I was replaying the episode when something occured to me...
[spoiler]The letter Hagatha sent to Alhazred talked about how important it was that Alhazred not kill Alexander and that he has to exercise caution and restraint in dealing with him, yet right before Alexander was about to reveal Cassima to be Shamir in disguse at the wedding, Alhazred explicitly yells "KILL HIM! KILL HIM NOW!" to Saladin. So.... did he just care more about his own interests than the black cloak society?[/spoiler]
At that point he probably thought it was a matter of
[spoiler]Either kill Alexander or I'll end up dead myself. Self-preservation tends to trump pretty much everything else.[/spoiler]
Listen again to what Shamir says about the second letter. It arrived after....
But, actually, now that I think about it even more... it has to be that
[spoiler]Alhazred really didn't care much for the black cloak society. He specifically sent out his genie to kill Alexander on multiple occasions, and even that one time when the genie saw Alexander "die", Alhazred took it as great news as he no longer posed a threat to ruining his wedding...[/spoiler]
Edit: Saw Cez's post. Gonna go replay the scene....
Cez makes an excellent point as well, I forgot about that part.
Ahhh. That clears that up.
How did Shamir know that it arrived at that point in time? Safe to assume he used genie magic? :P
[spoiler]Alhazred was lazy - probably always had Shamir pick up the mail for him.[/spoiler]
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Who says that was a guarantee? The chickens?
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Actually, I would call that plotline explicit, since it's directly stated in the manual that Manannan kills all his slaves when they turn 18. :)
(Posted on: September 19, 2010, 04:32:20 AM)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Who says that was a guarantee? The chickens?
You actually die because of this in the game if you take too long to escape Manannan.
I didn't even know you could die that way in KQ3, I just thought you missed the boat and got a game over.
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
But since Alexander is here, it means he never did and it means it never happened -- As the storyline goes, he never turned 18 under Manannan's wing. So we don't know if he would have killed him once he turned 18.
We are playing based on that idea, since in this timeline, Manannan never killed Alexander.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 02:42:46 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
But since Alexander is here, it means he never did and it means it never happened -- As the storyline goes, he never turned 18 under Manannan's wing. So we don't know if he would have killed him once he turned 18.
We are playing based on that idea, since in this timeline, Manannan never killed Alexander.
It was made obvious in the manuals and other official source related material that he had a habit of not letting boys live past their 18th birthday. I truly doubt he would've given Alex a big happy birthday....And if he had no intention of killing Alex, that makes Alex's leaving a little pointless, at least from his POV as a character.
And then you have Mordack, who threatens to feed Graham's family to Manny one by one unless Alex reveals how to reverse the spell on Manny.
That being said Alexander's death on his 18th birthday was the factor controlling and defining and looming over Alexander in KQ3 and was brought up in all the later games synopses as you might remember?
It was the whole entire purpose of the short story in the manual in KQ3 as well.
On another note, Abdul Alhazred attempted to have Alexander killed on multiple occasions. Of course Shamir never tried to do it directly (except in the end battle).
Yes..
[spoiler]And as shown in the final cutscene, from Alexander's perspective this was still the case. Manannan would have killed him when he turned 18. But we are playing with the idea that Manannan had different intentions, unknown to Alexander and what he believed would have happened. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]Also, the story about Persephone says Nightshade ONLY blooms when she is with the Lord of the Dead....
When Alexander comes to the Green Isles, and Land of the Dead, nightshade is in bloom. Where is Persephone? I didn't notice her in the Realm of the Dead...
Also, the Arch Druid in KQ6 tells Alex that the Lord of the Dead was once a mortal, thousands of years ago, and that he was left "mateless; robbed of sleep, robbed of movement, robbed of companionship."
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Considering King's Quest has had two different Lord of Deaths (KQ6 and MoE), the story doesn't necessarily speak of the one we met in KQ6.
Considering it did, Persephone could have still been down there. Alexander could have not met her and that didn't mean she wasn't down there somewhere.
As for what the Arch Druid says about the KQ6 Lord of Death, what he was many years ago when he was turned into the Lord of Death could have changed through the thousand of years. Just because Persephone was down there, doesn't mean she was his companion --Truly not by will [/spoiler]
Quote from: Baggins on September 19, 2010, 02:52:06 AM
On another note, Abdul Alhazred attempted to have Alexander killed on multiple occasions. Of course Shamir never tried to do it directly (except in the end battle).
[spoiler]He did, and we haven't said otherwise. He never got the letter Hagatha sent him. [/spoiler]
The artwork in the book is of the chair bound Lord of the Dead isn't it? Sure looks like him.
Quote from: Baggins on September 19, 2010, 04:02:55 AM
The artwork in the book is of the chair bound Lord of the Dead isn't it?
[spoiler]It does, but again, there has been different interpretations of this guy through the story of KQ. Katie dealt more with this angle of the story. Persephone being down there doesn't contradict anything said in KQ6 about him. He could have forced a woman to be there against her will, but again, that doesn't mean she was his companion, or made him less lonely. All the contrary, actually. [/spoiler]
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 03:38:17 AM
[spoiler]Also, the story about Persephone says Nightshade ONLY blooms when she is with the Lord of the Dead....
When Alexander comes to the Green Isles, and Land of the Dead, nightshade is in bloom. Where is Persephone? I didn't notice her in the Realm of the Dead...
Also, the Arch Druid in KQ6 tells Alex that the Lord of the Dead was once a mortal, thousands of years ago, and that he was left "mateless; robbed of sleep, robbed of movement, robbed of companionship."
[/spoiler]
I'm sorry for jumping in, but since you're talking about...well, ^that ^, I just wanted to ask something related to it that i just thought of:
[spoiler]Persephone's story says that in the spring and summer, persephone is with her mother. I know that in the myths this story is based on, Persephone's mother is Ceres. Ceres shows up in KQ7 (where is it obviously spring or summer), but Persephone is never seen or even hinted at. How does this work with the TSL story? ???[/spoiler]
I'll let Katie take care of the Persephone thing, since she's the expert in that story :)
I know at points we did talk of Ceres from KQ7. But I'll let her handle it, since she finalized that particular story.
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Who says that was a guarantee? The chickens?
Who are you going to trust? A dark wizard who is infamous for killing all of his slaves, or the chickens? :P
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 04:24:47 AM
I'll let Katie take care of the Persephone thing, since she's the expert in that story :)
I know at points we did talk of Ceres from KQ7. But I'll let her handle it, since she finalized that particular story.
Would it be too late to tie-in a KQ7 reference? I find this particular element of the story to not stand out as a crucial piece of the story, but for those who'd rather argue semantics, it may be wise, if not advised.
I found the main story to be an interesting twist. All of the speculation we have considered in the past few months have accumulated as a typical foresight. I wasn't that surprised by what was revealed, but I also wasn't disappointed. That ending really got me on the edge. :o
Quote from: Fierce Deity on September 19, 2010, 05:34:11 AM
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
What about Mananan killing Alexander if he stepped out of line, and the implicit plotline of him killing Alexander anyway once he turned 18?
Who says that was a guarantee? The chickens?
Who are you going to trust? A dark wizard who is infamous for killing all of his slaves, or the chickens? :P
I think it's a toss-up :P
The chickens. Always trust the chickens! ...wait, that's not right...
I'm just gonna shove everything under a spoiler cut here....
[spoiler]The Lord of the Dead pictured in the book is the one from KQ6, yes. We didn't see Persephone there with him, but there wasn't exactly a throne for the queen there next to him was there? Think about it--some guy has you kidnapped, tricks you into marrying him, and then even when you get rescued you have to stay with him for half the year in his creepy undead world? Yeah, I'd stay as far away from his for as often as possible too while I was forced to stay there! And since he's bound to that chair, it's not like he can do much about it.
As for Persephone's mother, etc, this is one of the tricky parts of there being a number of belief systems shown in the KQ world (and that dates back to long before our game!). You have people in different parts of the world (or worlds, if you go in for that theory) who believe different things but often use the same name for them. Who the Druids on the Isle of Mist refer to as Mother Nature may not be Ceres from KQ7.
That said, nothing in either KQ7 nor in the story about Nightshade says that Persephone wasn't Ceres' daughter; we never heard in KQ7 anything about her children, or possible lack thereof.
[/spoiler]
The Alex question I think we covered clearly enough. I hope this helps with the Persephone/Ceres question!
Correct me if I'm wrong I think KQ6 talks about "Mother Earth", while KQ7 refers to Ceres as "Mother Nature".
Quote from: Baggins on September 19, 2010, 11:31:43 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong I think KQ6 talks about "Mother Earth", while KQ7 refers to Ceres as "Mother Nature".
I don't recall any references to Earth in that religious sense in KQ6.
The only religious mentions I heard were Alex saying 'Thank the Heavens' and the Fates being mentioned.
DMD, its in the Guidebook to Land of the Green Isles.
I don't know off the top of my head, but in TSL, they refer to her/it by a few different titles, but you'll see that in a later episode.
[spoiler]Also, bear in mind that Mordack was supposedly going to feed Alexander and family to Manannan the cat. Mannanan, by that time, knew about the importance of Alexander as one of the children of prophecy and therefore would not kill him. Mordack likely also knew of the plot to keep Alexander alive. It must have been an idle threat in King's Quest 5 because Mannanan would certainly not eat Alexander because of the grand plot of the Black Cloak Society.[/spoiler]
Revenge is a powerful motivator.
[spoiler]Mordack never seemed like the most levelheaded guy and at that point Manannan was a cat, and likely his affiliation with the Black Cloaks wasn't foremost on his mind. You could even make the argument that Mordack and Manannan had essentially gone rogue when it came to the actions in KQ5. Ironically, Graham taking Mordack out may have been doing the leader of the Black Cloaks a favor by removing a loose cannon. Also, it's possible that while Shadrack or whoever wants Alex alive, Alex could still be expendable. If they can get what they want from Rosella as well as Alexander, then the death of one twin, while potentially a problem, wouldn't totally derail the plan because they still have the other. Also, while Manannan is really playing up the "I had plans for you, Alexander" thing, I think it's possible that he's messing with Alexander's head as well. Maybe it would have been good to keep Alex alive, but whether Manannan really planned on following those orders (particularly if Alex is technically expendable as long as they have Rosella) is debatable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Also, you gotta wonder--Mordack had them at his mercy for quite some time (in our timeline, quite a while), and he made these great threats, but he never carried out any of them. Heck, he didn't seem to ever actually even hurt any of the Royal Family members that he had, just shrink them and threaten them![/spoiler]
[spoiler]Yep, my point exactly. I don't think Mordack intended to kill the Royal family. Things are not always at they seem. One thing that would come to mind and this is just a guess: If Alexander is capable of making dreams come to life, I would think that Manannan would be after a way to use him to bring Mordack back to life. Heck, if my brother was dead and there was a way to bring him back I would look into it - well, maybe not, but Manannan seems like the kind of guy that would.[/spoiler]
Quote from: KatieHal on September 19, 2010, 09:35:56 AMThe Alex question I think we covered clearly enough. I hope this helps with the Persephone/Ceres question!
I'm sorry, but I think I'm even more confused now. :-\ It seems almost like you're changing facts from the official games to fit your story and coming up with really complex reasons why your story and the older games don't quite match up. It's more like coming up with theories about how the story could work instead of actually saying how the story works...[spoiler]I mean, having Ceres and Persephone exist in the same universe and yet have Persephone not be her daughter is like having Cupid and Venus exist in the same universe, yet not making Cupid Venus' son. I'd think Graham would be really puzzled by Persephone's story, since he probably knows his son saw The Lord of the Dead and his wife saw Ceres, but neither of them saw Persephone. :/[/spoiler]
BTW, something else that I just thought of:
[spoiler]The story about Persephone says that the nightshade stole her immortality. Why did the Lord of the Dead steal her immortality if he was immortal himself and wanted a wife? Did he want to see her grow old and die? :o Also, if the Lord of the Dead has been around for thousands of years and Persephone's immortality was stolen, how could she still be alive in the present time?[/spoiler]
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 03:52:16 PM
[spoiler]I mean, having Ceres and Persephone exist in the same universe and yet have Persephone not be her daughter is like having Cupid and Venus exist in the same universe, yet not making Cupid Venus' son. I'd think Graham would be really puzzled by Persephone's story, since he probably knows his son saw The Lord of the Dead and his wife saw Ceres, but neither of them saw Persephone. :/[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Like Katie had said before, there's no telling that Persephone wasn't in the Underworld when Alex was there. She was a prisoner after all, she probably wouldn't want to be standing next to her captor for all eternity. Maybe she was being withheld in a cell of some sort. She didn't willingly marry the Lord of the Dead, she was kidnapped. [/spoiler]
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 03:52:16 PM
BTW, something else that I just thought of:
[spoiler]The story about Persephone says that the nightshade stole her immortality. Why did the Lord of the Dead steal her immortality if he was immortal himself and wanted a wife? Did he want to see her grow old and die? :o Also, if the Lord of the Dead has been around for thousands of years and Persephone's immortality was stolen, how could she still be alive in the present time?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]The Lord of the Dead didn't steal her immortality for himself. He stole it so that she could be killed and taken into the Underworld. You can't go to the afterlife if you're not dead. So if she was immortal in the land of the living, the Lord of the Dead would have needed her to become mortal, so he could kill her, and then keep her in the Underworld. Once Persephone was brought to the Underworld, she became "immortal" again, in the sense that she would be living in the afterlife. You can't die, once you're already dead. So, she isn't "alive" in the present time, she's dead in the present time, but can travel between Ceres and the Lord of the Underworld when the seasons change.[/spoiler]
Ahh, ancient mythology. Gotta love it. ::)
Quote from: Fierce Deity on September 19, 2010, 06:25:37 PM
[spoiler]Like Katie had said before, there's no telling that Persephone wasn't in the Underworld when Alex was there. She was a prisoner after all, she probably wouldn't want to be standing next to her captor for all eternity. Maybe she was being withheld in a cell of some sort. She didn't willingly marry the Lord of the Dead, she was kidnapped. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]If Persephone really
was in the Underworld but locked in a cell or hiding somewhere in the Land of the Dead, I think it would make a lot more sense if the story made it clear that she often stayed away from her husband instead of leaving a plothole like this unpatched. Of course, that's just imho.[/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]The Lord of the Dead didn't steal her immortality for himself. He stole it so that she could be killed and taken into the Underworld. You can't go to the afterlife if you're not dead.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]But the story itself says that the lord of the dead made the nightshade so that it
wouldn't kill Persephone, but just "take her breath away". I don't think Persephone is killed at all in the original myth. And I never said that the lord of the dead wanted to steal her immortality for himself either. Besides, Alexander went to the afterlife (sort of), and
he wasn't dead.[/spoiler]
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 06:55:30 PM
[spoiler]If Persephone really was in the Underworld but locked in a cell or hiding somewhere in the Land of the Dead, I think it would make a lot more sense if the story made it clear that she often stayed away from her husband instead of leaving a plothole like this unpatched. Of course, that's just imho.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]It's not really a plothole, it's a part of the myth. Persephone never really loved Hades. Hades kidnapped her against her will, and physically made her his bride. I can fathom a scenario where Persephone would want to stray from Hades' presence. [/spoiler]
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 06:55:30 PM
[spoiler]But the story itself says that the lord of the dead made the nightshade so that it wouldn't kill Persephone, but just "take her breath away". I don't think Persephone is killed at all in the original myth. And I never said that the lord of the dead wanted to steal her immortality for himself either. Besides, Alexander went to the afterlife (sort of), and he wasn't dead.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]She was never killed as in "cease to exist", she was killed and was sent to Hades. Also, Nightshade is supposed to represent the Pomegranate seeds from the original myth. The Pomegranate seeds caused Persephone to be sent to Hades in the first place. I also know that you didn't say that the Lord of the Dead stole her immortality for himself. You said:
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 06:55:30 PM
The story about Persephone says that the nightshade stole her immortality. Why did the Lord of the Dead steal her immortality if he was immortal himself and wanted a wife?
I was emphasizing what you said, not disagreeing.
Alexander had to find a way to enter the Underworld as a living being, hence why he took Caliphim and Allaria's pass. He tricked the guards into letting him in, but normally, living beings can't enter the Underworld. That's why Persephone was killed and brought to the Underworld. She was a prisoner, she didn't want to enter the Underworld like Alexander did.
[/spoiler]
I think it just complicated as I was kind of talking about two different things at the same time, really.
[spoiler]Whether Persephone in the myth is Ceres' daughter isn't really relevant to that story, or to the plot--it's certainly not a plothole. Sure then, she's Ceres' daughter--nothing says she isn't. [/spoiler]
Quote[spoiler]She was never killed as in "cease to exist", she was killed and was sent to Hades. Also, Nightshade is supposed to represent the Pomegranate seeds from the original myth. The Pomegranate seeds caused Persephone to be sent to Hades in the first place. I also know that you didn't say that the Lord of the Dead stole her immortality for himself. You said:
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 06:55:30 PM
The story about Persephone says that the nightshade stole her immortality. Why did the Lord of the Dead steal her immortality if he was immortal himself and wanted a wife?
I was emphasizing what you said, not disagreeing.
[spoiler]I don't think we're understanding each other. I was asking why the Lord of the Dead, who was immortal, would take Persephone's immortality away, making her (I'd assume) mortal. And again, unless making someone who is immortal mortal means "killing" them, she wasn't killed in any sense of the word in the story in TSL.[/spoiler]
And I actually just remembered something from KQ6. I don't know how I forgot it, but right
before the "robbed of sleep, robbed of movement, robbed of companionship" line, The Arch Druid says
this about the Lord of the Dead (I added the bold part):
[spoiler]"Immortal he is, and
mateless."
...??[/spoiler]
Well there certainly is a big difference between
[spoiler]having a mate and a prisoner.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]He stole her 'immortal breath' so she would die and come to the Underworld.
As for the rest, you have to remember it's a myth. The story of Persephone's abduction, in the real world, is just a myth to explain why the seasons change. It's not actually true. And while many myths are true in the world of King's Quest, they still have their own myths that are nothing more than that as well. This is one of them. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]The fact that Mordack and Manny don't want to kill the Royal Family or at the very least Alexander sounds a bit silly, and is basically an attempt to rewrite the original series, which I find HIGHLY disrespectful. The whole impetus for Alex running away in KQ3 is that he's going to be killed. If Mordack didn't intend to kill the Royal Family, why have that cut scene? Why have him trying to kill Graham? This whole they didn't want to kill them business rewrites the original stories, for one, and makes their plots a bit meaningless. I don't see why a fan sequel also has to rewrite the works it's based on in the progress. That's what I mean when I talk negatively about it---You're re-writing the originals as well instead of just founding your original story on them, and I find that incredibly disrespectful.[/spoiler]
We are putting our own spin on things, yes, but we are also keeping it close to what happened in the games. If it's not to your liking, that's fine, but the story isn't going to change from what it is. It's certainly not meant to be disrespectful, but if you see it that way, I don't think anything I say will convince you otherwise.
But as the series played out nobody in the royal family actually was killed were they? The family member deaths always resulted in games ending, never in a continuation of the plot. So the original series did intend for the entire family to survive this long, which doesn't conflict with our story at all.
And AGDI also made MAJOR modifications to the story of earlier games which worked out very well for the projects they did in my opinion.
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 09:17:10 PM
Well there certainly is a big difference between
[spoiler]having a mate and a prisoner.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]From the story in TSL:
"Eventually, she and the Lord of the Dead reached an agreement that for six months of the year, Persephone would be
his queen, and during the other six months, she would return to the world of the living."
"but the nightshade flower only grows when Persephone is with its Lord,
her husband."
Those lines seem to make it pretty clear that in TSL the Lord of the Dead does have a "mate", even if she is an unwilling and imprisoned one. :-\[/spoiler]
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 09:51:12 PM
And AGDI also made MAJOR modifications to the story of earlier games which worked out very well for the projects they did in my opinion.
To be fair, there's a huge difference in that AGDI made no attempts to tie their KQ2+ into the rest of the series. It was always conceived of and meant as a side-story "alternate" version of KQ2. Also, all of the changes were self-contained within the story of that individual game--they didn't retcon any of the story of KQ1 in order to tell their version of KQ2.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 09:57:16 PM
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 09:51:12 PM
And AGDI also made MAJOR modifications to the story of earlier games which worked out very well for the projects they did in my opinion.
To be fair, there's a huge difference in that AGDI made no attempts to tie their KQ2+ into the rest of the series. It was always conceived of and meant as a side-story "alternate" version of KQ2.
No attempts? There seem to be pretty clear references to both KQ3 and MoE during KQ2+.
Scintilla--I think my explanation above is the best I can offer you. It's a myth--myths aren't always fact. Actually, they're usually entirely NOT fact, just stories people came up with to explain a phenomenon in the real word. Even in the world KQ, there are myths that aren't true, even if some are.
No, you misunderstand me. Certainly there were references to later games in the series (specifically in those two flash-forward moments), but on a whole, the purpose of AGDI's KQ2+ is as an alternate story. More to the point though, none of the events or story/character motivations of KQ1 were changed in order to make KQ2+ make sense.
But a whole lot of the events and motivations, etc, from the original KQ2 were certainly changed.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:01:56 PM
No, you misunderstand me. Certainly there were references to later games in the series (specifically in those two flash-forward moments), but on a whole, the purpose of AGDI's KQ2+ is as an alternate story. More to the point though, none of the events or story/character motivations of KQ1 were changed in order to make KQ2+ make sense.
Probably because the basis of KQ2+ had the same basis as the original KQ2 so there was no need for that. We don't have an official continuation of the series that we're doing an alternate version of, so we have to come up with something original. We need to have a reason for this game to be taking place and this is what we're going with. It's not like we're totally ignoring the other games or doing the impossible like adding another kid who's older than Alex and Rosella to support our storyline or anything like that - the basis for our story is absolutely given in earlier games and we just expanded on what was already there to give more purpose to our story.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 19, 2010, 10:03:03 PM
But a whole lot of the events and motivations, etc, from the original KQ2 were certainly changed.
Yes, definitely--hence calling it an alternate retelling. That wasn't my point--my point was that all the changes to the plotline of the KQ series were totally self-contained within the KQ2 storyline. The changes to the plot do NOT contradict anything else within the rest of the series.
(Posted on: September 20, 2010, 12:06:38 AM)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:05:24 PM
the basis for our story is absolutely given in earlier games and we just expanded on what was already there to give more purpose to our story.
That's fine, but there's a difference between
expanding on the material of the earlier games and
contradicting that material. :)
[spoiler]This brings back a big point of mine, and my biggest worry:
If you guys get the rights, how do I know you aren't going to re-write or retcorn the series completely? This could be as small as more retcons of the originals in future games, or as large as complete re-writes of the originals, which would then be canon and not the originals. It's obvious you guys have problems with the way the originals played out.[/spoiler]
No one can rewrite the classics, and no one intends to. Phoenix Online is just interpreting the KQ mythos in their own way.
LOL, Connor MacLyrr: Graham's secret son?? Dun dun duh! XD
Well, our game takes a different view on a number of things. I'm fairly certain we've said that before, though, so I don't really know what it is you want to hear.
DMD, I'm seriously *not* getting into this debate again. I don't know why you are so focused on that--it's a big, huge IF and that's all. You don't like our story, that's fine, but you've made it clear, we've made it clear it's not changing, so I cannot see the point into talking in circles about this yet again.
Yes, doon--that is a good way to put what I'm trying to say.
In any case, it's past my bed time, so have a good night or a good day wherever you are, folks.
And what problems would those be? That Graham became King of Daventry? That Alexander escaped and lived? That Rosella saved her father? The Graham rescued his family and Cassima? etc. etc. etc.
I assure you we're all perfectly happy with how the other games in the series played out. If we ever did any remakes of any of them I can guarantee you Graham would still become King of Daventry, Alexander would still escape, Rosella would still save her father, etc. etc. etc.
Not sure what you think we disagree with from the originals here...
Quote from: kindofdoon on September 19, 2010, 10:09:36 PM
No one can rewrite the classics, and no one intends to. Phoenix Online is just interpreting the KQ mythos in their own way.
[spoiler]You wouldn't say that re-writing or, let's say, re-defining the motivations of certain characters in the original series, and indeed the tone of entire sequences or plotlines in the originals, amounts to a re-write? Let's say they had the rights and TSL was canon, this ''interpretation'' of the originals, wherein Manny and Mordack had no intentions to kill Alex and the Royal Family, would be canon, and the original story would not be.[/spoiler]
HAN SHOT FIRST!!!!!!
*Sorry, had to. ;D
LOL, hey I agree, Han totally shot first :)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:11:33 PM
Not sure what you think we disagree with from the originals here...
Just the details it would seem. Those little insignificant details like character motivations and internal storylines. What I mean by internal storyline is the meat of the story--Not just the broad overview that ''Alex would still escape.'', ''Graham would still become king of Daventry.'' The details are where we disagree and I don't see any need to retcon or re-write those little insignificant details.
Well that's just your interpretation and as always you're welcome to create your own games based on how you interpret the earlier stories. This one's ours and we're not changing the direction we've gone with the story and re-writing an entire script just to make it match what you think it should be. The vision for this game is ours and we're sticking with it.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:08:02 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on September 19, 2010, 10:03:03 PM
But a whole lot of the events and motivations, etc, from the original KQ2 were certainly changed.
Yes, definitely--hence calling it an alternate retelling. That wasn't my point--my point was that all the changes to the plotline of the KQ series were totally self-contained within the KQ2 storyline. The changes to the plot do NOT contradict anything else within the rest of the series.
(Posted on: September 20, 2010, 12:06:38 AM)
Well, you can then consider TSL an alternate retelling of KQ. The fact that KQ2+ retold only the story of KQ2 doesn't make it any different to what we are doing, in the end. We are just taking the whole of KQ as opposed to just only KQ2.
Again, we never said we were the official KQ. And that's why our title suits the game best. "The Silver Lining" Inspired by the King's Quest series.
Well, see, this is the main reason why retcon storylines that attempt to tie together all characters and plot elements across an entire established series are inevitably the stuff of fan fiction (Star Wars prequels being the one major mainstream exception I can think of, and look how THOSE were received. ;)) Personally, I don't think these types of stories are ever a good idea because no matter what, they ALWAYS end up sounding contrived and forced, and are nearly impossible to pull off without retconning. I've yet to see this type of thing done well in any series ever.
Note: The above response was aimed at ReturnofDMD.
and exactly what are we? A game by fans for fans?
That fits the "fan fiction" angle a lot, doesn't it?
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:20:25 PM
Well, see, this is the main reason why retcon storylines that attempt to tie together all characters and plot elements across an entire established series are inevitably the stuff of fan fiction (Star Wars prequels being the one major mainstream exception I can think of, and look how THOSE were received. ;)) Personally, I don't think these types of stories are ever a good idea because no matter what, they ALWAYS end up sounding contrived and forced, and are nearly impossible to pull off without retconning. I've yet to see this type of thing done well in any series ever.
And it remains to be seen just how much of the series we're actually trying to tie together and how we're doing so. Could it ever be a totally perfect tie-together? Absolutely not, because that's just plain impossible. You could never take a series that barely connected one game to another initially and expect to cleanly fit the whole of everything together nice and neat. But we still have 3 episodes to go and we'll see how people feel about the story when it's actually done, rather than less than halfway into it.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:22:13 PM
and exactly what are we? A game by fans for fans?
That fits the "fan fiction" angle a lot, doesn't it?
Oh I know--I wrote that before you typed your post. :) Hence my above edit. I think you guys are justified in doing TSL however you want. It's your game. I was making the comment more as a way of saying "hey, it's fan fiction--they're doing what they want, and that's fine, regardless of whether it fits with what I would have done. So try not to take it so seriously."
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:24:06 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:22:13 PM
and exactly what are we? A game by fans for fans?
That fits the "fan fiction" angle a lot, doesn't it?
Oh I know--I wrote that before you typed your post. :) Hence my above edit. I think you guys are justified in doing TSL however you want. It's your game. I was making the comment more as a way of saying "hey, it's fan fiction--they're doing what they want, and that's fine, regardless of whether it fits with what I would have done. So try not to take it so seriously."
Fan fiction is one thing and is basically an open sandbox. Wanting to become THE KQ is another, and if their ideas in fan fiction retcon the originals, why should I not worry that they won't do more retconning IF (and as I've been told, it's a big IF, but as long as it is an IF and a possibility, I will question it) they owned the rights.
Ret-conning stories in a work of fan fiction is one thing...Wanting to justify buying the actual franchise by creating a fan sequel which retcons the others is quite another.
That is my issue here.
Fan fiction is an open sandbox and you can do whatever ridiculous ideas you want. The King's Quest name is not and deserves more than that.
So as long as that idea is an IF, I will say, "Why?" You can say If, I shall ask you why.
And that's the only problem here - some people taking this project FAR too seriously.
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:29:44 PM
And that's the only problem here - some people taking this project FAR too seriously.
When you start talking about buying the rights seriously, than the ballgame becomes different than just a little work of fan fiction. Than the question of intentions of what will be done with these beloved games becomes a question.
You guys opened the hypothetical idea (and possible business plan?) of buying the King's Quest IP. Not me.
And as I learn more of your intentions just with this game, of retconning the originals, that idea only troubles me more. Put it out of the realm of possibility, or give me some assurance you guys don't in any way ret-con the series further whether in an ''official sequel'' or in
any way, and I'll shut up.
And yes, people take this seriously because this is a beloved series. It's the same reason why Lord of the Ring fans why they think Boorman's aborted Lord of the Ring idea was horrible and hate it, because it totally twisted and retconned the original story.
Sorry for butting in again, but POS, I honestly hope you don't plan on buying the IPs if you're going to make more games that change the original games' backstories as much as TSL is doing. I mean, TSL is a great fangame, but it's really starting to twist the stories of the official games that I've loved for so long, and I'm not sure I like where the story is going. I'm honestly a little nervous when i think what would happen to the stories of the other Sierra games I love if sequels to them were made with the same kind of story as TSL.
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
2nd, we wouldn't try to write a story to please the fans, and therefore have all the past returning so that they could enjoy all the cameos, etc. It would probably be an isolated story, regardless of the tone. But this is a game by fans for fans with the idea of giving closure to the KQ story, so it's obvious that what we were trying to do was pull all the past into this to tie up lose ends. And while we were doing that, we wrote a story to connect it all.
But I would never do that if I was doing a commercial game. That's the worse way to alienate newcomers: Throw in their laps a bunch of stuff that they don't care about or have no knowledge of. I'd probably not even put a number to the game because you don't want to give the impression that there's baggage before it. You want to market it as a new thing, give it a fresh reboot, and write an isolated story-- one that you can continue if successful, but that has little to do with the past efforts, aside from revolving around the Daventry Family.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
Even Josh Mandel? You wouldn't fire them if they disagreed with you? ;)
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
2nd, we wouldn't try to write a story to please the fans, and therefore have all the past returning so that they could enjoy all the cameos, etc. It would probably be an isolated story, regardless of the tone. But this is a game by fans for fans with the idea of giving closure to the KQ story, so it's obvious that what we were trying to do was pull all the past into this to tie up lose ends. And while we were doing that, we wrote a story to connect it all.
But I would never do that if I was doing a commercial game. That's the worse way to alienate newcomers: Throw in their laps a bunch of stuff that they don't care about or have no knowledge of. I'd probably not even put a number to the game because you don't want to give the impression that there's baggage before it. You want to market it as a new thing, give it a fresh reboot, and write an isolated story-- one that you can continue if successful, but that has little to do with the past efforts, aside from revolving around the Daventry Family.
We already had a game like your hypothetical idea--a KQ without a number which was an isolated story from the others and was not numbered so as not to alienate new fans--It was a fresh reboot if you will.
They called it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:41:44 PM
We already had a game like your hypothetical idea--a KQ without a number which was an isolated story from the others and didn't revolve around the Royal Family of Daventry and was not numbered so as not to alienate new fans--It was a fresh reboot if you will.
They called it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
To be fair, Cez said such a game WOULD revolve around the Royal Family.
We've never given you any reason to think that we ever WOULD overhaul any of the originals and change their current plots in any way - you came up with that idea totally on your own and seem deliberately determined to hijack any thread you can into an argument about what YOU think WE would do if we held the rights to the series. You seem to be deliberately forgetting that the series is beloved to us too, everybody on this team has loved this series for most of their lives and we have no intention of burning the whole thing to the ground and rebuilding from scratch - anybody who says that is just paranoid and making ridiculous claims.
Now I'm sick of you trying to paint us in some kind of horrible light for stating that we - AS FANS - would love it if we ever had the opportunity to do more with the series than take 8 years to make a piece of fan fiction. It's ridiculous that you do so every chance you get and extremely disrespectful to our whole team. If that scenario ever becomes a reality then we'll happily discuss it at that time, but until then leave it alone. It's annoying and brings nothing positive to the table in any way.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:41:44 PM
We already had a game like your hypothetical idea--a KQ without a number which was an isolated story from the others and didn't revolve around the Royal Family of Daventry and was not numbered so as not to alienate new fans--It was a fresh reboot if you will.
They called it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
To be fair, Cez said such a game WOULD revolve around the Royal Family.
True and I edited my post, but does the KQ series
NEED a reboot?
(Posted on: September 20, 2010, 12:44:33 AM)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:44:21 PM
We've never given you any reason to think that we ever WOULD overhaul any of the originals and change their current plots in any way - you came up with that idea totally on your own and seem deliberately determined to hijack any thread you can into an argument about what YOU think WE would do if we held the rights to the series. You seem to be deliberately forgetting that the series is beloved to us too, everybody on this team has loved this series for most of their lives and we have no intention of burning the whole thing to the ground and rebuilding from scratch - anybody who says that is just paranoid and making ridiculous claims.
Now I'm sick of you trying to paint us in some kind of horrible light for stating that we - AS FANS - would love it if we ever had the opportunity to do more with the series than take 8 years to make a piece of fan fiction. It's ridiculous that you do so every chance you get and extremely disrespectful to our whole team. If that scenario ever becomes a reality then we'll happily discuss it at that time, but until then leave it alone. It's annoying and brings nothing positive to the table in any way.
Sorry, but I'm not waiting until it's a reality to complain, because then it's too late.
The fan fiction you wrote which does overhaul some pretty nice sized plot elements of the original stories is what gives me reason to question your intent as to a possible commercial game. You guys coming out and repeatedly saying in a bunch of different interviews and even in places that the idea of you buying the rights is seriously being considered is what gives rise to my worries.
To act as if I pulled these ideas, or the fact that you guys have already begun to bend the past so to speak with TSL from the air is a deflection from my points.
And Cesar said in his idea of a commercial game might essentially be a reboot and a completely isolated story, featuring (possibly?) only the original characters. That gives rise to further concern.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:40:31 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
Even Josh Mandel? You wouldn't fire them if they disagreed with you?
I would have agreed with Josh Mandel back then if we were trying to reboot the series, and I agree with him now that calling this game something else than King's Quest IX was the best thing that we could have ever done. He said he wouldn't mind any of the changes if we had only not decided to call it "King's Quest IX". And he was right.
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:47:47 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:41:44 PM
We already had a game like your hypothetical idea--a KQ without a number which was an isolated story from the others and didn't revolve around the Royal Family of Daventry and was not numbered so as not to alienate new fans--It was a fresh reboot if you will.
They called it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
To be fair, Cez said such a game WOULD revolve around the Royal Family.
True and I edited my post, but does the KQ series NEED a reboot?
(Posted on: September 20, 2010, 12:44:33 AM)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:44:21 PM
We've never given you any reason to think that we ever WOULD overhaul any of the originals and change their current plots in any way - you came up with that idea totally on your own and seem deliberately determined to hijack any thread you can into an argument about what YOU think WE would do if we held the rights to the series. You seem to be deliberately forgetting that the series is beloved to us too, everybody on this team has loved this series for most of their lives and we have no intention of burning the whole thing to the ground and rebuilding from scratch - anybody who says that is just paranoid and making ridiculous claims.
Now I'm sick of you trying to paint us in some kind of horrible light for stating that we - AS FANS - would love it if we ever had the opportunity to do more with the series than take 8 years to make a piece of fan fiction. It's ridiculous that you do so every chance you get and extremely disrespectful to our whole team. If that scenario ever becomes a reality then we'll happily discuss it at that time, but until then leave it alone. It's annoying and brings nothing positive to the table in any way.
Sorry, but I'm not waiting until it's a reality to complain, because then it's too late.
The fan fiction you wrote which does overhaul some pretty nice sized plot elements of the original stories is what gives me reason to question your intent as to a possible commercial game. You guys coming out and repeatedly saying in a bunch of different interviews and even in places that the idea of you buying the rights is seriously being considered is what gives rise to my worries.
To act as if I pulled these ideas, or the fact that you guys have already begun to bend the past so to speak with TSL from the air is a deflection from my points.
And Cesar said in his idea of a commercial game might essentially be a reboot and a completely isolated story, featuring (possibly?) only the original characters. That gives rise to further concern.
I really don't know why you keep banging on the same drum. What you say is not going to change our perspective. That is down to Activision, so maybe you should write them instead of writing us.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:40:31 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
Even Josh Mandel? You wouldn't fire them if they disagreed with you?
I would have agreed with Josh Mandel back then if we were trying to reboot the series, and I agree with him now that calling this game something else than King's Quest IX was the best thing that we could have ever done. He said he wouldn't mind any of the changes if we had only not decided to call it "King's Quest IX". And he was right.
Fair enough. :) I am curious though how you would handle working with the original developers. Would you feel inclined to let them take the reigns on the creative story process, conceivably making a game that was tonally much closer to the originals than your vision for TSL? From your responses on this board and in other conversations we've had, it's clear that you're very protective of your own story ideas and writing. Not trying to insult, just an honest question.
DMD the problem is that you're trying to create an argument where there isn't one. We would NEVER under any circumstances come out with a totally new and rewritten King's Quest 1 and claim that it totally completely replaces the original and is now the only "official" King's Quest 1 in the series. Such a move would alienate every single fan that we have and would be the dumbest thing on the planet, so you seriously need to relax and stop claiming that we're going to do that. Because we're not, and the next time you claim that we are in this forum that post will be immediately modded. You're welcome to participate here and be respectful, but it is NOT ok for you to take every chance you get to try and convince people that we're out to destroy everything that makes King's Quest great.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:57:08 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:47:47 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 19, 2010, 10:41:44 PM
We already had a game like your hypothetical idea--a KQ without a number which was an isolated story from the others and didn't revolve around the Royal Family of Daventry and was not numbered so as not to alienate new fans--It was a fresh reboot if you will.
They called it King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.
To be fair, Cez said such a game WOULD revolve around the Royal Family.
True and I edited my post, but does the KQ series NEED a reboot?
(Posted on: September 20, 2010, 12:44:33 AM)
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:44:21 PM
We've never given you any reason to think that we ever WOULD overhaul any of the originals and change their current plots in any way - you came up with that idea totally on your own and seem deliberately determined to hijack any thread you can into an argument about what YOU think WE would do if we held the rights to the series. You seem to be deliberately forgetting that the series is beloved to us too, everybody on this team has loved this series for most of their lives and we have no intention of burning the whole thing to the ground and rebuilding from scratch - anybody who says that is just paranoid and making ridiculous claims.
Now I'm sick of you trying to paint us in some kind of horrible light for stating that we - AS FANS - would love it if we ever had the opportunity to do more with the series than take 8 years to make a piece of fan fiction. It's ridiculous that you do so every chance you get and extremely disrespectful to our whole team. If that scenario ever becomes a reality then we'll happily discuss it at that time, but until then leave it alone. It's annoying and brings nothing positive to the table in any way.
Sorry, but I'm not waiting until it's a reality to complain, because then it's too late.
The fan fiction you wrote which does overhaul some pretty nice sized plot elements of the original stories is what gives me reason to question your intent as to a possible commercial game. You guys coming out and repeatedly saying in a bunch of different interviews and even in places that the idea of you buying the rights is seriously being considered is what gives rise to my worries.
To act as if I pulled these ideas, or the fact that you guys have already begun to bend the past so to speak with TSL from the air is a deflection from my points.
And Cesar said in his idea of a commercial game might essentially be a reboot and a completely isolated story, featuring (possibly?) only the original characters. That gives rise to further concern.
I really don't know why you keep banging on the same drum. What you say is not going to change our perspective. That is down to Activision, so maybe you should write them instead of writing us.
But you're the main guy here. This partly is down to you, because they don't have to sell if someone's not willing to buy. It's a 50/50 thing. I'd rather question those who'd be reinventing or creating "reboots"--
Your word, not mine--of a series I love than a gigantic corporation who doesn't really give puny fans like me the time of day.
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:59:59 PM
Because we're not, and the next time you claim that we are in this forum that post will be immediately modded.
Well that's a little fascistic, isn't it? Silence the opposition and all that? :-\ A slightly less impassioned, toned down version of such a debate should be allowed, in my opinion.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:57:35 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 10:40:31 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
Even Josh Mandel? You wouldn't fire them if they disagreed with you?
I would have agreed with Josh Mandel back then if we were trying to reboot the series, and I agree with him now that calling this game something else than King's Quest IX was the best thing that we could have ever done. He said he wouldn't mind any of the changes if we had only not decided to call it "King's Quest IX". And he was right.
Fair enough. :) I am curious though how you would handle working with the original developers. Would you feel inclined to let them take the reigns on the creative story process, conceivably making a game that was tonally much closer to the originals than your vision for TSL? From your responses on this board and in other conversations we've had, it's clear that you're very protective of your own story ideas and writing. Not trying to insult, just an honest question.
I'd probably take more the role of a producer rather than a designer. There would probably be certain guidelines that I'd try to implement to make the game work in an episodic format if we were to go for that business model (Start with a bang, go for a story that would lend itself to have great cliffhangers at the end of each episode, etc), and I would probably give them ideas for the story. But, in my role of producer, I try not to mess much with the creative process, aside than just pointing ways to enhance it to fit certain business models.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 19, 2010, 10:59:59 PM
Because we're not, and the next time you claim that we are in this forum that post will be immediately modded.
Well that's a little fascistic, isn't it? Silence the opposition and all that? :-\ A slightly less impassioned, toned down version of such a debate should be allowed, in my opinion.
I'd be perfectly fine with a calm and rational discussion of possibilities along that hypothetical line, but DMD insists on turning any such discussion into a panic session about all the evil we'd do in such a scenario and that specifically is unacceptable.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
2nd, we wouldn't try to write a story to please the fans, and therefore have all the past returning so that they could enjoy all the cameos, etc. It would probably be an isolated story, regardless of the tone. But this is a game by fans for fans with the idea of giving closure to the KQ story, so it's obvious that what we were trying to do was pull all the past into this to tie up lose ends. And while we were doing that, we wrote a story to connect it all.
But I would never do that if I was doing a commercial game. That's the worse way to alienate newcomers: Throw in their laps a bunch of stuff that they don't care about or have no knowledge of. I'd probably not even put a number to the game because you don't want to give the impression that there's baggage before it. You want to market it as a new thing, give it a fresh reboot, and write an isolated story-- one that you can continue if successful, but that has little to do with the past efforts, aside from revolving around the Daventry Family.
I don't understand...why do you want to "reboot" the entire series, Cez? What's wrong with the series as it is now? Besides, I don't see why a commercial game would have to throw all the characters from older games at the player...I mean, there were hardly any reoccurring characters in the official games besides the main ones... :-\
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
I don't understand...why do you want to "reboot" the entire series, Cez? What's wrong with the series as it is now? Besides, I don't see why a commercial game would have to throw all the characters from older games at the player...I mean, there were hardly any reoccurring characters in the official games besides the main ones... :-\
Actually, Cez said that a commercial game WOULDN'T need to reuse a lot of old characters, because that type of thing is more fan service than anything else (which is why it happens so much in TSL, it being a fan game and all.) I think you misunderstood him.
That said, I don't think the series needs a complete reboot either, but I'd be okay with seeing stand alone KQ stories that didn't necessarily try to tie in to the existing series storyline. I think that's all he meant by that statement.
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 10:37:43 PM
IF we had the rights, in the first place we'd try to get the original designers involved.
2nd, we wouldn't try to write a story to please the fans, and therefore have all the past returning so that they could enjoy all the cameos, etc. It would probably be an isolated story, regardless of the tone. But this is a game by fans for fans with the idea of giving closure to the KQ story, so it's obvious that what we were trying to do was pull all the past into this to tie up lose ends. And while we were doing that, we wrote a story to connect it all.
But I would never do that if I was doing a commercial game. That's the worse way to alienate newcomers: Throw in their laps a bunch of stuff that they don't care about or have no knowledge of. I'd probably not even put a number to the game because you don't want to give the impression that there's baggage before it. You want to market it as a new thing, give it a fresh reboot, and write an isolated story-- one that you can continue if successful, but that has little to do with the past efforts, aside from revolving around the Daventry Family.
I don't understand...why do you want to "reboot" the entire series, Cez? What's wrong with the series as it is now? Besides, I don't see why a commercial game would have to throw all the characters from older games at the player...I mean, there were hardly any reoccurring characters in the official games besides the main ones... :-\
I mean a reboot in such a way that we wouldn't need to revisit the past to please the fans. No Green Isles, evil guys from the past, building up on concepts from some games (Black Cloak Society), etc.
We'd probably have the Daventry family in their current configuration faced with a new problem that they'd have to solve. That's what I mean by a reboot, not hmm, for example the reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street.
I think KQ could work well in an episodic format as a commercial title. Space Quest would work even better, since that series would lend itself incredibly well to corny B-movie serial style cliffhangers.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 19, 2010, 11:14:07 PM
I think KQ could work well in an episodic format as a commercial title. Space Quest would work even better, since that series would lend itself incredibly well to corny B-movie serial style cliffhangers.
People would probably complain less about sarcastic narrations in a Space Quest game too.
Not to mention all the fun we could have with smell and taste interactions. Possibly one of the most entertaining ideas EVER.
Actually, I want to qualify that original statement a bit. I think one of the best parts of the earlier KQ games was the open-ended exploratory aspect. Episodic games, by their very nature, are pretty confining, and typically (and this is the case with all the Telltale games, too, not just TSL) are incredibly linear, a lot moreso than the older adventure games were (which is ironic, given the fact that the adventure game is one of the most linear types of games, in that it focuses purely on advancing a self-contained storyline.) So in order for a KQ game to really work well episodically, it'd have to figure out a way to allow for more open-ended exploration AND a strong narrative, which is so far something TSL seems to be having some trouble balancing. Not a dig, just an observation.
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
What's wrong with the series as it is now?
The team has no intention of remaking the original KQ series. By "reboot", they simply mean that they want take a new tone and direction with the KQ universe in the fangames they produce.
Quote from: kindofdoon on September 19, 2010, 11:32:26 PM
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:07:27 PM
What's wrong with the series as it is now?
The team has no intention of remaking the original KQ series, fear not. By "reboot", they simply mean that they want take a new tone and direction with the KQ universe.
What's wrong with the tone and direction of the series which it kept pretty dang consistent for 7 games?
If you change the tone and direction, why not just change the name? Why not just invent a new series which fits this wanted tone and direction rather than twisting an already existing set of rules? If it's your own series, and not a series which has been beloved for 30 years, you can make whatever tone and direction you want.
And this is purely talking about a commercial product--the reboot idea Cesar mentioned.
I'm going to opt out of this conversation. It seems to be going in circles (http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=9190.0).
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 11:11:50 PM
I mean a reboot in such a way that we wouldn't need to revisit the past to please the fans. No Green Isles, evil guys from the past, building up on concepts from some games (Black Cloak Society), etc.
We'd probably have the Daventry family in their current configuration faced with a new problem that they'd have to solve. That's what I mean by a reboot, not hmm, for example the reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street.
I
think I see what you mean, Cez...but what do you mean when you say you'd probably do a reboot with "the Daventry family in their current configuration"? Do you mean the way they are after TSL is over (Graham and Valanice middle-aged, Rosella and Alexander 21 years old, Rosella and Edgar married, Alex and Cassima married and living in the Green Isles, etc) or sometime
before that?
I thought Cez explained it quite clearly. I don't get what the trouble is. >_>
By "reboot", they mean that they wouldn't use old locations, old villains and make the game under the assumption that people playing it will have some former knowledge of the characters in it and whatnot. They'd create an entirely new story with an entirely new problem/villain without trying to tie in anything from the previous games, which honestly I would like to see.
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:50:25 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 11:11:50 PM
I mean a reboot in such a way that we wouldn't need to revisit the past to please the fans. No Green Isles, evil guys from the past, building up on concepts from some games (Black Cloak Society), etc.
We'd probably have the Daventry family in their current configuration faced with a new problem that they'd have to solve. That's what I mean by a reboot, not hmm, for example the reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street.
I think I see what you mean, Cez...but what do you mean when you say you'd probably do a reboot with "the Daventry family in their current configuration"? Do you mean the way they are after TSL is over (Graham and Valanice middle-aged, Rosella and Alexander 21 years old, Rosella and Edgar married, Alex and Cassima married and living in the Green Isles, etc) or sometime before that?
Yeah, most likely at the same point where KQ7 left, which is all honesty the same point where TSL is (except Rosella and Edgar being married or not but that's details really).
Quote from: KQ5Fan on September 19, 2010, 11:53:07 PM
I thought Cez explained it quite clearly. I don't get what the trouble is. >_>
By "reboot", they mean that they wouldn't use old locations, old villains and make the game under the assumption that people playing it will have some former knowledge of the characters in it and whatnot. They'd create an entirely new story with an entirely new problem/villain without trying to tie in anything from the previous games, which honestly I would like to see.
I think what scintilla is asking is whether or not any new commercial KQ game that the POS team was involved with would consider the events of TSL as canon.
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 11:55:22 PM
Quote from: scintilla77 on September 19, 2010, 11:50:25 PM
Quote from: Cez on September 19, 2010, 11:11:50 PM
I mean a reboot in such a way that we wouldn't need to revisit the past to please the fans. No Green Isles, evil guys from the past, building up on concepts from some games (Black Cloak Society), etc.
We'd probably have the Daventry family in their current configuration faced with a new problem that they'd have to solve. That's what I mean by a reboot, not hmm, for example the reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street.
I think I see what you mean, Cez...but what do you mean when you say you'd probably do a reboot with "the Daventry family in their current configuration"? Do you mean the way they are after TSL is over (Graham and Valanice middle-aged, Rosella and Alexander 21 years old, Rosella and Edgar married, Alex and Cassima married and living in the Green Isles, etc) or sometime before that?
Yeah, most likely at the same point where KQ7 left, which is all honesty the same point where TSL is (except Rosella and Edgar being married or not but that's details really).
What kind of tone would it have? What kind of direction?
Disney and fairy tales, or teen fantasy?
THAT is the most important question.
In the lines of what Ken Williams said, whoever writes the story style of writing. That's the tone it would have.
Quote from: Cez on September 20, 2010, 01:07:47 AM
In the lines of what Ken Williams said, whoever writes the story style of writing. That's the tone it would have.
If you were writing it (Commercial sequel)?
Well, it would be written in my style, because I can't write like Roberta if that's the answer you are expecting to get. Go play Episode 2. That's my style. If you don't like it, all I can recommend to you is that you don't get the games and enjoy the original series as it is.
As for continuing going in circles, I think it's about time to stop this conversation. It's not going to go anywhere, really. You have your point of view, we have ours, no side is going to convince the other side. So, let's agree to disagree. End of the story.
At this point we can call this thread done - if anybody wants to start a new thread talking specifically about plot holes and whatever that's totally fine, but we're not getting dragged into this debate about why we should be writing the plot of OUR game the way someone else would. Ken Williams made it perfectly clear that doing so is a terrible idea - you'd waste years trying to please everyone and that's just ridiculous. Let's just leave this topic of "What if you guys became official?" alone because it just gets everyone talking in circles because we don't (and simply can't at this point) have an answer at all, let alone an answer that will make everybody happy.
EOM