Exclusivity over the license.

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Why? The original game really felt more like it was KQ1 Part 2.

I have always seen it as an independent sequel and it took much more time to solve it than average episode of TTG's adventures. Back then we didn't have walkthroughs easily available, so solving the (sometimes obscure) puzzles took it's time. I managed to break the bridge and I had to restart once, but I consider myself lucky because I managed to avoid other dead ends.

[edwardkoo]

Originally Posted by Sabin Stargem

AGDI is definitely not an amateur outfit. They have already sold at least one professional game under their Himalaya banner, and created 4 excellent remakes of Sierra titles. I think that it is likely that Telltale and Himalaya would be rivals, not unlike Sierra and LucasArts in their heyday.

That said, I do find it rather puzzling that Telltale was entrusted with the King's Quest license, considering how well AGDI handled the license, while Telltale has no previous history with it. That said, maybe this would help motivate Himalaya to begin one-upping Telltale.

I think it's all pure business decision, Telltale has proven sales record and they've been doing it in 3D since the beginning. Majority of the current gamers won't even bother to touch any 2D games which is very sad, 2D is always better than 3D especially for adventure games IMO!

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

I personally thought the additions to the KQII remake, for example, were a mistake... I would have preferred a 1-to-1 remake. But then, here is hoping someone else will one day do just that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGXW2hzUVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf09eXkZiNo

(Hopefully with fully updated graphics and audio, and the ability to switch between the original and new graphics and gameplay, as with the Monkey Island remakes.)

That won't happen because all the source code for anything Sierra-related was trashed when Sierra was first bought-out by CUC.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Why would the source codes be needed? Maybe I am missing something, but the AGI and SCI logics and all the visual and audio resources are already viewable in existing programs.

[MusicallyInspired]

No, they aren't. AGI has been reverse engineered, sure. But SCI scripts have not. Currently it's not possible to decompile the scripts. You can only disassemble them and then manually convert them to some kind of script format that a custom compiler can convert to the SCI script format. The script notation in SCI Studio and SCI Companion is LISP-like, which as new information suggests, is not what was originally used for SCI. Since we don't even know what the language of the original code that Sierra worked with was there's no way to accurately reproduce the same effects EXACTLY as the original. ScummVM is still having trouble running scripts from SCI games with its reverse engineered engine implementation. And they only fix these problems by applying script patches. It doesn't shed any new light on how the original code would have worked.

All that is too much work for any corporation to care to put into it. LucasArts, on the other hand, has all of their source code for everything they've done archived and can easily create new implementations to the SCUMM engine like the Monkey Island Special Editions on top of the original code.

It's certainly possible, but I wouldn't bet on some kind of similar SE updates happening even unofficially, let alone officially.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Thanks, MI, I stand corrected on the SCI issue. I still think these are far from insurmountable problems, however, with professional financial backing. I believe it could be done - and it would, after all, need to be done only once. A logical place to begin would be to track down and pick the brains of some of the original programmers...

Anyway, I will keep dreaming until it happens!

[MusicallyInspired]

That's what the SCI community has been trying to do for years with no success. We've only just recently discovered that the original SCI notation was much close to that of SmallTalk than LISP as we had believed for over 10 years.

[Anakin Skywalker]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGXW2hzUVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf09eXkZiNo




That won't happen because all the source code for anything Sierra-related was trashed when Sierra was first bought-out by CUC.

Where did you read about the source codes being trashed?

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGXW2hzUVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf09eXkZiNo

Brandon, I somehow managed to miss the links the first time around. This remake looks absolutely beautiful and extremely authentic! Truly impressed. Will it be a 1-to-1 remake? (Hoping it is.)

[tomimt]

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Kin...the_Throne_SCI
There's some info about the project. It appears to still be in production, or it was atleast in january. The article states, that the plot won't be changed, but some scenes, like intro, will be extented.

[Radogol]

Originally Posted by tomimt

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Kin...the_Throne_SCI
There's some info about the project. It appears to still be in production, or it was atleast in january. The article states, that the plot won't be changed, but some scenes, like intro, will be extented.

You do realize that the author of this remake can be found three posts above yours?

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Anakin Skywalker

Where did you read about the source codes being trashed?

From Al Lowe, actually. During a Skype interview somewhere. I've also heard it beforehand from other ex-Sierra employees.

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

Brandon, I somehow managed to miss the links the first time around. This remake looks absolutely beautiful and extremely authentic! Truly impressed. Will it be a 1-to-1 remake? (Hoping it is.)

Yes, as much a 1:1 remake as KQ1SCI was. That's the style I'm aiming for. Re-written dialogues, reimagined backgrounds, maybe fix some strange puzzles if need be or the context of some puzzles (like the woodcutter and his wife from KQ1). All in all it'll be the same, though.

[thesporkman]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGXW2hzUVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf09eXkZiNo

Whoa! Looks awesome!

[Valiento]

Umm, I'm glad that AGDI, POS, etc, don't have licenses to make "official" commercial KQ games... I don't really like what they have to the KQ games, rewriting them and all...

If a member of AGDI is whining now, well that's tough... If a group starts out stealing someone's IP for their own purpose, they shouldn't expect to get rewarded for it. They certainly shouldn't end up "owning it"... It smacks of 'hostile takeover'...

I really don't want AGDI's games to take over and replace the series... They need to get their egos out of the clouds, and show more respect to the originals. I'm not saying everyone at AGDI is this way, but this person mentioned looks like definitely sees his work as superior to the originals, and worthy of replacing them... How pretentious!

Any professional game made either needs to stay true to the old Sierra games (reference the originals/not rewrite them) or be a strict reboot, not some kind of half attempt to shoehorn something new into the story, while ignoring other aspects of the story (because team doesn't like aspects of the originals)...

There also seems to be a sense that every fan developers out there thinks they are better than every other fan developer and that alone should make them worthy of "owning the rights" to the series... Arrogance!

I pray, Telltalle won't go the route of the fan developers by trying to make things overly complicated (and ignoring series intent). Even a reboot at least needs to stick true to the KQ formula, and keep things simple. If not I'll never buy a KQ game from them again.

I never understood why some people try to link all the King's Quest baddies, because IMHO it's just silly. There are some real connections like family ties between Manannan and Mordack, but most of the connections were either invented by the writers of King's Quest Companion or fans. In similar manner Space Quest Companion tries to link baddies like Elmo Pug and Raemes T. Quirk to Sludge Vohaul.

Ya, while you are right about the Space Quest Companion, connecting all the villains together...the King's Quest Companion, never did anything of that sort.

It makes references to the Black Cloak Society, but they are nearly the same references made in the game (through letters at the end of the story), and that was Jane Jensen's idea. Like KQ6, only Shadrack and Alhazred are connected together, and Mordack's involvement seems limited at best (actually there is less mention of him than in the game). As mentioned in the game he was apparently used/manipulated to kidnap Cassima for Alhazred's scheme. Neither source confirms in any concrete manner that he is a member of the society (though it can be assumed by his connection to Shadrack and Alhazred being members).

The book never tried to connect Lolotte, Dahlia, or Malicia to any other villains though. There are certainly no references to them in relation to a BCS.

Beyond that Sierra On-line developed King's Questions game from the King's Quest Collection (by Josh Mandel of KQ1 remake, and other Sierra developers), and the Companion connected Hagatha to Mordack and Manannan as their sister. But she was never connected into any KQ6 material, or a BCS.

So really, ya the BCS is limited to only KQ6 material in the book, and it only really paraphrases what was said in KQ6 (doesn't add anything new really).

I think its safe to say though in some of the later games, starting with the KQ1 remake, KQ6, KQ7, etc, that Roberta wasn't so much concerned with the storylines but more the technical side of the games. It was the other main producers like Josh Mandel (with KQ1/King's Questions), Jane Jensen (KQ6), Lorelei Shannon (KQ7), etc, that pushed their own influence into the series directly, overshadowing any input Roberta might have had.

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Valiento

Umm, I'm glad that AGDI, POS, etc, don't have licenses to make "official" commercial KQ games... I don't really like what they have to the KQ games, rewriting them and all...

Fair enough.

If a member of AGDI is whining now, well that's tough... If a group starts out stealing someone's IP for their own purpose, they shouldn't expect to get rewarded for it. They certainly shouldn't end up "owning it"... It smacks of 'hostile takeover'...

AGDI didn't "steal the IP." They (as well as the TSL team) had an official fan license to develop their remakes. They had permission.

I really don't want AGDI's games to take over and replace the series... They need to get their egos out of the clouds, and show more respect to the originals. I'm not saying everyone at AGDI is this way, but this person mentioned looks like definitely sees his work as superior to the originals, and worthy of replacing them... How pretentious!

You're not being fair. That same person said that if AGDI did get a license to develop commercial remakes they'd add an option in each game to either play it as the original or with any added story elements. Nobody has their heads in the clouds. And we have the deepest respect for the originals. That's why we did these things to begin with.

No, my personal reservations about Telltale getting the license are for entirely different reasons that you've outlined below:

Any professional game made either needs to stay true to the old Sierra games (reference the originals/not rewrite them) or be a strict reboot, not some kind of half attempt to shoehorn something new into the story, while ignoring other aspects of the story (because team doesn't like aspects of the originals)...

You really think AGDI didn't like the originals? That's not why they added story elements. They just wanted to extend the playing experience for people who have already played the game. Some people thought they added to much, so when KQ3Redux came along we only added small amounts, a couple additional or extended puzzles, and kept the characters and storyline exactly the same.

Your tone is highly inflammatory and you don't even have all the correct information. If you don't like the remakes that's fine, but there's no reason to be so accusatory to one of the groups that kept King's Quest alive enough for ActiVision to consider and eventually authorize a company like Telltale to make a brand new one after all this time. I'm not saying AGDI are solely responsible, but they were definitively a contributing factor.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

I'm not saying AGDI are solely responsible, but they were definitively a contributing factor.

Definitely. Without the KQ1 remake I would have never bought the KQ-Collection or the SQ-Collection.

[Valiento]

AGDI didn't "steal the IP." They (as well as the TSL team) had an official fan license to develop their remakes. They had permission.

NO, I know they got a license, later. But as far as I know that was already after they had started making their games..., and after it came to the IP's owners attention.

No, I don't think they "don't like the older games". It just seems to me that whoever was "whining", that they didn't get control of the "IP", and now want to continue their own version of the story (instead of the old). They need to step back and look at the fact that every other fan developer wants to do the same thing...

POS for example, have said they wanted to buy the IP...

I don't want to see that either...

I feel slightly better with Telltale getting it, as they are a professional company, with industry experience, and hopefully can pull some of the older Sierra developers into the mix. But if they try to do the same thing as POS, AGDI, or even IA, I probably won't buy buying their products.

I don't dislike the 'remakes', I just don't want that to be the direction the series takes in the future. I don't want future 'official' sequels making references The Father, or to Valanice being the daughter of Manannan... I want things to be simple. I don't wanted convoluted explanations. If references are made, I want the references to conform to what occured in the originals.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Valiento

or even IA

Heh...you mean make a nearly 1:1 remake with almost no additional story elements save for a slightly extended intro and ending (and one easter egg scene?)

[Valiento]

Nah, IA is probably the least contrived of the remakes, and least amount of direct changes. But I don't want to see IA competing for taking over "the IP", either.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Valiento

Nah, IA is probably the least contrived of the remakes, and least amount of direct changes. But I don't want to see IA competing for taking over "the IP", either.

IA has no such aspirations. We are just a bunch of guys (and a gal or two) who like making the types of games that we ourselves would like to play.