User Avatar Image

Exclusivity over the license.

posted by Sslaxx on - last edited - Viewed by 614 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
  • @doggans said: It may not be canon, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun. I'm one of those geeks who craves continuity and connections in a series, and the Black Cloak Society was the big unanswered question of the King's Quest saga. I love seeing each and every fan interpretation of how things tie together.

    I'm also a Tolkien fan, because I love when a fictional world feels like a huge, expansive, coherent universe. One of the things the King's Quest Companion does well is add a sense of history to the world of Daventry, which to me, gives the games a lot more depth. Fan theories that tie the games together are just taking that one step further.

    I understand that theories about connections aren't going to be enjoyed by everyone, and that's fine. Some people prefer the more standalone nature of each game in the original series. But I enjoy watching fans take on the challenge of seeing how things could possibly connect, and even when the results are far-fetched, I still find the ride very entertaining.



    I don't mind if hero is always fighting against the same archnemesis, like Guybrush Threepwood is always fighting against LeChuck, or if baddies are related, like Bains brothers in original PQ trilogy, as long as it feels natural. However as nothing in the original KQ games or manuals suggests any connection between many baddies I have difficulties to adopt the concept and it feels bit forced.

    Everyone has their preferences and in some level I understand your preference, but still I hope that TTG doesn't try to include some grand conspiracy with all the previous baddies into their new KQ series.

  • Oh, I agree that Telltale should return to a simplistic fairy tale approach. Partially because at this point, I'm having so much fun with the various fan explanations that a "canon" explanation would be a letdown for me. :P

  • It's interesting to gauge the various reactions about the idea of a cohesive canon as opposed to a separated canon. There seem to be an equal amount of people on either side who love KQ2+ and TSL or hate them. I personally like both approaches. The enhancements and canon tie-ins don't really bother me. It's TSL's horrible writing and immensely dark tone that turns me off, not the canon tie-ins. I liked KQ2+ before I even joined AGDI.

    It's strange how extreme each opinion is, though. Usually it's either a fan wants everything to be tied together and loves KQ2+ and TSL or they LOATHE the idea of any sort of deep storyline in a KQ game altogether to the point of disliking even KQ6 for it.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: It's interesting to gauge the various reactions about the idea of a cohesive canon as opposed to a separated canon. There seem to be an equal amount of people on either side who love KQ2+ and TSL or hate them. I personally like both approaches. The enhancements and canon tie-ins don't really bother me. It's TSL's horrible writing and immensely dark tone that turns me off, not the canon tie-ins. I liked KQ2+ before I even joined AGDI.

    It's strange how extreme each opinion is, though. Usually it's either a fan wants everything to be tied together and loves KQ2+ and TSL or they LOATHE the idea of any sort of deep storyline in a KQ game altogether to the point of disliking even KQ6 for it.




    For me, it matters that the style and tone of a non-Sierra KQ game matches the ones that are. By this, I mean that as I consider KQ5 and 6 to have the quintessential style and interface- KQ6 and 7 to have the epitome of proper tone- it matters that additional games fit the same feel.

    This is why TSL falls flat. It has neither the same tone nor style of said games. It just... doesn't.

    Meanwhile, AGDI's games fit perfectly with the canon. If it had been claimed that Sierra Online had made these games, noone would be able to tell otherwise. They're just that giood. IA's KQ3 is good, save for a few minor things (the voice acting for the barmaid and Guybrush, and the need to click off dialogue when speech is enabled.)


    When it comes down to it, I would pay real money to buy the AGDI and IA remakes of KQ games. However, I have... apprehension... that TTG's KQ games are going to feel far more like bad fan-fiction. It's cruel that Kingdom of Sorrow is probably going to be excellent yet requires earning no profit, while TTG's KQ games may make them money while being of lesser quality.

  • I have no fear of Telltale's King's Quest turning out feeling like fan fiction, unlike some parts in each of the fan games. I say this with all respect for those games, whose achievements and merits are many.

    I just feel that when I apply the toughest test of all - whether a game feels 100% authentically up to Sierra quality and polish, none of the fan games have passed so far, despite very valiant efforts indeed.

    I personally thought the additions to the KQII remake, for example, were a mistake... I would have preferred a 1-to-1 remake. But then, here is hoping someone else will one day do just that!

    (Hopefully with fully updated graphics and audio, and the ability to switch between the original and new graphics and gameplay, as with the Monkey Island remakes.)

  • Why? The original game really felt more like it was KQ1 Part 2.

  • You know... I know I'm a pretty big KQ fan but the stuff some you guys know is impressive.

  • Chyron8472, I just have a personal preference for remakes to be only that, and the juxtaposition of Roberta's (or another original designer's) original words and new ones written by someone else and added after the fact - just does not work for me as well as it clearly does for many others... No doubt I am the one who is losing out here, but I have to be true to my own feelings and reactions.

    In my view, KQII was complete when Sierra released it back in the eighties, and adding new material to it in a fan remake implies there was something missing from the original, which I disagree with. It is not, in my view and to be completely frank, the place of remakers to put in their own material. That material may be terrific - but it belongs in a game all their own.

    No offence is intended by any of this! And I am fine with others disagreeing with this view. Also, I would be very happy with these remakes if they also offered the option to play with the original text and story only. As for the full-blown 1-to-1 remakes with both old and new graphics, audio and gameplay, I believe these will eventually happen as top-quality commercial releases.

    So in the end, we will all be happy. There will be a different KQ remake for every person on earth. :)

  • I prefer to think of the extended remakes as "re-imaginings." ;)

  • @Chyron8472 said: Why? The original game really felt more like it was KQ1 Part 2.



    I have always seen it as an independent sequel and it took much more time to solve it than average episode of TTG's adventures. Back then we didn't have walkthroughs easily available, so solving the (sometimes obscure) puzzles took it's time. I managed to break the bridge and I had to restart once, but I consider myself lucky because I managed to avoid other dead ends.

Add Comment