What SHOULD be changed for the new KQ?

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by thom-22

Of course. But include too many at the expense of other kinds of gameplay and you don't really have a game anymore; you have a trivially interactive content-delivery system. If Telltale wants to do that to its TV/movie properties, fine, but it is the antithesis of what King's Quest is.

I don't think they'll ditch the traditional game play in favor of having more conversation puzzles. They definitely don't have to go to the extremes of The Walking Dead with you choosing which character to save and the other stays dead in the upcoming episodes (and I really don't see how that could work in King's Quest anyway), but branching dialog choices that affect the gameplay from episode to episode would certainly be a welcome thing. There's no reason Telltale can't make a series with plenty of inventory puzzles as well as a good mix of dialog puzzles and branching dialog.

I highly doubt they'll treat King's Quest like The Walking Dead (but as I said, implementing the multi-episode branching dialog feature introduced in that series wouldn't be a bad thing). Telltale have said they still plan to make games in several adventure game styles (adventure game (ala Sam & Max and Monkey Island), EZ adventure (ala Back to the Future) and cinematic adventure (ala Jurassic Park or The Walking Dead). King's Quest would fall into the first category, and Telltale knows this.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Telltale have said they still plan to make games in several adventure game styles (adventure game (ala Sam & Max and Monkey Island)...

Where? Citation?

[Lambonius]

I want death at every possible turn.

I am dead serious. Each death should be logical and avoidable, but ONLY if the player has thoroughly explored and observed his surroundings. Deaths should be telegraphed or foreshadowed by careful use of the LOOK icon (as opposed to the WALK or HAND icons) for interaction with all parts of the environment. Of course, this would require the game to actually HAVE multiple modes of interaction, which I strongly doubt Telltale will ever do, because they don't make adventure games.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by thom-22

Where? Citation?

http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/...&postcount=161

Originally Posted by dancon

I think this is a good idea and you can expect us to provide more info about the type of game. I know on Sam and Max 2 we tried to communicate difficulty through a five star system.

As far as breakdown of gametype would you expect us to put BTTF and JP in the same category or would you separate the two. I would say Sam and Max is an adventure game, BTTF is an easy adventure (EZ) or casual adventure and JP is a cinematic adventure. Would that make sense to everyone

[thom-22]

Sorry, but all that says is their games can be broken down in different type categories, and it might imply they'll continue to make games in more than one category. But there is no way you can twist that statement to mean that they plan to make games in any particular category, ie. in the classic adventure game style like Sam & Max.

Got anything else?

[gamingafter40]

The only speculative argument I can make, with no real details yet known about the upcoming King's Quest, is the same one that's been stated before -- Telltale HAS preserved traditional adventure gameplay in the two series it has released to date that are derived from existing adventure games. Its games based on other properties have varied considerably -- the Bone and Strong Bad titles were traditional adventure games, BTTF was a more casual adventure game, and Jurassic Park and Law & Order were different sorts of experiences using similar technology. (As a rule of thumb, for purposes of this discussion I'm thinking of a game as an "adventure game" if it has an inventory and some degree of unstructured player freedom to explore and try things.)

I think a lot of the negative speculation about King's Quest is driven by the differences between the humor/character-driven Lucasarts style, which Telltale has largely carried on, and the more puzzle/map-driven Sierra style.

KQ VII was the closest thing we've seen to a hybrid of the two approaches, and for better or worse it's the best predictor I can point to at this writing. It's episodic in structure (although there's some ability to return to the settings of previous episodes to retrieve needed items), deaths do not force re-playing from a save, its heroines have a sense of humor and personality, and we do get to know some of the characters beyond their puzzle-positing jobs.

As I've said before, I am optimistic that Telltale will treat King's Quest with the same respect it has treated its other licenses. King's Quest has a lot of history behind it, and Telltale knows that nostalgia is the primary sales driver for this title. I predict the discussion as more details become known is likely to be about WHICH KQ/Sierra influences are most prominent in the design -- not about how nobody expected the new King's Quest to be set up as a first-person shooter or a hidden-object game.

And it's not like all the new The Walking Dead fans who haven't really played an adventure game before are going to be saying, "Oh, man! I can't wait for KING'S QUEST!" They're more likely to be wondering what this incredibly generic title could possibly mean. "So, like, there's a king? And he goes on a quest? Is this the Sir Thomas Malory license?"

[BagginsKQ]

From my perspective 'Walking Dead' sounds like a pretty generic title... That's like a term for 'undead', in hundreds of movies from the 60's maybe a little before...

Fables? That sounds pretty generic too, since there are like at least three games already with that name or similar, and aren't even connected to the same franchises!

There is the Fable which is an old adventure game from 1996, and then there are the unrelated three Fable rpg games (that form a trilogy)!

I suspect its all just a matter of how close a fan is to a series... For it to feel 'nongeneric' to them.

I think, if we had been anothers group of fans shoes, and King's Quest had come first, that the fans of the other series might be making similar complaints about their preferred series not coming out 'fast enough', or not getting enough 'informatin' about them!

KQ VII was the closest thing we've seen to a hybrid of the two approaches, and for better or worse it's the best predictor I can point to at this writing. It's episodic in structure (although there's some ability to return to the settings of previous episodes to retrieve needed items), deaths do not force re-playing from a save, its heroines have a sense of humor and personality, and we do get to know some of the characters beyond their puzzle-positing jobs.

Many KQ fans are hoping that its better than KQ7, and not as critically panned than that game was... Also it wouldnt' hurt to have puzzles that are a bit more complicated than the generally more simplified 'fetch-quest' style that that game offered. That is to say that almost every puzzle in KQ7 revolved about learning what you needed to find either visually on screen or from the mouth of a character, and then giving it to the character who lost it (you saw him lose it), or asked for it. These unfortunately make up 90% of the item puzzles in Telltale games as well... Nothing particurarly complicated (other than perhaps in Tales of Monkey Island that allowed for some inventory manipulation style puzzles).

[gamingafter40]

I always recall Sierra's research that indicated a fairly small percentage of its customers actually ever FINISHED their games. Telltale's model, especially on platforms that sell individual episodes, probably does get pushed towards ease more often than not. For creative as well as commercial reasons -- after all, no designer wants to feel like all the hard work on a story's dramatic finale won't actually be seen by a substantial chunk of the audience. A player who gets frustrated and gives up is not likely to return, and if that player is altogether new to adventure games then we're all poorer for it.

On the other hand, we all have different pain thresholds for difficulty and the types of puzzles that annoy us, so it's very hard to create something that provides the "right" level of challenge for everyone. I tend to get stuck on my own bad assumptions -- I think I've already looked in a cabinet or explored a path when in fact I've missed it altogether -- so a subtle verbal or visual reminder or hint is often much appreciated.

Maybe one path to a better future could rely on the idea that different types of adventurers also have different expectations about what constitutes "victory" -- there are ways to let a casual player experience the whole story by stumbling through it, and reward more serious players for finding better solutions to the puzzles as was done in the early KQ games. (The bronze/silver/gold medal system in Jurassic Park was a simple but effective way to do this -- you need to meet a minimum standard, but needn't master every scene to progress. But that's easier to measure in a QTE context.)

The art of interactive entertainment needs to keep evolving -- I just finished playing Roberta Williams' "Mystery House" for the first time last night, and was disappointed (SPOILERS!) that I was not penalized or admonished for stabbing Joe the Gravedigger myself and stealing his shovel, which was wholly unnecessary as it turned out, instead of letting the villain take care of him and maintaining the moral high ground. On the other hand, I couldn't just run off with the jewels and claim victory, I had to find the gun and shoot Daisy myself to be declared a WIZARD GURU. Notify the media! ROBERTA WILLIAMS FORCES YOU TO KILL PEOPLE!

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by thom-22

Sorry, but all that says is their games can be broken down in different type categories, and it might imply they'll continue to make games in more than one category. But there is no way you can twist that statement to mean that they plan to make games in any particular category, ie. in the classic adventure game style like Sam & Max.

Got anything else?

It shows that they know that they know that Sam & Max and Monkey Island are in a different category than Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, and The Walking Dead.

As I said, they know that King's Quest is an adventure game.

They're doing EZ adventures and cinematic adventures based on movie and TV licenses (which they have always done: see CSI), but as I said in another thread all of their licenses based on adventure game properties (or a license that already had an adventure game) have been handled respectfully. Also note that they have never released an adventure game license in one of their casual categories.

Even Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse was an adventure game, and that was made in 2010, the same year that the first episode of Back to the Future episode 1 came out. It had standard inventory puzzles as well as puzzles based on Max's new-found and re-found psychic powers. It also had a much more challenging difficulty than Telltale's EZ adventures or cinematic adventures, and it's difficulty got more challenging as the season went on, like their other adventure games.

They know that their adventure games are different than their casual games. They released an adventure game in the same year as a casual game (which shows they haven't abandoned adventure games), and they haven't screwed up an adventure game license yet.

Their track record shows that they handle their adventure game licenses differently than their movie and TV licenses (as evidenced by CSI vs. Sam & Max and Monkey Island). They have always been respectful to the other adventure games in whatever series they are licensing. They haven't done anything to show that this still isn't true.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by gamingafter40

The only speculative argument I can make, with no real details yet known about the upcoming King's Quest, is the same one that's been stated before -- Telltale HAS preserved traditional adventure gameplay in the two series it has released to date that are derived from existing adventure games.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

They're doing EZ adventures and cinematic adventures based on movie and TV licenses (which they have always done: see CSI), but as I said in another thread all of their licenses based on adventure game properties (or a license that already had an adventure game) have been handled respectfully. Also note that they have never released an adventure game license in one of their casual categories.

I've heard of all of this before. Long-winded "defenses" that are nothing more than generalities about what Telltale has done in the past.

Rewind back to the time between The Devil's Playhouse and BTTF, their first "EZ" adventure. If you had said BTTF would follow a pattern established by previous games, you would have been wrong! You have absolutely no way of knowing that the pattern you're describing will hold.

It's simply not an answer to the things Telltale has repeatedly been saying in interviews and elsewhere about their game design philosophy. They didn't say, "we don't think walking around is important for how we want to do our Jurassic Park game in particular"; they said, "Walking around is boring." Period.

If Telltale plans to keep making classic-style adventure games (when the license calls for it), they could have said so at any time, but they haven't. Why not? How easy would it have been to add one measly little sentence to their answers to KQ-related interview questions that reaches out to and reassures KQ's fanbase? The "they'll follow the pattern" non-defense I repeatedly hear from Telltale's sycophants proxies simply does not compensate for Telltale's deafening silence.

Originally Posted by gamingafter40

They have always been respectful to the other adventure games in whatever series they are licensing. They haven't done anything to show that this still isn't true.

I don't agree with that. Or at least I don't think being merely "respectful" (which is really too vague for useful analysis) is an adequate measure of how successful they are in adapting a license. Telltale has on occasion done what they wanted to do, regardless of whether it fit with the property or not. There were a number of aspects of Tales that I found to be quite un-Monkey Island-like. The Devil's Playhouse had a significantly different tone and style of humor than the previous seasons. And Jurassic Park was a complete abomination against that franchise.

Originally Posted by gamingafter40

I think a lot of the negative speculation about King's Quest is driven by the differences between the humor/character-driven Lucasarts style, which Telltale has largely carried on, and the more puzzle/map-driven Sierra style.

That's only a tip of the iceberg, and I don't even agree that your characterizations capture the differences between Lucasarts and Sierra styles that I find important. I don't find the characters in Sierra games any less prominent or important in defining the Sierra style than they are in Lucasarts games, and I don't find Lucasarts games any less "puzzle-driven" than Sierra games. (Whatever the hell all this "driven" business means anyway; when I play a game, I do my own driving thank you very much.)

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Even Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse was an adventure game, and ... it's difficulty got more challenging as the season went on, like their other adventure games.

I don't agree with that. Episode 2 was the only episode I found to have any kind of complexity that makes for challenging gameplay. AFAIC, the trend toward EZ adventures -- and more importantly, de-emphasis of gameplay in favor of flashy, cinematic content delivery for passive player consumption -- began with The Devil's Playhouse, not a movie/TV license.

[MusicallyInspired]

I suppose it could be worse. I just heard of a recent adventure game/series (I do not remember the name at all) that allows you to skip its puzzles altogether if it's too hard for the player. :O Apparently the harder difficulties don't allow this, but still. Talk about missing the point.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by thom-22

I've heard of all of this before. Long-winded "defenses" that are nothing more than generalities about what Telltale has done in the past.

Nothing I said was untrue though (you argued with me about the difficulty of The Devil's Playhouse. Fair enough, as a level of difficulty can be neither true nor untrue as it is subjective). Telltale hasn't released a game based on an adventure property since 2010, so we have to base our expectations on that release (based on Dan Connors own words that their games are broken up into categories). It's like casual games in 2009. Telltale hadn't released a casual game since 2007. They didn't drop them, they just took a break from them. Thus, it's logical that the same is true this time around, but in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by thom-22

I don't agree with that. Or at least I don't think being merely "respectful" (which is really too vague for useful analysis) is an adequate measure of how successful they are in adapting a license. Telltale has on occasion done what they wanted to do, regardless of whether it fit with the property or not. There were a number of aspects of Tales that I found to be quite un-Monkey Island-like. The Devil's Playhouse had a significantly different tone and style of humor than the previous seasons.

They changed things around in The Devil's Playhouse and Tales of Monkey Island, no doubt (the complete overhaul of game mechanics in The Devil's Playhouse, a much more murderous LeChuck in Tales of Monkey Island, etc). Any change is due to alienate some portion of the fanbase, but I'm of the mind that change can be good. And I thought the change in those two franchises were worthwhile. The Monkey Island creators Ron Gilbert and Dave Grossman thought the changes were good in Tales (and even contributed to them). Sam & Max creator Steve Purcell thought the changes in Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse were good (and ditto with the contributing to them). King's Quest creator Roberta Williams has offered advice to Telltale for King's Quest, which the team found "invaluable". So, it's likely there will be change. But, the change could be good for the franchise. We'll just have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by thom-22

Rewind back to the time between The Devil's Playhouse and BTTF, their first "EZ" adventure. If you had said BTTF would follow a pattern established by previous games, you would have been wrong! You have absolutely no way of knowing that the pattern you're describing will hold.

It does follow a pattern though. There were four Telltale CSI games starting in 2007, each an EZ adventure, and that was a licensed property not based on adventure games. Back to the Future is a licensed property not based on adventure games (or based on a property that already had an adventure game). Following that pattern, it would make sense that Back to the Future was an EZ adventure like CSI.

Originally Posted by thom-22

It's simply not an answer to the things Telltale has repeatedly been saying in interviews and elsewhere about their game design philosophy. They didn't say, "we don't think walking around is important for how we want to do our Jurassic Park game in particular"; they said, "Walking around is boring." Period.

It may not have been said explicitly, but it turned out to be referring just to the game play of Jurassic Park. There is walking around and exploring in The Walking Dead.

The biggest point I was trying to make was about Dan Connors realizing that Back to the Future is a different category than Sam & Max and Monkey Island. This is a very good thing. Before that, I was worried too that they would carry the casual gameplay to King's Quest and any future adventure based property. The fact they know that Back to the Future is not a traditional adventure game is a load off my mind.

[MusicallyInspired]

I think thom's point was more specifically that there was no way we could expect that The Walking Dead would allow walking, seeing as Telltale had previously gone on record for Jurassic Park (TWD's immediate predecessor) saying that "walking was boring". No more can we assume any less anything for any future titles based on design decisions and PR statements regarding their current games.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Nothing I said was untrue though

I didn't say it was untrue, I said it was over-generalized and inconsequential.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Telltale hasn't released a game based on an adventure property since 2010, so we have to base our expectations on that release

No, we don't have to do that. I mean, you can if you want to, but you can't tell me I can't take into account Telltale's statements about game design and their lack of even the mildest affirmation that they intend to modify their current design principles for KQ when I express concerns about its prospects.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

It may not have been said explicitly, but it turned out to be referring just to the game play of Jurassic Park. There is walking around and exploring in The Walking Dead.

Oh, FFS. Way to miss the forest for the trees. The walking thing was merely an example of how they have transitioned away from the fundamentals of adventure gaming. Of course they made some changes to the approach used in a game that was trashed from here to kingdom come by a huge majority of reviewers. But the basic structure of TWD is the same as JP: exceedingly linear gameworld, little exploration beyond the immediate environment, mundane tasks and simplistic, self-contained puzzles masquerading as gameplay. (I admit that I have not played TWD, but I am taking my information from credible sources, ie. players who are NOT fanboys/girls of Telltale.) It simply doesn't wash as evidence that Telltale is likely to do a complete 180° and give us a KQ that measures up to the originals in terms of meaningful exploration and interactive and puzzle-solving complexity.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

The biggest point I was trying to make was about Dan Connors realizing that Back to the Future is a different category than Sam & Max and Monkey Island. This is a very good thing. Before that, I was worried too that they would carry the casual gameplay to King's Quest and any future adventure based property. The fact they know that Back to the Future is not a traditional adventure game is a load off my mind.

I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. Acknowledging that his fans see the obvious distinctions among their existing games produced by their own changes in approach to design is a far cry from saying he actually cares about making games using the previous approach.

[gamingafter40]

Bottom line IMO is that there are two mindsets regarding the upcoming Telltale interpretation of King's Quest. None of us has seen anything concrete about the game, so all of this discussion is necessarily speculative. Those who are optimistic and those who are pessimistic can both find evidence to support their arguments based on Telltale's track record.

I choose to be optimistic. But for the sake of self-awareness I will note that I'm not a huge fan of the King's Quest games to date -- I've played through all of them, but only once each in most cases -- so it's more likely that I will see changes as good things.

[doom saber]

Originally Posted by gamingafter40

There has been a lot of good discussion here about what makes King's Quest King's Quest, and what old-school styles and design elements we'd like to see retained. With that in mind, what are some things we feel SHOULD be changed for a new King's Quest? And what are some risks the new designers should be willing to take?

These are strictly my own opinions:

I for one would like to see more personality -- I never felt like I knew who Sir/King Graham really was as a person. Who is this man who apologizes for disturbing insects, yet pushes old women into ovens without thinking twice about it? Is he a wise and effective ruler, or in over his head?

I agree. Graham comes off as a douche in part 5. For instance, refusing to give back the Gnome's spinning wheel unless he gets the grandson's puppet as a reward. Moreover, deceiving and holding the elf hostage until he tells him the way out of the maze. It was confusing considering that the guy was depicted as a kind and gentle king.

[BagginsKQ]

Come on Graham is the sort of king who would sacrifice his own daughter if it would save his own life!

He also stole the leprichaun king's scepter!

[StinkomanFan]

Am I the only one who remembered Cedric? I hope to god he never appears in another game again.

[BagginsKQ]

I liked Cedric... Especially the non-voice version of the character...

Richard Aronson's falsetto can be annoying...

[doom saber]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Come on Graham is the sort of king who would sacrifice his own daughter if it would save his own life!

He also stole the leprichaun king's scepter!

Point taken