POStudios Forum

The Royal Archives => Fan Feedback => Topic started by: MusicallyInspired on July 14, 2010, 12:49:57 PM

Title: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on July 14, 2010, 12:49:57 PM
I probably can already guess the answer, but will there be any material at all present in MOE that will show itself (or at least cameo an appearance) in any of the TSL episodes? I know a lot of people talk it down and therefore many would just assume it would rather just be forgotten about, but it is canon simply due to the fact that it was released and (partially) created by Roberta and some of the original Sierra staff.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Haids1987 on July 14, 2010, 12:50:27 PM
"Tis beyond his reach!"

Enough said. ;)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 01:00:30 PM
Sadly yes.  While many of us try to sort of pretend like MoE isn't part of the family, it still is.  Not the ideal addition we would like to be proud (Connor's extra-secret armor anyone?) of, but it is still referenced in this game.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on July 14, 2010, 01:05:00 PM
Quote from: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 01:00:30 PM
Sadly yes.  While many of us try to sort of pretend like MoE isn't part of the family, it still is.  Not the ideal addition we would like to be proud (Connor's extra-secret armor anyone?) of, but it is still referenced in this game.

If you look close in the wedding, you will notice a blond maid of honor ;)

as for the rest, The Mask of Eternity used to play a very important part in the original story, but was cut when condensed.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 01:30:06 PM
*Scrambles to replay wedding scene...*

.
.
.

Well would you look at that!  I was so busy looking at the group on the other side of the group and trying to identify them that I missed her.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on July 14, 2010, 01:47:50 PM
LOL, you know I think even I missed that in that scene!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 01:48:54 PM
OK now I don't feel so bad.  You did however remember the Ted Danson thing first.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Enchantermon on July 14, 2010, 02:14:13 PM
Moe in TSL? Let's hope so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_(slang)). ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I don't get all of the MoE hate. Maybe it wasn't the best game of the series, but neither was KQ2. Now, granted, I haven't yet played it (getting ready to; I may start it today), but come on. It's still a King's Quest game. Show it some love.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on July 14, 2010, 02:20:35 PM
hmm,

I think that's the problem... The fact that it's really not a King's Quest game :)

Just a game (and a good game imo)with the King's Quest title attached to it.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: kindofdoon on July 14, 2010, 02:34:02 PM
Cez, I disagree.

MoE was always a KQ game. It began development as KQVIII, and Roberta guided the team throughout the entire process. It's not like Sierra made a game and tacked on the KQ title. This was Roberta's creation, an official KQ game.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: dark-daventry on July 14, 2010, 02:52:51 PM
The original concept for MoE was FAR different than the final product. The reason for this was that Roberta, to my knowledge, lost creative control of the game. Her vision was not fully realized for the finished product. MoE would probably have been much better if Roberta was allowed to have her way.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: B'rrr on July 14, 2010, 03:05:27 PM
Lets put it to a test;

KQ1
KQ2
KQ3
KQ4
KQ5
KQ6
KQ7
KQ8

:o  guess it isn't!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: daventry on July 14, 2010, 03:06:03 PM
So MOE will not be mentioned in TSL and if i were to go Buy the KQ Collection again, must i Only get KQ 1-7  ???
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: dark-daventry on July 14, 2010, 03:13:46 PM
Well at this point, there may still be some small mask references in TSL. Cesar is in a much better position to answer that than I am.

Unfortunately, the collection only goes up to 7.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: daventry on July 14, 2010, 03:17:34 PM
There were 2 People at the Wedding of Rosella, the one guy had a Sun on his Shirt with a Girl next to him.

For some reason my Screen Program cant take Pictures, it all goes blank, not even Print Screen works
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 03:23:43 PM
Yeah the surest sign that MoE isn't considered a proper King's Quest game is that is hasn't ever been included as part of a collection.  If it were just called Mask of Eternity it'd be a great standalone game, don't get me wrong I thought it was plenty fun in its own way, but it's SO far off the beaten King's Quest path that it's difficult to include it in the same category as the others.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Enchantermon on July 14, 2010, 03:37:27 PM
Quote from: Cez on July 14, 2010, 02:20:35 PM
I think that's the problem... The fact that it's really not a King's Quest game :)

Just a game (and a good game imo)with the King's Quest title attached to it.
Respectfully, where is the factual basis for this statement? It played differently and looked different, but in the end, it still bears the King's Quest name.
System Shock, Looking Glass Studio's 1994 shooter, was an FPS. Five years later, Looking Glass and Irrational Studios released System Shock 2, an FPS/RPG hybrid. SS2 looked and played much different from the original System Shock, but both games exist in the same universe, share characters and share a name. Is System Shock 2 not a true System Shock game because it's different than the one that came before it? Of course not. MoE is no different.
Quote from: dark-daventry on July 14, 2010, 02:52:51 PM
The original concept for MoE was FAR different than the final product. The reason for this was that Roberta, to my knowledge, lost creative control of the game.
While this may be true, that doesn't make it any less of a King's Quest game.
Quote from: B'rrr on July 14, 2010, 03:05:27 PM
Lets put it to a test;

KQ1
KQ2
KQ3
KQ4
KQ5
KQ6
KQ7
MoE

:o  guess it isn't!
(http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/object/003/003529/612442boxart_160w.jpg)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on July 14, 2010, 04:01:09 PM
The filter that turns KQ-8 without the hyphen to MoE is actually b/c it was never marketed with the 8. If you'll notice, the box cover there just says King's Quest: Mask of Eternity.

It IS a King's Quest game. What Cez meant was that, beyond the name, it really doesn't feel like one. No one's saying it wasn't one, obviously it has the title, but the rest of the correlations seem fairly incidental in the game itself.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: daventry on July 14, 2010, 04:08:37 PM
I found Proof that MOE is Not KQ related, so we might Not see Connor in TSL   :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOPd_wVpuqI
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Bad Asp on July 14, 2010, 04:15:23 PM
I think Mask of Eternity should be included in the King's Quest canon.  That way, the "black sheep" of the series can at least be acknowledged...

(Now if only Telltale and LucasArts would do the same thing for Sam and Max Hit the Road and Sam and Max: Freelance Police instead of pretending they don't exist...)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on July 14, 2010, 06:05:16 PM
What Katie said.

And yes, we recognized it as part of the King's Quest cannon. But yeah, it's the dark sheep.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 06:13:38 PM
<<<<<<  That's the real dark sheep of the King's Quest family - the game that never was, and just by looking at that image I'm glad that it wasn't.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Haids1987 on July 14, 2010, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: Cez on July 14, 2010, 01:05:00 PM
If you look close in the wedding, you will notice a blond maid of honor ;)
Ohhhhhhhh.  I wondered!  I never actually played MoE, so I wouldn't have known her. :stars:
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: dark-daventry on July 14, 2010, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: wilco64256 on July 14, 2010, 06:13:38 PM
<<<<<<  That's the real dark sheep of the King's Quest family - the game that never was, and just by looking at that image I'm glad that it wasn't.

I saw those screen shots a while ago, and just shuddered. MoE would likely have been a game of the year candidate compared to those screenshots... And besides, Mask WAS a good game in it's own respect. I do in fact like MoE (at least with cheats on. What can I say? I'm a sucker for infinite health...), but in terms of KQ continuity, it just didn't live up to the KQ legacy like I had hoped it would. Now, with that being said, I would be very interested in seeing a KQ RPG down the line. I can see it working if the right people are behind it...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Enchantermon on July 14, 2010, 08:46:36 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on July 14, 2010, 04:01:09 PMIt IS a King's Quest game. What Cez meant was that, beyond the name, it really doesn't feel like one. No one's saying it wasn't one, obviously it has the title, but the rest of the correlations seem fairly incidental in the game itself.
Quote from: Cez on July 14, 2010, 06:05:16 PMWhat Katie said.
Okay.
Quote from: Bad Asp on July 14, 2010, 04:15:23 PM(Now if only Telltale and LucasArts would do the same thing for Sam and Max Hit the Road and Sam and Max: Freelance Police instead of pretending they don't exist...)
I don't know about the cartoon, but Telltale included a couple of different nods to Sam and Max Hit the Road in Seasons 1 and 2, nods that place Hit the Road in the same reality as the episodic adventures.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: duke on July 14, 2010, 09:12:20 PM
Regardless of your opinions of MoE, the fact is that TSL is a continuation of the story of the Royal Family, a story which really was only touched on for about 10 seconds in MoE, which makes it fairly irrelevant. We've already seen a couple of little references in Chapter 1, and I'm sure we'll see more, but I doubt there'll be any more than little references, as there's really not much from MoE that can be used story-wise.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on July 14, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
Oh my, look what I've started lol. Also, MOE was marketed as King's Quest 8 right on the box in different countries. I remember seeing a scan of the box with a great big 8 on it, to my immense surprise. But besides that, basically the biggest reason why TSL was original named King's Quest XI. I mean, they wouldn't have done that if they didn't at least acknowledge MOE. People still call TSL "KQ9" to this day.

MOE was a fine game. Not as good as it could have been, no doubt, but it sure was fine. And no, maybe not as magical or impacting as the other games (and the royal family was painfully missed), but it was a great game with a great atmosphere. Actually, I haven't beaten it yet....I must do that someday, if I can ever get it working on my modern computer.

But anyway, I didn't really want to get into an MOE debate so much as I was truly wondering if elements of MOE would show themselves in the plot of TSL. Cez answered my question perfectly. Thanks.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on July 14, 2010, 09:41:06 PM
Even if MoE is a KQ, which I think every side of this can be argued til kingdom come, it's relevance to the story we've been given seems questionable.

TSL, like many of the King's Quests before it (short of KQ1), has more to do with Graham's personal life/Graham's family than it does with the fate of the world. Where does Connor and his quest that saved the world fit into the current situation -- a curse on Alexander and Rosella that effects Alexander and Rosella.

Mentioning it makes some sense, sure, but it hardly seems worthy of being featured in the same way that the rest of the series should be. After all, the character we're working with here was encased in stone for the duration of the game.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Rockabore on July 15, 2010, 05:03:23 AM
I'm a sucker for cameos and while I never actually played MoE (I played the first 7 because they came with the collection) but I think since it takes place in the same universe and included King Graham it would be nice to here a little mention of it. I think that just seeing Connor and his girlfriend and maybe having Graham acknowledge him being a good knight would be enough. It makes the most sense to me that way. It doesn't really need to be mentioned but I'd like it mainly to set TSL chronologically after MoE since I didn't really like it would take place so many years later.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on July 15, 2010, 08:15:49 AM
Quote from: crayauchtin on July 14, 2010, 09:41:06 PM
Even if MoE is a KQ, which I think every side of this can be argued til kingdom come, it's relevance to the story we've been given seems questionable.

TSL, like many of the King's Quests before it (short of KQ1), has more to do with Graham's personal life/Graham's family than it does with the fate of the world. Where does Connor and his quest that saved the world fit into the current situation -- a curse on Alexander and Rosella that effects Alexander and Rosella.

Mentioning it makes some sense, sure, but it hardly seems worthy of being featured in the same way that the rest of the series should be. After all, the character we're working with here was encased in stone for the duration of the game.

So? Any writer can write any element into a game. There's definitely a way that you could incorporate elements from MOE or even Connor himself into the storyline of TSL if you were creative enough (he was Daventry's saviour, I think that counts for something). And judging by what Cez himself just said earlier, it was written into the plot but was cut to shrink the game size.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on July 15, 2010, 12:33:43 PM
Sure, any creative writer could absolutely work it into the plot. But the question becomes why? Why force  a story that has little to do with the current story into it? Mentioning it is one thing, and we already know it will be mentioned as we've already seen Sarah Burke in the intro, so "mentioning" MoE is not the question. The question is if it's storyline will be featured as a part of the plot. And that brings in the question of why, which as of yet no one has been able to answer other than "but I liked it!" or "It doesn't matter what anyone says, it was a King's Quest!"
Both of those may be reasons, but they aren't particularly good storytelling.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: daventry on July 15, 2010, 12:33:52 PM
Here is an Image someone Posted, so Connor and his Girlfriend does make an Appearence.

(http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8643.0;attach=5628;image)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on July 15, 2010, 12:55:21 PM
That's not Connor, Daventry. And the blonde woman next to him is Beauty (the Beast-turned-Beast is next to her, in the white wig), not Sarah.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on July 15, 2010, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: crayauchtin on July 15, 2010, 12:33:43 PM
Sure, any creative writer could absolutely work it into the plot. But the question becomes why? Why force  a story that has little to do with the current story into it? Mentioning it is one thing, and we already know it will be mentioned as we've already seen Sarah Burke in the intro, so "mentioning" MoE is not the question. The question is if it's storyline will be featured as a part of the plot. And that brings in the question of why, which as of yet no one has been able to answer other than "but I liked it!" or "It doesn't matter what anyone says, it was a King's Quest!"
Both of those may be reasons, but they aren't particularly good storytelling.

Why are you making such a big deal out of it? I wasn't saying they should I was just asking if they did. Don't get so debate-prone. My goodness everybody is on edge around here since the release of the game...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: B'rrr on July 15, 2010, 04:43:21 PM
Unless Shadrak is Connor, or maybe just his lover *ponders*
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Spikey2 on July 16, 2010, 04:48:24 AM
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on July 14, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
Oh my, look what I've started lol. Also, MOE was marketed as King's Quest 8 right on the box in different countries.

Yup, definately KQ8=MoE.
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/626/kingscovergf3.jpg)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on July 16, 2010, 05:06:24 AM
As I understand it, that was only in certain rerelease editions that were published through third-party bargain publishers.

The original first edition release published by Sierra were similar to the US, and just had the King's Quest: Mask of Eternity translated into german or spanish, etc.

However, it was called the "eighth installment of the King's Quest series", on a sticker Sierra put on the package of english release. I think it was even considered the "eighth game of tghe series" in the manual (and even had one of those "what came before" summaries of the previous games)  that came in the box, and possibly on the back of hte box, or in the flap on the cover. It was also called KQ 8 in menus of Roberta Williams Anthology, i.e. something like in the installation folders for the collections "c:/sierra/RW Anth/KQ 8 (no space, and yes the autotranslation on this site is a bit rediculous because it screws up "quotes" where KQ 8 is actually used), and King's Quest Collection 2, where the making of videos were kept. It was also called the eighth game in the series in several interaction magazines, and I think Roberta even called it the eighth game of the series in several interviews, including the Talkspot interviews (or variations of "King's Quest 8"). She definitely considered it a real king's quest game, in her perspective. She even showed annoyance whenever anyone criticized it during interviews, giving arguements why her decisions actually represented a natural evolution for the series.

Quote"I have to admit I was a little nervous about it and I never questioned it, I always felt it was the right thing, and I feel time will tell as to how that eventually works out, only I must say by the sales of King's Quest, and by the fact so many people seem to be enjoying it, it must have been the right thing to do. I think combat, got quite a bit of attention and controversy, because they say that's not part of King's Quest, but it certainly can be part of King's Quest, if its a knightly quest, and its good vs. evil, and if it fits into the story, which I think it does very well in this game."
-Roberta Williams, Talkspot Part 1, December 1998.

QuoteThe reason why combat was added, and first of all, I don't think people should take it negatively because combat is definitely can be part of a story, lot of people think combat, that is just an action game, just action. But if you think about some of the great movies that have been out there, some of the great books where combat has been part of it, if you think in terms of adding it to the story, and if it fits very well with the story, then I think it's very appropriate. My idea was I wanted to do a story that was more in like the tradition of the epic games, where you had your true hero that would go out, and think about some of the old legendary figures of King Arthur or Sir Launcelot or Jason and the Golden Fleece. I mean they were all super heroes that would go out and they would fight the monsters and they were working for good. ...and really also if you sorta think about the quest, the quest for faith, or even your inner self. It can be said fighting the monsters, is the same as fighting your own inner demons. But when you think in terms of putting it into the story, fighting chaos, and your trying to set order right, and your fighting evil, I think its very appropriate. How would Star Wars be without Luke Skywalker out there fighting the bad guys.
-Roberta Williams, Talkspot part 2, December 1998

QuoteThe question you asked above is the reason King's Quest: Mask of Eternity was different. The adventure game as we all know and love it is a dead animal, except for those of us who love and revere them. The problem is that those of us who love and revere them are becoming a smaller and smaller audience. If I had created King's Quest 8 exactly the same as the other prior seven, it might have gotten great reviews and kudos from its biggest fans, but it wouldn't have sold as many copies as it has ... I'm sure of that. The people who seem to hate Mask of Eternity are, ironically, King's Quest's biggest fans, and the people who seem to love it are those people who have never played an adventure game before, but who have played lots of other types of games ... especially more action games.

The idea was to bring a brand new audience into adventure game playing--those who would never even consider playing an adventure game. The idea was to show all of these "new" gamers that there is another type of game out there--the adventure game--and that it, too, can be cool. Rather than the hard-core adventure gamers out there being mad at me for "tinkering" with the adventure game, they should understand that, rather than just sitting around and doing the same old thing, I was trying to bring new blood into the genre ... thereby trying to keep it from dying. Times change, and tastes change ... they just do, and you've gotta do what you've gotta do to try and reach the biggest possible audience to keep a genre alive.

One final comment on this: Even though in reviews of "pure" adventure games--places where an adventure game is an adventure game, and never the twain shall meet with other types of genres--Grim Fandango seems to garner great reviews while Mask of Eternity is a dud, a traitor, and a terrible game ... Mask of Eternity has outsold Grim Fandango two to one. What does that prove? It proves that I was successful in bringing in new people to the adventure game marketplace, which is good for all concerned, but ... it also means that there will probably be some changes in the adventure game that today's big fans of adventure games will have to accept. The old-style adventure game that we all know and love will just not cut it in today's world.

Josh is right in that it is "different." No doubt about that. As far as the term "commercial" is concerned, that really has no meaning for me. All of my games have been "commercial." They've never not been commercial. What does the word commercial mean? It means "having to do with commerce," and also, "designed for profit or mass appeal." Now, I ask you, what's wrong with that?! If a game doesn't sell, it's not going to stick around and there's certainly not going to be another one! When you design a computer game which takes a couple of years and a lot of money, you obviously want as many people as possible to see it. I have always approached each and every one of my games with the idea that I wanted as many people as possible to play them. Maybe some people see that as offensive; I don't.

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.
-just adventures interview

I've been putting together quite a few of these quotes and references up here, as I find them (I've started working on design pages for the rest of the games, you might be interested to learn things were cut from many of the games, including KQ5, 6, & 7);
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Mask_of_Eternity_Development

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/The_Princeless_Bride_Development

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Heir_Today,_Gone_Tomorrow_Development

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Absence_Makes_the_Heart_Go_Yonder_Development

Also did you ever notice that Ken Williams calls it King's Quest 8 on his website?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Enchantermon on July 16, 2010, 09:29:24 AM
Well. That pretty much settles it.
I'm playing MoE for the first time, and I think it's great. Doesn't feel exactly like the other King's Quest games, but I wouldn't have expected it to, since it's playing with new elements. So far, however, I think it's a worthy continuation of the series.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on July 16, 2010, 09:48:31 AM
I think the game actually has about as many classic inventory based puzzles and inventory items items as the early KQ1-4... (granted a few of these were "keys", which gets kinda of repetive, in the light that "keys" are the limits of puzzles in Doom and most fps :p) Then again, what was the main puzzle line in KQ2. :suffer: :suffer: :suffer:

Then it mixed it up by creating a few puzzles based on the weapon your wielding. For example using the axe to cut down a tree. As well as Roberta's attempts at 3-d style puzzles that involve using the environment to solve a puzzle (the tree to stop the water wheel is one such puzzle).

I've always been curious how many "puzzles" and classic inventory style puzzles, and how many inventory items it has in relation to previous games in the series. But I never got around to finishing inventory pages in the omnipedia.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on July 16, 2010, 11:04:29 AM
I think Roberta was right in a lot of ways, particularly about evolving the genre, just that she got the balance wrong in MOE.  It wasn't just a KQ game with combat, it was a combat game that used KQ names and a few faces.  Combat was SUCH a large part of the game, and on top of that, it wasn't done very well--just endless clicking, no real rhyme or reason to the combat system.  The negative reviews of the game didn't necessarily focus on the fact that it had combat, it was that it had combat that was done very badly.  It also had a few very subpar platforming sections, which were totally out of left field.  In fact, the traditional adventure elements were downplayed SO much, that it didn't seem like an adventure game at all, or at least, not one that even vaguely resembled anything else in the genre.  It also had some glaring technical faults, like atrociously long load times, for one.  The best part of the game was really just exploring each area, and it was a game that looked darn good for its time, especially if you had all the right hardware to run it at full settings.

It's worth noting that I really liked MOE when I first got it and played through it when it came out.  But I could tell how different it was, and looking back, I recognize why a lot of people don't like it.  Personally, I wish I could play it again, but unfortunately, it just doesn't want to work on modern computers.  Also, you lose a LOT of the visual flair if you run it in Direct3D, which is the only option nowadays.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: daventry on September 13, 2010, 02:49:01 AM
Why is TSL referred as KQ9 If there wont be any mention about MoE in the rest of the Episodes, maybe in Ep2 when we see a Cutscene of Rosella and Alexander being taken to Daventry we will see Connor.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: koko_99_2001 on September 13, 2010, 04:34:06 AM
TSL is no longer referred to as KQ9. And I know that at least in the previous scripts, Conner was mentioned.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on September 13, 2010, 05:07:42 AM
As Cat said, it isn't called KQ9 anymore but when it was, it was because there were eight official games and this one is an unofficial sequel.... which would make it the ninth game. :P
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KQ5Fan on September 13, 2010, 10:04:26 AM
Quote from: duke on July 14, 2010, 09:12:20 PM
Regardless of your opinions of MoE, the fact is that TSL is a continuation of the story of the Royal Family, a story which really was only touched on for about 10 seconds in MoE, which makes it fairly irrelevant. We've already seen a couple of little references in Chapter 1, and I'm sure we'll see more, but I doubt there'll be any more than little references, as there's really not much from MoE that can be used story-wise.

Only touched on for 10 seconds? I'd have to disagree. Although Graham was only shown for about that time, the whole story of MoE affects the entire royal family. Connor is, in a sense, the new hero of Daventry (the first being Graham). Without him, everyone would still be stuck as a stone statue and there'd be no possibility of TSL existing.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: maharg on September 13, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
That's a good point, and I agree. I liked MoE. It's sad many people seem to not have liked it, or even tried it.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 13, 2010, 12:26:55 PM
Quote from: maharg on September 13, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
That's a good point, and I agree. I liked MoE. It's sad many people seem to not have liked it, or even tried it.
I love it.

I seem to be one of the only ones.  DMD and Baggins both seem to be into it.

and I have been wanting to make a VGA remake for about 2 years now....
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: duke on September 13, 2010, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: KQ5Fan on September 13, 2010, 10:04:26 AM
Quote from: duke on July 14, 2010, 09:12:20 PM
Regardless of your opinions of MoE, the fact is that TSL is a continuation of the story of the Royal Family, a story which really was only touched on for about 10 seconds in MoE, which makes it fairly irrelevant. We've already seen a couple of little references in Chapter 1, and I'm sure we'll see more, but I doubt there'll be any more than little references, as there's really not much from MoE that can be used story-wise.

Only touched on for 10 seconds? I'd have to disagree. Although Graham was only shown for about that time, the whole story of MoE affects the entire royal family. Connor is, in a sense, the new hero of Daventry (the first being Graham). Without him, everyone would still be stuck as a stone statue and there'd be no possibility of TSL existing.

Yes that's true, I just meant that in terms of actual plot points, there's not very much that could be used in TSL beyond making little references.

Also, just for the record, my comments aren't meant to be anything against MoE, when it came out I was 9 or 10 years old and had many many happy hours playing it, have revisited it several times in the years since and probably will want to play it again some day. So I do like the game, all I was saying was that story-wise I don't think there's much that could be used in TSL.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Enchantermon on September 13, 2010, 11:03:46 PM
MoE isn't anything particularly wonderful, but it wasn't that horrible either. It suffered from a couple of awkward controls and didn't seem to be quite as fun as the previous games had been, but cutting the design some slack because of it's age, it's really not that bad.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KQ5Fan on September 13, 2010, 11:20:48 PM
I thought the ending was neither satisfying or rewarding. To go through all that crap just to have this stupid little 30 second ending video where everything comes back to life was pretty dumb imo
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Fierce Deity on September 14, 2010, 01:51:45 AM
Quote from: KQ5Fan on September 13, 2010, 11:20:48 PM
I thought the ending was neither satisfying or rewarding. To go through all that crap just to have this stupid little 30 second ending video where everything comes back to life was pretty dumb imo

This is entirely why I would like to see more fan-fiction for MoE. It was a good game, but it didn't actually end. I would like to see how Connor's adventure affected Daventry, beyond the standard reanimation of its citizens. 
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on September 14, 2010, 02:36:44 AM
Yes, I do like MOE. I enjoyed going through it back in the day. The only thing that disappointed me was the ending due to how anti-climactic was. I actually did like the battle with Lucreto itself though (reminded me of the tiny bit of combat at the end of KQ6.

Is the game perfect? No, but there were alot of things that made it charming adventure. It had alot of little nods to previous games in the series in way it incorporated legends, and such.

I found it more interesting than the Tomb Raider games of that era. I really dug the combination of Lara Croft style puzzles with classic inventory point and click puzzles as well. Its a shame we'll never see what Roberta would have done if she could have created a KQ9 with improved technology (that would have allowed for some of the ambitious ideas she had to cut from KQ8). Roberta btw would sometimes have to cut ideas from KQ games, and those ideas would be reincorporated into a later game. Like many of the puzzles and encoutners in KQ2 were actually ideas from KQ that were cut and she recycled the ideas in the sequel.

Infact I'd say that while I had some disappointment from the game on initial playing, the game has actually grown on me with time. Especially now that I'm older and can pick up on many of the subtle themes and messages hidden in the game's world. Infact there are alot of symbols hidden in the game's architecture, mosaics/hieroglyphics etc, that tie into the the game's use of mythology and christian lore. You can really tell that Roberta et al had really put alot of effort into creating the world.

Is  MOE my favorite KQ? No, but there is to like about it if you understand what its trying to be.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Delling on September 14, 2010, 04:28:18 AM
Quote from: Baggins on September 14, 2010, 02:36:44 AM
Like many of the puzzles and encoutners in KQ2 were actually ideas from KQ that were cut and she recycled the ideas in the sequel.

Out of curiosity: would you happen to know which ones?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 14, 2010, 06:25:58 AM
Quote from: Fierce Deity on September 14, 2010, 01:51:45 AM
Quote from: KQ5Fan on September 13, 2010, 11:20:48 PM
I thought the ending was neither satisfying or rewarding. To go through all that crap just to have this stupid little 30 second ending video where everything comes back to life was pretty dumb imo

This is entirely why I would like to see more fan-fiction for MoE. It was a good game, but it didn't actually end. I would like to see how Connor's adventure affected Daventry, beyond the standard reanimation of its citizens. 
^^one reason for me wanting to remake it actually.

Agreed.  although I loved the game and thought it was one of my most favoriteist KQ games. (although 5 probably wins for the nostalgia, followed by 6 because it's a brilliant game)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Delling on September 14, 2010, 06:42:36 AM
Quote from: Delling on September 14, 2010, 04:28:18 AM
Quote from: Baggins on September 14, 2010, 02:36:44 AM
Like many of the puzzles and encoutners in KQ2 were actually ideas from KQ that were cut and she recycled the ideas in the sequel.

Out of curiosity: would you happen to know which ones?
Wait... *wanders over to the KQ Omnipedia* ... nevermind. :P
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on September 14, 2010, 10:36:58 AM
I think she mentioned the bridge was one, probably some of the other fairy tale related stuff.

It reminds me a bit of how Lucas and Spielburg had the idea to have the mine cart ride in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it was cut and then the idea was reused for Temple of Doom.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: TheReturnofDMD on September 14, 2010, 12:54:46 PM
Roberta kind of reminds of Lucas actually.
Alone, Lucas is good--Star Wars episode IV and I-III are pretty good. But when he works with other people, like he did with The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, it's even better.
Similarly, KQ 1-4 are excellent, and they are standalone Roberta games. 5-8, which incorporate other visions besides Roberta's (6 and 7 were not even really Roberta games at all outside of the general storyline) were even better.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Fierce Deity on September 14, 2010, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofDMD on September 14, 2010, 12:54:46 PM
Roberta kind of reminds of Lucas actually.
Alone, Lucas is good--Star Wars episode IV and I-III are pretty good. But when he works with other people, like he did with The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, it's even better.
Similarly, KQ 1-4 are excellent, and they are standalone Roberta games. 5-8, which incorporate other visions besides Roberta's (6 and 7 were not even really Roberta games at all outside of the general storyline) were even better.

Two heads are better than one, I suppose. Collaborating is always a good way to let the creative juices flow. You're constantly brainstorming, and constantly revising old work. It makes sense that teamwork would prevail each and every time. 
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Jujuba on September 17, 2010, 09:50:59 PM


KQ VIII VGA...

Great idea!  ;D
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 07:56:26 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 17, 2010, 09:50:59 PM


KQ VIII VGA...

Great idea!  ;D
Yeah.

I think if we end up doing it though, it will be a bit more 3Dish, but still using AGS and the classic KQV interface.

I would love to see it in VGA too though, but the 3d in ags idea sounds good to me as well.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Jujuba on September 18, 2010, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 07:56:26 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 17, 2010, 09:50:59 PM


KQ VIII VGA...

Great idea!  ;D
Yeah.

I think if we end up doing it though, it will be a bit more 3Dish, but still using AGS and the classic KQV interface.

I would love to see it in VGA too though, but the 3d in ags idea sounds good to me as well.

Yup!

Speaking about VGA, I would like a KQIV VGA...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 08:07:24 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 18, 2010, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 07:56:26 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 17, 2010, 09:50:59 PM


KQ VIII VGA...

Great idea!  ;D
Yeah.

I think if we end up doing it though, it will be a bit more 3Dish, but still using AGS and the classic KQV interface.

I would love to see it in VGA too though, but the 3d in ags idea sounds good to me as well.

Yup!

Speaking about VGA, I would like a KQIV VGA...
http://www.mmgames.org/KQ4/SMF/
really small team and seem to be lacking direction and artists.
I hope it gets done some day.  I would help if I had any pixelart skills or anything....
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Jujuba on September 18, 2010, 08:13:29 AM
Quote from: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 08:07:24 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 18, 2010, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 07:56:26 AM
Quote from: Jujuba on September 17, 2010, 09:50:59 PM


KQ VIII VGA...

Great idea!  ;D
Yeah.

I think if we end up doing it though, it will be a bit more 3Dish, but still using AGS and the classic KQV interface.

I would love to see it in VGA too though, but the 3d in ags idea sounds good to me as well.

Yup!

Speaking about VGA, I would like a KQIV VGA...
http://www.mmgames.org/KQ4/SMF/
really small team and seem to be lacking direction and artists.
I hope it gets done some day.  I would help if I had any pixelart skills or anything....

Oh, they are still alive!

Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 08:15:13 AM
seem to be.  although not much real progress seems to have been made recently.  I really hope they finish it some day.  if not, I hope someone does.  Then we would have the first 4 VGA remakes complete and have 1-6 in that style.  that would be awesome.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: dark-daventry on September 18, 2010, 12:51:28 PM
Wow! I was just thinking about the KQ4 remake the other day! I'm surprised it's still going. I hope it continues to keep going! I want to see the project completed!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on September 18, 2010, 12:54:20 PM
I thought that one was dead, too--glad to see it's not! I also hope they make it. I really love KQ4, it'd be great to see a remake of it. :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: atec123 on September 18, 2010, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: dark-daventry on September 18, 2010, 12:51:28 PM
Wow! I was just thinking about the KQ4 remake the other day! I'm surprised it's still going. I hope it continues to keep going! I want to see the project completed!
I am surprised too.

I recommended the guy making the TSL remake to go check it out and see if they need his help.  I really want that project to be completed.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 18, 2010, 12:54:20 PM
I thought that one was dead, too--glad to see it's not! I also hope they make it. I really love KQ4, it'd be great to see a remake of it. :)
yeah.  especially the KQ4+ they were considering.  But just want to see a straight remake first.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Arkillian on November 15, 2010, 03:31:22 PM
Question- is Mask of Eternity worth playing? I hear alot of bad reviews on it. Why has it got such a bad rep? :(
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on November 15, 2010, 04:15:39 PM
It's a good game, it's just not a good King's Quest.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Arkillian on November 15, 2010, 04:45:06 PM
Is it a point click game like Kings quest? Or does it have a more speed based set up? Like... it is a quest game, right?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: waltzdancing on November 15, 2010, 04:49:05 PM
Mask is not a point and click game. It is an action-adventure game where you have to collect pieces of a mask to save everyone.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Arkillian on November 15, 2010, 04:54:27 PM
Oh- I probably wont like it as much then. I like turn based games, or games where I'm not rushed. I'm nto very good at games where things leap out at me  :-[
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: waltzdancing on November 15, 2010, 04:57:02 PM
Mask is in TSL but here is a link to a summary of KQ8 so you know what happens.

http://www.postudios.com/blog/?s=Mask+of+eternity
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Arkillian on November 15, 2010, 05:01:01 PM
Ah- thank you :) Did any cool events happen besides hack/slash/boss fight type stuff?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: waltzdancing on November 15, 2010, 05:03:06 PM
Not really. That review really sums it all up.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Arkillian on November 15, 2010, 05:10:49 PM
Oh- I see O.O
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on November 15, 2010, 05:23:10 PM
Like I said, not a good King's Quest.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on November 15, 2010, 05:45:26 PM
MOE was a decent game in its day--it was more atmospheric than most action adventure games from that time--but, like Sierra's FMV experiments, the early 3D action adventure titles that they did (MOE included) have not withstood the test of time.  Even getting it to run today is a pain (unless you buy it from GOG.com), and the gameplay has been surpassed by just about every other action adventure/rpg type game to come out since.  :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on November 15, 2010, 05:48:26 PM
There is actually alot more to the game than that review portrays... It's kind of a return back to King's Quest I in puzzle variety. But the story is probably one of the deepest in the entire series, full of plenty of symbolism. However, the problem arises that you can literally miss alot of the story, since quite a few of it is affected by the more non-linear aspects of the game, and if you do certain things out of order, you can miss some of it.

Personally I don't think its the best of the series... but I imo, I think its more compelling than KQ7. Certainly one of my favorite games in the series. My least favorite ending in the series though. The journey is the best part of it, and unfortunately the ending turns out to be quite a bit anti-climactic.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on November 15, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
I've never really played it myself, but that all matches what I've heard and gathered from it--it was a pretty good action-adventure game, but the plot really sounds like a game that was written without KQ in mind at all but then had the KQ name slapped on at the last minute. Not what happened, I know, but that's the impression it's given me from what I've heard and read.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on November 15, 2010, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on November 15, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
I've never really played it myself, but that all matches what I've heard and gathered from it--it was a pretty good action-adventure game, but the plot really sounds like a game that was written without KQ in mind at all but then had the KQ name slapped on at the last minute. Not what happened, I know, but that's the impression it's given me from what I've heard and read.

Well, from what I understand of its development, Roberta herself was pretty heavily invested in the creation of the game's story early on, but had a lot of creative control over the gameplay wrested from her as the development progressed, leaving us with a game that didn't really fit her vision as much as she would have initially liked.

*Then again, she's been quoted numerous times in interviews adamantly defending many of the design decisions that went into the game, so I dunno.  ;)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on November 15, 2010, 05:53:33 PM
I'm currently playing through it again, and its one of those games that grows on me each time I play it. Since there is alot you can miss, if you aren't paying attention. I discover interesting details each time. Its loaded with characters and charm that are unmistakenbly King's Quest. Including the humor, althlough its alot more serious than any other game in the series. Think Tolkien and Milton, Dante's Inferno, think the Holy Bible (with only sparing amount of faery story thrown in).

If I was stacking together the most serious games in the series, I'd probably put MOE, then KQ6, KQ4, and then KQ1 (remake), in the mood they give off. KQ3 has mood, but its more or less limited to Manannan and the clock (you are stuck under).

For pretty much the most comprehensive information about Roberta and the game development see;
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Mask_of_Eternity_Development
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on November 15, 2010, 05:56:13 PM
Yeah, I remember really enjoying MOE back in the day, regardless of how different it was from the other games in the series.  I've keep meaning to buy it on GOG and play it again, but I haven't had any time in the last few months.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on November 15, 2010, 06:13:00 PM
Ya the thing is it was pretty well received back then, overall. It had more positive reviews than negative. Its definitely a game that could cause lively debate, and opposing view points.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on November 17, 2010, 04:18:53 PM
I really need to get playing this game. I keep starting it and never finding the time to get through the first level. The varied locales in the game look truly spectacular. Not spectacular as in visually eye-gougingly amazing, but a wide variety of different types of areas you travel through.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on November 22, 2010, 07:10:04 PM
Ya it looked great once, was graphically ahead of it's time even. But the graphics are dated now. At least the textures are quit colorful and reasonably detailed so it's not bad looking per se. It is well animated even, a bit more serious than KQ7's art style but more cartoon like than KQ6. good use of Lip-synching. The variety of locales and the level of exploration is well done.

One warning though and it's more the fault that it wasn't designed for today's systems but the game is very buggy. Crashes and locks up in places unless you mess with the settings. I've tried to put together work stooges for specific problem areas in the wiki for anyone encountering the problems.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Damar on December 05, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
I'd really like to see MOE referenced in TSL, or some of the plot points incorporated in TSL's plot.  One of the main reasons is because MOE is so maligned and considered by many to not be a King's Quest.  But regardless of opinion, it is part of the King's Quest series, and from a creative standpoint, I've always found it interesting to try and explain something that is technically canonical, but doesn't quite fit, into a series' canon.  It wouldn't have to play a major role in the plot, but it would be nice to see.  Even if it's just a passing reference, like saying that the Zodia Stone that Silver Cloaks used was a relic from the Realm of the Sun or something in the vein.

As for the game itself, my opinion is pretty much what's been said here.  On it's own, it wasn't a bad game, though going back and playing it now, the graphics don't hold up as well, nor does the interface or gameplay as much.  Still, it's an entertaining game that has a fairly immersive and atmospheric landscape.

As a King's Quest, it was abysmal in my opinion.  King's Quest is not a fighting game.  King's Quest specifically has always rewarded you for not fighting.  And now suddenly here's a game that doesn't feature the royal family and is nothing but you walking around, killing things and finding new weapons.  And I remember how it kept being mentioned by Sierra and Roberta that MOE included adventure gaming and puzzles, which really, really bugged me.  A lot.  In my opinion, MOE has no puzzles whatsoever.  Finding a key to a door is not a puzzle.  Being told to fetch rust and mold and then doing so is not a puzzle.  It's a scavenger hunt.  I don't care if you had to dip iron in the Styx in order to get the rust.  Dipping a rustable metal in a corrosive liquid is hardly a puzzle compared to a true adventure game.  First person shooters in general, which MOE was no matter what Sierra tried to say, are not made to be intellectually challenging.  They're meant to keep the action going and if you have to stop and explore for too long and figure out how to combine inventory items and such, the action comes to a stop.  Kings Quest is an intelligent series based on brains.  Mask of Eternity is the brain-dead jock cousin.  He might be a nice guy, and he might rock at football, but I'm not going to pretend that he's a genius.

And on top of that, none of the previous King's Quests were referenced in it, which just made it all the easier to picture MOE as a stand alone, unrelated venture.  Even the Daventry level bore no resemblance to anything we'd seen in Daventry before.  Not that I wanted a total replication of the Daventry countryside, but just a few landmarks would have been nice.  A view of Castle Daventry from a distance, for example.  The door in the mountainside, which has appeared in KQ1 and KQ3.  The elderly gnome's house.  A larger level of Castle Daventry that would include seeing the rooms of the royal family.  Just one thing from a previous game to give a sense of familiarity.

And don't even get me started on the Dimension of Death being completely different from the Realm of the Dead.  And I don't buy the whole "different beliefs, different afterlife" argument.  That opens a whole theological, pluralistic can of worms that makes my head spin.  Besides, the two realms were similar enough that with very little effort, they could have been melded together.  And by very little effort, I mean they literally could have left everything the same except replaced the imprisoned Azriel with an imprisoned Samhain.  It would have even made more sense.  Azriel was mobile.  He could have fought back against his guards.  Samhain is stuck in the chair.  What was he going to do in a revolt?  The guards could have simply locked the gate and left him in his throne room.  The fact that the designers decided to create an entirely new land that was still incredibly close to the Realm of the Dead, instead of just expanding and building on existing canon is mind-boggling to me.

Anyway, despite all of this, I still enjoyed MOE.  I just feel like it could have been so much more.  And that it wasn't really a King's Quest.  Technically it is, but in spirit, it's its own thing.  Still, it happened, so it should be referenced.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 05, 2010, 02:46:06 PM
QuoteAs a King's Quest, it was abysmal in my opinion.  King's Quest is not a fighting game.  King's Quest specifically has always rewarded you for not fighting.
To be fair there is at least one character/enemy in each game that you must fight/kill in order to be rewarded full points.

KQ1 rewards you for violently killing a witch, to receive full points

KQ2 rewards you for violently killing dracula.

KQ3 rewards you for violently killing the dragon.

KQ4 rewards you for violently killing Lolotte.

KQ5 rewards you for violently killing both the Yeti and Mordack.

KQ6 rewards yo for fighting Abdul Alhazred in sword combat (although its a very simplified battle interface).

As has been stated in behind the scenes information the combat in Mask of Eternity is based on Alexander's battle in KQ8. It just added more of the battles. Many of the boss battles themselves were similar "click click" battles like Alexander's with a puzzle throne in. For example Lucreto's battle is very much like the Alexander's battle, requiring the player to click on the enemy a few times, while solving puzzles at the same time.

Imo, its not really that outside of King's Quest. It just increases the number of violent events. It obviously it fits the more "tolkienesque" Lord of the Rings/Pilgrim's Progress/Christian warrior plot like Roberta was going for. If you stripped the combat out of the game (If you play on easy and you might as well), it simply wouldn't have mythic theme Roberta was going for. If someone is going for inspiration from the Iliad/Epic of Gilgamesh there is going to have to be combat. It would also make the exploration in the game a might too boring (if you met no one :p)...

King's Quest has been more about its influences from Fantasy, fairy tales, Literature, Myth, and Legend, than anything else. KQ8, has plenty of inspiration from epic myth, and fairy tales.

QuoteAnd on top of that, none of the previous King's Quests were referenced in it, which just made it all the easier to picture MOE as a stand alone, unrelated venture.  

To be fair it does make a few broad references in theme. It has undead realm, it has lord of the dead (btw if anyone has paid attention there have been 2-3 different "Deaths" seen/mentioned throughout the series), it shares a crystal dragon, it shares a ice queen, among other similarities. I do agree its mostly a stand alone adventure (there ar eonly a few references, and you have to actually look for them (see magic mirror, Graham, Valanice, and even a slight nod to Rosella in one part). But it has much more in common with King's Quest I than most games in the series.
QuoteEven the Daventry level bore no resemblance to anything we'd seen in Daventry before.  Not that I wanted a total replication of the Daventry countryside, but just a few landmarks would have been nice.  A view of Castle Daventry from a distance, for example.  The door in the mountainside, which has appeared in KQ1 and KQ3.  The elderly gnome's house.  A larger level of Castle Daventry that would include seeing the rooms of the royal family.  Just one thing from a previous game to give a sense of familiarity.
Unfortunately, actually if you go back to each of the games in the series, and look closely, Daventry was never consistent. They do not resemble each other. You are lucky if you find one location, from a previous game "replicated". But often the replication was not consistent within the games. Look how the architecture in Castle Daventry changes throughout the games.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Castle_Daventry

If you look at Daventry in KQ5, it has no resembalance to land seen in KQ1 or 3. KQ3's Daventry puts all the landmarks in the wrong location from where they were in KQ1. Obviously KQ1 and KQ1 remake's daventry's look almost completely different.

Look at daventry in KQ7 intro, again completely different.

Now for some of us, who read kq2 manual and the books, and read references to the "town of Daventry", it was finally cool to be able to visit a portion of that town. Yes in KQ8, you are actually in a suburb of Daventry town. Its not meant to be the same area of Daventry from the previous games. There was always information that suggested that there was more to Daventry than we had previously seen before. So it was cool to get a new location to see. That's another thing in King's Quest games, it was always about introducing new lands (with the exception of Daventry used as a central location from which games started or ended throughout the series). KQ8 was no exception (if it had returned to previous lands from the other games it simiply wouldn't have followed the theme of classic King's Quest games as far as land goes).

Strangly enough TSL actually takes a completely different direction because it returns to a land, that is not Daventry (and for the most part hasn't introduced a new land yet, just new areas within an old land.

As for Castle Daventry, apparently they intended it to be  a larger level, it had to be cut due to time :(... That's a sad part (especially like I said Graham and his family are mentioned at one point in the game). Yes it would have been nice to see them.

I know you don't like the "different beliefs" idea, unfortunatley for you it was something that showed up in previous games (its even stated in the manuals for KQ6 and KQ8). For example read the Guidebook to the Land of the Green Isles, Derek specifically states that Land of the Dead is a legend in Green Isles myths. He had never heard of it, and he even points out that people of many lands have different views of where one goes after they die. So the Green Islanders belief system was surprising to him.

QuoteDeath fascinates men the world round, and there are as many philosophies about what comes after this life as there are, it seems, lives which end.-Derek Karlavaegen, Guidebook to the Land of the Green Isles

Going back further, you can find references to various interpretations of the afterlife mentioned by the narrators in previous games. In KQ2, there is a picture of the Grim Reaper in the manual, representing "Death", KQ4, refers to "Father Death". These different beliefs are never consistent with KQ6, nor are they consistent with KQ8. Strangely enough some of the material in KQ7 suggest people in Eldritch who die go to 'live' on in Ooga Booga, :P...

Also you probably missed it, but Dimension of Death is inspired by Egyptian/Mesopotamian/Christian mythology which is also connected to the Mask of Eternity (which is also mesopotamian in origin), its got a lion symbolism from said mythology. The Land of the Dead is more greek/H.R. Geiger. It simply doesn't have the mythology basis to fit the mesopotamian inspiration that Roberta was going for. The fact that Azriel (an individual from Christian tradition btw) is mobile, and a kind of angel of death is very important to the entire plot of the game, and the Scales of Justice. The scales are from Egyptian belief. The River of Death is more of a reference to the river of the same name in pilgrim's progress than a direct reference to the Styx. The name Dimension of Death is as far as I know a reference to a Mesopotamian philosophy known as the 'dimensions of death'. In fact Azriels' appearance is that of the Mesopotamian death god which was a minotauren creature Gugalanna.

Another thing I think people miss is that Realm of the Dead and DOD are not the main afterlifes per se, both are more like a 'limbo'/purgatory. The leaders of those realms judge the dead, sending them wherever they should go. In Land of the Dead, those who fail Samhain's judgement end up roaming the surface, ultimately becoming Zombies, those who pass judgement go to the Sea of Souls where its said they await the next stage (what is the next stage? other afterlives?). Those in DOD end up going to heaven and whatever hell exists.

But I suppose this stuff really only makes sense if you understand the deep symbolism that occurs in MOE... As for pluralism it actually exists in MOE, you learn about various gods, including a Lord of Darkness, and a Lord of Sunshine. The Ancient in the Realm of the Gnomes speak of a 'spirit-world of ancient souls' that he is going to when he dies. There are several references to heaven and hell in the game (presumbily where someone ends up after passing through the Dimension of Death).

In anycase the developers of King's Quest never were fully consistent between the games. Ideas are suggested in each game, that do not necessarily mesh with previous games. For the most part most of the series was made "stand-alone", so that players wouldn't need to play previous games in the series... That's why you get inkling of something interesting in KQ6 (like Black Cloaks), and its never brought up again. Infacdt I'd say that where things are mentioned again, it created a dualogy of sourts in the series. There is a duology between KQ3 and KQ5 (with Manannan). There is a dueology between KQ1 and KQ3 (with the gnome). There is a duology. There is almost a duology between KQ5 and KQ6 (in some of the ideas/direct continuation of KQ5) between KQ4 and KQ7 (with Edgar/fairies). KQ6 and KQ3 are like a duology (tieing together Alexander). In someways KQ1 and KQ8 form a duology of a non-king making a journey to become a hero. Graham becomes a king, Connor becomes a "Knight".

Of course let's look at an example in the Silver Lining, where they attempted to merge myths... Look at the book in the Book Store that talks about Persephone. The Silver Lining claims that she is the daughter of Mother Nature, and that she was forced to marry Samhain. Hmm the only problem here? Its stated in KQ6, that Samhain was " He was left mateless; robbed of sleep, robbed of movement, robbed of companionship."

Hmm, ok, according to TSL he has had a mate/companion for centuries, yet in KQ6 its said specifically that he didn't? Oops.

Of course we could take your question about why not "merge things" and apply that to the "sea nymphs" in TSL, why didn't the TSL just use the 'merfolk' from KQ2/KQ5, instead of creating a new race (that are basically mermaids)? Maybe because designers like working with some 'original' material.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Damar on December 05, 2010, 08:37:04 PM
Actually I do have a familiarity with different mythologies and religious traditions.  I'm also pretty good at identifying symbolism.  I've read Pilgrim's Progress, Tolkien, Dante, and Milton.  And I've even read the manuals for the King's Quest games.

When it comes to the pluralistic nature of the different afterlives, I actually was aware of the Guidebook of the Land of the Green Isles talking about the beliefs regarding the afterlife.  Because I have read it.  That said, there's a difference between mentioning a different belief, and that belief being true when another totally opposing belief is also true.  After all we have different religions and philosophies here in real life.  But to say that every country, every religion, has its own dimension with its own pantheon of gods that somehow are related more to geographic location rather than belief, just doesn't make sense.  Nor would anyone argue that another religious belief must be true simply because they've read that it exists.  That said, it's what King's Quest did.  And I can say it doesn't make sense until I'm blue in the face, it doesn't matter because it's done.  What I take issue with is that the Dimension of Death and the Realm of the Dead were similar enough and it just seems odd that the writers wouldn't expand on what was already done instead of doing something completely new, yet so similar.  And yes, I'm aware that the Realm of the Dead had more of a Gieger thing going whereas Dimension of Death was much more Egyptian.  Of course, we never really saw any of the Dimension of Death.  We were inside a constructed structure the entire time.  In the Realm of the Dead we were on the surface, then went to a throne room.  And of course in the background of the Realm of the Dead we could see pyramids, which indicates that the Realm is much more of a metropolis than just a surface world with zombies and a throne room with the Sea of Souls.  There was so much room for expansion in the Realm of the Dead, yet they didn't do that.  They just made a new Dimension of Death, yet made it extremely similar to what had already been done.  So they got the worst of both worlds in my opinion.  They didn't really break much new creative ground, yet managed to completely avoid any familiarity and reference to the past.  Still, the Dimension of Death was a challenging level and a lot of fun to play.  I'll give it that.  It was probably my favorite level of the game.

I'm also aware that King's Quest in general has never been overly consistent with itself or been all about the references to past games.  That said, I think that MOE would have benefited from it more because as a genre, it was not a King's Quest.  It was not an adventure game.  It was a first person shooter (and stabber.)  So it automatically, from moment one, did not feel like it was connected to the other King's Quests.  Therefore, more references would have helped to ground it.  The little touches like the crystal dragon were nice.  I'll admit that.  But it's not enough to fully make the game feel like a King's Quest, or even like a re-imagined King's Quest, which is more accurate for what Roberta was trying to go for, I think.  Like I said, I wouldn't have wanted the entire Daventry countryside redone, and I'm aware that the geography of Daventry was not consistent between KQ1 and KQ3, but would it have been too much to have at least one landmark?  Just the well?  Just the door in the mountain?  And yes, I know that the town is a new area that we finally got to see.  Again, I'm fine with that.  I appreciate that.  But as I said, when the game is already such a departure in genres from past King's Quests, there needs to be a stronger connection with the past games in the series.  If you want to feel like a King's Quest, then you either have the atmosphere or you create the connection.  MOE is atmospheric, but it's not the King's Quest atmosphere because its a different genre.  Therefore it was on the writers and designers to create the connections which they didn't really, or at least no more so than past games did.  And that just wasn't enough because the games didn't start on the same playing field.  And on the opposite side of the spectrum, because TSL is already immersed in KQ6 references, and already in the genre of an adventure game, it never even seemed to be to be a missed opportunity to make the sea nymphs mermaids in order to reference past games.  It's just not necessary because there are already references galore and it already feels like a King's Quest because it's in the same genre.  Besides, we've yet to meet a mermaid who could speak human talk, so it's just as well that they were sea nymphs.

Also, I'm more than aware that there were violent bits in the past games like killing the witch and the dragon.  Of course if you want to get technical, Lolotte was neither violent nor a killing.  The game specifically goes out of its way to make sure you know that Rosella had no intention of killing Lolotte and actually has her figure out that love was what killed her.  You were just trying to make the fairy love you.  Cupid's arrows aren't fatal.  At least as long as you're not a sociopathic fairy.  So, not really a killing.  Manslaughter, sure.  Not a violent killing though.

All that is semantics though.  The point I was trying to make is that violence was not the point of King's Quest.  You were rewarded when you found peaceful solutions to puzzles.  In fact, the early games often had two ways of meeting your goal, one violent, one not.  The giant from KQ1.  The lion from KQ2.  Space Quest 2 even lampooned that by giving you more points when you specifically smashed Vohaul's guard at the shuttle platform with a rock rather than sneaking through the bushes when he wasn't looking, getting underneath the platform, and throwing the rock in the bushes to distract the guard so you could sneak inside while he investigated.  ("We like the way you think!")  It's one of the funniest jokes they did, actually.  It's incredibly difficult to get the timing right to bypass the guard nonviolently, but you get more points to violently sling a rock into his head and watch him drop to the ground.  That sound you heard wasn't the body hitting the ground, it was the Two Guys giving the finger to King's Quest and non-violent puzzle solutions.  The point here, though, is that MOE was all about the violence from moment one.  In fact, exploration is often secondary to the killing.  The best way to explore the area in MOE is to just go wild and kill everything, then explore at your leisure.  That's not King's Quest.  It's just not the same genre, not the same atmosphere, not the same anything.

Again, I did enjoy the game.  I don't think it deserves to be as maligned as it was.  Just because it wasn't in the same genre of other King's Quests doesn't mean that it was a bad game.  That said, just because I don't feel it was a bad game doesn't mean that I'm also going to act like it fits in perfectly with the previous games or that I like the direction it went in.  Even for what it was, it still fell short in some areas, such as story.  Lucreto's motivations and purpose remain a mystery.  Outside of the typical Lucifer cry of "I will not serve" of course.  But who the archons are, how they maintain the mask, what the mask is, how it fits in with anything, why people turned to stone but not men, dwarves, or weirdlings, and so on were never really explained.  Which is a shame because like I've said, the game was atmospheric and gave the feeling that there was more, really interesting, thing going on beneath the surface.  Unfortunately we never got any deeper explanations or plot background.  Again, it was an enjoyable game, but it could have been so much more.  When I think of the game, I think of a lot of missed potential.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 05, 2010, 09:12:20 PM
Well I do agree with you that in a real life setting I personally disagree with "pluralism". I probably don't believe the same things you believe, and I don't expect that your beliefs are "true". If we are talking about real life, you have 'athiests' that think everyone elses beliefs are hogwash... :p... Real life really doesn't have much bearing.

But considering that King's Quest is fantasy, and its always hinted at a pluralistic mishmash of beliefs religions, gods, etc  all pulled from different mythologies, I go with it for the sake of the story its telling. Even the King's Quest Companion took the pluralistic approach introducing even more "underworld" legends.

I've put together what I've found so far from the various sources here;
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Afterlife

On a side note I would disagree that MOE is in a different genre. Imo, it includes all the puzzle types of the previous games (it maintains the inventory and interface from KQ7 and inventories from previous games for example), but added an additional features on top of it. But I suppose that's just arguing against each other's opinions. Its the same opinions  critics pointed out back when the game was released. Some thought it was a decent evolution of the series, adding new features on top of the old. Others thought it was completely tossed out of its original genre by the new hybrid features.

BTW, its not King's Quest, but did you know even Quest for Glory took a pluralistic approach to legends? In QFG3, the game mentions a little bit of the beliefs of people of Tarna. At one point you even communicate with Anubis from the afterlife of Tu-at. Then in QFG5, you get to visit Hades, and "Hell" is mentioned. The game states in one of the narrations that Hell is not Hades, and is another place.
Quotething going whereas Dimension of Death was much more Egyptian.
Actually its far more Mesopotamian than Egyptian but that's splitting hairs (but ya the world was painted with various religious motifs including christian 'angels', greek/mesopotamian minotaur/azriel, cuneiform, and to a lesser degree a few hieroglyphics). The wings above the portals as another example are shared by several religions :p (though the particular ones in on the portal resemble egyptian more than mesopotamian version of the 'winged disk'). The winged disk by the way not only appears symbolically in the DOD, but also is shown on the Mask of Eternity itself.  Then there are the various symbols from the tile/throne room puzzle,  like the "mars/male" symbol to name an example... 

Heh. But ya many of the underworlds in legend are generally similar in form. Christian Hell is similar to Tartarus... Heaven is similar to Elysian Fields... Then you have Celtic undeworld... Native Americans also had a dark underworld as well. :p... In anycase, as I mentioned Guidebook still seems to imply that people who move on into the Sea of Souls seem to go somewhere else beyond the "Realm of the Dead". Whatever and wherever that is is anyones guess. Actually Hakim mentions "heavens", so its a possibility, thats one of the answers.
QuoteBesides, we've yet to meet a mermaid who could speak human talk, so it's just as well that they were sea nymphs.

As for the mermaids, only Pearl couldn't speak "human talk". Actually its hinted in KQ2, that the mermaid he met, "just ignored him", IIRC. It doesn't specify if she can speak human talk or not, as I remember. The narration might mention that she understands him, but I don't remember exactly. At least in that sense pearl and the mermaid were similar (in that both seemed to at least understand human speech). But that still doesn't mean that the mermaid in KQ2 can talk or not.

QuoteLolotte was neither violent nor a killing.
Actually it was a "killing", and it was "violent" the only thing is Rosella didn't know it would end that way. But if you read the description (which is probably one of the more graphic descriptions in the entire KQ series) and watch the animation, the game is clear it was a violent painful death for Lolotte. Oops.

In anycase here is Roberta's comments on why she made the decision, and her defense to those "who thought they knew what King's Quest" was.

QuoteHere is a post from Roberta Williams about MoE. It can be found on the MoE forum.

July 7, 1997:

I have been reading with interest all of the various comments that everybody has had about KQ8 (Mask of Eternity). I find it interesting that everybody has their own ideas about what King's Quest IS. And everybody seems to have a bit different idea. It seems, on this board, anyway, that quite a few people have the idea that King's Quest is (or should be) non-violent...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And it must be cute, funny, have fairytales in it, and have lots of puzzles and inventory objects. First of all, I have to say that King's Quest comes from ME and each one is different and has its own flavor. Some have a darker tone, and others have a lighter tone. Some touch upon violence, and some don't. King's Quest reflects the mood that I am in when I go to tackle another one.

King's Quest really is a reflection of me and how I'm feeling about the subject and upon the reference material I am using and how I approach the subject. Basically, King's Quest comes from me and my heart and it always isn't going to be exactly the same, because I'm not always exactly the same, and I, like most people, feel a need for a change of pace and a sense of moving forward and of trying and experiencing something new. With KQ7, I was in a "Disney-esque" mood. Some people really liked it, others didn't. Earlier King's Quest's reflected my moods during those times: KQ3 was very dark, and it utilized lots of magic and magic spells with the basic idea of finding ingredients for "black magic" spells and then casting those spells. (Certain religious groups were upset with me over that one!) KQ1 certainly had violence. Sir Graham had a dagger and could kill the dragon (and it didn't get you "stuck," by the way, if you did so), and you could also kill the goat. It's true that I also had non-violent ways of dealing with those situations, but, that's because I chose to handle it that way for that particular game. I've gotten into trouble over the years for all the various ways that my main characters can "die." And they die a lot! I am known for changing course a lot, and changing my style a lot. I like change, and I like to keep people guessing. KQ7 felt very Disney-esque, and I felt like doing something different for KQ8 but yet, still keeping a "King's Quest" feel to the game. Each game in the King's Quest family has been different. Almost each time I do a new King's Quest, people get up in arms and say it's going to be "different" and won't feel right. Yet, each time, it DOES wind up feeling like King's Quest but each in its own way...and people just kind of KNOW that when they are playing it.

That's because I know, in my heart, and what I am feeling, that it is, indeed, King's Quest. 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): A land, or lands, of high fantasy; fantasy creatures from myth, legends, and/or fairytales both good and bad; situations to be found in those same types of stories; a "quest" type story; a calamity in the land with one "hero" to "save the kingdom"; a story of the "good" hero against the "evil" bad guy; 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"; interesting worlds to explore; high interactivity; interesting characters; great animation; great visuals and music. Within that general framework, I feel that I can have some "leeway" to accomplish those tasks. In the case of KQ8 I chose to give this game more of a "Tolkien-esque" feel rather than a "Disney-esque" feel. But each of the above elements is true for KQ8 as they were for KQ1 through 7. KQ8 indeed has a story, actually, a much more profound story than prior King's Quests. It is a new telling of the ultimate "quest" the quest for the most powerful, spiritual, benevolent item of all; the Mask of Eternity. This story takes its cue from two sources: the Quest for the Grail, and the Christian story of the struggle between God and Lucifer. When we say that the story is very dark that's really not true; it's just that the story is more profound and seriously looks at the struggle between good and evil. Rather than taking a bubbly, Disney view of good and evil, I chose to look at the struggle between good and evil from a more serious, traditional, almost spiritual, viewpoint. If you look at the traditional stories of the Grail and even in past Christian legend, you find that it is not light-hearted, gooey, and bubbly. Those stories are filled with conflict, peril, finding ones own morality, proving oneself a hero by overcoming evil creatures of Chaos, but yet proving oneself virtuous and good with all things good. That is the theme with this game. Connor is indeed a new character within the world of Daventry. Currently, he has no connection to King Graham and his family, but that doesn't mean that King Graham is not aware of him...and what he's going to do to help Daventry. This is, instead, a story of Connor and a story of how one young man of "common" background can rise to the situation and prove himself to be the true hero which can save the world. It is the traditional story of the young "initiate" who becomes stronger through proving his mettle, his virtue, surviving perils, overcoming evil and in the end can even conquer the ultimate evil. By doing so, he will restore the land and all of the people, and good creatures and animals within it. The Mask of Eternity is the "key." It is the source of all Power, all Order, all Truth, and all Light. It belongs in its place in the "Realm of the Sun." It has been broken into five pieces and distributed throughout the world. A mysterious evil (guy) has destroyed it and taken over the Realm of the Sun. Darkness has now settled over the land and all people (mortals) have been turned to stone, while creatures of darkness have risen from the very cracks and crevices of the earth at the instigation of this evil guy. Now Chaos reigns in all the various regions of the world: In Daventry (where all people have been turned to stone, including King Graham and his family); in the Dimension of Death (where even the Judge of the Dead has lost control of his guards and the souls); in the swamp (where the evil swamp witch has poisoned the swamp water and has all the good swamp creatures in her thrall); in the underground Realm of the Gnomes (where the industrious gnomes are willing to sell you items to help in your quest, but have also lost some control to the rock demons and an evil dragon); in the Barrens (where the trading post dwarfling has lost his "business" to the predations of an evil basilisk and the savagemen block your way to the Frosty Mountains); in the Frosty Mountains (where travel is impossible without the commandeering the controls of a flying crystal dragon, and the snow nymphs need relief from the evil Ice Lord); and finally in the Realm of the Sun (where the bad guy has taken over the domain of the Archons and the Mask of Eternity....this bad guy, the ultimate source of the terrible evil and darkness which has overcome the world). Connor must overcome all of these problems while recovering the pieces of the Mask and returning the Mask (in whole) back to its realm to its altar. Not until it has been returned will green and light return to the world. Not until then will the Realm of the Sun "shine" again and the waters flow.... I feel very proud of this game and the story which goes with it. Do 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. I plan on keeping in touch with everyone and endeavoring to answer questions. I will try to check in a couple of times a week. Thanks for your patience in reading through my long-winded explanation of KQ8. Hopefully, this will have helped answer any nagging questions about "Mask of Eternity."

Quote[edit] Mask of Eternity departs from the traditional two-dimensional adventure game by using a three-dimensional game engine most commonly employed in first-person action games. How is Mask's story conveyed using this technique?
In interactive storytelling, it's important to blend the right amount of interactivity and story telling. Phantasmagoria, for instance, was heavy on storytelling, but didn't have too much interactivity. Mask of Eternity is an adventure game on the other side of the spectrum with an emphasis on interactivity in it's virtual world. It's not story-like in the traditional sense: I've experimented with adding as much freedom of the player's control while, at the same time, maintaining a strong narrative.

In Mask of Eternity, the entire world is designed with story in mind. The world is in chaos - order and humanity have been banished and you, as Connor, must restore it. The player learns about the world and furthers the plot by exploring locations, finding and using inventory items and interacting with other characters. And unlike a first-person combat game, even fighting creatures is part of the story. By doing so, the player will discover who these creatures are and why they've emerged into the world.


More assorted comments by Roberta and Mark Seibert;
Quote:The one thing which is quite different from the older "King's Quest" games is the fact that Connor can fight many of the evil creatures of "chaos" - but, with the good and friendly characters...he is more than a gentleman.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071018070249/http://www.backspin.org/kensentme/roberta/interviewroberta.htm]
-Roberta Williams, 2008

:"I have to admit I was a little nervous about it and I never questioned it, I always felt it was the right thing, and I feel time will tell as to how that eventually works out, only I must say by the sales of King's Quest, and by the fact so many people seem to be enjoying it, it must have been the right thing to do. I think combat, got quite a bit of attention and controversy, because they say that's not part of King's Quest, but it certainly can be part of King's Quest, if its a knightly quest, and its good vs. evil, and if it fits into the story, which I think it does very well in this game."
-Roberta Williams, Talkspot Part 1, December 1998.

:The reason why combat was added, and first of all, I don't think people should take it negatively because combat is definitely can be part of a story, lot of people think combat, that is just an action game, just action. But if you think about some of the great movies that have been out there, some of the great books where combat has been part of it, if you think in terms of adding it to the story, and if it fits very well with the story, then I think it's very appropriate. My idea was I wanted to do a story that was more in like the tradition of the epic games, where you had your true hero that would go out, and think about some of the old legendary figures of King Arthur or Sir Lancelot or Jason and the Golden Fleece. I mean they were all super heroes that would go out and they would fight the monsters and they were working for good. ...and really also if you sorta think about the quest, the quest for faith, or even your inner self. It can be said fighting the monsters, is the same as fighting your own inner demons. But when you think in terms of putting it into the story, fighting chaos, and your trying to set order right, and your fighting evil, I think its very appropriate. How would Star Wars be without Luke Skywalker out there fighting the bad guys.
-Roberta Williams, Talkspot part 2, December 1998.
:When we started working on the project, we first started by designing Daventry, and ended up with this huge map, and Connor wandering around this big area, with pretty much nothing to do in between the puzzles, and that in connection with Roberta's story, I started recommending lets add things like combat, and health items, and things like that, to give us more things to fill out the world, and to keep the player involved in between the puzzles. ...and so we came up with this very simplistic combat system that I don't think gets in the way of the story, its a very easy to grasp, click on the guys, until he is dead, diablo-like combat. I felt it really added to the system."
-Mark Seibert, Talkspot part 2, December 1998.

This was Mark Seibert's comment on the issue;
QuoteMonster AI - Yes, it's been controversial. King's Quest: Mask of Eternity will be the first King's Quest that has an element of real-time combat. Remember King's Quest VI? Wouldn't it have been fun if you could have participated more in the final sword fight ? Well now you will! Don't worry though, this is not a combat game, it's just one of the many parts of the game that make it fun. We have included 3 difficulty levels for combat: Easy (For those who might have difficulty with fighting), Normal (The way we think it should be) , and Hard (For those who are gluttons for punishment). [/quote

I think its interesting to note that fans never agreed on any of the games even. There were those who claimed KQ3 wasn't a King's Quest Game for various reasons. There were a few that claimed KQ4 wasn't a "King's Quest" game for various reasons. Even King's Quest V was lambasted by some critics who said it wasn't a King's Quest game (god forbid it have an icon interface rather than a parser). KQ7 had its critics who claimed it wasn't a King's Quest game due to even more changes to the interface... What can you say, you never please everyone, and there will be those who like something and those who think its blashphemous to the King's Quest name.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 05, 2010, 11:29:46 PM
Baggins, I think you're completely missing the boat on every point Damar is making here.

First of all, having an ice queen and a crystal dragon etc do not actually qualify as references to previous games. Queen Freesa and Queen Icebella are totally not the same person, and such that is not a reference to KQ5. If Queen Freesa said "I inherited my throne from my mother Queen Icebella" then it would be a reference. The only references tying MoE in with the rest of the series is Graham in the intro and the fact that the land is called Daventry. Arguing anything other than that means you don't get what a "reference" is, sorry to say.

In fact, throwing a crystal dragon in when the only one we've seen was in Eldritch (a completely different realm) is even a stretch as a "reference", nothing else from Eldritch exists in Daventry. (Well, trolls do but not the same race of trolls.) It is nice to see a familiar creature, even if it doesn't make any sense.

Now, I have no problem with pluralism but I do have a problem with the fact that the Dimension of Death is awfully similar to the Land of the Dead. Furthermore, it takes place in a building with Mesopotamian/Egyptian style architecture. We see pyramids in the distance of the Land of the Dead. Really? REALLY? Nobody on the creative team could work with that? Nobody could play the connect the dots?
The point Damar is making is that it seems like nobody on the creative team for MoE (yes, including Roberta) had even played the rest of the series. And I would agree with that. I know, I know, Roberta always says she doesn't like to look back. Roberta always says each game is different. Roberta always says a lot of things to defend her games and she should. That doesn't mean she made the right decision. In every other game there is something major to the plot that connects the game to the previous ones. (Except KQ1, there aren't any previous ones. :P) Don't believe me?

KQ2 - same main character, same throne room, and there's that Magic Mirror you saved!
KQ3 -  same door in the mountain, same stairs, same cloudland, same Valanice and Graham, same throne room, and there's that Magic Mirror you saved!
KQ4 - picks up exactly where the old one left off: same Valanice, Graham, Rosella, and Alexander all in the same clothes, the hat is in the same spot in the air, and there's that Magic Mirror you saved!
KQ5 - same Graham, same Manannan, same Valanice, Rosella, and Alexander (all in what is pretty close to the same clothes!), and you meet another mermaid who is a lot like the last one. (I would say same Castle but it's not quite...)
KQ6 - same throne room (in 3D!), in a land mentioned in the last game, saving that same princess (again), same Alexander, same Valanice, same Rosella, same Graham, and Alex is casting spells again! And there's that Magic Mirror you saved!
KQ7 - same Rosella, same Valanice, same Edgar (in almost the same situation :P). (The game gets away with fewer references by having you play *two* of the royal family and being in a different realm of existence.)
MoE - there's that Magic Mirror you saved! (I won't include Daventry as we have no familiar landmarks, and Graham could be anyone, they just happen to name him "Graham" -- he doesn't talk the same, have the same voice, or wear anything even close to what we're used to. He could be anybody. As I said, crystal dragons aren't from this realm so I'm not sure that counts either. For your sake Baggins, we can count it. That puts us at two references -- less than any other game, in the game that is the most different.)

In short, Roberta can say anything she wants about how the games are always changing, but such a completely dramatic change? She's not dumb enough to think that was going to be accepted very well as a King's Quest without attaching it more to the series. Come on, she's a genius.
The fact is, this can be attributed to her losing so much of her control over the project. She can defend it all she wants, as a professional being interviewed about her latest work she has to. But I can not believe she would be happy about that.

In KQ2 the mermaid can't speak in the human language. I'm going by the fact that she does NOT speak in the human language in the game on this one. It is plain as day. She only ignores you before you give her flowers. She summons a sea horse for you -- but she never says anything to you. She doesn't invite you to ride it, you surmise that all on your own. To me that indicates she can't speak. No, it doesn't explicitly say it but to take a different opinion in this context -- especially since the only other place we meet a mermaid in the series she is unable to speak in the human tongue -- is just being disagreeable for no reason. :P
It's fine to be all nitpicky when there's lore to back you up, but in this case? There's not.

Since Rosella shot the unicorn with cupid's bow and it fell in love with her and was absolutely unharmed, since the game tells you Rosella has no intention of killing Lolotte, and since Cupid's arrows are pure love.... it's hard to argue that shooting Lolotte was violent. Yes, it was painful but Rosella was not being violent.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to point out that neither pie or rain is violent either. Yes, the yeti fell off a cliff and *that* was violent, but all you did was throw a pie. The next step probably would have been to break its face in with your hammer, and that would have qualified as a violent killing.... but really, *you* didn't kill that yeti. The cliff killed the yeti. :P Second.... Mordack turned into fire and you rained on him. Yeah, you killed him. But that's definitely not violent. Otherwise, I'm pressing charges on the weather for assault with a deadly weapon.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 05, 2010, 11:42:48 PM
I wasn't talking about "references to previous games" but rather references to King's Quest themes. Freesa like Icebella are both fairy tale tropes. As is the crystal dragon, etc. Something that was huge part of Roberta's vision.

There are a few references to things from previous games like Castle Daventry, the the Royal Family, Graham, Valanice, and the magic map. I agree these are very few and far between.

As for the "throne rooms" they seem the same in each game. But actually if you analyze them there are lot of issues with each one :p... Unfortunately Sierra never really kept those consistent (mostly a color issue, and some archictecture, and furniture differences as well). BTW, look where Graham keeps his hat at the end of KQ3, and where he keeps it in at the beginning of KQ4 (same cutscene or is it?). In addition there is a door to the 'south' of the throne in KQ4? What happened to it in KQ6 (what is that gold wall doing there)?

However, yes I do agree the throne room in KQ8 looks quite a bit different. Best I can find on that issue, is that what they put in the game was due to limitations in the engine... They had to keep it simple. But still its still a representation of Castle Daventry in the series.

The drastic change though I would equate to a landmark like castle daventry's halls being replaced with a courtyard...or the Door into Mountain's staircase being replaced with wooden catwalks, or other major changes to the geography and complete changes to the landmarks made between KQ1 and KQ1 remake. Even KQ5's geography (looking down from the hill) doesn't have much of anything in Daventry that resembles any major landmarks from the previous games. You know that hill, is right about where the Door into Mountain or Ancient Well was located in KQ3 (and there is no evidence of their existence), and there was no hill there in KQ3.

At least the Daventry in MOE, had a lake and river, and in KQ1, Daventry had many lakes, and a river (KQ5 didn't even have that).



Also I think its a bit silly to blame every aspect you don't like about the game as "she lost control of the game" (that smacks of pulling theories out of one's ass, and hindsight wishful thinking on your part).

The fact was the idea of adding battles in the game was something they planned on early on, even before the time she lost control before phase 2, and the time she regained control in phase 3. Alot of ideas were cut, due to time constraints, but alot of the ideas that made it into the game are inspired by some of her early ideas. The idea of "Doom"/Diablo/Quake" style violence were mentioned in interviews even as far back when she was working on Phantasmagoria... Back then, she pretty much had control of her ideas.... Infact back then she was thinking of making it completely in first person, and it probably would have been even more violent.... I don't even want to know how that would have worked...

Seriously the best Its been explained to me by and what I can find in behind the scenes details, the worst the "loss of control" affected was loss of an extra level or two this included  (that would have had there own boss battles, and fights) an underwater level, seaside level, and an extended Realm of the Sun, and a larger Castle Daventry (where he would have probably been able to enter the rooms where Rosella and Valanice had been turned to stone). The Swamp Witch's part would have been a bit more interesting (you would have had a chance to interact with her, before she revealed herself, and you had to combat her. It caused the loss of a better ending, in which Connor would have returned to Daventry and spoke to the king, and been honored. It also caused a few characters to be cut and merged with other characters... None of this had any impact on the idea to have fighting and violence. So what you suggest is a straw man argument....

You know what, based on the material I've found it doesn't look like any of her earliest ideas wouldn't have made any more direct references to previous King's Quest games than the few that are already in there. You can go back to some of the early design information, and you get this destinct idea that Roberta wanted it to be fairly stand alone, so as not alienate new players. You even get the idea that, she had the bottom line on her mind, how could she introduce King's Quest to the widest audience. If she had made it for the core group of devoted fans only, it wouldn't have been successful as it was (as successful as adventure games were in those days, "outselling grim fandango 2 to 1"). Even Ken pointed out just before the change of companies, he pretty much was starting to think of the bottom line, he wanted to make things that would make the business successful, not necessarily keep it limited to a core audience (and adventure games were just not successful at the time). His plans apparently were working, until he put into the hands of the CEO who screwed everything over... But ya it seems even Ken was going to phase out traditional adventures ultimately...

But anyways, if you go back to some of the earliest design documents, there wasn't even going to be a connor, he was just going to be a mindless stone statue come to life, and everything else in daventry was going to be turned to stone (like in the current game). So it wasn't even going to be a character that could relate to the land, or be able to explain the land, as everything would have been new to him.

At one point they even thought about tossing in a leprechaun (which apparently had no connection to previous games), and would have just been a boss battle. Actually he's still in the game, just been swapped out for that spriggan at the top of the castle... Just a mindless battle, with no real plot point...

About the only idea that Mark Seibert explained to me that would have tossed in a 'connection', was that they thought about naming that Wizard you encounter, "Crispinopher" but decided against it... Probably for the better, because then you'd have to explain why he was with Dante, and not Cedric (they apparently had no intention of putting Cedric in the game, since many at that point found him annoying).

You can also find some early documents from the third stage of design, where they were calling land "Underworld", and the river in DOD, the "River Styx" (this was a name dropped reference to the myth. This realm was still said to be ruled by Azriel (Azriel's graphic at the time was the same as in the released game).
QuoteAzriel, Lord of the Dead, once claimed eternal control over this realm. Now, with the evil curse infecting even this seemingly immune region, the "undead" have a stronghold on the dimension. Passing through this land in search for the key that unlocks the gates of the dead lands, Connor must fight off skeletons and zombies to avoid becoming a permanent resident! And in order to depart from this realm, Connor must find the only way to cross the famed River Styx.

QuoteWill it bear such hallmarks as the Kingdom of Daventry?... Connor begins his adventure in the Kingdom of Daventry, but he doesn't stay there long. Seven new lands await!... The world of King's Quest: The Mask of Eternity reaches from the sunless Underworld of the living dead through the alchemical plains of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire, into the ether of the Celestial Realm--and even to a dark mysterious island temple...
-Interaction magazine, Fall 1996.

Neither of these references were intended to be references to KQ6, as Roberta had never intended it to be the "Underworld" from KQ6, but rather some other Underworld ruled by Azriel. These references in of itself would have been a more contradictory (hodgepodge mix of ideas from various myths).... Its much better that they decided to go with alternative belief system/original name ('River of Death' and 'Dimension of Death'), and seperate it from generic greek/roman myth references (that would have definitely contradicted KQ6 by the use of the terms).


That being said Roberta didn't have much work on KQ6, KQ1, or apparently even KQ7. With KQ6, she had a few brainstorming ideas, then Jane Jensen took over and wrote everything, and the story, while Roberta was in Europe. Roberta was busy working on KQ5, to do anything for KQ1 remake (that was pretty much all handled by Josh Mandel). With KQ7, Roberta was too bush working on Phantas, and put most of the work under Lorelei Shannon. She didn't hold full control over it, its apparently mostly  Lorelei's ideas. The story is even said to be Lorelei's and not Robertas in the credits. I think the last game Roberta actually personally worked on to some degree (not counting last stage of MOE), was probably back during KQ5...

The fact that Roberta had less to do with those games, would have affected any inspiration on MOE as well. For example we know its highly unlikely she would have ever incorporated the Black Cloaks, as it was an idea that Jane Jensen had primarily created (with little input by Roberta). Since Roberta left to Europe, while Jane wrote that part of the story, its also something Roberta forgot about. Roberta has also admitted that she rarely ever went back to play her old games.  So its highly unlikely she would have even gone back and discovered that element. She only vaguely remembered it when someone asked her about years later, long after the release of MOE. So its definitely not something that would have ended up in MOE, or something she would have thought about. Its certainly not something that was affected by "losing control of the game". Roberta's strong point and involvement in the games was always more about the gameplay, and pushing the boundaries of current technology, than the story.
Quoten KQ2 the mermaid can't speak in the human language. I'm going by the fact that she does NOT speak in the human language in the game on this one. It is plain as day. She only ignores you before you give her flowers. She summons a sea horse for you -- but she never says anything to you. She doesn't invite you to ride it, you surmise that all on your own. To me that indicates she can't speak. No, it doesn't explicitly say it but to take a different opinion in this context -- especially since the only other place we meet a mermaid in the series she is unable to speak in the human tongue -- is just being disagreeable for no reason.

I wasn't trying to be disagreeable, and it is possible I'm misremembering some of the text in the game (some of the hidden intereations like "with talk mermaid" and such), and might even be mixing up details from some of the other hintbooks and manuals that discuss meremaids. I don't think I'm mixing in the non-canon KQ2+? I don't think mermaid talks in that, although Neptune who is of the species can  in that game :p (but that doesn't count)...

QuoteCupid's arrows are pure love.... it's hard to argue that shooting Lolotte was violent. Yes, it was painful but Rosella was not being violent.
Again, I wasn't saying Rosella was trying to "be violent", however it turned out to be "violent' the game even describes her as having died violently from the dose of pure love.

And your arguements as to what is and isn't violent is "semantics". The idea that many usually bring up is that in KQ games you don't usually "kill" your foes. These are examples where that idea is tossed out the window. Roberta has even pointed to those examples herself a few times :p... Seriously often times the games, won't let you kill a foe that should probably be killed, like the ogre, like the evil sorcerer/enchanter, manannan. Stating that they are "far too powerful for blah blah", and would kill you before you try... Funny how in some of the later manuals point out that after he regained the treasures he went back and kicked them out of Daventry.

In most cases he only kills those who are truly evil, like the witch or dracula. Luckily wasn't powerful enough to prevent him from pushing her into the fire. With dracula he got him while he was asleep. With Hagatha? The game tells you she is too powerful, and cannot be killed :p...

The cloud giant if you use the right interactions, you learn its too dumb, probably not evil, and probably doesn't know why it has the treasure. The dragon? Again its suggested in the manual that it was enslaved by the sorcerer, and probably not acting under its own powers. The leprechaun? Well actually its got a spell around it that prevents you from doing anything violent (so no way to find out if you would lose points). I don't think they put anything in the games of the likes of "killing Lord British", LOL. The lion in KQ2 is the same way, its not really an enemy, nor is it evil. Since its not invincible by some means (being too powerful, or protected by magic) its one of the few examples in the game of an enemy that has more than one solution.

Again most enemies in those games have zero solutions, and aren't tied to any puzzles or points.

Of course let's talk about the troll, its an evil sort of baddie, its too powerful to defeat by normal means. You could take the non-violent approach and offer it some treasure (why not give it a walnut? That tree is loaded, with enough to go around)... But the game rewards you for taking it out violently, by getting it head butted into the river, and depending on which version of the game (there is some implication that it may have drowned)...

QuoteYes, the yeti fell off a cliff and *that* was violent, but all you did was throw a pie. The next step probably would have been to break its face in with your hammer, and that would have qualified as a violent killing.... but really, *you* didn't kill that yeti.
Seriously you claiming that Graham had no intent to get rid of the Yeti? What do you think he intended to do, make the Yeti even more angry? A yeti with a pie in its face flailing its arms would be just as dangerous as one without the pie in its face... So even to get close enough to use that tiny cobbler hammer would have a chance to be lethal... BTW, cobbler hammers are quite tiny;
(http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research_collections/collections/history/general/images/hammer.jpg)

He would be forced to get into range of the creatures rather long and huge flailing arms, that's seriously not something he would have been capable of doing with such a dangerous creature... Wounded creatures and creatures in distress (even if its a bit of eye pain from something stuck in the eye) are usually more dangerous. Trying to use somethign with a 3-4 inch handle wouldn't qualify as a weapon or sane... Not to mention that's a rather large head on the yeti, for such a small hammer. He would probably just result in making the creature even angrier before causing any damage... He'd have better luck trying to get behind the creature and pushing it off the cliff himself, than bashing in its head with a hammer...

Seriously, he was commanded by Icebella to do away with the Yeti... So his intent was to kill it. He just happened to use a rather illogical approach to doing it... One that might have not worked out the way it happened... Its pure dumb luck that the yeti lost its baring and fell of the cliff... If the yeti hadn't fallen, well he had no real weapons to deal with it, so it would have been quite difficult to actually defeat it by normal means (the hammer certainly wouldn't have worked)...

In anycase from a real world standards, the game's solution is quite illogical. Alot of the puzzles in that game are fairly illogical, or quite obscure. Cheese machine anyone?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on December 06, 2010, 07:17:01 AM
Quote from: Baggins on December 05, 2010, 02:46:06 PMKQ4 rewards you for violently killing Lolotte.

To be equally fair, Rosella didn't realise that shooting her with Cupid's bow was going to kill her. She probably figured (and the player too) that it would turn her good. I have no idea if someone said this already, but every post afterwards was a wall of paragraphs and I don't feel like reading it all.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 09:21:06 AM
*YAWN

That really is the most constructive thing I can think of to add to this thread.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 09:44:25 AM
QuoteTo be equally fair, Rosella didn't realise that shooting her with Cupid's bow was going to kill her. She probably figured (and the player too) that it would turn her good
You know I think I said the same thing twice before. That yes she didn't realize it would hurt lollotte. Still that doesn't dismiss the fact that the game gives one of the most violent death descriptions for a death in the entire series, and that it's a solution that results in killing the enemy. Instead of offering a solution that offer a less violent outcome Roberta only went for the one option and made sure the unintended death was quite violent in the way it was described and portrayed on screen. Some people have problems with idea of the concept of killing not necessarily the how violent it occurrd. MOE violence is for the most part rather tame by the standard of it's day. But it's certainly alot more killing than goes on in any previos game, in part because Roberta wanted the game to be an epic along the lines of LOTR that includes heroes battling there enemies valiantly.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 11:38:14 AM
People always cite Graham as this noble epitome of non-violence, but I have to imagine that he did his fair share of killing in his younger pre-royalty days.  I mean, knights are, first and foremost, warriors, and Graham was already  Edward's bravest knight by the time KQ1 rolled around.  He may have been quick-thinking, intelligent, and merciful, but in the end, he probably slew a lot of evil minions along the way.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 12:41:11 PM
Ya, its suggested in the the novels, IRRC, that he usually always chose a peaceful alternative if it existed, but if there was no other option, he sometimes had to physically defend himself, and fight his way through.

If you read some of the descriptions back in KQ1, its suggested that only reason he doesn't fight those evil 'unkillable' baddies like dwarf, wolf, troll, wizard, and ogre, is simply because they are much too powerful for him... It's a bit different than the description in KQ3, where it says in most cases, something like "Gwydion isn't that violent" if you attempt to attack other creatures. Manannan gets the, "The wizard is too powerful to be killed" comment, so he is a special case. Again it seems that the games support violence towards truly evil characters, but chides you against killing the more neutral characters or characters that have been only used by evil forces (but are not evil themselves).

Of course some sources point out that Graham had a slight fall from nobility, when he agreed to send maidens out as sacrifices, LOL. Sure it was a more 'peaceful' alternative than sending troops out to die in the dragon's flames... But certainly darker than choosing to refuse the dragon altogether.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 01:06:29 PM
Well, it's a question then of what's best for his kingdom--refusing, and the dragon will lay waste to the citizens, the land, and of course many knights and other brave soldiers will die trying to kill the apparently unkillable dragon...or sacrifice one life a year, in exchange saving hundreds if not more. Not a decision anyone would want to make, but when you get down to it, can you really say he was wrong for saving more lives? It's a moral choice, not a black and white one.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 01:32:52 PM
Ya and very machievellian, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few, often referred to the "lesser of two evils" or to others who try to spin it as "The Greater Good" (depending on what side of the fence you rest on);

John 11:49-50  "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."

Its also said that most of Caiaphas the 'sins' that ended up darning him ultimately... I suppose it might explain the joke/easter egg/cameo in Laura Bow II , with Graham being sent to 'hell' where he is tortured for all eternity.

It's also said  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke), and there is also First they came... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...), or "Benjamin Franklin's He who sacrifices freedom for security, diserves neither."

It might be the choice that saved the most people, but it was also a blight on a soul. If you chose to do the same thing it would also be a blight on your soul as well... Also more than likely you would be seen as a tyrant and a human rights violator, LOL. Good thing its not real life...

But ya sure its moral, its also darker than it is light... Its something that would be stuck on your soul the rest of your life.

Believe me as one who studies conflict. It might not be black and white thing to fight wars, but killing a human being, or causing a human being to kill, still leaves a taint on one's soul. You never come out of that the same as before. How it changes someone and to the severity depends on the individual.

It also influences what others think of you, what is done cannot be undone. The families who lost there children, will still remember what he did. Believe me, there are few parents that would agree with the idea of there children being killed, even if it would protect the lives of everyone else. Any parent that would agree to it, has issues.

As for what is black and white, its not always what a person thinks about the choices they make, but how people around them view the person for what they have done.  Most choices made by people are amoral (lacking any morality choices at all), and its society that defines if someone went against human ideals or not. As hopefully many of the quotes I gave above, would suggest, that there are many who would criticize to the "Needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the view" mentality...

Of course in KQ3, its said that he never even tried to fight the dragon, all the disasters that occured before the dragon came put him in a deep melancholy, so he never even tried to defend teh kingdom. He easily gave in to the demands. That's alot different than if he had attempted to defeat the dragon, and his soldiers were destroyed, and that that point then chose to given into the demands... He straight decided, that sacrifices would be a good idea :p...

Seriously many cultures that had human sacrifice believed they needed to do it to prevent the gods from killing them, or destroying them... That is now considered pretty dark way of living by most people.

Of course what happens when they run out of maidens to give? Do they start coming for the young boys? or the older women?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 01:32:52 PM...there are many who would criticize to the "Needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the view" mentality...

Well, really, how many needs could that show possible have anyways? :P

Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 01:32:52 PMOf course in KQ3, its said that he never even tried to fight the dragon, all the disasters that occured before the dragon came put him in a deep melancholy, so he never even tried to defend teh kingdom. He easily gave in to the demands. That's alot different than if he had attempted to defeat the dragon, and his soldiers were destroyed, and that that point then chose to given into the demands... He straight decided, that sacrifices would be a good idea :p...

Where does it say he never tried fighting back? I'm curious what the quote is and where it comes from.

Anyways. It's a dark decision, yes, but as a ruler, responsible for an entire country, again--how can someone NOT in that position say it's the wrong choice? A ruler's job is to protect their people, and pointlessly throwing them against an insurmountable threat is not protection. Is it a questionable decision? Yes. Is it the best one? Who knows. You can't say. You can argue semantics and philosophy all around it, but the point is, you can't actually declare 'that is right' or 'that is wrong' with certainty. There is no certain answer. You could weigh that one option means breaking the morale of a nation, but that can easily be countered with the fact that what good is morale is more than half your people are dead for the sake of an ideal? Who is anyone to say that my life, or yours, or even their own or anyone else's, is worth less than an ideal, a thing that is purely a construct of human thought and has no physical living presence, and what's more, can be said to have no worth at all if there are none (or at least few) people alive to support it and believe in it.

Anyone put into an impossible position will opt for whatever they deem the lesser of the evils presented to them. If all choices are bad, someone still has to make that decision. In this example, that choice has to be made by Graham, the king of Daventry. Fight an impossible fight, waste the lives of hundreds or more--or save the lives of hundreds or more by not pursuing an option you may well know is fruitless? I stress again, it's not a black and white decision. It's not a good one to have to make, either, but there is no ideal option to go with in the scenario. But it was one that had to be made, by him, and he chose to save the lives of his people. You can judge a person for that kind of choice, but it doesn't mean you're right and they are wrong for it.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 01:32:52 PM
Ya and very machievellian, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few, often referred to the "lesser of two evils" or to others who try to spin it as "The Greater Good" (depending on what side of the fence you rest on);

John 11:49-50  "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."

Its also said that most of Caiaphas the 'sins' that ended up darning him ultimately... I suppose it might explain the joke/easter egg/cameo in Laura Bow II , with Graham being sent to 'hell' where he is tortured for all eternity.

It's also said  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke), and there is also First they came... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...), or "Benjamin Franklin's He who sacrifices freedom for security, diserves neither."

It might be the choice that saved the most people, but it was also a blight on a soul. If you chose to do the same thing it would also be a blight on your soul as well... Also more than likely you would be seen as a tyrant and a human rights violator, LOL. Good thing its not real life...

But ya sure its moral, its also darker than it is light... Its something that would be stuck on your soul the rest of your life.

Believe me as one who studies conflict. It might not be black and white thing to fight wars, but killing a human being, or causing a human being to kill, still leaves a taint on one's soul. You never come out of that the same as before. How it changes someone and to the severity depends on the individual.

It also influences what others think of you, what is done cannot be undone. The families who lost there children, will still remember what he did. Believe me, there are few parents that would agree with the idea of there children being killed, even if it would protect the lives of everyone else. Any parent that would agree to it, has issues.

As for what is black and white, its not always what a person thinks about the choices they make, but how people around them view the person for what they have done.  Most choices made by people are amoral (lacking any morality choices at all), and its society that defines if someone went against human ideals or not. As hopefully many of the quotes I gave above, would suggest, that there are many who would criticize to the "Needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the view" mentality...

Of course in KQ3, its said that he never even tried to fight the dragon, all the disasters that occured before the dragon came put him in a deep melancholy, so he never even tried to defend teh kingdom. He easily gave in to the demands. That's alot different than if he had attempted to defeat the dragon, and his soldiers were destroyed, and that that point then chose to given into the demands... He straight decided, that sacrifices would be a good idea :p...

Seriously many cultures that had human sacrifice believed they needed to do it to prevent the gods from killing them, or destroying them... That is now considered pretty dark way of living by most people.

Of course what happens when they run out of maidens to give? Do they start coming for the young boys? or the older women?


You just quoted the Bible, really? What about the one they call Jesus. The Son of God sacrificed to save humanity. Do people think less of God because of what he did?

:)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:21:10 PM
Ok, shame I have to resort to Godwin's law... let's put this into perspective. You are the leader of a small country in europe that has been conquered by a violent dragonic force bent on killing and destruction. This force demands the death of a certain part of your society? If you do not they will probably kill/imprsion all of your people? Or do you choose to turn in this small group of people. What happened when these countries decided to 'collaborate' with the forces demands? Sure they protected there people, making it slightly less dangerous. But what about that demographic of society that got "tossed under the bus"?

Well once the trials began, quite a few "collaboraters" were arrested, for committing the reprehensible act.... There are ways to "justify" any action, and frame it in the "Greater Good", needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few scenario. But often someone's legacy will be tained by the decision they made...or revisions try to rewrite history and white-was a tyrant/murderer out to be a good guy for his decisions to follow the 'needs of the many' ideals ('Che Gueverra')...

Certainly not anyone who would take Graham to trial for his decision, considering he controls the courts... But still its definitely machievian/dictatorial decision. I from my perspective I would consider anyone who tried to use those kinds of justifications for government endorsed murder, or supported it; to still be an evil.

In general in most cases in the real world where "needs of the many' was followed to its ultimate conclusion in history, it always ended in horrible outcome (with many dieing). It never got to that point with Graham, which is good. But it could have easily turned him into one of those characters of Trajedy plays, that also follow the path of the "needs of the many..." fallacy.

If you think its a good ideal, you are welcome to the opinion. But its something I personally do not agree with (and that's something molded by years of research on subjects related to the idea)...

(Posted on: December 06, 2010, 05:18:51 PM)


QuoteYou just quoted the Bible, really? What about the one they call Jesus. The Son of God sacrificed to save humanity. Do people think less of God because of what he did?

Are you serious? The ones who killed Jesus, such as Caiphus and Pilot are described as being darned...

Jesus was the one "sacrificed", because Caiphus thought he was doing the will of the "greater good". Jesus didn't do the sacrificing to anyone else.

So your analogy is broken...

Btw, the only reason I quoted the bible verse, was because it is one of the original sources, of the "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"idea ,btw, no, that quote didn't originate from Star Trek...
But somethign thinks had I quoted the quote, and it was closer to star trek, you would have ridiculed my post, claiming I was citing "Spock".

The tale/myth/story in the bible is one of the earliest examples of the "greater good" logic, and its also one of the ones where culture decided that said decision ended in grief for those who commited the fallacy.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 02:26:36 PM
I'm not saying Jesus sacrificed anyone. Read again.

God sent his Son down to earth to save humanity. And when he speaks to Him before he's given away, God tells him not to fear. So God pretty much knows what's going to happen to his son, and knows that he will be sacrificed to save humanity.

Which is basically the same idea behind Graham sacrificing Rosella to save the people of Daventry.

And again, nobody looks down on God for what he did, right?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:29:11 PM
Ya, and I have spoken to many athiests and anti-theists they consider the idea or concept of the SkyDiety/God a tyrant/dictator... Because of such actions, or because ultimately its said he won't allow people freedom to believe whatever they want to do... I know alot of people that think christianity is evil... So your point?

The point of using the quote, was not to point out validity/inspirtation or fallacies/fiction of the bible (depending on one's viewpoints). But rather to point out the variations in human belief on the subject. The bible was written by many authors, with many different viewpoints...

The world is filled with plenty of philosophies and alternative views... Like I said I do respect, that, but again I said I would have to "agree to disagree with you" if you viewed things differently.

Also your analogy for Rosella as Jesus would work, if itwasn't for the nagging bit that he was sacrificing other maidens before her... She was apparently the last maiden he had to offer, and he was concined to give up... after that. Talk to Rosella in KQ3, listen to the Gnome, and listen to the oracle. It would probably have been far more selfless, and less selfish, if he has offered Rosella first.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:29:11 PM
Ya, and I have spoken to many athiests and anti-theists they consider the idea or concept of the SkyDiety/God a tyrant/dictator... Because of such actions, or because ultimately its said he won't allow people freedom to believe whatever they want to do... I know alot of people that think christianity is evil... So your point?

The world is filled with plenty of philosophies and alternative views...

Yeah, but that didn't stop millions (or billions) of people of looking up to God and praying to Him. There will always be people that don't agree, but the majority of people that were affected by Christianity loved God and are ever thankful to him for Sacrificing his Son to save them.

My point is that I'm giving you a very hard fact based on the history of humanity that dismantles what you are trying to defend when you say people would have looked down on Graham for sacrificing his daughter to save them.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:35:41 PM
Also like I said, your analogy for Rosella as Jesus doesn't really work. There is that nagging bit that he was sacrificing other maidens before her... She was apparently the last maiden he had to offer, and he was forced to give up... he was concined to allow the kingdom's destruction after that I guess. Talk to Rosella in KQ3, listen to the Gnome, and listen to the oracle. It would probably have been far more selfless, and less selfish, if he has offered Rosella first. Graham's order of events was far more tyrranical than "Gods" decision. Its not like God was offering up other people's sons (except for that one time the story of him asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to test the patriarch's loyality, but had no intent of following through with it, :P)...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:21:10 PM
If you think its a good ideal, you are welcome to the opinion. But its something I personally do not agree with (and that's something molded by years of research on subjects related to the idea)...

I didn't say I did. I just argued that you cannot make a black and white, right and wrong judgment call on it. If this is how you view my opinion and consider it "uneducated" just because I don't agree with you and/or argue on your side of the matter, there's no point in continuing a debate on it with you.

Also, btw, my minor in college was Philosophy, so no, I'm not uneducated on this subject area either.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 06, 2010, 02:38:39 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 05, 2010, 11:42:48 PM
I wasn't talking about "references to previous games" but rather references to King's Quest themes. Freesa like Icebella are both fairy tale tropes. As is the crystal dragon, etc. Something that was huge part of Roberta's vision.
No, you weren't. But Damar was.

QuoteThere are a few references to things from previous games like Castle Daventry, the the Royal Family, Graham, Valanice, and the magic map. I agree these are very few and far between.
Right, but Castle Daventry was not at all recognizable as the "Castle Daventry" that we'd seen in the past.

QuoteAs for the "throne rooms" they seem the same in each game. But actually if you analyze them there are lot of issues with each one :p... Unfortunately Sierra never really kept those consistent (mostly a color issue, and some archictecture, and furniture differences as well). BTW, look where Graham keeps his hat at the end of KQ3, and where he keeps it in at the beginning of KQ4 (same cutscene or is it?). In addition there is a door to the 'south' of the throne in KQ4? What happened to it in KQ6 (what is that gold wall doing there)?
But those throne rooms were still totally recognizable as the one previously seen.

QuoteThe drastic change though I would equate to a landmark like castle daventry's halls being replaced with a courtyard...or the Door into Mountain's staircase being replaced with wooden catwalks, or other major changes to the geography and complete changes to the landmarks made between KQ1 and KQ1 remake. Even KQ5's geography (looking down from the hill) doesn't have much of anything in Daventry that resembles any major landmarks from the previous games. You know that hill, is right about where the Door into Mountain or Ancient Well was located in KQ3 (and there is no evidence of their existence), and there was no hill there in KQ3.
You'll notice that in my list I did not make any reference to KQ5's Castle Daventry or indeed Daventry at all. And in KQ3, I didn't say "Daventry" or "Castle Daventry" -- I cited specific landmarks that looked the same.
And KQ1 isn't on the list because it's the first one in the series. The remake of KQ1 is still KQ1, there is nothing "previous" for it to refer to or be consistent with.

[quote[Also I think its a bit silly to blame every aspect you don't like about the game as "she lost control of the game" (that smacks of pulling theories out of one's ass, and hindsight wishful thinking on your part).[/quote]
I don't. I'm fully aware of the fact that combat was her idea. I didn't even suggest it was a bad idea. What I suggested was that, if she had been more fully in control of the game, there might have been consistency with previous games. There was not any, or at least not enough. THAT smacks of not being Roberta's work, when it was obviously something important to her (and the other developers) in every single other episode of the King's Quest series.

QuoteYou know what, based on the material I've found it doesn't look like any of her earliest ideas wouldn't have made any more direct references to previous King's Quest games than the few that are already in there.
The references would likely have been little details -- recognizable features or names mentioned in passing. I doubt they would have been in the design notes of boss monsters, puzzles, quests, etc.
But, with Rosella and Valanice having been cut that's at least *one* reference that would have been in the game and was cut.

QuoteAt one point they even thought about tossing in a leprechaun (which apparently had no connection to previous games), and would have just been a boss battle. Actually he's still in the game, just been swapped out for that spriggan at the top of the castle... Just a mindless battle, with no real plot point...
But unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.

QuoteAbout the only idea that Mark Seibert explained to me that would have tossed in a 'connection', was that they thought about naming that Wizard you encounter, "Crispinopher" but decided against it... Probably for the better, because then you'd have to explain why he was with Dante, and not Cedric (they apparently had no intention of putting Cedric in the game, since many at that point found him annoying).
I agree that Cedric is annoying and Dante is much better, and putting Crispin in the game would have left some loopholes. Still, it might have been better than Sir Wizard, as it would have clearly connected Mask of Eternity to the series without alienating new players.

You can also find some early documents from the third stage of design, where they were calling land "Underworld", and the river in DOD, the "River Styx" (this was a name dropped reference to the myth. This realm was still said to be ruled by Azriel (Azriel's graphic at the time was the same as in the released game). [/quote]
As I said, Roberta is a genius but that doesn't mean all of her ideas were good.

QuoteThat being said Roberta didn't have much work on KQ6, KQ1, or apparently even KQ7. With KQ6, she had a few brainstorming ideas, then Jane Jensen took over and wrote everything, and the story, while Roberta was in Europe. Roberta was busy working on KQ5, to do anything for KQ1 remake (that was pretty much all handled by Josh Mandel). With KQ7, Roberta was too bush working on Phantas, and put most of the work under Lorelei Shannon. She didn't hold full control over it, its apparently mostly  Lorelei's ideas. The story is even said to be Lorelei's and not Robertas in the credits. I think the last game Roberta actually personally worked on to some degree (not counting last stage of MOE), was probably back during KQ5...
And yet, in that quote you made earlier she took full credit for every game in the KQ series while defending MOE. I would submit that this qualifies of a case of her putting on a "public face" to defend her work. Everyone does it.

Its certainly not something that was affected by "losing control of the game". Roberta's strong point and involvement in the games was always more about the gameplay, and pushing the boundaries of current technology, than the story.[/quote]
But even where she was involved in the story, there were at least references to previous games. She didn't need to use the Black Cloak Society -- although fans of the series would have loved it -- but more subtle references would have worked just as well without alienating players. It's a massive oversight, plain and simple.

Quoten KQ2 the mermaid can't speak in the human language. I'm going by the fact that she does NOT speak in the human language in the game on this one. It is plain as day. She only ignores you before you give her flowers. She summons a sea horse for you -- but she never says anything to you. She doesn't invite you to ride it, you surmise that all on your own. To me that indicates she can't speak. No, it doesn't explicitly say it but to take a different opinion in this context -- especially since the only other place we meet a mermaid in the series she is unable to speak in the human tongue -- is just being disagreeable for no reason.
It could be thought of as speaking when it says that she "summons a magical seahorse" but since she's not speaking to Graham, even if this involves talking it's not likely to be in the human tongue. The next line of the description says "Maybe you could ride it!" She doesn't invite you, you have to figure it out on your own.

QuoteCupid's arrows are pure love.... it's hard to argue that shooting Lolotte was violent. Yes, it was painful but Rosella was not being violent.
Damar was saying violent solutions as in, the actions you take, are seldom rewarded. The subsequent description may be violent, but firing love at someone is not. The action is not violent, and as such in that case violence is not rewarded. Violence being the noun meaning a "a violent act or proceeding" in this case.

QuoteThe idea that many usually bring up is that in KQ games you don't usually "kill" your foes. These are examples where that idea is tossed out the window.
But no one said anything about killing, we were talking about violent actions.

QuoteOf course let's talk about the troll, its an evil sort of baddie, its too powerful to defeat by normal means. You could take the non-violent approach and offer it some treasure (why not give it a walnut? That tree is loaded, with enough to go around)... But the game rewards you for taking it out violently, by getting it head butted into the river, and depending on which version of the game (there is some implication that it may have drowned)...
Although technically speaking Graham didn't act here (:P), this would have been a much better example but it's still in KQ1 where we have pushing Dahlia into the pot. I think that's more violent than a goat performing its natural reaction to bridge trolls but maybe that's just me. :P

QuoteSeriously you claiming that Graham had no intent to get rid of the Yeti?
Uhm, no, I said the next step was going to be bash in the yeti's face. I said he was likely planning to be violent, he just never got the chance. Seriously, read much? :P

QuoteWhat do you think he intended to do, make the Yeti even more angry? A yeti with a pie in its face flailing its arms would be just as dangerous as one without the pie in its face... So even to get close enough to use that tiny cobbler hammer would have a chance to be lethal... BTW, cobbler hammers are quite tiny
So.... you're claiming that Graham believed that the pie was a deadly weapon and he was proven to be right? What other inventory item could Graham possibly have been planning to use to defeat the yeti after the pie?
The thing is -- one end of the cobbler's hammer is quite sharp. Impaling a yeti through the eye with that end would not have been hard. Hitting the yeti in the same spot in the eye repeatedly would have killed it.
You're right though, he could also have been planning to shove the yeti off the edge.

QuoteIn anycase from a real world standards, the game's solution is quite illogical. Alot of the puzzles in that game are fairly illogical, or quite obscure. Cheese machine anyone?
My laptop runs on moldy cheese.... ::)

Quote from: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 09:21:06 AM
*YAWN

That really is the most constructive thing I can think of to add to this thread.
Oh good, because I was worried people would run out of constructive things to say. :P

Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 01:32:52 PM
Of course what happens when they run out of maidens to give? Do they start coming for the young boys? or the older women?
Probably the adult women who haven't hit menopause yet. The reason it was so important to sacrifice maidens (if I understand the tradition correctly) is that it is not JUST the maiden who is killed, but any future generations she may have born.
I mean, I could be totally wrong on that one but it makes sense!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:42:03 PM
QuoteI didn't say I did. I just argued that you cannot make a black and white, right and wrong judgment call on it. If this is how you view my opinion and consider it "uneducated" just because I don't agree with you and/or argue on your side of the matter, there's no point in continuing a debate on it with you.
I never said you were "uneducated", please do not accuse me of that... I just said that from my own studies on the subject, my point of view on the issue, and that it usually never ends well. The 'needs of the many' usually never saves anyone. Its pure dumb luck, that Alexander returned, had he died. There would have been no one to stop the dragon from destroying the kingdom. The maidens wouldn't have even save anything. It would have just lead to more murder and death. So its just a matter of "agreeing to is disagree" on each perspective.

QuoteBut unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.
Actually, i'd point out that creating new races is quite normal for the series. You don't necessarily see the exact same races in each game of the series. New races are shown.

Of course let's point out an example of something from previous games being brought back into newer games in a different form...  Remember the trolls in KQ7, they do not follow trolls from previous games. Completely different personality, culture and appearance...
QuoteProbably the adult women who haven't hit menopause yet. The reason it was so important to sacrifice maidens (if I understand the tradition correctly)
Depends on the tradition. In many of the traditions it had to be a 'virgin' (some cultures it didn't matter if it was male or female). So a bar wench that had making one too many trips around the bar, probably wouldn't work.

Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 02:48:15 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:42:03 PM
The 'needs of the many' usually never saves anyone.

Well, in the case we're talking about, it actually saved quite a few people. :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:49:44 PM
Well, not necessarily... its suggested that Daventry was nearly emptied of everyone, most people fled :p... All that was left was the castle.. If some of the peole who left or were leaving, were killed or not who knows... Probably explains why Graham was running out of maidens though, parents must have been leaving the country to get away from the king (and the dragon).
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on December 06, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:49:44 PM
Well, not necessarily... its suggested that Daventry was nearly emptied of everyone :p... All that was left was the castle.. If they were killed or not who knows... Probably explains why Graham was running out of maidens though, parents must have been leaving the country to get away from the king.

Or maybe... the dragon?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:53:01 PM
Ya, and the dragon, and the droughts/famines/earthquakes. But the potential to losing your daughter because some king, forces them to be killed by the dragon, would certainly probably been an influence. It wasn' t as if the Dragon was going after the maidens on its own. It takes two to tango.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
Can't flee if you aren't living! :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 06, 2010, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:42:03 PM
QuoteBut unlike a spriggan, a leprechaun is a creature we've seen before. In Daventry, no less.
Actually, i'd point out that creating new races is quote normal for the series.

Of course let's point out an example of something from previous games being brought back into newer games in a different form...  Remember the trolls in KQ7, they do not follow trolls from previous games. Completely different personality, culture and appearance...
BUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:55:51 PM
Well that's the thing its unclear how many were died from other disasters/famine, killed by the dragon (before the sacrifices began), how many maidens actually were killed, and how many those died trying to flee, to those who made it out. It will never be known.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 02:56:11 PM
Yeah, seriously...if Graham has ordered the sacrifice of all eligible maidens in the kingdom and only offered up Rosella as a last resort, it certainly paints him in a different light.  It calls to mind the story of Perseus and Andromeda (which almost certainly served as inspiration for the scenario), where Andromeda is set to be sacrificed to the Sea Serpent Cetus.  Although in that case, her father was forced into it by the gods, and he didn't try to sacrifice other people's daughters first...so...yeah...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:58:41 PM
QuoteBUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity
Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

KQ1 does not use the term "Bridge Troll", and as far as I know KQ4 doesn't use the term "Cave Troll". KQ7, just uses the term 'trolls'.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 02:59:27 PM
I thought it was said or implied that the dragon had also specifically demanded Rosella for that year's sacrifice. If so, he may well have demanded other specific girls before her.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 02:59:37 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:58:41 PM
QuoteBUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity
Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

so now the Companion is "secondary material" and not the source of all info? :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 03:00:08 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:58:41 PM
QuoteBUt it's been established there are different races of trolls. The KQ1 troll is specifically a Bridge Troll. KQ4 has a Cave Troll. These are Vulcanix Trolls, and they are, in fact, from another realm.
I'm not saying creating new races is a bad thing in these series and yes, it's quite normal. On the other hand, in a game needing something to tie it to previous games this is yet another missed opportunity
Not quite, the manauls and games only call them trolls. Only the secondary material like King's Quest Companion, and an obscure reference in King's Questions refers to the trolls by separate races.

Wait, wait...Baggins is citing the manuals and purposefully ignoring the Companion??  Role reversal much???  lol
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:02:08 PM
Cez context please, the discussion was about the games, and how games portray things.

If I had said oh btw, some mermaids can talk as shown in the companion (as a few sections imply, and mostly relating to mermaids seen in KQ2). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games (so it has no merit)...

Since Cray was talking about 'consistency amongst" the games, and not expanded universe as a whole. Then we can only discuss the context based on the standards he set forth.

Yes, I can understanding how discussions can be confusing, when different fans have different views of the world, and what sources the accept over others.

Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:02:08 PM
Cez context please, the discussion was about the games, and how games portray things.

If I had said oh bte way mermaids can talkin the companion (as one part implies). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games...

Since Cray was talking about 'consistency amongst" the games, and not expanded universe as a whole. Then we can only discuss the context based on the standards he set forth.

True, true.  Cez, rebuttal?  lol
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 03:04:59 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 03:03:41 PM
True, true.  Cez, rebuttal?  lol


:rofl:
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:02:08 PM


If I had said oh btw, some mermaids can talk as shown in the companion (as a few sections imply). Cray would be saying, oh but that doesn't happen in the games (so it has no merit)...



Which is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong :)

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:06:39 PM
QuoteI thought it was said or implied that the dragon had also specifically demanded Rosella for that year's sacrifice. If so, he may well have demanded other specific girls before her."
Great question, hmm need to go hunt up those quotes from KQ3 again. I forget how it explained it exactly.
QuoteWhich is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point

Its impossible to keep things to one discusison, because people keep changing positions, and there are lots of positions... You come across one person that wants to discuss the entirety of the universe, and those that what to ignore huge sections of the universe. If I stick to a "complete all sources" rule, there is always someone that go about saying, what's your point? Those don't count in there opinion.

Then there are those that say, the games are great, but they they are so inconsistent to be taken at face value...


Then there are the discusisons from people who want to discuss fan fiction, like KQ2+ as the central part of a its own continuity, while ignoring the official game. Those discussions make things rather difficult as well... Since the other person is already going in with preconceived interpretation that leaves another source out of the equation. If I bring up KQ2 original stuff, its certainly not going to add anything insightful to the discussion.

In anycase I was stating a fact, that in the games, there is no mention of 'seperate' races. This doesn't mean that racesn't aren't mentioned in the expanded sources outside the game, but its still a fact that its not established in the games.

Its a bit like Hagatha, this is a fact. There is no place in the game that says that she is Manannan's sister. The second fast is that King's Questions and the Companion are the source that states they are related.

You people make it difficult to keep discussions in one form, because you are always asking me to limit things (or not bring things up in discussions)...

Believe me all these different viewpoints in discussions started by people just confuses other people that come into the discussion. They get even more confused if you bring up something that is outside of their preconceived ideas...

Would you like me to go and toss all and every alternative viewpoint and possible thought process, and reference from every source related to a subject?

BTW, I for one am someone that admits that King's Quest as a whole is not consistent. I can point out lots of incosistencies between sources... They may all be considered equal sources of information, that still doesn't mean that inconsistencies somehow magically "disappear".
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 06, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 02:58:41 PM
KQ1 does not use the term "Bridge Troll", and as far as I know KQ4 doesn't use the term "Cave Troll". KQ7, just uses the term 'trolls'.
You could actually be right about KQ1 and KQ4 (although it's clear they are different) but I know that in at least one place the trolls are called "trolls of (or maybe from? I have to go watch an LP I think...) the Vulcanix Underground" implying that there are more varieties even in Eldritch.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 03:21:59 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:06:39 PM
QuoteI thought it was said or implied that the dragon had also specifically demanded Rosella for that year's sacrifice. If so, he may well have demanded other specific girls before her."
Great question, hmm need to go hunt up those quotes from KQ3 again. I forget how it explained it exactly.
QuoteWhich is exactly what you ALWAYS do. Swing from one point of view to the next, so that your points are never wrong

the KQ Companion is the source of all info!!! Until! it doesn't help you prove a point

Its impossible to keep things to one discusison, because people keep changing positions, and there are lots of positions... You come across one person that wants to discuss the entirety of the universe, and those that what to ignore huge sections of the universe. If I stick to a "complete all sources" rule, there is always someone that go about saying, what's your point? Those don't count in there opinion.




My point is that if it was the other way around, and Craig was trying to defend the point that there's no different races, you would have quoted the companion and said that isn't true. Because the companion is official source because it was approved by Roberta Williams --which is what you've said before.

Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:22:17 PM
Well, "trolls of.." indicates a descripion of home location, not necessarily their race.

But ya, if you were to accept companion/KQ7 Authorized guide it gives them the race name, "trollkin".

Trolls actually change alot throughout the games, I have a composite image somewhere that shows all the variations of trolls made throughout the games, visually.
QuoteMy point is that if it was the other way around, and Craig was trying to defend the point that there's no different races, you would have quoted the companion and said that isn't true. Because the companion is official source because it was approved by Roberta Williams --which is what you've said before.

Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.
No had the discussion been based on companion to begin with, which it was not (there was indication early on that he didn't want any discussion of the companion). I would have said, ya he's right that in the greater lore there are separate races. In this case, I was just trying to keep things consistent to the standards he set forth. Since he requested that in the first place :p... Go up to an earlier post I even alluded out that "mermaids seemingly can talk" in some of the external sources, but that he might be right that going by the games only, that mermaid in KQ2 doesn't talk.

What you people do all the time, is tell me to "shove" the companion, then you switch grounds when I point contradictions just going by the games, and start quoting the companion... yourself... Maybe you haven't noticed it but imo from my perspective there are individuals in this forum that do the same thing.

Besides, i'm talking to cray, and his basis of his discussion keeps on changing form, every time we discuss things, so I don't know when he's taking the companion as a source, or choosing to ignore it. Most of his discussion is based around his ideas for fan fiction. Most often he goes for the choice to ignore it (beyond taking a few bits of inspiration from it).
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 03:30:39 PM
I'm really not quoting the companion. I stand clear by the information given by the games, and have always kept that position. This is an observation on your behavior, because you seem to be the one switching from the companion being game lore to not being game lore depending on what helps you to prove your point. So, in this case, I'm just playing the devil's advocate on yourself, really.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 03:33:06 PM
Nothing is true.  Everything is permitted.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:34:45 PM
Ya, but from my perspective, alot of the forum members do the same thing as well. If you check the omnipedia, you'll note that I treat it all equally. I just point out where two or more things aren't necessarily consistent. or how one things describes things vs. another. I point out where information comes from, and people can decide to ignore if they want to or not.

Its still not choosing sides, to point out that according to "such and such this is all it says about it" in relation to "according to this source, this what it says about it".

That's not the same thing as, "I ignore a in favor of b.". Rather I'm just point out that this is a and this is b, but I generally treat a = b, even if they don't necessarily fit each other.

QuoteNothing is true.  Everything is permitted.
The ends justify the means? Heh heh. more machievelli... Yes, I love AC.

So back to your discussion cray, another race like the trolls are the elves. Portrayed differently in the three versions of the games they appear in. Only called "elves" in the games, but have slightly different cultural differences portrayed in those games.

King's Quest companion seperates them in two or more races, incidently.

Then there are the dwarfs... The narrations in KQ1, and KQ2, suggests that "dwarfs are dirty, evil, deceitful little beings, and this dwarf is no different". Yet, in KQ4, we have very nice and friendly dwarfs (they might be still dirty though).

Let's not forget the ogres... They are very different between the portrayal in KQ1 (both versions) and KQ4.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:34:45 PM

Its still not choosing sides, to point out that according to "such and such this is all it says about it" in relation to "according to this source, this what it says about it".

That's not the same thing as, "I ignore a in favor of b.". Rather I'm just point out that this is a and this is b, but I generally treat a = b, even if they don't necessarily fit each other.


That's easily understandable, Baggins.  People here are often quick to take offense when they think you're implying that "ignoring a in favor of b" is silly.  Which I haven't seen you do.  Insecurities of the audience, I think.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:42:52 PM
Hell, I'm an anthropologist, they try to indoctrinate us to have more pluralistic world views... But that just might be left thinking education in general... I.E. while I studied in Hawaii for undergrad, I took Hawaiian history courses, which treats hawaiian traditions and beliefs as alternative history = so called scientific history... I think they try to explain this as "broadening your mind"... although it kinda reminds me of 1984 doublethink :p.... But I suppose that there is often alot of truth in myths, and they may offer explanations that traditional recorded history might have missed. In the same way that looking an artifact might offer information on a culture's history that might have been lost by normal means.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 06, 2010, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: Cez on December 06, 2010, 03:21:59 PM
Which is something that you do all the time. However, in this case, because you are trying to defend the point of not having different races, the Companion is now relegated to secondary material. So what's your stand, really, what is it going to be? You can't keep changing stands just so that you are never wrong.
Actually, Cez, Baggins is quite correct that I absolutely kiboshed the Companion in this discussion in my very fist post in this thread and I appreciate that he's sticking to that.

Also, I am not nor have I ever been "Craig". Psssssssh. :P

As for the trolls... yeah just watched playthroughs of all three and I seem to have been wrong about all of that. Still... it makes sense!! :P
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 03:53:54 PM
Thanks cray (and that goes out to Lambonius as well) for stepping in on my defense.

Btw, our friend the KQ1 troll, is also called a forest troll in yet another expanded source (might have been the companion)  if you want to keep count :p...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 03:58:03 PM
I guess that would stand true and smart on its own, but the evidence of continuous bickering between you and other forum members indicate otherwise. Maybe it's just your way about taking stances. Instead of trying to prove everyone that you are right, which is really how you come across, you could just expose all different points.

A simple "you are right on that accord" every once in a while goes a long way. However my perception, and I may be wrong, is that you always try to be right  by all accords, and even when you give in, it seems twisted in a way that others are still wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you were really all about pluralistic worlds views, you would be more accepting about others' point of view and would only refer to give the information without trying to prove a point so badly, and therefore become so involved in arguments with every forum member that enters a discussion with you.

I truly think that your knowledge of King's Quest lore is more than impressive and impeccable, and I'd certainly like to retain half of what you know in terms of knowledge. I just think that this knowledge could be used more in the informative way that you use it for the Omnipedia, and less in the way it's used to get into endless arguments with anyone that tries to rebutt your opinion. In brief, you could be informative while acknowledging that others are right as well.

Again, that's all an observation. I'm sure there's a rebuttal coming to this about me being wrong :)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 04:01:50 PM
Well I don't agree with "pluralistic" world views when it comes to reality topics... It always came across as a problem when history that is believed is different than history that is definitely known as happened. Like I said it seemed like they tried to to 'idoctrinate' us with that view... but I resisted it... Other historian profs were definitely annoyed by that perspective of 'pluralism', again the reference to "doublethink", and what could happen if you take pluralism too far.

That's another subject for another time...

BTW, I do quite often point out all the different official views, quite often. That doesn't mean that someones personal view fits with any of the variant 'official' views given. A (manual) and B (game) and C (companion/hintbook, etc) might each be different/similar, but certainly not the same as Z (fan idea). If someone was close to hitting a, b, or c on the head, sure I'd point it out. I've even point out where a, b, and c might even support their viewpoint.

Most of the time though when I pont something out, its its to point out where Z, ignored (i'm not accusing of intentionally ignoring, but probably more passive ''missed', 'overlooked') A,B and even C. So that an inconsistency was created, probably by accident, but the inconsistency still exists (square peg doesn't fit into round hole).
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 04:08:28 PM
My mistake. I read that you agreed with pluralistic world views.

Still, taking that out, the rest of my observation still stands. There have been times when we've thought about consulting with you for plot points and the four winds, because of the impressive knowledge, but it's the attitude about this knowledge that has stopped us from doing so.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 04:11:04 PM
By all means, if you want to consult me about something, just ask. I'd just try to point out all the possibilities that official points out. If you choose to ignore them, that's your preragative... I understand sometimes the material has already been locked down, and thus its too late to fix, this might create the occasional glaring issues. But its not something that can be fixed.

I not trying to belittle you as people, i'm not trying to battle you or fight you. If and when I point out something where it differs from what you portrayed don't take that is being an attack on you... It is never intended to be...

If it helps, if you don't want me to read the Four Winds material before its released, just ask me on a topic, and I'll try to do research for you if I have the time... You can then do what you will with that research...  I'll probably take the time to include whatever I researched into the omnipedia. Which is I would definitely recommend consulting.

BTW, I've pretty decided to stop pointing out the occasional inconsistency in your game in the forums anymore. Since people tend to get awefully self defensive about it, as if I was "attacking the designers" or team personally, and trying to attack the game...

I mean where you someone accuses me of calling calling them "ignorant", because I said oh, oh I think you "missed such and such", or I say,"my point of view based on what I read", is a little uh... How can I say this, there is no reason to feel insecure. So perhaps its best, if I never point out potential descrepencies at all?
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 04:48:45 PM
It's the how you phrase things, honestly. It's one thing to say 'this was different over here, in this source', etc, and another to post the wall of text about how some fact--often a small one as well, I might add--is wrong and proven wrong in a list of eighteen different sources. (And there is, as discussed, inconsistency in said sources as well.)

For two examples--a FW article referred to the Isle of Mists (or Isle of the Mist, I forget) as a slightly different name. You went to the trouble of pointing and saying you were 'sure [we] had a reason for changing the name.' A minor point like that I don't think most people would even consider a full-on name change (which it wasn't--as I pointed out at the time, we refer to that island at least 3 different ways, but all are similar and it's clear what's being talked about) (and admittedly because I know we kept forgetting which exact form was the official name). It's the kind of thing that, personally, nettles me a lot because it's not a change and it really doesn't matter. And then there was the long debate with Rich about just how devastated Valanice was or was not at which point in time. Which is so minor in the overall context of the game and even in that article, yet it brought on many quotes and lengthy posts about how a slight difference in how it was stated was entirely wrong.

You may not intend it as belittling, but it often comes off that way when that's the approach you take.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 05:00:04 PM
So here is that schism between viewponts. Cez asked me that it would be nice if I listed all the viewpoints and references, and sources, and says in his experience I haven't. Then you'd rather I didn't, list every reference, citation and source...

Like I said perhaps its best, if I never point out any thing at all.... Because every time someone takes offense. Its catch 22, darned if I, darned if I don't. Someone always takes offense no matter what I do... I can't please everyone.

(Posted on: December 06, 2010, 07:55:38 PM)


QuoteFor two examples--a FW article referred to the Isle of Mists (or Isle of the Mist, I forget) as a slightly different name. You went to the trouble of pointing and saying you were 'sure [we] had a reason for changing the name.' A minor point like that I don't think most people would even consider a full-on name change (which it wasn't--as I
Well I worded it that way on purpose, because if I had said, "I think you made a mistake", you would have went about accusing me of "accusing you of making mistakes". The way I worded it was to give you the benefite of the doubt and an attempt to keep neutral about it. Because there were times when I said, you made a there is "mistake/inconsistency about such and such", and then someone got defense about as if I attacked them. Even if I did point out an actual inconsistency.

You'll notice in my following post, and gracially thanked you for your admittence of the mistake...

Had you said, ya we thought it would be more poetic for the story, to give it alternative names. Then I would have understood your reasoning behind it.

Again I feel like no matter what I say, you will take it personally... Either way, you would have thought I was accusing you of "making mistakes", or accusing you of "intentioanlly changing things".

Quotelong debate with Rich about just how devastated Valanice was or was not at which point in time. Which is so minor in the overall context of the game and even in that article, yet it brought on many quotes and lengthy posts about how a slight difference in how it was stated was entirely wrong.

Ya, as I pointed out in my initial post, it was minor, and thus really didn't need to be brought up. It was Rich, that asked me to bring it up in the first place...

Yet another schism, in how your various forum members want to look at my posts, and what they want out of my posts...

It's not like I was going to bring it up in the first place, I intentionally chose to not point it out. In the future I won't be pointing out minor inconsistences like that, since its obvious someone will take offense...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 05:04:54 PM
Yes, and to be honest I appreciate that it was dropped after that. :)

Well, I'll be honest--at this point, it would be hard for me not to take it personally, either. I don't really know where that leaves the matter, though. Our game has differences from canon, and it's clear that what we considered "large" differences and what some fans consider "large" differences were not the same thing. In retrospect, we probably should've said a little more to that effect beforehand to prepare people for it, but that is retrospect and there's not much to be done for it now.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 05:08:55 PM
Understandable. But really you shouldn't have to feel like a victim, anytime you think there is perceived "criticism". Its not the end of the world right?

Sometimes I think its best not to say anything at all, in these situations and walk away from it, rather than take things personally. Things shall pass, and probably will pass. Taking it personally can cause things, to escalate.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 05:22:40 PM
BTW, I didn't say that you haven't used references. I know you have.

My problem is not the wall of texts with all the references, my problem is how you use them. Katie pointed a good example with the discussion with Rich. It's one thing to say for example what the history has said about a certain character, and another one how the character feels about it. And whether we accepted that yes, the history is indeed what you said, you never conceded that Valanice herself could have felt otherwise. You kept posting walls of reference as to why your point was valid and ours wasn't, when, in reality, both points can co-exist because we never changed what history said that happen, we just brought it to the personal level of asking Valanice directly how she felt about it. But again, you were fighting us against us instead on conceding that, yes, it's a possibility that history speaks differently of how some characters may have personally felt about it.

And that's often how I feel you use your knowledge. Not to inform, but to impose. And that's where the difference lies.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 05:23:24 PM
True--at the same time, I don't think it's such a bad thing to want to defend our work.

In any case, we've THOROUGHLY derailed this thread from its stated purpose! :P So a little something on that, since someone new asked a few pages back, I think. MoE is referenced in TSL, but it's plot doesn't have too much bearing on ours. It had a greater influence once upon a time, but that was before the game was cut down and condensed into the five episodes we now have.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 05:33:40 PM
Actually Cez, I don't know if you missed, I did say that your team has the right to take creative license, and not follow exact by the letter descriptions in the game (that was actually an admittence that alternative view points do exist). I also said that the difference, was only minor. Not a big deal. That's why I was never going to bring it up at all. I was just pointing out, it was slightly different.

But I think what annoyed me the most, in hindsight, is how defensive Rick got over it, when I pointed out how she explained things and how the game explained things were slighly different. I wasn' the one who turned it into the argument in the first place, and was even intending to avoid the arguement knowing someone would get defensive about it.

In the future, you won't have to worry abot that, as I won't even to attempt to point differences here in the future. I'll stick to my initial view, that it was minor, and best not worth discussing, and leave it at that.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 06:03:50 PM
And, again, I think that's the problem. You were trying to prove a point with Valanice that wasn't completely clear. Yes, Rosella said their parents had given up, and the book said they had given up, but obviously, they didn't give up completely because they did not go as far as taking their own lives. The fact that they came back from it is self-explanatory in the sense that she was at the verge of a full breakdown, and even if she did have one, there was hope somewhere. She never gave up. She may have given fully into despair, she may have felt hopeless at times, but that strength that continued to carry her through life was there.

She may have had also internalized it. Whether the whole kingdom of Daventry saw that their queen was down, and that's how history sees it, Valanice, in her slumber, could have seen it differently. And that's not really a creative liberty, it's a matter of perspective. The problem was that you kept fighting that it was different to canon, when in reality it was just simply a different point of view. When there's no reference that Valanice completely gave up, tried to take her own life, and she never told anyone directly how she felt, you can't really form a true opinion based on Rosella's perspective, and the town's perspective. Hope was still there in some form. Valanice cried a river of tears in KQ7 evertyime you pulled the comb, yet she wasn't giving up on Rosella. Characters are always complex in the form they behave.

Although this wasn't the intention, you also didn't consider the fact that Valanice may have chosen to say that out of embarrassment.

My point overall being, again, like you said, "Rich didn't admit it even when I showed him the references'.  Imposing something based on knowledge, without conceding to things that could have co-existed, because, again, we didn't change the story, we just gave insight as to how Valanice felt, from her own words, from her own mind, something that has never been established in the King's Quest universe. And that's why no amount of references can really answer that question --because no one ever asked Valanice directly, "we've heard the stories, but tell me, how did you feel about it?". And that's what Rich was rebutting you, it was a matter of perspective, it didn't need to be so black and white --he was agreeing to what you were saying and then adding this. You, instead, were never agreeing to anything of what he was saying, and just using references to impose the knowledge, over and over again.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but sometimes you have to be open to different perspective, especially when they make sense. And agreeing, every once in a while, goes a long way.

"Yes, Rich, it's possible that even if Rosella said so, if the history surrounding said so, Valanice herself could have felt different. It is possible that she may had hidden feelings that she never talked about. I still want to believe that, like the history said, she fully gave up, but I agree that your take is possible" is very different to all the words that you said, and would have gone a long way to end the argument in peace.

And if you used your knowledge more often that way, we would welcome it a lot. There's currently a thought among team members that we dread getting into any sort of discussion with you, because you always have to be right and there's no other way around it. If that doesn't speak up for itself, and doesn't hint at the fact that maybe you should reconsider the way that you use such knowledge, then I guess this is a lost case. Stop for a second, and analyze it before rebutting it, and I'm sure you'll be able to see part of it as well --not saying we are perfect, we also tend to be the other part of the argument and the fault, but looking around, you are our number 1 guy to get into endless arguments with, and that, again, should speak for itself.

Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 06:52:09 PM
Uh, guys?  These are FICTIONAL characters from a 20+ year old game series.  Let's have some perspective here.

*I also think its worth pointing out that you guys have always been just as adamant and unflinching about your "rightness" as Baggins ever has.  Heh...usually in arguments WITH Baggins, as a matter of fact.  So let's not dish out what we can't take, okay?  ;)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 07:12:43 PM
No, I agree, which is why I say we are the other half of the equation and sometimes to blame as well. But the fact is that even when we do defend our arguments blindly, we tend to come around at one point and either recognize where we are wrong, or find a compromise without fully disbanding the other side's argument. For example, changes we've made to the game.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  :P
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  :P

Hey, I'm just saying that at some point, you have to just leave the characters' motivations up to the people writing them (i.e. whoever happens to be developing the game at the time) and not worry so much about it (on either side.)  I mean, part of the beauty of fiction is that everyone can interpret it somewhat differently (within reason.)  :)  Everyone here seems so intent on getting the last word in about EVERYTHING--it just gets tiresome sometimes.  I'm all for pedantic nerd discussions, but seriously.  :)  I saw both sides attempt to drop the above argument MULTIPLE TIMES (you yourself tried admirably, Katie :)) and each time the other side just keeps it going.  What's the point?

If all else fails, ask yourself, "Is this really worth getting bent out of shape over?"  And if the answer is no, then let the Wookie win.  ;)
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on December 06, 2010, 08:10:58 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  :P

Hey, I'm just saying that at some point, you have to just leave the characters' motivations up to the people writing them (i.e. whoever happens to be developing the game at the time) and not worry so much about it (on either side.)  I mean, part of the beauty of fiction is that everyone can interpret it somewhat differently (within reason.)  :)  Everyone here seems so intent on getting the last word in about EVERYTHING--it just gets tiresome sometimes.  I'm all for pedantic nerd discussions, but seriously.  :)  I saw both sides attempt to drop the above argument MULTIPLE TIMES (you yourself tried admirably, Katie :)) and each time the other side just keeps it going.  What's the point?

If all else fails, ask yourself, "Is this really worth getting bent out of shape over?"  And if the answer is no, then let the Wookie win.  ;)

But it's the internet, everything is always true on the internet!  At least it seems to be, according to my students :P
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Cez on December 06, 2010, 08:15:27 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  :P

Hey, I'm just saying that at some point, you have to just leave the characters' motivations up to the people writing them (i.e. whoever happens to be developing the game at the time) and not worry so much about it (on either side.)  I mean, part of the beauty of fiction is that everyone can interpret it somewhat differently (within reason.)  :)  Everyone here seems so intent on getting the last word in about EVERYTHING--it just gets tiresome sometimes.  I'm all for pedantic nerd discussions, but seriously.  :)  I saw both sides attempt to drop the above argument MULTIPLE TIMES (you yourself tried admirably, Katie :)) and each time the other side just keeps it going.  What's the point?

If all else fails, ask yourself, "Is this really worth getting bent out of shape over?"  And if the answer is no, then let the Wookie win.  ;)

This is very true, actually. We do waste a lot of time at this sometimes. Let's go be creative instead!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Delling on December 06, 2010, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: wilco64256 on December 06, 2010, 08:10:58 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on December 06, 2010, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on December 06, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  :P

Hey, I'm just saying that at some point, you have to just leave the characters' motivations up to the people writing them (i.e. whoever happens to be developing the game at the time) and not worry so much about it (on either side.)  I mean, part of the beauty of fiction is that everyone can interpret it somewhat differently (within reason.)  :)  Everyone here seems so intent on getting the last word in about EVERYTHING--it just gets tiresome sometimes.  I'm all for pedantic nerd discussions, but seriously.  :)  I saw both sides attempt to drop the above argument MULTIPLE TIMES (you yourself tried admirably, Katie :)) and each time the other side just keeps it going.  What's the point?

If all else fails, ask yourself, "Is this really worth getting bent out of shape over?"  And if the answer is no, then let the Wookie win.  ;)

But it's the internet, everything is always true on the internet!  At least it seems to be, according to my students :P

But that leads only to this (http://xkcd.com/704/)...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Damar on December 06, 2010, 09:01:57 PM
Wow, this thread grew while I was at work!

So I won't bother going back to the old points I was making because I already said what I wanted and because it seems that the subject has moved way beyond that.  Anyway, I'll just reiterate that I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the MOE references.  I can't stress enough that I did enjoy the game.  I don't think it felt like a King's Quest, and I don't think it qualified as an adventure game (even if it did have an inventory) but even if it didn't feel like a King's Quest, it was a King's Quest and you can't just pick and choose canon like that when it's part of the series.  It reminds me of when Gene Roddenberry stated that Star Trek V wasn't really canon.  Well, dude, I'm sorry your movie sucked and all, but it was a Star Trek movie, it starred the cast, you made it, it happened.  Besides, it didn't suck half as bad as Star Trek I, which was your baby, so there.

Anyway, even though I feel like MOE had a lot of missed potential and wish they hadn't switched genres, it definitely doesn't deserve to be as maligned as it is.  Besides, like I said way back yesterday (what was that, about a dozen pages ago?) there's nothing more entertaining to me than trying to fit something that doesn't quite seem like it wants to fit into canon.  When I've written Star Trek fan fic for my own entertainment, that's something I commonly do.  I'll pick some bizarre, obscure occurrence or reference, usually from the Original Series because they did some weird and nonsensical stuff (it was the 60's after all), and try to fit it into what eventually became Star Trek canon in such a way that it makes sense.  It's incredibly entertaining for me.  And if I were to write King's Quest stuff, odds are I'd gravitate towards some of the MOE lands and themes and try to fit them into King's Quest, which is why I'm excited to see how TSL references it (and be interested to know what role MOE played in the expanded version of the game before it got cut down.)

Oh, and Katie, I believe you asked about whether the dragon asked for Rosella or Rosella volunteered (I think that was, what?  Five pages ago or something?)  As I recall, the Oracle Gwydion talks to says something like "your own sister has been chosen as the sacrifice."  That said, though, if you talk to Rosella after rescuing her (and show her your birthmark) she mentions that she chose to be sacrificed and that she had a premonition that it would all work out and that she wouldn't be harmed.  And she attributes your coming to save her with all that.  So that seems to be what happened and what the Oracle says is also technically true, since Rosella volunteering made her the official sacrifice.  It also removes the responsibility of Graham actively sacrificing his daughter.  Though it puts him in the just as awkward position of accepting his daughter's death without trying to stop it.  So he was either that depressed, or he's one of those dads who just lets his daughter do whatever she wants.  Personally, I'm going with the "Rosella is a 'daddy's little girl'" theory.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 06, 2010, 09:37:26 PM
These are most of the quotes in KQ3 referring to the dragon; I don't know if I'm missing any (you did miss you miss the Gnome's account, which states the dragon demanded her sacrifice), so actually Rosella didn't quite go by her own choice, she only "tried to be brave", and Graham was forced the decision to the agree to the dragon's demands (also note that the game has 2-3 quotes that mention Graham and Valanice's depression)

QuoteOracle (KQ3): I've been awaiting for you a long time. I have sorrowful news for you. Years ago, a terrible dragon three-headed dragon invaded Daventry, and keeps the people in a state of terror. This monster requires, once a year, the sacrifice of a young maiden. Sadly, your own sister, Princess Rosella, is the chosen one this year. Time is running out for her, your parents, and Daventry.""You, Gwydion, are the only one who can save them. But, you must hurry!!!
,
QuoteOld gnome (KQ3):"It's about time you got here, lad... I mean, Prince Alexander. Welcome home! Heaven knows, we need you. Daventry's been suffering for years now, since that despicable dragon came. That monster demanded the sacrifice of your poor sister, Princess Rosella, and I'm afraid time is running out.""Your parents, the King and Queen,  are suffering such grief they have locked themselves in yon castle and refuse to see anyone. It's up to you, Alexander. Your country and family need you. It's written in the wind."

QuoteRosella (KQ3): "Mum and Dad were heart-broken when you disappeared as a baby," she explains. "Dad searched EVERYWHERE for you. Obviously he never found you. Hard times hit Daventry right after you were kidnapped. Dad and Mum tried, but it was like they had lost their will. We were down on our guard, and the terrible dragon came. We all thought it was the end. I was scared, you know. But, I DID want to be brave. I was hoping my sacrifce might somehow help. Maybe, it did. Because of me, YOU came. Now we're together again, and together we can put Daventry right!""The dragon did all that. He burnt our countryside, and we were all terrified to even come out of our houses. You don't remember, but it used to be beautiful.", "Alexander, I wish you could have seen it in better days. It wasn't always like this, you know
Then when you return the castle;
QuoteNarrator: The heavy feeling of oppression is gone; hope has at last returned to Daventry;

There are a couple more quotes that discuss the dragon from the various animals IIRC, as well as more narration discussiong the royal family's depression. But those are only mentioned if you do certain actions in the game. The oracle mentions that time was running out for the parents as well (which also suggests their hopelessness).

Its interesting to note according to the way KQ3 describes, things and one of Roberta's own account's (see KQ5 hintbook), that Dragon actually attacked Daventry, about the same year Alexander was kidnapped. So Graham actually sacrificed something like a total of 16-18 maidens (in Roberta's own version of the story)... Yikes.

QuoteA year after the wedding of King Graham and Queen Valanice, twins were born to the happy couple; a dark-haired boy, and a golden-haired girl. The boy was named Alexander, and the girl, Rosella. One morning about six months later, Queen Valanice looked into the nursery and found it unattended with Alexander's crib empty and Rosella crying uncontrollably. The castle was scoured high and low, and every inch of Daventry was searched, but there never was any sign of the little boy. The entire kingdom sank into a deep depression that never lifted, and as a direct result, was unable to defend itself when a terrible dragon moved into the area and caused mass destruction. Through it all, the big question remained like a brick upon the breast of Daventry: what HAD happened to little Prince Alexander? Eighteen years later finds an unhappy lad by the name of Gwydion...-Roberta Williams-The World of King's Quest: A Brief History of Daventry, Sierra's KQ5 Hintbook.

One other thing I found interesting was in KQ5 manuals (nes and pc) versions its explained that the dragon was apparently driving out and eating villagers that entire time... So really all sacrifices apparently protected was the castle itself... Ouch. The dragon was still laying waste to the land around (explaining the shape it was in in KQ3).

Then there is the KQ4 manual that claims the dragon abducted Rosella :p... It also talks about the dragon eating humans, while Manannan watched, as it ravaged Daventry. They couldn't even consult the magic how to defeat the dragon, mirror because it had mysteriously went dark about that time (in KQ3 it says it went dark on the night he disappeared from his cradle).

QuoteTime has wrought many changes, and with it much sorrow. The kingdom of Daventry was ravaged by the deplorable dragon, and the young Princess Rosella was abducted. The entire kingdom was overcome by the brutal onslaught of the beast, and though forewarned, found themselves helpless to defend against its supernatural strength. Much weeping and wailing was heard throughout the land. Even with its power of prophecy, the Magic Mirror could provide no answers, not even a clue, for some bearer of black magic had cast a cloud of darkness upon its face...

QuoteGraham (KQ3):"That was once a magic mirror, son,""But, on the night you disappeared from your cradle, it clouded up; and has remained that way ever since."

More evidence that Roberta apparently viewed as the dragon attacking Daventry, and the dragon's attack as coinciding about the same time...

There are a couple of other account variations made by Roberta, a short story/synopsies she wrote in Interaction Magazine that might add extra information about how she viewed things.

There is also descriptions in the About Screen in KQ5 and KQ6, but i'm not sure how much those actually added or reinterpreted the events.

But ya, the game/manual/Roberta only stuff really changes the context, if you think about it :p (its not the so happy world found in the novels, and possibly the Companion). Although even the companion took the route that Graham is haunted by guilt, :p...
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: MusicallyInspired on December 06, 2010, 09:41:36 PM
Heh. I started this thread.  :D
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: wilco64256 on December 08, 2010, 10:47:37 AM
That post is so big it got its own scroll bars.  Cool.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 08, 2010, 11:12:13 AM
Ya, i'm not sure what broke the formatting on it... probably something in the quotes boxes?

Edit: it was apparently the highlighted part that said;

QuoteDaventry's been suffering for years now, since that despicable dragon came. That monster demanded the sacrifice of your poor sister, Princess Rosella, and I'm afraid time is running out."
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Sir Perceval of Daventry on December 09, 2010, 01:29:46 AM
Maybe the mirror clouding wasn't the work of some wizard, but fate; What I mean is--
The Mirror can foretell the future. Maybe Alexander's kidnapping was an unexpected twist of fate, and for the Daventry, with their son (and presumably, thus their heir) missing, the future of Daventry was clouded; unclear.
Perhaps the Fates and whoever controls them were bickering....
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Lambonius on December 09, 2010, 06:45:59 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on December 09, 2010, 01:29:46 AM
Maybe the mirror clouding wasn't the work of some wizard, but fate; What I mean is--
The Mirror can foretell the future. Maybe Alexander's kidnapping was an unexpected twist of fate, and for the Daventry, with their son (and presumably, thus their heir) missing, the future of Daventry was clouded; unclear.
Perhaps the Fates and whoever controls them were bickering....

Actually, I'm pretty sure this was exactly how they intended the clouded mirror to be interpreted.  :)  Clouded mirror = clouded future.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 10, 2010, 01:08:10 AM
I was gonna say that was exactly the interpretation that I'm using in my fan fiction! Hurrah!
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 10, 2010, 03:35:34 PM
Not particularly the interpretation they took in KQ4, but whatever :).
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: crayauchtin on December 10, 2010, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Baggins on December 10, 2010, 03:35:34 PM
Not particularly the interpretation they took in KQ4, but whatever :).
Did they explain the "why" of it in KQ4? I don't recall that but I'd be interested to hear.
Title: Re: MOE in TSL
Post by: Baggins on December 10, 2010, 05:24:45 PM
Well, its implied that Manannan cast the spell, to prevent anyone following after him and finding where he took Alexander (it doesn't actually specifically mention Alexander, just that he kidnapped a child), but also to prevent anyone from finding out how to defeat the dragon. Meanwhile the entire 18 years, he was having fun watching from his home, the Dragon terrorize other countries, including Daventry (which could imply that he was behind the dragon).