User Avatar Image

Would you be willing to wait longer and pay more for certain features?

posted by chucklas on - last edited - Viewed by 361 users

I personally would be willing to pay more money and wait longer if they were to make this game more true to the series. I would love to see the hand/walk/look/talk interface from KQV and KQVI as well as having a narrator for the additional interactions. Personally, it would not feel like a true KQ game without them.

The reason why I doubt they will have these features is cost. They are in the business of making money. So, why not pay more for a better game.

12 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I really don't think this is a financial or time-constraint issue. The reason I doubt they will have these features is their game design philosophy, which is not exactly cheap -- producing "cinematic" games costs just as much as producing games with rich gameplay. When I think about The Devil's Playhouse, for instance, I see a lot of time and effort and thus money that went into cut-scenes, especially (and ironically ;) ) those in which the narrator opened and closed every episode. With Jurassic Park, they are literally "shooting" every scene cinematically. That couldn't possibly take less time or cost less than having to write and record additional lines of dialog for an off-screen narrator.

    I think they can make a game befitting the King's Quest franchise with a normal budget so long as they focus on gameplay -- and an integrated, well-written, non-convoluted story -- first and on non-interactive segments only as can be afforded.

    So the question really is: Given that Telltale devotes so much time and money into larding their games with cinematic bullshit, would you be willing to pay extra to get the actual game? The answer is no.

  • I would like to see a return to some kind of advanced parser system of KQ4/KQ1remake. Those were probably the most interactive of the KQ games.

    But hey I don't think that's going to happen (Leisure Larry 7 tried a hybrid cursor/parser system though, heh).

    But if they could fit it in, as a hybrid feature (some kind of cursor system would have to be included as well), I'd find it absolutely awesome.

  • Thom has a point. King's Quest doesn't need the cinematic nonsense of other Telltale games. Like I said in the other thread, the key is a large area to explore, interactivity with everything, and complex puzzle designs (more complex, or at least different from the 3-treasure hunt formula). In a word: gameplay.

    If they truly got the atmosphere and gameplay design right and there were large areas to explore at a time I'd pay more to have fewer larger episodes. But I'm naturally highly skeptical. I'm not even sure I'm going to lay down money for this at all yet.

  • I would never pay more for something the game should have had in the first place.

  • Well yeah, as far as puzzles go. I gathered we were more talking about the size of the game world in each episode more than anything. Basically more content. One thing for sure is that they only have so much they can fit into one episode a month.

  • @Lambonius said: I would never pay more for something the game should have had in the first place.

    My point is games on TellTale are cheaper than most games. I paid $25 for BttF. I would easily pay more for a well made KQ game.

  • @chucklas said: My point is games on TellTale are cheaper than most games. I paid $25 for BttF. I would easily pay more for a well made KQ game.

    Let's be realistic here, though. Telltale's games are cheaper because they are episodic. That's the ONLY reason. No gamer wants to drop 60 bucks on one fifth of a complete game. Yeah, sure you get all the episodes eventually, but the price has to be low to hook you. It's a convenience thing. You pay less, but you have to wait. If I paid more, I would expect a full, complete game right away. If Telltale starts propagating the idea that because their games are only 25 bucks, we should start expecting less of them--well, that's just bullshit.

  • Well, that's the whole point. The idea is to pay more to get bigger and fewer episodes. More of the game at a time. Final price would be the same.

  • It's never about what YOU would pay. As a fan, you'd pay for anything. It's about the average gamer. Suckering them in, and getting them to pay is the challenge. Selling to us? That's a given. But us, as "fans", aren't a large enough crowd, financially.


    Bt

  • No gamer wants to drop 60 bucks on one fifth of a complete game. Yeah, sure you get all the episodes eventually, but the price has to be low to hook yo

    I surely wouldn't drop sixty bucks on an adventure game in this day and age, even for a complete game. I rarely pay full price on most games. But especially adventure games as they tend to lack true replayability (except for maybe a couple of alternate puzzle solutions), actions are limited, and somewhat outdated by modern standards.

    Seriously the only way I might plunk down that much cash is if there was over 30-40 hours of content much like the modern RPGs (a somewhat closer analogue to the evolution of adventure games). Retro style adventure games are lucky if they have 15 hours of content (listening to all dialogue/choices/solutions).

    There is a big reason why generally speaking the few adventure game companies (other than Telltale) that are still putting out complete standalone games (I.E. The Adventure Company/Dreamcatcher/JoWood, Autumn Moon Entertainment, Focus Home Interactive, and Herinteractive, etc), sell adventure games for generally under $40, often $20. Adventure gaming has more or less become bargain game genre. Only more hybrid game with adventure game elements such as RPGs tend to garner a higher price. Classic style adventures have become an extremely niche market.

    I'm a big fan of adventure games and still relish playing them from time to time, but I'm also quite frugal. I base game purchases in general on the total length and content. I'm also willing to wait if it means a bargain. These are financially trying times, and I must live within my means, and make cuts on unneeded 'wants', when 'basic needs' and paying the bills are more important.

Add Comment