POStudios Forum

Phoenix Online Studios => The Silver Lining => General => Topic started by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on September 30, 2011, 05:59:21 PM

Title: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on September 30, 2011, 05:59:21 PM
Continuing my series of retrospective reviews and opinions on each KQ game, how do you feel about King's Quest : Quest for the Crown? It's the game which launched the series, launched the graphic adventure genre into the mainstream arguably, launched Sierra's career as a big time developer, and was a massive hit upon it's release. It was truly revolutionary for it's time upon release in 1983.
What are your opinions on it now, looking back? Opinions on story, art, music, etc, memories, reviews, anything.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Damar on October 07, 2011, 07:04:55 AM
Truth be told, I never liked KQ1 all that much.  I think the major reason was because my family never owned it.  I grew up on KQ2.  The first time I ever played KQ1 was when we finally got the King's Quest Collection which was 1-6.  So KQ1 missed the nostalgia train for me and was already eclipsed by what came next.

I understand that KQ1 created this whole genre.  That said, even though I respect that, there are still technical issues that bug me.  Some of the art is very primitive, even compared to KQ2.  The clovers spring to mind.  The parser interface needed tweaked a bit more.  It always drove me crazy, for example, that the game won't respond to the command "look."  You need to type "look around" or "look at room."  Daventry in general is largely empty and has always been difficult to navigate for me.  I know Kolyma, Tamir, any land you can name back and forward.  I've never been able to get a mental map of Daventry and I think that's because there's just too few points of interest in too much of an area.  One could argue it makes Daventry eerie and run down.  I would argue that's just a perception coming from the fact that you already like King's Quest and are invested in its universe.  In reality, I think the creators just didn't tighten up their delivery quite enough.  And speaking of the delivery, everything in KQ1 was fairly disjointed.  Yes, KQ2 was somewhat disjointed too, but they were making the attempt to tie things together a bit.  Grandma has a history with the count.  God knows what it is, but she does.  Hagatha wants the nightingale.  God knows why, but she does.  You stumble upon Neptune's trident, but at least it's on the beach.  Where it would have washed up.  KQ1 just has random things.  A bowl in the middle of the woods that is magic.  Creatures with magical treasures.  And the fact that you just take these treasures is a bit odd.  Edward wants the shield and chest and mirror and you're authorized to take them by any means necessary (even by killing their rightful owners.)  Yes, I know the lore eventually expanded by stating that the treasures were really stolen, but the original game didn't have that explanation.  You just took the treasures.  You were a pretty realistic medieval knight in that way.

My point is that KQ1 is a very primitive game.  Yes, I know it was supposed to be because it was the first of its kind.  And I can cut it slack because of this and say it's a classic.  But it's also not a game that I'll sit down and play unless I've decided to just play through the entire series.  And the remake was just unnecessary and I strongly disliked it, but you can refer back to the SCI vs. AGI topic for my opinion on that.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: crayauchtin on October 16, 2011, 04:24:42 PM
KQI isn't the best game in the series, but it did exactly a series starter should do -- and it did it perfectly: it gave us a not-too-complex story to introduce a world, a tone, a mood, and character all of which the whole rest of the series would build off of. Could not ask for it to be better.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Bludshot on October 20, 2011, 09:54:53 PM
I don't play it really.  Groundbreaking game but it was before my time.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Blackthorne on October 21, 2011, 09:19:15 AM
I'll tell you - a lot of stuff was before my time.  Doesn't mean I don't love it and cherish it.  Books - hell, half my library of books were written before I was born.  Films - Many films I love were released before I was born.  I love Star Wars, that came out in 1977.  I was born in '78.   Music ?  Uh, yeah, just about everything I listen to comes from the 60's and 70's..... way before I was born.

You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't consider things that were "before your time".  Your time is what you make of it.


Bt
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: MusicallyInspired on October 21, 2011, 05:57:23 PM
The remake (Sierra's remake) is fantastic and I play it when I want to experience KQ1. The AGI original is just fairly ugly.

I wonder, an interesting project might be to beautify up the AGI backgrounds a little. That might be cool to experience. Say Gold Rush quality, instead of, well, KQ1AGI quality which is pretty awful.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Lambonius on October 21, 2011, 06:45:39 PM
I wonder, an interesting project might be to beautify up the AGI backgrounds a little. That might be cool to experience. Say Gold Rush quality, instead of, well, KQ1AGI quality which is pretty awful.

Yeah, AGI has the capacity to actually be quite beautiful.  KQ1 however, is not.  It's a pretty darn ugly game, even by AGI standards.  Imagine if KQ1 AGI looked like this:  ;)

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/Lambonius/argonath.png)
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on October 21, 2011, 07:30:00 PM
Holy kick-awesome picture, Batman!

And yeah, I loved the remake.  I don't play it much, but it's definitely superior to the AGI version in every conceivable way.  To cite one example, the death scene for Edward is just laughable in the original version; it still didn't carry much weight in the subsequent SCI and fan-made VGA remakes, but in the AGI version, he pretty much writhes around whilst Graham jacks his crown and sits down in his throne, not even bothering to scrape him off the floor.  Not a very good first impression of Daventry's next king...

And if I recall correctly, in the SEGA version of the game, Edward never leaves his throne at all, he just says his last words and then dies while sitting upright.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Damar on October 22, 2011, 05:28:36 PM
I completely forgot about Edward's death!  That was hysterical.  And it's not just that Graham grabs the crown and has a seat while the body is right there.  Edward also has this bizarre, "I'm dead...wait, no, I'm ok...no, no I'm dead" thing going on when he falls over.  Even though the AGI graphics are primitive and ugly in some rooms, the programmers actually went overboard with that bizarre little death animation.  It's like the programmer had a choice between making clovers that didn't look like they were drawn by a child, or making sure Edward had a final death kick.  Clearly the priorities were with the latter.

Still, I'd rather play the original, flaws and all, to the Sierra remake.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on October 22, 2011, 08:54:29 PM
It's okay to like the original more.  I grew up playing the SCI version and didn't actually play the AGI version until a couple of years ago.  Upon entering the first screen outside of castle Daventry, I pretty much thought, "Oh man...that landscape looks terrible..."

My previous experiences with Daventry in the SCI version was that it was already pretty nondescript, and the AGI version was even harder on the eyes.  I was so used to that dragon taking up the entire chamber, and when I reached that part in the AGI version, I had a bit of a "lol, wut?" moment when I realized that it was no bigger than an average bear, though probably smarter.  (Yes, I DID just make a Yogi Bear reference.)

That was one of my main gripes with KQ1: not enough of the screens served a purpose, other than being scenery.  As the games went on, there seemed to be fewer and fewer screens like this.  King's Quests VI and VII in particular are almost completely devoid of "scenery" screens.

My other main gripe was the then-too-primitive parser system.  As seen in Paw Dugan's retrospective of the game, there are several times where you just want to type in: "ENGLISH MOTHER****ER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?"  To which it will respond: "I don't understand ENGLISH"
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: MusicallyInspired on October 22, 2011, 10:22:46 PM
Even KQ5 is void of scenery screens except for the occasional maze which doesn't really count. Every screen has a purpose whether there are characters to talk to or items to pick up.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Damar on October 23, 2011, 07:44:14 PM
KQ4 was also a major movement in that direction.  There's probably only one or two screens total that nothing happens in, near the coast.  Everywhere else has the potential for something to happen (the unicorn, minstrel, or ogre possibly showing up.)

I completely agree that Daventry was too empty.  There was just no need for it to be as big as they made it.  It's also, for some reason, the one King's Quest map that I can't keep mapped out in my head.  I can tell you exactly how to get around any other land.  But Daventry, I just can't keep it straight.  I will walk that stupid goat around forever until I figure out how to get to the bridge, or wander around far too long trying to find the flower bed to plant the beans.

Oh, and for the record, Paw's "ENGLISH MOTHERF&#*ER DO YOU SPEAK IT?" joke was hysterical.  I could not stop laughing.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: MusicallyInspired on October 24, 2011, 06:31:34 AM
To get to the bridge with the goat you just go left, up, left, and up again. But yeah, it's totally harder. Probably because it is infinite in all directions. In KQ2, KQ3, and KQ4 at least there were borders on the east and west sides.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Blackthorne on October 24, 2011, 09:12:44 AM
People say KQ1 is ugly, but I happen to love the simple charm of it's graphics.  It's probably because I'm in love with it in it's time. 

You have to remember, at that time - graphics were mostly limited to static images and descriptions.  These were so colorful and charming - I remember the joy I felt as a kid, just being able to explore somewhere!

Hell, half the time I spent as a kid playing KQ1 wasn't about completing the game.  It was about getting lost in the environment..... just exploring.  Every screen didn't NEED to have a purpose, but it was all the most mysterious and awesome when it DID!

It was a simple time, I suppose.  Sometimes I think just being able to explore is one of the most fun things about adventure games.


Bt
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on October 24, 2011, 11:25:44 AM
Yeah, it's good to remember that KQ1 is a product of its time.  Simplicity was where it was at back then.  When Pong first came out, it was limited to Arcade stores and people would line up for HOURS to play it, despite the fact that (a) they had to pay for it, and (b) they could lose within seconds.

Interestingly enough, I think that the main antagonist in each game is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole. 

KQ1 and 2 had Dahlia and Hagatha respectively--both pretty simplistic and one-dimensional, like the games themselves.  Manannan was a pretty impressive bad guy, appearing in the first game that had a legitimate plot.  Lolotte was also one of the better villains, and while she was a bit cheesy ("With Pandora's Box, I WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE!"), she was certainly more threatening than most.

Mordack was flashy, but didn't exactly have Oscar-worthy voice acting (a fairly accurate representation of KQ5 as a whole).  Alhazred was more complicated, kind of like an Iago-type character.  He didn't appear threatening, but he was constantly working misdeeds behind the scenes, which you only get little hints of until the end of the game.

At this point in time, games were beginning to get more complex, and I think this was one of the shortcomings for the 7th and 8th games.  KQ7 was fairly shallow, much like Malicia (who looks more like a cross-dresser than any evil sorceress I've ever seen).  Her motivations were pretty much entirely explained in a paragraph or two of dialogue at the end of the game.  Lucreto, meanwhile, doesn't seem to have any motivations at all.

And of course, Shadrack in TSL is dramatic and psychologically-oriented, just as the game itself is.

Okay, I'm done now.  You may proceed.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Nowhere Girl on February 25, 2013, 02:16:16 PM
For me the original version was just UGLY. "Poor graphics" would be too delicate. Actually late AGI games, the last games made with this engine - "Manhunter" miniseries, "Gold Rush" and the AGI version of "King's Quest 4" - already looked quite decent (in case of "Gold Rush" I didn't notice it was AGI at the first glance), but the earliest games really looked crappy. However, I like the SCI remake very much. I generally really enjoy good-quality EGA graphics, certainly more then 3D graphics (I'll have to see how I like TSL graphics, but when looking at most natural sceneries in 3D, I tend to think: "A world after a nuclear disaster..."). I guess I'm just old-fashioned when it comes to games...
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: stika on March 06, 2013, 12:40:37 PM
did anyone here ever actually figured the Rumpelstiltskin puzzle by themselves?
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: snabbott on March 07, 2013, 07:37:04 AM
Not I. :( I think that was a bit too "outside the box" for me.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Rosella on March 07, 2013, 09:56:29 AM
I heard of the puzzle long before I'd played the game, so I never had a chance. :P
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: darthkiwi on March 07, 2013, 10:53:45 AM
My first contact with KQ1 was as part of the KQ1-6 collection, so I was naturally drawn to 1 (the game that started it all) and 6 (the most recent and by my childish logic therefore "best" of all of them). Needless to say, my picky child-brain took one look at 6 and went "oooh, pretty", then took one look at 1 and went "ugh, is this broken or something?" I was also annoyed that I was punished on the very first screen: walking over a bridge should not be that difficult. XD

Now I'm able to appreciate it as a product of its time, and I'm particularly impressed at the fact that it has 3D graphics (ie. you can walk around stuff), is relatively open-ended (there are lots of hidden treasures and you can choose when to use your fairy-godmother protection, to an extent) and the fact it has three quests that you can complete in (I think) any order. Having said that, I totally agree with every gripe other people have levelled at it. I would like to add: being crushed a rock when you push it, that darn falcon jumping section and the fact that it doesn't pause when you're typing. (I know that last one wasn't fixed until KQ4 but it was a serious barrier for people who couldn't type fast, given how dangerous the game-world could be.)
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Lambonius on March 07, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Why is this in the Silver Lining forum and not the Gaming Talk thread?  I usually avoid the TSL section like the plague, lest my brain be addled by all of the drooling sycophants.  Now I'm going to actually have to check it periodically to see if there are any interesting topics.  Come on, mods.

King's Quest 1 was great--the SCI version in particular is a beautiful game.  The original is charming, too, in it's own way.  In general I love the more arcade-like feel of the direct-control KQ games.  The most memorable moment for me was realizing that the bean stalk solution to getting to the giant's realm existed, after years of using the stairs because of not being able to guess the gnome's name without a walkthrough.  I also love the non-violent solution of being able to avoid the giant long enough to make him fall asleep.  Those kinds of alternative puzzle solutions really made the game feel like there were endless possibilities for doing things--that there was always something new to discover if you could just figure out how and think outside the box.  The parser games encouraged creative thinking on the part of the player in a way that I don't believe the point-and-click versions were ever quite able to capture.  I miss that.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: stika on March 07, 2013, 01:28:04 PM
I'd say it's related enough to TSL to keep it there.

And really there's no need to avoid these sub-forums we get some good threads

And if you don't agree with someone, just respectfully disagree, remember:

 be excellent to your fellow man

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1603965/bill-and-ted-air-guitar-o.gif)
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on March 08, 2013, 11:07:49 AM
And if you don't agree with someone, just respectfully disagree, remember:

 be excellent to your fellow man


...but being nice is boring...
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: GrahamRocks! on March 08, 2013, 01:35:54 PM
Would you rather be seen as rude and be hated by everybody?
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on March 08, 2013, 05:05:37 PM
Apparently, some people do. The Nazis were very rude, for example.


**********IMPORTANT NOTICE*************


Username "929572" has just violated Godwin's Law, and it is recommended that he be ignored from now on.

Sincerely, The Internet.

Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Deloria on March 09, 2013, 08:01:40 AM
I beg to differ. Those bloody Russians were rude, rioting and starving and dying everywhere! People had to walk on those streets, you know! At least the Nazis confined themselves to beer halls. :)
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Numbers on March 09, 2013, 08:54:23 PM
Yeah, but you know who's REALLY rude?...dinosaurs. Because they're, like, fifty feet tall, and they're just so UGLY...you know?



**********IMPORTANT NOTICE*************


Username "929572" is off his meds right now. And now he's just kind of being a jerk.
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: GrahamRocks! on March 09, 2013, 09:04:56 PM
*snickers*
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: snabbott on March 11, 2013, 12:25:50 PM
*snickers*
Mmmm... Snickers! :D
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: boopish on March 11, 2013, 03:12:47 PM
I think what I loved most (and miss most with a lot of newer games), is that the game just doesn't care about you. At all. You get your quest, and you go explore the world. You have to find your items, and then figure out how to make them work for you. For most of the problems, you have alternate solutions. You can pick if you care about points, or rejoice that you found a way past an obstacle. Give the troll a pretty gem? Or, let the goat bash him off the bridge? I really like being able to have some say in when I do tasks in a game, and having choices on how I do them. Or at least feeling like I have some say in it.  ;)

As far as the story, it was a basic hunt and gather quest surrounded by a collection of fairy tales. I agree with what has been said about the art, and about how it was surprisingly difficult to find you way around. I don't think I could have figured out the Rumpelstiltskin puzzle on my own.

I would have appreciated more description with the look function, because with the graphics I didn't always know what it is I was supposed to be seeing. Lo! An object on the ground with a round bottom and flat top. I definitely want to pick it up, but what is it? Although I'm probably the only person that had trouble picking up the bowl.  :-\ In that same line of thought, I would have appreciated some indication of where clues are so I didn't have to try looking in every dark hole on a tree...
Title: Re: Opinions of King's Quest I
Post by: Neonivek on March 12, 2013, 12:55:07 AM
I was still impressed I found out something about KQ1 after years of knowing about it and playing it.

You know the man and woman?

They are EVIL!