New Direction is Best

[Chyron8472]

I'm starting to find the relentless MoE-is-awesome conversation rather boring.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by Sleeq

I think for me, it belittles the crisis at hand. Like how in KG5 Graham acts as if his family being captured happens everyday and his dialog and
VA , not to mention his actions don't match the situation.

I don't know if it makes sense or if I worded it correctly...

I totally get what you're saying. There's no denying that King's Quest games have that incongruity about them. But you know what? Fiction is full of such incongruities, and most games and game types suffer from similar non-realism. Do you think it's a coincidence that you always have just enough time (and bullets and health potions, etc.) to do everything you need to do to prevent the bad guys from blowing up the world or killing all the hostages? Regardless of what the character is facing on screen, the point of gaming is for the player sitting in front of the screen to have fun along the way.

Think about Indiana Jones or James Bond: they go on urgent missions to save the world from Nazis/Commies/terrorists yet still have time for dalliances with whatever women happen to be on hand. So Graham stops to help rats and shoemakers and hungry eagles instead of for martinis and a quickie. It's all just escapist fiction and there's nothing non-adult about it.

Originally Posted by Sleeq

Why can't a series evolve with the times?

The thing is, this isn't really a series anymore. It's not like we've had ongoing installments from a stable development team; rather, we've had nothing, at least not official, for 15 years. The series isn't stale; it's dormant and needs to be revived first.

Moreover, I think your concept of "the times" is actually outdated. Game development has been opened up way beyond a handful of big publishers all trying for the big bucks with AAA titles in copycat genres. The "times" of today encompass many new and old aspects of gaming, an explosion in game-type variety -- indie gaming, retro gaming, classic gaming, and yes, point-and-click adventure gaming -- all of which are as appropriate for the times as any of the examples you've cited.

And variety is what this is all about to me, not nostalgia. We've lost so much variety in adventure gameplay from the Golden Age of the late 80's to mid 90's, as all the third-person adventures that have come out in the past decade or so are Lucasarts clones. So making a Sierra-style adventure is a bold step in and of itself, and is the only appropriate bold step I can see.

I like 3D action-adventure/RPG games. Very much. Often more so than pure adventures. I embraced the transition with the Indy franchise and wish Lucasarts would make another one. I would, under different circumstances or in the future, accept a KQ game that continued Mask's genre transition. (It would sure as hell be preferable to transition to the "cinematic adventure" genre, AKA trivially interactive content-delivery system, AKA point-and-click-where-you're told-to-click.) But this is not the right development studio to be doing that with the first King's Quest game in 15 years. The only action gameplay element they've ever demonstrated is QTE's, which, IMO, can supplement but are not a substitute for a fixed set of action-oriented character capabilities. The latter is crucial for making a good action-adventure or RPG, as is a chase camera for that matter, another thing Telltale has never done.

Originally Posted by Blackthorne519

If you want something new, why do you want an old name like King's Quest on it?

Next effin' question.

I'm not sure why I bothered posting when this is the best response anyway. If you want survival horror, there are plenty of them out there. If you want an RPG, well, it seems like a new one is released every other week on Steam. There is absolutely no sense in reviving a franchise by making a game for people who didn't like it the way it was in the first place.

[Lambonius]

AWESOME.

I seriously tried for several minutes to single out a portion of that amazing post to quote, but damn--it was impossible.

Case closed.

[BagginsKQ]

Good post Thom...

only action gameplay element they've ever demonstrated is QTE's,

Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...

I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.

There was that kind of frogger type game in Bone part 1...

But ya, not that many 'action gameplay elements'.

[exo]

The car shooting sequence in the early Sam and Max felt tacked on (simply because the original had car surfing). It was also incredibly boring and a waste of time.

[Nintendo Boy1]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Good post Thom...



Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...

I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.

There was that kind of frogger type game in Bone part 1...

But ya, not that many 'action gameplay elements'.

There was also that First-Person thing in Episode 5 of SBCG4AP. Allegedly, there was suppose some sortive minigame like thing in Max's Mind in The Devil's Playhouse. Though it got cut.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Well, they also had those stupid arcade mini-games in the early Sam and Max games... Shooting at things while driving down the streets/car chase...

I think there were some other carnival type gun shooting sequences in later games too.

Yeah, forgot about those. Arcade and on-rails driving games don't really qualify a studio for full-fledged action-adventure development, though.

I liked the driving games in Telltale's Sam & Max. They were a totally franchise-appropriate addition, well implemented and fun. Even though mini-games are not strictly adventure-game-type puzzles, they add welcome variety IMO when used sparingly and suitably.

Originally Posted by exo

The car shooting sequence in the early Sam and Max felt tacked on (simply because the original had car surfing). It was also incredibly boring and a waste of time.

Seems to me that's exactly the kind of thinking that took Telltale from Sam & Max to JP:TG and TWD. Now, I understand that not every player is going to find every segment of a game to be fun. But a waste of time? That's Telltale's attitude toward anything that doesn't contribute to the linear delivery of the cinematic experience they want all players to have, where gameplay is dictated by each story element, leading to ad hoc, one-at-a-time "activities" instead of interconnected challenges in an interactivity-rich gameworld.

The Sam & Max driving/arcade sequences are an example (a minor one) of what I mean when talking about how so much variety in adventure gaming has been lost since the 1990's. Each studio had their own twists that expanded -- and sometimes went beyond -- the base of traditional adventure puzzles. (I believe Telltale operated in that vein during the early Sam & Max years, bringing some creativity to puzzle design -- derivative of Lucasarts, yes, but with a style of their own -- and it's why I became such a huge fan of the company.) It's the adventure gaming community itself that demanded standardization and left us with nothing but cookie-cutter games.

Even today when I see discussions of what an adventure game should be, someone always posts a long list of puzzle-types and other elements that must always be excluded and I just have to barf. In this very forum we have repeated calls to eliminate dead-ends, "unfair" deaths, "obscure" puzzles, precarious mobility situations, yadda yadda. Hammer that fucker down until it looks like a right and proper twenty-first century generic adventure!

Meanwhile other character-in-gameworld-based genre fans (though obviously not all developers and publishers) have embraced variety and cross-over gameplay. I don't even outright object to judicious use of QTE's in adventure games. In fact, the QTE's associated with dinosaur encounters were the only redeeming feature of JP:TG IMO. (My objections have always been about its linear and non-explorable gameworld and its simplistic and isolated puzzles.)

Oh, wow, I went off on another gameplay/design philosophy tangent. Sorry. I'll stop now, go hop in the De Soto, and head for Memory Lane.

[BagginsKQ]

Well I liked the minigame sequences in Space Quest series, I felt they were better handled. I also like the arcade sequences in the Conquests series, they also felt well-integrated. The same can be said for the arcadey bits in Quest for Glory as well.

Lucasarts I think did a good job at integrating arcade sequences as well, I had alot of fun in Full Throttle and two classic Indiana Jones graphic adventures...

They felt more integrated into the storyline, and less of the do this to 'collect stickers' that have little to do with the game at hand...

[Sleeq]

Something occurred to me just now;

Quest for Glory IV was the "darkest" of the series, yet it is considered by fans the best of the 5 games (or tied with QfG1).

It had dark mature themes yet retained all the attributes that made the series famous.

Does this count for anything in my "dark/gritty" argument?

[Blackthorne519]

It may have Dark and Gritty themes, but they really don't take themselves too seriously. They managed to combine Lovecraftian themes, vampires and other Eastern European horror story elements without going all over-the-top melodramatic with them. The game retained its sense of humor, cheekiness and fun while dealing with a darker setting.


Bt

[Sleeq]

^ true... so why was my comment about the reboot being dark but retain all the classic elements (such as QG4) shunned?

[Blackthorne519]

Because Dark Elements really have no place in a King's Quest game. Not to the extent at which QFGIV had them. It's a cheap gimmick used these days to make a game "more mature". People have been trying to shoe-horn darker elements on to KQ's with mixed results for a long time.

A "dark" King's Quest... isn't King's Quest. As I've said before, why do you want something new with an old name on it?


Bt

[Lambonius]

Agreed, Bt.

Plus, ALL of the QFG games had undertones of dark fantasy and violence--QFG4 just brought that to the forefront more than the others did. But as Bt mentioned, it's also a damn funny game, arguably the funniest in the series. It really wasn't as big a departure as you're making it out to be.

[MusicallyInspired]

It was also the nature of QFG to explore different atmospheres as well as locales in every game. King's Quest was not like this.

[Sleeq]

So KQ5 had only one locale? Except for Kq1, all other KQ games had you travel to different realms outside Daventry and multiple locales. i don't get your statement.

You also make it sound like KQ had no seriousness at all. It does; but it also has it's share of humor and lightheartedness, not unlike QfG in my opinion.

[BagginsKQ]

QFG was about a single atmosphere, and locality for each game.

KQ was about exploring new locales in each game as well. Daventry was often used as a starting point or ending point. But the primary focus was on a new locale or locales.

As far as atmosphere, a single KQ took what I'll describe as the 'theme park' approach. That different sections of each land represented a diffented 'atmosphere'.

KQ6-8 made the 'theme park' approach even more seperated in that each island in KQ6, and each land in KQ7 and KQ8 shared different distinct themes and atmospheres.

KQ5 can be described as breaking things up in a 'theme park' manner as well. In that it broke up thematic locations such as the Endless Desert, the Dark Forest, Serenia proper, the Mountains, the beach and ocean, and the Mordack's Island.

In the earliest games its a little less noticeable but even exist their as well. KQ1 had its main land, its Land of the Clouds, its land of the leprechauns. In the remake it added a darker part of the forest, and lighter parts of the forest with different atmosphers in both.

In KQ2, you had themes surrounding the three keys to unlock the doors. The undersea region, the mountain, and finally the 'darker' Dracula's island sequence. But Kolyma as a whole was pretty similar in atmosphere, outside of those sequences. There are a couple of other places within the land of note, that offer their own unique theme. Such as Grandma's House, or the Antique store, etc.

Then you jump into the Enchanted Islands where atmosphere changes.

In KQ3, you have the desert, main Llewdor (which has several areas of note with varying themes), the pirate sequence across the ocean, the beach and mountains, and finally Daventry, and Cloudland. But the latter two areas hearken back to the original KQ1.

In KQ4 you had distinct dark forest areas, that get progressively darker, as you head east, and areas of meadowland, the haunted house and graveyard, the ocean, the desert island, Genesta's Island, the swamp. The mountains and Lollotes' Castle. Each with a unique theme. This is probably the first game to start developing more of a 'theme park' style land development, but its not as clearly divided as later games in the series are.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by Sleeq

Something occurred to me just now;

Quest for Glory IV was the "darkest" of the series, yet it is considered by fans the best of the 5 games (or tied with QfG1).

It had dark mature themes yet retained all the attributes that made the series famous.

Does this count for anything in my "dark/gritty" argument?

Why are you not getting that this isn't about dark/gritty games in general but about King's Quest in particular, ie. that what QFG was is irrelevant to what KQ should be? The Dig was dark and gritty, so Monkey Island should have been dark and gritty, too?

Baggins makes a good point about how there was some differentiation in tone or feel of different areas in each (or most) of the games, and I think that's a good way to go.

Personally, and this is probably semantics, I never found anything "dark" or "gritty" in any KQ ever -- rather I would describe things like Mordack's castle and the graveyard in KQ4 and even the underworld in KQ6 as "spooky". Having a spooky section in the new game would be fine with me. I don't think anyone's suggesting that there be a cheesy or sappy fairy tale scene around every damn corner.

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Sleeq

So KQ5 had only one locale? Except for Kq1, all other KQ games had you travel to different realms outside Daventry and multiple locales. i don't get your statement.

You completely missed the point. I'm not really talking about locales. QFG's whole shtick was that each game explored a different atmosphere and style. This was reflected in the locales it chose in each game. King's Quest has pretty much always been fantasy. I think KQ6 and KQ7 were the only ones to explore areas we've never seen before. But even KQ6, while being influenced by Arabian mythology and atmosphere is still very classic fantasy. And KQ7, while a little crazy and zany, is still exploring and journeying through a strange fantasy land with magical creatures and places. It's never gone beyond this.

I know that KQ5 explored a series of locales, one of the things I love about it. KQ3 did as well. But it never changed in tone throughout the entire series.

You also make it sound like KQ had no seriousness at all. It does; but it also has it's share of humor and lightheartedness, not unlike QfG in my opinion.

Now you're just picking at straws. I don't think any of us are saying there's no humour. In fact we're defending the fact that it has humour. They were merely stating that QFG is one of the funniest Sierra series they ever put out and that the "darkness" of QFG4 was more tounge-in-cheek than actual grit. It was still funny. Because that was its thing. It stuck to what it was known for. That's the whole point we're trying to make here.

[BagginsKQ]

King's Quest has pretty much always been fantasy.

Technically "fairy tales", "myths", "literary classics" ("horror" was sometimes an inspiration), and 'legends" with a few 'legendary epics' thrown in. These are subcategories under 'fantasy' but are a might more specific.

But even KQ6, while being influenced by Arabian mythology and atmosphere is still very classic fantasy.

To be perfectly honest Arabian mythology only had some minor influence on one island in KQ6, Isle of the Crown (even there it was fairly marginal).

Every other island was based on a number of things including sort of pseudo-French motif on the Isle of the Beast, the Greco-Roman/Cretian on the Isle of Sacred Mountain... Alice and Wonderland for the Isle of Wonder... 18th century romantic concept of 'druidic culture' on the Isle of Mists... Realm of the Dead is a combination of few different sources, but relies more on a H.R. Giger style theme.

Like I said before KQ especially the later games from KQ5 up to KQ8 rely more on a series of themed areas, based on multiple cultural influence.

KQ7 has several lands all based on different cultural themes each uniquely divided, including Meso-American in the Desert. Some Greco-Roman aspects in the Bountfiul Woods. Ooga Booga is sort of Tim Burtonesque with some Washington Irving thrown in. Falderal/Nonsense Land is more of a "Looking Glass/Wonderland or Oz" with some other influences thrown in (Chicken Little for example). Fairy Court is a bit of medieval and renaisance legends. Etc...

BTW, least you forget, KQ5's desert region is largely inspired off of Arabian Nights tales as well with a touch of Petra. The Dark Forest is motif in various fairy tales. Serenia itself is loosely central European in style.

Now you're just picking at straws. I don't think any of us are saying there's no humour. In fact we're defending the fact that it has humour. They were merely stating that QFG is one of the funniest Sierra series they ever put out and that the "darkness" of QFG4 was more tounge-in-cheek than actual grit. It was still funny. Because that was its thing. It stuck to what it was known for. That's the whole point we're trying to make here.

You are right... Quest for Glory is about punning and joke making in nearly every line of diologue. It never really took itself serious at all.

King's Quest was quite the oposite in many ways. With the main characters and narrator often taking everything serious. While humor exists, it's not the focus of the story itself. At least the main characters tend to treat the events they are in on a serious note.