User Avatar Image

Do you miss King's Quest?

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 505 users

Simple question: Do you miss King's Quest? Do you wish it were revived in a proper fashion?

Let's say even if you hate the TT project, would you be happy if someone else revived the series in a way close to what you imagine?

What I mean is, are you OK with a KQ Sequel in theory, if the designer was one who'd do it Sierra style and not Lucas-Arts style? Do you simply oppose TT being the designer or do you oppose a new KQ game period?

I personally deeply miss KQ. I remember being a kid and playing all the games and the long wait for KQ8...I fell in love with that world and it's characters and wish I could see them again on new, official adventures.

17 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Lambonius, thank you for explaining this.

    How long was Telltale given to do something with King Quest? How long are these contract agreements usually good for?

    What if Telltale had been given 10 years to do something, and then then just decides to pursue other titles and leave KQ in the trash, all the while refusing the admit the KQ project is dead? People would have more incentive to demand Activision allow other developers the right to make new KQ games if they knew that there were no KQ games in production.

    What I would like to see is a timeline summary of every public mention by Telltale about KQ since 2010.

  • Trust me, "fan groups" have approached Activision about the KQ license - the amount of money it would cost makes it prohibitive to small, indie groups.


    Bt

  • Well, I wasn't necessarily talking about "fan groups" approaching Activision to secure a license for themselves. Activision needs to hear from customers who want new KQ games and they need to hear that we want them done the right way.

    But, first of all, the interactive movie factory known as Telltale Games needs to come clean publicly about the fact that they are likely not working on anything KQ-related. Might not more developers express an interest in the KQ rights if they believed that no other studios were working on a KQ project, and they could be the first to come out with a new KQ title?

    You all know much more than I do about how all of this stuff works. I am just a simple KQ fan who isn't ready to let the series go to pot in the hands of someone who claims interactive movies are the next step in the evolution of the great adventure gaming genre.

  • You know that you're talking to mostly KQ fangame creators right?

    lol. I'm really not offended I just find the irony amusing. I actually more or less agree with you, though.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: You know that you're talking to mostly KQ fangame creators right?

    lol. I'm really not offended I just find the irony amusing. I actually more or less agree with you, though.

    I have the utmost respect for the fangame creators. A few of the so-called fan games were actually superior to the original Sierra titles. I had a bit of an issue with TSL, but don't see the need to get into it here. I did not intend to lump all fangame creators into one category. There are some fangame creators I would trust to make a new KQ, and there are others I wouldn't.

    Basically, what I care most about is seeing King's Quest come back and handled the right way. I don't want it turned into an interactive movie with very little virtual exploration.

  • few of the so-called fan games were actually superior to the original Sierra titles.

    I don't agree, but to each their own. But agree this is not the place to go into that discussion.

    Also I'm kinda amused by your use of 'so-called', as 'so-called' usually implies that the ones who made the games weren't actually 'fans'! ...or didn't understand King's Quest as true fans would! Of course it might be better to more accurately define them as what they actually are, 'unofficial' games.

    But you are quite skilled at using agressive and loaded language in your posts!

  • @BagginsKQ said: Also I'm kinda amused by your use of 'so-called', as 'so-called' usually implies that the ones who made the games weren't actually 'fans'! ...or didn't understand King's Quest as true fans would! Of course it might be better to more accurately define them as what they actually are, 'unofficial' games.

    Quite the contrary. I used "so-called" because "fangame" seems to be the way in which unofficial games are commonly referred, though I don't care for the term. I did NOT mean "so-called" to imply falsely termed. I actually think calling them "fangames" is a little degrading, especially considering a couple of these games in many ways bested the original Sierra titles that inspired them.

    I think we all can agree that anyone who makes the effort the create an unofficial KQ game should never have their fan status questioned. These are dedicated fans of the first order, and I admire and appreciate their hard work.

    It's just too bad that Dave Grossman of Telltale, who is on record dismissively explaining how he doesn't particularly love the classic adventure games, cannot be counted among the KQ fans.

  • Oh, people question 'fan'-status of some of the TSL's developers all the time! But ya this is not the place for that...

    I suppose 'fanfic' has the opposing term 'profic' as in "professionally-produced fiction" generally used for when a novel is published by a large established corporate 'made-for-profit' company as opposed to the use of terms such as "amateur" (which may have negative connotations).

    Fanfic or fan games as terms can also be misleading as a 'professional' writer or game developer may also be a true 'fans', but their involvement isn't considered 'fanfic', or fangames.

    "Indie" might be the more PC term people tend to use more often than not for new company, but doesn't have the big corporate standing behind it.

    BTW, Grossman has said in the past that he has played and enjoyed the KQ games, back when he was a gamer. So he may be a 'fan'. He just might not be the kinda of 'fan' that other Adventure gamers want to 'make games'.

    He may more of the 'adventure-game' fan that sits on the side of Lucasarts style vs. Sierra's style. Adventure game fans used to be largely divided along those two major styles. That they may like one better than the other, but were fans of both, and found enjoyment out of both but at varying degrees.

    Also, you are somewhat being misleading with Grossman's pov. He's trying to change the games towards 'mainstream'. He's not trying to just make games he enjoyed when he was younger, but games that others will enjoy. He's trying to make them more successful market-wise.

    In other words for Adventure games to become popular again, they need to become more approachable and more accessable to a wider audience.

    Adventure games in the past only really appealed to a small niche market of computer owners. It was limited by those who had access to expensive computers at the time. Not many people had computers back during adventure heyday.

    Let's be fair companies are about the 'bottom line'. To survive they have to make a profit, so that they can put that money back into making more games, and paying for more advertising. That's how capitalism works.

    "Media coverage certainly does help. As does word of mouth - quick, tell two friends! But the thing that's really critical to bringing adventure games to the mainstream is designing them for the mainstream. Avoiding player frustration while continuing to provide an experience that lets you be and feel clever has been a particular cornerstone for me. I want Monkey Island fans from way back to enjoy our games, but I want my mother-in-law to be able to play as well. It's tricky to make a game that will be fun for veterans and neophytes alike, but I think we're doing a good job of it."
    http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/interviews/526

    It was largely the fact that adventure games were generally limited to a niche market, not only as a genre, but also by limits of who had access to PCs, that killed Adventures in the first place. Since larger companies had to show success sales at the end of the year, and they simply didn't compete with the action market, and console market.

    This leaves the modern 'adventure-game' designer in a conundrum, try to appeal to a broader audience, or essentially leave adventures in the same predicament they were in years ago. Even though now computers are more accessible, and consoles are capable of what computers can do.

    The problem? For these games to be more marketable and have more mass appeal, they often alienate the long time adventure game fans, or fans of individual series. It's very difficult to strike a balance to keep old time fans happy, but also appeal to the overall market. While keeping the overhead cheap, and the profit margin high.

    especially considering a couple of these games in many ways bested the original Sierra titles that inspired them.

    This is the part I don't agree on, but again, like I said, to each their own.

  • Aaaaaaand there's the inevitable Baggins wall-of-text to kill the thread. Haha

    I like the cut of your gib, MtnPeak. ;)

  • @Lambonius" said: While I enjoy and agree with your consternation at Telltale, I think you misunderstand what a license actually is. Activision owns the intellectual property, and they can license it out to whoever they want, at any time, and multiple studios can be "licensed" to work on KQ related stuff at the same time.

    Not necessarily. That depends on the contract. There are quite a lot of exclusive licensing deals (heck, as an example that first comes into mind - we're on the TTG forum, the only reason we didn't get Sam & Max earlier than 2006 is because LucasArts was holding exclusive license to create video games based on S&M which expired in 2005). We don't know if TTG holds exclusivity for KQ or not.

Add Comment