I've had an opinion brewing back in forth in my mind for several years now. I feel that King's Quest should be something much larger than it is and ever was--That a King's Quest game shouldn't be a series limited to the Royal Family of Daventry, or even to Daventry itself. It shouldn't be a series limited to the Adventure Genre, either.
What do I mean by this? Well, I look at worlds like those of Dungeons & Dragons (The Forgotten Realms in particular), or the massive world of JRR Tolkien and I see realms full of almost unlimited potential for stories, intriguing characters and exciting adventures. No single kind of story dominates the worlds of Tolkien or the world of D&D--Middle Earth is a place where ANYTHING can happen; So is the world of Faerun in Dungeons & Dragons' Forgotten Realms setting.
There are so many stories spanning so many epochs, genres, varying in tone from dark and dreary, to light and happy; From creepy dungeon crawls, to grand epic adventures.
Consider the vast variety of material in The Silmarillion alone, to the sweet, simple Hobbit, to the deep, methaphorical Lord of the Rings. Consider the many realms in Middle Earth, the hundreds of stories, the multitude of characters and legends.
Or consider the Forgotten Realms. You have a planet called Toril, a continent called Faerun and several other large continents; Within those continents, dozens and dozens of countries; Within those countries, the detail contained in the source guides depicts hundreds of cities, towns, hamlets and the like, thus giving room for endless amounts of stories.
Why shouldn't KQ be this way? Why should King's Quest be limited to just four characters in a very specific timeline?
I think the KQ Universe should take on a life of it's own, in the same way that the Forgotten Realms, or Middle Earth did. We should get to more about the lands of the world of Daventry and be able to experience adventures through the eyes of royals of the other lands.
KQ, IMO, should not just be bound to the adventure genre. It can be an adventure game, sure, but it shouldn't be trapped in that one box. There's so much potential in the world Roberta created that there should be room for everything. Why should KQ play by a very narrow and specific set of rules?
This was Roberta's own framework for what made a King's Quest game:
"The components that make a King's Quest are (in my mind, anyway and since I am the creator of the series, I guess that holds some weight):
1) A land, or lands, of high fantasy;
2) Fantasy creatures from myth, legends, and/or fairytales both good and bad
3 Situations to be found in those same types of stories
4) A "quest" type story; a calamity in the land with one "hero" to "save the kingdom"
5) A story of the "good" hero against the "evil" bad guy
6) A story that everyone can relate to, i.e., a "reason" for having the hero go out and risk his or her life for "saving the kingdom"
7) Interesting worlds to explore
8) High interactivity
9) Interesting characters
10) Great animation
11) Great visuals and music.
Within that general framework, I feel that I can have some "leeway" to accomplish those tasks."
As you can see, Roberta's own framework was not that tightly bound--rather loose really, allowing for a whole variety of Quests.
I don't see why, for example, we can't have a KQ prequel showcasing the adventures of John the Wanderer, or maybe a side-story about King Edward's adventures, or the adventures of some King from another land, or a story about King Graham's adventures when he was just Sir Graham.
I think the KQ universe should be all encompassing, like the universes of Middle Earth or the Forgotten Realms. If someone wants to design a KQ6 style KQ, go ahead; If someone wants to design a light hearted, Disney-esque KQ ala KQ7; the door is open; If someone wants to make Mask of Eternity II; Excellent.
KQ shouldn't just be limited to a very strict set of rules. It limits the series and curbs it's potential.
I don't see it happening, but that would be pretty cool!
John the Wanderer? You mean the guy who became Derek Karlavaegen, the 'wanderer'?
Quote from: Baggins on September 06, 2011, 07:21:04 AM
John the Wanderer? You mean the guy who became Derek Karlavaegen, the 'wanderer'?
Isn't John the Wanderer the main character of Wizard and the Princess? I might be mistaken; if so, I meant the character who is the protagonist of Wizard and the Princess.
I consider Wizard and the Princess a prequel to KQ and the kind of idea I'm talking about: Games set in the world of King's Quest that aren't exactly "King's Quest" proper. But that would get the brand name.
It has the potential for not just being about the Royal Family, but here's the thing: regardless of whether that was part of Roberta's stated formula for the series, it clearly WAS part of the formula. 7 out 8 games star members of the Royal Family. So it would require some dedicated transition to make it NOT about them. After all, TV shows don't suddenly change their entire cast after seven seasons, for example.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 06, 2011, 07:29:24 AM
It has the potential for not just being about the Royal Family, but here's the thing: regardless of whether that was part of Roberta's stated formula for the series, it clearly WAS part of the formula. 7 out 8 games star members of the Royal Family. So it would require some dedicated transition to make it NOT about them. After all, TV shows don't suddenly change their entire cast after seven seasons, for example.
True but it does look like she was looking to expand the series beyond Graham, Valanice, Alex and Rosella. And I don't see why it shouldn't be expanded beyond them. Consider Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example. An iconic cast for 20something years, replaced by a just as iconic cast whose stories were set after the original stories, but whose plots sometimes interwove with the originals.
Or, the Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion. The Hobbit is a light, fun, easy to read, classic fairy-taleish adventure; The Lord of the Rings is a deep, metaphorical, allegorical masterpiece, with only several ties to the Hobbit (the Ring, Bilbo and Gandalf); Virtually a whole new cast replaced the cast if you will of The Hobbit. And the Silmarillion has no real story ties to either outside of the fact that it tells of how certain characters came to be, but is set thousands of years before either and exists in the same world, while having stories of hundreds of characters either not at all mentioned in the LotR, or only given passing mention in there as legends.
Between The Hobbit and LotR, yes, but they are extensions of the same story--Bilbo is still there, and in more than just a passing way (unike, for example, King Graham's cameo in MoE), and his actions in Hobbit directly influence and lead to the events of LotR. They aren't completely disparate stories. The Silmarillion is indeed far more separated and let's be honest, that's part of why it's less well-known (also the fact that it reads like an encyclopedia).
IMO, to successfully transition KQ to a different cast, you need some kind of strong ties to the Royal Family to at least begin that. A reason that MoE is so strongly disliked by so many is that it handled this transition poorly.
QuoteIsn't John the Wanderer the main character of Wizard and the Princess? I might be mistaken; if so, I meant the character who is the protagonist of Wizard and the Princess.
I consider Wizard and the Princess a prequel to KQ and the kind of idea I'm talking about: Games set in the world of King's Quest that aren't exactly "King's Quest" proper. But that would get the brand name.
You are mistaken. The character of Wizard and the Princess didn't have a name. It was either 'you', or known as the 'happy wanderer'. The KQC made him out to be a wandering barbarian.
Quote7 out 8 games star members of the Royal Family. So it would require some dedicated transition to make it NOT about them. After all, TV shows don't suddenly change their entire cast after seven seasons, for example.
Even KQ8 was in part about saving King Graham (a major sequence had Connor journey to the castle to check on Graham and his family), this leads to Connor discovering the royal family has been turned to stone, and him checking the magic mirror (a nod back to most of the early KQ games, KQ1, KQ2, KQ3, KQ4, & KQ6)! So it wasn't completely torn away from the Royal Family. It is also about a lowly peasant gaining nobility and knighthood through acts of virtue.
Graham's role in KQ8 is more than a cameo... It is actually one of the crucial catalysts for pushing Connor's journey to save the world, and defeat Lucreto.
Graham's role was supposed to be even larger. As hinted by the Oracle of the Tree, Connor was supposed to return to Graham, and be acknowledged for his duties. There were plans to originally have an extended ending where Connor would have come before Graham, and been officially knighted into the kingdom's defense forces apparently (thus bringing Connor full circle to the role Graham held in KQ1).
What ending there is, returns to King Graham at least seeing the saviour of the Kingdom through the Magic Mirror (bringing the story full circle back to the introduction video, where Graham saw the start of the destruction).
It's often suggested that Graham like Connor was not of nobel birth, but actually came to that position by deed (or the deeds of his father and grandfather)!
Quote from: KatieHal on September 06, 2011, 08:21:37 AM
IMO, to successfully transition KQ to a different cast, you need some kind of strong ties to the Royal Family to at least begin that. A reason that MoE is so strongly disliked by so many is that it handled this transition poorly.
I agree that for something like this to be considered an extension of King's Quest, there would need to be involvement of the primary KQ characters. Even with TV series spin-offs, characters from the original are often there at the beginning. At the very least, they would need to be referenced significantly.
QuoteEven with TV series spin-offs, characters from the original are often there at the beginning. At the very least, they would need to be referenced significantly.
Snabbot, actually in Star Trek: Next Generation... for example.
Characters from the original series usually only appeared as a cameo!
For example in The Next Generation, McCoy appears in the first episode. He only says one line really. His appearance is largely tangential to the plot. He shows up, says a few lines, and you never see him again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-5DMBXz8s
The scene could be left out, and not affect the story at all. It's largely pointless, insignificant, and if you blink, you will miss it. Note that its main intent is to setup the "Enterprise" as a character (Similar to how Daventry is a non-physical character in the KQ games). But its not a scene required to see the ship as a character/location, etc as a character.
There were later episodes that brought back Spock, Spock's parents, or Mr. Scott... But they used the characters more centrally to the episode's plot. But these plots were self-contained, and not largely important to the show as a whole.
Using Hollywood as a way to explain how 'spinoffs' are done is probably not the best idea! There are quite a few spinoff shows out there, that few people know are spinoffs, since they largely are spinoff of some minor character created in a previous show!
What was it St. Elsewhere lead to alot of spinoffs from minor characters or situations? This also overlaps the idea of 'crossover'...
But in anycase, here is a list of many of the 'television spin-offs'. You might find that many have very little to do with the show they spun-off of!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_spin-offs
However, back to the point of Star Trek: Next Generation. In comparison the use of King Graham is much larger role than the use of McCoy.
Graham and the magic mirror begins the story, he is the first to witness the destruction of the Mask of Eternity. That destruction turns him to stone. This is a big part of the story, and saving him is a huge reason for Connor's purpose of saving the kingdom and his King. He discovers his King's fate, and decides he is the only one capable of freeing him. He first learns about his foe through the magic mirror. The game ends where it started, Graham is one of the first to be rescued, and he is one of the first to see his own saviour
Daventry & Daventry Castle itself is a major character in the KQ games, much like the Enterprise is a major character in three series of Star Trek. A setting can be a character in story telling. This did not change in KQ8, though it shows new areas not seen in previous KQ material, but only mentioned (towns of daventry hav been mentioned since KQ1 and KQ2, but never appeared before KQ8).
QuoteAfter all, TV shows don't suddenly change their entire cast after seven seasons, for example.
Sliders anyone (ok lasted less than seven seasons)? As I understand it, it was still highly rated, but they killed it to replace it with another series.
Stargate SG-1 (ok lasted 10 seasons, after it changed its princible cast). Btw it was still going strong, but SciFi killed it because they wanted to try out more originals series to replace it. Sci-Fi does this alot with their highly rated series), killing them when they are going strong (by strong I mean the highest rated show on the network).
Old TV show Combat (ok lasted more than 7 seasons)? Never really had a princible cast. Anyone was capable of being killed... The cast changed quite often. Once two guys became central to the series plot, and you knew they'd survive every week, the show started going downhill, and the show cancelled...
Dr. Who... replaced the principle starring role multiple times. Often this came with a total cast change as well (each new Dr. meant new companions pretty much)... It's gone on for almost 60 years! With a minor space between the 80's and 90's with no show.
Assorted soap operas, that change their principle cast over their 20-30 year existence...
What about movies or shows where actors are replaced by a different actor for the same character? Like Dumbledore in Harry Potter? ...or James Bond?
Considering how poorly we all handled not playing a royal family member in MOE. I don't think this will catch on. :P
Quote from: Bludshot on September 06, 2011, 01:44:16 PM
Considering how poorly we all handled not playing a royal family member in MOE. I don't think this will catch on. :P
Yay for close mindedness!
KQ = VERY STRICT RULES AND NOTHING ELSE. 1992 FOR LIFE.
Ya, apparently Roberta got many letters from people that quit playing KQ3 or chose not to play it for that reason.
I'm not necessarily against the idea. I'm just pointing out how the series is often perceived.
You're talking about some of the oldest characters in videogames. As such their quests tended to be pretty narrow in scope. I have a hard time thinking of KQ lands interacting with each other on a level compared to the Forgotten Realms i.e. political, racial, and sexual themes.
I'm not sure what a KQ universe could offer that is unique to all the other fantasy worlds out there. Don't get me wrong, most of the lands in the series are great but in the sense that they are great to explore as a lone adventurer.
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on September 06, 2011, 01:45:36 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on September 06, 2011, 01:44:16 PM
Considering how poorly we all handled not playing a royal family member in MOE. I don't think this will catch on. :P
Yay for close mindedness!
KQ = VERY STRICT RULES AND NOTHING ELSE. 1992 FOR LIFE.
Again, the non-royal family member transition was poorly done. And plenty of people who did play MoE still disliked it. You asked for opinions and thoughts on the idea, and people are giving those. Doesn't mean they will align with your own, or that they are close-minded for not agreeing.
And I might add you yourself have expressed opinions very strongly against (or in other words, closed) to ideas of the games changing in ways you don't happen to like (the tonal shift from KQ5 to KQ6, for example).
I don't think taking King's Quest in that direction is a good move. King's Quest is about Graham's Family.
I don't think you could call the game King's Quest. Maybe, though, you could have other games set in the world of Daventry. But turning it into a D&D style property? I don't know. I think that's a little fanboyish obsessive. Some things are better left as they are, and we move on to new things.
Bt
Right on.
I tend to believe that there are those world that are expansive and are about their mythology, and those that are based and rooted on its characters. King's Quest has always belonged to the second batch.
You have stuff like Final Fantasy, which was built around a certain lore, and that lore is what carried on through generations of more and more games. Which is why every game has a different cast of characters, and the connections are made through this lore, but that was established from day 0.
But King's Quest worlds are meaningless without the characters that travel through them, making it a characters based saga. To start with, King's Quest never had a very rich lore. It was a mix-match of fairy tales dropped in whatever land Roberta fell like, but Roberta was never interested in developing those worlds as much as she was interested in developing the characters and the situations.
The Connor hand off would have worked better if he had been presented in a previous story, or given a minor role first. If there was a game with Edgar as a protagonist, for example, it would have been less of a shock, I guess. But, the fact that the genre changed on you, fairy tales were an afterthought, and to top that, a new protagonist that wasn't even developed enough is what made MoE lack so much in the eyes of fans.
So, in that way, King's Quest epicenter IS the Royal Family. Any expansion of the world, should part from the Royal family in the most careful way possible.
Fairy tale in MOE were not an afterthought, Roberta just focused on overtly religious and mythological concepts.
The story of Lucifer and and the fallen angels, Paradise Lost, God, etc.
Actually, i'd say starting with kQ6 the games started using more progressively obscure sources of myth. Take nightmare for example. KQ7 has no fairy tale references and mainly mythology. KQ8 is primarily mythology and biblical legends.
KQ2 might have adapted from Dracula, KQ8 took Tolkien as it's inspiration.
kq8 is probably the single most KQ game filled with intentional meaning, almost every thing in the game has double meanings and symbolism. Almost everything is tied together in the world and connected. It is probably the single deepest game in the series as far as story.
Perhaps the turn off is the fact that myth was not an afterthought in the game, and Roberts went out of her way to connect everything together instead of a series of random stories tossed into the world. Maybe that makes it too serious and much too crafted for what people were used to.
KQ7 may not be a fairy tale per se, but what was mainly based on could be considered a modern fairy tale. The story reeks of Alice in Wonderland, right up to Rosella's attire. Roberta went full on Disney, which kept the connection to fairy tales at large.
MoE was an extreme drastic change on all angles. It did away with the gameplay, it did away with the lightness and overall magic and charm of King's Quest, and it did away with the Royal Family at large.
Also, MoE was never really marketed as a spin off. They didn't put the "8" in the title, but it still was sold as King's Quest title. People had certain expectations from it and it largely shows they were not met. Otherwise fans wouldn't feel so put off by it in general. The criticism fans make on King's Quest 7 for example has to do with very different reasons than those made on 8, but 7 is still widely accepted as a true King's Quest, just not a very good one by the majority, from what I gather. Whereas MoE is considered to be not a true King's Quest by large.
KQ8 was never intended to be a spinoff. Roberta was designing much how we got from day one. 3D and combat were early ideas for the direction o the game, and much part of the myths she was inspired by for the story. It was never going to be exactly like any previous K game and she was warning about that ad early as 1995.
Actually they nearly marketed KQ7 without the number as well. Personally I find it to be the weakest KQ game. The least KQ like game, KQ8 was closet to KQ6 than KQ7 was to any previous game. If taletale goes that direction I would be very upset. I find it overhyped and overrated... The fact it tried to go for Disney lite is one the main problems I have with it, since it doesn't match the style of any previous game. Plus it had no connection back to KQ6 and I don't feel it made connections to KQ4 in a proper or meaningful manner. The connections are made mainly in 5 minute exposition at the end. Rather than it being useful discovery in the middle of the story. Plus there is no Daventry (or rather it's barely utilized or mentioned during the story) and no Graham and no magic mirror...
Btw KQ8 is filled with whimsical characters and magical elements.
Quote from: Baggins on September 06, 2011, 03:49:55 PM
Perhaps the turn off is the fact that myth was not an afterthought in the game, and Roberts went out of her way to connect everything together instead of a series of random stories tossed into the world. Maybe that makes it too serious and much too crafted for what people were used to.
My take is that if they had made an actual adventure game with Connor at the center, and a more royal story based (save Graham directly, for example), with the members of the Royal family showing here and there, it would have been better received.
I remember the X-files game, where you didn't play as Mulder or Scully, but they were present and the whole thing felt as X-files.
OR
They could have done the game as it was with Alexander as main character, and with some lands that balanced out the overall darkness that took over MoE as a whole. It needed some magic and charm in general, some lush beautiful forest filled with magic, some wacky characters, etc.
But the problem was the drastic change of direction in every aspect. It was too sudden and too much.
I still argue that it filled with wacky characters and amusing characters... the gnomes were amusing, many of the skeletons were, the sprites, king mudge, thork, etc. But that't my and Roberta's personal opinion (according to interviews).
The problem is it wouldn't have worked for Alexander as the story explains the magic effected the entire world. The unicorn explains that graham's entire family was turned to stone. That being said KQ6 pretty much brought closure to Alex's story in a meaningful way.
As I mentioned in another thread;
I do think when you are dealing with a storyline where the entire premise to the story is that evil forces have turned all humans to stone including the royal family, there isn't much you can do with the characters that have been turned to stone. The game did it in the only way possible by having Connor visit the castle and discover the fact that they have turned to stone, and then learn a little more about his for through the magic mirror, before the mirror goes dark from black magic like in KQ3. There isn't many ways to interact with a a rock.
Other than that the game starts with Graham and ends with Graham. It shows him being turned to stone, it has unicorn and other characters talking about he king and asking you to rescue him, and has Conner go in and discover the King, and finally rescue him in the end. It also utilizes the magic mirror which was a major story element in most of the series. Connor also comments on Valanice and vows to rescue her as well.
The idea for all the family turned to stone existed all the back to the early story that the main character was a nameless and emotionless statue brought to life by the magic, while everyone else was turned to stone.
Quote from: Baggins on September 06, 2011, 04:38:18 PM
I do think when you are dealing with a storyline where the entire premise to the story is that evil forces have turned all humans to stone including the royal family, there isn't much you can do with the characters that have been turned to stone. The game did it in the only way possible by having Connor visit the castle and discover the fact that they have turned to stone, and then learn a little more about his for through the magic mirror, before the mirror goes dark from black magic like in KQ3. There isn't many ways to interact with a a rock.
No, that's true, but maybe that wasn't exactly the right way to set up the storyline in this case. They could have as well set up cases where for whatever reason Alexander and Rosella weren't affected either, and they somehow helped Connor along the way, or, like the wizard that doesn't turn completely. Connor could have been following up on the footsteps of King Graham as he tried to find a way to prevent this and failed. Or maybe it was something that had to do with one of the magic treasures that Graham was forced to give away and part of what Connor was investigating was the lore of these. Who knows, what I'm trying to say is that there are ways to definitely have set up the story to include the royal family a bit more, to keep that connection always true, especially since so many things were already changing.
I personally enjoyed the game a lot, and I would even dare to say that, as a game, it was better than some of the other King's Quest titles, but I enjoyed it in the same way I enjoyed Tomb Raider. It was an awesome action game, and I loved the hints of Sierra's famous combining inventory items in it, but I never felt I was in Daventry, even when I was in Daventry :) And that's how I remember MoE: a great game that had nothing to do with King's Quest other that a few passing references at the beginning.
Like I said;
The idea for all the family turned to stone existed all the back to the early story that the main character was a nameless and emotionless statue brought to life by the magic, while everyone else was turned to stone.
Actually the only reason the wizard isn't completely stone is because in his own word be cast a counter spell when he sensed the tempest coming. Otherwise he would have been completely stone as well.
I actually liked the Daventry in KQ8 because both KQ1 and KQ2 mentioned the town of Daventry, but we never saw it before. KQ8 was the first time it appeared in a game.
Quote from: Baggins on September 06, 2011, 04:53:23 PM
Like I said;
The idea for all the family turned to stone existed all the back to the early story that the main character was a nameless and emotionless statue brought to life by the magic, while everyone else was turned to stone.
Actually the only reason the wizard isn't completely stone is because in his own word be cast a counter spell when he sensed the tempest coming. Otherwise he would have been completely stone as well.
Yes, but my point is that the story could have been penned differently to include more of the Royal Family, especially considering how abrupt was the overall change to the series. Reasons for some characters to not have been turned to stone, a writer can find easily, the same way that Connor's story was changed. It's not like it was based on a scientific explanation or historic events.
Roberta doesn't think in that way. Infact she rarely connected events of one game back to another. Most are stand alone. Few Characters ever reoccured. She was quite adamant in 1994 that she wanted some hero rescue stonified family! Who knows why she thought it was a good idea...
Mark Seibert said for example at one point they thought of having that wizard be Crispin. But apparently Roberta didn't go for the idea. So it changed.
But the one thing she did connect through the whole series, the Royal Family AND their story, is the one thing that she should have kept. And I think fans would have received the game better if she had done so. That's all I'm saying.
IMO KQ8 does connect the Royal Family into the story... The story is how they were saved from hard rock!
Btw at one point there were plans for Connor to be able to explore the most of the castle and discover Valanice, Rosella and possibly a visiting Alexander in stone as well. But to save time they had much of the castle danger by the storm so you couldn't leave the throne room.
But it's not enough. And it's not enough because you are not playing any of them. So because of that lacking element, they should have been more present in general. Not to mention that you never ever see them again or know of their fate once you leave the castle. Not another mention of them in the rest of the many levels all the way through the end.
Actually watch the game ending, Graham is rescued and shown to be cured, and even sees the one who rescued him in the mirror. Also throughout the game Connor tells others he's on a journey to save Daventry and rescue his King!
The ending could have been longer, and there were plans to have Conner be knighted by Graham but due to lack of time and budget they had to make do with the Graham sees his savior in the mirror scene.
Ok you are right. I still feel that it was not enough. Problem is I'm definitely not the only one either. Just trying to point out how what fans say over and over again could have been solved.
Why does this kind of stuff always descend into a discussion/argument about King's Quest 8. Personally, I don't give a for unlawful carnal knowledge about that game. It really is more of a King's Quest spin-off, despite what Roberta's INTENTIONS were. What she planned, and what got released are two different things.
I think a King's Quest game should really refer to the Royal Family...... do they even have a last name????
Bt
QuoteIt really is more of a King's Quest spin-off, despite what Roberta's INTENTIONS were. What she planned, and what got released are two different things.
what she planned, is what got released more or less. What she planned was never going to be what fans saw as a KQ game.
It was always going to be 3D, it was always going not have the royal family as playable characters (they were always going to be turned to stone and rescued by a statue or peasant), it was always going to have combat. It was always going to have the super mario/tomb raider jumping/action elements.
What was going to be released, was going to have even more combat and more bosses! Which means as planned from the start, it was going to unlikely be KQ like (by certain fans viewpoints).
As early as 1994/1995 just as she was finishing Phantasmagoria, and starting on KQ8, she was comparing the game to Doom, Duke Nukem and quite a few other assorted, non-KQ games. So ya, what she planned, is more or less what it became...
Of the many things we know that were cut from the earliest version, most of those were to be bosses! The leprechaun/red cap goblin was a boss in the Castlekeep Ruins. Those iterations of the boss became the Spriggan leader! The hydra was another boss, the three-headed dragon, another boss, etc.
There was to be an introductory cutscene for the Swamp Witch, where she tricked you into coming into her castle, before you had to fight her! They moved the boss fight outside of the castle instead.
In fact Roberta admits back in 1997 that they were pretty much were designing combat sequences and storyline first. In her words, because she had never done that type of game play before, and she wanted to get it right, puzzles were something she knew she could finish much faster (as she had experience with them)... They were going to do puzzles later on (this was in 1997), in 1997 they hadn't even gotten to the puzzles! So almost everything we know about that era or previous years is purely the combat or action sequences only!
They wouldn't even get to the puzzles (at least not in the game for screenshot purposes) until late 1997, or 1998!
QuoteDo NOT gain any preconceived ideas which may be wrong about this game from some preliminary screen shots which you will see at this early date. As time goes on we will supply you with more screen shots which will show other aspects of this game which are not "fighting" oriented. The reason it appears that this game is all about that is because we have not ever done a game which has that element so we're concentrating on that element right now. The other elements; the story elements, the character elements, the animation elements, the inventory object elements, the puzzle elements...are all stuff we've done before and will be much easier for us to put in place....we just haven't done those yet.....therefore, you're getting a skewed view of this game which is WRONG.-Roberta, July 1997
Meanwhile, Bob Davidson and his wife only saw the action/violence being designed in the game (and satanic characters), and wanted it all removed! They were sending in their manager goons to try to push their more sanitized non-violent version of KQ8 without Roberta's input, with its own puzzles ideas. Making Roberta feel as if she had lost all control...
Quote from: Baggins on September 06, 2011, 06:11:17 PM
QuoteWhat she planned, and what got released are two different things.
what she planned, is what got released more or less. What she planned was never going to be what fans saw as a KQ game.
It was always going to be 3D, it was always going not have the royal family as playable character (they were always going to be turned to stone and rescued by a statue or peasant), it was always going to have combat. It was always going to have the super mario/tomb raider jumping/action elements.
What was going to be released, was going to have even more combat and more bosses! Which means as planned from the start, it was going to unlikely be KQ like (by certain fans viewpoints).
As early as 1994/1995 just as she was finishing Phantasmagoria, and starting on KQ8, she was comparing the game to Doom, Duke Nukem and quite a few other assorted, non-KQ games. So ya, what she planned, is more or less what it became...
Of the many things we know that were cut from the earliest version, most of those were to be bosses! The leprechaun/red cap goblin was a boss in the Castlekeep Ruins. Those iterations of the boss became the Spriggan leader! The hydra was another boss, the three-headed dragon, another boss, etc.
There was to be an introductory cutscene for the Swamp Witch, where she tricked you into coming into her castle, before you had to fight her! They moved the boss fight outside of the castle instead.
There's a preview from May '96 where Roberta talks about KQ8, about the action and she says, with regard ot the Royal Family, that it was time to "unload them":
"
Even game designer Roberta Williams agrees that the King's Quest thing, as gamers have come to understand it, has been done - perhaps done to death. It's time for a change, and her new foray into the chronicles of Daventry, King's Quest: The Mask of Eternity, is definitely gonna be different. Gone is the cutesy, Disney-esque animation, gone is the heavy plot-driven story line - we won't even be meeting King Graham and his kin ("It was just time to unload them," Williams told us in her office last month, unknowingly expressing the secret sentiments of the entire press entourage therein). The biggest change, however, is in the essential mechanics: Williams wants to get back to her pure game-playing roots, and The Mask of Eternity features a number of radical departures from the King's Quest formula...starting with a fully navigable 3-D world.
The backstory: Twenty years before the time of the game, a magic mask analogous to the Holy Grail exploded into seven pieces which - surprise - were scattered hither and yon on the cosmic winds. In this newest King's Quest installment, we meet Conner, the son of a poor fisherman, born at the instant of the momentous explosion and marked, figuratively and literally, by a piece of the enchanted shrapnel.
Well, hell.
In the present-day of Conner's 20th year, a horrible chaotic spell sweeps across the land - never mind why, it just does - turning all mortals to stone except the auspicious Conner. His only hope to restore the pebbled populace of Daventry is to locate the seven fragments of the mask, and, verily, thou can see where this one is going from a league away. But the big news here is that The Mask of Eternity brings much edgier, action-oriented, navigable-environment gameplay to Williams' high-fantasy universe, and promises to appeal to an even wider range of gamers.
Populated by polygonal characters, the 3-D world of King's Quest allows the player complete freedom of movement (in, behind, around buildings) and exploration in a game experience almost completely devoid of plot-driven limitations. The world here, even at this stage of development, is big - really big, staggeringly huge in fact - in its detail, interconnectedness, and sheer physical size. Williams waves off comparison to the environments of Doom, Duke Nukem, and Mario 64. "We need to change the approach of adventure games. We need a revolution here," proclaims Williams, her slight form looking even smaller next to the 3-foot-wide sheet of engineering paper spread before her, crammed from end to end with gameflow charts and blocks of cryptic, four-point, handwritten notes of neutron-star density.
In The Mask of Eternity, players can travel everywhere in an open-ended world, entering rooms within rooms, interacting and fighting with polygonal friends and foes in a third-person perspective (with the option of a first-person toggle) featuring camera motion a la Mario 64. "I want the world," jokes Williams, about the raw amounts of enhancements planned for this newest King's Quest - and after seeing the basic navigation engine and puzzle elements, I don't think she's joking even a little bit."
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/kingsquestmaskofeternity/news/2558836/kings-quest-the-mask-of-eternity-preview?sid=2558836&mode=previews
Yep, Roberta warned from the start, that it would be a departure from regular KQ-style game, that she was trying to push it in a new direction. Evolve the series...
Add to the fact that there were fans that were already saying the series was getting stale, that KQ7 wasn't very good, and that they thought Roberta had lost her knack for originality... Many were saying that KQ6 was the highlight of the series, and probably should have ended there... So many weren't looking forward to KQ8 thinking it would just be just as tired and cliched as the rest of the series...!
Yes, but even Roberta has admitted that the Mask of Eternity direction was probably not the way to have done it. I'm an adamant defendant of evolution, and I'm always trying to push the package in many ways, but things could have been done a little different to cater a bit more to the fans.
Here's what Roberta had to in an interview post MoE:
"I do want to let everyone know, though, that nobody loves adventure games more than I, and it has always been my goal to have as many people as possible experience this wonderful genre. However, it's important that people understand, Josh Mandel included, that things change and tastes change. The adventure game has to change also, albeit perhaps not exactly in the same way that I changed it in Mask of Eternity. If experiments are not done to find how to mainstream the genre or to make it more "commercial" for today's audience, it will die ... and then everybody loses. Those "purists" may have gotten their way to keep adventure games from evolving, but all they would have really succeeded in is helping to kill it."
So, regardless of what she wanted to do and what was released, she later agreed that it was possibly not the best idea.
Hindsight is 20/20... Its kinda pointless to go back to coulda/woulda/shoulda, when history has already passed, and cannot be changed in hindsight...
Roberta thought it was a good idea when she created the game, and it had its impact on the game, and its not something that can be changed now.
Infact, I can get you a quote, where she even says, that in hindsight she should have left out combat, and designed more puzzles utilizing 3D. But she admits that 20/20 hindsight is silly.
QuoteWhen discussing the transition from 2D to 3D for King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity, I can only say that we were on to the right idea of switching to 3D. However, the implementation was not exactly correct. In 20/20 hindsight, I would have omitted the RPG (role-playing) aspects and would have stuck with more traditional adventure game elements. I would have thought more in terms of physical puzzles that could be done better in 3D than in 2D, but, still, I wouldn't have changed the game so dramatically just because I was switching from 2D to 3D. But, what do they say about 20/20 hindsight?
-Roberta Williams, 2006
Quote from: Cez on September 06, 2011, 06:41:06 PM
Yes, but even Roberta has admitted that the Mask of Eternity direction was probably not the way to have done it. I'm an adamant defendant of evolution, and I'm always trying to push the package in many ways, but things could have been done a little different to cater a bit more to the fans.
Here's what Roberta had to in an interview post MoE:
"I do want to let everyone know, though, that nobody loves adventure games more than I, and it has always been my goal to have as many people as possible experience this wonderful genre. However, it's important that people understand, Josh Mandel included, that things change and tastes change. The adventure game has to change also, albeit perhaps not exactly in the same way that I changed it in Mask of Eternity. If experiments are not done to find how to mainstream the genre or to make it more "commercial" for today's audience, it will die ... and then everybody loses. Those "purists" may have gotten their way to keep adventure games from evolving, but all they would have really succeeded in is helping to kill it."
So, regardless of what she wanted to do and what was released, she later agreed that it was possibly not the best idea.
That's kind of common for creators whose product is either received poorly or with mixed reviews. Case in point Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...When it came out, Spielberg and Lucas trumpeted it up like there was no tomorrow. But when the bad reviews and controversy started piling on, they backpedalled, to the point that Spielberg felt he had to make a third Indy film to "apologize" for Temple of Doom.
A lot of creators backpedal when things don't go their way. It doesn't mean they weren't into it to begin with. It's simply PR.
Here is an example of some of the questions fan community was giving her back in 1996-1997 over the aging adventure game genre, and 'outdated' KQ series... Adventure games were failing in the marketplace, and many of old adventure fans had moved onto new games and genres. Roberta was trying to change that, and draw them back.
QuoteAfter eight games, don't you think the King's Quest series is getting a bit old? Will you ever consider starting a brand-new series from scratch with an entirely different and original plot and characters? If so, what technologies will this game use?
Let's wait to answer that question after King's Quest: Mask of Eternity has shipped. I think you will find that we were very successful in breathing new life into a series which could be construed as "getting a bit old." It is totally a breath of fresh air. It is like nothing else but yet feels very much like King's Quest. We may have accomplished the "impossible." I truly believe that this newest, latest iteration of King's Quest will be the best-selling yet! As far as starting a brand-new series from scratch with an entirely different and original plot and characters: I've done that many times in my career, and in the future ... who knows?
QuoteThose "purists" may have gotten their way to keep adventure games from evolving, but all they would have really succeeded in is helping to kill it."
She is more or less correct! Adventure game fans killed the Adventure genre! By trying to keep it stuck in the early 1990's formats, the genre was failing commercially! Until they almost completely disappeared as a mainstream product... Remember Grim Fandango one of the more 'traditional' (if that term even applies) adventure games in 1998 (except for maybe its interface), and it was almost a complete failure as far as its commercial value... These failures (not enough fans were buying them), lead to the death of the genre.
After that the genre more or less stayed underground, or had a cult following through low budget adventure game developers... It didn't have a large comeback until Telltale games made them commercially popular again (but their adventures are quite diluted by 1990's standards)...
I'm starting to think the topic of MoE needs to have a moratorium put on it!
Heh, it would be interesting to have to list on the KQ Omnipedia;
"Trivia: Pheonix Online Studios bans any discussion of King's Quest: Mask of Eternity" on their website."
Reminds me of apparently one of the QFG fan sites pretty much bans all discussion of the fangame, QFG 4 1/2 on their forum.
BTW, here is the quote from Roberta (c. 1995) where she mentions that Rosella, Alexander, and Valanice were also supposed to be in the game turned to stone, and appear in castle!
QuoteKQ8 will be set in Daventry -- at the beginning of the game, at least. YOU will be a brand new character -- a marble statue of a knight which has been brought to life through an accidental reversal of a spell which turned King Graham and his family into stone (by an evil sorcerer)...As far as King Graham, Alexander, Valanice, and Rosella are concerned -- they ARE in the game, but they are the poor victims of the evil sorcerer's spell. YOU -- as a "former" statue-turned-alive-knight -- are the main character of King's Quest 8. You can save the royal family from the evil spell they've been placed under. You -- as the knight -- can save them and then get the chance to become a "real man" in the end (a la Pinocchio). Princess Rosella might be SO grateful that he saved her and her family that...who knows?
BTW, here is another bit of interesting trivia for KQ8, from one of the interviews. Roberta had apparently chosen not to have Graham and Alexander as playable characters, because she thought Graham was getting too old to go on adventures, and Alexander had more or less settled in the Land of the Green Isles!
More like Phoenix Online started to get a little tired of reading the same discussions over and over and over.....
:gossip:
:gossip:
:gossip:
:gossip:
I like how Bt's comment was just completely and totally ignored. Lol
Actually I replied to the first half of BT's post (his premise was wrong). As I stated, the finished game is more or less what was planned from the beginning... What many don't like about KQ8 was decided from the start, long before CUC ever stepped in!
If you mean the second half of his post?
No I don't think the Royal Family, has a last name. Did Edward have a last name? 'the Benevolent' wasn't his last name, its a title, ;).
I'm going to throw a wrench in this whole conversation and say that I could care less if King's Quest continued to succeed and got away from the Royal Family. As long as it had to do with Daventry and KQ's established lore I'd be happy. I mean come on, how many adventures can the royal family actually have anyway? What about descendants? What about ancestors? What about King/Sir Edward the Benevolent? Lots of possibilities there.
King Graham is the man, but he gets old.
And I believe what Bt meant was that whatever Roberta intended, she did not intend for the backlash that KQ8 got.
QuoteAnd I believe what Bt meant was that whatever Roberta intended, she did not intend for the backlash that KQ8 got
If that's what he meant, I agree. If not, I agree with you.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 06, 2011, 10:45:40 PM
I'm going to throw a wrench in this whole conversation and say that I could care less if King's Quest continued to succeed and got away from the Royal Family. As long as it had to do with Daventry and KQ's established lore I'd be happy. I mean come on, how many adventures can the royal family actually have anyway? What about descendants? What about ancestors? What about King/Sir Edward the Benevolent? Lots of possibilities there.
King Graham is the man, but he gets old.
And I believe what Bt meant was that whatever Roberta intended, she did not intend for the backlash that KQ8 got.
I'm with MI on this one. I appreciate (most of) the games, but the King's family going all "Lightnin' Strikes" ("...again and again and again and again!") on us was hitting its end. Another (8th) game centered around the royal family would've been wasteful. I mean... Really, where are the other valuable citizens in Daventry? (I'm hearing the song, "I Need A Hero," in my head right now.) New characters, new needs to fill - MoE gave us that. Roberta overdid it, though. Don't take 80% of what we enjoy, and just throw it away. 3-D? Yes! New protagonist? YES! New plot? Yes! Everything else can be added to future games. We don't want Pokémon, which never changes. But, for example, we also wouldn't want to start with an RPG and end up with a flight simulator; Just make gradual changes to tie the game into the series better.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 06, 2011, 10:45:40 PM
And I believe what Bt meant was that whatever Roberta intended, she did not intend for the backlash that KQ8 got.
That's exactly what I meant.
And I also meant that I'm sick of the same damn discussion about MoE. It's tedious and old.
Bt
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 06, 2011, 10:45:40 PM
I'm going to throw a wrench in this whole conversation and say that I could care less if King's Quest continued to succeed and got away from the Royal Family. As long as it had to do with Daventry and KQ's established lore I'd be happy. I mean come on, how many adventures can the royal family actually have anyway? What about descendants? ...
Actually, I think I've said it before, but I always thought that's where the story was going: after Rosella and Alexander were married off, future games would involve their children and/or spouses and/or themselves while Graham would retire. That's what I thought anyway... *shrugs*
Quote from: Delling on September 07, 2011, 04:16:31 AM
Actually, I think I've said it before, but I always thought that's where the story was going: after Rosella and Alexander were married off, future games would involve their children and/or spouses and/or themselves while Graham would retire. That's what I thought anyway... *shrugs*
I just wonder how long that would last until things got stale. I think we tend to forget that this series has eight installments. Many successful series don't get half that many games.
This is not to say it couldn't be done. But I feel it would require a total reinvention of adventure games. While adventure games are coming back with things like episodic games and smaller, cheaper games from digital downloads services, adventure games haven't really left there comfort zone since the mid-90s.
Quote from: Bludshot on September 07, 2011, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: Delling on September 07, 2011, 04:16:31 AM
Actually, I think I've said it before, but I always thought that's where the story was going: after Rosella and Alexander were married off, future games would involve their children and/or spouses and/or themselves while Graham would retire. That's what I thought anyway... *shrugs*
I just wonder how long that would last until things got stale. I think we tend to forget that this series has eight installments. Many successful series don't get half that many games.
This is not to say it couldn't be done. But I feel it would require a total reinvention of adventure games. While adventure games are coming back with things like episodic games and smaller, cheaper games from digital downloads services, adventure games haven't really left there comfort zone since the mid-90s.
But then look at a series like FF. That's gone on, for what, 20something years with how many installments now? It's all a matter of creativity...and openmindedness! The latter is something adventure game fans greatly lack.
Yeah. FF has had so many different takes; it's more of a universe than a set group of characters. Therefore, it's open to the main stories, the spinoffs (like Crystal Chronicles,) and even Chocobo racing games! That's a great example of an open world, where anything can happen; no one is anal about how it progresses.
Final Fantasy is really more a series of separate univeres, parallel or alternate universes really.
FF4 universe for example took place in 'our universe' on Earth, but many centuries in the future.
By "universe," I meant the whole of Final Fantasy. Like references to the Mortal Kombat "universe" encapsulate alternate dimensions, Heaven and Hell, and many other locations which are part of the games' stories.
Well what I meant was with Final Fantasy there really aren't connections between the various games stories worlds directly.
At least with MK the various worlds are connected with visitors traveling between worlds.
I think only Gilgamesh has been suggested to be a traveler between the worlds of FF5 and FF12? Otherwise the worlds aren't connected any way. A lot of reused ideas though, A character named Cid exists on every world, as do Wedge and Antilles.
FF12's is part of the Ivalice universe that includes FF tactics and Vagrant Story. The two Tactics Advance also occur in a version of Ivalice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivalice
It's not about "openmindedness"; it's about having the wisdom to leave something be.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on September 07, 2011, 10:56:08 AM
It's not about "openmindedness"; it's about having the wisdom to leave something be.
Bt
In some cases, repetition works - nothing proves that better than Pokémon. However, some things become stale, which Roberta was trying to avoid. KQ was at high risk of becoming stale. Hence, her MoE ideas.
Ya multiple game mags and fan sites already accused Roberta of creating a stale series... They found KQ7 to be outdated and stale... Even KQ6 was getting stale by their standards. If KQ8 had stayed that way, many probably would have avoided the series. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn't Catch 22.
Case in point Gabriel Knight 3 is an example of an adventure game done in 3D with limited action elements. As a template it might have made for a much more 'traditional' KQ style. But that game was a failure when it was released like all adventure games during that period. Critics still complained that adventure games were old and outdated, even with 3d the genre hadn't innovated itself.
It's a sad fact, that Sierra's last true adventure went out with a market wimper.... The powers that be never gave the genre another chance.
(Posted on: September 07, 2011, 01:37:08 PM)
Btw Dawson, I never played FF12 didn't it switch to a more action-RPG/MMO style gameplay interface (similar to FF11) as opposed to turnbased of the earlier games? So in a sense changed genres?
Gabriel Knight 3 wasn't really a failure, if we are talking commercial value. It sold the same amount of copies as the other 2, which was what a normal succesful adventure game sold during that period.
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 11:48:24 AM
.
(Posted on: September 07, 2011, 01:37:08 PM)
Btw Dawson, I never played FF12 didn't it switch to a more action-RPG/MMO style gameplay interface (similar to FF11) as opposed to turnbased of the earlier games? So in a sense changed genres?
Not really. If anything, what made Final Fantasy different was the way the story was told, not really the gameplay as much. But it stell felt like a Final Fantasy in every way, from the characters, to the magics used, to the summons, etc. It was my least fav Final Fantasy, but I never felt I was not playing a Final Fantasy --more like I was playing an odd Final Fantasy.
The fighting style was more like an MMO sort of game, but you still had a bar that filled and you still input commands to perform once that bar was filled and in a certain order, and you couldn't control your partly directly anymore (well you could switch between them), but you could program the way they fought. So, in many ways, it was a faster and more controllable turn based system -it never became a hack&slash game.
Thanks for the info, Cez. I'm working my way through most of the GameCube RPGs right now. I've only played FF Crystal Chronicles so far. But, FF is on my To Do list - right after Legend of Mana (PSX). I have, however, watched a documentary on FF (I-XII) and part of a Longplay of FFXIII. But, I'm just starting to venture into Final Fantasy as a series, so I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject.
The source of most of my FF knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AkzRBtsULo
Edit: Here's the link to the FFXIII longplay:
http://www.archive.org/details/PS3_Longplay_012_Final_Fantasy_XIII
The first few minutes of the Bonus video are amazing! Especially if you have a good sound system.
To Baggins' point: I personally don't feel KQ was getting stale with 6 or 7 or 8....Nor do I think it really could so long as there are creative minds out there. TT's reboot really has the best chance of invigorating yet more life into the series. I don't see KQ as this narrowly limited thing, nor do I see it as running out of steam. Why should a KQ9 be the conclusion to the series?
QuoteGabriel Knight 3 wasn't really a failure, if we are talking commercial value. It sold the same amount of copies as the other 2, which was what a normal succesful adventure game sold during that period.
Which was unsuccessful from a marketing standpoint. It didn't compete with other games in the market. The industry was looking for blockbusters... Adventure just didn't have the sales numbers vs development cost. They were lucky if they broke even.
Actually I seem to recall a few interviews between 1995 and 1996 when Ken was still I'm control of Sierra that he was discussing to close the adventure game departments because they just couldn't compete in the changing market. KQ8 was sort of an experiment for the company to see if they could save the genre.
Even SQ7 was going the way of an action game with even multiplayer elements apparently in Ken's new outlook.
Quote
To Baggins' point: I personally don't feel KQ was getting stale with 6 or 7 or 8....Nor do I think it really could so long as there are creative minds out there. TT's reboot really has the best chance of invigorating yet more life into the series. I don't see KQ as this narrowly limited thing, nor do I see it as running out of steam. Why should a KQ9 be the conclusion to the series?
I don't think they were stale either but Roberta got several criticisms of that sort in KQ7 reviews and interviews at that time. They still sold more than previous KQ games, but didn't compete financially with other genres out there. Thus one o the reasons Roberta was trying merge successful elements from other series in kQ8.
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 01:59:19 PM
QuoteGabriel Knight 3 wasn't really a failure, if we are talking commercial value. It sold the same amount of copies as the other 2, which was what a normal succesful adventure game sold during that period.
Which was unsuccessful from a marketing standpoint. It didn't compete with other games in the market. The industry was looking for blockbusters... Adventure just didn't have the numbers vs development.
Quote
To Baggins' point: I personally don't feel KQ was getting stale with 6 or 7 or 8....Nor do I think it really could so long as there are creative minds out there. TT's reboot really has the best chance of invigorating yet more life into the series. I don't see KQ as this narrowly limited thing, nor do I see it as running out of steam. Why should a KQ9 be the conclusion to the series?
I don't think they were stale either but Roberta got several criticisms of that sort in KQ7 reviews and interviews at that time. They still sold more than previous KQ games, but didn't compete financially with other genres out there. Thus one o the reasons Roberta was trying merge successful elements from other series in kQ8.
Sales wise, I don't think it was a comment on KQ series so much as the adventure genre itself.
The adventure genre never died....the thing is that the audience who wants to play adventure games is, and has always been, much smaller than the people who want to play RPGs and Action games. Why is this? Because the adventure genre was one of the first genres to ever grace the PC, and the people who were using or buying PCs in the early-mid 80s--when games like KQ first came out--were, let's face it, geeks. More intellectual than your average gamer of today, more patient. People who would be willing to spend hours solving a hardcore puzzle. The demographics changed, and dumbed down gameplay became what was hot.
I don't think the adventure genre ever died, nor did it's audience shrink. It's just that the core audience of the adventure genre is by and large much smaller than the audience of other genres, thus it was eclipsed by those other genres. Yeah, you might've had a few people who moved from Adventure games to RPGs--But I would imagine the numbers of adventure game sales, relative to the numbers of PAST adventure game sales, have remained stable.
But when you compare the numbers of adventure game sales, to those of say an action game, it looks tiny. Add to this that adventure games are generally much costlier to produce. It's easier to make a 3D shooter than it is to make a storydriven, handpainted, 2D adventure game with lots of puzzles and detail.
I know I kind moved on after Sierra and Lucasarts stopped making adventures... I wasn't into those myst clones that dominated the market during the dark years...
Plus action-adventures were becoming much more compelling.
Right the cost of making adventures vs the sells numbers was an issue. Adventures were very expensive to produce, if try didn't sell enough, they were lucky if they broke even... In some cases companies lost money on them sold less than than the amount of money put in.
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 02:13:58 PM
I know I kind moved on after Sierra and Lucasarts stopped making adventures... I wan't into those myst clones that dominated the market during the dark years...
Plus action-adventures were becoming much more compelling.
Right the cost of making adventures vs the sells numbers was an issue. Adventures were very expensive to produce, if try didn't sell enough, they were lucky if they broke even... In some cases companies lost money on them sold less than than the amount of money put in.
Same here really. I moved on around 1999 or so, to RPGs like Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate and whatever games were hot at the moment (GTA, Kingdom Hearts, etc) became my new loves. I didn't re-discover KQ or Adventure Games until around 2001 or so.
I've never been able to really get into LucasArts adventures. I REALLY REALLY want to. I love the concept and art of Monkey Island but I HATE the interface, and the interface in a game is either what makes or kills a game for me really. If a game's interface feels clunky or weird, than it doesn't matter how great the game is because I get frustrated.
That's why I always loved Sierra's interfaces. They were always very simple, very accessible. You just either typed a word and the parser came up (in KQ1SCI or KQ4) or used the very simple interfaces of KQ5-8. The only exceptions to this are KQ1-3 and they've never been my favorites. I think that's how I became so easily hooked on King's Quest at just 4 years old. I was able to master that game relatively quickly and became absorbed into it so easily because the interface makes it easy to play.
Even my 5 year old niece, raised in an era of 3D console games and the like, is hooked on King's Quest because I hooked her onto KQ5. She LOVES KQ5.
I'd agree with the earlier point that King's Quest is about the characters. However I don't think that's the only reason why King's Quest wouldn't work as this massive expanded universe (like a Dungeons and Dragons or a World of Warcraft or even with a spinoff concept.) The main issue (and I think it would need to be included with Perceval's initial post of what defines King's Quest) is
First, though, I want to make this clear: I'm not knocking King's Quest in any way. I'm not belittling it. I'm not insulting it.
The main issue is that King's Quest doesn't have a mythology. More than that, it doesn't have a universe. Ok, yes, it's got different lands. And yes, there's even a rudimentary concept of an underlying mythology with the Dimension of Death and the Realm of the Dead. But otherwise, almost exclusively, the world of King's Quest is predicated on our own universe and mythology. The folklore of our time exists (rather haphazardly) in King's Quest. There might be different lands, however they don't particularly connect to each other in any way. Rather it gives the feeling that someone was just making things up as they went along in order to create settings for the adventures they wanted the specific characters to get into. Even the mythologies of the different afterlives (which I still maintain makes no sense whatsoever. Completely separate realms predicated on different beliefs makes a bizarre, pluralistic reality) is still just an excuse to get the character into a new area. There's no underlying dogma or philosophy. Even that is taken from real life in the form of Christianity. We see Christian churches in both KQ2 and MOE. Even if you argue that it wasn't really Christian and the people of King's Quest just have another religious significance for the cross, it doesn't matter because the cross exists in real life, so the concept of religion in King's Quest is still predicated on reality.
So King's Quest doesn't have a culture, I guess is the best way of putting it. It's its own thing, its own world, but it's a world that exists only to make adventure games. Trying to turn it into anything else or expand the world just wouldn't work because it's too wide open. What fits as a reference and what doesn't? Alhazared's name is a reference to HP Lovecraft, but does that mean that it makes sense to say that Alhazared actually wrote the Necronomicon in King's Quest and the Cthulu exists in the King's Quest universe (both of which are apparently mentioned in the Companion.) That seems off to me, but I can't make any claim that Cthulu just isn't King's Quest because the reality is that everything is King's Quest. Whatever you want to toss into the universe is potentially in bounds because that's what the King's Quest world is. It's a constant work in process and it's whatever you need it to be. Which is why I never much cared about the Companion. It seemed more like Peter Spear brings you King's Quest. Which is what it was. But the mythology of King's Quest basically has two settings: What Roberta needed for the next game and what professional fan fiction Peter Spear wrote officially for Sierra.
In comparison Tolkien's Middle Earth had a mythology. Tolkien wrote his creation myth and his history before he published Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings was about characters, certainly, but they were living and dying in a world that had already been created and was unique. That's why that world feels expansive. Tolkien already had a mythology and languages and history created. Likewise role playing games just expand on a world because they know that you're coming to play in their world. They do nothing but create mythos and history so it's expansive.
So again, I'm not knocking King's Quest at all. I don't think that the games would have been any better if Roberta had sat down and created an entire world and mythology ahead of time, then created the games. However the fact is that Roberta was about creating games for these characters (which is you.) The lands were extensions of that. And the legends and tales of the real world became characters and development in King's Quest. It's certainly made for good games, but I don't believe it would make for an expansive universe.
Quote from: Damar on September 07, 2011, 02:36:07 PM
I'd agree with the earlier point that King's Quest is about the characters. However I don't think that's the only reason why King's Quest wouldn't work as this massive expanded universe (like a Dungeons and Dragons or a World of Warcraft or even with a spinoff concept.) The main issue (and I think it would need to be included with Perceval's initial post of what defines King's Quest) is
First, though, I want to make this clear: I'm not knocking King's Quest in any way. I'm not belittling it. I'm not insulting it.
The main issue is that King's Quest doesn't have a mythology. More than that, it doesn't have a universe. Ok, yes, it's got different lands. And yes, there's even a rudimentary concept of an underlying mythology with the Dimension of Death and the Realm of the Dead. But otherwise, almost exclusively, the world of King's Quest is predicated on our own universe and mythology. The folklore of our time exists (rather haphazardly) in King's Quest. There might be different lands, however they don't particularly connect to each other in any way. Rather it gives the feeling that someone was just making things up as they went along in order to create settings for the adventures they wanted the specific characters to get into. Even the mythologies of the different afterlives (which I still maintain makes no sense whatsoever. Completely separate realms predicated on different beliefs makes a bizarre, pluralistic reality) is still just an excuse to get the character into a new area. There's no underlying dogma or philosophy. Even that is taken from real life in the form of Christianity. We see Christian churches in both KQ2 and MOE. Even if you argue that it wasn't really Christian and the people of King's Quest just have another religious significance for the cross, it doesn't matter because the cross exists in real life, so the concept of religion in King's Quest is still predicated on reality.
So King's Quest doesn't have a culture, I guess is the best way of putting it. It's its own thing, its own world, but it's a world that exists only to make adventure games. Trying to turn it into anything else or expand the world just wouldn't work because it's too wide open. What fits as a reference and what doesn't? Alhazared's name is a reference to HP Lovecraft, but does that mean that it makes sense to say that Alhazared actually wrote the Necronomicon in King's Quest and the Cthulu exists in the King's Quest universe (both of which are apparently mentioned in the Companion.) That seems off to me, but I can't make any claim that Cthulu just isn't King's Quest because the reality is that everything is King's Quest. Whatever you want to toss into the universe is potentially in bounds because that's what the King's Quest world is. It's a constant work in process and it's whatever you need it to be. Which is why I never much cared about the Companion. It seemed more like Peter Spear brings you King's Quest. Which is what it was. But the mythology of King's Quest basically has two settings: What Roberta needed for the next game and what professional fan fiction Peter Spear wrote officially for Sierra.
In comparison Tolkien's Middle Earth had a mythology. Tolkien wrote his creation myth and his history before he published Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings was about characters, certainly, but they were living and dying in a world that had already been created and was unique. That's why that world feels expansive. Tolkien already had a mythology and languages and history created. Likewise role playing games just expand on a world because they know that you're coming to play in their world. They do nothing but create mythos and history so it's expansive.
So again, I'm not knocking King's Quest at all. I don't think that the games would have been any better if Roberta had sat down and created an entire world and mythology ahead of time, then created the games. However the fact is that Roberta was about creating games for these characters (which is you.) The lands were extensions of that. And the legends and tales of the real world became characters and development in King's Quest. It's certainly made for good games, but I don't believe it would make for an expansive universe.
In a lot of ways what you said makes KQ actually much more fertile ground for future stories than some say. While it may not be able to expand to become it's own universe (I still think it could if people began writing side stories which at first had marginal ties to the main KQ series and then just later letting them become works of their own), it allows for KQ to practically go anywhere. That's kind of why I love every one of the KQ games--for the variety. Because there are very few rules. Each game brings something different to the table. You want a simple quest centered around retrieving treasures? KQ1's your game. You want a romantic, simple fairy tale mixture with a bit of poetic depth? KQ2's just for you. You want a more mature game with spells and a sense of urgency? KQ3! You want a dark, eerie, spooky almost horror tale, with a dreary storyline and a lonely, dangerous realm? KQ4! You want a fun, beautiful, epic journey through several worlds, with an everyman sort of Harrison Ford film plot? KQ5! You want a love story mixed with a complicated conspiracy and back stabbing and the like and a deeper storyline? KQ6! You want a fun, cutesy, adorable, Disney-esque game for you and your kis to both enjoy? KQ7! You want a deep, religious themed, Tolkien-esque, high fantasy, darker sort of tale? KQ8.
The possibilities are endless really. With such loose rules, you have a series which could go on as long as there's interest and creative minds. And I do believe there is room for the universe of KQ to expand.
Consider Wizard & the Princess. It's set in the King's Quest universe. in fact, right in Serenia (which we visit with Graham in KQ5), but it isn't a KQ game. Why not have other games like that? Set in the world of KQ, in a land or lands established in a previous game, but not be a pure KQ game? It could start as easily as that, slowly, until elements are added and the universe expands and begins to take on a life of it's own.
I stopped playing for a while, and picked up with the Playstation 2. I moved on from adventures to JRPGs, then to all other things.
I agree with your points, Damar. I appreciate that there are many here who can explain their thoughts so well. Unfortunately, my opinions tend to be less than clear. You've clarified some of my points about KQ. Thank you! But, I want to expand a little by saying that there was nothing, outside of the Royal Family and the word "Daventry", that connected most of the stories and lands. Along with that, Roberta often left us with little-to-no info on supportive NPCs. For example, in KQ6, the pawn shop owner, though often visited throughout the game, never had so much as a name until Peter Spears wrote about him.
KQ8 is probably the only KQ game that hints at world creation myth, but it's largely based on judeochristian myth. In DOD one of the poems speaks of Creation, the number seven, and the trinity.
Seriously the the material that develops KQ world's cultural elements, creation stories, etc, are mainly found in the manuals, novels and king's quest companion.
Christianity actually is mentioned I KQ4 thanks to a quite from the Shakespeare book!
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 03:02:39 PM
Seriously the the material that develops KQ world's cultural elements, creation stories, etc, are mainly found in the manuals, novels and king's quest companion.
... Just not in the games. ;)
Well KQ6 an KQ8 are probably the only game worlds filled with major backstories and culture. In Kq6 it's even discussed in the narration to a degree. Many characters even go into the backstories and history of the islands and land of the dead.
To a lesser extent KQ7 world has a well developed culture. You also get hints into life at the castle from discussion between Rosella and Valanice in the intro.
KQ5 had nods to a larger world behind the scenes... We learn tantalizing tidbits about organizations such as the Society of Wizards... It talks about kingdom of the Green Isles, etc.
Btw Damar, Quest for Glory also has a pluralistic religious viewpoints a well. In QFG3 the game discusses the Egyptian afterlife and the player even talks to Ra from that afterlife. In QFG5 the game shows Hades, but mentions Hell exists as well!
The manual for KQ6, Derek, suggests that there may be more than one afterlife, but it's discussing the version believed in the Green Isles... KQ7 suggests at several points that Ooga Booga is the afterlife for those that die in Eldritch and Etheria! They go on to live there!
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on September 07, 2011, 02:52:05 PM
In a lot of ways what you said makes KQ actually much more fertile ground for future stories than some say. While it may not be able to expand to become it's own universe (I still think it could if people began writing side stories which at first had marginal ties to the main KQ series and then just later letting them become works of their own), it allows for KQ to practically go anywhere. That's kind of why I love every one of the KQ games--for the variety. Because there are very few rules. Each game brings something different to the table. You want a simple quest centered around retrieving treasures? KQ1's your game. You want a romantic, simple fairy tale mixture with a bit of poetic depth? KQ2's just for you. You want a more mature game with spells and a sense of urgency? KQ3! You want a dark, eerie, spooky almost horror tale, with a dreary storyline and a lonely, dangerous realm? KQ4! You want a fun, beautiful, epic journey through several worlds, with an everyman sort of Harrison Ford film plot? KQ5! You want a love story mixed with a complicated conspiracy and back stabbing and the like and a deeper storyline? KQ6! You want a fun, cutesy, adorable, Disney-esque game for you and your kis to both enjoy? KQ7! You want a deep, religious themed, Tolkien-esque, high fantasy, darker sort of tale? KQ8.
The possibilities are endless really. With such loose rules, you have a series which could go on as long as there's interest and creative minds. And I do believe there is room for the universe of KQ to expand.
Consider Wizard & the Princess. It's set in the King's Quest universe. in fact, right in Serenia (which we visit with Graham in KQ5), but it isn't a KQ game. Why not have other games like that? Set in the world of KQ, in a land or lands established in a previous game, but not be a pure KQ game? It could start as easily as that, slowly, until elements are added and the universe expands and begins to take on a life of it's own.
In my opinion, that much freedom would dilute the nature of the game. It's like going to a restaurant and having Mexican, Chinese, Thai, burgers and fries, BBQ, and vegetarian all on the same menu. You need to have focus if you're going to expand otherwise you get lost in the variety. (The only restaurant I've ever seen that pulls off an expansive menu is the Cheesecake Factory, and that's because you're there for the cheesecake. The meal is just foreplay. But I digress...) I think ultimately the wide open rules in the King's Quest world would rob the game of what we enjoy about it and make it feel nebulous. The King's Quest games all had the Royal Family (the cheesecake) as a grounding influence. Trying to expand King's Quest without any grounding influences would just lead to people feeling that the concept of "King's Quest" has been lost and transmuted into something new (or a copy of something old like Tolkien or the myriad clones that copied from him.)
Not to mention it also results in people saying, "That's not King's Quest," which then results in a "Yeah-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" argument. As an example see any discussion on MOE. I can verbalize exactly why I feel MOE doesn't work as a King's Quest despite being a fun game made by Roberta Williams and Baggins can verbalize exactly why it is connected with King's Quest. To which I can verbalize why those connections aren't enough. To which Baggins can verbalize why they are and expound on other connections. King's Quest will collapse under the expansiveness of its own universe if people try to keep adding to it (again, it's the main reason I don't own or care to own the Companion.) The menu is just too expansive. It needs the grounding influence of the Royal Family, and even then the universe can still grow too big for them, like Dawson was saying (by the way, loved the Klaus Nomi reference a page back, Dawson).
And yeah, I know we get references, Baggins. But the issue is that nothing is really expanded. The mythology of the Green Isles was created for KQ6. The socio-political issues of Eldritch were created for KQ7. Malicia's volcano had no apparent implications for Llewdor, though. The Realm of the Dead was later tossed to create the Dimension of Death for MOE. The Society of Wizards is a throwaway line that has no bearing on the quest (outside of why that impotent governing body didn't sanction Mordack when they had the chance.) Everything is created for the game itself, is my point. And that means no overarching culture of the King's Quest world. It is entirely predicated on the real world and creating and selling games.
Star Trek in many ways is the same way, everything revolved around the crew of Enterprise. Yet each story are stand alone for the most part with little interconnecting elements with other episodes. Set on a different world, different adversaries etc.
Enterprise is like Daventry, the crew is like the Royal Family...
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
Star Trek in many ways is the same way, everything revolved around the crew of Enterprise. Yet each story are stand alone for the most part with little interconnecting elements with other episodes. Set on a different world, different adversaries etc.
Enterprise is like Daventry, the crew is like the Royal Family...
Unfortunately, most of the other lands - Llewdor, Tamir, etc... - wore red shirts, and they disappeared once each new game came out.
Dawson, Lol.
Quotet professional fan fiction Peter Spear wrote officially for Sierra.
Sort of an oxymoron... The correct terminology is licensed fiction, or profic (licensed fiction may not necessarily be written by a series fans but someone commissioned for the work). For example Sierra commissioned eluki be shahar a professional fantasy novelist to write the KQ6 novelization for the third edition. If she was a KQ fan or not is unclear (Actually Peter Spear's suggests she wasn't a KQ fan, and never knew what KQ was until she wrote the story for Sierra (i'm paraphrasing past his fictional suggestion that the story was given to her mysteriously).
Also unlike most fan fiction (which btw fan games fall under) some licensed fic is developed or overseen by the creators of the series. In the case of the KQ companion Peter Spear directly worked with Roberta, Ken Willians, Jane Jensen and even Lorelei Shannon on his work. There is a reason why Derek Karlavagen appears in KQ6.
The KQ novels were also licensed products had little or no input from Roberts (in contrast to the Companion), and more than likely the authors were just commissioned novelists rather than fans (but who knows). But considering that the Thr Floating Castle tends to have a different vibe is more serious story than KQ tends to be, is more high fantasy than fairy tale, and a darker more melancholy tone, I wouldn't be surprised if author (Craig Mills) wasn't a series fan. Also consider that the author's previous works were also certainly not KQ in style and rather melancholy dark fantasy.
Btw some of the Companion's material made it back into the games. A line in Roberta's updated script in KQ5 NES was taken from the Companion for example. The manual from KQ5 and a quote in KQ5 also references the Companion. There is even a line in KQ6 in some versions that makes reference to Derek Karlavaegen, and Several more references in the official KQ6 Hintbook by Lorelei Shannon! Of course quite a bit of Companion references in the 15th Anniversary KQ collection, and Sierra's King Questions trivia computer game!
Fan fiction unlike some of the licensed fiction has no direct impact on development and stories of official games. Fan fiction is not likely to be referenced in official games.
Quote from: Baggins on September 07, 2011, 11:48:24 AM
Critics still complained that adventure games were old and outdated, even with 3d the genre hadn't innovated itself.
It's a sad fact, that Sierra's last true adventure went out with a market wimper.... The powers that be never gave the genre another chance.
In all fairness, GK3 didn't innovate anything except having a movable camera. I think it's silly to complain about outside forces when every other genre adapted and ultimately improved with the times. Do you think we'd have so many FPS games if we were still operating on a Doom level of gameplay?
RPGs did the same thing, they found the need for more involved plots and more streamlined gameplay.
Adventure games found innovation in KQ5's user interface and beautiful painted backgrounds...in 1990. And nothing really changed past that.
Bludshot, I think you are just reinforcing one of many points i've tried to make in this thread, and others...
Adventure games were bound to die, because they were not innovative anymore... The fans who stuck with them were not open to innovation. Those who stopped playing them, stopped playing them because they weren't innovative anymore. Most of other game audience otu there wasn't interested in them because other genres were innovating the gaming market...
Roberta tried to 'innovate', and it backfired.
Personally, I sometimes need to take a break from one type of games - especially if a series is becoming redundant. Adventure games really did that; they just became too repetitive. Now, we've had some time without any big series, so adventure games are making a comeback, though still not comparable to many other genres in numbers. There's some success, due to TellTale and others' releases, such as Machinarium, Edna and Harvey, Kaptain Brawe, etc. which are encouraging a new generation of gamers.
I find that most of the modern adventure game puzzles, are just cliched renditions of puzzles found in older games... Most of the BTTF puzzles for example were a mix of assorted overused Lucasarts 'puzzle' types...
Quote from: Baggins on September 09, 2011, 12:03:09 PM
I find that most of the modern adventure game puzzles, are just cliched renditions of puzzles found in older games... Most of the BTTF puzzles for example were a mix of assorted overused Lucasarts 'puzzle' types...
True, but the newer generations know nothing of our generation. Hence, they're "innovative" puzzles, to the newbies. ;) In reality, it's all 'reheated leftovers,' but the new players didn't join in the first 'meal,' so to speak.
Quote from: Baggins on September 09, 2011, 09:34:21 AM
Bludshot, I think you are just reinforcing one of many points i've tried to make in this thread, and others...
Adventure games were bound to die, because they were not innovative anymore... The fans who stuck with them were not open to innovation. Those who stopped playing them, stopped playing them because they weren't innovative anymore. Most of other game audience otu there wasn't interested in them because other genres were innovating the gaming market...
Roberta tried to 'innovate', and it backfired.
With MOE I agree, I can respect Roberta's motivations for the changes. But with GK3 I thought the jump to 3D was horrendous because it added nothing to the games, on the contrary the game was incredibly ugly.
Not that I'm trying to rag on Jane Jensen or anything, plenty of franchises didn't survive the 3D jump. I believe Earthworm Jim 3D pretty much killed the series and Mega-Man was pretty much restricted to portables and retro downloads like Mega-Man 8.
Regarding Mega Man, the Legends series (3D) has released 2 games and a spinoff, The Misadventures of Tron Bonne. From those games come Tron Bonne and the Servbots. Some of whom have become popular in the Marvel vs Capcom series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw3iB2Fbjg4
So 3D, though not hugely popular, sure hasn't hurt Mega Man.
I agree that Earthworm Jim 3D/64 killed the series, though.