Per capita GDP in Daventry, aka Petra strikes again

[Yonkey]

Actually its more likely majority of people in your forum dislike it. Outside of this forum its more like a 50/50 thing. 50% of people like it, or 50% people hated it. This is reflected in the reviews. Obviously there are alot of people that never played it either, and know nothing about it.

Actually, if you do double-blind survey of King's Quest fans and ask them for their opinion of MoE, you'll find that far less than 50% liked MoE. But, you don't even need to do this, just look at any review for that game and compare it with other games of the same genre, other games from the same company, and of course other games by the same designer.  All point to the same conclusion, and given history,  Sierra ceased the King's Quest series due to MoE.  They didn't try to salvage the series, plotline or anything.  The reason is as you said, due to insufficient profits and the shift in market trends away from the adventure genre.

So, now you have a game called The Silver Lining.  We're not following current market trends, we're not following the same style as the KQ series (i.e. 2D), and our technological limits are far higher than those of 1998.  However, we're not a multi-billion dollar company so our goal isn't to push technological limits.  We're not Vivendi, Nintendo or Sony.  Our game isn't about graphics, it's about storyline and giving closure to a series that rightfully deserves it.  Our fans are large in number and support us because they share the same dream we do, and perhaps the same dream Sierra had 10-20 years ago.

Now, we're also not limiting ourselves to only the adventure genre, or only the King's Quest series.  I've said this at least 20 times this year, on our site and others, but I have no problem saying it again.  

I understand Roberta's strategy back then completely, in fact, our entire team does, which is why we've been so successful up to this point.  There were several obvious mistakes made with MoE that anyone can point out, but the business and marketing mistakes are even more obvious to Say and myself, so we already know how to avoid them completely and not fall into the same hole Sierra did eight years ago.

[Baggins]

at any review for that game and compare it with other games of the same genre, other games from the same company, and of course other games by the same designer.

Let's see other games by that same genre. Well it actually outsold any other adventure game that year, it received many good reviews. Grim Fandango was the second best selling adventure game that year (though Grim Fandango had a better rating, however it was fairly common for Lucasarts to edge out Sierra in ratings generally).

Other games of the same company. It sold as well if not more than Gabriel Knight 3, and QFG5 which were released around the same time. All three did not do well compared to games from other genres. Yes companies based their sales figures on how well other genres outside of adventure games sold, if a game didn't reach sells of say a First Person Shooter, it was a failure in their eyes, when to most companies it would have been seen as astounding as far as Adventure genre goes.

It received equal if not better ratings than QFG5, as I recall. For example Gamespot actually liked MOE over QFG5. MOE had a slightly higher rating by .2% or so.

GK3 received only slightly better reviews than MOE, with about 79% being 70% or higher. Going by gamsranking's list, obviously not a coplete list of reviews but shows a good sampling of reviews at the time.

Games by the same designer, it sold equal to if not more than any previous King's Quest game. Roberta herself was actually quite happy with how well it sold, if she had been in charge of the company she would have made a 9th game. Her expectations just weren't as high as Havas Interactive.

Interesting enough it was still one of the best selling adventure game even in 2001 in the top 20, competing against many of the newer adventure games at the time.

I've read lots of reviews of the time it got usually got 70% or higher ratings. KQ7 received 70% or higher ratings during its release as well. Sure there were reviewers who gave both games less than stellar reviews as well.

Let's take an example, from well respected adventure game site, Just Adventure, they actually gave MOE a higher rating than they did KQ7. They gave KQ7 50% rating, and MOE an 80% rating.

For those reviewers that lambasted the so called "mistakes" in MOE, there were many more than "praised" them as "innovations"... For those reviewers that felt it deviated from the series roots there were many more than felt it stayed true to the series spirit and lineage. Like anything reviews are built upon opinions, and not everyone agrees with each other.

So, now you have a game called The Silver Lining.

Look, I get this impression from you that you think discussion of how well MOE, did or didn't do. It appears you take it as a slight against your game...

Well let me guarentee it isn't a slight against your game. I wish your game great popularity, and a very high download rate. I can't wait to play it myself. I'm just stating the facts as I have read them about what happened with MoE(it has no baring on your game). Hopefully to try to dispell certain myths people perpetuate about MoE, and let them in on more detailed history of what happened. It is not meant to deter any success of your game.

[Petra Rocks]

 Keep it calm people, we are all friends here.  Or should be.    This isn't a flame war yet by some way but I smell the start of one so keep cool.  Or I will use my giant super-soaker on all of you.  So there! 

  And with all due respect, this is totally off-topic for this thread, even if we have expanded it to all history. Can some mod please move to the Connor thread or wherever you think it goes. 

[Baggins]

Yes, I agree, its totally gone off topic... But please if you must move the posts, can you make sure the links to the screenshots remain in this topic?

[Say]

These posts may stay here as long as you just go back to the previous conversation. So, don't worry about moving your attachments or whatnot

[Yonkey]

We can get back on topic, since I'm now finally starting to understand the whole per capita GDP thing.

Oh and Baggins, it turns out I'm a bit too swamped to update the TSL Timeline.  We'll see if things change though.  If not, then I'll just keep it how it is, and you'll just have to wait for Shadows to get released before getting any more info.

[Yonkey]

Sorry for the double post, but this one's somewhat important:

In light of new information, I won't be making any further adjustments to the TSL Timeline.  Thanks again for all your hard work, Baggins.  It was actually pretty informative, but probably not worth all the effort you put into it.

[Baggins]

That's ok, I'm sure whatever this new bit of info is, that causes your timeline to diverge even further from official one than it already does will make for a fascinating article in the Omnipedia someday, or at least an addition to a current article. 

[Yonkey]

You're forgetting that Peter Spear will be making a TSL Companion, meaning our timeline will add to the official one.   You're right that it will make a fascinating Omnipedia addition someday.

[Baggins]

Peter Spear's adaptation of your game is just a fanfic, much as it is an adaptation of a fan game, seeing as it likely won't be officially authorized by Sierra as well(that is published under the sierra trademark and brand name).

But yes if he's stuck to your timeline, it obviously will conflict with the official timeline(as most of that timeline was published in the manuals). As their are already multiple inconsistencies that already exist in your timeline with those sources. He may actually have inconsistencies with his previous published works, since it was based on the official timeline. Hell your timeline already has inconsistenencies with his previously published works.

Alternatively it is possible he might ignore your timeline and adapt the game's storyline to the official one somehow. But then that would make it much different than your timeline.

But ya why are we discussing that here?

[Yonkey]

Peter Spear's adaptation of your game is just a fanfic, much as it is an adaptation of a fan game, seeing as it likely won't be officially authorized by Sierra as well(that is published under the sierra trademark and brand name).

Since likelyhood is not absolute, we'll see.

But yes if he's stuck to your timeline, it obviously will conflict with the official timeline(as most of that timeline was published in the manuals).

In case you haven't realized yet, the official series conflicts with itself.  Peter made the Companion books to resolve these conflicts, just as how we're attempting to resolve remaining conflicts.

Alternatively it is possible he might ignore your timeline and adapt the game's storyline to the official one somehow. But then that would make it much different than your timeline.

The solution to a problem isn't to ignore it.

But ya why are we discussing that here?

You already know the answer to that question.

[Petra Rocks]

 This doesn't have much to go with GDPs in Daventry but if this is now my thread I guess it doesn't matter, right?    And if this is supposed to be my Haven thread should somebody move it there? Whatever, somebody will tell if I am doing something wrong I suppose. 

I was just reading that in the early American colonies people tended to marry sooner (when in late teens early twenties) and have larger families than back in europe.  This is usually ascribed to the large amount of land the colonies had, thus making it possible to support a family more easily in a basically farming economy. Thus Rosella's early marriage age may indicate that Daventry is sparsely populated.  Then again marriage or betrothal among European aristocracy were commonly very young because nobody wanted to wait for the political advantages marriage brought, so it is remotely possible I am reading way too much into this.   

EDIT:

  And what the deuce are you two going on about?  You can talk about it here if you really want I suppose, but it does seem to be a very odd choice of topics. (Assuming this is now 'my thread' and that I can give you permission to do that, I'm a little shaky on what that means still.   )

[Yonkey]

And if this is supposed to be my Haven thread should somebody move it there? Whatever, somebody will tell if I am doing something wrong I suppose. 

Done.   And don't worry, I've already told you what you've done wrong.  As far as I can tell, you're not doing anything wrong right now.

And what the deuce are you two going on about?  You can talk about it here if you really want I suppose, but it does seem to be a very odd choice of topics. (Assuming this is now 'my thread' and that I can give you permission to do that, I'm a little shaky on what that means still.   )

Sorry about that.  If Baggins had his own thread, I'd discuss it there, but you're right.  I won't spam it any further.

[Baggins]

In case you haven't realized yet, the official series conflicts with itself.

No it doesn't. The timeline established by the games is consistent with it self, except for maybe one refrence in the KQ5 strategy guide. There is no contradictions between the games(At least with the first 7, MOE has some geographical/architectural issues with Castle Daventry, but everything else does not interfere with any previous game). That is they are stand alone enough that they don't interfere with any previous game in the series or state anything that is inconsistent to previous games. Practically every manual or official strategy guide up to KQ7 had synopses of "what happened before", and these were the articles that often stated how much time had passed between each game. MOE manual even had the synopes however it didn't mention how much time passed between KQ7 and 8.

Peter Spear's current novels are in line with that timeline. Your timeline is not in line with that timeline, there are several inconsistencies where your timeline deviates from the official timeline. I have sent you several articles pointing out where the timelines diverge from each other. It its about 1-2 sometimes 3 year deviation.

Since your timeline is already deviated from the official timeline, if Peter Spear was to use it, he'd have already deviated from the timeline he used in his books. There would be contradictions.

For example you have King's Quest 1 taking place over course of 6 months. He had the same story taking place over the course of three days.


That difference can hardly be reconciled, 3 days compared to 6 months is large difference in time. They simply are not consistent.

Another example is you have Alex and Rosella born 3 years after KQ1, its 5 years in the official timeline. So there is a 2 year difference right there and tweaks the ages of the characters somewhat.

The timelines are quite different, and cannot be reconciled with each other. Either Peter Spear will have to choose to ignore the official timeline(though he'll contradict his own books and and what was established in the manuals/strategy guides) to use yours, or adapt your game to the official timeline. There is no middle ground, either way something gets contradicted.

Thus Rosella's early marriage age may indicate that Daventry is sparsely populated.  Then again marriage or betrothal among European aristocracy were commonly very young because nobody wanted to wait for the political advantages marriage brought, so it is remotely possible I am reading way too much into this

Interesting information. But you say european aristoracy was how young? Cause 20(the age he was son about to turn according to KQ7) is pretty late i'm sure by standard's in most places back then right?

[Petra Rocks]

Interesting information. But you say European aristocracy was how young? Cause 20(the age he was son about to turn according to KQ7) is pretty late I'm sure by standard's in most places back then right?

  If you mean betrothed people were hitched before they were born in extreme cases.    Usually 14-17 for females IIRC (and I may not). That was particularly true in the plague days. Men were older, in the 20-early 30s range.  I recall reading that a girl of 20 was considered an "ancient virgin" in 18thc N. America but in Europe a marriage age of 30's was not uncommon in that time frame.  I'll try to look through my books soon and I can give some more definite numbers. 

[Deloria]

*revives* AFAIK, it always depended when it was most adventageous. They were far more easy to annul if both parties were still young, that's not to say betrothals weren't broken often (especially if doweries failed). But IIRC males were usually married in their twenties or thirties and preferred teenaged or brides in their early twenties.

[Petra Rocks]

Humm. The best I could come up with was a man in 18thc America lamenting that his daughter was an 'old maid', so to speak, at 20.  That was in mid-18thc Virginia. So Rosella (or her mother) wanting her to marry pre-20 is certianly well within pre-industrial standards.  I read somthing about marrige ages in 18thc UK being more like 30 for both parties, but I'll have to look that up. 

[Deloria]

Ok, I should have read through all of the posts a lot more carefully... Sorry about that. I was thinking more along the lines of sixtienth and seventienth century Europe.

[Petra Rocks]

You are fine.  I'm just bringing up 18thc America since it is what I knw best, but 17thc europe is no less topical. 

[Baggins]

So Rosella (or her mother) wanting her to marry pre-20 is certianly well within pre-industrial standards.

It was a matter of her marrying when she reached 20, "marriable age" according to KQ7 strategy guide.