User Avatar Image

KQ6: Overrated?

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 5.9K users

I know I'm committing blasphemy in the eyes of many KQ die hards by saying this, but am I alone in feeling that KQ6 is overrated? KQ6 kind of reminds me of TSL--It's a little too dark, it's dialogue is a little too formal and clinical (it's a bit too wordy and not to the point as the previous games), it strives--and goes overboard--in trying to get a mature, "epic" feel. It loses that fun, bright, mindless, lighthearted fairy tale feel which characterized the previous games, especially KQV (which is IMO the pinnacle of the series in many ways).

It's kind of like KQ meets GK (a series I've personally never cared for) in some ways with it's story of political intrigue, a dark murderous plot, and a secret society. It takes things into an adult sort of direction--As in, more catered to adults rather than the whole family as the previous games were.

That's not to say it doesn't have it's light moments--of course it does. But the lighthearted moments don't feel nearly as innocent or as natural as in KQV or KQVII--They feel almost kind of forced.

I actually find KQVII to be a better KQ sequel than VI. KQ7 to me is like Roberta meets Don Bluth--which IMO is a good mix.

I'll put it this way: KQVI opened the door to TSL. That makes it bad enough:p

268 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Anakin Skywalker said: Define an adventure game. More to the point, define a King's Quest.
    I personally think the person who basically created graphic adventure games, and who created the KQ series, is the best at defining at what it is, and what it should be. And she laid it out very clearly in 1997 for the fans.

    Not only that, but it's not like there was any secret made of there being combat in KQ8. It wasn't like Sierra trotted it out as just another KQ until the day of release. I don't see how it can be considered a "slap in the face to the fans."

    When Roberta removed text from the KQ series and made everything point and click, was it a slap in the face? How about when the series went a little darker and less family friendly with KQ6? Or the overhaul that KQ7 was?

    Was it a slap in the face when Roberta removed the option to kill innocent creatures from the series in KQ4? What if I want the option to do violence in a KQ game?

    When a core series has carried on long enough with a certain style, a certain feel, fans have an expectation that the next official installment for the core series will have a certain feel to it. If the franchise is to make a significant enough change that its target market is significantly different, then such a change should be marketed as a spin-off.

    What if I was watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the seventh season took place exclusively on Deep Space Nine, with only a handful of token cameos from the TNG cast? DS9 is a good show, but I would still be greatly annoyed.

    [EDIT:] okay. I got one. Star Trek: Enterpise. The series finale for the show Enterprise (called "These are the voyages...") was just a holodeck program that Riker was running on the Enterprise-D during the TNG episode "Pegasus," and during one scene the NX-01 Enterprise crew has a toast "to the next generation." As I recall, fans were enraged by all of this to the point that Rick Berman has since said to consider it as a coda rather than a true finale.[/edit]

    @Anakin Skywalker said: In fact, didn't fans ask her if KQ was getting too old around 1996 or 1997 and she said no? It doesn't seem to me like she ever felt that KQ8 was anything but KQ8. She could've easily given up on KQ entirely and started a brand new series. There was no need for Mask to be called KQ8 if she didn't feel it was one.

    I would greatly have preferred that she had.

  • @BagginsKQ said: Puzzle-adventure games are a sub-genre of adventure games.

    Adventure games and puzzle games have puzzle-solving gameplay in common, so the term "puzzle-adventure game" is utterly meaningless. I don't believe there is any widely accepted division of the adventure game genre into subgenres.

  • Puzzle-adventure was a genre created to describe games like Seventh Guest, and Castle of Dr. Brain. In that "puzzles" were more than fetch/item style puzzles, but rather involved the traditional definition of 'puzzle'. Like board game/style puzzles, or jigsaw puzzles, or slider puzzles, or ring and peg style puzzles, etc. You know the puzzles that existed before there were computer games?
    Puzzle adventure

    Puzzle adventures are adventure games that put a strong emphasis on puzzle solving, at the expense of elements such as item gathering, item use, character interaction, or plot. Instead, they typically emphasize exploration and deciphering the proper use of complex mechanisms, often resembling Rube Goldberg machines.

    The plot of these games can be obscure, and may be conveyed only through interaction with the puzzles. Many puzzle adventures are played from a first person perspective with the player "moving" between still pre-rendered 3D images, sometimes combined with short animations or video. Examples of the genre include Schizm, Atlantis: The Lost Tales, Riddle of the Sphinx, Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure, and Myst, which pioneered this game style.

    One kind of puzzle adventure is the Escape the room sub-genre, consisting of short games where the sole object is to find a way to escape from a room. These games are typically implemented in a graphic point-and-click style, which (owing to their popularity on the Internet) are often delivered in Adobe Flash format. Examples of the sub-genre include Submachine-series, Mystery of time and space and Crimson room.

    Fetch/inventory giving are not puzzles of the traditional sense... In RPG's they would be called 'fetch quests'.

  • @Chyron8472 said: When a core series has carried on long enough with a certain style, a certain feel, fans have an expectation that the next official installment for the core series will have a certain feel to it. If the franchise is to make a significant enough change that its target market is significantly different, then such a change should be marketed as a spin-off.

    What if I was watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the fourth season took place exclusively on Deep Space Nine, with only a handful of token cameos from the TNG cast? DS9 is a good show, but I would still be greatly annoyed.

    We're dealing with a series with 8 games. Let's take the first 7:

    KQ1--Wide open world. Basic narrator. Ability to kill. Your first objective is to arm yourself with a dagger in fact. You can kill both bad guys and good guys, and one of your main "quests" is to kill a witch. You're not the King until the end.

    KQ2--Wide world world. Basic narrator. Ability to kill once again. You can kill Dracula and the Lion if you so choose.

    KQ3--World open world. Again, killing is still an option here. You have to use magic--for the first time ever in a KQ game--to survive. Half the game is spent just trying to survive being blasted by Mordack. You use all sorts of magic spells, which Roberta considered "black magic". You have to kill a Yeti and a three headed dragon.

    KQ4--Now we begin to get some changes. The world is still wide open. However, non-violence becomes more of a rule than an objective. However, the series takes a creepy turn and is probably the darkest entry in the whole series. Everything around you wants to kill you, pretty much. You deal with zombies, ghosts, mummies, evil witches, trolls, ogres etc. You dig amongst the dead to recover objects for them. It's a very dark game in terms of tone. Day and Night cycle, never before done in KQ. And you kill Lolotte in a very violent way--by shooting her in the heart with an arrow.

    KQ5--Does away TOTALLY with text. Is lighter in tone than KQ4. The world is no longer open; the game and game world is very linear. There's a whole icon based interface, a gigantic overhaul from previous games. Interactions with characters are much more limited than in past games. You can't look at everything in sight or interact with the narrator as much. Mazes are introduced. However, violence is still a factor; You have to kill a Yeti and Mordack. Dead ends galore in this game. Ridiculous puzzles which would seem

    KQ6--Introduces more of a darker tone. A very linear game world in which you spend most of your time travelling back and forth between lands. However, now, you have the option to end the game in multiple ways. A 3D intro opens the game for the first time ever. You still have to kill the Minotaur by fooling it into a fiery pit, causing it to burn to death. It goes back to the dark tone of KQ4, once more with zombies. A more detailed narrator. More subplots. Mazes still persist here.

    KQ7--Does away with the narrator. Does away with the icon based interface. The game's gameplay consists of a single cursor. Does away with any real "death"--you can literally just pick up where you left off, even if you didn't save. The game, unlike any other KQ game, is broken up into chapters, and you can pick any chapter you want, out of order. You basically can skip to the end of the game right off the bat. Mazes are done away with. Puzzles are made easier. You have two protagonists instead of one. For the first time ever, the game is styled like that of a Disney movie, and opens with a Disney-esque song.

  • @Anakin Skywalker said: Define an adventure game.


    I keep seeing this argument over and over, slightly rephrased but with the same point - that it's somehow impossible to define what makes an adventure game.

    While I agree there aren't completely restrictive lines of what makes up an adventure game, I still think an adventure game needs at least a sizable chunk of what has traditionally been considered adventure game elements.

    The problem with the argument you're using here is that it's often used in regard to wildly different games, so they're all deemed adventure games even when the games have very little in common.
    It almost seems to me that as long as a game has a storyline longer than a few lines... it can be considered an adventure game because of that alone.

    Anyway, some essential things an adventure game should include, in my opinion, are -

    * the games should be highly story focused - I don't mean the storylines have to be very good or anything like that, just that the game has to be based around a storyline and that it should be implemented properly into the game and not only be a few lines in the manual

    * the games should have plenty of characters to talk to, and have at least a reasonable amount of dialogue (none of these are strictly required, which is probably the case for all of these points - the thing is I think an adventure game should include at least *some* of these things)

    * the games should have puzzles. This is pretty much a requirement... they don't have to be difficult puzzles but they have to be there

    * if there is combat or action/arcade sequences - these should be a minor part of the game compared to the puzzles/character interaction/dialogue. The games can have action, but it should not become the focus of the game

    * there should not be many parts requiring good eye-hand coordination/navigational skills/etc... in other words, the games should not have many difficult jumping puzzles or other navigational obstacles that require simple reflexes and coordination to complete, they should rather focus on mental challenges


    I realize games such as the Myst series would not fit under this definition, but I've personally never considered them adventure games - they were always puzzle games to me, only with some adventure game elements.

    For some reason it seems acceptable to completely water down the adventure game genre so that a lot of very different games can fall under this genre... much more so than with other genres... that's my impression anyway.
    It seems it's rather common to take the word 'adventure' too literally, and apply the adventure game label to any game that has 'adventurous' elements... which when you think of it makes out a very large chunk of the games out there.

  • First objective in KQ1, is actually is to bow and talk to the king! But you have to figure out the fact, that you need to enter the castle.

    Actually killing Dracula is required for full points in KQ2, much like the witch in KQ1.

    And Armakuni, your definitions don't even fit into industry definitions really! But arguebly the industry never agrees on finer points of different genres even!

    Most of the puzzle types for example, such as "jumping puzzles" actually originated in adventure games before there were 3D action-adventures. Box puzzles are something that originates out of adventure games as well, you can take it back to Zork 3 for example.

    Though sometimes these types of puzzles were parts of stand alone puzzle or action games, like "Boxxle", or Frogger (Sierra made the original btw!)

    I'd say one thing 3D games tend to overuse those types of puzzles :p...

  • The adventure game genre (be it parser, point and click, or click and drag) was evolving throughout, and often as a result of, the life of the King's Quest series. MoE is not an adventure game. It does not evolve the adventure gaming genre. It is a third-person action-adventure-rpg, of an almost completely disparate style from the rest of its core series.

    Dragon Age:Origins has a narrator. What if Sierra had made KQ9 as a first-person RPG-shooter?

  • @BagginsKQ said: First objective in KQ1, is actually to talk to the bow and talk to the king! But you have to figure out the fact, that you need to enter the castle.

    Actually killing Dracula is required for full points in KQ2, much like the witch in KQ1.

    Ah yes sorry I was thinking of KQ1SCI, where the meeting with the King is part of the intro.

    It's funny though that the first thing you do at the start of your quest--In both KQ8 and KQ1SCI--is get a dagger.

  • @Chyron8472 said: The adventure game genre (be it parser, point and click, or click and drag) was evolving throughout, and often as a result of, the life of the King's Quest series. MoE is not an adventure game. It is a third-person action-adventure-rpg.

    Dragon Age:Origins has a narrator. What if Sierra had made KQ9 as a first-person RPG-shooter?

    But wait a minute. If the adventure genre was evolving throughout the life of and often as a result of the KQ series, why couldn't MoE be an adventure game?

    Adventure games are and were third person. RPGs, at least in the era of KQ8 and now, take their cue in many ways from adventure games.

    I personally consider KQ8 an adventure game, with action elements.

    You have to remember that many of the 3D action games of the period were not at all story driven. The action and 3D and killing came first; story second.

    The action in KQ8 is kind of like a puzzle in previous KQ games; a means to an end. KQ8 has a story, a rather deep one, which drives the whole game, and like the other games, is a story firmly grounded in folklore, mythology, with some elements of literature thrown in. Action is not the main driving facet of KQ8, nor are the puzzles in the previous games. They're just a means to get from here to there.

  • Techinically KQ1 is open ended enough that getting a dagger isn't necessarily the first thing you do... It really depends if you go left or right from the castle, and figure out that the rock hides the dagger.

Add Comment