What did you love best about KQ, what drew you in the most? Why do you think you fell in love with the series?
Hmmm... the music and story mostly.
The journey and soundtrack.
And deaths and dead ends. :P
The fact that we could talk about it forever, with zero variance in the conversation!
Bt
The blend of all sorts of fables into one story.
The strange pulling sensations.
Definitely the puzzles and the "who's who" of fairy tales.
Also, the fact that the name of the main character is Graham. An excellent choice for a name.
The prospect of one day covertly sabotaging licensed KQ revivals so that the license could be mine, all mine!
Quote from: Lambonius on July 15, 2012, 09:21:23 AM
The prospect of one day covertly sabotaging licensed KQ revivals so that the license could be mine, all mine!
Oh nononono, you have to fight me for it.
Mano a mano! To the death!
Quote from: Bludshot on July 13, 2012, 09:27:42 PM
The strange pulling sensations.
:highfive:
I think for me, it was a nostalgia thing at first, since I've been playing since I was a wee Quester. It just made logical sense to move on from Quest for the Crown to the next few.
If I had to point out a few specifics, though, I guess I would say that I choose to play it as an adult not
just for nostalgia, but also for the storylines, the meshed-up fairy tales and myths, and the characters. I mean seriously, the
characters are what keep the stories alive and consistent, so I think we all have a soft spot for them. :)
For me it's the nostalgia mainly. Nothing compares to playing KQ2 for me. It reminds me of being a young child and playing the game with my parents and helping them figure things out. Even now KQ2 is one of my favorite King's Quests for that very reason.
Outside of that, when playing the games originally, my favorite thing about them is my favorite thing about adventure games in general. It's the puzzles. Interacting with your surroundings, figuring out what's there, and using logic to trade and create tools to unlock new areas to explore. That is what I love about adventure games and why I don't like RPGs or FPS all that much. The interaction isn't there. The puzzles aren't there. And when they are, they're common sense like, "use the key to unlock the door." That's not a puzzle and it's not true exploration. All the adventure games had the puzzles, but King's Quest really had a lot of them.
The problem with King's Quest having a lot of puzzles is that most of them were absolute garbage, the series really set the bar for moon logic.
Actually now that I think about it how on Earth did you and your parents get through KQ2? That one is a pretty bad offender if I recall. The sugar cube nonsense comes to mind.
I believe it is possible to make it through the brambles without the sugar cube. It's just very, very difficult. I'm pretty sure we made it through that way (I was very young.) But I also remember them eventually getting the sugar cube. They managed that when I was out of the room. For all I know they coughed up the money for the hint line to figure it out.
To be perfectly honest I don't clearly remember them beating the game, though I'm pretty sure they did. The thing about adventure games is that it's supposed to take a while to figure out. It's a whole journey to immerse yourself in this new land and new forms of logic that are native to this place. I think that's something that's missing now a days with the internet having walkthroughs available the moment a game drops. Kids today (I sound so old) just don't have the patience for a game that will take forever to play and figure out. Doing a speed run of adventure games was only something I started doing after I'd beaten it a dozen times. It's all about taking your time. So really my parents and I beating the game never stood out to me. It was all about just playing the game. You invested your time, and lots of it, and if you didn't keep investing it there was a chance you'd never beat that game. And that was ok. It's the experience that mattered.
Okay I am going to take this dangerously close to an argument about the genre, just a heads up, and an advanced apology.
There is a difference between a challenging puzzle, and a puzzle that is so impossibly contrived for the purpose of padding out the game. If your parents didn't use the hotline, they probably went for the last ditch tactic of using every item in their inventory on everything in the game. If players have to resort to this then the puzzle is bad, it basically just wastes your time. New forms of logic doens't come into play if you have to put a bridle on a snake or throw a pie at a yeti. Because more often than not we solved those puzzles by dying a lot and using the process of elimination to find the right random item to use.
I agree, actually. Sometimes they did ask for a bit too much in the "new logic" department. The snake bridal thing is a key example. However I think that with the older games it fit slightly better because, again, it was a different experience. Time had no meaning because you played these games for months, in some cases years, before beating them. So trial and error was less arduous than now where you expect the plot to clip along and the action to happen.
Also, and I could be completely off on this, I think that the later games like KQ5 suffered more from the moon logic because the games were becoming more realistic. Instead of a pixelated yellow guy, you were playing a realistic King Graham, so now bizarre puzzles like yeti pies and honey emerald traps seemed even more out of place. The snake bridal is ridiculous, admittedly, but to me I always was just prone to shrug it off whereas I still shake my head over some of KQ5's ridiculousness.
So yeah, some of those puzzles were ridiculous, but I think they're more a relic from another time where they were still infuriating and stupid, but fit in slightly better.
Snake bridles aside I do cut the first two games a little slack since there weren't really any design rules in place, and even the third game had a lot less moon puzzles.
I remember IV having a hidden bridle on a deserted island (again with the bridles) and an ogre that was impossible to avoid sometimes, but all in all there was enough improvement for me to feel safe in calling BS on some of the puzzles in late adventure games.
I'm sorry, but the hidden bridle in KQ4 is WAY worse than any puzzle in KQ5, except for the stand-in-the-library-doing-nothing-and-just-wait "puzzle" in KQ5, which is possibly the worst puzzle in KQ history. The only true moon logic puzzle in KQ5 is the cheese in the wand machine, because it's pure process of elimination.
Pie-in-the-face is a classic trope, not illogical at all--the problem with that puzzle is that you have numerous opportunities to get rid of the pie (even using it to "solve" a previous puzzle) and the pie is the ONLY solution to get past the yeti. It's not the logic that's at fault, it's the nearly unavoidable dead-end situation for first time players who probably gave the pie to the eagle. The honey emeralds is a bit worse, but still has its own internal logic that fits into the fairy tale setting.
The reason the hidden bridle is so bad is because there is absolutely no indication it even exists unless you type a specific phrase while standing in a specific spot of the screen. There literally is no way to know to do that, because there are no previous instances in any KQ game where you have to so specifically position yourself and then type the phrase.
The waiting puzzle in KQ5 is terrible for similar reasons, in that it's a completely unprecedented non-gameplay solution. You literally can't be doing anything, or he won't appear--it went against everything that adventure gamers had conditioned themselves to do when playing an adventure game, let alone King's Quest.
Honey & emeralds/cheese-machine/snake-bridle are the top three worst puzzles as far as moon logic. Hidden bridle comes in very close to those three--it's saved because, while there's no indication that it exists, digging for buried treasure on a deserted island is at least something of a trope. It's at least on the same level as pieing a yeti--the IDEA of doing that exists in the world. Neither is a GOOD puzzle, but there's some kind of idea of it in there.
The honey & emeralds fails because I have NO idea where that idea has its basis (and if there is one, let me know because I'm really curious!), AND there's no indication that the gnomes exist at all, much less that they are in the forest and can help. Likewise the cheese & the snake-bridle, no indications, no tropes to build off of, just process of elimination.
The waiting in the library is also really bad because usually in an adventure game, things aren't happening because you've not yet done something, and that one is the exact opposite--a thing that only happens if you're not doing anything.
Also, man, the royal family is really lucky that Mordack & Mannanan grew up in a household that emphasized the importance of regularly scheduled naptiime, aren't they?
Now that this has become the worst puzzle in KQ thread. I feel the need to love/hate on KQ5 some more.
The cheese and the waiting are most definitely not the only nonsensical puzzles, although they are easily the worst offenders.
1. Using the genie on the witch. I know you could technically figure this one out logically if you had used the genie on yourself and died, but that is a really moronic way to give a player a clue, as it basically means Graham is using divine intuition to just know that giving a genie to a witch will trap her, especially since Graham's prior genie experience was of the benevolent wish granting variety. (In all fairness, KQ6 also makes Alexander pick the correct lamp to swap with the real one, when only the player actually knows what it looks like.)
2. Tambourine on the snake. Maybe this is some common snake trick, but I somehow doubt it. If the goal was to scare away the snake, couldn't we just throw inventory at it? It could have even been another chance to lose the pie!
3. Honey/emerald trap. Err...because elves like shiny things?
4. Playing the harp for the Ice lady. Because all of us were thinking "Oh, we have to warm her icy heart with music," not "I died, okay lets try the next item."
5. Playing the harp for the harpies. Err...because harpies like shiny things? Or is it because "harp" is in the word harpies? I really hope it is the first one.
Honorable mention: Getting captured by thugs in order to get some rope and ham. Since Graham would probably have gone there with the best of intentions and just sort of escapes a bad situation I can't really call this completely nonsensical, but man is it silly.
I actually think Paw's Let's Play of KQ5 on TGWTG.com covered a lot of what was wrong with the game; one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the fact that the game punishes your wanderlust. Trying to leave the desert? If you're just one screen south of where Serenia proper ends, you're scorpion bait. Trying to explore while you're in the ocean? Hope you enjoy getting up close and personal with sea serpents. And there's no indication that you'll get killed before it actually happens in either situation. That's what I disliked most--the trial and error gameplay.
However, I would be remiss not to mention the one puzzle in the entire KQ franchise that REALLY pissed me off--guessing that stupid gnome's name in KQ1.
I never found the yeti pie to be terribly nonsensical. The second I bought the custard pie I said, "A custard pie? I'm absolutely going to have to throw this at someone or something."
And there I am in a cave with a yeti coming at me and no weapons to speak of? I'm throwing the pie. It was the first thing I thought to do.
That doesn't mean I forgive such horrible puzzles as the waiting or -- worst of all -- the freaking cheese. Mostly because of this, KQ5 was the most disappointing game in the series for me. Not my least favorite, I don't think, but the one I thought most obviously failed to reach its full potential.
Other puzzles that should be mentioned include the gnome being given the spinning wheel for the marionette, and the tailor being given the golden needle. Yes, they both have a sort of logic to them: gnome + spinning wheel is a fairytale trope, and if you find a needle then you might think you could trade it with the tailor, who is presumably a kind of needle expert.
The problem is that both puzzles are weirdly backwards. You see the cloak and the marionette and ask if you can have them, and are denied. You have no idea how to get them. Once you find the spinning wheel and needle, and give them to their respective owners, only *then* do you learn that yes, the gnome lost his spinning wheel which, as it turns out, is valuable enough to trade for the marionette, because, now that you mention it, it can spin straw into gold. With the needle, it's only after giving it to the tailor that he tells you he 1) lost the needle and 2) happened to be walking by the inn a few days ago and must have lost it there. What annoys me about these is that the information is there - all the backstory needed for the player to solve these puzzles with a minimum of headache is there in the game. But you only get at it *after* you've solved the puzzle, which is ridiculous. In particular, the needle puzzle is absurd because you have no idea that you need to search the haystack: it looks a lot like a bit of the background. And yes, needles in haystacks is a well-known trope, but the existence of the needle isn't even acknowledged until you've already found it.
Also, I'd like to point out that I was completely stuck in KQ4 and 5 at the point where you're supposed to explore the sea and the desert. In KQ2, the sea formed a barrier to the west which was impassable; in KQ3, the desert performed an identical function. So naturally, when I find a sea or desert to the west, I assume the designer is telling me, "Don't bother going that way". It would have been nice if I'd been given a hint along the lines of "There are meant to be bandits in the desert; they might have something useful!"
The puzzles of those games honestly just have a lot to do with gaming and computers at the time that the games came out. In having this discussion 7,644 times in the past 10 years, it's a unique perspective we have at this point to go and look back and see how things could be changed, but games just weren't always like they are now. They really believed and used the saving and restoring method of game exploration. Granted, there were some dead ends that were stupid, like requiring an item from the beginning that you couldn't go back and get, but you were really meant to explore these games, not just cruise through them and move on to the next game.
I don't know about you, but in 1989... I didn't just get to have a large stockpile of games to go through. Space Quest III was all I had for months.... I had maybe another NES game to play, but that was it for a while.
We can acquire more games now, and often more cheaply. People tend to speed through things and move on far quicker today than 20 years ago.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on July 23, 2012, 02:48:47 PM
having this discussion 7,644 times in the past 10 years
Are you sure it wasn't 7645?
I have to admit that I don't remember the dead ends bothering me all that much when these games first came out. Sure, it was annoying to have to go back and replay a bunch of the game in order to progress, but I guess I just took that to be the nature of the genre.
I definitely don't have the patience that I used to - I'm not sure if it's because I'm older, that I have less free time, or that there are so many games to be played and so little free time. Probably some combination of all three.
The only real value I take from these conversations (aside from the occasional entertainment value) is a deeper consideration of what makes good puzzle design, and the way in which nowadays, gamers expect a bare minimum of intellectual involvement in a game. Now, I don't believe that puzzle solutions should be slap-in-the-face obvious like in Telltale games, but I would agree that there should be a certain logic in clearly telegraphing what the player is faced with. Deep exploration is amazing, but it is also true that sometimes things can be just too obscure or too well-hidden. Occasionally, it's an art issue--sometimes something isn't obvious enough on the screen itself. Often, it's that the puzzle itself needs a rethink. It's something I try to keep in mind when thinking about the puzzle design of the games that I work on, even if crafting puzzles is not my specific task.
I thought it was pretty obvious that the needle belonged to the tailor. After all, that innkeeper had no sense of fashion.
/sarcasm
Lamb, same here--I enjoy these as there's usually at least one new perspective in them from which we can get new ideas or opinions about game design. For example, I've never really gotten into a discussion about why the 'wait in the library' puzzle is so lacking before. So I got that out of this, some more thoughts on that sort of puzzle!
At this point, it's those discussions I'm more interested in--puzzles like the yeti pie, honey emeralds, etc, have been talked about to death by now :)
Quote from: KatieHal on July 23, 2012, 07:47:58 PMAt this point, it's those discussions I'm more interested in--puzzles like the yeti pie, honey emeralds, etc, have been talked about to death by now :)
Well now I feel a little guilty. :P
Maybe we should find the ultimate done-to-death topic. A MOE thread that also complains about some of its bad puzzles.
Noooooooo!!!
I haven't actually played MoE, also, so I can only participate so much in that one.
And don't feel bad! The rehashed subjects lead to the newer stuff :)
Quote from: KatieHal on July 21, 2012, 10:25:54 AM
Also, man, the royal family is really lucky that Mordack & Mannanan grew up in a household that emphasized the importance of regularly scheduled naptiime, aren't they?
THIS! Also, if the player is familiar with King's Quest III, he will be aware that Manannan goes to sleep every 25 minutes and might expect Mordack to do the same. It's far-fetched, but it's the only reason I can come up with for why waiting is a reasonable idea.
Quote from: darthkiwi on July 24, 2012, 01:12:27 AM
Quote from: KatieHal on July 21, 2012, 10:25:54 AM
Also, man, the royal family is really lucky that Mordack & Mannanan grew up in a household that emphasized the importance of regularly scheduled naptiime, aren't they?
THIS! Also, if the player is familiar with King's Quest III, he will be aware that Manannan goes to sleep every 25 minutes and might expect Mordack to do the same.
:rofl:
I love naptime. Maybe that's what I REALLY love best about King's Quest. :P
Okay time for a nap roster
1. Mannanan
2. Mordack
3. That desert bandit
4. Various KQ7 trolls
5. That crystal dragon maybe? Has anyone played KQ7 recently to know?
6. Wow, KQ7 has a lot of sleeping, there is also that mystical talking rock you have to wake up.
7. On that note, and this might be cheating, but could Valanice count since she pioneers Inception her last chapter?
8. Dracula?
9. The clam on the isle of Wonder
10. Is the dragon from the original KQ sleeping when you first enter the cave?
11. The KQ giant who gets tired of chasing you and just sort of passes out
KQ7 does have a lot of sleeping...and hell, we could make a crying roster at least as long as that list with just instances from KQ7 alone.
Quote from: Bludshot on July 24, 2012, 09:27:03 AM
Okay time for a nap roster
1. Mannanan
2. Mordack
3. That desert bandit
4. Various KQ7 trolls
5. That crystal dragon maybe? Has anyone played KQ7 recently to know?
6. Wow, KQ7 has a lot of sleeping, there is also that mystical talking rock you have to wake up.
7. On that note, and this might be cheating, but could Valanice count since she pioneers Inception her last chapter?
8. Dracula?
9. The clam on the isle of Wonder
10. Is the dragon from the original KQ sleeping when you first enter the cave?
11. The KQ giant who gets tired of chasing you and just sort of passes out
KQ1 dragon just walks around breathing fire, but:
12. Sleeping powder in KQ3
13. Lolotte sleeps in her bed
Well, at least Lolotte was sleeping during the night, when most people sleep.
And Dracula, too, was sleeping during the day--when most vampires sleep. :) Actually, Dracula's sleeping status kinda depends on what mythology you're going off of. In some, vampires go outright comatose during the day and have no control over it. Some don't need sleep at all, in which case yeah, Drac was taking a nap.
And in the original story Dracula, he could actually walk around in daylight without dying or burning, he was just weaker in the day was all.
Quote from: KatieHal on July 24, 2012, 01:14:49 PM
And in the original story Dracula, he could actually walk around in daylight without dying or burning, he was just weaker in the day was all.
He also sparkled, right?
:argue: :wall: :evil: :furious: :bomb:
I do recall that Not-Dracula from the AGD remake shows up in the daylight. But they clearly made a lore mistake by not having him sparkle.
(Posted on: July 24, 2012, 04:10:25 PM)
Quote from: drusain on July 24, 2012, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on July 24, 2012, 09:27:03 AM
Okay time for a nap roster
1. Mannanan
2. Mordack
3. That desert bandit
4. Various KQ7 trolls
5. That crystal dragon maybe? Has anyone played KQ7 recently to know?
6. Wow, KQ7 has a lot of sleeping, there is also that mystical talking rock you have to wake up.
7. On that note, and this might be cheating, but could Valanice count since she pioneers Inception her last chapter?
8. Dracula?
9. The clam on the isle of Wonder
10. Is the dragon from the original KQ sleeping when you first enter the cave?
11. The KQ giant who gets tired of chasing you and just sort of passes out
KQ1 dragon just walks around breathing fire, but:
12. Sleeping powder in KQ3
13. Lolotte sleeps in her bed
So that is at least one nap in every KQ, except MOE I think unless you count the stonification of humanity.
Quote from: Lambonius on July 24, 2012, 01:20:19 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on July 24, 2012, 01:14:49 PM
And in the original story Dracula, he could actually walk around in daylight without dying or burning, he was just weaker in the day was all.
He also sparkled, right?
:highfive:
Naps and crying. Awesome. Let's count the crying, shall we?
1. KQI: King Edward dies, so I'm sure there was some crying. It even says so in the Companion that Graham cries when the King passes.
2. KQII: Hmmmm. Let's say Valanice cries when Graham rescues her.
3. KQIII: The royal parents for sure lose it when Alexander returns home.
4. KQIV: Rosella in the throne room.
5. KQV: The reunion between the royal family
6. KQVI: Cassima cries in the Companion when she and Alexander are talking through the wall.
7. KQVII: Ugggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh. The comb. 'Nuff said.
I've never played MoE before, so someone else can fill in that blank.
Oh man I forgot about the crying comb. Ugh she solves at least two of her problems through her automated crying procedure, such a bizarre solution.
*cringe* I hadn't thought of it in those terms before, Bludshot. Gah! I hated that, too.
In KQ5, the Weeping Willow is, naturally, weeping.
In TSL Alexander/Rosella do a lot of napping and there's a crying banshee too.
This really is showing the underlying problem with a fake monarchy: it creates too many situations of napping and crying.
Quote from: drusain on July 25, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
This really is showing the underlying problem with a fake monarchy: it creates too many situations of napping and crying.
And herein we stumble upon the Deep Rooted Symbolism of the King's Quest game: monarchies are all corrupt and in the end, will make everyone cry and fall into restless slumber. :P We should like, write books on what we learn about political affairs from Roberta Williams.
Quote from: drusain on July 25, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
In TSL Alexander/Rosella do a lot of napping and there's a crying banshee too.
This really is showing the underlying problem with a fake monarchy: it creates too many situations of napping and crying.
I have only played the first two episodes but given the general moodiness of it, I'm sure TSL is (unofficially) dominating the crying and napping contest.
Quote from: darthkiwi on July 23, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
Other puzzles that should be mentioned include the gnome being given the spinning wheel for the marionette, and the tailor being given the golden needle. Yes, they both have a sort of logic to them: gnome + spinning wheel is a fairytale trope, and if you find a needle then you might think you could trade it with the tailor, who is presumably a kind of needle expert.
If you talked to the tailor, he mentioned that he'd been at the inn not long ago ("That innkeeper has no scruples at
all!") and I think I recall the gnome saying something about the witch too. Those are probably the most solidly given clues in the entirety of KQ5. :P
Haha, we've got some napping yes--two comatose kids and one queen who takes a big nap for an episode or two. Hmm...there is the crying banshee, I'm trying to recall if anyone else is actively crying ever...
Quote from: crayauchtin on July 25, 2012, 12:04:47 PMIf you talked to the tailor, he mentioned that he'd been at the inn not long ago ("That innkeeper has no scruples at all!") and I think I recall the gnome saying something about the witch too. Those are probably the most solidly given clues in the entirety of KQ5. :P
Well to be fair, for some reason I felt perfectly natural raising that crystal shard He-Man style in front of those Stone Cobras. I don't know why, it makes no sense, but somehow fantasy games must have rewired my brain into thinking that crystals are OBVIOUSLY for cobra lightning reflection.
Quote from: Haids1987 on July 25, 2012, 09:05:30 AM
Let's count the crying, shall we?...
I've never played MoE before, so someone else can fill in that blank.
There is a crying little girl in MoE, although when she starts speaking she sounds less distressed and more like a Charlie Brown character. OTOH, no crying at any other point. No real emotion at any other point, for that matter (unless you count mild annoyance from some of the NPCs if you get bored and walk away from them in mid-conversation).
That little girl also takes the everyone you love is a rock and your brother is dead thing pretty well, well enough to give away her family's life savings so Connor can give it to talking trees and buy knock off Sun Tzu statuettes.
Well, she DID follow her brother through a portal to Hell, somehow avoided the shadow bane on the other side, bypassed a locked gate, and avoided throngs of heavily-armed skeletons while still retaining a sense of direction accurate enough to find her way back without needing help...I'm telling you, that girl is going places.
Damn. Forget Connor, we should be making HER the next ruler of Daventry!
No, that's not a TSL spoiler or anything, just that Conor is often suggested as being a likely heir to Graham's throne.
Yeah Graham bumbled his dynasty at least four times. Losing your heir when he was just an infant and letting a dragon take the other one was bad enough, but then he gets them back and marries them off to far away kingdoms he didn't even know about until his kids told him about them (I guess he met Cassima five minutes before Alexander did but you get the idea).
So yeah, pretty much leaves Connor and that woodcutter from the first game.
Quote from: Bludshot on July 26, 2012, 02:39:38 PM
So yeah, pretty much leaves Connor and that woodcutter from the first game.
He and his wife would get really, really fat if they were monarchs.
OMG. The woodcutter would be the WORST ruler.
He's a woodcutter, right? So he works in woods. And yet he couldn't find a magic bowl IN THE WOODS. Lying on the freaking ground! After she got her strength back, you KNOW his wife was like "Yeah, I'm asking the king for a divorce. You are a complete mess."
Anyways...I don't think Gwennie should be the ruler. She's clearly the most epic adventurer of ANY Sierra game. We need a spinoff series starring her.
Also doesn't that woodcutter know the royal carrot patch is completely unguarded? Sure it might get him bad karma points but his wife was dying.
Gwennie could have a spinoff where she challanges Lord Azrael for her brother's soul, doesn't matter where he is, she ALWAYS gets to where she means to go.
Haha, what an awesome superpower: always get where you mean to go. It sounds like something from Xanth. :)
QuoteIf you talked to the tailor, he mentioned that he'd been at the inn not long ago ("That innkeeper has no scruples at all!") and I think I recall the gnome saying something about the witch too. Those are probably the most solidly given clues in the entirety of KQ5.
Actually, no: I replayed the game a few days ago (which is why I remembered those puzzles) and actually the "That inkeeper has no scruples" line and the gnome mentioning the witch line are only possible to hear
after you've solved the puzzles. That's precisely my complaint, you see: that the clues to those puzzles are actually in the game, but that they're only accessible
after you've already finished the puzzle!
Very silly.
Quote from: crayauchtin on July 26, 2012, 08:43:47 PM
OMG. The woodcutter would be the WORST ruler.
He's a woodcutter, right? So he works in woods. And yet he couldn't find a magic bowl IN THE WOODS. Lying on the freaking ground! After she got her strength back, you KNOW his wife was like "Yeah, I'm asking the king for a divorce. You are a complete mess."
Anyways...I don't think Gwennie should be the ruler. She's clearly the most epic adventurer of ANY Sierra game. We need a spinoff series starring her.
Actually, I think according to the original KQ1, the woodcutter is dead. As I recall, when Graham gives them the bowl of soup, he says something like, "Now we can have one last meal!" I always imagine Graham thinking, "I wonder if I should tell them they can magically refill that bowl whenever they want? Nah, they'll figure it out!" And then leaving them to their fates and going on to continue looting treasure from the people of Daventry. So yeah. Woodcutter is definitely dead.
I'm not dead yet!
http://youtu.be/Zd5Qgs4sLwE?t=2m50s - SCI Version
http://youtu.be/w2-uMKgRGY8?t=4m41s - AGI
Bt
Gwennie is KQ's version of Hit Girl.
Oh my god, in the original KQ1 the woodcutter and his wife are GIANTS compared to Graham!
Quote from: KatieHal on July 28, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Oh my god, in the original KQ1 the woodcutter and his wife are GIANTS compared to Graham!
Graham suffers from Dwarfism.
Quote from: Damar on July 27, 2012, 07:35:56 PM
Actually, I think according to the original KQ1, the woodcutter is dead. As I recall, when Graham gives them the bowl of soup, he says something like, "Now we can have one last meal!" I always imagine Graham thinking, "I wonder if I should tell them they can magically refill that bowl whenever they want? Nah, they'll figure it out!" And then leaving them to their fates and going on to continue looting treasure from the people of Daventry. So yeah. Woodcutter is definitely dead.
Actually, you're supposed to give them the bowl and
then fill it up so they know how it works, thus giving you the maximum score. That's the thing with the first game--there were multiple ways to solve a puzzle. Sure, you can give the filled-up bowl to the woodcutter so he can have his last meal, stab the goat, bribe the troll, knife the dragon, kill the giant, etc. but technically the "correct" solutions (as in, not leaving bodies wherever you go) are what is considered canon.
I had no idea you could kill the goat until I saw Paw do it on the NES version. Hilarious.
Quote from: Bludshot on July 28, 2012, 04:49:04 PM
I had no idea you could kill the goat until I saw Paw do it on the NES version. Hilarious.
:o I had no idea until reading this sentence.
I learn new things about these games all the time. Last week I found out that Alexander can actually poof into an aardvark.
Quote from: Bludshot on July 29, 2012, 08:42:22 PM
I learn new things about these games all the time. Last week I found out that Alexander can actually poof into an aardvark.
Wee wee! Wee wee!
Is that what he's supposed to be? I thought he was just some kind of weird dinosaur creature.
Just a guess based on the bookkeeper's comment about the wizard, it was a brief clip.
How do you even do that?
Like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BN8_cUuSaSU#t=540s)
I don't think it's any specific creature -- Ali was talking about the wizard, I don't think it connects to the curse on the Beast at all. After all, the Beast isn't really representing any specific creature. And aardvark's do not have those spines on their backs, which are pretty prominent. :P
Oh so it is based on the curse. The clip I saw was in the pawn shop so I assumed it had something to do with improper map use.
I had no idea the beast thing was actually timed.
It's entertaining, isn't it? Poor Alex.
And now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
Didn't Beast want him to be a slave? What is a Stegosaurus going to accomplish?
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on July 31, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
And now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
GI JOE!!! American heroooooooooo!
Quote from: Bludshot on July 31, 2012, 02:36:39 PM
Didn't Beast want him to be a slave? What is a Stegosaurus going to accomplish?
Being a Stegosaurus, of course! You thought they were all extinct, but Beast proved you entirely wrong! I mean, who
wouldn't want their very own dinosaur?
I'd want a Drago or a Riding Saurus.
Anyone know what those two are from respectfully? *smirk*
Quote from: Bludshot on July 31, 2012, 02:36:39 PM
Didn't Beast want him to be a slave? What is a Stegosaurus going to accomplish?
The Beast *wants* him to lift the curse, that's why he warns him that he's going to turn into a weird creature stegosaurus thing if he doesn't hurry.
:pokerface:
I thought you were fun, Cray. (<-----Read that in a whiny voice.:yes:)
That doesn't sound right at all Cray, clearly the Isle of the Beast was intended to be the future location of Jurassic Park.
Quote from: Bludshot on July 29, 2012, 08:42:22 PM
I learn new things about these games all the time. Last week I found out that Alexander can actually poof into an aardvark.
Yesterday, I learned that the KQ2 parser reacts the same whether you type in "talk to woman" or "talk to b****."
Okay, fine, so I already knew about it--yesterday was just the first time I tested the theory. KQ2's parser is rather sexist in hindsight...
Wow, that is pretty messed up.
It is. I'd heard about this before--and IIRC, it accepts some even LESS flattering terms as well. Things that would get a company into some serious trouble if it happened today.
That is actually where my mind went first, if it hadn't been made at a time before blogs, or heck, even the public scrutiny following Mortal Kombat, this would've been a PR nightmare.
It kind of reminds me of the fact that you can kill children in the first two Fallouts, not that you would ever need to, but the ability is there, complete with the same cartoony/gorey deaths the everything else gets.
I don't know if I can explain myself very well but as I said before... with the advent of the modern KQs (5-7) the games were elevated to the next level.
Point and clicks stopped being just alternate puzzle games with perhaps witty dialog put in but started to be strong stories where the puzzles started to play a narrative role rather then just a gameplay one. Your character is always a witty and kind hearted fellow who prefers to use their brains instead of brawn to solve their problems (ignoring a few instances where brute force did happen).
Kings Quest sort of to me represents the evolution and perfection of the point and click genre as a whole. Even Kings Quest 7 a game that was sometimes reviled by some of the fans I consider a underrated game with great pacing, lore, and atmosphere.
Kings Quest 6, Broken Sword, and Gabriel Knight 2 were the games that made me believe that point and clicks / Graphical Adventures were more then just about puzzles. It was about story, setting, and plot where the puzzles are there to assist in making any of these settings shine.
In fact I want to make a point and click and Kings Quest is my inspiration. Admittingly I failed to produce anything or even get on track to do anything with this (You have no idea how hard it is to actually find out how to make one unless you are already a computer programmer or want to use Adventure game maker, which I don't want to use)... but it shows how much I revere this series.
As well the characters. I absolutely love Alexander and Valanice.
Alexander is MY perfect protagonist that I'd like to play in a game. He is soft spoken, kind hearted, studious, and witty. He prefers to solve issues with his mind rather then his muscles and he is more then willing to face death itself if it means he can protect those he loves.
Valanice is my second favorite from the series. She isn't as capable as the other character having getting along in the years, but she is strong of heart. Even when struggling on with nothing but the love she feels for her family she choses to help others. She is so kind and polite and I love to listen to her speak to others with her soothing motherly voice.
-Heck I even consider her the REAL hero of KQ7... but I won't give more spoilers.
Why don't you like AGS?
Quote from: Deloria on August 05, 2012, 04:07:37 AM
Why don't you like AGS?
Ignoring certain quality issues that are likely skill (For example weird walking)
I want to change up the interactions but I found I couldn't do that. They seemed to be set in stone.
The ultimate goal was to eventually move up into making this game even if I had to take baby steps with limited success. I didn't expect I'd get no results or functional aid. I had a programmer, not here and amateur, once try to help me and then break down and say "I don't know what I am doing".
I've used it a little but not to the point where I can make my own game. But it seems very useful: I'm most drawn by the fact that it is specifically designed for making adventure games. It deals with walk boxes, animations, conversations and walking behind objects; if you programmed your own engine you'd have to deal with all that stuff, but here it's ready straight out of the box (or zip file, I guess).
Also, what's the problem with the walking? Are you not happy with the way it animates? I can't say it's ever bothered me but then I've always been pretty absorbed in the game's story when I play an AGS game so it doesn't really come up.
And I'm pretty sure you can be flexible with the icons. "Time, Gentlemen, Please" features an extra verb icon where you can use your companion on something (eg. hold open doors, punch people...) So maybe look into that again. Your coder friend might have been flummoxed by it because it's an unfamiliar system which assumes you know which bit does what.