User Avatar Image

What about KQ appeals to you?

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 825 users

What do you love about KQ--What do you love most? What draws you to the series, what are it's best points/features/etc? What drew you to it originally, and with what game did you first meet the series?

57 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I'll be in minority here, and will probably get a lot of flak from this, but, honestly, I can't say that anything in King's Quest really appeals to me. And I think it's the worst of the Sierra Quest lines. I know its historical relevance, and the nostalgia factor also kicks in, but, the series is just... dull and hasn't aged well at all. I really love AGDI's King's Quest II+, and that's because it has what other King's Quest games (well, except for King's Quest VI and III) don't have - an interesting storyline, a cool world and characters with a sense of history, and sensible puzzles. King's Quest I, II and IV is just a mash-up of random fairy tales, situations and puzzles, V and VII are a real total mess design-wise and script-wise, and, honestly, I enjoy Mask of Eternity more than any of those games (it's certainly just a mediocre action/adventure game, but I had more fun with it than I had with any other KQ game... except, again, VI and III).

    To me, the King's Quest series is more of a technological wonder. And the problem with technological wonders - they don't always make good games. Just look at Crysis, for one of the more modern examples. Maybe the reason why I actually like III and VI is because, by the time they were in development, the creators got comfortable enough with the technology they could actually properly design the games now.

    So, yeah, I think the series is pretty much a mess that still hinges on the nostalgia factor. Space Quest, Quest for Glory, Conquests and other Sierra game series - they deserve a sequel much more than King's Quest does. And King's Quest... the only thing that I care about TellTale's King's Quest is for it to be a classic adventure game.

    Maybe I am too harsh on the series. It's not that there aren't good things about KQI, II, IV, V, VII (and, well, I'll put MoE on the list too since it isn't exactly a great game), but I think they all need an AGDI KQII+ treatment. Because, if you think about it, KQII+ is still what KQII is - a collection of fairy tales and stories, but instead of just being meshed up into one garble, it got carefully interconnected and spun in an interesting way. That's also what KQVI has done and, to a degree, KQIII. And I guess this is a factor that actually appeals to me in King's Quest (yay, writing this post made me realize what appeals to me in KQ! :D ), it's just that it's not realized to its full potential in most of the games in the series. So, yeah, this factor is something TellTale should keep in their new KQ game and is definitely something that can give KQ (depending on how well you do it, because I'm still not going to go easy on the KQ series :p ) its style and substance.

  • You call III a good story, and condemn 4?

    Seriously... There isn't much story in III, even if you count the manual... I suppose it picks up once you see the oracle..., and talk to the gnome, and Rosella... Who fills on on some backstory... Of course 'listen in' on the animals who also make up most of the game's backstory... But general interaction was simply a mish mash of fairy tales really... Just like the previous two.

    But KQ4 actually has probably one of the most detailed scripts in the entire series, and definable characters with actual motives in the land for the most part... The villain actually has quite a bit of dialogue (manannan didn't do much except leer at you and punish you), plus the 'saving your father' and "genesta" plotline brought alot of urgency to the game.

  • @BagginsKQ said: You call III a good story, and condemn 4?

    Seriously... There isn't much story in III, even if you count the manual... I suppose it picks up once you see the oracle..., and talk to the gnome, and Rosella... Who fills on on some backstory... Of course 'listen in' on the animals who also make up most of the game's backstory... But general interaction was simply a mish mash of fairy tales really... Just like the previous two.

    But KQ4 actually has probably one of the most detailed scripts in the entire series, and definable characters with actual motives in the land for the most part... The villain actually has quite a bit of dialogue (manannan didn't do much except leer at you and punish you), plus the 'saving your father' and "genesta" plotline brought alot of urgency to the game.

    KQ4 is probably among the best of the games. It has a pretty much coherent story which is neither too simple nor too overly complex; It has a great structure with two interwined storylines, the sense of urgency you mentioned (as well as a sense of foreboding/horror in the night segments). It's a well put together game with a good level of depth, especially for the genre and for 1988.

  • Ya, Edgar was so well thought out... His interactions and character development up to the point he frees you, and then later asks for Rosella's hand... It develops perfectly!

    They even managed to toss in a bad ending, with you marrying Edgar!

    I also like if you choose to interact with the dwarves besides cleaning, as in actually talk to them, that Rosella is willing to open up to them about her plight, and they even manage to offer her some emotional support!

  • I hope this one will have a memorable line like in the last two.
    "Alexander pulls out his Magic Map."
    "LOOK OUT GRAHAM, IT'S A POOOOOOIIIISONOUS SNAKE!"

  • Okay, I have to confess, now that I think about it - when I think of KQIII, I, again, think of AGDI's remake which is still fresh in my mind, not the original game... so... yeah. Still, doesn't change my opinion on other games, and I have to replay the original KQIII.

  • @Farlander said: Okay, I have to confess, now that I think about it - when I think of KQIII, I, again, think of AGDI's remake which is still fresh in my mind, not the original game... so... yeah. Still, doesn't change my opinion on other games, and I have to replay the original KQIII.

    Replay KQ4. Solid game.

  • I appreciate KQ1 and 2 from their place and time, but I don't see why the whole fairy tale land idea couldn't be translated into a game today, without having to become the "Dark and Dramatic" mess that a lot of stories are today.


    Bt

  • @Blackthorne519 said: I appreciate KQ1 and 2 from their place and time, but I don't see why the whole fairy tale land idea couldn't be translated into a game today, without having to become the "Dark and Dramatic" mess that a lot of stories are today.


    Bt

    Amen. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. KQ1 and 2 were revolutionary at their time and they were as advanced storywise as they could be with the technology and space available, and seeing how deep KQ became later, it's obvious if Roberta had the technology in 1983/1985, KQ wouldn't have been so "random". You can have the "fairy tale land" idea and still have it be a family experience, and have a coherent, solid story with it. People dismiss fairy tales today because they're so light and escapist--but I think that is their charm. KQ4-6 are examples of having fairy tale lands without it being overly dark and dramatic, or tied in with overarching storylines.

  • From one of my favorite reviews/editorials in Interaction Magazine;
    "I first experienced computer gaming through her early work...so I sort of grew up on her style of adventure game design. She has a clean and crisp style of design that states the goals of the game clearly and makes your challenges clear, which I find refreshing...I really do think "King's Quest I" was the finest adventure game ever written, and the most fun to play...I also liked "King's Quest II" a lot. I think both of these games are great examples of the kind of adventure games that I like to play and that started the whole adventure game following in the first place. "King's Quest I" and "King's Quest II" are unlike most computer games written nowadays. Frankly, they don't feature the deep, complex plots of games like "Police Quest III" and "Conquests of the Longbow". Instead, these games are basically treasure hunts with lots of fun puzzles thrown in to add challenge. They feature simple goals -- you know what it takes to win the contest with the computer. For me, adventure games have represented a pleasant diversion -- something I could boot up and get lost in for a few hours at the end of a long day. I view them the same way some people review Rubics Cube or a crossword puzzle. I want simple goals -- something I can jump into the middle of and go...I want hard puzzles -- real mind benders -- so that when I solve one I can sit smugly... with a sense of satisfaction. This straight forward "goals and puzzles" approach to adventuring represents the oldest and purest approach to the art form. Everyone at Sierra has their opinion about how adventure games should work, of course, but as for me, give me the old-time adventuring. Give me the early "King's Quests."-John Williams, Interaction Magazine, Spring 1992.

Add Comment