User Avatar Image

Kingdom of Sorrow

posted by exo on - last edited - Viewed by 964 users

Infamous Adventures (guys who remade KQ3 originally), recently released their SQ2 remake and anounced a King's Quest game based somewhat on the Kingdom of Sorrow novel.

http://www.infamous-adventures.com/home/index.php?page=kos

Think I may be more excited about that game then this one. Likely won't have the production value of Tell Tale, but it looks like it may 'feel' a lot more like a traditional sierra game.

Too bad the guys at AGD Interactive aren't doing it though - they seem to have the best grasp of the aspects of KQ games that I enjoy.

56 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Bam! Great post, man. Good hear your take on things.


    Bt

  • Thank you Bonita, I appreciate you post and agree with most of you sentiments. It's good to hear that some of the developers questioned the direction it took.

    Thank you for the kind words concerning the Omnipedia, feel free to contribute to it if you like!

    Rest assured I enjoy played your games even though I prefer the originals to them.

    I do think that KQ3 Redux in someways a step closer to KQ feel to me, although I still can't figure why The story write goes out of their way to change some character names, or in some cases turn bad guys into good guys! Roberta's vision was far more black and white like the old fairy tales! ...or more Disneyfied tales if anything (no Grimm twisted endings)!

    After KQ3 Deluxe i've always been interested in what AGDi could do if they went back to KQ1 and made a redux version! Add puzzles flesh out those random bad guys into something interesting, just to see how your storyteller would have reinterpreted them!

    However, I have to say Blackthorne after partially playing through KQ3VGA Space Quest 2 Deluxe, there is a certain feel that IA games feel more like direct tributes to the series than intentionally going about drastically changing things for the sake of changing things. The changes aren't nearly as drastic (except for maybe extending the time between KQ3 and KQ4 from directly after KQ3 to some time after a long repair if the kingdom), but seem to be a nod to the series as a whole. Staying true to the style and themes in all ways. But I really can't place my finger on it exactly. The feel is completely different.

    I have a feeling musicallyinspired's take on KQ2's story might give me the same feeling.

    Strangely enough though I think KQ3 Redux ending (minus the Father) bits comes somewhat closer to the direction KQ5 took with the healing of Daventry (in the various manuals and iirc the ingame past game synopses)... quick fix alluding to magic being used lol! Kinda had to considering that KQ4 took place directly after KQ3, not some time later after rebuilding the land the long way!

    Redux also stuck directly to the plot point mentioned in the original KQ3 that it was Manannan himself that pulled Alex from his cradle! Nice touch in the intro.

  • I think there's always bound to be some cognitive dissonance when comparing two contradictory storylines and trying to associate them. I guess the best way to think of our KQ2 remake, is as an alternate retelling by someone other than Roberta Williams. Daniel (our writer) threw in some plot twists in an attempt to make things more entertaining for people who thought they knew the original game back-to-front and assumed they wouldn't experience anything new by playing a remake. But I recall Daniel saying that he intentionally didn't want to alter anything that would contradict future games, and I think the monk/vampire plot switch was done because it was a self-contained element that didn't change anything significant about the events that occurred in KQ2. (In other words, by summarizing the key plot points from both the AGI version and our remake, you'd still get the same skeleton story outline.)

    Ironically, the response to the non-canonical changes we made has been overwhelmingly positive and the fans who dislike them seem to be in the minority. It would be easy to read this as a validation of approval for continuing that storyline, but at the end of the day, I think if you're making something official based on another's work, you've gotta respect to the source material.

    That said, I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to tell the rest of the Father storyline in one form or another, to accommodate the large segment of the community who are eager to know how Daniel's interpretation of the saga ends, but we'd never try to pass it off as official canon, and it wouldn't claim to be such.

  • I think there's always bound to be some cognitive dissonance when comparing two contradictory storylines and trying to associate them. I guess the best way to think of our KQ2 remake, is as an alternate retelling by someone other than Roberta Williams. Daniel (our writer) threw in some plot twists in an attempt to make things more entertaining for people who thought they knew the original game back-to-front and assumed they wouldn't experience anything new by playing a remake. But I recall Daniel saying that he intentionally didn't want to alter anything that would contradict future games, and I think the monk/vampire plot switch was done because it was a self-contained element that didn't change anything significant about the events that occurred in KQ2. (In other words, by summarizing the key plot points from both the AGI version and our remake, you'd still get the same skeleton story outline.)

    Well I think its a bit more complicated than that! Dracula and monk for example do get brought up once or twice in game short story synopses in later (manuals, ingame menus, or strategy guides) and at least one was written by Roberta herself. Which might be confusing to anyone who hasn't played the originals, but chooses to play the fan games, and the later official games as one continuation.

    Of course I think I rather prefer the way Peter Spear (who claims he worked with Roberta's blessings and advice) decided to expand on their characters, but not add anything that majorly changes the universe itself. So I like ideas of Gerwain (perhaps egotistical but not necessarily evil) for example narrating the KQ2 story, after Graham returns. Or the idea that Graham later hired the monk to be the castle priest! They give one possible scenario to those who like 'asking questions what happened after?", but don't drastically change the universe...

    More importantly I think there are some ways that the 'good vampire' kinda goes against KQ feel... Good vampires of the more 'dramatic', 'moody', 'anxty' and 'brooding' style are more of a construction of 20th and 21st century literature. Before that they were primarily evil beings, represenstive of all things dark. That alone seems like a disconnect between KQ's usual 'black and white' world view.

    There has also always been a touch of 'incest, rape, and even pedophillia' to the early myths, since they often came back and attacked their own families and friends before spreading out to feed off of others. Their whole purpose was to feed on others, and spread their curse to create more of their kind...

    Thus people tended to come up with ritutals to prevent loved ones from coming back to attack them. Such as jamming rocks and stone axe heads in their mouths/chopping of their heads... The curse of the vampire was not in any sense good... It was something to fear and destroy always... You don't play with the creations of the 'Devil'.

    I think that's why I find the Anastatia plot line rather repugnant, and outside of Roberta's vision (less you are going for Phantasmagoria in vision, and took a bit too much inspiration from Jane Jensen/Gabriel Knight)... For the same reason that vampiric child Tanya in QFG4 is meant to induce disgust in the player, I feel that the idea that her grandparents would 'force' the curse of vampirism on their daughter to be akin to 'molestation'... I could seen Granny making the choice for herself perhaps, to continue living with her husband, but forcing that on their granddaughter, just seems rath sick... Maybe when was older, she could have made that choice... but as a human she had the potential to have her whole life ahead of her, and marry and continue the cycle of life! But now she's more or less has the potential of spreading the curse...

    I think i'd have rather seen a storyline in a remake where Dracula is treated as the villain he is, but that was expanded on, including more direct interactions with the player! In the same way the monk, could be maybe more mysterious, but still a good guy... There are many ways to make those traditional dynamics interesting, without changing the characters.

    That being said, in AGD's defense, Roberta did change characterizations of some like Manannan and Lolotte from their original fairy tales and myths, by making them particulary 'evil'. So yes, she didn't always stick perfectly to her inspiration. But she did choose to keep their names, rather than hiding them behind anagrams. Then again god-like beings tend to be more neutral, than good or evil... You just want to make sure you stay on their good sides!

  • Ironically, the response to the non-canonical changes we made has been overwhelmingly positive and the fans who dislike them seem to be in the minority. It would be easy to read this as a validation of approval for continuing that storyline, but at the end of the day, I think if you're making something official based on another's work, you've gotta respect to the source material.

    I think that my beef is probably more with the section of the community that prefer the game over the original, and think that the series should continue from yours than the originals. Yes, I have discussions with people that think that...

    I suspect many of them are 'newcomers' that never appreciated who Roberta was, or what Roberta's vision was.

    But if their 'beliefs' became so popular that say Activision took notice, and decided they could make a profit from it, there is the potential that it could destroy the chances that the official series would continue in any form.

    That being said I had just as much apprehension to hearing Telltale was making a 'reboot'... as it would have lead to the same outcome to the original series! ...and though they have later claimed that they want to stick to the history KQ has developed, I still hold some reseverations until I see the final product.

    BTW, I'm just as critical to the sierra remakes of classic adventure series as well... PQ1 remake for example went as far to change character names, and even genders, in such a way that it doesn't fit with the sequels much at all.. I prefer the original (it had more puzzle smore points), and fit better into the original trilogy. I also think there are ways that KQ1SCI remake made minor changes (perhaps mostly in setting) that are inconsistent with later games (particuarly KQ3)... Though I think it stuck close to the themes of the KQ games as a whole.

    But, ya, don't think that i'm trying to be overly critical, I did enjoy playing the games... But there are certainly things in both AGD and POS offerings where I feel they have gone a little over board. Yes, I think there are examples where they got things 'right'. Even IA has some things I'm critical about, but I think they had the best grasp of the 'feel' down.

  • User Avatar Image
    exo

    BagginsKQ - it seems like you dislike, or find issues, with anything that isn't source material.

    The KQ universe for me, and MANY other people, exists within the framework of the games alone. When you start debating canon by bringing in revised manuals, strategy guys, and companions you are bringing in stuff that doesn't matter to sizable portion of the original fans. I would question how important the story line bits actually are, when most of them were written after the fact to try and explain something previously mentioned in a game.

    Remember, Sierra made these games to make money. Sometimes things get changed because it makes better business sense. Roberta's story, when you take EVERYTHING into account is bound to have holes in it. It is not infallible material. So standing up for source material while poking holes into everything that comes along later doesn't make a good deal of sense to me.

    I may not be the biggest fan of Silver lining, but I'm damn glad someone took the time to make it. I am very interested in Kingdom of Sorrow, and it is bound to have a few problems of its own - but in the end its a game I would never get to play unless someone took the time to make it. And we are all here in some form or another because we are interested in Telltale's remake, even if many of us are cautiously optimistic (or pessimistic as some come across). I am not going to dissuade that by putting out what comes across as an elitist stance that any and all interpretations of KQ are blasphemy. I am caricaturing your stance obviously, and I am aware of that.

    You obviously know a lot more about the KQ universe as a whole than myself, but maybe all that knowledge isn't such a good thing sometimes? I was a rabid fan of the show Lost. I tracked minute details, rationalized loose plot threads, and set myself up for the biggest disappointment. Friends of mine who seemed to watch it in passing enjoyed the show much more then I did as it seemingly went off the rails, because I had set up expectations for it when they had not.

    IMHO, the best part of KQ to me isn't the bloody story anyway. It was the fun of exploring a land, interacting with creatures, and the satisfaction of solving a puzzle and putting something right. The story always felt a little tacked on to me. As long as the game reminds me of the hours I spent exploring when I was 12, then it is golden. Obviously I wouldn't want the author to go off on a tangent and redefine a fundamental aspect of the game, but I hardly feel that the monk or the vampire are important or fundamental.

    The key, as Bonito has stated, is to enjoy the games as re-tellings and to stop trying to force them into this giant canon you have so much knowledge of. I often read books that are turned into movies later. I enjoy each one based on it's own merits, and just because a book came first does not make it the end all be all version. There are quite a few instances where a movie has improved upon facets of a book, and quite a few other times it has missed what i consider to be important plot/character points. I can still enjoy it though.

    [quote]I think that my beef is probably more with the section of the community that prefer the game over the original, and think that the series should continue from yours than the originals. Yes, I have discussions with people that think that...[/quote]

    Why do you care? You have no right to tell others which game they should or should not like more. At this point you sound more elitist than ever. I wouldn't mind seeing the games continue from their story line. You know why? Because I already know where Roberta took her version. And I'd rather play someone else's take on Daventry, than someone else's take on exactly what Roberta would do.

    [quote]But if their 'beliefs' became so popular that say Activision took notice, and decided they could make a profit from it, there is the potential that it could destroy the chances that the official series would continue in any form.[/quote]

    There is no "official" series, not in the sense of there ever being KQ developed the same people as you knw it. Just because Tell Tale got the rights to sell a game called kings Quest doesn't make it official in the sense that it is going to jump right in where KQ7 or MoE left off.

    What you don't get is the hubub of Silver Lining is where Activision saw there was still profit to be made, and sold the rights to TellTale at that time. This "fear" of yours already happened buddy, and it had zero to do with the fact that people in the community really enjoyed AGDI's remake.

  • @exo said: BagginsKQ - it seems like you dislike, or find issues, with anything that isn't source material.

    The KQ universe for me, and MANY other people, exists within the framework of the games alone. When you start debating canon by bringing in revised manuals, strategy guys, and companions you are bringing in stuff that doesn't matter to sizable portion of the original fans. I would question how important the story line bits actually are, when most of them were written after the fact to try and explain something previously mentioned in a game.

    Remember, Sierra made these games to make money. Sometimes things get changed because it makes better business sense. Roberta's story, when you take EVERYTHING into account is bound to have holes in it. It is not infallible material. So standing up for source material while poking holes into everything that comes along later doesn't make a good deal of sense to me.

    I may not be the biggest fan of Silver lining, but I'm damn glad someone took the time to make it. I am very interested in Kingdom of Sorrow, and it is bound to have a few problems of its own - but in the end its a game I would never get to play unless someone took the time to make it. And we are all here in some form or another because we are interested in Telltale's remake, even if many of us are cautiously optimistic (or pessimistic as some come across). I am not going to dissuade that by putting out what comes across as an elitist stance that any and all interpretations of KQ are blasphemy. I am caricaturing your stance obviously, and I am aware of that.

    You obviously know a lot more about the KQ universe as a whole than myself, but maybe all that knowledge isn't such a good thing sometimes? I was a rabid fan of the show Lost. I tracked minute details, rationalized loose plot threads, and set myself up for the biggest disappointment. Friends of mine who seemed to watch it in passing enjoyed the show much more then I did as it seemingly went off the rails, because I had set up expectations for it when they had not.

    IMHO, the best part of KQ to me isn't the bloody story anyway. It was the fun of exploring a land, interacting with creatures, and the satisfaction of solving a puzzle and putting something right. The story always felt a little tacked on to me. As long as the game reminds me of the hours I spent exploring when I was 12, then it is golden. Obviously I wouldn't want the author to go off on a tangent and redefine a fundamental aspect of the game, but I hardly feel that the monk or the vampire are important or fundamental.

    The key, as Bonito has stated, is to enjoy the games as re-tellings and to stop trying to force them into this giant canon you have so much knowledge of. I often read books that are turned into movies later. I enjoy each one based on it's own merits, and just because a book came first does not make it the end all be all version. There are quite a few instances where a movie has improved upon facets of a book, and quite a few other times it has missed what i consider to be important plot/character points. I can still enjoy it though.

    Why do you care? You have no right to tell others which game they should or should not like more. At this point you sound more elitist than ever. I wouldn't mind seeing the games continue from their story line. You know why? Because I already know where Roberta took her version. And I'd rather play someone else's take on Daventry, than someone else's take on exactly what Roberta would do.

    There is no "official" series, not in the sense of there ever being KQ developed the same people as you knw it. Just because Tell Tale got the rights to sell a game called kings Quest doesn't make it official in the sense that it is going to jump right in where KQ7 or MoE left off.

    What you don't get is the hubub of Silver Lining is where Activision saw there was still profit to be made, and sold the rights to TellTale at that time. This "fear" of yours already happened buddy, and it had zero to do with the fact that people in the community really enjoyed AGDI's remake.

    Since it is now canon (from TSL) that Graham and his family are deeply tortured people, I think they need to work out their emotions. Perhaps the next game can be a therapy game, wherein you have to solve puzzles to escape from a group therapy session.

  • Some people are pedantic and obsessed with cannon - others are not. I'm not adverse to creating a new story, but I think there are some boundaries to King's Quest. When you go out of the feel of them, it gets awkward.

    The Silver Lining, though a major achievement in fan-game production, story wise moves much too far out of the realm of King's Quest for my taste. It's a little self (and over) indulgent; interestingly enough, I think the story would work with non-King's Quest characters and settings - but as a King's Quest, I feel it's off the mark. It attaches itself to the IP of King's Quest, when it really has no business there.

    AGDI's KQ2+.... well, you know - that came out 10 years ago, and at that time - no one had attempted anything like that on a "remake"! While there are bits that I don't agree with (one of them being an over-arching villain that attempts to tie all motivations and games together ala "The Father") I still found it to be a great alternate story-telling version of a classic game. That game was amazing and fun when it came out, and truthfully it inspired those of us who were fans at Tierra/AGDI to start our own group, Infamous Adventures, and now we've released two games of our own.

    I think that having limits and boundaries that keep the center of story-telling grounded are important. There's a large movement in creative writing and story telling today to make things as "Epic" and "Realistic/Gritty™ " and I think that's played out. In an effort to attach emotions, motivations, a sense of reality and cynicism to everything, they have in-fact created a hyper-reality that isn't a real reflection of anything but a yearning for life to be more epic than it is. I digress, though. Respecting King's Quest's cannon, and it's penchant for fairy-tales and villains in a fairy tale manner is important to maintaining the feel of the game.

    To each his own, though. There are a great number of people who have enjoyed The Silver Lining, and the fact that it's brought attention back to King's Quest is a good thing. You can't convert everyone to your way of thinking, so you if you find people that agree with how you feel, take comfort in the fact that you aren't alone!


    Bt

  • Anakin, you continue to one of the best ways we have of making sure our name comes up as often as possible. Thanks for the help! :D

    Personally, I've really enjoyed the re-envisioning that some games have done. Am I biased too? Well, yes, but even ignoring TSL, I'd still really enjoy AGDI's KQ2+ and KQ3Redux. While graphical-only (or graphic and interface-only) updates are also impressive and worthy of praise, and have done their part in keeping KQ and SQ and so forth popular and present in people's minds, for my non-money spent on non-commercial games, I'm more for seeing new takes on the classics.

  • I don't know who's playing the bigger dramatic violin in this debate.


    Bt

Add Comment