KQ6: Overrated?

[Irishmile]

I think that KQ6 (and KQ5 for that matter) actually has been undeservedly forgotten over the years.

I think people are much kinder to the Lucasarts adventure games and they forget just how much Sierra and Lucasarts MADE each other better.. Much to the benefit of we the gamers. 5 and 6 are really important in terms of what we expect a great adventure game to be like... so I think that if anything they deserve more reverence and surely not less.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

I think that KQ6 (and KQ5 for that matter) actually has been undeservedly forgotten over the years.

I think people are much kinder to the Lucasarts adventure games and they forget just how much Sierra and Lucasarts MADE each other better.. Much to the benefit of we the gamers. 5 and 6 are really important in terms of what we expect a great adventure game to be like... so I think that if anything they deserve more reverence and surely not less.

Yeah, definitely. But this thread is about whether or not KQ6 is overrated in the context of the rest of the series. Which is another argument entirely.

[relativistic]

Originally Posted by der_ketzer

In KQ5 the story parts were short and ignoreable. KQ6 beats you over the head with it again, again and again. I hate it.

This is interesting... I agree, but I think of that as a knock against KQ5. Here do you mean it as a positive? I find it annoying if I only get little quips from characters, and don't build up any feeling for them.

I think KQ5 was a drop in quality from KQ4, due to its random story and incoherent world.

I thought KQ6 made the series much more compelling for all the reasons people say. One thing I don't think was mentioned, was that I thought somehow had the most believable and coherent world to explore until that point (don't remember KQ7 as well, but I think it kept this up fairly well). KQ6's brief mentions of politics and interrelationships between characters and groups of people let me believe in the world a little more, and get lost better in my escapist fantasy. Other KQ games seemed to have many disparate, unrelated people living near to each other, which my brain just can't get into.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

I think that KQ6 (and KQ5 for that matter) actually has been undeservedly forgotten over the years.

absolutely. I first heard of them a few years ago and wondered why I did not stumble across them before. Then a few months later the KQ & SQ collection was on sale on steam and I got them. I had played thew remakes of KQ1 + 2 by that time and really enjoyed the originals too.

The first and only Sierra adventure I played before that was LSL 7. And I really loved that. But I never saw the other games of the series anywhere.

[Valiento]

I loved KQV's world but it's marred from the fact it isn't has limited narration. More than previous games but still limited. KQ6 had the most sophisticated narration in the series, probably the best aspect of the game to me, you can look at almost everything. But I'm not nearly as interested in the character of Alexander, compared to Graham.

KQ7 did away with all narration so there was nothing to describe what you saw, I truly dislike that. It makes the world seem less thought out even more so. It lost a lot without narration. It didn't even have a travel guide type manual to make things more interesting. I also wasn't impressed about how disneyfied they made it. The villain is to silly.

[Irishmile]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Yeah, definitely. But this thread is about whether or not KQ6 is overrated in the context of the rest of the series. Which is another argument entirely.

OOOOHHHHH I was supposed to read the thread first

[Tallin]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Well that's just the thing--what people (even fans) so often don't "get" about the Sierra classics. They aren't about story. They are about exploration and discovery. Story provides a framework for the exploration and discovery, but it should not intrude on or overshadow it, as it does in KQ6 (and most certainly does in TSL.) This is why King's Quest games started going downhill after King's Quest 5.

This is why so many of us are so uneasy about Telltale trying to handle a Sierra franchise.

I disagree. Sure, the first couple KQ weren't about story, but that was more to do with innovating a new type of game than anything else. As the series went on it became more and more about story. What I consider better series by them (Space Quest, Quest for Glory, Gabriel Knight) were always about story. They came later, and didn't have to worry so much about innovating (not that they didn't innovate in their own ways). I'm not saying that's everything they're about, but it is certainly a large part of what they were, and something I and many other fans loved about them. Really, that's why I didn't like the first two KQ games as much.

I am a bit uneasy about TT handling the series, but hopefully they adapt to the Sierra-style adventure more than trying to adapt the game to their style which, as others have pointed out, would ruin the KQ feeling of the game.

Originally Posted by Valiento

But I'm not nearly as interested in the character of Alexander, compared to Graham.

Huh, really? I always loved Alexander's games better than the others in the series. Ah well, to each their own.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Tallin

I disagree. Sure, the first couple KQ weren't about story, but that was more to do with innovating a new type of game than anything else. As the series went on it became more and more about story. What I consider better series by them (Space Quest, Quest for Glory, Gabriel Knight) were always about story. They came later, and didn't have to worry so much about innovating (not that they didn't innovate in their own ways). I'm not saying that's everything they're about, but it is certainly a large part of what they were, and something I and many other fans loved about them. Really, that's why I didn't like the first two KQ games as much.

I'm not just talking about the first two King's Quest games, though. KQ3, 4, 5, and even 6 still captured the sense of being free to explore and interact with the world at your leisure--this quality of the games stood out in front of any story elements, particularly in KQ3-5.

Even Gabriel Knight (especially the first game) was all about exploring the city and various areas available to you in depth. The story opened up new areas gradually, but only after you had thoroughly discovered just about everything there was to discover in the previous areas.

This sense of freedom is all but gone from Telltale's games. Recapturing this is essential to creating a game that is at all faithful to the King's Quest legacy.

[Tallin]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

I'm not just talking about the first two King's Quest games, though. KQ3, 4, 5, and even 6 still captured the sense of being free to explore and interact with the world at your leisure--this quality of the games stood out in front of any story elements, particularly in KQ3-5.

Even Gabriel Knight (especially the first game) was all about exploring the city and various areas available to you in depth. The story opened up new areas gradually, but only after you had thoroughly discovered just about everything there was to discover in the previous areas.

This sense of freedom is all but gone from Telltale's games. Recapturing this is essential to creating a game that is at all faithful to the King's Quest legacy.

Perhaps for you. For me, the exploration was part of telling the story. The story wasn't just the cutscenes, it was all the things you found out in between that really filled it out. The cutscenes were just more compressed story.

Still, I agree that Telltale will have to change a lot about how they make games to do this one properly. The LucasArts-style game they have almost universally made won't fly for a Sierra sequel/reboot/whatever.

[Valiento]

I don't dislike Alex, I just happen to like Graham better.

IMO, the early KQ games told their stories, and explained the world, through how you interacted with the world. You had to manually use your senses to search, 'look', 'drink', 'touch', 'talk', etc. The backstories of the world and descriptions of the world were awarded through the player's direct involvement. The more creative the player was with use of verbs, the more details would be uncovered about the world. Each game after KQ1 started getting progressively more sophisticated descriptions.

In some games, you'd do the same thing but through reading books scattered throughout the world, see the Thief series for example. KQ and early Sierra games did it through the player's direct interaction. This is how you explored the world.

Later games starting with the mouse driven/icons lost alot of that direct interaction, but you still had some interactivity with the hand or eye icons. KQ7 did away with interactions entirely.

I would love for Telltale to mimic the older way somehow. It would be cool if they even tossed in a parser for anyone who might want to play it old school. But on top of that having a more sophisticated story of the later games (as long as the stories aren't convoluted).

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Tallin

Perhaps for you. For me, the exploration was part of telling the story. The story wasn't just the cutscenes, it was all the things you found out in between that really filled it out. The cutscenes were just more compressed story.

I think we are mostly on the same page, actually. I don't want to be led along from cutscene to cutscene--I want to discover bits of the story as I go, through interaction and exploration.

This is probably why I prefer Quest for Glory over King's Quest. In QFG, the story wasn't told to the player at all. It was the player's actions that MADE the story. Now that was an adventure game!

[Tallin]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

I think we are mostly on the same page, actually. I don't want to be led along from cutscene to cutscene--I want to discover bits of the story as I go, through interaction and exploration.

This is probably why I prefer Quest for Glory over King's Quest. In QFG, the story wasn't told to the player at all. It was the player's actions that MADE the story. Now that was an adventure game!

Well, sorta. In Quest for Glory, the story was still what structured everything, you just had different ways to play through it. In the first game you were always an untried adventurer who had to save the valley from brigand attacks. You could do different things to get from start to finish, but you were still following a story and for the most part faced the same challenges along the way. QfG added the role-playing aspect to an adventure game, which allowed you to define moreso who your character was within the story. Without the story, there wouldn't be any cohesion to all the things you are doing. The story ties everything together so your not just playing an elaborate puzzle game.

[Chyron8472]

KQ6 is the best in the series. By far.

@der_ketzer
The earlier games in the KQ series focused primarily on exploration and not much on story, but why are you suggesting that good storytelling has to come at the expense of having bad exploration or vice versa? KQ6 was huge. You get to travel all over the place, in just about the most nonlinear fashion in the whole series.

If you think the characters talk too much, then turn off ingame speech, for God's sake. Then the gameplay is the same as the diskette version.

KQ5 had crappy voice acting, the puzzles were brutal and very unforgiving, the plot was truly forgettable and had holes in it (how did Daventry heal so fast after the dragon?) that only the fan-made KQ3 Redux tries to explain...

Just because the early games didn't have much in the way of story, that doesn't mean the later games are required to also go without. Also, KQ6 takes considerably longer to beat just considering gameplay alone than the first 4 games do, so it's not like the story takes so much time to get through that you have nothing much to do otherwise.

I tire of people playing games and having the attitude toward story of "shut up and just let me play." Back in the day, one of the things that limited games in gameplay and storytelling was the amount of available disk space. I recall Ron Gilbert saying the reason why the scene in the Governor's Mansion in SoMI was automated behind the wall is because they didn't have enough disk space to fit in a new area. But, by the time KQ5/6 came out, since games had progressed to a level where they can fit in what story they want without sacrificing gameplay, and include voice acting and everything, they should still keep it to themselves anyway?

I don't just want a game with only lighthearted fairy-tale fetch quests. I want to care about what's happening to the characters I'm controlling and interacting with. I want to know why. We no longer need novel-sized manuals in which to tell the story. Back then, disk space was at a premium so it was easier (and cheaper) to just print it on paper. Now, the game itself can tell the story on it's own. Sure, having a long backstory in print is fun to have and read on the side, but it's not absolutely necessary to understand the plot as once it was.


I like having a good story in my games. If you can't stand to take the time to appreciate the story because you're too impatient or shallow to care, then that's just too bad.

[Valiento]

KQ5 had crappy voice acting, the puzzles were brutal and very unforgiving, the plot was truly forgettable and had holes in it (how did Daventry heal so fast after the dragon?) that only the fan-made KQ3 Redux tries to explain...

Given that the manual says there has been a year between KQ4 and KQ5, i'd think that would be plenty of time for things to get back to normal or repaired. Actually I think the manual, even explains that things were repaired over that year.

Also KQ3 Redux is about the third or fourth source, fan game or otherwise, to to try to explain how things were repaired, actually (counting other fan game, KQ3 by Infamous Adventures as well)...

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Valiento

Given that the manual says there has been a year between KQ4 and KQ5, i'd think that would be plenty of time for things to get back to normal or repaired.

I think the Companion even mentions the healing effort in the prelude to the events of KQ5.
I wish the KQ Companion and/or novels would get a reprint

[Valiento]

I believe that is true, it went beyond what the KQ5 manual only mentioned, and explained the repair processes, in slightly better detail, IIRC.

[tomimt]

The KQ3 Redux magic pinball healing was pretty horrible though. It would have been far better to keep it more simple and end it with a notation of Graham saying, that now it's time for rebuilding.

[Lambonius]

Uh oh.

Everyone, please stop expressing opinions. We've personally insulted Chyron8472.

Thanks.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

If you think the characters talk too much, then turn off ingame speech, for God's sake. Then the gameplay is the same as the diskette version.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

KQ5 had crappy voice acting

If you think the VA is horrible just play the version without VA. And I personally like the KQ5 VA more than the one in KQ6 to be honest. Yes even the talking wolf. His voice actor did a far better job than the one of let's say the pawn-shop-owner. Every time I hear his voice I just want to quit the game and go to bed. I really cannot stand his voice because...

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Uh oh.

Everyone, please stop expressing opinions. We've personally insulted Chyron8472.

Thanks.

Oh. I will stop then.

[doggans]

Originally Posted by der_ketzer

His voice actor did a far better job than the one of let's say the pawn-shop-owner. Every time I hear his voice I just want to quit the game and go to bed.

Hey, now, what's wrong with Skull Island's King Andre?

Anyway, people can have their own opinions about KQ5's voice acting vs. KQ6's. I may think it's odd that you think the inexperienced Sierra employees did a better job than the professional actors, but hey, it's just different tastes.