User Avatar Image

KQ6: Overrated?

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 5.7K 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
  • Pretty much. It is quite heavy in story, though, because of all the reading you have to do. It also has some very integral characters even though you barely see them.

  • True, but it has so little in common with what I normally associate with adventure games that I still feel I have to call them puzzle games.

    Also because of how the puzzles themselves are very different from most adventure games... with no inventory or anything like that, rather quite seperate and self contained puzzles spread about (though with some exceptions where many smaller puzzles are part of one bigger puzzle).

    And of course the lack of characters that you mention.

    Don't get me wrong though - I own and love all of them... well, I don't like Myst 5 all that much but it is a quality game... same goes for Uru, that is also a quality game but I'm not too fond of it... even tried playing that one online for a little while but still didn't like it much.

  • I have all 6 games as well, but I still need to finish Exile. I really want to find out what happens at the end of it all, but those games are such an ordeal to get through!

  • I have finished them all but I resorted to using a couple of hints in Riven... which I regret to this day :(

    That was the end of ever using hints for me, after I did that in Riven I felt so bad about it and I'm naturally reminded of it every time I replay the game or whenever the game is brought up.

    At least I finished the other games the 'honest' way, though it took me ages for some of them (Myst 4 has some really damn vague puzzles if you ask me).

    Btw, have you finished the Amateria age in Exile yet? That's one of my favourite moments, out of all the games in the series... when you finish that age, you get such a great 'reward'.

  • That's actually the one I'm stuck on lol.

  • You should consider playing more of that then, the reward you get is really great.. I'm certain you'll agree once you finish it.

    The age I was stuck on the longest in Exile was probably the 'organic' one, where you're inside this giant tree or whatever it is... forgot the name of the age.
    Anyway, one of the main reasons I had troubles with that particular age is how 'messy' the graphics are... if any part of any game could benefit greatly from 3D (the 3d glasses kind of 3D :p), then this would be it!
    It's so confusing at times.

    Anyway, I've kept this thread off topic for long enough I guess, though the original topic has probably been discussed to death by now.

  • Yeah, the nature one. Very confusing to find all the possible hotspots and pathways because it looks so organic. It was the first age I started, though. And I thought it was a fun one.

  • Pretty much. It is quite heavy in story, though, because of all the reading you have to do. It also has some very integral characters even though you barely see them.

    Puzzle Agent and Layton are pretty heavy in stories. Several characters are integral to to the the story as well.

    Also because of how the puzzles themselves are very different from most adventure games... with no inventory or anything like that, rather quite seperate and self contained puzzles spread about (though with some exceptions where many smaller puzzles are part of one bigger puzzle).

    What do you think of Loom? That game had no inventory, and the puzzles were quite a bit different than most adventure games.

    I have a feeling that Myst style games got tossed into adventure genre because of the exploration and narrative aspects of the game. It sort of has more in common with old text adventures that sometimes had just as maddening puzzles needed to progress. Zork Trilogy comes to mind.

    Sierra even tried their hand at several Myst style adventures. Shivers, Rama, & Lughthouse. But they never caught on really.

  • I believe Myst fully qualifies as an adventure game. I think the important characteristic is that the puzzles are integrated into an explorable environment through which the player moves to discover the story and solve the puzzles. Sorting games by the amount or quality of the story or dialog or characters seems pretty fuzzy to me.

    I mean, there are three speaking characters in Myst. How many are required to qualify as an adventure game? 4? 5? 10? There isn't a whole lot of NPC dialog in King's Quest I either. While Myst has little narrative in the traditional sense, I think that the player's act of solving the puzzles -- and thereby discovering how the world and characters got into the state they're in -- is the narrative. Unusual, yes; unappealing to adventure fans looking for character development, of course; but it makes Myst far more different from a typical puzzle game than it is from the graphic adventures that came before it.

    I really bristle at the idea that puzzle type can be used to distinguish adventure games from puzzle games, or that inventory is somehow a defining characteristic of adventure games. How could it ever be determined which types are ruled in and which types are ruled out? I've seen too many adventure gamers declaring this or that type of puzzle as illegitimate (eg. see all the threads here about dead-ends, and no fair letting me walk my character off a cliff) and we've ended up with adventure games that are so homogenized these days. I think that if any kind of puzzle is considered fair game in one genre, it's fair game in the other (as is any kind of story); it's how the puzzles are laid out for the player that makes the difference.

    Besides, quite a few puzzles in Myst are solved by taking information, eg. a code or pattern, found in one part of the gameworld and applying it in another, which really isn't much different than taking an object from one location and using it elsewhere. The puzzle is in figuring out which bits, tangible or intangible, go where, so that the state of the gameworld is altered to produce a desired result. In effect, Myst does have an inventory -- it's kept in the player's brain cells rather than the character's pockets.

    Myst's environmental and contraption puzzles might have been unlike any seen before, but isn't that a product of the graphics technology? it's not like no adventurer ever had to figure out how some device worked and make it do what he/she wanted through observation and experimentation. If LucasArts had used Myst-style graphics technology, wouldn't the orichalcum bead machine have looked a lot like a Myst-style puzzle? If you break down the logical components of the meta-puzzle on Selenitic, I don't think you'd find anything that had never been done before; Myst just put them together conceptually and spread them out physically in a more complex way, as the graphics technology allowed it to do.

    Lumping Myst in with games in which puzzles are self-contained on single screens, where there's no element of exploration, rather than the same category as Fate of Atlantis, just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

  • Good points. The main differences in all cases are the styles of puzzles. Does the style of puzzles in a game dictate its genre? I mean, they're all puzzles. Which begs the question, what DOES define the adventure genre? Which is an age old question.

Add Comment