User Avatar Image

Exclusivity over the license.

posted by Sslaxx on - last edited - Viewed by 612 users

Just because I'd like to see (one of) the AGDI guys stop their whining, even though it's very unlikely to be answered here...

Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?

165 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Olaus Petrus said: It's bit harsh thing to say that people who aren't impressed by it aren't true fans of King's Quest. Personally I'm not friend of fan games (or any other fan fiction), but I don't mind if other people love those games.



    Fair enough. I'm sorry. :) I'm just saying that if you liked the feel of the old VGA KQ games, you owe it to yourself to at least give AGDI's games a try. The just-released KQ3Redux in particular is probably the best fan-made game yet, by any group.

  • @Lambonius said: I wouldn't say it's JUST for nostalgia's sake. :)

    There is a real beauty, in my opinion, to those so-called "archaic" 320x200 screens. Not only is it an interesting artistic challenge to make the most with the low resolution (there are techniques you develop as an artist that you simply wouldn't use in higher res) but the whole pixelated look is really an aesthetic choice. We choose that resolution because yeah, that's what the golden age games looked like, but also because we still think it looks great even today. People don't make games like that anymore, so if we want a game in that particular style, and we have the abilities, we may as well try to make it ourselves. ;)

    The games by AGDI and IA in particular are labors of love, intended to stick as close to the feel of the originals as possible, while slightly updating them visually or with a few new puzzles/fleshed out characters to make them feel fresh again. Compared to TSL, which threw the feel of the originals out the window, but updated the LOOK to something more contemporary, I'd choose those "archaic" 320x200 games any day of the week. ;)



    Fair enough. I didn't mean to come off as a graphics whore. I like '90s-style VGA pixel art and the low-res scanned hand-painted backgrounds, and I like the '80s-style blocky 16-color widepixel artwork of the originals too. Both looked absolutely beautiful not just given the limitations of the technology of the time but also in their own right. I was just asking why you would go for a low-res look, when generally the point of a remake is to modernize an old game using the most current technical resources that didn't exist when the original was made. Artist preference is, of course, a legitimate reason.

    But why get rid of the parser? I really, really loved the old parser-driven games. When the genre switched over to point-and-click interaction, it destroyed a lot of the interactivity and the sense that you could do anything you wanted. Of course, Sierra's parsers didn't always understand you, and they weren't as sophisticated as Infocom's. You'd think that if you were going to remake a game that had a somewhat simplistic parser, though, you'd want to remake it with a more sophisticated one. Instead they replaced the parser with a '90s-style point-and-click icon bar.

    Of course, artistic preference is a legitimate reason to do that too. But when you do both, when you model both the graphics and the gameplay after the later games, then it feels like you're more interested in staying true to KQ5 and KQ6 than KQ3.

  • Because nobody wants a parser anymore. Or rather, the majority doesn't want it. Going through all the work to create a parser system that is more responsive and reliable than Sierra's would be too much work for only a small minority who would enjoy it.

    At IA, we were actually throwing around the idea of having both a parser and P&C interface for SQ2, but we decided against it for the same reason. It's just too much work when only a fraction of the audience would actually use it.

  • I think that it would be worth attempting. While parsers do not currently offer user-friendliness, it can't be denied that they grant a lot more atmosphere to adventure games. This in part is because you can poke and prod the game and get some unique responses for the situation, or try multiple ways to get to the same destination. Whereas, with a P&C interface...well, you can only use the Icons granted to you. The simplicity is good for advancing through the game, but it also deadens the amount of interaction you can do.

    The Quest for Glory II remake offered a parser for dialogues, which allowed me to more quickly access specific topics or ones that are not apparent. That was definately enjoyable for me, and I liked how the dialogue trees offered user-friendliness as well. I am of the belief that while it would take more work to pull off, offering Combo Parsers in adventure games would be a worthy goal in advancing the gameplay and atmosphere.

    Is it really the case that no one actually wants Parsers? That is hard to say because we don't have much in the way of commercial adventure games that actually try it, in my opinion. This is probably a good place for independent game developers to fill up, since where there is a void in a market, there is opportunity.

  • If you think it's worth it you try making a full-length free adventure game :p. There's a reason why we don't have much in the way of commercial adventure games that actually try it. For the most part, the world screamed in excitement and joy when the P&C interface was created. So much so that even Sierra abandoned it eventually after LucasArts came along. And after that nobody did it ever again (except for some instance in LSL7, which I've never experienced myself).

  • That is the thing - a game is all about what elements are put together, and there are differences in gameplay that arise from how an interface is used. Point and Click interfaces are great for making things very simple in terms of letting people play the game, which undoubtedly would make them quite common.

    However, there is also going to be potential customers who are not satisfied with that level of gameplay. Someone who taps into other forms of adventure games would access a source of money that is unavailable to P&C adventure game developers. That is how small and independent companies get started - they exploit things that are too 'risky' for more established companies, and would establish a foothold in their chosen niche.

    People once thought the adventure gaming genre was dead, due to the overabundance of shooters and the decline of the genre when DOOM was released. This has been proven untrue with the advent of digital distribution and the internet, which allows people to more easily find and purchase niche products. Observe the Dwarf Fortress roguelike, which has garnered over $2,000 dollars in donations during January, and $9,000 during the December of 2010. That is a fair bit of dough received for something that is free.

    While most independent games admittedly wouldn't be so successful, it still means that there are openings and opportunities for Independents to profit from what bigger companies wouldn't dare to do.

  • @Lambonius said: Fair enough. I'm sorry. :) I'm just saying that if you liked the feel of the old VGA KQ games, you owe it to yourself to at least give AGDI's games a try. The just-released KQ3Redux in particular is probably the best fan-made game yet, by any group.



    King's Quest 3 redux is starting to grow on me. The only AGDI title I didn't enjoy playing was KQ2+. However, both QG2 and KQ3 are fun. Perhaps it is because AGDI stuck with the main story and added new content that was present in the manual or Greek mythology,

    I like how they added the journal entries from the previous slave boy.

  • The majority doesn't seem to want deaths and dead ends anymore either. Sierra eventually got rid of those too. Where do you draw the line when attempting to modernize something?

  • @thesporkman said: Sierra eventually got rid of those too.



    In what adventure-games? [maybe LSL7?]

  • KQ7, SQ6, LSL6 and 7 I think to name a few...

Add Comment