I have to be honest...As I've gotten older, I really don't understand why people couldn't and can't accept the new direction which KQ8 took. I've always seen the CRPG and the Action/Adventure genres as being the heirs of the original Adventure genre--Aspects of the Adventure Genre color both.
People don't like KQ8 a lot of the reason because it's not true to the classic King' Quest format. There is combat, for example, and the biggest, scariest reason: YOU DON'T PLAY A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY!!! :shock:
I myself have never played it, but for those two reasons alone I know I never will. :no:
And fresh from the "judging a book solely by its cover" crowd...Haids1987!! ;)
In all seriousness though, and in response to the original post--people harp on and on about changes being made to "the KQ formula", but what most fail to realize is that Roberta and the like always intended those series to go in new directions. Back in the day, they were largely limited in what they could do by technology, but the goal was always to create a completely immersive world and tell a good story. If they could have made something like Assassin's Creed II or Oblivion back then, they probably would have. The main reason adventures didn't have lots of action back then is that there really was no great way to make it interactive. Even the Indy adventure games were pretty light on action. KQ8 may have lacked a little in the execution (in hindsight--it was actually a pretty great game in its day), but I firmly believe that that was the direction Sierra games were always intended to take.
Haids' answer is still the reason(s) why a lot of people didn't like it though, so it does answer Perceval's question.
I think mixing the two is fine, but I think MoE went a little too far too soon from their old formula for people to accept it and like it. Also it seems to have little to do with the rest of the series--what I've heard most often about it is that it's a good game, just not a good King's Quest game.
Quote from: KatieHal on December 28, 2010, 02:37:14 PM
Haids' answer is still the reason(s) why a lot of people didn't like it though, so it does answer Perceval's question.
Heh...I know. I just don't think I can count the amount of times I've heard people complaining about KQ8 and then saying, "oh, well I've never played it before." You should always try something before you decide you don't like it. That's just common sense.
Most people didn't like it because it sucked. It's pretty much that simple.
Bt
If it had truly sucked, it wouldn't have gotten the accolades it received back in the day... It woudn't have outsold Grim Fandango, and most reviews were fairly positive (70% or above)...
I enjoyed it (in God mode :P) - I thought it was a pretty good game for what it was. I agree that it didn't fit in very well with the rest of the series, but I didn't have any issues playing as someone outside the royal family. King Graham himself started at a lower position (though probably not as a peasant).
Quote from: Lambonius on December 28, 2010, 03:43:40 PM
Heh...I know. I just don't think I can count the amount of times I've heard people complaining about KQ8 and then saying, "oh, well I've never played it before." You should always try something before you decide you don't like it. That's just common sense.
Hmmm, I don't remember
complaining about it...but it's true, I never will play it. Doesn't follow KQ format, isn't a KQ game. ;D
I only played the Mask of Eternity once. I suppose it was an ok game. I got used to the fighting, but I really
wanted to find out what happened to graham and family. There fore I did not care for connor.
I hated the loading times as well, and I thought the ending was pathetic.
MOE didn't suck. It wasn't great, but it certainly didn't suck. That game had atmosphere. I kind of appreciate how they didn't force you to play a member of the royal family, actually. It seemed much more fitting to change the focus to a different lead character while taking the series in a brand new direction.
It could have been a lot better, though. And had Roberta had complete control until the end of the project I believe it would have been a much more cohesive, and therefore interesting, game.
darn, cursors... if doesn't have a parser it isn't a KQ Game!!!!!
Seriously though;
According to King's Quest Collection manual;
QuoteKQ3 was the first adventure game featuring auto-mapping, with a "magic map" found in the game that can be used to teleport to most locations that the player has visited before. This feature was unpopular among some fans who claim it made the game too easy, hence magic maps in future Sierra games were more limited in their teleporting ability
Concerning KQ5;
Quote
"...Unfortunately it took some time to realize all the possibilities the new format offered; some players felt icon-based games were less challenging. I kept thinking about this as I wrote King's Quest VI."-Roberta Williams
Concerning KQ8;
QuoteKQ7 was considered one of the controversial King's Quest games, as the animation made a lot of people think the game was more geared toward kids than the King's Quest Games had been. It was criticized for choppy graphics (although this was probably a limitation of some of the systems that the game was played on), and having inconsistent graphics (due to the fact that different animation houses did the animation).-Roberta Williams/Mark Seibert, Talkspot Interview.
As you are aware, "King's Quest VII" received some negative reviews. Do you pay attention to those reviews or do you take them lightly?
I never take any reviews or opinions of game players lightly. If I did, I would have been gone long ago! I pay very close attention to these opinions. As far as "King's Quest VII" receiving "negative reviews" - I really don't know what you are referring to. Perhaps some people didn't like it as well as others, but overall it has done very well. Some people actually think it was the best. True, it got some negative reviews, but it also received many very positive reviews. Some "veteran" game players perhaps didn't like it quite as well as many of the older-style adventure games, but many of the "newer" game players loved it. Therefore, if you're me, who do you listen to? How do you interpret the opinions? With "King's Quest VII," I've seen everything from horrible reviews to the most glowing reviews I've ever received. I've heard from many who didn't like it at all to those who felt it was the best game they've ever played. Also, it sold very well, and is still selling! When it comes to interpreting reviews and/or opinions, it's a very delicate business, and even though I do pay attention to these things, I try to remain objective and never let the "bad news" get me down, or the "good news" get me too self-assured.
Once it's all said and done, however, and it comes to the next game, even though I always keep in mind everybody's opinions, it ultimately comes down to my opinion...and what I find enjoyable. I must enjoy the game I'm working on and to ultimately trust my own judgment.
QuoteIt could have been a lot better, though. And had Roberta had complete control until the end of the project I believe it would have been a much more cohesive, and therefore interesting, game.
I somewhat doubt that was the case. After reading the various preview stuff, that was cut, it sounded like it would have been even further from KQ series. It had even more boss battles, and violence in early versions apparently. The only thing that would have benifited is some of the characters might have had extended plot details added to them. Like the Swamp Witch would have interacted with the character in diguise before, you actually had to combat her.
Seriously with Roberta comparing KQ8 with Doom as far as back around the time she released Phantasmagoria, you know it wasn't going to be any closer to traditional adventure games :p.... Her son who had a chance to keep up with the game throughout its development kept on comparing it to 'Quake'... Doom and Quake about as far as you can get away from KQ as possiblel... if anything the final game actually moved closer to King's Quest and Quest for Glory, than Doom/Quake FPS.
BTW, Connor could have been worse, originally he was going to be a mindless statue come to life, while everything living turned into statues... For those who think he is a block of wood currently.... I don't even want to think what the "living statue" would have been like.
As for people who complain about the ending of KQ8... Ya I agree. Imo what is such a great story (one of the deepest in the series) is marred by such anti-climactic ending video. I'd say its actually grown on me, to be one of my top favorites in the series. I like finding the nods to the KQ and its themes that are hidden about the game. In a lot of ways it reminds me of KQ1's format. Lots of monsters to encounter/avoid, a more interactive character (early Graham could jump/duck), and playing as a non-king/knight to become something greater. Connor becomes a knight over the course of the game, and noble by deed. Both Graham and Connor share the same honorary title even, 'Sir Knight'. Granted, I suppose original KQ1 had an anti-climactic ending as well, :P...
But truth be told my least favorite King's Quest game is KQ7:Princeless Bride... It's don't like its non-serious atmosphere, and too cartoony style... Its the least realistic of the entire series... I hate the fact it didn't have King Graham in any form... The ending was nearly as anti-climactic as KQ8. No wonder it was considered extremely controversial as well when it was released... Lots of people saying it wasn't a KQ game.
Let's try not to retread too much of previous discussions on this topic. It was talked about at length not all that long ago, and those threads can be found in the past pages of the Off-Topic section.
Also, I can't help but think a lot of why it sold so well has more to do with the previous KQ games and their popularity than the success of this game. Because, by and large, the passing of time has decreed it the least loved KQ of all.
Actually "passing of time" hasn't declared it "least loved", only a few verbal fans that discuss it have ever mentioned it being there "least loved". That's all highly subjective opinion however, and all relative. I highly doubt a scientific poll has ever been taken on the subject :suffer:.
It would be really hard to know which is the 'least love' because in hindsight alot of the games haven't aged very well. You get people who hate KQ2 for example because the age shows...
Only thing we know according to Roberta Williams interviews was apparently each King's Quest game was more successful than the last. In many cases, her changes, pushed some fans of previous games in the series away from the series (for variosu reasons), but drew in new fans.
Again its all relative, and there is no accounting for taste.
It's also a bit of myth that KQ8 destroyed the series, Sierra jettisoned the series, and all other adventure games in other series... They were more concerned with bottom line, and there was no profit margin to adventure games, there simply wasn't any interest...
If they had been concerned about success in relation to other KQ games, KQ8's success probably could have lead to KQ9 (since it was the most successful adventure game that year). But Sierra didn't see it as successful in relation to other genres/non-adventures they had branched into. Yes, I think that was a bad decision on there part, :p...
Now, if KQ8's had hurt the sales of KQ9, then we would have a valid sense of how 'unloved' the game was in relation to the series as whole. But more than likely it would have probably pushed new fans brought in by KQ8, into playing the next game in the series, had it existed.
There is that, but also just about every media reference to it these days points it out as being a very unsatisfying end to the series whenever they mention it, and that's paraphrasing the nicer ways they put it.
I would agree that it is an unsatifying end to the series (it doesn't even have much of an ending), and what ending it has leaves more questions. Hell, if KQ7 had been the last game, I would have considered it unsatifsying ending :p (it was a let down after I played KQ6)...
KQ6, is probably the only game in the series that could have existed as a kind of decent epilogue.
But that still doesn't discount the fact, that KQ8, didn't hurt the series directly. Sierra hurt the series by choosing not to make another one, and thus never giving KQ9 a chance (even though KQ8 was the best selling KQ game of all time).
Speaking of no accounting for taste, the remake of KQ1 was actually pretty much hated by most KQ fans when it was released (seen as recoloring a black and white movie). It sold poorly, hurt the chance of making an official remake of KQ2. It might actually be the least successful KQ game of all time :p... Though I think its gained popularity by more 2nd or 3rd generation fans, and inspired the fan remake. But seriously its later following, doesn't really have a bearing on its 'success'. Actually the overall distate for the Sierra remakes affected all the remakes, and not just the KQ1 remake unfortunately. The only one that saw any success I think was Mixed-Up Mother Goose that saw like four remakes.
The problem with most of the Sierra remakes is that they don't really make substantial improvements over the originals. Take KQ1 for example--it's just a graphical overhaul, pure and simple (a few puzzle tweaks here and there but nothing substantial.) It doesn't even change the interface significantly, since it's still a parser game. Even the Sierra remakes that changed the graphics into VGA and added the point and click interface are barely improvements over the originals (and in some cases, like Police Quest 1 VGA and the awful QFG1VGA, actually suffer quite a bit from their "improvements"--QFG1VGA completely loses the unique graphical atmosphere of its EGA predecessor, for example, and PQ1VGA adds in the horrendously bad driving system from later games in the series.) The one exception to this, in my opinion, is SQ1VGA, which adds enough cool extras and re-imagined scenes to be not only worth the effort it took to remake, but also a substantial improvement over the original in many respects.
Mask of Eternity was really a mix of different genres. It was the first attempt at a 3D world. It was an enjoyable game and allot of new information about the world of King's Quest can be learned from it.
Many great adventure games series moved away from point and click and on to action adventure: Monkey Island, Broken Sword, Simon the Sorcerer and Indy to name a few.
I think that MoE was trying to be too many things at once and the hack and slash elements were the most emphasized and actual puzzle solving like killing the basilisk for instance were few and far between. The puzzles and riddles were there but you usually had to take out hoards of enemies to reach them. So someone expecting to play a straight adventure game might have been disappointed. I think that a mask of eternity remake with a more adventure like gameplay would sell today.
An adventure game that I would recommend is 'Tale of a Hero'. http://www.adventure-archiv.com/t/taleofheropreviewe.htm I have to say that it is as close to being a King's Quest game without being, in terms of Quests and Magic and Characters and plays like a classic adventure. I'd like a future King's Quest game to be just like it.
While I understand what you are saying, and probably mostly agree. IMO, you are underplaying the changes made in KQ1SCI. It has quite a few graphical changes, that change the atmosphere of the original game, in about the same way SQ1 remake changed the atmosphere of SQ1.
For example in KQ1 original the whole world was pretty much bright, and happy. Very Disney fairy talesque.
The remake made the world much darker, and dreary. Going so far to create a dark section of the forest, its also much more densely forested. The extended script in the game with descriptions for almost everything, added to the atmosphere. In the original you basically got the proverbial red X's if you tried to look at the screens', "I don't know what you want", blah blah" I don't know 'what" that is". The game also saw some overhauls for certain areas like suspended paths through mountain, instead of stairs, and a different more difficult beanstalk maze sequence.
You are right about the puzzle tweaks though, most involved removing the introduction and conclusion puzzles, and turning them into automatic cinemas. A few items were changed, and locations were moved. Otherwise once you find the puzzles, they are mostly the same. There is a slight difference in the Dragon's Lair, and how the dragon is defeated, but in general the same puzzle.
However, I'd say the changes are enough, that it doesn't really fit in with other games in the series (and feels somewhat of a reboot). Especially when many of the other games, actually are built upon references to the original KQ, rather than the remake.
PQ1? Well ya, I personally do enjoy the original for that as well. It's got better puzzles, the remake simplified and removed quite a few puzzles actually. Driving in the original was a unique experience, more finicky, and arcade like. Alot of fun. Then don't get me started on how certain characters saw name and/or sex changes in the remake... The remake is set chronologically after PQ3, so there are alot of continuity issues (it doesn't really fit as a true remake, but more of a reboot).
Now, LSL, eh, I preferred the remake... The original really is dated.
and QFG1, eh I still think Town of Spielburg looks hideous in the original so garrish, :p... It doesn't look that good, compared to the EGA graphics in QFG2 (or KQ4) imo. But I do like the interactivity in original alot more.
SQ? Well, ya it probably is my favorite remake of the bunch. It changes the style alot, there are some nice extra items that make things a bit easier (magnet), and changes to items (the plant becomes something useulf), and has a much more defined script. Overall, it maintained 98% of the puzzles/items in original (with a few things that mixed it up a bit). Granted it really kind of screws with SQ4...
The KQ1SCI remake is fantastic. Josh Mandel, who directed the project, even re-wrote much if not all of the dialogue in the game. It is a substantial improvement over the original.
And the soundtrack is fantastic.
Yes, the soundtrack is the best part of KQ1SCI remake. Although I personally love both equally. Ya, Josh Mandel did most of the changes to the script, and puzzles in the game. Roberta was busy making KQ5 at the time, and did very little on it according to Josh. He'd just ask her a few questions every now and then, to make sure she approved of his new ideas.
Come to think of it, in most cases, each of the remakes offered considerably expanded or altered scripts..
QFG1 didn't really change the script much, except in a few locations (and to add in references to later games). Bust most the text was the same as in the original. A big change was to the Black Bird, to foreshadow that the one in the Brigand Fortress was the real one, and would be seen again in QFG5. But those kind of references were rare.
Frankly I like it better than KQ 2,4, and 5. But I can admit it was an inappropriate direction for the series.
I was having a bit of fun declaring that "it sucks", but my real feelings aren't far off. I just don't think it's a very good game, and I agree with Katie - it's sales and popularity at the time really had everything to do with it's name. If the game was called "Connor's Adventures", I don't think it would have sold much. It's a pretty mediocre and average game.
I mean, it was a noble experiment, I suppose - and I don't think it "killed" King's Quest. I think the death of Sierra killed King's Quest. I've found with MOE that you'll either have a faction of people who really like it and defend it heavily, and there's another faction which really hates it and will spend all the time and effort they have to deride it!
I do think that with today's gaming engines, a game like MOE would be cool. I was playing Red Dead Redemption the other day, and I actually thought that if you could make a Sierra-like adventure game with that engine, you'd have a pretty cool game.
Bt
I agree with Blackthorne here - if the game hadn't included the "King's Quest" label and had been called something totally unrelated it would have had abysmal sales and wouldn't even be discussed much these days. As it is, it's not the absolute worst game I've ever played, but I'm not especially fond of it either.
Ooh, but what IS the worst game you've ever played? *runs off to start a new topic*
Actually at the time KQ8, was actually ahead of most things out at the time. It was praised because it pushed the limits of then technology (every KQ game was known for pushing the technology). It was way ahead of most things on the market at the time.
Technology has obviously bypassed it, since then.
Let's face it I think its a better game than Doom... and people still praise doom... Both were innovative for their time, and both have become dated by modern technology.
If I was going by modern standards, most older games would be mediocre by today's standards. That would mean the entire KQ series... People still enjoy old atari games, and nintendo games, but imo many of them simply haven't aged gracefully, and I don't find much fun in many of them anymore...
Actually, the name on the cover, had nothing to do with KQ8's success, it was said by Roberta, most of the sales were from new players, that had never played King's Quest before. It certainly maintained some of the core fan base, but the core fan base wasn't really all that big to begin with. It was the new players that latched onto it the most, and gave it best ratings. While some of the older players, gave it lower ratings. But in general most critics rated it as 70% or so. Not the best, but certainly not "poor". Let's face it poor games don't get better ratings, for simply having a popular "name" on them... There are plenty of modern series, with entries given poor ratings... Why because the reviewers don't see them as being any good... Having a popular 'name' doesn't guerentee a good rating.
From what I've been discovering KQ7, actually had pretty middling/poor ratings as well, might even be as low as overall 60%, but it didn't draw in as many new fans as previous games. As she pointed out, she had received alot of hate mail for KQ7 from older fans, but she never let it bother her. It might actually be the lowest rated KQ game.
Its interesting to note that two popular adventure gaming sites, gave KQ7, between 40% and 50% (D) rating back when the gave their ratings for the game...
Strangely enough they gave Mask of Eternity, around an 80% (B) and 100%.
Like I said you can never account for taste, and each mileage will vary. But it seems if KQ8 had remained close to KQ7 in style, it probably wouldn't have gotten very high marks by the industry, and probably still would have failed as a 'proper ending to the series'... Either way KQ8 probably still would have been a 'cult classic' of a sort.
Like I said, I think KQ6 is the only game of the series, that maintained consistent high marks across the board. NOthing less than an 80.
Most of the other games, have mixed reviews. People either love them or hate them. You have fans that came in during point and click era, that absolutely hate the parser era. there were fans that played from the beginning but were turned off by the icon-driven systems. they couldn't please everyone.
True, it was pretty advanced for its time but that also brought its own set of problems. I couldn't even play it for several years as I didn't have a computer that could handle it, and even when I did later I still had to set things up pretty low and the load/unload times were atrocious.
Personally I like Doom, Hexen, etc. quite a bit better than MoE (proof in the pudding is that I still play those from time to time, I have only ever played all the way through MoE twice in my life). I feel like the type of secrets and bonuses those games give actually fit the overall gameplay than MoE's "Congratulations on finally finding that object, now spend half an hour backtracking to use it where it belongs."
I actually still even have a fully functional Atari with about 3 dozen games and many of them are still plenty of fun (Pitfall on a 60 inch Plasma HDTV, woot!), and I have a number of original NES and SNES games that I think are better than many "modern" game entries. Earthbound is one of my very favorite RPG's ever, and Solomon's Key from NES has always been a favorite puzzler in my book.
I just don't think that Mask of Eternity has aged as well as a lot of other games from back then. Possibly because I haven't had anywhere near as much trouble getting any other classic game running on a modern machine as I have Mask, and now that I have been able to get it running it's still the glitchiest game on my system.
QuoteTrue, it was pretty advanced for its time but that also brought its own set of problems. I couldn't even play it for several years as I didn't have a computer that could handle it, and even when I did later I still had to set things up pretty low and the load/unload times were atrocious.
That might actually be one of the reasons KQ7 got such abysmall reviews as well. That full animation, and requirement to use windows, probably kept it out of the hands ot alot of people
QuotePersonally I like Doom, Hexen, etc. quite a bit better than MoE (proof in the pudding is that I still play those from time to time, I have only ever played all the way through MoE twice in my life). I feel like the type of secrets and bonuses those games give actually fit the overall gameplay than MoE's "Congratulations on finally finding that object, now spend half an hour backtracking to use it where it belongs."
I've played Doom maybe twice.. Hexen only once (never completed it). I've played MoE about 5-6 times. That is probably 3 more times than I've played KQ7. KQ6 I've played probably a dozen times.
But ya, backtracking... I remember doing that in Doom for keycards :p...
QuoteI actually still even have a fully functional Atari with about 3 dozen games and many of them are still plenty of fun (Pitfall on a 60 inch Plasma HDTV, woot!), and I have a number of original NES and SNES games that I think are better than many "modern" game entries. Earthbound is one of my very favorite RPG's ever, and Solomon's Key from NES has always been a favorite puzzler in my book.
I like pitfall for a short time, but its not really my cup of tea. No story, and always semed neverending.
Of course Earthbound is a good game, its an RPG with all the bells and whistles. Good graphics, and interesting story. Never played SK, so can't comment.
I can say Zelda and Mario games are still fun to play from time to time. But not something I go back to play often. Mostly do come back to play each new title in the series though.
QuoteI just don't think that Mask of Eternity has aged as well as a lot of other games from back then. Possibly because I haven't had anywhere near as much trouble getting any other classic game running on a modern machine as I have Mask, and now that I have been able to get it running it's still the glitchiest game on my system
.
I definitely agree MOE is very buggy. I've had to create my own technical guide to figure out how to get past the various bugs. I've put it up on the KQ Omnipedia, for anyone struggling. The game causes alot of memory exception errors.
As for appearances, KQ8 is by far the ugliest King's Quest game if you don't play it with 'glide emulation'. The pixels are distracting, and not in the nostalgic 8-bit way of the early KQ games. If you have glide enabled, it looks pretty decent. I like the animated lyp synching, and it has pretty nice texture artwork variety. If you compare it to games of that era, it looked quite a bit better in that department.
Someone should remake MOE in Oblivion or something and do it properly. That would be fantastic...
Well I know some people have been able to examine the files, and pull out a few unused graphics in the game. I wish I knew how to do that. I've always wondered what else the bowels of the game might hide... Extra script material like KQ6? Extra voice files like in KQ7?
If the sound and voice files could be pulled out, it probably wouldn't be that difficult to convert them over to another engine. A new interface would have to be created though.
I think if the game was completely playable, and didn't have the bugs, it probably help things out a lot...
KQ8 was beautiful in its day. At the time it had one of the most advanced dynamic lighting effect systems yet done in a 3D game. If you had a proper Voodoo card and a decent machine, it was a true beauty in an era when 3D games were struggling to even look decent compared to their 2D predecessors. It pains me to hear so many people deriding KQ8's graphics comparing it to modern games. Yeah, no s***. It looks crappy compared to Oblivion or Red Dead. But it was one of the best looking games yet when it was released. So many people forget that. It blew games like Tomb Raider out of the water.
Even if a bunch of the players were new players, the game had enough of Sierra's clout and The King's Quest name brand to command a good share of frontal shelf placement, putting the game into the eyes of the consumer. Plus, if you add experienced salespeople pitching the game, THEY probably knew about King's Quest and threw out reccomendations on their behalf.
Like I said, without the Sierra name or King's Quest branding, it would have faded into obscurity. I know you say it was groundbreaking when it came out, but I played it then and I was unimpressed.
In the end, I'll say this: do you seem teams of talented artists, writers and programmers making new King's Quest games in the style of MOE? Because I haven't...
Bt
Which doesn't make much logical sense, because you can find reviews, stating that MOE, was a great game, just didn't feel like a KQ game. Back then. I still find people who claim MOE is a great game, just not a great KQ game.
Putting the KQ on the title might have actually held some people back from getting it (since they might have been midled thinking it was an adventure game, rather than action game). If it had been purely advertised as an original game, if these reviews are to be believed, then they think it would have sold more. They only lowed there rating because it was part of the series, and because for them it didn't feel like the series (not forgetting that some of these may have rated KQ7 even lower, for whatever reasons).
Now tell, me how can people have such mixed view points, it can't be both ways really? Either the name helped its sells, or as some would have you believe it actually hurt its sales (despiting being the best selling adventure game that year)... HMM.
QuoteIn the end, I'll say this: do you seem teams of talented artists, writers and programmers making new King's Quest games in the style of MOE? Because I haven't...
I don't see many "talented teams, artists' etc making making 'new' KQ games period, TSL excluded... Let's face it, as of yet, there is no commercial professionals (as in financially professional) team out there, willing to risk making a commercial KQ game... So your hypothetical really doesn't mean much. If TSL was marketed, and was making money then we could possibly judge things on even grounds. But some non-profit bootleg game doesn't really show us how a modern KQ game would succeed.
If KQ8 had been made to be, another KQ7, or traditional style, it probably would have failed (adventure games simply weren't successful, the ratings for KQ7 showed the downhill trend)... Have we seen any more QFG or Gabriel Knights, or Space Quest 7? We'd still be discussing the collapse of the adventure game today... All roads lead to Chainsaw Monday...
Imo, if a KQ8 was made with modern technology, of now, it would probably would have been much higher success... As Assassin's Creed, and the like have shown... The team would have probably been able to include the levels they had to cut due to technical limitations (undersea levels, swimming etc). But you that's getting to much into the realm of "what-ifs".
I'm merely talking in terms of popularity and belovedness. AGDI, IA and POS have put together some pretty great games (if I do say so myself) and the style of the games doesn't lean towards what MOE did.
No doubt a MOE game made with today's engines would be pretty awesome. Actually, I'd really, really like to see that. But MOE as it stands then, and as it holds up now? I'm not interested.
You hear that budding game-makers? Someone needs to get on either remaking MOE in a modern engine, or "unofficial" Mask of Eternity II: Electric Boogaloo!
Bt
I do actually think that if Mask of Eternity were redesigned as a standalone game using modern technology and setup it could potentially do quite well. I actually wouldn't link it to King's Quest at all any more though, just because there is so much negative hype about it being sort of the "black sheep" of the series. But if a company rebuilt it from the ground up as its own game with some updated gameplay elements it could possibly be quite good. It just needs more good things to it, if it had more expansion to the RPG element or the adventure element or the action element it would be better, as all of those elements exist in the game but none of them to a high enough degree in my opinion.
You know, I'd really love to see a modern 3D remake of King's Quest I.... just as a curiosity. It'd be a pretty neat little tech demo to see what it'd be like. I wonder if an old adventure game could be translated like that.... the original game as a full, open world 3D game.... might be fun.
Bt
I remember being at college and making excuses to not go out with my friends so I could go home and play MoE. I normally didn't do that with a lot of games, so I did enjoy the game a lot. It probably reminded me of Alone in the Dark, which I had enjoyed immensely, and it was a very rare type of game to come across. So, in that sense, I enjoyed the game a lot, not as a King's Quest, but as a game on its own.
QuoteI only played the Mask of Eternity once. I suppose it was an ok game. I got used to the fighting, but I really
wanted to find out what happened to graham and family. There fore I did not care for connor.
I hated the loading times as well, and I thought the ending was pathetic.
you took the words right out of my mouth. It seem like they were going a total NEW direction alright, it should have been named something else, it really was not associated with the typical King's Quest stories...which is about the Graham's. Not that I hated the game entirely, it just was not the King's Quest I was use to.
Ya, Connor, the character that evolved from being initially a pinochio character, to a peasant... Here is a few details about why he was chosen;
QuoteRoberta apparently chose Connor, because she felt she couldn't do anything more with the Royal Family, King Graham was getting too old and Alexander was living in the Land of the Green Isles.[2]
Roberta also has said; "The only character from previous King's Quests will be a couple of cameo appearances by King Graham. I felt that it was time to feature a new character to the saga of King's Quest as long as we were updating the whole look and feel of the series."[3]
Roberta has stated that the general idea of the story remained the same throughout the various phases, but that she never really changed her ideas very much (though some material may have been reduced).
Were there any other storylines thought about before the current one? Describe a few of them.
Not really. The basic idea of a golden, all-powerful, sacred "mask" having something to do with a terrible crisis in the land was pretty much the essence of the story from the very beginning. And having a "normal guy" who lives in the kingdom of Daventry be the one to fix this problem was also part of the storyline. Now, as to exactly who he was, and what exactly
You know what? Another reason I hate KQ7 (I don't really "hate" it, just probably consider it my least favorite KQ game) it lacked King Graham in any form... Sure KQ8 didn't use him much more than a cameo, but at least he was there... Even if it would have been nice to see more of him. It was also nice to at least see Valanice if only as a painting :p... I also think it was kinda cool to a hero going about saving the Royal Family. But ya, people either love or hate Connor.
I actually saw Mask of Eternity as passing of the torch somewhat. Showing how Daventry is once again a prosperous Kingdom and now as a new character discovering more about the town and surrounding cities and areas. The Hillmen were a nice addition. I would have liked to see more of them. Of course a sequel would have been nice after finding out all of this. With maybe cameos from the Daventry family.
But with this game, Roberta's vision just didn't seem to work. If they had waited a few years for better technology and maybe had a bigger budget to make a King's Quest MMO or something I don't think anyone would be complaining. King's Quest in an Oblivion or Dragon Age style would have been awesome.