User Avatar Image

King's Quest Spin-offs

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 2K users

The first 'KQ' game per se that you could ever say was released was Adventure in Serenia (Aka Wizard and the Princess). An adventure game released by Sierra in the early 1980s and designed/written by Roberta, it was set in Serenia, a land later revisited in KQ5. Roberta making the land in KQ5 be Serenia tied that game to KQ--Making it a game set in the same world, but not "KQ".

Would you ever support spin offs--in any genre, or different from KQ--that are set in the world of KQ, but don't concern The Royal Family or Daventry? Think sort of like Star Trek: The Next Generation, or spin offs of the series set in the same world--Expanding the universe of KQ and it's boundaries and mythos and perhaps even expanding the world KQ is set in into something truly large and interesting--Sort of making the "World of Daventry" into a setting like "The Forgotten Realms"--where the main KQ stories are just one of many stories in the same universe--Where the Royal Family are just one set of heroes in that world.

It'd take away a lot of the restrictions that the "rules" KQ has puts on stories and open up a lot of potential new ground but would allow you to also revisit beloved characters and lands that KQ first showed us, while offering up new ones as well. Perhaps in a story or two The Royal Family could even make a cameo appearance.

51 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Is there an internet law yet for 'the first person to annoy the hell out of everyone else is wrong' yet? There really should be....

    And you're dancing real close to Godwin's as it is, Baggins. 1984 references? Thought-police? Seriously? Yes, by stating how KQ8 does not feel like a true KQ to him personally, he is clearly suppressing freedom of speech and truth all the world over! Seriously? Actually, you are the one intent on suppressing his opinion, not vice versa.

  • No, people can have dumb opinions and wrong opinions... I mean just look at half the politicians Republicans think Democrats are 'wrong', and Democrats think Republicans are 'wrong' (depending on their viewpoint) or creationists vs. evolutionists (depending on people's side of the dicussion)! Infact, having the opinion that someone's opinion is wrong or dumb, is in itself a another 'opinion'! Sometimes opinions are wrong, and go against fact...

    Free speech, which you probably don't understand, protects wrong and ignorant speech just as much as knowledgeable and correct speech. A person has the right be wrong, and believe false information. Just as much as another person has the right to point out their flawed belief. But it still makes them wrong when it comes down to the facts.

    BTW, there is nothing wrong about saying KQ8 doesn't feel like a true KQ... That's different than saying KQ8 is not a King's Quest game or that its not KQ8, or not part of the KQ series. There is a distinction. One is a valid opinion, the other ignores facts.

    But eh in this day and age, everyone is more concerned about gut opinions than caring about facts...

    BTW, Katie him telling me to shut up is an actual form of 'suppressing speach'. I haven't once told him to 'shut up'.

    Katie, the only people trying to bring up Godwin's law and imply invocation of nazis, would be other posters here including your latest post! Godwin's Law only applies when someone compares someone to Nazi Party specifically.

    Again, if I say "KQ8", in a thread when abbrievating the game, and comparing it to something else in the series and related to someone's comment, that shouldn't be a reason for someone to come in and say, and say "it's not KQ8", blah blah blah!

    Because my initial post was intended in this case as a reply to someone's comment about a type of game they want to play, but the latter comments in reference to my comment, really aren't. They are really just an attack on my initial post (which was just an observation on the person's idea).

    I would like to describe a new law, I'll call it "KQ8 Law',

    "As an online discussion references or discusses KQ8 grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving it not being a KQ game or not part of the KQ series approaches 1."

    It doesn't matter what the topic is about KQ8 or even if the reference to KQ8 actually relates to something in another subject. Someone will come in and state how they believe the game is not a KQ game... Often times they may go as far to say, that the game should not be discussed at all (since they believe it is not part of the series)... or that people should just 'shut up' about KQ8...

    The corollaries to this law is that it doesn't matter even if the discussion is neither about the quality or lack their of the game (but rather about something in the game and/or in relation to something else in the series), but someone will come into the thread and state that the game sucks, and in some cases going as far to state that the game shouldn't be discussed at all...

    To a certain degree there may be a related KQ7 Law similar to this law as well.

  • I propose an addendum to that one...

    "As an online discussion references or discusses KQ8 grows longer, the probability of Baggins jumping in to steamroll the conversation approaches 1."

    There we go. ;)

    Actually, no, opinions aren't wrong--they are personal. You may or may not agree with them. You can try to point out that, perhaps, an opinion seems to be based on incorrect facts, but the opinion itself isn't wrong.

    Now, Chyron has clearly started this is his opinion. He's not claimed that factually it is so. Given how you keep trying to drive in your point, however, you seem to be the one who has trouble understanding here.

  • Actually Katie, my post was first to even mention KQ8 in this thread;

    06/04/2012, 08:07 pm #8
    BagginsKQ
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [quote]Quote:
    I always thought it'd be cool if there was a QFG style King's Quest game with a mix of RPG/adventure

    Uh, kinda like KQ8?

    KQ8 was more like the earlier QFG games than QFG5 was like the previous games in the QFG series (QFG5 was nearly pure action, with no puzzles, the adventure aspects were intentionally stripped out)...
    [/QUOTE]


    It's others who steamrolled it, and envoked KQ8 Law... But eh not like anyone will admit to it...

    BTW, in this case the more specific situation for the Law is;

    "When Baggins references or discusses KQ8 within a thread, the probability of his post being steamrolled with comparisons involving it not being a KQ game or not part of the KQ series by another party approaches 1."

    Actually Katie, "fallacious opinions" do exist. If wrong opinion didn't exist, 'fallacies' wouldn't exist!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

    http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    Infact the common idiom 'opinions are neither right nor wrong' is infact itself filled with paradoxal reasoning and can in itself be fallacious as well depending on the type of opinions! But most common idioms can be fallacious in some way. But in the end its basically a parodox, depending on the type of opinion, an opinion can be either right (one is right and one is wrong), wrong (one is wrong and one is right) or neither (neither are right or neither are wrong), or both (both are right or both are wrong)...

    For example, hypothetically, if I had the opinion that you were a man, that would make my opinion 'wrong' and not 'factual'... I would be commiting a fallacy. It would make me rather ignorant or stupid! It might be argued that my opinion was no longer "personal" as well (not all opinions are 'personal'), as I had applied it to you (or another proper noun).

  • @BagginsKQ said: "When Baggins references or discusses KQ8 within a thread, the probability of his post being steamrolled with comparisons involving it not being a KQ game or not part of the KQ series by another party approaches 1."

    Yes. Good. You, Roberta, gaming in general and perhaps all works of fiction ever made are being oppressed by my persistence to never accept MoE as KQ8.

    It is my goal in life to annoy you by stating my own opinions/perceptions (regardless of how valid they are or how many people agree with me) and further being unwilling to agree or compromise with your arguments which oppose my own.

  • Yes, it was probably you, or someone like you who went onto the King's Quest Omnipedia, and edited the KQ8 article to state as matter of fact that "KQ8 is not a KQ game", eh?. That person envoked the KQ8 rule!

    or how many people agree with me

    That would be an 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy btw ;).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

    ...or appeal to belief;
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

    It can also touch on the 'bandwagon';

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html

    Also besides maybe its other people who are 'wired'/'born' to become annoyed whenever "KQ8" is even mentioned! Therefore if I say KQ8, that's enought drive people crazy! and even nausea!

  • True, and also not a fallacy! But certainly puts a damper in a discussion!

    There is a fallacy for believing one thing might be true for "you", but not true for "me"! I.E. It may be KQ8, but its not KQ8 to me!

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html

    The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her.

    Claim X is presented.
    Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    Therefore A is justified in rejecting X

    Claim KQ8 is presented.
    Person A (Chyron) asserts that KQ8 may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    Therefore A (Chyron) is justified in rejecting KQ8.

    No, where does this mean you have to like or enjoy the game though! So keep on 'hatin'.

    haters-gonna-hate-2.jpg?w=500&h=642

  • @Cez said: So much for that PM you sent me last week, no? :) I guess you just answered your own question :D

    I didn't see this post until Baggins quoted it in a thread today, but, no, not so much for my PM. My comment was supposed to be in jest or sardonic but that doesn't translate too well in text. What I said in that PM, I meant. I don't like certain story/tone elements of your game but I don't hate you or the game or the team or any of that crap and I'm not vehemently against it anymore. It's a fan effort and for the effort alone you and any person who takes a fan project on should be applauded. I may disagree with the result but the effort, love, and hard work put in is something that can't be denied, nor should it be diminished or mocked.

    I admire your effort, and the fact that you can write (I can't get past a single page myself!), and there are certain facets of your game I do like. My feelings on your game have mellowed a lot--They're probably akin to what you might feel about KQ5 (as KQ5 isn't your favorite but you don't abhor it either--at least I don't think you do).

    I'm going to be 22 soon. Hating a game and trying to trash it just because I disagree with certain story or tonal choices is childish. We're all fans of KQ at the end of the day, even if we like the series for different reasons, or prefer different approaches (I mean for example that KQ5 is my favorite while KQ6 is yours).

  • Intersting that Braggins mentions Historians...
    I agree that games are a form of Cultural Capital - but Historians do not view history like an encyclopedia, all history is up for revision. When Mask of Eternia was released major releases were never considered spin-offs and as such would have been defined as the next major installment in the series , while today in our market we understand how spins offs can be larger and potentially generate more income... Todays gaming historians would actually examine the series and break it down into sagas
    KQ1+KQ2+KQ5 are Graham's Saga
    KQ3+KQ6 are Alexander's Saga
    KQ4+KQ7 are Rosella's Saga

    with the exclussion of Mask of Eternia all of the series focuses on the Royal Family (hence its name of Kings Quest) - in Mask the main character is not part of the royal family - it would only work as part of the series thematicly if Connor became the new king as Graham was a knight in the first game... he doesn't so it clashes with the series on a thematic level...as such a gaming historian would actuyally argue that it should be renamed "Kings Quest : Mask of Eternia" and be recognised as a spin off.


    on a side note, I enjoyed playing Mask of Eternia and im not saying it was horrible - just that it should be recognised with more modern lenses as a spin off.

Add Comment