User Avatar Image

The Silver Lining thread

posted by Mike Haley on - last edited - Viewed by 3.2K users

Nobody else has posted this, so...

It looks like The Silver Lining (formerly known as King's Quest IX: Every Cloak Has a Silver Lining) will finally be released in Summer 2009. That is, if Vivindi Games (now merged with Activision) doesn't sit on its royal ass during the approval process. Unfortunately, only the first two chapters of The Silver Lining will be released. The remaining chapters (3-9) will most likely never see the light of day. According to the team, it would take 10 or more years to complete them without proper funding, which even if they had, would put their fan license in jeopardy.

It would be interesting to see if they ultimately decide to release the remaining chapters one at a time over the next few years. I hear that episodic gaming is doing fairly well...

http://www.tsl-game.com/journal/special/

Now, I just wish that SQ7.org would receive permission from Vivindi Games to be completed.

301 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Love for KQ, but not care. POS has stated numerous times that they were doing what they wanted with KQ and not necesssarily what the fans wanted. I'm just surprised so many fans are still attached to it seeing as it's so far removed from anything KQ has been about. I guess they're just so KQ-satrved they'll accept anything that has a chance at life for the series. The fact of the matter is, the fans have poured their support into TSL and made it as popular as it is. That's not POS's work. They had a PR campaign of course, but if the fans weren't interested and didn't want to support it and didn't like what they saw (and are seeing) no amount of PR would have worked at all.

    I was never a fan of TSL even before the initial release because I knew what was coming from what a few inside sources told me years ago.

  • Watching LPs of TSL (let alone actually playing it) makes my asshole hurt. Literally. I don't think I'm alone in taking offense to that kind of thing.

  • @Anakin Skywalker said: 1. It's just I don't see how someone could see TSL after playing KQ1-7/8.

    Fair enough, but I wouldn't have necessarily seen KQ3 as the next logical step after KQ2, and I *certainly* wouldn't have seen KQ7 after KQ6, or KQ8 after KQ7.

    My point here was that you're judging the game based on an intangible "spirit of King's Quest", but the essential elements that you or I include in the definition of "King's Quest" might be different than the essential elements that the POS team does. If one simply defines "King's Quest" as "a fantasy adventure where a hero goes on a high-stakes quest against evil and explores a dangerous and magical land filled with creatures from legends, myths, and fairy tales", then TSL fits, regardless of its quality.

    @Anakin Skywalker said: Perhaps insult is the wrong word. Maybe incredibly disappointed.

    Good call. If you're really feeling insulted/betrayed/offended because a piece of entertainment goes in a different direction than you would like, you probably need to rethink your priorities in life. :P

  • User Avatar Image
    Cez

    @MusicallyInspired said: I'm just surprised so many fans are still attached to it seeing as it's so far removed from anything KQ has been about. I guess they're just so KQ-satrved they'll accept anything that has a chance at life for the series.

    Why does there has to be an "external" reason for fans to like TSL other than the game itself? To start with, that statement of TSL being so detached from anything that is KQ the biggest exaggeration possible. And people that are open to see a different take on it enjoy it for what it is.

    That's like saying the same for The Wizard of Oz and Wicked, the book. Is the dark and gritty story of the book a best-seller because people were starving for anything Wizard of Oz related? and moreover, is the (much) lighter Broadway play such a major success, --when it turns the universe of Oz upside down, and changes all character's intentions-- just because people are starving for it? --because if that's so, that means that the very obscure Disney's Return to Oz would have been a major success. Do all the different takes on Batman over the many years of its life enjoy success because people are starving for it? Did Disney do something wrong by transforming all Grimm fairy tales and popular stories like Aladdin into something they were not, and thus, were people starved for them to the point that they took whatever Disney threw on them? No, if people don't find something to their liking, no matter how starved they are, they won't take it. Just because you don't find it to your liking, doesn't mean that other people don't genuinely do. Period.

    And the biggest example is that at least 70% of us in the TSL team are all KQ fans, and we all like it. So, isn't it a better thing to say that the people that support TSL maybe just don't think like you do?

    @MusicallyInspired said: I approached TSL with excitement and enthusiasm.

    Ha! Lamb, you and I have a history of fun and hate, and I enjoy our little interactions, but c'mon man, that has got to be the biggest load of crap I've ever heard you say, and you know it. You were bashing TSL even before Ep1 was released (and after having loved the demo). :)

  • @Cez said: Why does there has to be an "external" reason for fans to like TSL other than the game itself? To start with, that statement of TSL being so detached from anything that is KQ the biggest exaggeration possible. And people that are open to see a different take on it enjoy it for what it is.

    That's like saying the same for The Wizard of Oz and Wicked, the book. Is the dark and gritty story of the book a best-seller because people were starving for anything Wizard of Oz related? Do all the different takes on Batman over the many years of its life enjoy success because people are starving for it? Did Disney do something wrong by transforming all Grimm fairy tales and popular stories like Aladdin into something they were not, and thus, were people starved for them to the point that they took whatever Disney threw on them? No, if people don't find something to their liking, no matter how starved they are, they won't take it. Just because you don't find it to your liking, doesn't mean that other people don't genuinely do. Period.

    And the biggest example is that at least 70% of us in the TSL team are all KQ fans, and we all like it. So, isn't it a better thing to say that the people that support TSL maybe just don't think like you do?

    Ha! Lamb, you and I have a history of fun and hate, and I enjoy our little interactions, but c'mon man, that has got to be the biggest load of crap I've ever heard you say, and you know it. You were bashing TSL even before Ep1 was released (and after having loved the demo). :)

    All the works you mention were either reboots or adaptations. They were not self proclaimed sequels, extending an existing continuity. With the case of Batman, each Batman series does not rely on the continuity of the previous films, for example, Nolan's films are not in the same continuity as Tim Burton's. He does not rely on information provided in Burton's films for the backbone of his own. Disney didn't claim that Aladdin was a sequel to the Arabian nights; It's an adaptation, same for all their other literary and fairy tale inspired works.

    And before you say, "Our game isn't called King's Quest 9", let's not forget that it WAS called King's Quest 9 for about 5 years, only until you told by Vivendi to change the title. You were claiming to be the sequel to the continuity of 8 previous games. You never claimed that TSL was to be a reboot, a restart, nothing of the sort. You claimed from the very beginning that it was a sequel founded firmly on the roots and in the continuity which the previous games had established.

    And obviously if Lamb loved the demo (which was three or so scenes in the Green Isles), he had, at some point, enthusiasm for the project. Which was destroyed when the crapfest which was the full game came out or when the trailers which showed how dark and angsty the game really was going to be.

  • User Avatar Image
    Cez

    @Anakin Skywalker said: All the works you mention were either reboots or adaptations. They were not self proclaimed sequels, extending an existing continuity. With the case of Batman, each Batman series does not rely on the continuity of the previous films, for example, Nolan's films are not in the same continuity as Tim Burton's. He does not rely on information provided in Burton's films for the backbone of his own. Disney didn't claim that Aladdin was a sequel to the Arabian nights; It's an adaptation, same for all their other literary and fairy tale inspired works.

    And before you say, "Our game isn't called King's Quest 9", let's not forget that it WAS called King's Quest 9 for about 5 years, only until you told by Vivendi to change the title. You were claiming to be the sequel to the continuity of 8 previous games. You never claimed that TSL was to be a reboot, a restart, nothing of the sort. You claimed from the very beginning that it was a sequel founded firmly on the roots and in the continuity which the previous games had established.

    And obviously if Lamb loved the demo (which was three or so scenes in the Green Isles), he had, at some point, enthusiasm for the project. Which was destroyed when the crapfest which was the full game came out or when the trailers which showed how dark and angsty the game really was going to be.

    1) Heh, the demo and Episode 1 were basically the same game. Ep1 had 10 more minutes tagged to it than the demo did. So, loving the demo, hating Ep1, is a incredible head-scratching notion to me.
    2) I always said that this game was going to be much darker than any previous KQ. I never sold it as anything else.
    3) Wicked isn't a reboot of Wizard of Oz. It tells the story of what "really" happened to the Witches. It changed the whole perspective anyone could have had on The Wizard of Oz. Quite frankly, TSL has done something very similar to what Wicked has done.
    4) To me, it's still a sequel. It's a continuation of the events that happened in the previous 8 games. I'm not selling it as a reboot because it's not a reboot. I'm glad we were forced to change the name to TSL from KQIX, but it is still a sequel, not a reboot.
    5) You'd still be whining no matter what we had called it.
    6) Oh, Roberta played it and liked it :)

  • @Cez said: 1) Heh, the demo and Episode 1 were basically the same game. Ep1 had 10 more minutes tagged to it than the demo did. So, loving the demo, hating Ep1, is a incredible head-scratching notion to me.
    2) I always said that this game was going to be much darker than any previous KQ. I never sold it as anything else.
    3) Wicked isn't a reboot of Wizard of Oz. It tells the story of what "really" happened to the Witches. It changed the whole perspective anyone could have had on The Wizard of Oz. Quite frankly, TSL has done something very similar to what Wicked has done.
    4) To me, it's still a sequel. It's a continuation of the events that happened in the previous 8 games. I'm not selling it as a reboot because it's not a reboot. I'm glad we were forced to change the name to TSL from KQIX, but it is still a sequel, not a reboot.
    5) You'd still be whining no matter what we had called it.
    6) Oh, Roberta played it and liked it :)

    1) I can't speak for Lamb. When he gets here, he'll clarify.
    2) You said it was going to be more mature. You never said it was going to be the incredibly dark, twisted, retconny mess that it is.
    3) Wicked is basically a reboot that doesn't call itself one. It's basically revisionism...
    4) A sequel that basically invalidates or retcons everything in almost every previous game. It's not a continuation of the events because it goes back and retells those events very differently.
    5) It'd still be crap no matter what you called it.
    6) Wasn't her statement made when the first episode came out? You know it's funny. Jane Jensen--co-creator of the most mature real KQ game--said in your own chat with her (in which you announced Cognition) that it was dark for KQ, and that Roberta had a very specific vision for the series. I'd tend to agree with that as even after the fact Roberta mentioned how KQ6 sort of deviated from the usual style due to Jane's influence. I truly doubt if Roberta were in the game's business today that she would've turned KQ into a mopey soap opera on par in quality with Twilight.

  • User Avatar Image
    Cez

    Can you tell me how exactly is Wicked a reboot of Wizard of Oz? All Wicked tried to do is give an explanation to all the events that took place in Wizard of Oz that we were not seeing by following Dorothy's storyline, and in the process, retconned the hell out of it. It changed all the intentions of the Wicked Witch of the West portraying her as a good person that was forced to be seen as an evil witch. It never changed the actual events of The Wizard of Oz, it was fully based on them, it just did a retcon on its backstory, explaining things like why did Dorothy "kill" the witch with water, and so on. If that's a reboot, you may as well call TSL a reboot, if that's what you find convenient. Now, does that make you like it more?

    As far as what Roberta thinks or doesn't think, she played Episode 1, which is as dark and gritty as everything else, and wrote a review. Roberta is an incredibly hard person to reach. It would have been the easiest thing to do to just ignore the email, not play the game, and not have made any comments. If she felt compelled to do so, and liked it, it's because whatever she saw in it, she was fine with it. You can say whatever you want, think whatever you want, but what Roberta wrote in that email to us is the only true statement there exists. Unless you want to call her a liar now, too, in order to defend your point of view.

  • @Cez said: Can you tell me how exactly is Wicked a reboot of Wizard of Oz? All Wicked tried to do is give an explanation to all the events that took place in Wizard of Oz that we were not seeing by following Dorothy's storyline, and in the process, retconned the hell out of it. It changed all the intentions of the Wicked Witch of the West portraying her as a good person that was forced to be seen as an evil witch. It never changed the actual events of The Wizard of Oz, it was fully based on them, it just did a retcon on its backstory, explaining things like why did Dorothy "kill" the witch with water, and so on. If that's a reboot, you may as well call TSL a reboot, if that's what you find convenient. Now, does that make you like it more?

    As far as what Roberta thinks or doesn't think, she played Episode 1, which is as dark and gritty as everything else, and wrote a review. Roberta is an incredibly hard person to reach. It would have been the easiest thing to do to just ignore the email, not play the game, and not have made any comments. If she felt compelled to do so, and liked it, it's because whatever she saw in it, she was fine with it. You can say whatever you want, think whatever you want, but what Roberta wrote in that email to us is the only true statement there exists. Unless you want to call her a liar now, too, in order to defend your point of view.

    Why bother? You'll just pull the "Roberta liked Episode 1 which means she agreed 100% with our direction which means TSL is an official game, are you going to call Roberta a liar?" card again.

  • Rofl

    Man, what are you guys gonna do when the fifth episode is released and you can't do this anymore? You'll have to find something new to hate and rant about, I guess. :)

Add Comment