which requires exponential programming and assets that only a fraction of all players will ever see.
KQ games, as Josh Mandell referred to it in his most recent LSL post, were heavily focused on "flags". Character A might not interact with you, until you did a certain task or talked to someone, at which point that flag got hit, and you have now opened that interaction. Hence the tracking around within an open world.
Chapter based systems kill this off.
A chapter based game means either:
A: All items used to solve puzzles must exist within that chapter, and its locations
or
B: If an item carries over from a previous chapter, the user *must* find it before it allows that chapter to end.
In scenario A: you have already broken the open world concept. In KQ6 you use items from one island to solve puzzles on another. So if you consider the islands to be separate chapters, you are dealing with scenario B.
In scenario B: the user HAS to pick up something that he /she can't even use yet just to progress. Otherwise the next chapter is unwinnable. If you HAVE to pick up the hole-in-the-wall on one island, to use it in the maze in the next chapter... then you either have to have an end point that directs the user to go pick shit up until they find the right item to end the chapter, or you have to put it right out with neon lights so they can't miss it. No matter how you handle it, you kill off the whole exploration nature.
Missing certain things, and having to backtrack to them, is an important part of adventuring. If your always guaranteed to have the items you need, then what is the challenge?
If you play KQ7 without using the chapter marker system, it played alright. As soon as you change chapters though manually, you break your inventory. Your items change, you process of solving puzzles changes, and it breaks any immersion you had as now the character you were playing as has essentially been "reset"
I HATE HATE HATE KQ7's chapter system. Exo has elaborated most of the reasons above, which I pretty much agree with completely. Also, in KQ7, the whole reason they did the chapter system was to essentially replace the need for manual saving. Eventually they restored the ability to save manually in a later patch, because it was such a bad decision to remove it originally, and so many people voiced displeasure at it. You only had a "save and quit" option, which REALLY made the game feel different (bad different) from the previous entries in the series. You couldn't create savegames whenever you wanted, so in order to allow the player to reply sections again, they staged the arbitrary "chapter" checkpoints. The chapters were also incorporated into the narrative somewhat, in order to create little cliffhangers within the story. I don't have a problem with that idea in and of itself, as it can enhance the narrative, but in KQ7 it always felt artificial and immersion breaking to me, like they had written the story, and then decided on a chapter system, and then weakly shoehorned the story to fit that format. It just wasn't handled as well as it could have been.
Also, you should NEVER be able to skip to the end of a game without playing the first parts like that. It was a ridiculous design decision. At least with Telltale, we wouldn't have to worry about the ridiculousness of playing the chapters out of order. But yeah, in general, chapter system = FUCKING TERRIBLE DESIGN IDEA for a KQ game.
You all keep using the acronym "TT" instead of "TTG". It's bothering me.
You say "TT" and it reminds me of the ignorant people who confuse Traveller's Tales (developer of the LEGO games)
for Telltale Games.
I'm not saying you're confusing the companies. I'm saying TT is not Telltale Games' official acronym.
EDIT: Also, many are saying that TTG's KQ isn't and won't ever be made, but my question is: are there any projects that they said they'd work on that they ended up entirely not doing so? I know there is a long list of things left undone from various games (ie. Bone episode 3, NutriSpecs, downloadable Earl-Boen-voiced TOMI chapter 1, etc.) but I don't think they've neglected a project entirely.
for christs sake chryon. Every bloody person here (on the Telltale forums) knows that TT = Telltale. If you need a friggin G added to the end to know I am referring to TellTale and not Travelers Tales, then you have been playing too many damn lego games. I really don't care if my abbreviation reminds you of another company that has nothing to do with these forums. Nor do I care if I am using their official acronym. If the acronym police show up (not the community watch that you seem to be a part of), I'll handle it. It is sad this forum has devolved into lectures on the official acronym of Telltale.
Back to the conversation, I always suspected one reason they tried the chapter system in KQ7 was for try to appeal to people who got stuck. Rather than having to actually solve the puzzle, they could say "screw it", and jump to another section. However, that makes about as much sense as reading a book, not knowing what a word means, and just skipping to the next section. But if it sold an extra copy of the game, then Ken says YES! It must take all the willpower in the world for him to stay away from the facebook casual games market.... if he had thought of microtranscations back then, you can bank on the fact that Cedric would have happily taken your credit card info in return for suggestions such as, "OOOOO Graham, Might want to save that pie for later...."
Either way, using KQ7's chapter system as an example to defend the use of chapters within a new game is nonsensical. That's like using crystal pepsi to defend soft drinks as a whole.
I am still completely baffled by the previous suggestion that KQ6 had chapters.... but I assume if I actually knew the reason I would just be disappointed in humanity. Luckily chryon has already fulfilled my disappointment in humanity meter for the day.
for christs sake chryon. Every bloody person here (on the Telltale forums) knows that TT = Telltale. If you need a friggin G added to the end to know I am referring to TellTale and not Travelers Tales, then you have been playing too many damn lego games. I really don't care if my abbreviation reminds you of another company that has nothing to do with these forums. Nor do I care if I am using their official acronym. If the acronym police show up (not the community watch that you seem to be a part of), I'll handle it. It is sad this forum has devolved into lectures on the official acronym of Telltale.
Back to the adults conversation, I always suspected one reason they tried the chapter system in KQ7 was for try to appeal to people who got stuck. Rather than having to actually solve the puzzle, they could say "screw it", and jump to another section. However, that makes about as much sense as reading a book, not knowing what a word means, and just skipping to the next section. But if it sold an extra copy of the game, then Ken says YES! It must take all the willpower in the world for him to stay away from the facebook casual games market.... if he had thought of microtranscations back then, you can bank on the fact that Cedric would have happily taken your credit card info in return for suggestions such as, "OOOOO Graham, Might want to save that pie for later...."
Either way, using KQ7's chapter system as an example to defend the use of chapters within a new game is nonsensical. That's like using crystal pepsi to defend soft drinks as a whole.
I am still completely baffled by the previous suggestion that KQ6 had chapters.... but I assume if I actually knew the reason I would just be disappointed in humanity. Luckily chryon has already fulfilled my disappointment in humanity meter for the day.
You're disappointed that Telltale Games has always gone by "TTG", and that I, as a person who prefers for people to spell and punctuate properly, would rather people used the proper name for things?
How about my name? My name is Chyron, not chryon.
Also, Telltale's previous seasons developed before TOMI are designed specifically so people could play individual episodes without playing the others, so yes comparing that to KQ7's ability to skip immediately to the last chapter does make sense. It's the matter of whether we want the ability to skip chapters that matters (which I for one, do not want--nor did I want it in TOMI.)
The reason for the chapter system in KQ7 seems obvious to me: they wanted both Rosella and Valanice to be playable, and it made sense for there to be chapter breaks when switching between characters, as alternatively allowing both characters to be have been controllable in the same space on the fly (a la Maniac Mansion) would allow the characters to meet too early in the story. No, we don't want to be able to skip chapters in KQ7, but I don't want to skip them in TOMI either and yet I can.
The issue here is really whether or not TTG's KQ will have a large expanse of explorable space early on or not.
Actual one the reasons they went with the chapter system was give it a "storybook" feel. Plus the fact that they need a way to switch back and forth between characters.
It's interesting to note based on unused game assets and development information they had planned for at least one extra chapter. The last chapter apparently wouldn't have been on rails, and they also had started out working on a multi-icon system like the previous games.
Yes it's also my least favorite game in the series.
Pretty sure we all know what TT Games means. Let's not get this thread locked, though. It's doing so well. Heh. It would actually be kind of ironic if it was locked.
I do find the discussion about chapters and episodes to be interesting. I really don't like them either - as others have said, I like the actions that one does early on in the game to have an effect later. I think that's actually very important to adventure games... adventure should have a sense of continuity - of depth and length... you're going on AN adventure, not several little ones.
Kq7 is weird in that it had alternative puzzle solutions based on actions made in earlier "chapters". But if you somehow skipped picking up an item perhaps because you skipped a chapter, they included an alternative location to pick it up elsewhere. For example the fragrant flower.
See, while that works - an alternative location - it almost feels like a cheat or a conceit, you know? I'd rather have an alternate solution to a situation, than be able to pick up the same item somewhere else.
Ya the alternative puzzles to get past the scorpion in the temple for example, or for getting back the glasses from the jackalope were much more interesting way of doing things.
On the negative side they actually destroyed a couple of puzzles in later game versions and challenge by removing the deaths associated with them. For example the dragon tail death and the erupting volcano while inside the volcano passages.
The further into the game the more linear it became was also a problem.
EDIT: Also, many are saying that TTG's KQ isn't and won't ever be made, but my question is: are there any projects that they said they'd work on that they ended up entirely not doing so? I know there is a long list of things left undone from various games (ie. Bone episode 3, NutriSpecs, downloadable Earl-Boen-voiced TOMI chapter 1, etc.) but I don't think they've neglected a project entirely.
Granted, there's a first time for everything.
Like you said, there's a first for everything.
Telltale has never been in this situation after enjoying their biggest selling and most critically acclaimed game yet. Had they knew beforehand of The Walking Dead's success, I guarantee they wouldn't have acquired King's Quest license. They've evolved the genre to be more accessible and financially lucrative that trying to create a traditional point and click adventure with a license that honestly holds very little value in the grand scheme of gaming would be utterly stupid from a business standpoint given the broader audience's attention they now have who will be anxiously awaiting their next release.
Had they knew beforehand of The Walking Dead's success, I guarantee they wouldn't have acquired King's Quest license.
Good. If Telltale doesn't want to do KQ now and doesn't think the series is worth much, and if KQ fans don't want Telltale to do KQ, then Telltale should just end the charade, announce their KQ project is canceled, and stick to making interactive movies based on well-known, existing brands. Issue resolved.
Comments
Those of us who have been here and were posting for the past 2 years tend to fall on the side of "not looking likely" in regards to a KQ release. And then there is a whole crowd of names I've never seen before posting on about how TT *must* be working on it....
I don't know if it was BT's offer of QFI (which any self respecting ass in this forum should have already bought by now - we are talking like $15 people), but holy hell, where did all these TT fan's come from? When The Walking Dead released, did they flood out of that forum and look for new bandwagons to jump on?
For all the new people, I encourage you to go back and read the same pedantic arguments we have been having for two years. Here are the highlights:
* TT can't make a good KQ game based on *anything* they have previously released
* KQ 8 *IS* a numbered sequel in the KQ universe, not a spin-off, not an unofficial game, etc
* The bridle in KQ4 is one of the most obscure and badly designed puzzles ever, and if you disagree I will personally haunt you
* The episodic style is not good for a game in the vein of KQ, which relies on large, open-ended worlds, and exploration (not 3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles)
More ambiguously, it was generally decided that:
* TT, or anyone else who tackles the KQ license, should just reboot the series. KQ8 would be a confusing and difficult to follow-up.
* Either KQ5 or 6 was the best game yet, depends on if you like custard pies and anal retentive owls or disney songs better.
and finally, my own thought:
* It really doesn't matter if they reboot it, if it is episodic, or anything else above. Because if they somehow DO manage to release this game, it will fail in the eyes of 95% of the KQ fans here anyways. Just like you can't take a lucasarts game and shove it into an agi text parsar world, you also can't take a series that relies on difficulty, death, and complex puzzles and shove it into the current TT mold.
BT - if you ever have to give a free version of QFI out, change the main character to a fat douchebag wearing a shirt that says, "cheap prick". Also, make it so that they die every 10 minutes if they don't type in, "get on knees and suck off telltale".
Bt
HAHAHAHAHA! I love it. We could probably just edit the sprites already made for Jan....
Well, speaking for myself, I've been following Telltale for a long time. I just didn't bother posting on the forums before The Walking Dead. I don't post on a lot of internet forums in general. I started with TWD because (A) I found myself with more time on my hands when I started playing it and (B) it's unlike previous Telltale titles in being the sort of story that really encourages discussion and debate.
More to the point, so what if people are just jumping on because of The Walking Dead? Isn't it a good thing that more people are getting interested in adventure games? This is the kind of attitude that's kept the genre marginalized for the last fifteen years. Any time someone new comes along who hasn't played an outdated game from the '80s, there are too many fans who just say, "you're not allowed in our secret clubhouse."
That's insane. Telltale has built its whole company on licensed games. Including the revival of series from LucasArts' golden age of adventure games like Sam & Max and Monkey Island. And, while The Walking Dead is an obvious exception, most of their games have been based on light-hearted fantasy worlds, just like King's Quest is. Frankly, I can't think of any game developer in the industry today that would be a more perfect fit for a new King's Quest game.
It's actually *NOT* a numbered sequel. The official title is King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, not King's Quest 8. But I take it that your point is that MoE is official KQ canon. Which is, sadly, true. I really wish we could all just pretend it never happened. But for now, we have to assume that MoE is actually canonical.
The same could have been said of Monkey Island, and yet it made the transition to episodic games just fine. Just because the series has traditionally had longer stories in a time when game developers were willing to invest bigger budgets in adventure games is no reason to think it can't be made episodic. Frankly, "3 screens, 2 interactive characters, and 5 puzzles" sounds to me like a far more entertaining adventure game than Mask of Eternity.
There's a good chance that that's true. Which is sad. But unfortunately, there are a lot of fans who are so stuck in the past they can't enjoy a new game that isn't riddled with the kinds of horrible design flaws most of us were glad to leave behind decades ago but are now, for some reason, remembered fondly based purely on nostalgia. The way I see it, that's their loss. The rest of us will enjoy experiencing a classic King's Quest tale without the frustration of dying every five minutes because there was a pixel we missed five hours earlier in the game.
To add to that, a ton of Walking Dead fans were saying similar things before Telltale's Walking Dead came out: because Telltale was known for light-hearted adventure games, they wouldn't be able to make a game to do TWD justice. We all know how that turned out.
Also, The same cannot be said for Tales. Tales works in episodic format very well because Monkey Island already has chapters in each game. also, many of the people working on Tales worked on the original games. Also again, Monkey Island is not King's Quest. Have you even played King's Quest? Any of them? MOE doesn't really count in this discussion. Say what you want about bad game designs, many of those things that you seem to hate are what made King's Quest what it was and what made fans love it for years. You mess with that it's not going to be pretty.
Telltale's game could never be the original Kings Quest. It would undoubtedly be different than the previous kings quest games. However, honestly the Kings Quest we all know and love, changed through the course of it's saga. After the first game many changes were made: one game had real time (4), a few games changed their protagonist (3,4,7), the text parser was dropped for a mouse based gui (4-7), the game's story became more linear than just 'find three things', one added an annoying owl helper (I use the word helper loosely)(5). These are just some of the examples of how the game evolved over time. If Telltale were to make a Kings Quest episodic series, it would simply be another change over time. Telltale has not failed me yet, and if they make a Kings Quest game I have no doubt it would do sierra proud.
True, Telltale doesn't reveal too much about upcoming games, but Fables hasn't been nearly as secretive as King's Quest until now. We know for example that Mike Stemmle is handling Fables, he also posted in the dedicated forum as soon as the section was opened, more than a year ago.
No designer/writer/producer has ever posted anything about King's Quest.
Hey, guess what. See that thing way over your head? Yea, that was my point, you totally missed it. I don't give a shit if you want to join the "secret clubhouse". It's not so secret. It's a public friggin forum that has been dead for quite some time. I was simply pointing out that in the debate over whether or not this game would actually be released, that it was interesting to me that those of us who have been discussing the game at length for quite some time are all the very skeptical ones, while the new batch of fellows are all very optimistic. It's not a value judgement, it is a factual observation.
As musicallyinspired pointed out, it has nothing to do with it being a light hearted fantasy world. It has to do with the fact that KQ games are large, open world games, full of characters, complex puzzles, disastrous consequences, and somewhat tricky mechanics. Again, you totally missed the point. I have played at least 1-2 episodes from every series TT has released. None of them are open world, none of them have complex puzzles, none of them are even difficult for that matter (I have never spent more than an hour or 2 on any episode, and I've never had to consult a walkthrough). And in recent times they have gone heavy on the quicktime bullshit.
I only got two episodes into BttF, because frankly, it was a boring ass world. The town square in episode one is static, not detailed, and takes way too long to traverse from one side to the other. I spent more time walking around in that game from one of the three available locations to one of the other three locations then I did actually dealing with any puzzles.
Jurassic Park was just a joke. Sam N Max was fun, until it got repetitive after 3 seasons. Walking Dead's "moral" choices are contrived, and really don't affect anything. Save this person? Then that person hates you. Save the other person? Now a different person hates you. None of it really effects where the game is going, what scenes take place in what order, or how the game world at large plays out. The most interesting thing about it was seeing what percentage of people picked different choices at the end. And what do you have without the moral choices? A small gameworld, with 2-3 puzzles, and a handful of conversations you can have.... oh... hey.... like every single TT game to date.
You cited Tales from MI, yet this is a LucasArts style game. Again, as has been pointed out, these were always presented in chapters. And the puzzles in Tales do not compare to those of the core games. The game was fun, humorous, and a nice short distraction, but it was also a TT game with MI thrown in... just like every game they release... They run a formula, and while that works for some people and some licenses, KQ simply isn't suited for it.
Roberta herself specifically stated that Mask of Eternity is synonymous for King's Quest 8. We've been over all this shit already, there are entire threads devoted to it. Please feel free to indulge in one of them, but don't bring that shit back up in here. The whole reason I brought it up is because it is one of many, admittedly retarded, debates that has already been put to bed around here. If your going to crash our "secret clubhouse", at least don't be a retard while your at it.
For the record, there was also quite a bit of official press material that is labeled as King's Quest 8, not MoE. Baggins is like, some creepy collector of all this stuff. He has black magic contacts and arcane knowledge. Defy him, and you are liable to received a 4,000 word response beat down. But you would know that already if you didn't walk in just to say that everything that makes KQ enjoyable to us is crap, and should all be scrapped for a light hearted romp through jackass land.
If the goal is to simply make a KQ game that is more entertaining that MoE, then the bar is already set so low that we should all just go home. It is fucking sad to me that you have to go and find potentially the worst game in the series and use *that* as the mark that TT might be able to push past. Nobody here wants another KQ8. Nobody anywhere wants another KQ8. Nobody here, there, or anywhere, is going to look at a TT game and rationalize any shortcomings by saying, "Well... at least it's better than 8....". The reason for this is quite simple - nobody is anxiously awaiting a TT KQ game based on their love of KQ8. While everyone here may have a different favorite KQ game, part 5 and 6 are two of the most loved. So *these* are generally the games that still define the series. KQ7 wasn't bad, imho, but it was also such a departure from a tonal standpoint (and artistically) from the much darker KQ6, that it sort of stands apart from the rest.
There is nothing sad about loving a franchise for what it was, and hoping/expecting that any resurrections of it are true to what made you love the series in the first place.
If it is your standpoint that the old KQ games are purely loved for nostalgia, and at their core they are "riddled with horrible design flaws", then you really have no business here. If all you want from a KQ game is a light hearted fantasy, then you don't actually *want* a KQ game. KQ games were NEVER known for their stories. What planet are you from if *that* is what defines it for you?
And please, pray tell, what are all these horrible design flaws that we are all looking over with rose tinted glasses? Pixel hunting? That was indigenous to nearly all adventure games of the time period, so is it your stance that the entire genre as it stood in the 90's was "horrible flawed"?
No wonder you like recent TT games. You don't have to use that little brain of yours. They do it all for you. You get to just click through conversations and get through a quicktime event or 2, and then monkey clap for yourself for solving a "puzzle".
And for the record, I will say that no one who has been in this thread for any amount of time "left behind these games decades ago". I for one still play through the KQ games every few years, and I am positive many others her do as well. I also still go back and play lots of adventure games from that time period that I missed.
All you have done here is show how little you understand of what made the KQ series popular in the first place, and then divorced all that out of the formula, and boiled what was left down to a "light hearted fantasy".
So if that is all you want, go petition TT to make you a My Little Pony game. Then you get all the light hearted fantasy you want, without shitting all over a franchise that is much more then simply a "light hearted fantasy"
I don't see why you even want TT to make a KQ game, as you come across as hating the entire series, as well as the mechanics that made it popular. What, were you 6 back then? No patience? Couldn't read yet? I don't get it.
Well, the TTG Designer JD Straw (Sinaz20) posted a lot of "personal" thoughts on KQ, but it was more then a year ago. He was "trying to compile a lot of research material to build a reference library for the eventual team." (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=481683#post481683)
The most significant post he wrote about the game itself is his last one on KQ board:
What happened since 06/24/2011 nobody knows - that was the last time JD Straw or any other TTG staff posted anything about the game, as far as I know.
And I think that this also is exactly the nail in the coffin.
Exhibit A:
"Game can't be handled in the same fashion as previous games."
Does anyone here truly think they will develop a new engine, or gameplay style for this property? Why go through all that work when they can keep buying up licenses like JP and BttF and shoving them into the same mold. Walking Dead's success will bring more companies to the table looking to expand their properties to all the markets that TT games reach. One of the huge benefits to their current engine/platform is that it can be played across so many devices.
Exhibit B:
This forum.
Who is the audience for a King's Quest game? Well, apart from a few random buys here and there, it is people who are already familiar with King's Quest. For all the reason's listed in the forums over the past 2 years, the most engaged fanbase of KQ don't feel TT is a good fit. The companies history, lack of info, and current releases are all direct evidence against a good KQ game. The only defense provided *ever* here in the forums was, 'give them a chance, maybe it will be good.".... which isn't really a defense at all, it is hoping against hope that the stars will align.
If a hefty percentage of the people familiar with the franchise don't buy it, then what chance does it have with the general public... to whom it may appear to be a generic fantasy game?
So does it make business sense to develop a new engine or gameplay model for a series that TT's style to date doesn't suit? Or does it make more sense to continue acquiring properties that more easily fit into their current mold, have a wider fan base, and don't require extra development work.
Everyone here, except magodesky, would like to have a great KQ game (he wants an interactive storybook). So the criticisms that are leveled are not to shoot down any possibility of a good TellTale release, rather they exist to guide. Games like QFI are a direct result of the desire for games of that era, and to a certain extent so is Tim Schafer's current project.
I, would love to be wrong about TT. I would love for them to release a game that shocks the adventure gaming community and is not derivative of the current state of things. I'd like to believe in a loving god and heaven too, but some things just aren't rational based on observed experiences.
And yet... that "eventual" doesn't sound good...
But I think what we'll see with be nothing.
Bt
On reflection it occurs to me that at least KQ6 (and I suppose KQ7 as well) already were heavily chapter-based, transparently so for the former and explicitly for the latter. I personally enjoyed KQ6 the best of the entire series, and while KQ7 had many flaws, the chapter system was not one of them, so I don't see TT's format itself as being particular problematic.
I agree that the general open-world of the earlier games is missing in all of TT's games (and often stiflingly so), and is something that they'd benefit from re-examining as a whole. I assume the intent is to spread out design and development over the course of the release schedule rather than front-loading it, which may make it impossible, but KQ would feel more like KQ if they could manage to build most if not all of the world up-front to provide a larger playable area.
Of course the largest point of contention will probably always be the unforgiving deaths. That's really just going to be subjective. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them improve on the checkpoint/retry system used in KQ7; it would allow frequent and gruesome ends, but still keep to the relatively easy-going TT style. The older KQ games (and indeed, most of the AGI games) relied often on arbitrary or unfair difficulty in order to stand-in for a challenge. IME, the nostalgia for that sort of gameplay doesn't hold up so well today. Those games are artefacts (and ones which I hold a special fondness for) but I'm quite happy that in general game design has improved and relies less on such crutches.
Due to the nature of solving puzzles with different items, I remember loosing my save once, using their chapter system to get back to the stupid like town with the moon made of cheese, and having a completely different inventory than what I had when I was there.
Anytime you have items you earlier acquired that need to be used later, if there is any variation in how those items can be used, it breaks the whole chapter system.
I'm not sure I see how KQ6 was chapter based. There were islands.... but you could travel to them in any order. The key was having the right items or knowledge to gain entry. But that is like any adventure game. Technically you could leave the castle in KQ3 anytime you wanted... but if you didn't do it at the right time, you died. So is that chapter based? Simply because some gameplay takes place in a castle, then later it is in a town, and then later it is on a ship, etc...? Or is that just scenario changes?
TellTales chapters are very self contained. The Walking Dead was the first game to come along that took anything you did previously into account, and carried that over. Unfortunately, the game *had* to progress in a linear fashion and all choices come to the same ends, otherwise you create exponentially different endings, which requires exponential programming and assets that only a fraction of all players will ever see.
KQ games, as Josh Mandell referred to it in his most recent LSL post, were heavily focused on "flags". Character A might not interact with you, until you did a certain task or talked to someone, at which point that flag got hit, and you have now opened that interaction. Hence the tracking around within an open world.
Chapter based systems kill this off.
A chapter based game means either:
A: All items used to solve puzzles must exist within that chapter, and its locations
or
B: If an item carries over from a previous chapter, the user *must* find it before it allows that chapter to end.
In scenario A: you have already broken the open world concept. In KQ6 you use items from one island to solve puzzles on another. So if you consider the islands to be separate chapters, you are dealing with scenario B.
In scenario B: the user HAS to pick up something that he /she can't even use yet just to progress. Otherwise the next chapter is unwinnable. If you HAVE to pick up the hole-in-the-wall on one island, to use it in the maze in the next chapter... then you either have to have an end point that directs the user to go pick shit up until they find the right item to end the chapter, or you have to put it right out with neon lights so they can't miss it. No matter how you handle it, you kill off the whole exploration nature.
Missing certain things, and having to backtrack to them, is an important part of adventuring. If your always guaranteed to have the items you need, then what is the challenge?
If you play KQ7 without using the chapter marker system, it played alright. As soon as you change chapters though manually, you break your inventory. Your items change, you process of solving puzzles changes, and it breaks any immersion you had as now the character you were playing as has essentially been "reset"
Also, you should NEVER be able to skip to the end of a game without playing the first parts like that. It was a ridiculous design decision. At least with Telltale, we wouldn't have to worry about the ridiculousness of playing the chapters out of order. But yeah, in general, chapter system = FUCKING TERRIBLE DESIGN IDEA for a KQ game.
You say "TT" and it reminds me of the ignorant people who confuse Traveller's Tales (developer of the LEGO games)
for Telltale Games.
I'm not saying you're confusing the companies. I'm saying TT is not Telltale Games' official acronym.
EDIT: Also, many are saying that TTG's KQ isn't and won't ever be made, but my question is: are there any projects that they said they'd work on that they ended up entirely not doing so? I know there is a long list of things left undone from various games (ie. Bone episode 3, NutriSpecs, downloadable Earl-Boen-voiced TOMI chapter 1, etc.) but I don't think they've neglected a project entirely.
Granted, there's a first time for everything.
Bt
Back to the conversation, I always suspected one reason they tried the chapter system in KQ7 was for try to appeal to people who got stuck. Rather than having to actually solve the puzzle, they could say "screw it", and jump to another section. However, that makes about as much sense as reading a book, not knowing what a word means, and just skipping to the next section. But if it sold an extra copy of the game, then Ken says YES! It must take all the willpower in the world for him to stay away from the facebook casual games market.... if he had thought of microtranscations back then, you can bank on the fact that Cedric would have happily taken your credit card info in return for suggestions such as, "OOOOO Graham, Might want to save that pie for later...."
Either way, using KQ7's chapter system as an example to defend the use of chapters within a new game is nonsensical. That's like using crystal pepsi to defend soft drinks as a whole.
I am still completely baffled by the previous suggestion that KQ6 had chapters.... but I assume if I actually knew the reason I would just be disappointed in humanity. Luckily chryon has already fulfilled my disappointment in humanity meter for the day.
You're disappointed that Telltale Games has always gone by "TTG", and that I, as a person who prefers for people to spell and punctuate properly, would rather people used the proper name for things?
How about my name? My name is Chyron, not chryon.
Also, Telltale's previous seasons developed before TOMI are designed specifically so people could play individual episodes without playing the others, so yes comparing that to KQ7's ability to skip immediately to the last chapter does make sense. It's the matter of whether we want the ability to skip chapters that matters (which I for one, do not want--nor did I want it in TOMI.)
The reason for the chapter system in KQ7 seems obvious to me: they wanted both Rosella and Valanice to be playable, and it made sense for there to be chapter breaks when switching between characters, as alternatively allowing both characters to be have been controllable in the same space on the fly (a la Maniac Mansion) would allow the characters to meet too early in the story. No, we don't want to be able to skip chapters in KQ7, but I don't want to skip them in TOMI either and yet I can.
The issue here is really whether or not TTG's KQ will have a large expanse of explorable space early on or not.
Bt
I think Activision has gotten a case of tightening butthole syndrome (TBS.)
Bt
It's interesting to note based on unused game assets and development information they had planned for at least one extra chapter. The last chapter apparently wouldn't have been on rails, and they also had started out working on a multi-icon system like the previous games.
Yes it's also my least favorite game in the series.
Bt
Bt
On the negative side they actually destroyed a couple of puzzles in later game versions and challenge by removing the deaths associated with them. For example the dragon tail death and the erupting volcano while inside the volcano passages.
The further into the game the more linear it became was also a problem.
Like you said, there's a first for everything.
Telltale has never been in this situation after enjoying their biggest selling and most critically acclaimed game yet. Had they knew beforehand of The Walking Dead's success, I guarantee they wouldn't have acquired King's Quest license. They've evolved the genre to be more accessible and financially lucrative that trying to create a traditional point and click adventure with a license that honestly holds very little value in the grand scheme of gaming would be utterly stupid from a business standpoint given the broader audience's attention they now have who will be anxiously awaiting their next release.
Good. If Telltale doesn't want to do KQ now and doesn't think the series is worth much, and if KQ fans don't want Telltale to do KQ, then Telltale should just end the charade, announce their KQ project is canceled, and stick to making interactive movies based on well-known, existing brands. Issue resolved.