Better late than never. Finally my ban is up and I can comment on this drivel.
King's Quest should have died after KQ6. KQ7 and, to a lesser extent, 8, are abominations.
Wrong. KQ7 is a great game, that like KQ5, is a victim of experimentation with new technologies. You like KQ5, as do I, but many others would argue it's an ill designed crap fest with utterly illogical puzzles, because Sierra put an emphasis on trying out all this neat new technology rather than getting some real concrete puzzles down, and that a refinement of the promise KQ5 held only came with KQ6.
KQ7 could've been much the same, had the gaming industry not changed so suddenly. Perhaps a KQ8 done in the style of KQ7, but a refinement on that style, without the noted flaws, would've been a second masterpiece.
KQ8 had amazing potential but was messed up due to many, many factors, including simply being made at the wrong time, by a company which was changing and imploding slowly from within and without, and an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing video game industry which temporarily put adventure games into deep sleep. I don't think Roberta would've embarked on making KQ8 in the fashion she did if Doom, Quake and Tomb Raider weren't as popular as they were and if the video game industry at large, including her own husband, wasn't declaring adventure games dead.
A new King's Quest game should either be a retro style throwback with retro production values, or a retro style throwback with modern production values. Notice the consistency there in RETRO STYLE--by that, I of course, refer to the gameplay, exploration abilities, and puzzle design, NOT the story, as story is about the least important aspect of what makes King's Quest games feel like King's Quest games.
I agree only on this point, but I don't think it should be totally retro. Purism is what killed adventure games in the first place. Adventure games were previously all about evolution.
Episodic gameplay will not work for the King's Quest series. It sucked in KQ7
It can work, if done correctly. You're a little too closeminded.
King's Quest would be best in the hands of one of the Sierra revivalist developers like Josh Mandel, Scott Murphy, or even...gulp...Jane Jensen. If that can't happen--then kill it with fire, I say.
There are many, many more creative and fresher minds out there than that of Josh, Scott and Jane Jensen. Why should those younger, fresher minds be denied a chance at creating a new King's Quest game, particularly if they loved the old games? You act as if only three people in the entire world of six billion people could produce a worthy King's Quest game.
Just because
you are jaded and emotionally "over" King's Quest doesn't mean the series should stay permanently dormant. Because of what, two entries of mixed quality...Versus six of superb quality.
All other opinions on the matter are incorrect. Might as well close this thread, mods.
Arrogance leads you nowhere.