User Avatar Image

Adventure Gamers Interview

posted by Brainiac on - last edited - Viewed by 670 users

The Daves (Grossman and Felton) were interviewed by Adventure Gamers. Guess what came up?

[quote="Adventure Gamers"]What do you think makes a Sierra game different from a LucasArts game? Will the stylistic differences affect how you approach the King’s Quest license?[/quote]

[quote="Dave Grossman"]The danger in a Sierra game always seemed more palpable and immediate than in one from LucasArts. Partly this was because LucasArts games took great pains to reassure you that you wouldn’t die and couldn’t do anything wrong, while Sierra games took a certain delight in all of the ways that you might die or otherwise fail that was part of the fun. Lucas games were largely exploratory, while Sierra titles had more of an element of challenge, including a more distinctly puzzley focus, situations with time constraints, and so on.

A good trick for us will be to preserve those elements of peril, challenge, and yes, death, but also hopefully do something to address the frustration that unfortunately tended to come along with them all too often and alienate some of the players (maybe if the game just saves and hits “restore” for you automatically that will be enough).[/quote]

Thoughts?

37 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • i wasn't worried about TT pooling their resources by hiring ex sierra employees and bringing back certain game elements that made KQ popular since it seems that they have the capacity to do so. What I was worried about is the end product. I like the TT Sam and Max games, but they feel different than Hit the Road. It isn't nostalga, but I guess it is the direction they took the story in and how they handled episodic games at the time. I hope KQ feels like a KQ game even if all the previous KQ were inconsistent in direction if you know what I mean.

  • They say that don't want to alienate one group of people (the ones who want games to be easy IMHO). This scares me because they in turn might alienate all of the other fans. If they give an option to turn on and off an automatic save/do over feature, they might actually find some success. This would allow old school sierra fans to play it their way, and those who want a more kq7 style without a chance of dead ends...etc. can have it. I don't know/think Telltale will go through the trouble of making the game work both ways like that, but it might be the only option to be successful.

  • I wish there was an autosave feature on this forum. My relatively long post just went kaboom after clicking "Submit reply" took me to a blank page.

  • I don't understand why they have like 5 intricate levels of hints that you can get, and yet the puzzles are still cake. The way to go is pretty clear. Make the game reasonably difficult, and have the option for casual gamers to have a basically constant walkthrough provided, along with every notch in-between.

  • @Emily said: Actually, the point was to get answers to questions that tons of fans are curious about.

    How is that different from what I said?

    Not every King's Quest fan is enraged that Telltale has this license. A lot of people are actually excited about it.

    I never said everyone was enraged. I never even said I was enraged. It was a great interview that did its job. People were wanting official answers and they were given. Whether it's just 'market-speak' or from-the-heart down-to-earth answers to the fans we'll just have to wait and see.

    I didn't take his answer to mean that exploration only exists in LucasArts games, just that in those games you can explore without an element of danger.

    That was my thought as well.

    I personally am not a fan of death scenes and wouldn't mind if they went away completely... but I don't expect Telltale's KQ games to submit to my personal list of demands, no matter how big a fan I am. The most important takeaway here is that Telltale's listening to the audience's feedback (some of which is conflicting) and taking it into account during the design process.

    That's a great sign indeed. We'll see how it all turns out.

  • I took the comment about the interview being "meant to calm raging fans for PR" as an implication that it was just lip service. Glad to hear that's not what you meant!

  • I'm personally not entirely sure that it's not. I get that they have nothing to show right now, but I honestly have trouble trusting comments that are right next to nebulously scary comments. It just leaves me wondering which one weighs more strongly, "We totally want to be cool to the license" or "But we don't want to alienate people who are frightened by video games and never want to play one in their entire lives".

  • I think self-confidence and not trying too hard to please everyone are admirable qualities in games as well as people. Not advocating arrogance or insensitivity - those are the mirror universe versions of the qualities I mean. Pretty much like Kirk and the mirror Kirk.

    To continue the analogy between games and people, the (possibly unfortunate) fact is that desperation tends to be unappealing. So a game that seems desperate to please may be off-putting for that reason...

    Throwing in psychology, meaningful relationships practically depend on requiring one to adjust something about oneself; they are forged when we willingly step out of our comfort zones into somewhat unknown territory in order to approach more closely something or someone that attracts us.

    But this cannot happen if the person or game pre-empts that personal investment by being too "user-friendly". I know the intentions are good and I am not for user-unfriendliness. Again, that is the mirror universe exaggeration. But I think we all know (or can imagine) how oppressive it is if someone is constantly checking that your every need is met - including imagined ones.

    "Are you sure you are perfectly comfortable even though you do not have a glass of water?" The chances are they would have been, had it not been for this question. Not making such offers is not inconsiderate - it is considerate because you are respecting the other individual's personal space and placing that before your own need to show overt consideration.

  • @Simo Sakari Aaltonen said: I think self-confidence and not trying too hard to please everyone are admirable qualities in games as well as people. Not advocating arrogance or insensitivity - those are the mirror universe versions of the qualities I mean. Pretty much like Kirk and the mirror Kirk.

    To continue the analogy between games and people, the (possibly unfortunate) fact is that desperation tends to be unappealing. So a game that seems desperate to please may be off-putting for that reason...

    Throwing in psychology, meaningful relationships practically depend on requiring one to adjust something about oneself; they are forged when we willingly step out of our comfort zones into somewhat unknown territory in order to approach more closely something or someone that attracts us.

    But this cannot happen if the person or game pre-empts that personal investment by being too "user-friendly". I know the intentions are good and I am not for user-unfriendliness. Again, that is the mirror universe exaggeration. But I think we all know (or can imagine) how oppressive it is if someone is constantly checking that your every need is met - including imagined ones.

    "Are you sure you are perfectly comfortable even though you do not have a glass of water?" The chances are they would have been, had it not been for this question. Not making such offers is not inconsiderate - it is considerate because you are respecting the other individual's personal space and placing that before your own need to show overt consideration.

    Love your post man

  • Thanks, doom saber! Unfortunately I have personal experience of not getting this right myself. (I think I was mainly rephrasing what other posters have said, though.)

Add Comment