KQ6: Overrated?

[BagginsKQ]

Techinically KQ1 is open ended enough that getting a dagger isn't necessarily the first thing you do... It really depends if you go left or right from the castle, and figure out that the rock hides the dagger.

[BagginsKQ]

The RPG genre and Adventure genre according to some gameology histories originated both out of the Choose Your Own Adventure style of books. They have been influencing each other for years.

Quite a few hybrid RPG-ADventures out there. Beyond Zork was one of the earliest.

Quest for Glory was very popular. It's always been described as an adventure game series (except for QFG5). I suspect you haven't played it?

There are quite a few others.

The basic 'puzzle' in adventure games is the 'fetch quest' which is something RPGs tend to share as well.

Adventure games are and were third person.

Many are 'first person', Most of Roberta's earliest graphica adventures were first person. Think Wizard and the Princess. Later games like Myst share this.

The perspective is not something that defines an 'adventure game'.

You have to remember that many of the 3D action games of the period were not at all story driven. The action and 3D and killing came first; story second.

Even exploration was secondary back then in 3d action games for the most part.

Exploration was one of the core parts of 'adventure' gaming definition in the industry definition back then. Even if the offshoot 'action-adventures' were the only things keeping that aspect alive in later years.

[MusicallyInspired]

@Chyron: It's your opinion that King's Quest should be a pure adventure game. Don't get me wrong, I share that opinion. And I wish MOE was marketed as a spin-off. Heck, I wish King's Quest had spinned off into multiple genres. But the suits (including Ken Williams, to appease Baggins here) wanted to capitalize on the brand name to get the most out of sales. Yeah, it was a dick move but I think Sierra was desperate at the time.

Anyway, I'm over it. I liked the idea of MOE and I wish it would have caught on. I also wish adventures would still be the reigning genres today, though.

Originally Posted by DAISHI

Storywise I think it's the most ambitious. I don't know if I'd say it's the last great one, I think there have been great ones since then, but in terms of scope I never played anything else quite like it. It retained all the classical adventure puzzling, figuring out what combined with what to manipulate in your inventory and environment, but it always had a really robust storyline going on behind it that really didn't let up even to the last scene.

Then they may have struck the perfect balance between story and gameplayl what an adventure should be. Maybe it's the perfect example of the best kind of adventure game? I have yet to complete it so I'll get back to you on that.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Anakin Skywalker

But wait a minute. If the adventure genre was evolving throughout the life of and often as a result of the KQ series, why couldn't MoE be an adventure game?

It's not a parser/point-and-click/click-and-drag graphic adventure game.

And the camera for the previous KQ games was not a third-person over-the-shoulder tracking camera. The camera was fixed for each screen. Making the camera over-the-shoulder makes the interface completely different.

It also is comparatively combat-heavy, akin to Quest for Glory. Quest for Glory is a good game series, but it is not King's Quest. To say combat from previous KQ games is similar to MoE is like saying that LARPing is similar to WWE. It's not the same thing at all, and it doesn't even target the same type of consumer.

[BagginsKQ]

But the suits (including Ken Williams, to appease Baggins here) wanted to capitalize on the brand name to get the most out of sales

This appears to be incorrect.

The main suits, that butted in were Bob and Jan davidson and their team of managers. The Davidsons wanted to remove the violence and combat from the game. They actually wanted more 'edutainment' in Sierra, they came from a education game company. Roberta and Ken on the other hand wanted to keep the combat ('violence' is exaggerating really). Actually this would place many of the fans on the same side as the Suits. Thus may be a reason why, Roberta compared the fans who criticized her idea to include combat to 'Christian fundamentalists' who hated KQ3's dark magic in one of her comments!

So really the only Suit who wanted the violence to sell more games, is "Ken Williams". I don't know if you can consider Roberta a suit? The 'violence' in the game was an idea that was created by Roberta long before CUC bought Sierra. Ken promoted it.

And the camera for the previous KQ games was not a third-person over-the-shoulder tracking camera. The camera was fixed for each screen. Making the camera over-the-shoulder makes the interface completely different.

That's an issue with 3D not an issue with 'gameplay' really.

Gabriel Knight 3 does not have a fixed camera, for example. It actually has more of 3rd-person view, but exploration was kinda first person.

There are at least a handful of 3D third person adventure games out there that lack combat. I think one or two Sherlock Holmes games for example.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

@Chyron: It's your opinion that King's Quest should be a pure adventure game. Don't get me wrong, I share that opinion. And I wish MOE was marketed as a spin-off. Heck, I wish King's Quest had spinned off into multiple genres. But the suits (including Ken Williams, to appease Baggins here) wanted to capitalize on the brand name to get the most out of sales. Yeah, it was a dick move but I think Sierra was desperate at the time.

Anyway, I'm over it. I liked the idea of MOE and I wish it would have caught on. I also wish adventures would still be the reigning genres today, though.



Then they may have struck the perfect balance between story and gameplayl what an adventure should be. Maybe it's the perfect example of the best kind of adventure game? I have yet to complete it so I'll get back to you on that.

Why would Sierra be desperate? All accounts point to KQ8 being a 3D game with combat being decided as early as '94, '95. It was pretty much certain by 1996. And Sierra in 1995-1996 had just had it's biggest hit ever with Phantas. Sierra also dominated the market share for PC gaming in the same period. I don't see how they would be so desperate.

And it seems it was Roberta, not any of "The Suits" who wanted Mask to be a 3D combat based game. She herself says she decided this as early as '94 or '95.

Ken in a '96 interview dismissed Doom and games like it as a fad up till around then--He said he thought they were just an overhyped fad but just now were realizing they weren't.

Ironically, Sierra came very close to buying id Software in 1992 after the founders of id showed Sierra a demo of Wolfenstein.

[BagginsKQ]

Ken was a fool to turn down Id. Man, just think what things would be lke if they had bought that company!

Who knows there might have been a glorious hybrid of Adventure and FPS long before Half-Life, if those minds got together!

I think it would be hilarious to patch KQ8 to remove all combat in the game, to get it closer to what the Davidsons and fans wanted! Give Connor invincibility for the final encounter with Lucreto.

It would be a very lonely, and barren world! Just connor walking around between the puzzles.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Many are 'first person', Most of Roberta's earliest graphica adventures were first person. Think Wizard and the Princess. Later games like Myst share this.

The perspective is not something that defines an 'adventure game'

No, but having a fixed third-person camera was a gameplay mechanic for 7 titles (ie. all previous) in the King's Quest series. This is long enough to be considered an important aspect of the gameplay.

I will bet you real money that if TTG makes an official King's Quest game with an exclusive over-the-shoulder camera, many gamers will be pissed. Certainly, many of TTG's games have cameras that track on-a-wire as the character moves across the screen, but it's not the same as an exclusive and persistent over-the-shoulder perspective where the camera can be rotated around the character at will. TSL doesn't count. It's an unofficial fan-made game. Besides, TSL's camera is one more reason I disliked the game.

We've also had plenty of discussions about the importance of death in KQ games, and how many people will be ticked at TTG if they remove death from the gameplay. At some point, a series has a certain feel to it. Various aspects have a certain familiarity. When you change too many of them too quickly, it causes uproar in the fanbase.

Further, the King's Quest series was not continued upon with MoE's gameplay mechanics in mind. MoE was the last in the KQ series for Sierra. As such, the changes they made weren't a trend or an improvement in the gameplay style. They were just woefully disparate from what the rest of the series was known for.

[Armakuni]

Maybe it would be a good idea to start using a seperate term for 'classic' adventure games, games such as the classic Sierra and Lucasfilm/Arts titles, and another one for just the generic pile of different games people like to classify as adventure games these days.

Could help with some of the confusion... it could simply be called the 'classic adventure game genre' or something like that, as opposed to just the 'adventure genre'.

There's no denying that classic adventure games share so much, and are so unlike most other genres, that in the very least they make up their own subgenre.

This has been done with other genres... for instance you have turn based strategy games and real time strategy games.
Both Civilization and Command & Conquer are both strategy games, but if the only label used was the "strategy" one, without adding any qualifiers like turn based vs real time... the strategy term would become quite meaningless as despite them both being strategy games, everyone knows they're completely different games.

[BagginsKQ]

You can't do 'fixed-camera' in full explorable 3D its impossible.

Telltale games are not 'full-explorable' 3D.

Actually the KQ8 camera isn't really fixed.

Nor is it a behind the shoulder camera. You aim it that way, but you can also aim to the front or the side of the character as well. If you aim it to the front, he walks towards the screen. If you aim it at the side he walks parallel to the screen. If you aim it behind, he walks away from the screen.

You can also zoom in and zoom out.

Further, the King's Quest series was not continued upon with MoE's gameplay mechanics in mind. MoE was the last in the KQ series for Sierra. As such, the changes they made weren't a trend or an improvement in the gameplay style. They were just woefully disparate from what the rest of the series was known for.

Not entirely true, KQ9 (2002) was going to be an action-adventure, more Zelda like (but definitely more in the vein of MOE). But it was cancelled.

The screenshots of old man Graham holding a hugeass 'master sword' are rather amusing even!

Maybe it would be a good idea to start using a seperate term for 'classic' adventure games, games such as the classic Sierra and Lucasfilm/Arts titles, and another one for just the generic pile of different games people like to classify as adventure games these days.

They were 2-d Graphic Adventures.

Although sierra used to call their early ones, 3-D Animated Adventure Games as a genre classification. Ironic really!

BTW, classic adventure games, would includ text-adventure games. Which are a different beast altogether. For a time there were purists that hated the oncoming of the graphic adventures!

More than likely QFG 1-4 or Beyond Zork would end up on that list of "classic adventure games"!

Then you have other hybrids like Fate of Atlantis or Last Crusade adventure games!

Have you ever played Inca? Adventure game/space simulator/shooter! Strange mix indeed.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Armakuni

Maybe it would be a good idea to start using a seperate term for 'classic' adventure games, games such as the classic Sierra and Lucasfilm/Arts titles, and another one for just the generic pile of different games people like to classify as adventure games these days.

Could help with some of the confusion... it could simply be called the 'classic adventure game genre' or something like that, as opposed to just the 'adventure genre'.

There's no denying that classic adventure games share so much, and are so unlike most other genres, that in the very least they make up their own subgenre.

Yes, bury the genre even more. Grab shovels, men, it looks like the adventure genre is on the rise again! We can't have that! We're purists, damn you, purists, and if it doesn't fit the style set in 1990, we want it killed dead!

[Armakuni]

If the choice is between having an at least reasonably well defined genre or watering the genre down so much that nearly everything will fit... then I'd say go with the former.
Even though the latter would surely mean there would be a lot more 'adventure' games, what's the point if the games that make it up are different enough to have very little in common?

Let's just call every game an adventure game and we'll never have to worry about adventure games dying ever again

[BagginsKQ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_(video_game)

Inca, one of the strangest 'classic adventure games' of all time (1992). One of Sierra's best selling games even!

The music alone was played on Radio Stations back then!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRoygY6HTA

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Nor is it a behind the shoulder camera. You aim it that way, but you can also aim to the front or the side of the character as well. If you aim it to the front, he walks towards the screen. If you aim it at the side he walks parallel to the screen. If you aim it behind, he walks away from the screen.

Okay, if you want to play semantics, then I guess one would call it a character-oriented follow-shot camera view.

Previous KQ games generally used a remote fixed-angle camera view.

Either way you define it, it still changes an important aspect of the gameplay.

[BagginsKQ]

That's a difference between 2-d and 3-d... You really can't change the angle of view for a character in 2-d. In full exploratory 3-d you can.

Your arguement is that Roberta should have stayed 2-d it seems. Roberta on the other hand wanted 3-d since she believed it would add more exploration than 2-d was capable of.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Armakuni

Maybe it would be a good idea to start using a seperate term for 'classic' adventure games, games such as the classic Sierra and Lucasfilm/Arts titles, and another one for just the generic pile of different games people like to classify as adventure games these days.

Could help with some of the confusion... it could simply be called the 'classic adventure game genre' or something like that, as opposed to just the 'adventure genre'.

Originally Posted by Anakin Skywalker

Yes, bury the genre even more. Grab shovels, men, it looks like the adventure genre is on the rise again! We can't have that! We're purists, damn you, purists, and if it doesn't fit the style set in 1990, we want it killed dead!

Actually, isn't the sub-genre already defined as "graphic adventure game" or "point-and-click adventure game"? Granted, the 'point-and-click' title is still confusingly inclusive of those with a parser and/or click-and-drag (thanks to TTG) as well.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Your arguement is that Roberta should have stayed 2-d it seems. Roberta on the other hand wanted 3-d since she believed it would add more exploration than 2-d was capable of.

Are you saying that Roberta is the goddess of King's Quest and can do no wrong by it?

To do so is like saying George Lucas can do no wrong by Star Wars, and that his intentions with the prequels were fully justified.


Why would it require fully explorable environments anyway? I prefer TTG's Sam & Max series to MoE any day of the week. There's nothing wrong with TTG's camera angles.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Actually, isn't the sub-genre already defined as "graphic adventure game" or "point-and-click adventure game"? Granted, the 'point-and-click' title is still confusingly inclusive of those with a parser and/or click-and-drag (thanks to TTG) as well.

Adventure ---> Graphic Adventure ---> Point and Click Graphic Adventure.
That's how I'd categorize it, in terms of sub-genres.

The way I'd categorize KQ's 1-4 would be:

Adventure ---> Graphic Adventure ---> Parser Based Graphic Adventure

5-6:

Adventure ---> Graphic Adventure ---> Point and Click Adventure ---> Icon Based Point & Click Graphic Adventure

7:

Adventure ---> Graphic Adventure ---> Point and Click Adventure ---> Hot Spot based P&C Adventure

8:

Adventure ---> Graphic Adventure ---> 3D Point and Click Adventure ---> Hot Spot based Adventure + Action elements.

[BagginsKQ]

Are you saying that Roberta is the goddess of King's Quest and can do no wrong by it?

To do so is like saying George Lucas can do no wrong by Star Wars, and that his intentions with the prequels were fully justified.

I'm just saying you would never have been happy, since what you wanted, and what Roberta wanted were two very different things.

You can read back in 1994, or so in Interaction. That Roberta had plans to make the next KQ 3D, and it wasn't going to be anything otherwise... Regardless of what fans may or may not wanted.

Actually most people were intrigued back then, before she showed any screen shots. Many were still interested, even after she showed the first screen shots. It was very anticipated.

Why you didn't bother to send letters in complaint back then, I have no idea! Because we knew it was going to happen for years!

Why would it require fully explorable environments anyway? I prefer TTG's Sam & Max series to MoE any day of the week. There's nothing wrong with TTG's camera angles

You may have missed this fact, but to fans of KQ, many believe exploration is an important aspect of KQ games. The latter games lost much of the exploration found in the earlier games. That was one aspect of the later games that was actually largely criticized by fans over the years.

There is no exploration in Sam & Max... It's the same bloody town used over and over again... With one or two new rooms occasionally..

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

(Quoting an unreferenced source) "Examples of the (puzzle-adventure) genre include Schizm, Atlantis: The Lost Tales, Riddle of the Sphinx, Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure, and Myst, which pioneered this game style."

Which of these games have you solving puzzles outside of the gameworld on screens designed to look like pieces of paper?

Further response, also applicable to intervening posts concerning definition of adventure game:

An adventure game has a player-character progressing through a gameworld, overcoming obstacles designed into the gameworld, primarily through puzzle-solving gameplay. This progress naturally entails the revealing of a story that, at minimum, gives meaning to the gameworld and the character's motivations, objectives and activities, etc. (as it does in related, gameworld-oriented genres). The "amount" of narrative, NPC interaction, dialog and other forms of exposition can and do vary widely within the genre (as they do in related, gameworld-oriented genres) -- and, really, vary along a spectrum, precluding the neat division of the genre into subgenres based on such things. (Although I could accept a subdivision based on puzzle type, but see my next thought.)

I think it's important to remember that while games are divided into genres based on gameplay -- whether it's combat, platforming, puzzle-solving, role-playing -- most gameworld-oriented games are anywhere from slightly to hugely hybrid: shooters often have puzzles, adventures can have minigames, Sam and Max (the best ones!) have driving games, etc.

My personal gaming preference is, the more hybrid the better. I guess that's why I welcomed the transition of KQ8 into a different genre of gameplay (as I did with Indy). I really think I see the game along the same lines on which Roberta designed it, but she doesn't seem to acknowledge that the adventure genre had already influenced, evolved, spun off into, and hybridized with related genres.

At the same time, I'm sympathetic with folks who regarded KQ as an adventure game in a stricter sense (and they are entitled to so regard, for themselves, without giving a flying fuck what Roberta thought or said) and were disappointed when it changed. That has happened to me, too, under different circumstances, and it really sucks.