POStudios Forum

Quote from: Baggins on July 22, 2010, 03:50:50 AM
Its starting to sound like you hate KQV about as much as most people hate MOE, LOL.

Not at all! It's my third least favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2 -- although I don't hate any of them!) It's just that -- and this is my problem with KQ2 as you may noticed -- from a storytelling point of view it's downright shoddy. You don't have someone treated as a main character who is only there for fluff! I enjoy the fluff, I really do. I enjoy being immersed in the world. But you can't have a main character who isn't important and that's exactly what they did with Cedric.

This topic has been split off since it was derailing.

Additionally, try not to get TOO heated up over this debate guys. :)

Well, your right, its not something to be heated over... But erm he unfortunately has some misconceptions about the original AGI KQ1 vs. KQ2 :P...

http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=8944.msg287157#new
Concerning KQ1
1. in the original and even to some extent the remake witch is not directly connected to Dahlia in game. Infact Dahlia was an addition that originated from a later manual (not the original manual), and is not mentioned in the game at all. Some versions of the game do not even come with any of the manual stories. Instead the witch is "a witch", and all dialogue treats her that way (this "witch" has no backstory in game).

2. The storyline that the treasures were stolen from Edward only appears in the second version of the manual. It was not part of the original manual, nor is it part of the story inside the original version of the game.

3. You are sent into the game in the original version, looking for the treasures without any clue where they might be. Its a random treasure hunt. Edward's missive holds no clues. You can get any treasure in any order... there is no structure to collecting them.

3. There are no screen descriptions in KQ1, and thus there is little fluff or explanation for the various screens in the game. The game gives you a generic, "you need to be more specific."

Concerning KQ2
5. He was unfortnately unawhare of the fact that KQ2 actually does have an introduction cutcene (the first game in the series to do so), and it also has a firm reason for finding the doors, and thus discovering that he needs to search for the keys. The cutscene is seven or eight paragraphs long of narration, and is fully animated. Graham is shown sitting in his thrown wearing his crown he gets up looks at the mirror, we are shown several images in the mirror, and he goes back to the throne to exchange his crown for the Adventurer's cap, and then heads out of the castle on his journey.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100722224561/kingsquest/images/c/cb/ValanicemagicmirrorKQ2.png)

6. The game introduction from the get go tells you Graham's quest is to find the doors in the introduction. Said doors then give you clues to where the keys are hidden from inscriptions on the doors. Thus the game actually has a structured linear objective, whose purpose is to open the doors and reach the enchanted realm, so he can reach Valanice (also stated in the introduction).

7. It was the first game of the series to have global descriptions on every screen, as in "Look Screen", or "Look Room", or even just "look" will offer a description of the entire screen.

8. Like the witch of KQ1, Hagatha has no backstory mentioned in the game (other than she is a cannibal, like the previous "witch"). She has a name ingame unlike the previous "witch". Although in general the descriptions for hagatha are a great more detailed than any of the descriptions for the "witch". Showing an advancement in the dialogue system in the AGI engine.

So yes in many ways, KQ2 had evolved from the more primitive nature of the original version of the KQ1. Added things that the original game lacked, and improving on the diaologue. In its day, the developers pushed the limits of the engine in KQ2, pushing it beyond the technical aspects of the previous game, and making it do things they hadn't done with it previously.

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

I never played MoE...but nothing I've read about it was good. Even the most flattering description said "It's a perfectly great game...but don't call it a King's Quest." and you know something's not quite right when it's treated like Leisure Suit Larry 4 (namely, it does not seem to exist).

The original King's Quest 2, though? Definitely weak. Non sequitur puzzles (who the hell thinks of throwing a bridle on a snake?!) , too many loose ends (like why Granny had the ring and cloak, absolutely nothing done about Hagatha), and Valanice going "But I'm afraid to take the stairs!" (Graham, about your taste in women...).

OK, it's not canon...but AGD did us all a big favor by writing something that made sense! You'll pardon me for thinking that the "official" game is the report Graham sent home to Gervain...and the AGD is the "unofficial" story.

KQ3 - now this is more like it, though you did not know why it had the KQ title until the Oracle of Llewdor dropped ye olde bombshell. Sense of humor, still a fair amount of danger, good use of fairy tale tropes, a lot of fetch and gather for an ulterior purpose. I can get behind this. My biggest beef with the game is the copious amount of waiting you have to do. Seriously - there are parts where I can leave the game running, go get a beer, finish the beer, and still have to wait for the plot to advance.

KQ4 - The series definitely found itself here. Four and Six are probably my favorite official installments, actually. Still some of the non sequitur and "Guide Dang It" issues that the previous games had, but the storytelling was more cohesive, the time limit added some urgency, and it worked.  

KQ5 - it added some elements that were definitely needed, but there were a lot of pointless ways to die here and some annoying Guide Dang Its (why should we have believed that stinky cheese powers a wand machine?). Making up for that was some interesting characters, like Mordak and Cassima. I also thought the shapeshifting duel in the end was great. Graham is no sorcerer - that's Alex's department - but he still holds his own in a cool fashion.  (As I recall yet another plot bunny...)

KQ6 - it all came together here. Crowning moment of awesome. Sierra pulled out everything - top notch voice talent, an elegantly done story, great music, streamlined cursor interface, logical puzzles, and solid graphics. The Award Bait Song was the only dissonant note. (Holy ****! Did Alex just make Death cry?! AWESOME!")

KQ7 - Unfortunately, the engine and art style that worked so well in Space Quest 6 just didn't work as well here. It had that "dumb it down and dye it pink" feel that 80's girls cartoons had.  Though it was worthy for the fact that Valanice finally got to step up to the plate, we get to see what was the deal with Edgar. And three cheers for Rosella - out of her entire family, she seems to be the one who wants to get to know her future spouse as a person first. (I've joked that Alexander takes after his mom and Rosella takes after her dad...)

Quotenever played MoE...but nothing I've read about it was good. Even the most flattering description said "It's a perfectly great game...but don't call it a King's Quest." and you know something's not quite right when it's treated like Leisure Suit Larry 4 (namely, it does not seem to exist).

Nearly every game has its critics, and nearly every game of the series has had someone say "its not a King's Quest game". Actually MOE had mixed reviews ranging from those that loved it to those that hated it. Anywhere from 40% to 90% ratings, most were over 70%. Each game in the series sold more than the previous one, MOE was no different. So it actually did very well.

I recommend reading this for many quotes from Roberta on why she made certain decisions for the game. I suggest also listening to the talkspot interviews in the article for more details about creation of all the games in the series, as well as critiques she has had throughout the series.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Mask_of_Eternity_Development

BTW, the only reason why Mask of Eternity is not for sale anymore is because it doesn't work on modern computers, they only released the KQ1-7 pack because it uses dosbox for most of the games... and didn't require VU Games, and later Vivendi to have to patch them for modern machines... Unfortunately they also didn't realize that the version of KQ7 they tossed in doesn't work on modern 64 bit windows either (which came later).

Believe me if someone made a patch to get MOE working again on Vista and Windows 7, they would probably be putting the game up on GOG, or Steam or any of the other online services in order to make a buck if they could. Like they have done with the half-assed 1-7 collection that uses nearly broken version of dosbox...

KQ7 was actually lambasted for its animation style, having two players, and its overly linear chapter based gameplay. Actually btw, KQ7 preceded SQ6...

Here is a quote from Roberta Williams and Mark Seibert about VII:

QuoteKQ7 was considered one of the controversial King's Quest games, as the animation made alot of people think the game was alot more kiddy-like than the King's Quest Games had been. It was criticized for choppy graphics (although this was probably a limitation of some of the systems that the game was played on), and having inconsistent graphics (due to the fact that different animation houses did the the animation).-Talkspot interview

As you are aware, "King's Quest VII" received some negative reviews. Do you pay attention to those reviews or do you take them lightly?

I never take any reviews or opinions of game players lightly. If I did, I would have been gone long ago! I pay very close attention to these opinions. As far as "King's Quest VII" receiving "negative reviews" - I really don't know what you are referring to. Perhaps some people didn't like it as well as others, but overall it has done very well. Some people actually think it was the best. True, it got some negative reviews, but it also received many very positive reviews. Some "veteran" game players perhaps didn't like it quite as well as many of the older-style adventure games, but many of the "newer" game players loved it. Therefore, if you're me, who do you listen to? How do you interpret the opinions? With "King's Quest VII," I've seen everything from horrible reviews to the most glowing reviews I've ever received. I've heard from many who didn't like it at all to those who felt it was the best game they've ever played. Also, it sold very well, and is still selling! When it comes to interpreting reviews and/or opinions, it's a very delicate business, and even though I do pay attention to these things, I try to remain objective and never let the "bad news" get me down, or the "good news" get me too self-assured.

Once it's all said and done, however, and it comes to the next game, even though I always keep in mind everybody's opinions, it ultimately comes down to my opinion...and what I find enjoyable. I must enjoy the game. I'm working on and to ultimately trust my own judgment.

As for the rest, KQ2, was actually pretty soundly praised back in the day, it pushed KQ1 beyond what KQ1AGI actually did.

Beyond that, KQ3 was controversial for having Gwydion. Roberta received letters from fans who hadn't beaten the game who complained that "it wasn't a king's quest game". She also got critics of the magic spells and mapping system in the game, because it eliminated most of the puzzles in the game, basically the manual spelt out nearly everything that the player had to do.

Some complained about KQ4, because you played a girl...and again you didn't play a "king" :p But overall it received great reviews.

KQ5, has had its critics for a variety of things... Including it destroyed the parser, and thus destroyed what "true emersive KQ" game really was, or made things "too easy". Others criticized Cedric for various reasons. Others complained about the huge number of dead ends.

KQ6 was probably the only one that received few criticism...

But you have to understand that they are all products of their times, you have to look at each one individually, based on the fact that when they came out they were top of the line, and were pushing the boundaries of the technology, and storytelling methods those games could do (sometimes beyond what a person's computer could handle). Yes many of the earliest ones are weak by today's standards, but when they were first released, they were phenomenal, and people were astonished.

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

Quote from: Allronix on July 22, 2010, 03:12:33 PMKQ3 . . . My biggest beef with the game is the copious amount of waiting you have to do. Seriously - there are parts where I can leave the game running, go get a beer, finish the beer, and still have to wait for the plot to advance.

I've actually gotten it down close to a science; I've gotten familiar enough with the game that I can take care of Manannan the first time he returns. I was pretty proud of that achievement for a few seconds. Then I realized that there were probably a hundred others who have done the same thing. :P But it eliminates most of the waiting; usually I'm only sitting around for around 10 minutes or so (total of before and after he leaves). Then again, I suppose this also all depends on how fast you drink your beer. ;)

Manny isn't the issue. The pirate ship is the biggest offender. Snatch shovel, snatch your stuff and...wait...and wait...

Here is an interesting fact from the annal's of King's Quest trivia on why they never bothered to make KQ2 and KQ3 remakes;

The 1990 project to revamp the original King's Quest was widely viewed as a critical failure because many reviewers and gamers took offense at what they perceived as an attempt to "destroy the classics." In fact, the project was compared to the controversial practice of "colorizing" classic black-and-white movies. Valid or not, these reactions essentially stopped work on future attempts to modernize later King's Quest installments-KQ Collection II manual.

Hmm, ya pegasus and the bridle... I wonder what obscure reference that is... Roberta was pretty well read, and I'm guessing she got it from somewhere.

I know the bridle itself was original Athena's wasn't it? Is it a loose reference to the idea of Pegasus being born of the neck of Medusa, she of the viperous hair? Plus the fact that every single item from the genie relates to the second door quest and/or that viper in some way?

Quote from: Baggins on July 22, 2010, 05:28:42 PMThe 1990 project to revamp the original King's Quest was widely viewed as a critical failure because many reviewers and gamers took offense at what they perceived as an attempt to "destroy the classics." In fact, the project was compared to the controversial practice of "colorizing" classic black-and-white movies. Valid or not, these reactions essentially stopped work on future attempts to modernize later King's Quest installments-KQ Collection II manual.

My guess is that the same people who complained about that are the same ones who complained about playing a slave in KQ3 and a girl in KQ4. I don't know what they're talking about; the SCI version is great.

The SCI version was ahead of its time. Now, no one blinks at these kind of updates. In fact, they bring great cheers because gamers are old enough to get a nostalgia filter...but welcome a smoother interface.

I'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time. The way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too. Even the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

QuoteMy guess is that the same people who complained about that are the same ones who complained about playing a slave in KQ3 and a girl in KQ4. I don't know what they're talking about; the SCI version is great.

How do you figure?

As far as I know there were only a few people who complained about KQ4 (infact Roberta has said that it mostly had received high praise, there was actually "very little controversy"), in fact it received a couple of industry awards at the time.

...and as far as  I know not many people complained about KQ3, though apparently far more than KQ4 ever received (enough to be considered one of the more controversial games in the series), and quickly changed there minds later on.

Whereas the majority of people, including most reviewers compained about KQ1 remake when it came out, this was back 1990, less than a decade after KQ1 so the original was fresh on their minds, and still much loved.......

You know if it was the same about of people complaining about KQ3 and KQ4, there might not have been any more games past 3... Because if critics had overly panned the series, it wouldn't have sold as Sierra had intended... So largely in comparison the fans out numbered the critics in those cases.

KQ1 SCI apparently didn't sell like they intended... So they actually lost money on it... Do you think they would have risked making more, and possibly losing again? No.... Its the fans that stopped that practice from continuing, so Sierra only persued making later games in the series, since those were actually getting increased sales...

QuoteI'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time. The way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too. Even the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

I think the space quest remake sold a bit better than the KQ remake, and was slightly better welcomed by society back in the day but not by much (ialthough t still sold terribly).

Its interesting to note that if you look at some of the Official Guides/the official Companions released back then the authors usually sided on the remake of Space Quest being the 'canon' if you will, rather than the original. Peter Spear sided with the remake for Space Quest Companion, but sided with KQ1 original as the canon for the KQ companion (this was partly having to do with KQ1 companion had already been released before there was a KQ remake, and he had no intent to rewrite, and instead called the remake, just a video game by Roberta and not the real story he was sent previously).

Most authors sided with the original Police Quest as the true story rather than the remake. Granted the remake contradicts several aspects of PQ2 and PQ3 in the series, including the fact that it is is set chronologically after PQ3...

I don't think the LSL remake did well either...

I think the only series where remakes were actually viable and did well was Mixed-Up Mother Goose, which was remade like 4 times... going from AGI, to EGA, to VGA and Super VGA.

Quote from: Allronix on July 23, 2010, 02:31:53 AMThe SCI version was ahead of its time. Now, no one blinks at these kind of updates. In fact, they bring great cheers because gamers are old enough to get a nostalgia filter...but welcome a smoother interface.

Granted, as proved by the sales figures.
I know that I would not have played King's Quest if not for the SCI version; I was young enough that the mouse control and the fact that I could more easily recognize objects made it more accessible to me, whereas King's Quest 2 was confusing (to me at the time).

Quote from: Allronix on July 23, 2010, 02:31:53 AMI'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time.

Really? They got sued for that? Dang.

Quote from: Allronix on July 23, 2010, 02:31:53 AMThe way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too.

I never played the original AGI version, only the VGA remake. I went through it many, many times over the course of the years...and never realized until the most recent play (a year or so ago) that you could fix the slot machine. :P Words cannot describe how incredibly dumb I felt at that moment.

Quote from: Allronix on July 23, 2010, 02:31:53 AMEven the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

I LOVE the "How He Blew It Cam"! I mentioned in another thread here how I always kill myself in the cave just so I can see that! :D

Quote from: Baggins on July 23, 2010, 02:47:37 AMHow do you figure?

Sorry...I didn't mean the actual numbers, but more like the type of people; the ones who are likely to lodge a complaint about "destroying a classic" when it was really doing the classic a favor (imo). That sort of thing.

Quote from: Baggins on July 23, 2010, 02:47:37 AMI think the only series where remakes were actually viable and did well was Mixed-Up Mother Goose, which was remade like 4 times... going from AGI, to EGA, to VGA and Super VGA.

Perhaps because it's a game for young children that's taken less seriously by the adults.

Well I doubt it was people with the same mentality, unless the critics who loved KQ3 and KQ4 somehow changed into the mentality of the few fans who complained about the previous game, LOL...

It might have worked out better, if Sierra had maybe waited another 5 or so years to make it, then the remake probably would have been appreciated more. It was just too soon after the original's release... The original was too fresh on people's minds, and/or they already bought the previous version. Sierra offered an upgrade deal to the owners of the original (send in your first disk or manual cover as I recall) , but people opted out on it or Sierra lost money on the upgrade... (if they had many people taking up the offer). I really don't know how that went about exactly.

I can think of other remakes where critics got annoyed though. As I recall the Final Fantasy 1 remake, people loved it but it was something like 15 years after the original's release. But then Squenix basically tried to milk it release by "remaking it" every other year... The critics started complaining, saying if you already had one of the earlier remakes, there was no reason to buy the "newest" version, even if they added some extras, or increased visuals.

Okay, Baggins, you are correct that I didn't read the original manual (because I had read it a long time ago and I thought I remembered all the differences... but I apparently, I didn't!) Still, the fact that the witch has the note that gets you to Cloudland (if you understand it) could be considered a sign that she's somehow connected to it. But, yeah, you're right, fairly shoddy storytelling -- but they weren't trying to set much up either
.
As for the riddles in KQ2.... I don't remember them word for word but I certainly don't recall ever thinking "Oh, well that explains it!" Why is there a door? Why are there THREE doors? Nothing.
So, the storytelling is kind of on par with the AGI KQ1... except here they really WERE trying to set things up. They handed you a villain, they handed you a victim, they handed you a hero, they even handed you the objective of rescuing Valanice -- and then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it. What would have been more effective storytelling is if they'd put in a little bit less content in favor of more, well, story.

By the by, the bridle thing is a reference to Bellepheron (or however you spell it) in Greek mythology. He was the second man to ride Pegasus, and he did so him by putting a golden bridle on him. Together they slew chimaera. There's several different versions after that, all of which end with Bellepheron getting cocky and then getting thrown off Pegasus. :P Of course, you would never know about that without knowing some very obscure mythology... and when I was first playing KQ2, I didn't know it yet. Years later, when I was doing a paper on Greek myths (vengeful gods -- in some versions, Bellepheron is trying to ride Pegasus up to the top of Olympus, Zeus turns into a horsefly, stings Pegasus, who bucks and Bellepheron falls to his death, good times!), I came across it and went "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh I get it!" :P

You know what stopped me from getting into SQ? Those FREAKING SLOT MACHINES. Which I am only just know hearing that you can fix. Why was that not in any walkthroughs I looked at?? I could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Anyways, I would guess that the reason that official remakes tend to become the canon, is because (as we just pointed out elsewhere) the storytelling is better. First of all, you have better technology with which to tell a story. Secondly, you also have begun a series so you sort of know where you're headed better. It's often easiest to write a story backwards.

PS Allronix, you are quickly becoming one of my new favorite forumites! :D

Quote from: crayauchtin on July 23, 2010, 10:55:01 AMI could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Well, at least the Space Quest Collection has been released so you can enjoy it now. :)

QuoteStill, the fact that the witch has the note that gets you to Cloudland (if you understand it) could be considered a sign that she's somehow connected to it. But, yeah, you're right, fairly shoddy storytelling -- but they weren't trying to set much up either

Extremely distant connection if any... I mean, its just a note hinting at the name of Rumplestiltskin. While yes, the gnome is the means to reaching the top of the mountains, there doesn't seem to be any direct connection between witch and rumplestilkin. Our friend the gnome is actually a good guy, who wants to help Graham on his quest, and the witch just an obstacle that wanted to kill Graham, there is no direct sense why she would have that note... (I'll admit it might be the loose inspiration for why later manual connected her to the treasure chest, but its obviously extremely obtuse). There is literally no reason in the game explaining why she would have a note, nor why she would have such a note. If someone was playing the original KQ1 with the original manual, they would have no clue whatsoever... LOL. Nor does the note say anything directly to do with Cloudland, infact all it is a vague clue, about Rumpy's name, "Sometimes its best to think backwards". I mean really what does that have to do with cloudland directly?

I mean the witch also has the cheese needed to get past the rat in Leprichaun land, does that mean she's connected to the shield as well?

No really the only thing you can say about the treasures in the original version was one was connected to the dragon, one was connected to the leprichauns, and one was connected to the giant. There was no "stolen treasures of daventry" plot line... Just legendary treasures thought to be hidden somewhere in daventry... :p

Quotefor the riddles in KQ2.... I don't remember them word for word but I certainly don't recall ever thinking "Oh, well that explains it!" Why is there a door? Why are there THREE doors? Nothing.

The doors are mentioned in the introduction movie. No there isn't really anything in the game that explains them in great detail. Just that they are a magical door that leads to enchanted world (the mirror tells him about them, and where to find them). Nothing that gives them a background story as such. The riddles just explain where the keys are being held (so you are at least given clues where to find the keys). There is of course brief descriptions about the doors in the global screen descriptions, describing their function IIRC (but nothing as such giving them a huge historical background). Actually the description for the magical doorway ingame is basically the "door that will lead to your heart's desire".

As far as I know only Companion attempted to give them sorta of background... Basically that it was a magical doorway built to allow eastern Kolyma to travel to western Kolyma, and vice versa, but can also be used to access other parts of the world based on individuals desire (I'm going by memory here, so I might be off a bit). Guess that means there might be another doorway on the other side of those eastern mountains... But its not entirely clear. I have at least part of those facts on the Kolyma page if you want to check them out. There might have been more in 2nd Edition Companion from the An Encyclopedia, but I don't think I ever added the information into the omnipedia.

In anycase I think the doors are a nod back to several fantasy ideas such as the Wardrobe in Lion, Witch and the Wadrobe, or the Door in the last book of the Narnia series. Not always explained in great detail, and intended to be mysterious.

QuoteSo, the storytelling is kind of on par with the AGI KQ1... except here they really WERE trying to set things up. They handed you a villain, they handed you a victim, they handed you a hero, they even handed you the objective of rescuing Valanice -- and then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it. What would have been more effective storytelling is if they'd put in a little bit less content in favor of more, well, story.

Well as I said, Hagatha isn't even mentioned in the intro, I'm not sure if its ever mentioned in the game if she was the "captor of Valanice", or any variation. I think I put up most of the quotes from the game about her up on the omnipedia. I'll try to go through sometime again and try othe combinations to see if "Valanice" pops up in the dialogue. But I somehow doubt it the game has a rather strange thing that it doesn't recognize female names directly, any female name will work for any female character.

So while she is slightly more well thought out than "a witch" from KQ1, she's still rather simple in the game (she at least has a name). Her background is mainly limited to the manual. Ingame quotes are more or less about her appearance and nasty habits... Oh and of course the Antique Dealer also sends you on a quest to Hagatha's cave, and talks about how the witch stole her nightengale (I don't think any other character ever referred to the witch in KQ1).

I'd stilll argue that the story is a bit more advanced than the original KQ1 (which actually doesn't have much story at all), yes its still less than KQ3. Did you check out  the KQ2 development link I put up? It talks a bit more about that. Each game's story essentially evolved from the last, as Roberta had more technology to worth with.

But ya beyond that, as I was saying for its time KQ2 was more sophisticated at storytelling than KQ1 was, it tried for a linear plot, with a beginning a middle and an end. Unfortunately like Roberta said in one of her quotes, although they attempted to have story come first, they were limited by their technology, memory limits and the size of disks. KQ2 was her attempt to do a "larger story than KQ1" within those limitations.

Quoteand then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it

Do you know you can almost say that about quite a few secondary characters in every game of the series? The three bears aren't really explained, the pirates aren't really explained, the gnome definitely is not really explained... (KQ3), KQ4 there is alot of mysteriousness about the desert temple, that is not explained, very little is known about the witch in that game, again very little known about the gnome (oh yes the witch stole his spinning wheel, that's helpful backgorund :p), Icebella has little background, Ancient Mariner is not explained... (KQ5), KQ6 (alot of stuff is explained in the manual, but not in the game), but overall I suppose most characters have backgrounds. In KQ7, its mixed (some characters are explained, others not necessarily, or weakly explained). KQ 8, uh well the wizard isn't really explained, nor are the weirdlings, and quite a few of the Hillmen are pointless, as are most of the miner gnomes, IIRC (but I suppose most characters have some background of sorts)... :p...

Back to KQ2 for a bit though, there are some clues to Dracula. He and Grandma apparently once had a thing together. But its rather mysterious... I think there are some clues that are mentioned when looking/talking/interacting with the Ghoul Ferryman, same with the spooks on the island (concerning the fact that he is there master, and they are his guards). There are details on the island or within the castle, if you look at certain things, or interact with certain things. Oh there are some details given by the monk, and looking at certain things in or around the monastery that nod towards Dracula as well. Actually if you think about how much he's worked into several other characters and major key events (Grandma, Monk, Ghoul Ferryman, ghosts, even Pegasus/Suger Cube comments), he's actually way more advanced storywise than "a witch" was in the original game, although still about Hagatha level on the villain use scale in the game (although he probably has more use in the game that Hagatha technically since you can actually kill him). Hmm, he probably has more connection to more characters in game than hagatha as well (both directly and indirectly)... As mentioned before Hagatha's interaction with other characters mentioned in game is more or less limited to the antique store owner.

Why he or any of the characters has the keys is not clearly explained. But at least his influence around Kolyma is actually mentioned or hinted at as mentioned above. Neptune on the other hand we are given the basic, "he's the ruler of the underwater empire" description on one or two screens. Has no connection to any other characters in the game (other than the mermaid, and the sea horse :p).

Pegasus is connected to the enchanter that runs around. But that's about all you really know about that enchanter, that he likes turning your character into a frog. However, its not even clear if the enchanter is connected to the key in the cave or not. All we know is the enchanter cursed the winged horse, because it wouldn't let him ride him. Which doesn't specify if he also put him there to act as a guardian or not... Although it could be possible...

As you may know the the little thieving dwarf is used a bit more than he was in the previous game too (if they are the same character), and has a slightly bigger background, but not by much. You can visit his house, raid his treasure chest, and steal his soup (or he stole the soup, its unclear). Perhaps thief is closer to the role of "the witch" in KQ1, but but certainly nowhere to the level of all the connection and influence of Dracula on various characters in the game.

QuoteBy the by, the bridle thing is a reference to Bellepheron (or however you spell it) in Greek mythology.

As I understand it the Bridle was given to Bellerpheron by Athena, or she put it on Pegasus to tame it so Bellerpheron could ride Pegasus. There are different variations so I don't know which you have read.

Its a an interesting bit of Trivia that the "winged horse" isn't actually referred to Pegasus in the game, and the game doesn't understand "Pegasus" as a word in the parser (so it gives you one of those "I don't understand this word errors). I mean its rather obvious its Pegasus, but the game doesn't directly treat it is such, lol.

QuoteYou know what stopped me from getting into SQ? Those FREAKING SLOT MACHINES. Which I am only just know hearing that you can fix. Why was that not in any walkthroughs I looked at?? I could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Ya, you can only cheat in the remake. You get points for doing so, IIRC.

QuoteAnyways, I would guess that the reason that official remakes tend to become the canon, is because (as we just pointed out elsewhere) the storytelling is better. First of all, you have better technology with which to tell a story. Secondly, you also have begun a series so you sort of know where you're headed better. It's often easiest to write a story backwards.

Well I wouldn't say the remakes tend to become canon, as far as I know it only occured for space quest really :p...

KQ is one of those "who knows" issues, the companion took the original game route, and the KQ novels nod back to the remake... Obviously the original is also canon, as Roger travels there in SQ4 (the Companion also nods at this fact, and points out that its an effect of time travel).

The Official Book of Police Quest more or less followed the original trilogy route, I.E. original Police Quest, for obvious reasons... The remake doesn't fit with PQ2 and PQ3, its essentially nearly a complete retelling. Also from a story telling standpoint PQ1 actually was a later version AGI game, post KQ3, so already had the advantage of multiple story telling improvements in the engine. So it actually stands up fairly well by today's stands, if not graphically.

As for LSL, I have no idea what route they took... Probably doesn't matter much either, the remake doesn't really have a timeline as far as I know, and really doesn't change the story... For that matter LSL was more less a remake of Softporn Adventure, and didn't really change from that story much.

We at least know that QFGV seems to use a combination of details from QFG1 original and QFG1 remake in the game. Sam's appearance is more to that of the original QFG1, but the whole Black Bird plot about Elsa bringing the Blackbird from Spielburg is a direct link back to the remake (basically telling you that was the real blackbird).

Quote from: Baggins on July 23, 2010, 01:15:28 PM
Extremely distant connection if any...

I didn't say it was *good*, I just said it was there. :P I think the idea (particularly once the witch had been connected to the chest) is that she had the note so that she could remember his name and get up there herself. Why she couldn't fly, I don't know. Maybe it's too high? :\
As for the cheese... you found it in a pantry cupboard. Doesn't actually take much explaining or thinking about. Obviously, it just means that she's on that same diet from The Devil Wears Prada. That's also why she uses you as decoration when she catches you, rather than eating you. Can't fault a villain for watching her girlish figure!

QuoteThe doors are mentioned in the introduction movie.

No, a magic door is mentioned in the intro movie.
KQ2 Intro (http://www.youtube.com/user/Yzzyxz#p/u/138/otNPF9UZp0w)

No there isn't really anything in the game that explains them in great detail. Just that they are a magical door that leads to enchanted world (the mirror tells him about them, and where to find them). Nothing that gives them a background story as such. The riddles just explain where the keys are being held (so you are at least given clues where to find the keys). There is of course brief descriptions about the doors in the global screen descriptions, describing their function IIRC (but nothing as such giving them a huge historical background). Actually the description for the magical doorway ingame is basically the "door that will lead to your heart's desire".

QuoteAs far as I know only Companion attempted to give them sorta of background... Basically that it was a magical doorway built to allow eastern Kolyma to travel to western Kolyma, and vice versa, but can also be used to access other parts of the world based on individuals desire (I'm going by memory here, so I might be off a bit). Guess that means there might be another doorway on the other side of those eastern mountains... But its not entirely clear. I have at least part of those facts on the Kolyma page if you want to check them out. There might have been more in 2nd Edition Companion from the An Encyclopedia, but I don't think I ever added the information into the omnipedia.

Right, but the Companion doesn't factor into the storytelling of the actual game.

QuoteIn anycase I think the doors are a nod back to several fantasy ideas such as the Wardrobe in Lion, Witch and the Wadrobe, or the Door in the last book of the Narnia series. Not always explained in great detail, and intended to be mysterious.

It is a pretty common trope but that certainly doesn't excuse them from just being there.

QuoteWell as I said, Hagatha isn't even mentioned in the intro, I'm not sure if its ever mentioned in the game if she was the "captor of Valanice", or any variation.

It's not in the game at all. It's like, in the game they wanted Dracula to be the baddie and in the manual they wanted Hagatha to be the baddie. Very attention deficit of them. Probably sticking to one main villain would have helped the game a *lot*.

QuoteI'd stilll argue that the story is a bit more advanced than the original KQ1

Well, they were trying to have a more advanced story but I feel like they jumped the gun on that since they didn't have the technology to support the game they were trying to make. And this is one reason why I find KQ2+ is better -- it has the technology behind it to pull off the story it was intended to tell.
In any good series, each one builds off of the one before it, as each KQ did. That doesn't mean that the stories need to get better or more complicated or bigger, it just means each one needs to have its roots somewhere prior in the series (excepting, of course, the first one in the series :P). That's one of the reasons we love King's Quest, it does that well.

QuoteBut ya beyond that, as I was saying for its time KQ2 was more sophisticated at storytelling than KQ1 was, it tried for a linear plot, with a beginning a middle and an end. Unfortunately like Roberta said in one of her quotes, although they attempted to have story come first, they were limited by their technology, memory limits and the size of disks. KQ2 was her attempt to do a "larger story than KQ1" within those limitations.

As I said, they jumped the gun and then they never remade it to do it properly. As such, it's one of the weaker installments of the series and that's why I personally prefer KQ2+.

QuoteDo you know you can almost say that about quite a few secondary characters in every game of the series?

Not absolutely everything needs incredible depth. It's mostly major things that go unexplained that bother me. The magic doors, the fact that there's three and the keys are scattered all across Kolyma... that's something that should have had some explanation at least in the manual's backstory. But for smaller things, some assumptions can be made. For instance, it's a fantasy world so I can accept that there are bear-people who live in Llewdor. I can accept a crypt with a mummy in it in Tamir (although its unusual architecture does bear at least some going over, if only because it's wear Pandora's Box is. Furthermore, why Pandora's Box is there could have been touched on at the very least.) The Gnome in KQ5 should have had a little more explained, particularly how the witch got his most valued possession and whether or not it's the same as the one in KQ1 (although that was a much bigger spinning wheel!) Icebella was okay (not good, but I could live with it) except for the whole... she's a powerful ruler with at least two very strong wolves working for her. The wolves couldn't take out the yeti, but a pie could? The Ancient Mariner was again, acceptable though not great. Hermits just don't pop up, there's a reason someone become a hermit. If they could explain it in QfG1 (family tradition :P) they can explain it in KQ5!
And to be honest, I haven't played MoE enough to know how many storytelling complaints I have about that one. :P

QuoteBack to KQ2 for a bit though, there are some clues to Dracula. He and Grandma apparently once had a thing together. But its rather mysterious...

I think the KQ2 story is MUCH closer to the original than you seem to think. Switching Dracula to being a good guy and the monk to being a villain is a *big* switch but if you look at it.... because they did that they were able to delve into the Grandma/Dracula (okay, Caldaur) relationship a bit more. They also went into more detail with the Enchanter and the Winged Steed. And, yes, even into the Antique Dealer and Hagatha (although I'm not a huuuuge fan of the antique dealer being evil myself, it's better than "my nightingale was randomly stolen by Hagatha!") And, they explore the fact that the dwarf looks the same, which is a nice touch I think.

QuoteWhy he or any of the characters has the keys is not clearly explained.

And that is my biggest gripe -- there's not even enough to guess why they have them. And even the Companion's explanation is a huge fail as far as that goes. If it's meant to get people through the mountains, it shouldn't be locked or there should specifically be someone who's job it is to keep the keys.

QuoteBut at least his influence around Kolyma is actually mentioned or hinted at as mentioned above. Neptune on the other hand we are given the basic, "he's the ruler of the underwater empire" description on one or two screens. Has no connection to any other characters in the game (other than the mermaid, and the sea horse :p).

Well, that makes sense. None of the other characters are under the ocean. The real question is: why was his trident on the beach!

QuoteAs I understand it the Bridle was given to Bellerpheron by Athena, or she put it on Pegasus to tame it so Bellerpheron could ride Pegasus. There are different variations so I don't know which you have read.

In some versions, it was her bridle on Pegasus so she could ride it, and Bellerpheron managed to grab a hold of the reins. That's my favorite version, since he spends much of the rest of the legends being similarly disruptive and jerkish to the gods. :P

QuoteWell I wouldn't say the remakes tend to become canon, as far as I know it only occured for space quest really :p...KQ is one of those "who knows" issues, the companion took the original game route, and the KQ novels nod back to the remake... Obviously the original is also canon, as Roger travels there in SQ4 (the Companion also nods at this fact, and points out that its an effect of time travel).

I would say, in general, the canon seems to be that the treasures are recovered after Edward lost them. That's the remake.

QuoteWe at least know that QFGV seems to use a combination of details from QFG1 original and QFG1 remake in the game. Sam's appearance is more to that of the original QFG1, but the whole Black Bird plot about Elsa bringing the Blackbird from Spielburg is a direct link back to the remake (basically telling you that was the real blackbird).

The blackbird is in both versions of QfG1, just different places in the screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9biXBt4brI
There's differences, but the biggest one is Sam's appearance. They definitely went with the original for QfG5, you're right!

Quotedidn't say it was *good*, I just said it was there.  I think the idea (particularly once the witch had been connected to the chest) is that she had the note so that she could remember his name and get up there herself. Why she couldn't fly, I don't know. Maybe it's too high? :\

Umm, the 1984 (4th release PC/Apple II) and/or 1987 (5th release AGI repackaging) version manuals which is the source of most of the Dahlia story says she flew up there doesn't it, to deposite the chest in the first place?

Hmm let me check;

Quotefrom the manual: The treasurer stood frozen to the spot. The Princess' bright laughter changed to a witch's cackle as her form grew old and withered. She grasped the Chest and mounted her broom to fly out the open window. The treasurer watched in dismay as she swooped up through the clouds and disappeared.

So yep she flew up into the clouds... Seriously that doesn't explain the note anymore than lack of explanation in the original version of the manual (1984 1st/2nd release).

Actually, as we know the Gnome only helps Graham because of his good heart, and because he's on a mission to save the country. Notice his comments when you first talk to him. You honestly think he would help the witch? Seriously, LOL. Basically we know yes she can fly into the clouds, no she doesn't need the gnome's help, nor would the gnome actually help her.

But no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...

Oh btw, the thief dwarf lives up in the Door into the Mountain and can attack you in the tunnel. As far as we know that could have connected him to the treasure chest in the original game, as one of the "guardians of the treasures" mentioned in the original manual (1984 1st/2nd release). He's probably a bit more closer to that treasure, probably more directly than some random confusing note... If you want to get nitpickity, how in the world would he be able to get past the locked door? He's found both sides of that door near the mountain and inside.

I also point back to that original manual, remember it talked about the "dangerous creatures" and the friendly creatures, the gnome is on the latter, and the witch is on the former, the two don't meet...

QuoteNo, a magic door is mentioned in the intro movie.

Umm, the the three doors are called the "magical door". Thats' its name, its not the "magical doors". Its literally one door with three inset doors. This is all described when you get to the door itself :p... It's the "door that leads to one's heart desire". and the game explaisn as you open one, that the next is behind it when you get to the door.

Again, I state the game's backstory of the door is that it's the "door that gives the heart's desire".

Its about as relevant as a "Chest of Gold" tha never empty, or a magical shield that stops any army, or a mirror that fortells the future. Its the "magical door that gives one's heart's desire"., and tells you it is "mysterious".

Except we are also told that its the door that is the only entrance which leads to the echanted realm., and when we get to the door, we are told that it requires three keys in order to open it.... and are sent through riddles to where the keys are located.

Beyond that there is a bit more about the door in the manual story, and in the "explore kolyma" section of the manual, IIRC.

Actually remember the Ancient Well in KQ1? The past isn't really spell out out to us, and the first KQ described it in more detail than the remake... Saying it was mysterious well of ancient times, shrouded in history and mystery. It only hints at its deep past. Most of that is stripped in the remake... It's still very old in the remake, but most of what made the well cool and mysterious is not mentioned. That's one example where KQ1 remake text sucks in comparison.

QuoteAs I said, they jumped the gun and then they never remade it to do it properly.

They jumped the gun? You know maybe if they didn't make the game, we wouldn't even have a king's quest series? Maybe they shouldn't have made the first game, perhaps it "jumped the gun"... because it tried to push things that they clearly didn't have technology for at the time...

I think your again making evaulation based on hindsight, and you know what htey say about hindsight right?

They couldn't predict the future :p....

You know if they didn't start somewhere, the genre would have never existed... And the genre worked its way up in baby steps, based on the technology they had, and each one was technically more advanced than the last, as more and more memory and video cards, and sound cards were introduced. When they made the game there wasn't even any clue those things would even exist....

In fact it was Roberta's pushing of the technology that was pushing the industry forward... She needed to make these games in order to actually get companies to develop better technology. It's said that KQ4 did more to get people to buy EGA cards and sound cards than the design of sound cards in the first place... That's why they scrapped the AGI version, since people were buying the advanced hardware just to play her games.

You are incredibly hard on the game, and seem to be ignorant of how important it was at the time it was made...  At the time she more or less received mostly praise for these games. I don't think there was really any negative reviews for either KQ1 and KQ2, because they were technologically far beyond anything any other company was doing at the time, and KQ2 pushed the technology further than the previous games. Forcing players to actually have to buy new hardware in most cases... As far as stories were told, hers were beyond anything other companies were capable of doing at the time on pcs...

Basically you can't have the cart before the horse...

Quotealthough that was a much bigger spinning wheel!)

Hmm, there wasn't even a spinning wheel in the original...
(http://www.sierraplanet.com/kingsquest1/kq1mikel.jpg)

Come to think of it hmm I think Peter Spear mentioned the spinning wheel in the KQ1 novelization, in the first edition of the Companion, before the Remake ever came out... Is this a case where one of the KQ game actually made a nod to the Companion? (of course not necessarily it could just be there to be an extra clue as to his name, to set things closer to the original fairy tale)

QuoteI would say, in general, the canon seems to be that the treasures are recovered after Edward lost them. That's the remake.

No, I was referring to the order of how the treasures were found, and also other details like the use of the ring, where the pebbles were found, the castle description, etc.... alligators in the moat, etc :p... They are not in allignment. Peter Spear's a bit of mix of the original version and 1st-4th  release  (1984-1987) version of the game, plus the story from the manuals from the 4th release (1984, title cover "King's Quest by Roberta Williams') anor/or 5th release (1987 AGI repackaging) manual  (that manual whenever it was published was, was the first appearance of the Edward's treasures being stolen, although it wasn't mentioned in the game at that time).

The Companions ignore the 1989 remake. The 1989 remake just included the 1987 manual into the package again. The KQ4 manual actually references the 1984 4th release manual, at least I think it was the 1984 one, might have been the 1987 :p (cover title, "King's Quest by Roberta Williams). All later games have been referencing that 1984/87 manual, rather than the remake itself directly (most of those details aren't even mentioned within the remake game itself).

Course you are probably awhare that KQ3 follows the original King's Quest canon, using the same castle and many of the same locations from KQ1 AGI (although the graphics have been modified to give them the appearance of ruin).

Interesting tidbit, the Sega KQ1, was made after the remake I think but was based on the original KQ1 as far as puzzles, but had a mix of the 1984 4th edition manual plot and KQ1 original game.

QuoteThe blackbird is in both versions of QfG1, just different places in the screen.

Um,in the original it was just an easter egg, there was no story for it. Read the design note I pout on the blackbird page... It was put in there by an artist, and a reference to "bogey" was made. The Coles liked it and decided to create a mythos around it. When the remake was made, they then added a reference in the remake that states that implies it was the real one, and not yet another "fake". so the reference in QFG5 is actually a reference to the remake not the original, its referencing the updated note in the remake.




Hmmm I was just thinking, ya, Sierra could have waited 5-10 more years (we're talking post KQ7 territory) to make KQ1 remake (it may or may not have sold better), but that would have put it into the period they sold the company, and new management actually didn't care about the games as much, and it was the beginning of the end for Sierra :p... It might not have been appreciated anymore than it was, and who knows Roberta might have completely changed it even further, she might have even pushed to have it in KQ7 style animation or even 3-d :p, added in action etc... Since she was more about pushing whatever technology she had at the time. ...or the new management wouldn't even allowed the remake... So basically it may not have even existed...

Not only that since most of the remakes failed financially, if probably wouldn't have been made after KQ1 and LSL remakes since those also failed finanacially :p... Sierra wouldn't have been willing to take the risk (we're talking classic Sierra here)...

Ya, it failed finanancially, but you should be happy that she succeeded in making it... Even if was hated by most fans at the time... It was made at probably the only time it could have been made in Sierra's history. Other factors probably would have prevented it from being made after that period.

Quote from: Baggins on July 24, 2010, 04:35:38 PM
So yep she flew up into the clouds... Seriously that doesn't explain the note anymore than lack of explanation in the original version of the manual (1984 1st/2nd release).

We don't actually know how high up cloudland is. It's possible to be able to go up in the clouds and maybe not be able to get to Cloudland.

QuoteBut no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...

Maybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (:P), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

QuoteIf you want to get nitpickity, how in the world would he be able to get past the locked door? He's found both sides of that door near the mountain and inside.

He's a thief. He can probably pick locks. Or maybe he has a key, since obviously keys exist. You, on the other hand, do not have a key (unless you mess up the gnome's name) or the ability to pick locks (or anything to pick locks with!)

QuoteI also point back to that original manual, remember it talked about the "dangerous creatures" and the friendly creatures, the gnome is on the latter, and the witch is on the former, the two don't meet...

Dangerous creatures and friendly creatures never meet?

QuoteAgain, I state the game's backstory of the door is that it's the "door that gives the heart's desire".

Its about as relevant as a "Chest of Gold" tha never empty, or a magical shield that stops any army, or a mirror that fortells the future. Its the "magical door that gives one's heart's desire"., and tells you it is "mysterious".

And that's not a backstory. When they remade KQ1 at least they gave the treasures a little bit more backstory. "Mysterious" is not a backstory for an important story element unless it's a mystery that can be solved.

QuoteExcept we are also told that its the door that is the only entrance which leads to the echanted realm., and when we get to the door, we are told that it requires three keys in order to open it.... and are sent through riddles to where the keys are located.

Leading us to ask: why is this the only door? Why is it here? Why are the keys scattered? These are kind of important details of the story that are utterly unexplored.

QuoteActually remember the Ancient Well in KQ1? The past isn't really spell out out to us, and the first KQ described it in more detail than the remake... Saying it was mysterious well of ancient times, shrouded in history and mystery. It only hints at its deep past. Most of that is stripped in the remake... It's still very old in the remake, but most of what made the well cool and mysterious is not mentioned. That's one example where KQ1 remake text sucks in comparison.

Calling something ancient is fine, but adding in that it's mysterious implies there's more story to tell about it. That's probably why, in the remake, they just made it old and not mysterious. A well is a well, and sometimes they are very old. It adds to the world by telling us that Daventry is a very old kingdom, but it's not unnecessary storytelling and doesn't imply there's more than there is.

QuoteThey jumped the gun? You know maybe if they didn't make the game, we wouldn't even have a king's quest series? Maybe they shouldn't have made the first game, perhaps it "jumped the gun"... because it tried to push things that they clearly didn't have technology for at the time...

Or they could have told it and made the story slightly simpler so that they could have fit in one game and not left these glaring questions and story problems? They began a relatively elaborate story knowing full well they wouldn't be able to tell it all with the technology they had to use. So, the solution, it seems to me, should have been to simplify and do it right.

QuoteYou are incredibly hard on the game, and seem to be ignorant of how important it was at the time it was made...  At the time she more or less received mostly praise for these games. I don't think there was really any negative reviews for either KQ1 and KQ2, because they were technologically far beyond anything any other company was doing at the time, and KQ2 pushed the technology further than the previous games. Forcing players to actually have to buy new hardware in most cases... As far as stories were told, hers were beyond anything other companies were capable of doing at the time on pcs...

I am not at all hard on the technology or the importance of the game, I am hard on the storytelling. It would have been fairly simple to still push the technology in the ways that they did and tell a simpler story. They were pushing it, yes, but they still knew what they were working on.

QuoteCome to think of it hmm I think Peter Spear mentioned the spinning wheel in the KQ1 novelization, in the first edition of the Companion, before the Remake ever came out... Is this a case where one of the KQ game actually made a nod to the Companion? (of course not necessarily it could just be there to be an extra clue as to his name, to set things closer to the original fairy tale)

Because you were working off of the Rumplestiltskin fairy tale, I think it's safe to assume that even in the original there is a spinning wheel. It's an added hint in the remake... although it's also quite possible that it's a nod to the companion.

QuoteNo, I was referring to the order of how the treasures were found, and also other details like the use of the ring, where the pebbles were found, the castle description, etc.... alligators in the moat, etc :p... They are not in allignment. Peter Spear's a bit of mix of the original version and 1st-4th  release  (1984-1987) version of the game, plus the story from the manuals from the 4th release (1984, title cover "King's Quest by Roberta Williams') anor/or 5th release (1987 AGI repackaging) manual  (that manual whenever it was published was, was the first appearance of the Edward's treasures being stolen, although it wasn't mentioned in the game at that time).

Those are mostly details though, not the major fact of whether or not the treasures were original Daventry's or not.

QuoteCourse you are probably awhare that KQ3 follows the original King's Quest canon, using the same castle and many of the same locations from KQ1 AGI (although the graphics have been modified to give them the appearance of ruin).

Well, of course. KQ1 hadn't been remade yet! :P

QuoteUm,in the original it was just an easter egg, there was no story for it. Read the design note I pout on the blackbird page... It was put in there by an artist, and a reference to "bogey" was made. The Coles liked it and decided to create a mythos around it.

The mythos was made in QfG2, before the remake. Even though there was no reference to its value in the original, that made it the real one prior to the remake's creation.

QuoteWe don't actually know how high up cloudland is. It's possible to be able to go up in the clouds and maybe not be able to get to Cloudland.

Now you are just stretching...  

I'm not sure I should attempt to give you a serious answer... Its rather obvious what Roberta Williams et al had intended in the updated manual story... They are clues to set the player in direction where to find the treasures :p... The same thing was done for the "false dwarf", "went into a dark hole". Not so much of a hint for the sorcerer though, "taken to his dwelling, and had one of his beasts guard it".

Umm also I recommend looking at the clouds when your in KQ1... The game makes a big point of usually calling "cloudland" the clouds... and makes a big deal about the "clouds". Go around looking at "sky" in the remake even. Especially around the mountain.

QuoteBut no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...
Maybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

No, as its enxplained he jsut enjoys riddling, he would have helped either way... Infact he states this more clearly in the remake... He's not a friend of the witch... :p...

He's a good guy... By KQ3 his position as a friend of the Daventry's family is given a deeper light, as he helps Alexander reach his potential.

Also he has the riddle, since he is essentially rumplestiltskin and that's his MO... Roberta was trying to toss in as many random Fairy Tale references as possible... If he didn't riddle, he would have been a generic gnome... :p...

The magic ring itself is taken from a handful of various fantasies...

QuoteMaybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

...and are you done trying to widly speculate?

Seriously, sure maybe it was one of the kids outside of the house... maybe someone she cooked in her oven...Maybe she accidently picked it up, from someone she killed and had no idea what it meant... We could pontificate all day and not get anywhere...

Again we could speculate all day, and its not going to get us any closer to the truth... Again in the original version of the game the witch was not part of the plot in any meaningful or explained way... So there is really no point to even try to speculate... it its tiresome... we could come up with any dozens of "fan theories" and it still wouldn't clear things up...

There are a few more problems, the giant has the chest, and there is no explanation what he would have to do with the witch... in the original version he's just a guardian of the chest... in the second manual, he doesn't even get mentioned...

We could speculate all day what the giant and witch have to do witch each, other but in the end it would be just speculation and pointless waste of our time...

Peter Spear didn't even try to explain the note exactly, I think there was something along the lines that it referred to "to a backwards realm within daventry were people spell there names outs backwards or do othings backwards." (thus stretching it outside the scope of just Rumpy)... This was probably one of Peter Spear's attempts at humor, I'm not sure...

IIRC,  he did go with the idea that Dahlia flew up to clouds (as up into Cloudland) and hid the chest up there directly, as is stated in the manual. Although I don't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember  that he said something along the lines, that the giants just live up there naturally, and that one particular giant accidently discovered the chest... Thus the reason why the giant isn't technically evil, and why you lose points if you kill it. Thus the reason why you take the route of just waiting for the giant to fall asleep.

It also takes Dahlia out of the equation sorta, as she lost the treasure not long after having stole it, :p... We are told the giant has been carrying the treasure chest for longer than he can remember :p...

QuoteDangerous creatures and friendly creatures never meet?

They might of met who knows, teh game doesn't state they did or they didn't... But even if they did it wouldn't be in friendly terms...

In the remake he doesn't even like the troll, and says it prevents him from having many friendly visitors :p...

QuoteHe's a thief. He can probably pick locks. Or maybe he has a key, since obviously keys exist. You, on the other hand, do not have a key (unless you mess up the gnome's name) or the ability to pick locks (or anything to pick locks with!)

Well point of note in the original manual, it states there are "dwarfs" trying to attack Graham, so originally it was more than one dwarf. That could have been anywhere. But that's fairly vague, they could have meant one in the cave one outside, or any screen they appear as representing individual "dwarfs"

In the companion we are told of at least two, the one that you normally see running around Daventry, and his wife.

In the remake I think it makes it more clear that there is probably only one in that version of the story.

However, my point actually was that a dwarf in the mountain that opens up into Cloudland has a more direct closeness to the chest, than some random note that isn't even about the chest, but someone's name. He/she  (its hard to tell with dwarfs)acts as yet another obstacle to reach the chest, or to even escape with the chest (after getting the chest).

QuoteAnd that's not a backstory. When they remade KQ1 at least they gave the treasures a little bit more backstory. "Mysterious" is not a backstory for an important story element unless it's a mystery that can be solved.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this, tell that to Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and many fantasy authors.... They routinely made vague references to mysterious histories, and locations, just tangible clues, to make his readers want to know more, without actually putting the answers in the his books. I'd use the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings here specifically, you are given tiny bits of poetry, legends, mysterious objects, and places, characters, etc.

Take for example Tom Bombadil, the books never explain him, but hint about his grand powers, and his resistence to the Ring. Vague references that that may not actually be his name, and that he has gone by many names. People routinely argue over who what the character is, what he means,etc. Its simply not told to us, and this was intentional.

Take Shelob as another example, there are these vague hints about her being from a ancient time, when the world was whole (a nod to the fact that the world was sundered in a war in a distant time). There is a reference to her being the spawn of a powerfuly supernatural terror, Ungoliant. You however are not told all the details, its intentionally kept vague and mysterious. You don't even get these details in the Appendices. Tolkien intended for them to be left mysterious (although he did write many backstories for Ungoliant for his life's work, these were not published until after his death, and were works in progress). But they were not details he wanted to put into LOTRO itself, in order to give his world a backdrop and depth, and an idea that more is too the world than what the hero's experience and know. Hell even Sam Gamgee states this much towards the end of the Two Towers. He's like the reader, he doesn't know everything, and suspects he'll never learn everything, and he and Frodo will probably end up in the great tales himself at some point, and then those tales will fade as the next person writes the next chapter of the great tales.

As Peter Spear says in Companions this is actually how you make the world seem bigger than it really is, and is all about the world building, and adding a certain type of depth, that the world is bigger than it is, and that there are things that not everyone knows, nor will they necessarily discover all the world's secrets. If you simplified it even further, then you destroy the sense of mystery and exploration (sense of a lived in world that exists beyond what the player experiences or learns). He has a whole chapter devoted to how he thinks this actually made the early KQ better in some ways in the companion (I think its in the introduction chapter actually).

Maybe that's not what you like in the stories you read, and you prefer having you hand held, and everything spelled out for you, but for many people that kind of thing, the extraneous and unexplained is considered a plus (as something that actually adds depth to the world).... I'm just going to say Tolkien is better than you... :P But maybe you don't like those books, maybe you prefer overly simplifying stories so that every thing is spelled out and that all mystery is destroyed...

Also in King's Quest is meant to be a fairy tale story... In most cases fairy tale stories don't generally give you backstories for every single little mystical bauble, character, or land that pops up in the story... :p They often very simple, and have some kind of moral 'message' hidden in them. The details themselves are largely irrelevent. You generally don't find most people bashing fairy tales... Again I understand if fairy tales are not to your taste...

QuoteBecause you were working off of the Rumplestiltskin fairy tale, I think it's safe to assume that even in the original there is a spinning wheel. It's an added hint in the remake... although it's also quite possible that it's a nod to the companion

Yes it could just be an added hint, but like I said it wasn't in the original...and Peter Spear beat them to it (creating something that wasn't in the original, and adding it into his book)...  So he apparently didn't do a straight adaptation. However, his adaptation is based on the second version of the manual...

However, I still must remind that the witch doesn't have a name in KQ1 nor in the remake in the game, and every single line just calls her "a witch"... so she maitained her rather generic stature from the original :p... There is nothing in the game, that specifically states that she is directl tied to any one of the treasures.

We could speculate all day, on how to connect her to the treasures (that's what Peter Spear and others have done), but its a fact in the game, that none of that is actually stated within either version of the game. Nor is it stated if wizard, dwarf or "a witch" are the same individuals from the manual.

Peter Spear was the only one as far as I know, until King's Questions, that stated that "a witch" and Dahlia were the same, and vaguely hinted that the Sorcerer may be the same (although in game text actually implies that Daventry is being overun by evil sorcerers, and he's just one of many :p). He actually picked up on the second manual story calling the so-called 'dwarf' a "false dwarf", and took that to mean that he was probably a leprechaun and not a dwarf, and thus explaining how the Leprechauns got the treasure.

...and as I said, it actually states are actually, multiple "dwarfs" in the original version of the manual, and even Peter Spear went that route to a degree. I think he even mentions this in the "An Encyclopedia of Daventry" as well, about how many dwarves, wolves, and other evil individuals were overunning Daventry at the time.

BTW, as far as canon, obviously its not something Sierra clearly defined, however I point out that Sierra continued to reference the original as a source as 'canon'. When sierra was around, most material nodded back to the original game, rather than the remake. Maybe partly because most fans like the original. Roberta has even sided with the original in many interviews (although commenting on things she liked about the remake). King's Questions primarily sides with the central canon of series as original, kq2, kq3, etc. Although I think there is a sense that it treats remake as an equal to the original to some degree. Though we are talking "original with the second manual". There are very few references to the original version of the story from the original manual, after Roberta updated the story for the late 1984 and/or 1987 release.

QuoteThe mythos was made in QfG2, before the remake. Even though there was no reference to its value in the original, that made it the real one prior to the remake's creation.

No, actually alot of people back in the day who only played the original QFG1 assume that the original easter egg version of the bird, was just another "fake". Because its not actually hinted at in the game... "It once belonged to bogey"... Why did they assume it was a fake? Because the second game stated that there were "four fakes", so as each game was released people were assuming that it was still a fake... Others thought maybe one of the fakes moved around (like the one in Tarna at that market) for example (a reference in QFG3 could be implied that the one in Tarna was the one from Spielburg or somewhere else or another fake)... It wasn't until QFG1 remake staing that the "bird's fate is entertwined with the hero's" (although it also doesn't state specifically that it is the "real one"), and more specifically QFG5 that there was a more straight answer to the conundrum.... that there was a nod that the one in QFG1 was the original rather than just another fake.

This is quite possibly the longest first page of a thread ever.

Thy Nesteth Quote Threade (http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=6589.0) has it beat, but probably not that many do. XD

Well that thread had length built into the formula, this one just is long.

Long thread is long.

(http://geekpadshow.com/files/2009/09/long_cat_003.jpg)

It's long cat approved.

Long cat is long.

Quote from: Baggins on July 25, 2010, 02:55:23 PM
He's a good guy... By KQ3 his position as a friend of the Daventry's family is given a deeper light, as he helps Alexander reach his potential.

I'm still not sure that's the same gnome. He doesn't have much in the way of the same qualities, but I will take the Companion's word for it.

Quote...and are you done trying to widly speculate?

Uhm, no. :P

QuoteThere are a few more problems, the giant has the chest, and there is no explanation what he would have to do with the witch... in the original version he's just a guardian of the chest... in the second manual, he doesn't even get mentioned...

I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that the witch has a giant as a minion.

QuoteWe could speculate all day what the giant and witch have to do witch each, other but in the end it would be just speculation and pointless waste of our time...

I think it's a shame you find speculating to be such a waste of time. Filling in the blanks is part of what makes the stories of KQ so fascinating -- the problem with, for instance, KQ2 (and apparently the original KQ1) is that there are too many blanks for it to be done in a solid way. It's like.... you have two dots so when you try to play connect the dots, you get a line instead of a shape, know what I mean?

[quote[It also takes Dahlia out of the equation sorta, as she lost the treasure not long after having stole it, :p... We are told the giant has been carrying the treasure chest for longer than he can remember :p...[/quote]
It's not like Dahlia would have much use for the chest, where is she going to spend the gold? Witches R Us? :P

QuoteTake for example Tom Bombadil, the books never explain him, but hint about his grand powers, and his resistence to the Ring. Vague references that that may not actually be his name, and that he has gone by many names. People routinely argue over who what the character is, what he means,etc. Its simply not told to us, and this was intentional.

There's more than one reference to Tom Bombadil that implies he is some sort of deity. It is not told or spelled out but there are at least implications. You can't explain a deity, really. Aside from that, he is a supporting player in the books NOT a main part of the story.

QuoteTake Shelob as another example, there are these vague hints about her being from a ancient time, when the world was whole (a nod to the fact that the world was sundered in a war in a distant time). There is a reference to her being the spawn of a powerfuly supernatural terror, Ungoliant. You however are not told all the details, its intentionally kept vague and mysterious. You don't even get these details in the Appendices. Tolkien intended for them to be left mysterious (although he did write many backstories for Ungoliant for his life's work, these were not published until after his death, and were works in progress).

Shelob is actually given a GREAT deal of detail for what is ultimately a fairly minor plot point. Ungoliant does not even appear in Lord of the Rings. Yes, later they both became more important and both were given more detail in those stories.

QuoteAs Peter Spear says in Companions this is actually how you make the world seem bigger than it really is, and is all about the world building, and adding a certain type of depth, that the world is bigger than it is, and that there are things that not everyone knows, nor will they necessarily discover all the world's secrets. If you simplified it even further, then you destroy the sense of mystery and exploration (sense of a lived in world that exists beyond what the player experiences or learns). He has a whole chapter devoted to how he thinks this actually made the early KQ better in some ways in the companion (I think its in the introduction chapter actually).

Yes. Having things that are not explained is a big part of what makes a world bigger and more realistic. However, having things you're out on a quest for completely unexplained does not. THAT makes for bad storytelling. And that is, in fact, how Peter Spear was able to improve King's Quest. Again, I said MAJOR parts of the story cannot simply be called "mysterious" and left alone. MAIN parts of a story need explanation. That's what telling a story is about. Was Aragorn called "mysterious" and then left alone without any further explanation? Was the One Ring? No! Why? Because the main parts of a story -- the quest, the major items, the main characters -- cannot be left untold for a complete story.

No offense, Baggins, but you're more a fact-checker and not so much a storyteller, aren't you?

QuoteAlso in King's Quest is meant to be a fairy tale story... In most cases fairy tale stories don't generally give you backstories for every single little mystical bauble, character, or land that pops up in the story... :p They often very simple, and have some kind of moral 'message' hidden in them. The details themselves are largely irrelevent. You generally don't find most people bashing fairy tales... Again I understand if fairy tales are not to your taste...

They tell you details about the main things -- at least in the original versions. You know how the princess got in the tower, how the prince/tailor/knight/whatever found out about her, etc. They explain, they don't leave the main things in the story mysterious.
This is the part I feel like you're not grasping: we're not talking about EVERY detail. We're talking about the MAIN points.

I think by QfG3 most people would have figured out the real one was in Spielburg. I had guessed that by the second one, but apparently I was the only one who thought "golly gee, there was one in the game before and now it's a plot point?" :P

QuoteI'm still not sure that's the same gnome. He doesn't have much in the way of the same qualities, but I will take the Companion's word for it.

As per the KQ3 hintbook by Roberta Williams (published about the same time as KQ3, long before KQC);
"This is your old friend, the gnome, from the original King's Quest game. You will find him friendly. He will tell you what's been happening in Daventry, and what you have to do."-Roberta Williams

QuoteI think it's a shame you find speculating to be such a waste of time. Filling in the blanks is part of what makes the stories of KQ so fascinating

The problem is speculating is a waste of my time, since its a bunch of random opinions, and we could make up any number of "fan theories" that could explain things. But in the end it would just be that "fan fiction". We just end up disagreeing on rather pointless details, arguing for no reason.

QuoteUngoliant does not even appear in Lord of the Rings.

Actually point of note, Ungoliant is mentiond once in the Two Towers, "...Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant..., but the story doesn't explain who or what Ungoliant is (other than you know it is a spider of some sort, and was the parent of Shelob).

QuoteThey tell you details about the main things -- at least in the original versions. You know how the princess got in the tower, how the prince/tailor/knight/whatever found out about her, etc. They explain, they don't leave the main things in the story mysterious.
This is the part I feel like you're not grasping: we're not talking about EVERY detail. We're talking about the MAIN points.

Yet, we aren't really told where the prince came from, what the princess's background was, how the tower was built or ended up where it was (at least I haven't read versions that explained the history behind the mysterious tower). These are MAIN points of the story...

Ungoliant isn't explained within the The Lord of the Rings, and it takes another book to explain it (Silmarillion), which was published posthumously.

Take for example the Wardrobe from Chronicles of Narnia in Lion Witch, and the Wadrobe. It's a mystery in Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and isn't actually explained until the Magician's Nephew. It took many books later to explain it. There are a handful of other similar things in L,W, and W such as the 'lamp post', and the Witch (which is another MAIN point), are also left mysterious, and not explained until a future book... and the Wardrobe is certainly one of the MAIN points in the book...

The magical doorways are intentionally left mysterious in KQ2, and it took other sources to explain it (primarily the KQC). This was what Peter Spear was talking about in the Companion. He understands some things are left mysterious by story writers intentionally (within a source), and may or may not be explained in later source... and believed not every mystery should be told (he intentionally left some things vague and mysterious himself), or created some of his own mysteries.

Of course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

Quote from: Baggins on August 03, 2010, 03:34:31 AM
Of course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

Ouch--no kidding. That sounds like a really big 'not cool' on the part of Spear.

Ya, I think it was said that the designers of fan remake of KQ3, put in the whole destruction of Manannan's house into the game in a sort of retaliation over the Derek Karlavaegen rant. They made sure that Derek couldn't move into the house like he did in the Companion, in there version of the story.

However, to be fair, Derek does admit that his theory that events of KQ7 didn't happen, could be wrong :p... But there really was no reason for Derek to suggest it in the first place... Which is why seems that it more Peter Spear was giving his opinions of the game through Derek, rather than serving any real or valid point...

You can read more about it here;
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/King%27s_Quest_Companion#Chapter_13_From_The_Eye_Between_The_Worlds

On a related note, on Edgar's background, IIRC, he's actually said to be human in KQ4 :p... So KQ7 basically ignored that aspect of KQ4. Guess it goes to show that Roberta may not have had any idea of Edgar's backstory developed at that point (other than him being "Lolotte's son", although one would expect that someone being born of a evil fairy should still be a fairy :p).

The Companion, was the ultimate fan-fictional novel written around the universe of King's Quest (not to mention, a pretty handy strategy guide). So, I can imagine how Spear must have felt when KQ7 came and debunked every theory he had on Edgar's background (especially considering that Spear already had one version of the Companion released prior to the release of KQ7). It's clearly not warranted, because any decision that Roberta makes for HER series will trump HIS fan-fiction every time. But, to see Spear's work torn asunder because Roberta wanted to throw Edgar into the last cutscene of KQ7 is enough reason for him to be upset and want to establish that it was a 'hoax'. Still, as weird as that last cutscene was (I'm still confused as to how Edgar had found Nightmare and Valanice), it's as canon as any other installment in the series.

Technically its actually what the industry considers "pro-fic", rather than fan fiction. As in professionally published fiction authorized through Sierra.

Of course, although I think his (Derek and/or Peter Spear's) reasons for thinking it was hoax had more to do with its more unrealistic aspects, the fact that the game includes cartoon physics, rather than story directly. Of course he had issues with how it took the "romance angle", giving Rosella more impetuous characterization than she had in KQ4 (although impetuousness "love at first sight" seems to run in the family). His novelization of Rosella and Valanice telling the events to KQ7 to King Graham, stays true the story, but as I recall, avoids the describing more unrealistic aspects of the story. He even manages to toss in some references to previous games.

Its hard to say really, what reasons were going through his head to 'bash' it with his 'Gary Stu'. Nor is it clear why Sierra allowed the Derek Karlavaegen 'bashing' chapter to exist (remember it was from the fully authorized version of the Guide, i.e. from the King's Quest VII: The Authorized Guide). Although its not bashing as in negative, as its actually fairly positive chapter, and doesn't directly "bash" (Derek does admit he could be wrong, and it contains a fair compliment to the "great dreamer" Roberta herself). It just seems to the outside reader to be anti-KQ7 :p...

Also his Edgar back stories actually only appear mainly in the first and second edition (An Encyclopedia of Daventry), they weren't included 3rd and later editions. I don't think they were mentioned in the KQ4 novel itself (at least not directly). The reason why An Encyclopedia of Daventry was left out of 3rd edition seems to be more to do with conservation of paper. The KQ6 novelization took up a huge portion of the book (and between the KQ6 novel and the KQ6 strategy sections it made the book almost twice as long as 2nd edition), using the same paper stock. But for all we know it could have been Sierra making a editorial decision to remove the various theories and back stories it included. Then again we are back to why in the world did they allow the arguably more controversial From Between the Worlds chapter in the KQ7 authorized guide...

Quote from: Baggins on August 03, 2010, 03:34:31 AM
The problem is speculating is a waste of my time, since its a bunch of random opinions, and we could make up any number of "fan theories" that could explain things. But in the end it would just be that "fan fiction". We just end up disagreeing on rather pointless details, arguing for no reason.

And fan fiction is bad because...?
Disagreeing on theories is bad because...?
Different views on something that is pure creativity is bad because...?
I wouldn't argue over someone's fan theories -- it's an exercise in creativity.

QuoteActually point of note, Ungoliant is mentiond once in the Two Towers, "...Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant..., but the story doesn't explain who or what Ungoliant is (other than you know it is a spider of some sort, and was the parent of Shelob).

Yes. But being mentioned is different than appearing. When I say something makes an appearance, I mean it is actually IN the story. Do the characters encounter Ungoliant? So, point of note, I actually know what I'm talking about and Ungoliant does not appear in Lord of the Rings at all. :P
Back to what I was talking about though, something that is only mentioned, for instance, is not even a secondary plot point. It's a very minor detail.

QuoteYet, we aren't really told where the prince came from, what the princess's background was, how the tower was built or ended up where it was (at least I haven't read versions that explained the history behind the mysterious tower). These are MAIN points of the story...

The prince is usually from a "nearby kingdom" -- unspecific, sure, but an explanation none-the-less. Nearly every fairy tale gives some explanation as to the princess' background and I can think of at least four of these princess-in-tower fairy tales which DO explain how the tower got where it was (although usually the explanation is simply "the witch's magic did it!")

QuoteUngoliant isn't explained within the The Lord of the Rings, and it takes another book to explain it (Silmarillion), which was published posthumously.

And yet, even this thing that began as a very minor detail was ultimately explained in a source created by the same creator of Lord of the Rings. Funny, the keys were never explained in any of the King's Quest games.

QuoteTake for example the Wardrobe from Chronicles of Narnia in Lion Witch, and the Wadrobe. It's a mystery in Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and isn't actually explained until the Magician's Nephew. It took many books later to explain it. There are a handful of other similar things in L,W, and W such as the 'lamp post', and the Witch (which is another MAIN point), are also left mysterious, and not explained until a future book... and the Wardrobe is certainly one of the MAIN points in the book...

And yet all of these things described as mysterious were explained in the series. Readers left wondering about these points eventually had their questions answered. The important pieces of missing information are not ever explained in any of the King's Quest games -- and since the Companion does contradict the series in a few places, I'm not especially ready to call it canon. It may be "pro-fic" but it is still not written by the series creator.
Point of fact: King's Quest 2 was *not* a complete story. King's Quest 2+ was and this is why it has such a strong following and is favored over the original by so many.

QuoteThe magical doorways are intentionally left mysterious in KQ2, and it took other sources to explain it (primarily the KQC). This was what Peter Spear was talking about in the Companion. He understands some things are left mysterious by story writers intentionally (within a source), and may or may not be explained in later source... and believed not every mystery should be told (he intentionally left some things vague and mysterious himself), or created some of his own mysteries.

Some things should be mysterious, but not anything that major. Not unless it's going to be explained later in the series which it never was.

QuoteOf course look what happened when he tried to go about explaining Edgar's background...(the biological son of a human mariner of Tamir, and Lolotte) KQ7 decimated his backstory for Edgar. Maybe its another reason why he used Derek Karlavaegan to claim that KQ7 was a hoax... I don't remember all the reasons exactly for why Derek made to claim KQ7, "didn't happen" (but it makes Peter Spear come off sounding like a KQ7 hater).

And this is precisely why I'm skeptical of calling the Companion canonical. Yes, it frequently works and adds to the series but it isn't created by Roberta Williams, she has no input in it and similarly Peter Spear has little input into the King's Quest games.

Anyone know if the magic portal/wardrobe in The 35th of May, or Conrad's Ride to the South Seas, I'm not sure it was actually explained in the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_35th_of_May,_or_Conrad%27s_Ride_to_the_South_Seas

Actually I think the word for something important to a story but not fully explained is what they call a "MacGuffin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

"In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained."

It's actually very common in fiction. The Magical Doorways would fit the definition of a MacGuffin.

The fact is I don't really have time to deal with speculation. If you enjoy that sort of thing good for you. I just find it tedius and ultimately pointless.

Roberta probably never would have explained the doors to your satisfaction even if she had continued to make the games... unfortunately. There are quite a few things like this... The Old Castle Keep of Daventry in MOE isn't explained (there are actually quite a few magical locations visited in MOE that really don't get explanations). The desert temple in KQV really isn't explained.

The Black Cloak Society probably would have never been explained. That just wasn't her way of doing things, there were many cooks stirring the pot so to speak (each had their own vision of what King's Quest world was about).

Yes, the King's Quest Companion is definitely a grey area...

On one hand some designers treated it as canon enough to actually reference from it. Sierra's own 15th Anniversery of King's Quest Collection actually referenced multiple parts of it, and even included a chapter from it... Ken Williams is acknowledged as apparently helped Peter Spear design it. He and his co-author, eluki bes shahar apparently worked directly with Jane Jensen on the KQ6 sections of the book (you know Jane Jensen didn't invent Derek Karlavaegen for the Guidebook, she took the character form the Companion). Several of the questions in Sierra's King's Questions were based off it (the world map in King's Questions was based off of it as well). I believe its said that he and his co-writer Jeremy Spear worked with Lorelei Shannon the real person behind KQ7's story for the Authorized Guide (she was one of the people that took the Companion as canon). It's actually one of the reasons why the Authorized Guide/Companion, 4th Edition, is filled with information concerning material that got cut from KQ7 due to funding, time, and other limitations (hugely important if you wanting to understand the design process for the game), and references to some things that you'd only discover if you were looking through the game files (i.e. Rosella's encounter with Attis, Graham's appearance, etc).

Roberta apparently enjoyed reading it (at least 1st and 3rd edition), although there is no evidence she was ever consulted for it (as far as I know). Someone needs to find out what the Acknowledgement pages say.

Quote"The King's Quest Companion is an interesting blend of fiction and helpful information for playing my games. Anyone interested in reading the story behind King's Quest or who just needs to be "unstuck" while playing the game will find this book invaluable"-Roberta Williams, 1st Edition

"...a wonderful blend of fact and fiction that brings my games to life in an exciting, new way. It adds another fascinating dimension to the entire King's Quest experience. It truly is a pleasure read and a must-have for anyone hoping to explore the series in greater depth and detail."-Roberta Williams, 3rd Edition

If you read enough of Roberta's quotes and comments and published material, you learn she's actually self contradicting to herself... So she wasn't even "following her own canon" so to speak... Do you realize that in KQ2 we are told that Graham and Valanice returned to Kolyma to get married, and then returned to Daventry? But Roberta later claimed that they got married in Daventry? She later went on to say that Alexander returned to Daventry when he was 18 (rather than seventeen?). In KQ1 we shown that magic shield can be destroyed by dragon fire, but Roberta claims several times that it was invincible and could protect from "all harm". She has told versions of KQ2 story where Graham discovers the door while traveling to Kolyma, rather than learning of it from the mirror. Of course earlier game telling us twins were born 2 years after KQ2, but Roberta later stating that they were born 1 year after KQ1. Edgar is said to be human in KQ4, but described as a fairy in KQ7. The nature of Edgar's description of appearance in KQ4 and his description in KQ7 do not match up exactly either. In as such that Genesta implies that his corrupt appearance is natural (she just turns him into something mirroring his "heart", inner appearance), whereas in KQ7 we learn he was magical changed into the deformed form. Roberta Williams wrote a prologue story for KQ6 (which was printed in the InterAction), in which the crew of his ship died, Alexander didn't help them into lifeboats (as said in the game), they all got pulled under and drowned...

Its really tough to "state" one strict canon, because everyone involved didn't follow any strict canon (if there actually was even a true "King's Quest canon" for those involved)... if they had one it was rather vague loose form of canon. They were always reinventing aspects of the stories...

Take for example KQ6's definition of genies, and compare to genies in KQ2 and KQ5....

QuoteA genie is an even greater temptation for the aspiring soul than ever a Daventry fairy, for a genie does not simply turn a one-time favour; however great, and then be done with it. No, a genie, like a faithful dog, belongs to its owner for life - or, that is, for however long the fortunate "master" might keep hold of the creatures lamp.

According to the stated "rules", each genie is immortal and each is permanently attached to a given lamp in which they might or might not be trapped for long centuries depending on the whims of their owner or fate. Once the lamp comes into the possession of a man or woman that person becomes the genie`s master and must be obeyed, Genies are very valuable creatures and can do a variety of tricks including transporting a man anywhere on earth, taking any shape the master might wish, and, of course, the ever-popular gathering of great treasures and wealth. A genie does have some limitations, however: it cannot cure ills, change the weather or bring back the dead. And a genie always has a weakness

A genie is also bound to its master in other ways. It is said that a genie is like a mirror; it only reflects its master`s will. If a master is evil minded and cruel, the genie will be also. If a master is generous and kind, so will be the genie.

The other genies we have seen, one does not serve Graham for life (generic three wish genie), and the other one doesn't serve anyone but itself (and locks its victims in a bottle for 500 years).


About the only thing helpful about Roberta's comments is that from time to time she offered insight into intent of certain things at the time of the release of certain games (for example her stating specifically that the "wizened gnome" in KQ3 is the same "wizened gnome" in KQ1, they are both the "wizened gnome"). But the further she got from a game, the less likely she was to accurately give an account of the game, or follow it exactly it seems. This may have to do with the fact that as she has stated in interviews, she "always looked forward, and never back", anything she wrote had more to do with the "now", than the past... A good example of her "looking forward" would be that she considered Connor her favorite King's Quest character at the time she created MOE. She claims this is because he is the 'latest and greatest', and she always likes her newest ideas the best.

How is it possible to have fun without speculating?

I come from a social sciences and history background. I have fun simply doing research and working with "facts" and encyclopedic information, :). Hypotheses are limited to things based on hard evidence, and you have to back up your theories with hard evidence. We don't "make stuff up".

Quote from: Baggins on August 04, 2010, 02:02:39 PM
I come from a social sciences and history background. I have fun simply doing research and working with "facts" and encyclopedic information, :). Hypothesies are limited to things based on hard evidence, and you have to back up your theories were hard evidence. We don't "make stuff up".

That actually explains a lot... It certainly appears to be one of your strengths! I wouldn't have the patience to compile all that information, but it's nice to have it there for reference! !!!

I have a science (biochemistry) background, so I know what you mean about evidence. :)

Ya, my proper degree is anthropology (focused in cultural anthropology and archaeology), and I minored in geology and history. I'm currently working on a masters in military archaeology right now.

Quote from: Baggins on August 04, 2010, 02:55:19 AM
Anyone know if the magic portal/wardrobe in The 35th of May, or Conrad's Ride to the South Seas, I'm not sure it was actually explained in the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_35th_of_May,_or_Conrad%27s_Ride_to_the_South_Seas

I've never heard of this piece before, but it sounds pretty dreadful. :P

QuoteActually I think the word for something important to a story but not fully explained is what they call a "MacGuffin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

"In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained."

A MaGuffin is a mechanic of storytelling -- something that is used either to drive the plot forward or to lure the audience in. As that article says, typically it's the objective (or tied closely to the objective) of the story. In KQ2, it would be the keys. In KQ1 it's the treasures.
Even in cinema, the MacGuffin is explained because if you leave it completely without explanation, the audience becomes dissatisfied. After all, the MacGuffin is part of what brought their attention to the piece -- they want to know more about it. If they never find out more, it's frustrating.
Take, for instance, the most famous MacGuffin in cinema. "Rosebud" in the movie Citizen Kane. Through the entire movie you have no idea what Rosebud is even though that's really what everyone wants to know. The final shot of the movie finally explains it even though not one of the movie's characters ever learns it. *That* is how to handle a mysterious MacGuffin -- let only the audience know.

QuoteIt's actually very common in fiction. The Magical Doorways would fit the definition of a MacGuffin.

So would the keys. Or Valanice. I would say the keys are much more likely the MacGuffin out of the three choices -- but perhaps another reason that the story is so disjointed is because there's multiple MacGuffins?

QuoteThe fact is I don't really have time to deal with speculation. If you enjoy that sort of thing good for you. I just find it tedius and ultimately pointless.

Baggins, no offense, but you're not a storyteller. Why are you arguing about storytelling when that's not your background or, apparently, your interest? That's what speculating is here -- us telling *our* versions. If you don't have time, then don't. But it takes more time to argue with our speculations than it does to speculate.
My background is in theater (including playwriting), and my mother is an author (so I've also picked up a great deal from her). I'm just saying, this entire discussion is not your area of expertise.

QuoteRoberta probably never would have explained the doors to your satisfaction even if she had continued to make the games... unfortunately. There are quite a few things like this... The Old Castle Keep of Daventry in MOE isn't explained (there are actually quite a few magical locations visited in MOE that really don't get explanations). The desert temple in KQV really isn't explained.

I know -- and did you notice that MoE and KQ5 are my other two least favorite games in the series? The storytelling is weakest in those three (because most of the issues in KQ1 were fixed in the remake). And she would not have gone back and explained, unless she remade, because she never looked back -- as she said. But had she looked back, I'm sure she would have cringed.

QuoteThe Black Cloak Society probably would have never been explained. That just wasn't her way of doing things, there were many cooks stirring the pot so to speak (each had their own vision of what King's Quest world was about).

The Black Cloak Society didn't really need any more explanation than it received in KQ6, except possibly "who's Shadrack?" but Shadrack is not a major plot point. He's a name that was mentioned.

QuoteYes, the King's Quest Companion is definitely a grey area...

It is, but strangely it's not uncommon for a really good work of fanon to be adopted as canon. That's what happened here, and it almost always leads to contradictions in the universe.

QuoteOn one hand some designers treated it as canon enough to actually reference from it. Sierra's own 15th Anniversery of King's Quest Collection actually referenced multiple parts of it, and even included a chapter from it... Ken Williams is acknowledged as apparently helped Peter Spear design it. He and his co-author, eluki bes shahar apparently worked directly with Jane Jensen on the KQ6 sections of the book (you know Jane Jensen didn't invent Derek Karlavaegen for the Guidebook, she took the character form the Companion). Several of the questions in Sierra's King's Questions were based off it (the world map in King's Questions was based off of it as well). I believe its said that he and his co-writer Jeremy Spear worked with Lorelei Shannon the real person behind KQ7's story for the Authorized Guide (she was one of the people that took the Companion as canon). It's actually one of the reasons why the Authorized Guide/Companion, 4th Edition, is filled with information concerning material that got cut from KQ7 due to funding, time, and other limitations (hugely important if you wanting to understand the design process for the game), and references to some things that you'd only discover if you were looking through the game files (i.e. Rosella's encounter with Attis, Graham's appearance, etc).

That's because the Companion was adopted as canon after the first edition. Afterwards, they had to attempt to work with him to prevent to many continuity errors.

QuoteIts really tough to "state" one strict canon, because everyone involved didn't follow any strict canon (if there actually was even a true "King's Quest canon" for those involved)... if they had one it was rather vague loose form of canon. They were always reinventing aspects of the stories...

This is called "retconning" and it's infuriating, but I'm confused as to what that has to do with what we're talking about. :P I think some of them were done because they make more sense -- the crew leaves Alexander to die on the boat? Doubtful. But having them die was also a bit dark for the game. (The most realistic answer would be that some of the crew made it onto lifeboats as Alexander insisted on helping them escape first, and then the boat crashed before the entire crew and Alex could escape. Some of the crew would be dead, some would escape, and Alex would have washed up on shore... although still leaves us wondering why none of the rest of the crew did?)

QuoteThe other genies we have seen, one does not serve Graham for life (generic three wish genie), and the other one doesn't serve anyone but itself (and locks its victims in a bottle for 500 years).

And I'm just speculating, but it's possible there's multiple kinds of genies (a la QfG) although KQ should have given them different names.... djinni, marid, djann, etc.

QuoteAbout the only thing helpful about Roberta's comments is that from time to time she offered insight into intent of certain things at the time of the release of certain games (for example her stating specifically that the "wizened gnome" in KQ3 is the same "wizened gnome" in KQ1, they are both the "wizened gnome"). But the further she got from a game, the less likely she was to accurately give an account of the game, or follow it exactly it seems. This may have to do with the fact that as she has stated in interviews, she "always looked forward, and never back", anything she wrote had more to do with the "now", than the past... A good example of her "looking forward" would be that she considered Connor her favorite King's Quest character at the time she created MOE. She claims this is because he is the 'latest and greatest', and she always likes her newest ideas the best.

The never looking back thing may be the greatest flaw in her storytelling abilities. Not that she didn't spin wonderful tales, but she also left so much untold and undone and a lot of that could have been corrected if she were less focused on the future, y'know?

Quotefanon to be adopted as canon.

Well fanon is a bit different too, fanon isn't even "official" authorized/published/endorsed etc, it falls under "fan fiction" definition.

King's Quest Companion was more than "fan fiction". It's seems closer to what star wars books are to the movies, as in sierra authorized sources published by a third party publishing house. That all broke down to a convoluted "canon" policy of G-canon (George stated canon), "C-canon (officially published spin-off stuff), "S-canon (secondary canon, stuff that doesn't quite fit), etc.

Did Lucas invent this convoluted canon policy? No, it was lucasbooks sub-devision within lucasfilm. Lucas has little direct input on what is an disn't canon. Although his "canon" (as what he says in interviews) often directly contradicts things in both C-canon and S-canon. For example in his point of view Boba Fett died/digested in the Sarlacc for a 1000 years (remained there), in the C-canon, he escaped.

QuoteThis is called "retconning" and it's infuriating, but I'm confused as to what that has to do with what we're talking about.  I think some of them were done because they make more sense -- the crew leaves Alexander to die on the boat? Doubtful. But having them die was also a bit dark for the game. (The most realistic answer would be that some of the crew made it onto lifeboats as Alexander insisted on helping them escape first, and then the boat crashed before the entire crew and Alex could escape. Some of the crew would be dead, some would escape, and Alex would have washed up on shore... although still leaves us wondering why none of the rest of the crew did?)

In both versions the ship crashed.

They didn't leave him to die on the boat, in the game Alexander explains that he had just finished helping all of his crew into the lifeboats, but just before he could get into one himself, a rogue wave knocked him into the sea, and pulled him away from the life boats. He lost track of them, blacked out, and was later washed into the shore.

Ali explains that that if they were smart they would have padded away from the islands, as it becomes safer the farther one gets from the islands.

It's learned later Valanice explains, that all the crew made it back to Daventry safely (would be happy to learn he survived).

In the other version by Roberta (which was apparently written about the same time as Jane Jensen was writing the game story), all the crew died, everyone including Alexander were knocked into the water from the crash, before they could get to any lifeboats. He saw them all drown one by one. Alexander lost his strength, blacked out, and was washed into shore .

Basically seems both Jane Jensen and Roberta Williams didn't quite know what the other was saying.

QuoteAnd I'm just speculating, but it's possible there's multiple kinds of genies (a la QfG) although KQ should have given them different names.... djinni, marid, djann, etc.

It doesn't take speculation to see that there have been three portrayal of genies appearing in the series. What we are given in KQ6 however is a description that claims all genies conform to the Shamir/Malin type genie type, :p... It doesn't qualify with "some genies", it just just states emphatically "Genies are such and such". This is a big mistake when writing essay. You have to be careful to avoid writing things in such a way it would stereotype the entire subject, but rather use "qualifying language", to limit the claim to a certain group size.

The keys are more "Plot Coupons" (yes, TV Tropes is a favorite site).

Spears's KQ companion is like a lot of the early Star Wars expanded universe. Half of it was blown out of the water by later works. (Just TRY reading Splinters of the Mind's Eye or the early Han Solo novels if you're versed in "modern" Star Wars canon...) The other half is a gold mine. Another good example is the utter mess that is Oz-universe canon. Baum had 14 books, and never bothered with continuity. Thompson was equally bad with her 25-odd, and Maguire's trilogy ties in with Baum and gives it a grotesque twist. Then you get wild cards like Laumer and Volkov in the mix, or try pulling from all of these to explain the Sci-Fi Channel's Tin Man.

(I'll have the aspirin on standby.)

I file Spears with AGD's remakes; it's not on the same canonical "level" as the games, but I'll weave in what works and junk what doesn't. And if there is a conflict with the games that I can't find an explanation for, he with the better tale wins.

I've likened fanfic writing to poker. It's all about knowing what cards to keep, which ones to toss, playing the cards you eventually do get, and plain old bluffing of the cards you can't get. Much of the difference between a good fanficcer and a bad one is in the skillful execution of "canon poker."

Quote from: Baggins on August 05, 2010, 12:42:57 PM
Well fanon is a bit different too, fanon isn't even "official" authorized/published/endorsed etc, it falls under "fan fiction" definition.

Yes. I know what fanon is and that's why I said it started as fanon and was adopted as canon. Sierra allowed Peter Spear to publish a book that was, essentially, fan fiction. That takes what would be fanon and likely began as a work of fan fiction and turns it canon.

Quote
In both versions the ship crashed.

....isn't that a given? I didn't think I had to add that.

QuoteThey didn't leave him to die on the boat, in the game Alexander explains that he had just finished helping all of his crew into the lifeboats, but just before he could get into one himself, a rogue wave knocked him into the sea, and pulled him away from the life boats. He lost track of them, blacked out, and was later washed into the shore.

Uhm, so, there's one life boat per person? Or did they leave him alone on the boat? Think about it. In order for that to be remotely plausible, Alexander was abandoned by his crew. And, it would be extremely difficult for him to paddle a life boat by himself (unless they're built one per person) in which case he would have probably died anyways. And, if it was one boat per person, nearly the entire space of the boat would have had to have been taken up by lifeboats.
So, in essence, the crew left Alexander to die on a boat that was going to crash.

QuoteIn the other version by Roberta (which was apparently written about the same time as Jane Jensen was writing the game story), all the crew died, everyone including Alexander were knocked into the water from the crash, before they could get to any lifeboats. He saw them all drown one by one. Alexander lost his strength, blacked out, and was washed into shore .

Which also makes no sense. No one tried to get in any life boats? They left Daventry without life boats? I don't think so.

And thus, we reach the conclusion that it must be both. Alexander and some of the crew helped the rest of the crew into life boats, but before they could escape into a life boat of their own they were knocked overboard. Alexander watched the remaining crew drown (or possibly just fall unconscious because it still doesn't make much sense that he'd be the only survivor when he was relatively unharmed -- we just don't know what happened to the rest... they probably died on the isles though... sense gnomes? Trying to swim? Druids?) Alexander passed out in the water, and awoke on the shore believing his entire crew would have drowned -- probably thinking that the life boats could never have escaped that storm and certainly not back to Daventry.
And there we have speculation that makes sense. ;)

QuoteIt doesn't take speculation to see that there have been three portrayal of genies appearing in the series. What we are given in KQ6 however is a description that claims all genies conform to the Shamir/Malin type genie type, :p... It doesn't qualify with "some genies", it just just states emphatically "Genies are such and such". This is a big mistake when writing essay. You have to be careful to avoid writing things in such a way it would stereotype the entire subject, but rather use "qualifying language", to limit the claim to a certain group size.

Perhaps the other two types are not called "genies", in actuality, it's simply that Graham doesn't know the racial names. Perhaps the race called "genie" is what was in KQ6. In KQ5 it was a djinni and in KQ2 it was a.... uh.... something else? :P A djann maybe?
(Although, the vengeful attitude of the KQ5 genie makes me think he's more likely to be a marid or an ifreeti... or however you spell that!)

Allronix, have I mentioned that I love it when you post things?
I would say (and Baggins will no doubt agree) that the Companion is a higher level of canonocity (I made that word up I know) by virtue of approval from Sierra.
However, with my own fanfic, I often go with "he with the better tale wins" theory of canon poker. A phrase I will be stealing, by the way. :P

Except by definition fan fiction "isn't authorized" by the company in any official capacity.

King's Quest Companion, always had Ken Williams approval, as well as directly researched, with various Sierra staff, and to a lesser degree Roberta herself (thus she actually was able to read the First Edition before it went to print, and was able to give her review of it, and that was printed on the cover). Sierra News Magazine printed an article which included a chapter from the book, before the book was even published (showing more ties to the fact that it was being developed under Sierra's guidence and approval).

A fan fic writer doesn't get that luxury. The average person can't just "call up Ken", and get facts and details from the the missus. I'm curious what else the Acknowledgements page in the book states about this connection.

You also don't just write "fan fiction" based on someone's copyrighted IP, publish it commercially, and attempt to make a profit off it... (not unless you want the company's lawyers on your back). It was published "officially" thus making it 'profic' (professional fiction), Sierra got to earn some money out of it.

You also don't just republish the spells from the Sorcery of Old without permission of the company (considering its a potential breach that would allow piracy). Sierra would have sued his butt off, if they hadn't been part of that decision...

The main reason why he could get access to Ken, and other Sierra officials? He was working directly with Sierra On-line in some capacity (probably through connections to Questbusters magazine).

By the 3rd Edition, it became even closer tied to Sierra, with Jane Jensen directly offering input in the KQ6 material's design, working with eluki be shahar to develop the follow up to the Guidebook (plus including some of the behind the scenes development material from KQ6).

A huge difference between fan fiction and pro fic, is that fan fiction writers practice copyright infringement... Copyright holders often will turn a blind eye to fan fiction (its usually too much trouble to persue legal action against individual writers), except if the one infringing on the copyright is trying to make a profit from it's distribution.

QuoteUhm, so, there's one life boat per person? Or did they leave him alone on the boat? Think about it. In order for that to be remotely plausible, Alexander was abandoned by his crew. And, it would be extremely difficult for him to paddle a life boat by himself (unless they're built one per person) in which case he would have probably died anyways. And, if it was one boat per person, nearly the entire space of the boat would have had to have been taken up by lifeboats.

I'll look up the quotes for you from the game. Pretty sure that the lifeboats could hold more than one person. Alexander was washed overboard and thus wasn't in any of the life boats. But he was able to help the rest of his crew into them, before he was washed overboard.

QuoteDay turns to night and the ship nears the shore. As the sky blackens, so too, does the sea. The ship is tossed amidst monstrous currents and whirlpools, as though the land itself were shoving the vessel away.

The battle is courageous, but the ship, and the prince, are drawn down and down....

Down into the sea....

...the shipwreck... the sea... Just as he had seen his men safely into the lifeboats, a gigantic wave picked him up, and tossed him overboard into the churning sea. That was the last he had seen of his crew. Debris from the shipwreck is scattered along the shore, but of the lifeboats and his men there is thankfully no trace. He can only hope and pray that the lifeboats survived the currents and that his men made it safely back to Daventry."

Whereas in the Roberta's version, everyone got washed overboard from the ship before they could get to any lifeboats. The ship was pretty much smashed to pieces instantly, exploding might be a fair description, although I'm exageratting (completely different than of what is actually shown in the game). The currents pulled them further away from what was left of the ship. Alexander lucked out had a chunk of mast next to him, he was able to grab ahold of. His men weren't so lucky. Even then he lost his strength. The funny bit is Roberta says the crew jumped off the ship.

QuoteEye to spyglass, sweeping it accross the vast ocean, Prince Alexander desperately scans the distant horizon as his sailing ship, the Valanice, drunkenly rolls through heavy seas. Drat! nothing but distant whitecaps! He thinks of giving up when, out of the blue, a small speck is revealed within the lens. Could it be?--the Land of the Green Isles? Alexander's Heart beats harder as visions of a beautiful, raven-haired girl flood his memories.

A sharp cry shatters Alexander's reverie, "Ahoy! Reef to starboard!" Suddenly--CRASH!!--the wooden ship rams the edge of the unforgiving reef and begins to list crazily to one side. Huge groans and creaks rip through the splintering wood as the ship begins to break apart and sink slowly into the sea. Panicked, Alexander drops the spyglass and stumbles toward the lifeboats, the cries of his frenzied crew piercing his heart...

Too late! Men jump frantically into the pounding surf as the ship groans one last time, raises her bow straight out of the water as if to take one last breath--and then gives herself up, slipping silently into cold, blue deep. The sea reaches Alexander, grabbing him, and dragging him into its watery posession. He valiently struggles to stay afloat in heavy waterlogged clothing--while, all around him, lose their battle and slip, one by one, under the sea. A piece of forward mast bobs nearby and Alexander swims toward it, desperate to reach it before an uncoming swell sweeps it further out of his grasp. His fingertips touch the mast--the swell is upon them--there, got it! Gratefully, he wraps his weakening arms around the wreckage and hangs on for dear life...

After what seems a bone-chilling eternity, Alexander begins to lose strength. His body, numb from the cold, will obey him no longer. His hold on the bobbing mast loosens. His mind wanders. He feels himself edging towards the blackness...

I typed up the whole story by the way you can read it for yourself, over on the omnipedia.

Actually come to think of it he didn't have a large crew in KQ6, we are only shown that he had 4-5 men total in the game (Companion confirms that number as well IIRC). So that's 2-3 lifeboats at the most. I'm curious though how the Companion portrays the event. I wouldn't be surprised if its slightly different telling as well. Well it at least had a different name for the ship, Johannes Bey (than Roberta's version). But since its based on early KQ6 design documents I wouldn't be surprised if the crew didn't make it in the companion. The "dead crew" plot line was actually originally part of the KQ6 design document, a copy of which appears in the Inside the Chest. It seems it was something that Jane Jensen dropped in her final version of the storyline.

Quote"Ship's Voyage" screen. The boat rocks and gets caught in the strong currents, reefs, and rocks that surround the island. They are obviously struggling.

Overlaid over this screen as we watch the ship struggle, we see text. A crewman shouts "Prince Alexander! We're barely holding against the currents! It's like a whirlpool here!" Another crewman shouts "Sir, the rocks!" Just then, use a screen shake to imply that the ship hits something. Show the boat start to sink. Iris to message screen. "...The next morning."

Fade to a shot of a beach. Alexander is lying face down on the sand, alone. It is morning. Slowly Alexander rises, staggers, and rights himself. He looks around. We'll print some text here about Alexander mourning the loss of his crew.

The game is now under player control.

An interesting bit of trivia about the introduction, and the details surrounding the crash, actually differs somewhat in each version of the game (PC-VGA/floppy, PC-CD, PC-EGA, Amiga, and MAC), sometimes in the order of the events leading up to the crash, and the crash itself.

QuotePerhaps the other two types are not called "genies", in actuality, it's simply that Graham doesn't know the racial names.

You know its that "all-knowing" narrator that claims they are "genies" :p... Graham never states what he thinks they are, LOL. Plus Roberta says the "Genie from the Bottle" is a Genie in the KQ5 hintbook. The character's name in the credits, is the "The Genie", as well, LOL.

BTW, we are told in KQ6 Guidebook that Djinn and Genie mean the same thing, and are interchangeable for the Mellin/Shamir genies.

In King's Ques Companion 2nd Edition, the book classifies the genies under "Djinn" in the "An Encyclopedia of Daventry", as an alternate name for the same creature. Though the book does state that there are different types, some grant three wishes, some are vengeful. But all are called Djinn/Genies.

So its rather weird though how the Guidebook states that all genie/djinn are the same, and can be kept for life.

Quote from: Baggins on August 05, 2010, 01:55:12 PM
A huge difference between fan fiction and pro fic, is that fan fiction writers practice copyright infringement... Copyright holders often will turn a blind eye to fan fiction (its usually too much trouble to persue legal action against individual writers), except if the one infringing on the copyright is trying to make a profit from it's distribution.

Fan fiction is actually permitted by copyright laws as long as the author doesn't make a profit -- to make a profit, the author must have permission from the copyright holder.

Now, as I said.... I know the Companion is not fan fiction. I really don't need it defined over and over to get that. :P What I said was, Peter Spear probably initially started it out as fan fiction then decided to get in touch with Sierra to see if he could publish it and viola, just like that it became pro-fic. Otherwise, a Companion probably would have been written by someone on the game's team, if there was one, like with most other games. He was probably asked to write the Space Quest Companion based on the popularity of the King's Quest one.

QuoteI'll look up the quotes for you from the game. Pretty sure that the lifeboats could hold more than one person. Alexander was washed overboard and thus wasn't in any of the life boats. But he was able to help the rest of his crew into them, before he was washed overboard.

Obviously the life boats could hold more than one person. I was being sarcastic.
So, with Alexander being the ONLY person left on the ship? That means the sailors left their prince to die. It makes ZERO sense.
It also doesn't make much sense that they got washed overboard before anyone could get in the lifeboats -- there's a storm going on, you're telling me no one tried to get off the boat? I mean, it's plausible... it's just not very likely.
So, I would say what makes the most sense is that some of the crew managed to escape and the rest were washed overboard before they could. Which would be a combination of both versions.

QuoteActually come to think of it he didn't have a large crew in KQ6, we are only shown that he had 4-5 men total in the game (Companion confirms that number as well IIRC). So that's 2-3 lifeboats at the most. I'm curious though how the Companion portrays the event. I wouldn't be surprised if its slightly different telling as well. Well it at least had a different name for the ship, Johannes Bey (than Roberta's version). But since its based on early KQ6 design documents I wouldn't be surprised if the crew didn't make it in the companion. The "dead crew" plot line was actually originally part of the KQ6 design document, a copy of which appears in the Inside the Chest. It seems it was something that Jane Jensen dropped in her final version of the storyline.

4-5 men is an awful small crew for the size of the boat we're shown in the game though.

QuoteBTW, we are told in KQ6 Guidebook that Djinn and Genie mean the same thing, and are interchangeable for the Mellin/Shamir genies.

Maybe "genie" or "djinn" is the umbrella term, and then there's various types -- one of which is also called "djinn" or "genie". That's how it worked in QfG2!

As Fanfic and fan works (such as Silver Lining) become better developed and more widespread with the proliferation of the internet, some scholars, like Henry Jenkins, have argued the works are a form of criticism and fall under "fair use." (http://www.henryjenkins.org/archives.html is a good way to blow a few afternoons). Part of his argument rests on the fact that corporate entities, not individual creators, are holding the rights, calling the shots (the former Sierra crew being great examples - ask Al Lowe about the Larry remakes). Worse, the Clinton era updates to copyright has virtually ensured nothing will fall into the public domain.

Fanfic's come a long way from being fandom's dirty little secret. When I started in fandom, it was the early 90's, the net wasn't widespread, and fanfic was still that stuff passed around in dingy hotel rooms with a bottle of cheap booze by filthy-minded, middle-aged women. It was pretty easy for C&Ds to hit the small networks and shut a fandom or sub-fandom down. George Lucas was infamous in the 80's for going ballistic on any Star Wars fic that broke a PG barrier, and double it if you dared pull slash. (It took until 2003 for a lesbian to show up in the GFFA, and only because Bioware sneaked her under the radar). He tried the same tactic in 1999 when the Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon stuff hit the net, only to find it was like playing whack-a-mole, especially in countries like Japan, who have looser laws and attitudes about this sort of thing. (See doujinshi).

As for the Johannes Bey (Alex's ship)? It's unreasonable for there not to be casualties or those lost at sea, but it's also not unreasonable that most of those who made to to lifeboats made it to Daventry. If I'm remembering my piracy research right (Three cheers for Sid Meir), a sloop had 20-70 crew. Alex, being the sort who isn't the type to risk men needlessly...let's put his crew at about 35. On the low end, but not a skeleton.  I'll be willing to buy that about 20-30 men made it back to Daventry. Most, but not all.

Actually, Peter Spear explains how he started the King's Quest Companion in the acknowledgements page IIRC (also in the Introduction chapter). Be interesting if someone could post up the exact details. I barely remember, but I seem to recall it had something do with Sierra being pleased with his reviews on the early King's Quest games and he was allowed into sierra to write some of the behind the scenes making of games articles. I'm referring to the articles he did for Questbusters magazine (he does also mentions having been at several video game expos/conferences where he met Roberta Williams). He had already gotten a backdoor press pass with Sierra in the past. I think it said Ken was the one who initially came up to him to do something. But I don't remember the exact details.

Some of the history is meddled by the fact that he wrote the book as a "non-fiction" (ya I kid you not that's what the book is classified as), so he blends real developmental history with his fictional "letters from Derek" material as well.

As for the ship's crew, the problem I mention is that we are told that the whole crew made it at the end of KQ6 (no casualties), :p... There is a 1 minute or so diologue in the ending between Graham, Valanice, and Alexander on the topic.

Its a bit pointless to discuss "combinations of both versions", as my point is there are two different versions and they aren't consistent with each other. You might not think what was stated in KQ6 makes sense to you, but that's what was said in the game... Go ahead and try to tweak it to work in your mind if you like, whatever floats your boat... so to speak... But anyone who reads both obviously see they aren't consistent.

While I do agree with you in real life that a ship of that type should have at least a crew of 20 if it was real life... However, speaking of large ships with small crews, case in point KQ3 (do you remember how many crew members it had?) erm 6-7...

I'm curious how Companion portrayed it though. I'm sure it has the scene where Valanice, Graham, and Alexander talk on the subject. I honestly can't remember if she went hte route, of "they never returned", or that "they all survived".

As for "sloop" I think its a rather poor description for the boat in the game (it also represents prototype version of the game's story, or eluki bes shahar doesn't know her ship types). Its a term that refers to the type of sails on the boat, IIRC (basically each mast has two verticle triangular sails). It doesn't really have anything to do with "ship size". There are large sloops (2 or more masts) and smaller sloops (single masted) :p... There are also "sloops-of-war" but that's something entirely different, huge ships three masts (doesn't actually have sloop rigging).

What's seen in the game is probably closer to a carrack or a galleon. It has double masted, trapezoidal parallel sails. Although what's in the game is probably too small for a galleon, and galleons have three or more masts? I think.

Ah, okay. I didn't realize he'd been asked to write it initially, I assumed that he had begun writing a novelization and the Sierra people liked it.

You mean in this ending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YUKJFzgdjU&NR=1)?
I don't think it's necessarily implied that it's the WHOLE crew. No, they don't really say if there's casualties (they certainly don't say no casualties either though!) but if most of the crew made it home safe (which is what we're saying) I think they'd use the same language they use in that ending. If Valanice said "We were so worried when every single one of your men returned except you..." that would be a different story. And, again, that would make no sense.

The boat in the game is definitely too small to be a galleon -- galleons are *big* boats, aren't they?
While the boat in game isn't, I don't think, quite up to galleon size it's definitely big enough to need a minimum of 15 (mayyyyybe 10, but that's pushing it) people to operate it. It would probably do better with somewhere around 25/30 to be on the safe side.
Of course, in the intro you don't see any life boats leaving the ship so....

PS I just watched the introduction on YouTube and is it just me or are the 3-D graphics *better* than the ones in MoE? Look at the fires! SO MUCH realer looking!

messed up link?  ::)

Cray, I think this discussion has really run its course, so I'm really not going to say much more about this.

However, I would point out that you are committing a logical fallacy, you are trying to prove a negative, I.E. "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

I.E. if it doesn't say that people died, then it's still possible some must have died. or even though the other says says that they drowned one by one, some must have survived.

Yet, neither of those propositions are supported in the individual texts by themselves. I.E. Roberta's doesn't talk about any survivors, and KQ6 doesn't talk about any that died. However, there are quite a few other differences between the two accounts besides the survivor's issues, however. Anyone who is truly paying attention knows that they quite different versions of the story. For example, how and "when" Alexander ends up overboard in both versions differs, Alexander doesn't help anyone into any lifeboats in one version, since he fell overboard almost instantly at the moment the ship crashed,  he didn't have a chance to help anyone (and never even got near the lifeboats), while in the other we are told he did have plenty of time to help people into the lifeboats.

From a encyclopedic standpoint when writing up an encyclopedic article, I can only go with what is actually stated in the game itself, I.E. if it says "the crew survived", that's what I have to write up in the omnipedia.

I can point out where the other version differs from the game's version. But I would be dishonest in picking and choosing elements from both accounts while ignoring other aspects where they completely differ from each other. I can't just "pick and choose" bits of what I like about one version, while ignoring bits I think are "ridiculous".

They have to be seperated and considered seperate entities. In I usually take the stance that the game's account takes precedence over any outside account. So for example the Companion is nice and all, if something appears differently in the game, that will be focused on, while Companion's version is treated as an alternate account.

For example, take Companion's account of the Drink Me potion. In the book its an empty bottle, in the game its filled with a liquid that makes the heart appear to have stopped. In the book Alexander and Hakim, act together to trick Shamir into thinking Alexander dies.

In the game however, the Alexander's heart literally does appear to stop, and the Pawn Shoppe owner literally thinks Alexander committed suicide, and is shocked when he comes back to life.

So in the omnipedia I list both accounts, showing people that its been told in two seperate ways.

I can only just point out the differences.

Yes have fun with your little fanon games, but I tend to try to stick to more credible writing modus operandi used in research.

Quote from: Baggins on August 07, 2010, 04:32:41 AM
Cray, I think this discussion has really run its course, so I'm really not going to say much more about this.

However, I would point out that you are committing a logical fallacy, you are trying to prove a negative, I.E. "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

***

Yes have fun with your little fanon games, but I tend to try to stick to more credible writing modus operandi used in research.

Baggins, it's one thing to call Cray's and my bluff when it comes to canon poker. It's an entirely different matter to be rude about it.

TSL opens with an act of fanon, for crying out loud. The games themselves end with Rosella agreeing to date Edgar. Doesn't mean it's not reasonable to run with the idea they eventually get hitched, but it's not canon.

Sometimes, you get ambiguous or conflicting source material, such as the incidents you're mentioning in KQ6. The dialogue is a bit vague. Yes, Alex's men were loaded into lifeboats. Yes, the lifeboats made it to Daventry. Nowhere does it say that all the men survived. Sometimes the source material is has more holes than a fishing net, like in King's Quest 2. Canonically, we have no idea why Granny's got the vampire's ring and cloak. Canonically, we have no idea where Valanice was being held, or why the atmosphere was so surreal.

On another favorite game of mine? The lead is "canonically" male. Does it stop half the fandom from referring to the lead character as "she?" Hell no. We know the difference, we know what's canon. We're consciously choosing the alternate route.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not meant to be 'rude', just to point out what generally isn't allowed in Wikipedia, Manual of Style rules (avoiding original research and that like). Thus is generally the mind set I tend to follow in discussions. Fan fiction and speculation are generally frowned upon as well. Which is why I tend to try to avoid it.

My original point was that two accounts are different, they aren't consistent. Its not just about "how many crew members were saved". it much more complicated than that. Anything you try to do with them will essentially be a b******ized frankenstein's monster and not resemble either account (material from one or both has to be ignored to force them together).

Yes, TSL is a work of fan fiction. I don't think we were talking about that were we? Fan writers do what fan writers do.

As for a wedding, its interesting bit of trivia in KQ7 Authorized guide, there are rumors of their "wedding" was soon to take place in Daventry. Derek didn't believe those rumors, nor the rumors that they were even dating were true, but what can you do, hah hah. That is the limits to official reference to a "wedding" as anything :p... Although no official game had actually ever shown the wedding take place.

Quotewe have no idea why Granny's got the vampire's ring and cloak.

Actually there was an idea postulated by the Companion, that's about the only official explanation that exists.

QuoteCanonically, we have no idea where Valanice was being held, or why the atmosphere was so surreal.

Depends on what you want to follow, in KQ2, it could be implied to be another world (early KQ2 box implied that it could be another dimension). Actually some of the later games summaries (see "about screen" buttons in either KQ5 or KQ6), describes it as a remote part of the world, or some such, as do some of the later manuals. In another source by Roberta herself, she said that the quart tower was in another part of Kolyma itself... Unless of course you consider those various and conflicting sources "non-canon".

This is pretty much why I hate the term "canon", because people pick and choose what they want to ignore, what they want to follow. If they disagree with something they seem to treat what they disagree with as "non-canon". You have created your own personal concept of "canon". I don't know if the developers actually had a straight idea of any "canon".

Quote from: Baggins on August 07, 2010, 05:29:49 AM
Pointing out a logical fallacy is not meant to be 'rude', just to point out what generally isn't allowed in Wikipedia, Manual of Style rules (avoiding original research and that like). Thus is generally the mind set I tend to follow in discussions. Fan fiction and speculation are generally frowned upon as well. Which is why I tend to try to avoid it.

But this isn't Wikipedia, and I'm not writing this on a page of the Omnipedia. If I were, I could understand your concerns with what I'm saying but I haven't. It's a discussion on a forum completely unconnected to Wiki. Yes, I know your background is more encyclopedic in nature but, as we've discussed, that's not mine. So why, in discussions on these forums, am I going to act like it is? :\

And, no, I'm not committing a logical fallacy, but the way. Listen to the dialogue. They do not say all. They do not say some. However, given the storm, the reef, the size of the boat, how quickly the boat sank, etc -- all things we witnessed in the introduction -- it would not be logical for everyone but one person to have escaped. That's a logical fallacy. We know there were survivors, yes, who made it back to Daventry is deluding themselves.
(But I don't think Allronix was concerned so much with pointing out a logical fallacy as your saying "Yes have fun with your little fanon games, but I tend to try to stick to more credible writing modus operandi used in research.")

QuoteMy original point was that two accounts are different, they aren't consistent. Its not just about "how many crew members were saved". it much more complicated than that. Anything you try to do with them will essentially be a b******ized frankenstein's monster and not resemble either account (material from one or both has to be ignored to force them together).

Right. You were, as per usual, pointing out inconsistencies. I haven't argued that there are no inconsistencies with the canon of KQ. What I'm saying is that there are ways, as a fan writer, to make things more consistent.

QuoteAs for a wedding, its interesting bit of trivia in KQ7 Authorized guide, there are rumors of their "wedding" was soon to take place in Daventry. Derek didn't believe those rumors, nor the rumors that they were even dating were true, but what can you do, hah hah. That is the limits to official reference to a "wedding" as anything :p... Although no official game had actually ever shown the wedding take place.

there was an idea postulated by the Companion, that's about the only official explanation that exists.

Depends on what you want to follow, in KQ2, it could be implied to be another world (early KQ2 box implied that it could be another dimension). Actually some of the later games summaries (see "about screen" buttons in either KQ5 or KQ6), describes it as a remote part of the world, or some such, as do some of the later manuals. In another source by Roberta herself, she said that the quart tower was in another part of Kolyma itself... Unless of course you consider those various and conflicting sources "non-canon".

Oh, and look at that -- *two* examples of the Companion contradicting the games/game creator sandwiching an example of where the Companion offers the only explanation there is. This is precisely why you need speculation with this series.

QuoteThis is pretty much why I hate the term "canon", because people pick and choose what they want to ignore, what they want to follow. If they disagree with something they seem to treat what they disagree with as "non-canon". You have created your own personal concept of "canon". I don't know if the developers actually had a straight idea of any "canon".

Apparently they didn't. :P But just because we're picking one thing and not something else, doesn't mean making something non-canon. Part of this whole attempt at combining the two versions of the storm in KQ6 is to include as many things that are considered canon as possible. It's all part of "canon poker".