Kingdom of Sorrow

[exo]

Infamous Adventures (guys who remade KQ3 originally), recently released their SQ2 remake and anounced a King's Quest game based somewhat on the Kingdom of Sorrow novel.

http://www.infamous-adventures.com/h...x.php?page=kos

Think I may be more excited about that game then this one. Likely won't have the production value of Tell Tale, but it looks like it may 'feel' a lot more like a traditional sierra game.

Too bad the guys at AGD Interactive aren't doing it though - they seem to have the best grasp of the aspects of KQ games that I enjoy.

[BagginsKQ]

Too bad the guys at AGD Interactive aren't doing it though - they seem to have the best grasp of the aspects of KQ games that I enjoy.

What aspects are those?

I always felt IA's game while not early as polished or having the same production value of AGD's works, at least stuck closer to the original KQ storyline (though even it took some detours from KQ3 a bit)... In that way I think it was truer to KQ series.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm on both teams (AGDI and IA) and I can tell you that Kingdom of Sorrow is something every KQ fan is going to love.

[BagginsKQ]

If its like most 'adaptations' from books to movies or books to games, I'll probably like the 'book more'. ...

But that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game for what it is!

[Lambonius]

Kingdom of Sorrow has by far the best production values of any of our projects. We've really stepped up our game, art & music-wise, even from SQ2, which was very nice in those aspects.

[exo]

Can't wait. For me art direction and polish really does go a long way, and IA was at a disadvantage when they get going as AGDI/Tierra had been at it for years and had released several patches.

SQ2, from what I have seen so far, is very impressive compared to the KQ3 remake, and the art on the website for KoS so far looks astounding.

Ironically, while I loved AGDI's remakes, I thought their solo game, Al Emmo, was fairly blah.

Either way, I will be judging KoS on its own merits and it is the first KQ project in a long time that I have been excited about.

[tomimt]

Personally I think KQ2 remake is the best game AGD interactive has released. I liked KQ3+ as well, but there was a couple of bits in it I didn't like. Those being the added tresure storyline that tied into that god afwul pinball ending. That's why I like IA's KQ remake better.

I have to agree with EXO about Al Emmo with the difference that I loathe that game. It was surprising how badly they managed to drop the ball with their first commercial endeavour.

[BagginsKQ]

Those being the added tresure storyline that tied into that god afwul pinball ending. That's why I like IA's KQ remake better.

If you hadn't realized that 'treasure storyline' was brought up in KQ2 remake as well, just in that game it was more vague, and just hinted at things to come... See the vision of KQ3 in KQ2, and the various points where the Father tries to get the 'Crown' so he can search for the "Item"...

It's all a setup for a sequel, that will probably never be made (first hinted at in the KQ2 remake)... The Father's attempt to bring about the Ascension...

But personally, I'm not a big fan of the Father, and his 'gary stu'-like intrusion on the KQ story at all... There was no need to add overarching prophecy to the KQ series, no reason to completely change characters and the plot of KQ2...

[MusicallyInspired]

No, there was no need. But if was fun. Nothing wrong with that. Some people enjoy it.

I find it ridiculous to state things like there was "no need" or "no reason" for this or that when we're talking about stories here. Fiction. Fan-made fiction at that. That isn't canon. Why care so much? It's just interesting. Somebody thought it would be interesting to bring the KQ storyline in that direction. It's their personal expression of their love for the series and it was done well. They thought there was a need. And many agree. That doesn't make it official and that doesn't mean everyone has to like it (indeed, clearly not everyone does). If it's not your cup of tea than that's ok. But you can't say there was "no need" for anything or "too much" of anything else because it's all completely subjective.

There's no denying that KQ2 needed fleshing out. It was the most bizarre of all the King's Quests, really. In that regard, there was a reason to change characters and plot points. Of course, if you want the original it's always there. And if you want a remake without anything changed, well.....I haven't given up on KQ2SCI yet.

[BagginsKQ]

Ok, I think some changes in fan fiction border on hubris... or as mentioned previously intruduce 'mary stus' and 'gary stus', original characters that are intended to be more important to that universe in some ways, than even the 'canon' characters. Influencing the destiny of the 'main characters' in some major way...

I suppose AGDI's changes are no more less good or bad as those in The Silver Lining, infact the plot points pretty much parallel each other... Strangely enough... But I'm not really a fan of either (at least in comparison to the originals).

I've heard there were individuals involved in AGDI that hoped they could have gotten the 'official' right to commercially produce the next KQ game/sequel, and hoped they could have made their 'Father' sequel, that commercial game... Apparently they were disapointed that it went to Telltale instead... Of course this may just by 'gossip'? But if there was any truth that, it would be hubris on their part... as it would suggest that they did consider their series as 'replacing' the old (at least in all future releases)... Maybe not physically replace the older games 'existence' (which they can't) but perhaps prevent true and direct sequels to the original series from having been made... I'm glad on that level that they didn't receive the commercial license (though there are valid reservations about Telltale having the license as well)...

But, I prefer to play the originals mostly.

Personally I never found KQ2 that strange. In someways, I find it to be one of the most pure of the KQ games, the closest to a classic fairy tales... the story was simple, but you easily knew your mission, but the puzzles were challenging enough to make it interesting. Granted their was a disconnect between the game and the manual, where Roberta made Dracula the ultimate villain the game, and the author of the manual Annette Childs, made Hagatha the most important villain, yet she's not that important in the game!

KQ1AGI original on the other hand, now that was a game that had little story at all originally, and was just a hodge podge of things thrown together... If you forgot to go into the castle at the beginning of the game, you could completey miss the 'story'... The rest of the game is more a less a bunch of random encounters thrown together with nothing tieing them together. It took a year or two for Roberta to rewrite the manual, and sort of bring a more defined plot to KQ1, but that wasn't really incorporated in more detail until her official remake...

[Bonito]

This is Anonymous Game Developer 2 from AGDI. I hope to clarify a few things here.

First up, Baggins, I've truly been able to appreciate the contributions you've made to the KQ Omnipedia. It's a an excellent reference resource, and you clearly know your stuff as far as the KQ universe is concerned. I also agree with quite a bit of what you say. Though, I do think there are overly negative connotations attached to words like retcon, mary stu/gary stu, and other staples associated with fan-fiction, almost to the point that they have become dirty words! However, these types of additions are not always such terrible things if they're approached in the right manner and aid the storytelling subtly.

Regarding licensing: at the time we developed the King's Quest II remake (an entire decade ago in 2002), we had no commercial aspirations toward any Sierra IP. The game was, for all intents and purposes, a work of fan fiction written & submitted to us by a beta-tester-turned-team-member. We thought it would be a great, fleshed-out opportunity to expand upon the original AGI game's story. It was also the obvious logical step after our KQ1 remake. So, we decided to turn it into a game. The King's Quest 3 Redux design document was being penned around the same time KQ2VGA released, so much of the Father continuity flowed into KQ3 Redux's design from an early stage. It wasn't until much later that we realized we could potentially make something commercial out of our games. The non-canonical nature of our early KQ plots can be viewed as the result of fans making a free KQ game for kicks (and having freedom to take some liberties) as opposed to a group focused on developing part of the official series.

However, I want to be clear that King's Quest 2 RTS was never advertised or marketed to be an official sequel to the King's Quest series and our disclaimer at the beginning tried to make this clear. We've always claimed it to be exactly what it is: an alternate retelling in playable form, as opposed to written fan-fiction form. Truth be told, there are some elements in Romancing the Stones that I felt strayed from the King's Quest paradigm, even at the time of development. But we've always listened intently to fan feedback and tried to cater to suggestions. That's part of the reason why the Father role was drastically reduced in KQ3 Redux. Actually, the latest rewrite of the Redux design document had it so that all of the Father plot points were avoidable and the game could alternatively be played as more of a 1:1 experience, but sadly time constraints and other factors forced us to abandon that idea.

As I've mentioned before, had such a KQ remake been an officially licensed product from the outset, rest-assured it would have been designed and approached with the established canon in mind at all times. We really have no intentions of diverting official canon into a new form of pseudo-canon and effectively insta-rewriting the way a plethora of KQ fans perceive the series history in the minds. That would be an incredibly arrogant thing to do, in my opinion, and honestly, I feel no third party developer has the authority to make those kinds of changes to the official product line - lest they incur the wrath of the fans. Suffice it to say, should we ever be in such a position to officially license Sierra IP, I assure you we'd take every measure to make it canonical through and through.

[Blackthorne519]

Bam! Great post, man. Good hear your take on things.


Bt

[BagginsKQ]

Thank you Bonita, I appreciate you post and agree with most of you sentiments. It's good to hear that some of the developers questioned the direction it took.

Thank you for the kind words concerning the Omnipedia, feel free to contribute to it if you like!

Rest assured I enjoy played your games even though I prefer the originals to them.

I do think that KQ3 Redux in someways a step closer to KQ feel to me, although I still can't figure why The story write goes out of their way to change some character names, or in some cases turn bad guys into good guys! Roberta's vision was far more black and white like the old fairy tales! ...or more Disneyfied tales if anything (no Grimm twisted endings)!

After KQ3 Deluxe i've always been interested in what AGDi could do if they went back to KQ1 and made a redux version! Add puzzles flesh out those random bad guys into something interesting, just to see how your storyteller would have reinterpreted them!

However, I have to say Blackthorne after partially playing through KQ3VGA Space Quest 2 Deluxe, there is a certain feel that IA games feel more like direct tributes to the series than intentionally going about drastically changing things for the sake of changing things. The changes aren't nearly as drastic (except for maybe extending the time between KQ3 and KQ4 from directly after KQ3 to some time after a long repair if the kingdom), but seem to be a nod to the series as a whole. Staying true to the style and themes in all ways. But I really can't place my finger on it exactly. The feel is completely different.

I have a feeling musicallyinspired's take on KQ2's story might give me the same feeling.

Strangely enough though I think KQ3 Redux ending (minus the Father) bits comes somewhat closer to the direction KQ5 took with the healing of Daventry (in the various manuals and iirc the ingame past game synopses)... quick fix alluding to magic being used lol! Kinda had to considering that KQ4 took place directly after KQ3, not some time later after rebuilding the land the long way!

Redux also stuck directly to the plot point mentioned in the original KQ3 that it was Manannan himself that pulled Alex from his cradle! Nice touch in the intro.

[Bonito]

I think there's always bound to be some cognitive dissonance when comparing two contradictory storylines and trying to associate them. I guess the best way to think of our KQ2 remake, is as an alternate retelling by someone other than Roberta Williams. Daniel (our writer) threw in some plot twists in an attempt to make things more entertaining for people who thought they knew the original game back-to-front and assumed they wouldn't experience anything new by playing a remake. But I recall Daniel saying that he intentionally didn't want to alter anything that would contradict future games, and I think the monk/vampire plot switch was done because it was a self-contained element that didn't change anything significant about the events that occurred in KQ2. (In other words, by summarizing the key plot points from both the AGI version and our remake, you'd still get the same skeleton story outline.)

Ironically, the response to the non-canonical changes we made has been overwhelmingly positive and the fans who dislike them seem to be in the minority. It would be easy to read this as a validation of approval for continuing that storyline, but at the end of the day, I think if you're making something official based on another's work, you've gotta respect to the source material.

That said, I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to tell the rest of the Father storyline in one form or another, to accommodate the large segment of the community who are eager to know how Daniel's interpretation of the saga ends, but we'd never try to pass it off as official canon, and it wouldn't claim to be such.

[BagginsKQ]

I think there's always bound to be some cognitive dissonance when comparing two contradictory storylines and trying to associate them. I guess the best way to think of our KQ2 remake, is as an alternate retelling by someone other than Roberta Williams. Daniel (our writer) threw in some plot twists in an attempt to make things more entertaining for people who thought they knew the original game back-to-front and assumed they wouldn't experience anything new by playing a remake. But I recall Daniel saying that he intentionally didn't want to alter anything that would contradict future games, and I think the monk/vampire plot switch was done because it was a self-contained element that didn't change anything significant about the events that occurred in KQ2. (In other words, by summarizing the key plot points from both the AGI version and our remake, you'd still get the same skeleton story outline.)

Well I think its a bit more complicated than that! Dracula and monk for example do get brought up once or twice in game short story synopses in later (manuals, ingame menus, or strategy guides) and at least one was written by Roberta herself. Which might be confusing to anyone who hasn't played the originals, but chooses to play the fan games, and the later official games as one continuation.

Of course I think I rather prefer the way Peter Spear (who claims he worked with Roberta's blessings and advice) decided to expand on their characters, but not add anything that majorly changes the universe itself. So I like ideas of Gerwain (perhaps egotistical but not necessarily evil) for example narrating the KQ2 story, after Graham returns. Or the idea that Graham later hired the monk to be the castle priest! They give one possible scenario to those who like 'asking questions what happened after?", but don't drastically change the universe...

More importantly I think there are some ways that the 'good vampire' kinda goes against KQ feel... Good vampires of the more 'dramatic', 'moody', 'anxty' and 'brooding' style are more of a construction of 20th and 21st century literature. Before that they were primarily evil beings, represenstive of all things dark. That alone seems like a disconnect between KQ's usual 'black and white' world view.

There has also always been a touch of 'incest, rape, and even pedophillia' to the early myths, since they often came back and attacked their own families and friends before spreading out to feed off of others. Their whole purpose was to feed on others, and spread their curse to create more of their kind...

Thus people tended to come up with ritutals to prevent loved ones from coming back to attack them. Such as jamming rocks and stone axe heads in their mouths/chopping of their heads... The curse of the vampire was not in any sense good... It was something to fear and destroy always... You don't play with the creations of the 'Devil'.

I think that's why I find the Anastatia plot line rather repugnant, and outside of Roberta's vision (less you are going for Phantasmagoria in vision, and took a bit too much inspiration from Jane Jensen/Gabriel Knight)... For the same reason that vampiric child Tanya in QFG4 is meant to induce disgust in the player, I feel that the idea that her grandparents would 'force' the curse of vampirism on their daughter to be akin to 'molestation'... I could seen Granny making the choice for herself perhaps, to continue living with her husband, but forcing that on their granddaughter, just seems rath sick... Maybe when was older, she could have made that choice... but as a human she had the potential to have her whole life ahead of her, and marry and continue the cycle of life! But now she's more or less has the potential of spreading the curse...

I think i'd have rather seen a storyline in a remake where Dracula is treated as the villain he is, but that was expanded on, including more direct interactions with the player! In the same way the monk, could be maybe more mysterious, but still a good guy... There are many ways to make those traditional dynamics interesting, without changing the characters.

That being said, in AGD's defense, Roberta did change characterizations of some like Manannan and Lolotte from their original fairy tales and myths, by making them particulary 'evil'. So yes, she didn't always stick perfectly to her inspiration. But she did choose to keep their names, rather than hiding them behind anagrams. Then again god-like beings tend to be more neutral, than good or evil... You just want to make sure you stay on their good sides!

[BagginsKQ]

Ironically, the response to the non-canonical changes we made has been overwhelmingly positive and the fans who dislike them seem to be in the minority. It would be easy to read this as a validation of approval for continuing that storyline, but at the end of the day, I think if you're making something official based on another's work, you've gotta respect to the source material.

I think that my beef is probably more with the section of the community that prefer the game over the original, and think that the series should continue from yours than the originals. Yes, I have discussions with people that think that...

I suspect many of them are 'newcomers' that never appreciated who Roberta was, or what Roberta's vision was.

But if their 'beliefs' became so popular that say Activision took notice, and decided they could make a profit from it, there is the potential that it could destroy the chances that the official series would continue in any form.

That being said I had just as much apprehension to hearing Telltale was making a 'reboot'... as it would have lead to the same outcome to the original series! ...and though they have later claimed that they want to stick to the history KQ has developed, I still hold some reseverations until I see the final product.

BTW, I'm just as critical to the sierra remakes of classic adventure series as well... PQ1 remake for example went as far to change character names, and even genders, in such a way that it doesn't fit with the sequels much at all.. I prefer the original (it had more puzzle smore points), and fit better into the original trilogy. I also think there are ways that KQ1SCI remake made minor changes (perhaps mostly in setting) that are inconsistent with later games (particuarly KQ3)... Though I think it stuck close to the themes of the KQ games as a whole.

But, ya, don't think that i'm trying to be overly critical, I did enjoy playing the games... But there are certainly things in both AGD and POS offerings where I feel they have gone a little over board. Yes, I think there are examples where they got things 'right'. Even IA has some things I'm critical about, but I think they had the best grasp of the 'feel' down.

[exo]

BagginsKQ - it seems like you dislike, or find issues, with anything that isn't source material.

The KQ universe for me, and MANY other people, exists within the framework of the games alone. When you start debating canon by bringing in revised manuals, strategy guys, and companions you are bringing in stuff that doesn't matter to sizable portion of the original fans. I would question how important the story line bits actually are, when most of them were written after the fact to try and explain something previously mentioned in a game.

Remember, Sierra made these games to make money. Sometimes things get changed because it makes better business sense. Roberta's story, when you take EVERYTHING into account is bound to have holes in it. It is not infallible material. So standing up for source material while poking holes into everything that comes along later doesn't make a good deal of sense to me.

I may not be the biggest fan of Silver lining, but I'm damn glad someone took the time to make it. I am very interested in Kingdom of Sorrow, and it is bound to have a few problems of its own - but in the end its a game I would never get to play unless someone took the time to make it. And we are all here in some form or another because we are interested in Telltale's remake, even if many of us are cautiously optimistic (or pessimistic as some come across). I am not going to dissuade that by putting out what comes across as an elitist stance that any and all interpretations of KQ are blasphemy. I am caricaturing your stance obviously, and I am aware of that.

You obviously know a lot more about the KQ universe as a whole than myself, but maybe all that knowledge isn't such a good thing sometimes? I was a rabid fan of the show Lost. I tracked minute details, rationalized loose plot threads, and set myself up for the biggest disappointment. Friends of mine who seemed to watch it in passing enjoyed the show much more then I did as it seemingly went off the rails, because I had set up expectations for it when they had not.

IMHO, the best part of KQ to me isn't the bloody story anyway. It was the fun of exploring a land, interacting with creatures, and the satisfaction of solving a puzzle and putting something right. The story always felt a little tacked on to me. As long as the game reminds me of the hours I spent exploring when I was 12, then it is golden. Obviously I wouldn't want the author to go off on a tangent and redefine a fundamental aspect of the game, but I hardly feel that the monk or the vampire are important or fundamental.

The key, as Bonito has stated, is to enjoy the games as re-tellings and to stop trying to force them into this giant canon you have so much knowledge of. I often read books that are turned into movies later. I enjoy each one based on it's own merits, and just because a book came first does not make it the end all be all version. There are quite a few instances where a movie has improved upon facets of a book, and quite a few other times it has missed what i consider to be important plot/character points. I can still enjoy it though.

I think that my beef is probably more with the section of the community that prefer the game over the original, and think that the series should continue from yours than the originals. Yes, I have discussions with people that think that...

Why do you care? You have no right to tell others which game they should or should not like more. At this point you sound more elitist than ever. I wouldn't mind seeing the games continue from their story line. You know why? Because I already know where Roberta took her version. And I'd rather play someone else's take on Daventry, than someone else's take on exactly what Roberta would do.

But if their 'beliefs' became so popular that say Activision took notice, and decided they could make a profit from it, there is the potential that it could destroy the chances that the official series would continue in any form.

There is no "official" series, not in the sense of there ever being KQ developed the same people as you knw it. Just because Tell Tale got the rights to sell a game called kings Quest doesn't make it official in the sense that it is going to jump right in where KQ7 or MoE left off.

What you don't get is the hubub of Silver Lining is where Activision saw there was still profit to be made, and sold the rights to TellTale at that time. This "fear" of yours already happened buddy, and it had zero to do with the fact that people in the community really enjoyed AGDI's remake.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by exo

BagginsKQ - it seems like you dislike, or find issues, with anything that isn't source material.

The KQ universe for me, and MANY other people, exists within the framework of the games alone. When you start debating canon by bringing in revised manuals, strategy guys, and companions you are bringing in stuff that doesn't matter to sizable portion of the original fans. I would question how important the story line bits actually are, when most of them were written after the fact to try and explain something previously mentioned in a game.

Remember, Sierra made these games to make money. Sometimes things get changed because it makes better business sense. Roberta's story, when you take EVERYTHING into account is bound to have holes in it. It is not infallible material. So standing up for source material while poking holes into everything that comes along later doesn't make a good deal of sense to me.

I may not be the biggest fan of Silver lining, but I'm damn glad someone took the time to make it. I am very interested in Kingdom of Sorrow, and it is bound to have a few problems of its own - but in the end its a game I would never get to play unless someone took the time to make it. And we are all here in some form or another because we are interested in Telltale's remake, even if many of us are cautiously optimistic (or pessimistic as some come across). I am not going to dissuade that by putting out what comes across as an elitist stance that any and all interpretations of KQ are blasphemy. I am caricaturing your stance obviously, and I am aware of that.

You obviously know a lot more about the KQ universe as a whole than myself, but maybe all that knowledge isn't such a good thing sometimes? I was a rabid fan of the show Lost. I tracked minute details, rationalized loose plot threads, and set myself up for the biggest disappointment. Friends of mine who seemed to watch it in passing enjoyed the show much more then I did as it seemingly went off the rails, because I had set up expectations for it when they had not.

IMHO, the best part of KQ to me isn't the bloody story anyway. It was the fun of exploring a land, interacting with creatures, and the satisfaction of solving a puzzle and putting something right. The story always felt a little tacked on to me. As long as the game reminds me of the hours I spent exploring when I was 12, then it is golden. Obviously I wouldn't want the author to go off on a tangent and redefine a fundamental aspect of the game, but I hardly feel that the monk or the vampire are important or fundamental.

The key, as Bonito has stated, is to enjoy the games as re-tellings and to stop trying to force them into this giant canon you have so much knowledge of. I often read books that are turned into movies later. I enjoy each one based on it's own merits, and just because a book came first does not make it the end all be all version. There are quite a few instances where a movie has improved upon facets of a book, and quite a few other times it has missed what i consider to be important plot/character points. I can still enjoy it though.



Why do you care? You have no right to tell others which game they should or should not like more. At this point you sound more elitist than ever. I wouldn't mind seeing the games continue from their story line. You know why? Because I already know where Roberta took her version. And I'd rather play someone else's take on Daventry, than someone else's take on exactly what Roberta would do.



There is no "official" series, not in the sense of there ever being KQ developed the same people as you knw it. Just because Tell Tale got the rights to sell a game called kings Quest doesn't make it official in the sense that it is going to jump right in where KQ7 or MoE left off.

What you don't get is the hubub of Silver Lining is where Activision saw there was still profit to be made, and sold the rights to TellTale at that time. This "fear" of yours already happened buddy, and it had zero to do with the fact that people in the community really enjoyed AGDI's remake.

Since it is now canon (from TSL) that Graham and his family are deeply tortured people, I think they need to work out their emotions. Perhaps the next game can be a therapy game, wherein you have to solve puzzles to escape from a group therapy session.

[Blackthorne519]

Some people are pedantic and obsessed with cannon - others are not. I'm not adverse to creating a new story, but I think there are some boundaries to King's Quest. When you go out of the feel of them, it gets awkward.

The Silver Lining, though a major achievement in fan-game production, story wise moves much too far out of the realm of King's Quest for my taste. It's a little self (and over) indulgent; interestingly enough, I think the story would work with non-King's Quest characters and settings - but as a King's Quest, I feel it's off the mark. It attaches itself to the IP of King's Quest, when it really has no business there.

AGDI's KQ2+.... well, you know - that came out 10 years ago, and at that time - no one had attempted anything like that on a "remake"! While there are bits that I don't agree with (one of them being an over-arching villain that attempts to tie all motivations and games together ala "The Father") I still found it to be a great alternate story-telling version of a classic game. That game was amazing and fun when it came out, and truthfully it inspired those of us who were fans at Tierra/AGDI to start our own group, Infamous Adventures, and now we've released two games of our own.

I think that having limits and boundaries that keep the center of story-telling grounded are important. There's a large movement in creative writing and story telling today to make things as "Epic" and "Realistic/Gritty™ " and I think that's played out. In an effort to attach emotions, motivations, a sense of reality and cynicism to everything, they have in-fact created a hyper-reality that isn't a real reflection of anything but a yearning for life to be more epic than it is. I digress, though. Respecting King's Quest's cannon, and it's penchant for fairy-tales and villains in a fairy tale manner is important to maintaining the feel of the game.

To each his own, though. There are a great number of people who have enjoyed The Silver Lining, and the fact that it's brought attention back to King's Quest is a good thing. You can't convert everyone to your way of thinking, so you if you find people that agree with how you feel, take comfort in the fact that you aren't alone!


Bt

[KatieHal]

Anakin, you continue to one of the best ways we have of making sure our name comes up as often as possible. Thanks for the help!

Personally, I've really enjoyed the re-envisioning that some games have done. Am I biased too? Well, yes, but even ignoring TSL, I'd still really enjoy AGDI's KQ2+ and KQ3Redux. While graphical-only (or graphic and interface-only) updates are also impressive and worthy of praise, and have done their part in keeping KQ and SQ and so forth popular and present in people's minds, for my non-money spent on non-commercial games, I'm more for seeing new takes on the classics.