Actually it can be said that each of the games in the KQ series were innovated in some way, and reinvented some aspect of the Adventure game genre as a whole. There were usually a vocal group of "KQ fans" that complained each time in some way (accusing the games of not being "King's Quest" enough).
Point of note MOE wasn't a "failure" as such. It was the best selling KQ game ever actually. Sold more than each previous game in the series. It sold more than Grim Fandango as well. It also had mostly decent ratings at the time. Most were over 70%.
If it had remained like the original games it probably still would have sold well, but still wouldn't have been enough for the bean counters at Sierra though (who weren't looking for a successful adventure game, but something that could compete with more popular genres of the time).
The truth is that adventure games in general just weren't successful anymore, compared to other games out there.
But to me, the story, the center story, that which carries the game is the most important aspect of the two, and the fantastical side compliments this story, much like, again, Harry Potter, or in another perfect example, Kingdom Hearts.
So, I apologize if you don't like the story, you've made that extremely clear once and again, but TSL is here the way it is and it's not going to change its tone.
Even Josh Mandel, who holds your same position congratulated me in staying true to my vision, and going through all the trouble to make it happen.
Josh Mandel played TSL? What'd he think?
Ripping off the characters and settings from someone else's IP does not make your game "true" to that world.
Ripping off the characters and settings from someone else's IP does not make your game "true" to that world. If you wanted to do something so original and "true to your vision," you should try creating some original characters, not just riding on the shoulders of someone else's success.
new...settings in order to remain "true" to an existing series? That doesn't really make any sense.The irony of that perspective being that I suppose the official King's Quest games never remained "true" to "existing series" since it always included new settings and new characters in each game. Other than Daventry, and the Royal Family, Cassima, Manannan, and the Old Gnome, the series more or less always created new characters and settings.
Try not to feed the trolls, folks. :)
Trolls on Parade;
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100817174134/kingsquest/images/a/ae/TrollsKQ.jpg)
Spinz: in that particular case, all I can do is again stress 'wait for Episode 2'.
yes i know iv heard it, all of your wildest dreams will be fixed in episode 2, and they knew about all the problems before releasing it. But why they would wait until episode 2 for "the real game" is deeply puzzling to me (though i have my own theories). Unfortunately i can only base my ramblings on what ive seen so far. And what iv seen is alot of talk about the silver lining being a cinematic experience, and in episode 1 it is mostly watching.
Josh Mandel played TSL? What'd he think?
And then again, you have many fans who say TSL is very true to the King's Quest series, including its creator Roberta Williams herself. Let me say that I was very nervous of what her comments would be given the bleakness of Ep1. But she, as many others, found it to be very true to King's Quest.
there are a couple of twists down the line that I have no idea how most fans will take.
I personally consider "Harry Potter" the fairytale of today's audience. I'm not the biggest fans, but I've appreciated its story. I call it "teen fantasy" but the truth is that it has captivated beyond its intended audience, and that's because that's what today audiences like.
Josh was aware of the original plot seeds way back in the day. He opposed to the story and that eventually led to we not being in very good terms.
So there's a bit for everyone.
since I'm sure you know she's never played any other fangame or given comments about any other fangame.
I suppose if I were Sierra I would not be happy, as Sierra owns the copyrights to these games; I don't. This is a question which should be posed to the people at Sierra. I don't receive royalties anymore from King's Quest as Sierra doesn't really go out of its way to sell it. Therefore, these sort of "fan" games aren't affecting me as far as my pocketbook goes. In fact, it could be said that by "fans" producing these games that they are, in a way, keeping them alive. I kind of feel that, if Sierra isn't going to do it, then somebody should! I just hope they do a good job and portray these games in a good light so that people who have never experienced them will understand what they were all about. You never know, these "fan" games could be keeping the plate "warm" if I ever return with another game!
Roberta Williams
In my experience, parodies have never been particularly compassionate toward their subject--though hilarious, I would certainly not like my hard work to be the butt of all the jokes this game will no doubt contain. How do you feel about Royal Quest in terms of your own work on the classic series?
I have never seen Royal Quest and do not know exactly what it is like; I suppose if there were direct insults toward me personally, then I would not be happy. However, one could also take parodies and/or spoofs of one's products as a compliment, because why would someone bother to parody a product that nobody ever heard of or cared about? Therefore, I guess I am torn on the issue of a parody being done on King's Quest. I will have to wait and see how it turns out before I can have an absolute opinion of it. Hopefully, I will eventually be able to play it and see for myself; is it a "mockery" or a "parody"? A parody is probably fine; a mockery is probably not.
Royal Quest is reputed to be a vulgar and violent comedic spoof--does this not, to some extent, belittle the original King's Quest series, even though the RQ team affirms otherwise? Or do you find it tolerable and take it as a compliment? Do you think you will play Royal Quest?
Sure, I would play Royal Quest. Why not? Also, how would I know whether I should be upset by it if I don't play it? As to whether it is vulgar and violent: again, since I haven't played it I can't really comment on it. You said it is "reputed" to be vulgar and violent. Has anyone really played it yet? Is this the opinion of many people who have played it or of a few? I would expect that with a parody of King's Quest--since King's Quest has more of a sweet, nonviolent reputation--there would be some sort of "opposite" of what King's Quest really is; otherwise, it wouldn't really be a parody. If it were the "same" as King's Quest, then it would be King's Quest. A parody would, as parodies do, poke fun at what it is, and, that would probably include adding in some violence since King's Quest was not about violence. I think that I, and everybody else, probably need to understand that and not take too much offense.
Did you know that Josh Mandel has agreed to provide voices for the KQ1 remake that the Royal Quest team is also creating? What do you think of that?
Well, I think that Josh will do a good job; after all, who besides me would know King's Quest so well? More power to him.
How has the "fan game" situation affected you personally? Are you opposed to fans creating games based upon commercial series? How do you feel about potential copyright violations these games pose?
Not only fans here say that. Go and read some reviews. There's two things you can get from the reviews overall: 1) It's a very short game 2) It's very true to the King's Quest series. --Roberta didn't have to play the game and give comments either, since I'm sure you know she's never played any other fangame or given comments about any other fangame. Why did she decide to play ours and give comments? I don't know, but she did. And they were extremely good comments. She did say that the game was too short.
We are not arrogant. We just decided to do our take on King's Quest. If you don't like it, that's fine. Like you there are many that don't like it, probably. We don't expect everyone to like it. I welcome you to go and do your own game where you hold your vision of what King's Quest should be. This is our vision, we stand by it, and we are very proud of it --and that's not going to change.
Here. You have many fans here that say that. You could crap on the floor and they would say it was true to King's Quest. Oh yes, I really see Roberta receiving a fanmade game that was 10 years in development, and then sending you a bunch of negatives about it. This is a woman who made nursery rhyme games for children. She's not going to be overly critical.
No, it's because J.K. Rowling is a hell of a writer. She writes creative characters and dialog that sounds extremely natural and is easily relatable to just about anyone at any age. She does NOT write overly wordy sappy romance novel bulls*** dialogue and turn stoic heroes into spineless wimps.
So there's a bit for everyone.
Except fans of King's Quest.
Not only fans here say that. Go and read some reviews. There's two things you can get from the reviews overall: 1) It's a very short game 2) It's very true to the King's Quest series. --Roberta didn't have to play the game and give comments either, since I'm sure you know she's never played any other fangame or given comments about any other fangame. Why did she decide to play ours and give comments? I don't know, but she did. And they were extremely good comments. She did say that the game was too short.
We are not arrogant. We just decided to do our take on King's Quest. If you don't like it, that's fine. Like you there are many that don't like it, probably. We don't expect everyone to like it. I welcome you to go and do your own game where you hold your vision of what King's Quest should be. This is our vision, we stand by it, and we are very proud of it --and that's not going to change.
Cesar, the problem isn't so much the direction as the fact that you've stated a goal of yours is to get a commercial license for all of Sierra's franchises. That's going beyond a subjective fan project where it's your vision, and making your ''take'' into an official sequel. As someone who grew up with these games, who has loved these games since I was 4 years old, I find that a bit insulting to myself and other fans.
To me, the only ''official'' version of King's Quest would be one written by Roberta, Josh, or Jane; the only official SQ would be one written by Scott, Mark or Josh, etc. No fan game is the official continuation of the story, nor should it attempt to be--It's insulting to other fans, and to the worlds the original creators created. Regardless of how many people support TSL, that still does not make it King's Quest IX. As you said, it's your take--It's in essence as much a reboot as it is a 'sequel.' My problem is with your plan to try and become the official sequel designers. That's where fan-game freedom ends and something else begins.
You want to have your own vision of KQ? That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own dreams, and visions of the future of the series. But don't call it or attempt to make legally the official KQIX, thereby making other's views something inferior.
Here. You have many fans here that say that. You could crap on the floor and they would say it was true to King's Quest. Oh yes, I really see Roberta receiving a fanmade game that was 10 years in development, and then sending you a bunch of negatives about it. This is a woman who made nursery rhyme games for children. She's not going to be overly critical.
u mad?No, it's because J.K. Rowling is a hell of a writer. She writes creative characters and dialog that sounds extremely natural and is easily relatable to just about anyone at any age. She does NOT write overly wordy sappy romance novel bulls*** dialogue and turn stoic heroes into spineless wimps.
I'd beg to differ. J.K. Rowling wasn't creative or original. She struck gold by composing an idea that was redundantly cliched but was in dire need of a rehash. Also, the Harry Potter series was directed towards a specific demographic. I would hardly say that the series was "relatable" (not a real word by the way) to any age range, as you said. Another side note; near the end of the series, the books were chock full of "overly wordy sappy romance novel bulls*** dialogue and turn stoic heroes into spineless wimps". Read all seven books again if you want to clarify so. There was a definitive reason why I boycotted the franchise.So there's a bit for everyone.
Except fans of King's Quest.
That's strange. I could swear there was an abundance of "Save TSL", "Down with the C&D", and "&@$# off, Activision" movements all around the web when this project was facing its darker days. If this game doesn't appeal to King's Quest fans, then why did King's Quest fans go out of their way to preserve the project? Normally, I would go along with what you say and play the Devil's Advocate, but in this case, you are ill-informed.
(Posted on: August 17, 2010, 08:15:45 PM)Not only fans here say that. Go and read some reviews. There's two things you can get from the reviews overall: 1) It's a very short game 2) It's very true to the King's Quest series. --Roberta didn't have to play the game and give comments either, since I'm sure you know she's never played any other fangame or given comments about any other fangame. Why did she decide to play ours and give comments? I don't know, but she did. And they were extremely good comments. She did say that the game was too short.
We are not arrogant. We just decided to do our take on King's Quest. If you don't like it, that's fine. Like you there are many that don't like it, probably. We don't expect everyone to like it. I welcome you to go and do your own game where you hold your vision of what King's Quest should be. This is our vision, we stand by it, and we are very proud of it --and that's not going to change.
Cesar, the problem isn't so much the direction as the fact that you've stated a goal of yours is to get a commercial license for all of Sierra's franchises. That's going beyond a subjective fan project where it's your vision, and making your ''take'' into an official sequel. As someone who grew up with these games, who has loved these games since I was 4 years old, I find that a bit insulting to myself and other fans.
To me, the only ''official'' version of King's Quest would be one written by Roberta, Josh, or Jane; the only official SQ would be one written by Scott, Mark or Josh, etc. No fan game is the official continuation of the story, nor should it attempt to be--It's insulting to other fans, and to the worlds the original creators created. Regardless of how many people support TSL, that still does not make it King's Quest IX. As you said, it's your take--It's in essence as much a reboot as it is a 'sequel.' My problem is with your plan to try and become the official sequel designers. That's where fan-game freedom ends and something else begins.
You want to have your own vision of KQ? That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own dreams, and visions of the future of the series. But don't call it or attempt to make legally the official KQIX, thereby making other's views something inferior.
I may be missing something (I tend to do that), but I personally have never witnessed anybody from Phoenix Online declare The Silver Lining to be an official sequel to the King's Quest series, nor consider it a canonical installment. All I've ever seen is them explaining how The Silver Lining is their "take", "vision", "fan-fiction", etc. Once again, I may have missed a comment that might have leaned in favor of what you're saying, but as far as I've seen, they've been nothing but professional when discussing their positions in this project. Also, when they are saying that TSL is "true to the series", I think they are referring to the content being integral to the King's Quest story. They aren't insinuating that it is a "true King's Quest". Clearly, that would be up for debate, as it is right now.
Actually, relatable IS the proper adjective form of relate--for some reason the spell check just doesn't accept it. ;)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relatable
While I'm not crazy about the darker tone of TSL (or the overly negative tone of jackinthebox's posts lol), I'm willing to give the rest of the game the benefit of the doubt and at least play it before I put all my marbles in the "down with TSL" camp. :P
Incidentally, it's funny that the Harry Potter series should come up as an example--I actually thought the books got progressively worse as they got darker--and it was that darker tone that ultimately ruined the series for me, especially the God-awful last book, which removed everything I loved about the earlier books entirely, and focused on one dreary death-ridden slog to the final battle--which itself was the icing on the crap-cake--particularly whenRowling kills off like half the supporting characters that we had grown to love throughout the course of the series. Just terrible. Blech.The first two books were amazingly witty and charming, and the way the school was portrayed and the creative silliness of the classes and lessons were a real joy to read about. Going down the dark emo path in book three (and then getting even worse from there) was about the worst decision Rowling could have made, in my opinion. There are points in the later books where I just wanted to punch Harry in the face, he was so whiny.
I just don't understand why people automatically think that for a series to mature, it needs to "go darker." I don't get it. Dark does not equal deep. I just don't understand why people seem to always equate the two. KQ6 was easily the deepest game in the series, and it really wasn't "dark" at all--at least not in the way the later Harry Potter books were. The impression KQ6 leaves on most people is that of a beautiful love story, with the hero overcoming impossible odds to save and be with the one he loves. My wife even teared up during parts of it when I had her first play through it with me (which was an awesome experience BTW, and highly recommended if your wife/girlfriend is at all into games. :))
So you would prefer it if Activision just continued to sit on the IP and there was never any actual official work every done on the old Sierra series of adventure games ever again?
How exactly would it be insulting for a group that's able to obtain the permission of both the current owner of the Sierra IP and the blessing of the original creators of these games to pick up where they left off? I don't see anybody else actually putting forth serious effort to do that. We're all huge fans of the series too or we wouldnt' be doing what we're doing - and there are quite a few other fans who would likely love to see some of the Sierra franchises expanded after all these years. We all love remakes of the originals, that's all kinds of fun, but people also love to see new stuff come out, and I hate to break it to you but the original creators are done - they're not going to continue any of those series, and Activision probably isn't going to start making new "x Quest" games on their own.
Cesar, the problem isn't so much the direction as the fact that you've stated a goal of yours is to get a commercial license for all of Sierra's franchises. That's going beyond a subjective fan project where it's your vision, and making your ''take'' into an official sequel. As someone who grew up with these games, who has loved these games since I was 4 years old, I find that a bit insulting to myself and other fans.
So you would prefer it if Activision just continued to sit on the IP and there was never any actual official work every done on the old Sierra series of adventure games ever again?
How exactly would it be insulting for a group that's able to obtain the permission of both the current owner of the Sierra IP and the blessing of the original creators of these games to pick up where they left off? I don't see anybody else actually putting forth serious effort to do that. We're all huge fans of the series too or we wouldnt' be doing what we're doing - and there are quite a few other fans who would likely love to see some of the Sierra franchises expanded after all these years. We all love remakes of the originals, that's all kinds of fun, but people also love to see new stuff come out, and I hate to break it to you but the original creators are done - they're not going to continue any of those series, and Activision probably isn't going to start making new "x Quest" games on their own.
Actually, relatable IS the proper adjective form of relate--for some reason the spell check just doesn't accept it. ;)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relatable
While I'm not crazy about the darker tone of TSL (or the overly negative tone of jackinthebox's posts lol), I'm willing to give the rest of the game the benefit of the doubt and at least play it before I put all my marbles in the "down with TSL" camp. :P
Incidentally, it's funny that the Harry Potter series should come up as an example--I actually thought the books got progressively worse as they got darker--and it was that darker tone that ultimately ruined the series for me, especially the God-awful last book, which removed everything I loved about the earlier books entirely, and focused on one dreary death-ridden slog to the final battle--which itself was the icing on the crap-cake--particularly whenRowling kills off like half the supporting characters that we had grown to love throughout the course of the series. Just terrible. Blech.The first two books were amazingly witty and charming, and the way the school was portrayed and the creative silliness of the classes and lessons were a real joy to read about. Going down the dark emo path in book three (and then getting even worse from there) was about the worst decision Rowling could have made, in my opinion. There are points in the later books where I just wanted to punch Harry in the face, he was so whiny.
I just don't understand why people automatically think that for a series to mature, it needs to "go darker." I don't get it. Dark does not equal deep. I just don't understand why people seem to always equate the two. KQ6 was easily the deepest game in the series, and it really wasn't "dark" at all--at least not in the way the later Harry Potter books were. The impression KQ6 leaves on most people is that of a beautiful love story, with the hero overcoming impossible odds to save and be with the one he loves. My wife even teared up during parts of it when I had her first play through it with me (which was an awesome experience BTW, and highly recommended if your wife/girlfriend is at all into games. :))
TIME OUT!
I will remind everyone here too that this discussion needs to kept clean and NO straight attacks must be made by any party. We are a family here and we need to treat each everyone with respect.
Who said this was official? I view it as the official one but I'm not speaking of everyone. I read those comments made by Cez and I never saw him as trying to resurrect Sierra but the vision that they had. Good family quality games and he never said that POS should only be the ones making sequels. Remember the The Silver Lining was once a much larger game and that those other chapters could be made if a commercial license was granted. Why not strive for the best you can be. You are allowed to your vision but remember to respect others as well.
TIME OUT!
I will remind everyone here too that this discussion needs to kept clean and NO straight attacks must be made by any party. We are a family here and we need to treat each everyone with respect.
Who said this was official? I view it as the official one but I'm not speaking of everyone. I read those comments made by Cez and I never saw him as trying to resurrect Sierra but the vision that they had. Good family quality games and he never said that POS should only be the ones making sequels. Remember the The Silver Lining was once a much larger game and that those other chapters could be made if a commercial license was granted. Why not strive for the best you can be. You are allowed to your vision but remember to respect others as well.
To be fair, he did explicitly say in those interviews that the eventual desire was to get official license to produce games based on Sierra IPs commercially. I really don't see what's so ambiguous about direct quotes. :P
TIME OUT!
I will remind everyone here too that this discussion needs to kept clean and NO straight attacks must be made by any party. We are a family here and we need to treat each everyone with respect.
Who said this was official? I view it as the official one but I'm not speaking of everyone. I read those comments made by Cez and I never saw him as trying to resurrect Sierra but the vision that they had. Good family quality games and he never said that POS should only be the ones making sequels. Remember the The Silver Lining was once a much larger game and that those other chapters could be made if a commercial license was granted. Why not strive for the best you can be. You are allowed to your vision but remember to respect others as well.
To be fair, he did explicitly say in those interviews that the eventual desire was to get official license to produce games based on Sierra IPs commercially. I really don't see what's so ambiguous about direct quotes. :P
The times have changed. The world has changed. Cesar's version of King's Quest takes the story of the past and merged it with what the world is today.
If someone wrote their own version of Lord of the Rings, I'd expect it to be different because it was by someone else. They aren't doing a disservice to anyone or insulting the memory.
Nobody's saying that mature automatically results in dark, but that is sort of the natural direction the King's Quest games would take - as they moved on we continued to see more and more direct attacks on the royal family from evil witches and wizards. More mature game design generally means a more complex story - the story isn't going to be all that complex if it's all kicks and giggles. There's definitely some fun stuff that will take place as the episodes continue and plenty of jokes and laughs will be had, but without conflict it wouldn't be a good story at all. We just very heavily introduced that conflict during the first episode.
I really have to agree with Katie (and not just because I work with her) that it's just a matter of time and opportunity and determination. Sure, we'd love to make the transition into a full-blown commercial production studio. I think we're doing an excellent job of showing what we're capable of when we can finally really get down to business, and hopefully we'll see some rewards from that in one way or another as time goes on.
No one's starting a war here. This thread (with a few exceptions) actually has a pretty intelligent and thoughtful debate going, in my opinion. Where's the harm in discussing differing views on the future of the series?
This is the thing: Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE lofty that you haven't even released a full game yet as a team, and yet are already (perhaps even seriously?) contemplating getting a commercial license to produce 'official' sequels to OTHER franchises which thousands of people love?
I don't have the level of knowledge about the series and characters that Baggins does, and I've never worked on another fan project like some others in the community. But I do know the games - I was practically raised by Graham. KQI was the first video game I ever played, and then in awe I discovered that video games could have sequels when I found a copy of KQII on a store shelf and swored myself to a life of servitude to my parents to convince them to buy it for me. I learned how to program a DOS Boot disk when I was only 9 years old so that I could play KQIII, and then taught myself how to install a sound card and upgrade a power supply for KQIV's music. My parents made me save up and buy my own computer for KQV (so I'd stop messing around with theirs) which I later had to learn to install a CD-ROM in to play the version of KQVI I picked up. I can literally trace a number of major decisions in my life back to those early experiences I had thanks to the King's Quest games. This project brings me back to those days, and I hope it'll do the same for others as well.
This project brings me back to those days, and I hope it'll do the same for others as well.
This project brings me back to those days, and I hope it'll do the same for others as well.
That's the very feeling I want to experience. If nostalgia sets in when I'm playing TSL, then in my eyes, you guys have accomplished what you have set out for.
Seriously, my first gaming memory is of getting killed by that stupid rock in KQ1, thinking (as a 7-year-old) that Graham was a moron for pulling the rock toward him, and then being completely and totally fascinated by the game knowing that if you pushed from the other side the rock wouldn't kill you.
I can honestly say that after playing through all five episodes, I really do care about the royal family more than I did before. I think that most people who play through to the end will appreciate the story we're weaving here.
Monkey Island was originally done by LucasArts. So in a way, it's similar to what we are debating right now (if hypothetically Phoenix Online were to get the rights to Sierra's games). I liked the new environment and the different atmosphere that Monkey Island was known for. Telltale games brought back an old cast as well as introduce new faces. However, I was overall disappointed with the ending (not going to spoil anything). So Telltale Games took a series that wasn't theirs and tried to establish themselves as a game developer by putting their spin on it. Would it be wise to completely disregard any other game that they attempt to make? Hardly. If anything, it'd be wise to pay close attention to them. Cause while I can sit back and point out the flaws, I can easily sit back and ponder the advantages that the game had.Actually to be fair, this is not a good analogy btw. You are looking in the wrong direction.
QuoteMonkey Island was originally done by LucasArts. So in a way, it's similar to what we are debating right now (if hypothetically Phoenix Online were to get the rights to Sierra's games). I liked the new environment and the different atmosphere that Monkey Island was known for. Telltale games brought back an old cast as well as introduce new faces. However, I was overall disappointed with the ending (not going to spoil anything). So Telltale Games took a series that wasn't theirs and tried to establish themselves as a game developer by putting their spin on it. Would it be wise to completely disregard any other game that they attempt to make? Hardly. If anything, it'd be wise to pay close attention to them. Cause while I can sit back and point out the flaws, I can easily sit back and ponder the advantages that the game had.Actually to be fair, this is not a good analogy btw. You are looking in the wrong direction.
Tales of Monkey Island was a game jointly produced by Lucasarts and Tell Tale games (its not the first time Lucasarts has worked with 3rd party companies in the past, BTW). Don't believe this, I suggest you look at the logo screen again. Telltale didn't buy the franchise from Lucasarts. I don't think Lucasarts would ever would sell it as it is one of there most popular IPs.
Also many of the people involved with that game were the original people behind earlier Lucasarts and Monkey Island games (they even consulted Ron Gilbert who hadn't been involved with the series since MI2, and by later episodes he was directly involved). You might not know this but many of the designers of Tell Tale originally worked at Lucasarts on the Lucasarts adventures. So its essentially what became of Lucasarts adventure division. Its not exactly "another unrelated company taking over the IP". Its people with experience with those IPs, and should have the right to continue those IPs. For that matter, they even were able to get many of the same actors from CMI to reprise there roles.
I agree, I think its too early to judge TSL on its own merits, or against the official games in the series. Especially from such a short non-game episode.
QuoteMonkey Island was originally done by LucasArts. So in a way, it's similar to what we are debating right now (if hypothetically Phoenix Online were to get the rights to Sierra's games). I liked the new environment and the different atmosphere that Monkey Island was known for. Telltale games brought back an old cast as well as introduce new faces. However, I was overall disappointed with the ending (not going to spoil anything). So Telltale Games took a series that wasn't theirs and tried to establish themselves as a game developer by putting their spin on it. Would it be wise to completely disregard any other game that they attempt to make? Hardly. If anything, it'd be wise to pay close attention to them. Cause while I can sit back and point out the flaws, I can easily sit back and ponder the advantages that the game had.Actually to be fair, this is not a good analogy btw. You are looking in the wrong direction.
Tales of Monkey Island was a game jointly produced by Lucasarts and Tell Tale games (its not the first time Lucasarts has worked with 3rd party companies in the past, BTW). Don't believe this, I suggest you look at the logo screen again. Telltale didn't buy the franchise from Lucasarts. I don't think Lucasarts would ever would sell it as it is one of there most popular IPs.
Also many of the people involved with that game were the original people behind earlier Lucasarts and Monkey Island games (they even consulted Ron Gilbert who hadn't been involved with the series since MI2, and by later episodes he was directly involved). You might not know this but many of the designers of Tell Tale originally worked at Lucasarts on the Lucasarts adventures. So its essentially what became of Lucasarts adventure division. Its not exactly "another unrelated company taking over the IP". Its people with experience with those IPs, and should have the right to continue those IPs. For that matter, they even were able to get many of the same actors from CMI to reprise there roles.
Now me personally I think I kinda agree with DMD on this particular issue, I don't so much care if a third party creates an official continuation of an adventure game series, but I think its important that some of the original designers behind the IP is involved with making the games. Even games that stayed with the company such as last 2-3 Leisure Suit Larry games aren't as good as the originals, mainly due in part because they didn't have Al Lowe's involvement. He really is the only one that knows that franchise. As I understand it another company now has the right to that series, their first game using the IP was just as abysmal as the first non Al Lowe version, if not worse. Although personally its not really my cup of tea as far as the Sierraventures. Or the Dr. Brain series, the later games which lacked Lori and Corey Cole's involvement, pale in comparison to the two original games in the series.
There are MI fans that argue that Curse of Monkey Island and Escape of Monkey Island are not essentially authentic games in the series because they lacked Ron Gilbert's hand. Thus for many it was important that he returned for Tales of Monkey Island.
With Space Quest, I'd want Scott Murphy, Mark Crow, or at least Josh Mandel behind the game and its story. Jane Jensen would have to be behind a new Gabriel Knight, etc. I mean more than a just a "blessing" (however congratulations would have to be in order for that honor).
Without the direct involvement of the original writers and designers the game has the potential of being only poorly conceived derivitive work (the crappy LSL come to mind) at best a "spiritual successor". Another case in point look at the latter Simon the Sorcerers, a German company bought the IP from Adventuresoft, they destroyed several aspects of the series, for example they made Simon, American, when he was originally British... I've heard that there are actually other continuity issues between the classic series and the later sequels.
As far as the 'blessing of the original creators' Roberta saying she liked Chapter I wasn't exactly her saying, "You guys are my heirs, this is what I wanted, your game is official in my book and is the way I envisioned a KQ9 would be"
Heh. Ron Gilbert came one day to the studio and talked about Monkey Island. That was his involvement.
Telltale even brought Ron Gilbert himself into the office for a few days to help brainstorm, and the team claims “his thumbprints are all over” the series.
QuoteHeh. Ron Gilbert came one day to the studio and talked about Monkey Island. That was his involvement.
Actually he helped basic story idea, and was the writer for episode 4 and 5 of the series. At least he's listed as such in the credits.
Seriously as I pointed out before, its not hte first time Lucasarts has worked with 3rd party companies. They have worked with Factor5 in the past for example. The other team does all the work, Lucasarts just dealt with the concept art and "approval process". This is simply how 3rd party efforts work :p...
Quote from: TheReturnofDMDAs far as the 'blessing of the original creators' Roberta saying she liked Chapter I wasn't exactly her saying, "You guys are my heirs, this is what I wanted, your game is official in my book and is the way I envisioned a KQ9 would be"
Actually, those were almost her words: "it is almost certain that King’s Quest would have been relegated to a forgotten obscurity – its story left untold. Now, there is a chance that many can truly find out what happens to the royal family of the Kingdom of Daventry."
Her choice of words. Not ours.
Quote from: TheReturnofDMDAs far as the 'blessing of the original creators' Roberta saying she liked Chapter I wasn't exactly her saying, "You guys are my heirs, this is what I wanted, your game is official in my book and is the way I envisioned a KQ9 would be"
Actually, those were almost her words: "it is almost certain that King’s Quest would have been relegated to a forgotten obscurity – its story left untold. Now, there is a chance that many can truly find out what happens to the royal family of the Kingdom of Daventry."
Her choice of words. Not ours.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment--I must say that those statements by no means mean the same thing. Nowhere in her words does she say anything akin to "this is what I envisioned for the series; I'd like to see you continue the Sierra legacy in the future." It really seems to be more of a "you guys did an admirable job--you should be proud of all your hard work" kind of statement, especially when put into the context of the rest of her remarks.
Once the ink was on the contracts and we didn't have to keep the thing a complete secret from everyone in the industry, I called Ron and said, 'I'm doing another Monkey Island game.' Ron said that he was going to be in town in a couple of weeks and he'd cancel all of the things he had scheduled to do and just hang out in our offices. So, we had him for three days. He helped out with the story and designed a few puzzles for us.
Tales of Monkey Island interview - Ron Gilbert involved but no Tim Shaffer, still not set release for WiiWare version
June 23, 2009 by RawmeatCowboy Filed Under: Wii, WiiWare
A portion of a Eurogamer interview with Telltale's Dave Grossman...
Eurogamer: You mentioned Ron Gilbert there who, along with Tim Schafer, played a key role in the Monkey Island series. What have they had to say about Tales of Monkey Island? Are they helping?
Dave Grossman: Ron did. As soon as I was allowed to tell anyone I called Ron on the phone, because I know the series does mean a lot to him, and he was the original guiding force behind the first games. He looked around and said, "Could I come down there and brainstorm with you?" And I was like, "Great! That is absolutely the best thing you could do."
So he came down and spent the better part of a week with us, just tossing around ideas. We bounced the broad-story stuff off of him; he had some comments about how we were handling Elaine in our first draft that got us to make some changes; and probably a few of his bubbles are in there as well. He had to go back to his regular job as the creative director at Hothead where he's doing his own game Deathspank, which also looks pretty cool. But he did get his chance to put his two-cents in.
I didn't wind up calling Tim because getting Ron involved turned out to be so much trouble - there's a lot of legal wrangling around that. I figured if I'm just going to be able to pick one of them, then it's going to be Ron.
No, of course she's not going to say that this is her vision for continuation of the series --because that would be impossible as we don't live in her head--, but she is saying that people can "truly find out what happens next" which means she's completely sanctioning the story, whatever that is. She could have just said, "this is an admirable work" without having to say "now people can truly find out what happens to the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Daventry". Truly finds out being the key words meaning she's passing down the ball and putting it in our hands to continue the story she started.
I don't think we're saying at all that we're doing what Roberta would have done if she had remained in charge of the series, just that she likes the story we've put together and is interested in seeing where it goes. And we are thrilled about that fact that she's saying that our story is continuing the story of Graham's family for people.
Well (unless I misunderstand) Cez was actually there in person talking to Roberta when she played the game, so I think he probably has a pretty good idea of what she meant. Roberta said that our game is showing people what happens to the royal family, that's not ambiguous or open to much interpretation at all.
Perhaps its your company just hyped up and exagerrated the involvement of Ron Gilbert, because they made it an advertising point in several interviews. At E3 and elsewhere, and they put him in the main credits in either episode 4 and/or 5.
Well (unless I misunderstand) Cez was actually there in person talking to Roberta when she played the game, so I think he probably has a pretty good idea of what she meant. Roberta said that our game is showing people what happens to the royal family, that's not ambiguous or open to much interpretation at all.
Huh--I was under the impression that she was sent a copy, which she played with Ken. I'm sure someone will clarify.
I already told you, he came for one day and worked on the seeds of the ideas. That much is true.
So he came down and spent the better part of a week with us, just tossing around ideas.
So, we had him for three days. He helped out with the story and designed a few puzzles for us
QuoteI already told you, he came for one day and worked on the seeds of the ideas. That much is true.
So it was one day? Then in interviews they claimed he visited for a few days, to a better part of a week?QuoteSo he came down and spent the better part of a week with us, just tossing around ideas.
Seriously, people can't keep there stories straight, LOL. Ahh the fun in marketing and "hyping".
Quote from: CezNo, of course she's not going to say that this is her vision for continuation of the series --because that would be impossible as we don't live in her head--, but she is saying that people can "truly find out what happens next" which means she's completely sanctioning the story, whatever that is. She could have just said, "this is an admirable work" without having to say "now people can truly find out what happens to the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Daventry". Truly finds out being the key words meaning she's passing down the ball and putting it in our hands to continue the story she started.
Wow. :o That's a pretty bold interpretation of that statement--especially given the fact that she doesn't even KNOW the whole story of the game yet, seeing as she's only played the introduction. You keep telling US to reserve judgment til we play the whole thing, but you assume since Roberta spoke favorably of the introduction to the story that she not only approves of the whole thing but is "passing the ball" and wants you to take up her mantle? Am I alone in seeing the discrepancy there?
Seriously, it's statements like that that are giving you guys the reputation for arrogance and egotism. If you want to come across as good-natured game developers willing to humbly talk to fans and graciously accept constructive criticisms, you really need to watch that kind of talk.
The other thing to take in consideration here is that while it's fun to do fangames and such, you would have to consider that TSL could have been done in the better part of 1 to 1 and half years instead of 8.There'd be a ton of great things that could come from something like this. No matter how good things get, a group doing work for free is always going to be limited in some way just by that one simple fact. Go commercial and start paying people, and you find that you can work way faster (seriously, if everybody working on Episode 2 was paid and working on it full-time it would easily have been done by now) and you can work better. And the multi-platforms thing wasn't even a possibility before like it is now - it would be relatively easy to port the work we're doing to console systems and Macs, but not particularly so when we're just trying to figure that stuff out in our free time.
What's also important to consider is that a project such as SQ7.org would have probably seen the light of day instead of going nowhere --same with Hero6.
What's also most important is that you can see these games on different consoles, with better graphics, and better technology.
In my opinion, there's a lot to be gained from it.
The other thing to take in consideration here is that while it's fun to do fangames and such, you would have to consider that TSL could have been done in the better part of 1 to 1 and half years instead of 8.
What's also important to consider is that a project such as SQ7.org would have probably seen the light of day instead of going nowhere --same with Hero6.
What's also most important is that you can see these games on different consoles, with better graphics, and better technology.
In my opinion, there's a lot to be gained from it.
Jane or Lorelei Shannon, but both worked on only one game and inserted a lot of their own ideas--some even possibly without Roberta's knowledge (for example Roberta having no idea that the Black Cloak Society made into KQ6), but Josh was on board from KQV onward until MOE (Which according to Ken, she didn't even want her name associated with but grudgingly put her name on)Well Jane as far as I know only had involvement with one game?
I worked on King's Quest I -SCI, the remake done in 1990. It was my very first project when I came to Sierra; the game had been languishing for awhile because Roberta was so heavily involved with King's Quest V, which was in progress at the same time. While I was officially titled "Producer," Roberta let me get more hands-on: I rewrote most of the actual game text, added a lot of new responses, and slightly altered some of the puzzles. The original game, groundbreaking as it was, was somewhat terse and brief. I tried to make it more fairy tale-ish in its prose, so it would fit in better with the much more detailed King's Quest IV and King's Quest V.
I don't think Hero6 had anything directly to do with Quest for Glory other than making a new game with the same type of gameplay. They never released much info about it, but what they did release seemed to imply that it would have followed its own Hero. Completely different story with no connection with the rest.
So I don't know if it could have been "shut down".
The other thing to take in consideration here is that while it's fun to do fangames and such, you would have to consider that TSL could have been done in the better part of 1 to 1 and half years instead of 8.
What's also important to consider is that a project such as SQ7.org would have probably seen the light of day instead of going nowhere --same with Hero6.
What's also most important is that you can see these games on different consoles, with better graphics, and better technology.
In my opinion, there's a lot to be gained from it.
If I recall correctly, SQ7 stopped because they refused to turn over the rights to their work to Vivendi. If a commercial license had been gotten, would not Vivendi (and now, Activision) have the rights to what they made anyway? Vivendi/Activision at the end of the day still owns the rights.
As to Hero6--I never really followed that project, so I can't comment.
And as far as time wise, haven't you said a big part of that was you guys being overly ambitious with the original size of the story? I mean even if you had a commercial license, I truly doubt Activison would give you a million dollar budget to work on a long dead series in a just as dead (commercially) genre.
As far as consoles and better graphics--You're dealing with a group of people who were happy with VGA games. I really doubt playing a sequel with the latest 3D graphics would matter, because when it comes to 3D, what looks really nice now will look blocky and crappy to whatever comes out in a few years anyway.
I think there's more to be gained for the series to unofficially in the hands of all than ''officially'' in the hands one. Since Roberta isn't ever coming back on board--She and Ken are happily enjoying retirement, and she's made this statement many times, and you youself have said you had bad blood with Josh (I believe over the direction of the project or story ideas), I doubt he would jump on board, and according to Roberta, Josh is the only other person besides her that ''knows KQ'' as much as her. People say what they will about Jane or Lorelei Shannon, but both worked on only one game and inserted a lot of their own ideas--some even possibly without Roberta's knowledge (for example Roberta having no idea that the Black Cloak Society made into KQ6), but Josh was on board from KQV onward until MOE (Which according to Ken, she didn't even want her name associated with but grudgingly put her name on)
I'd disagree that the genre is commercially dead. There's definitely an interest in adventure games being done following the old format, as we've drawn fans, comments, reviews, news articles, and requests for language translations from all over the world in the last few weeks. So there's still a market out there for this type of game.
Well there's a difference between not being in the "Big Leagues" and being commercially dead. Moving 500,000 copies of a game would be a total commercial success if it was put together with a relatively small team. If you had a five episode game and moved each episode for $10 each you'd pull in $25 million. A smaller team could work with that quite well.
Who's to say we aren't going to make our own games based on our own IP? We have on in the pre-production stages. Everyone here is arguing over something that hasn't even happened yet, so why keep beating a dead horse? This topic started as why would an adventure game needed to be reevaluated to an argument about how people don't or do like this, when 'this' hasn't happened yet. Let's bring it back to the topic and stop predicting the future about people who just have high dreams.
Tales of Monkey Island was a complete success and the best selling game of Telltale Games to date. The game did not have Mass Effect 2 3D graphics yet that did not stop it from being hailed all around.
Did you know that Activision published Tales of Monkey Island in Germany?
Did you know that Activision published "Drawn - The Painted Tower". You can go to Wal-mart and find it. ( a very small casual adventure game by BigFishGames)
Well there is still one more episode of the 3rd season of S&M, I think. Unless its been released in the last few days without my knowledge. I can't wait to see how this ends. Its the best S&M season, imo.
I'd assume that any group that was doing fan work based on an old game series that was given the opportunity to continue doing that and actually get paid for it would jump all over that opportunity.
Hell, it's why Blizzard abandoned their own adventure game.
Scott is done with the series, he has a vision of SQ1-4 and doesn't want it tainted with fan games and sequels it seemsScott Murphy was the one who finished SQ6 actually. Made something like "half" the game after Josh Mandel left.
Mark and Scott hate each others guts.???
QuoteScott is done with the series, he has a vision of SQ1-4 and doesn't want it tainted with fan games and sequels it seemsScott Murphy was the one who finished SQ6 actually. Made something like "half" the game after Josh Mandel left.
http://www.spacequest.net/sq6/funfacts/QuoteMark and Scott hate each others guts.???
JM: Fans who purchased the most recent version of the Space Quest Collection were treated to the promotional movie for Space Quest 7. Many of these fans, however, are not aware of the story behind the game's eventual cancellation. Could you give us the full scoop on what happened to Roger's seventh adventure?
SM: The deal with the demo is that it had nothing to do with what Space Quest 7 was supposed to be. It was merely eye candy for management (ugh) and for the Collection.
It never stood a chance. With the unrealistic expectations of the dumb-asses running the Sierra division in Oakhurst and Bellevue at the time, it was doomed from the start. I know that they'd pretty much jerked my heart out of the process. The only good thing about that time was the people I got to work for a while who would have made up the SQ7 team, and they were some great people. Just don't tell the bastards I said that. Nobody reads this crap anyway. Right?
Hmm came accross an interesting fact on the SQ7 trailer that came with the SQ collection. http://wiw.org/~jess/scott112900.html;QuoteJM: Fans who purchased the most recent version of the Space Quest Collection were treated to the promotional movie for Space Quest 7. Many of these fans, however, are not aware of the story behind the game's eventual cancellation. Could you give us the full scoop on what happened to Roger's seventh adventure?
SM: The deal with the demo is that it had nothing to do with what Space Quest 7 was supposed to be. It was merely eye candy for management (ugh) and for the Collection.
It never stood a chance. With the unrealistic expectations of the dumb-asses running the Sierra division in Oakhurst and Bellevue at the time, it was doomed from the start. I know that they'd pretty much jerked my heart out of the process. The only good thing about that time was the people I got to work for a while who would have made up the SQ7 team, and they were some great people. Just don't tell the b******s I said that. Nobody reads this crap anyway. Right?
QuoteMark and Scott hate each others guts.???
JM: After the Two Guys from Andromeda split up, Mark Crowe went on to fly solo for SQ5. What was your take on the somewhat different direction in which Mark took the series in this sequel?
SM: It was interesting. It occurred to me that Mark had been into Star Trek much more than I had, not that that's a bad thing by any means. I didn't really start watching those until the last five or six years (weird, eh?), and I've been digging it. Mark is also a big fan of comic books, as are virtually all the artists I have ever known. The Dynamix development system in those days leant itself well to the comic style, and it did end up with a kind of "Roger Beamish" look, if you will. I was glad that he kept the cartoon look. That was how we'd wanted the games to look from the start and I never wanted that to change.
There as apparently a relaunch, attempt in 1999. Didn't go very far.
http://spacequest.wikia.com/wiki/Space_Quest_7_(Sierra)
Josh: The ending was another disappointment. I know that Scott didn't like my original concept, which was a Planet of the Apes riff with a statue of Leisure Suit Larry. So, when I left, I'd been working on ideas for new endings that we both liked. The ending in the final product was a total surprise to me, and not my idea of what an SQ ending should be. Maybe the budget ran out.
The development of Space Quest VII: Return to Roman Numerals had started as early as 1997 but was eventually canceled by Sierra On-Line years later. Had you been in any way contacted or involved in this attempt to revive the franchise? If you had the opportunity to develop the sequel, what would the new Space Quest be like and how would it be tied to the previous games in the series?
Josh: I wasn't connected with the aborted SQ7 at all, nor was I asked to be. I actually have a lot of ideas for another SQ, some of which I used in writing the story for the SQ7.org fangame. Other ideas, I'm holding onto since people keep popping up with ways to approach Vivendi with a true sequel, and I wouldn't want to tip my hand just in case one of them actually pans out.
Thank you everyone! I'm happy to have joined the forum, although, don't expect many postings from Roberta or I.
We've dropped out of the game business, and haven't played a game in a decade. Roberta did play Chapter 1 of the Silver Lining, but that was really the only game I can remember her playing since the Sierra days. Since becoming deadbeats we spend most of our time traveling. I've written three books about boating (kensblog.com) and Roberta is hard at work on a non-fiction book about the Irish Immigration. We would both love to be doing games, but that would mean sitting still, and we're in a phase of our lives where seeing the world is our #1 priority. Writing gives us a creative outlet, and is something that can be done when we have free time. Developing games is serious hard work, and we're past the point in our lives where we want to work that hard.
We're thrilled and amazed that people still remember us now that we've been retired for so long, and really do miss 'the good old days.'
-Ken Williams
While I was introduced to games in many different forms (Super Mario, Sonic, Doom, and anything I could play on a Game Boy), King's Quest 6 was primarily the game that got me interested in games for the story (Mario and Sonic can't deliver a story quite as well as a good adventure game). Now that I primarily buy games for the story, I've actually seen myself buying less games as the years go on. Most games now profit from online multiplayer modes, as well as sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. It's crucial that developers take heart in their stories, cause that's all that matters (to me at least).
So in Ken's wise words, I would only expect Phoenix to follow their own lead and uphold their own vision. To be honest, it's not even relevant to try and label their vision with metaphors pertaining to other stories (Harry Potter, Twilight, Kingdom Hearts, etc). There's already a Harry Potter, and there's already a Kingdom Hearts. Don't try to relate two stories together that are separate. Who knows, from this time next year, we may end saying that Telltale Games could learn a thing or two from The Silver Lining. While being true to the King's Quest universe may be important (because obviously, the game is in the King's Quest universe), it's much more important for them to be true to themselves.
I've been faithful to this project, cause I truly think something grand can come from it. It's unfortunate that the majority of developers in the industry take a storyline for granted, when there's an ample amount of developers out there that have a good story to tell. Time will tell if The Silver Lining has a place with the likes of King's Quest and Gabriel Knight, but then again, so would Episode 2. :P
One question--Why would TellTale have to learn a thing or two from TSL? I mean it's two different companies' IPs, two different cultures and fanbases and TellTale has their business model/way of doing things, so does Phoenix---And that's what makes both companies unique and special.
TellTale's games seem to have been received rather well with the fans of the old LucasArts franchises anyway, so they seem to have achieved their goal(s). Phoenix so far the reaction has been pretty positive.
I mean Blizzard is Blizzard, Bioware is Bioware--Both are different in their style and excel at what they do. And what makes them equally special is that they're different. If all companies acted the same, or took the same style or approach, the playing field would kind of boring.
That's what made Sierra special--They didn't act like Broderbund, or EA or Davidson & Associates or Atari, or try to--They acted like Sierra.
One question--Why would TellTale have to learn a thing or two from TSL? I mean it's two different companies' IPs, two different cultures and fanbases and TellTale has their business model/way of doing things, so does Phoenix---And that's what makes both companies unique and special.
TellTale's games seem to have been received rather well with the fans of the old LucasArts franchises anyway, so they seem to have achieved their goal(s).
One question--Why would TellTale have to learn a thing or two from TSL? I mean it's two different companies' IPs, two different cultures and fanbases and TellTale has their business model/way of doing things, so does Phoenix---And that's what makes both companies unique and special.
TellTale's games seem to have been received rather well with the fans of the old LucasArts franchises anyway, so they seem to have achieved their goal(s).
Heh--also Telltale was founded by ex-Lucasarts employees, so many of the people that worked on the Telltale games, including Tales of Monkey Island, actually worked on the old Lucasarts adventures as well. They succeeded because they already knew darn well what they were doing to begin with! ;) They knew what would work and what wouldn't, for the most part, and stuck to what made those old games so great. That's the thing, I honestly don't think that Telltale has deviated at all from the spirit of the old Lucasarts games. They've changed things like the interface, the method of distribution (episodic), and good 3D graphics, but the spirit of those games feels JUST LIKE the spirit of the old Lucasarts games.
I dunno, I just don't really think a comparison between Telltale and Pheonix Online is at all valid. On the one hand you have a group of experienced adventure game developers who worked on the old classics and decided to start their own company after leaving Lucasarts--and then put out series after series of high quality adventure games, and on the other, you have a group of fan-developers, just like any other, that have managed to garner an inordinate amount of mainstream press while only releasing the smallest amount of actual material. :-\
I have to be honest--I was never a fan of the LucasArts games. I've tried them, but I could never like their interface. There was something a little overly complicated about it to me. Even the Sierra Parser which some claim is hard, was to me easy because it's relatively straight forward.
I have to be honest--I was never a fan of the LucasArts games. I've tried them, but I could never like their interface. There was something a little overly complicated about it to me. Even the Sierra Parser which some claim is hard, was to me easy because it's relatively straight forward.
Heh...well, that's a debate for another thread, my friend. ;) The very first graphic adventure game I ever played as a kid was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and it changed my life in two ways: 1) I became a lifelong Indyfan, and 2) I became a lifelong adventure game fan. My introduction to KQ was slightly later, but no less inspirational.
I've written three books about boating (kensblog.com) and Roberta is hard at work on a non-fiction book about the Irish Immigration. We would both love to be doing games, but that would mean sitting still, and we're in a phase of our lives where seeing the world is our #1 priority. Writing gives us a creative outlet, and is something that can be done when we have free time. Developing games is serious hard work, and we're past the point in our lives where we want to work that hard.Just saying, both of those topics could be great ideas for computer games, wink wink, nudge nudge, ;). As an anthropologist and archaeologist I'm quite interested in the roles of computer simulation for reconstructing past and present. Giving people ways to "seeing the world", or seeing the world of the past. I'm currently working on a paper looking at military war games and there cultural role.
I was going back from InterAction magazines and other sources, and it seems Roberta may have not has had as big impact on King's Quest VI either compared to previous games (infact she at first didn't want to have much part in it at all, instead she wanted to take on the role of "Creative Consultant").
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Heir_Today,_Gone_Tomorrow_Development#Roberta.27s_Involvment
Apparently in KQ7, Lorelei Shannon has most of the main credits in that game. She was designer, writer, director, writer, voice director. Roberta was billed second after Shannon as a designer, and billed third after Shannon as Director. Trying to confirm it but apparently the credits state that the "game based on characters created by Roberta Williams", thus further distancing itself from Roberta's direct involvement.
Apparently she also had only a reduced role in the KQ1 remake, as she was busy working on King's Quest V at the time. So Josh Mandel took on most of the production duties on that game, and rewrote and extended the script. Roberta came back along and played his finished game, to give her opinion. She didn't like an extended scene he had included, with Edward pointing at the wall as the location for the mirror, before passing away. So he removed it.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Quest_for_the_Crown_Sci_Development
It seems with each additional game she took an ever diminishing role. Not sure you can call most games from King's Quest VI on, "purely" Roberta games.
mean, while KQVI and VII may have had (intentional) diminished imput from her, they were still fit enough to be branded with her name, especially KQVII which is "Roberta Williams' King's Quest VII" on the box--Whereas as Ken said, there was a period where she didn't even want her name associated with Mask of Eternity, that's how much it deviated from her intentions.
Quotemean, while KQVI and VII may have had (intentional) diminished imput from her, they were still fit enough to be branded with her name, especially KQVII which is "Roberta Williams' King's Quest VII" on the box--Whereas as Ken said, there was a period where she didn't even want her name associated with Mask of Eternity, that's how much it deviated from her intentions.
In the end it looks like it went back on track enough for her, so that she was fine with taking top billing on several credits in the game. The writer and the main designer. As well as allowing them to put her name and photograph on the box. Ken even says as such, in the end, that they pulled it back in line to her vision. Which would explain her willingness to have her name on the box, etc.
She was jointly with voice casting (with Mark Seibert), and voice director (with Mark Seibert). This isn't uncommon as I think she did things jointly on the sound and voice stuff in previous games.
You can hear more about her thoughts on the game at the time in Talkspot stuff.
My guess the period where she probably most upset was probably somewhere near phase 2 or so, mentioned in the Talkspot interview. That's where everything was falling apart, they weren't getting engine from Dynamix on time, and other huge problems.
That being said there was a period where she didn't want her name associated with KQ6, and not on the box either, but got pulled back into it, LOL
"...After a bunch of negotiation and changes to the product, to mosey it back towards what she designed, it finally did release."
There is apparently another quote from Ken where he said she moseyed it back into the Roberta's direction btw.Quote"...After a bunch of negotiation and changes to the product, to mosey it back towards what she designed, it finally did release."
You can also get Roberta's own personal thoughts on the game mentioned in the Talkspot interviews. I've quoted many of those in the King's Quest Development page. That page probably has more details about the development than that one post from Ken. Which can be interpreted in several different ways, and suffers from "hindsight"... and you know what they say about hindsight right ("hindsight is 20/20")? Of course they also have a saying about "opinions", ..."everyone has one but thinks everyone else's stinks..."? There seems to be descrepent opinions on the project between what Roberta has said, and Ken's personal opinion on the issue :p...
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Mask_of_Eternity_Development
I for one won't accuse Roberta of lying, in any of those interviews, as well as the other ones she made for various websites. It just seems that she and her husband have different viewpoints on how they view the game.
Frankly, anyone who does accuse or imply that she was lying is a jerk, if not an ass.
Your a jerk, if not an ass, I rest my case.
As I said before "hindsight is 20/20", it always changes people's opinions compared to what they might have originally thought of it. People's opinions change, that I can accept. But completely ignoring insight into the design process so you can take an alternative perspective is hardly fair to Roberta herself. She was as far as I'm concerned pretty honest about the troubles they had during the development process in the Talkspot interviews and others. She never claimed it was a "perfect", and she did admit several regrets she had about development (those have all been posted in the development page, as I recall). Infact she didn't claim King's Quest VII: Princeless Bride was perfect in those same interviews either. Infact I would say that they were pretty unbiased on the issue giving both what they thought were strenghts and what they thought were weaknesses in the game. They even had a third episode where they broke it down pretty detailed fashion, including much of the stuff Ken was alluding to. Unfortunately no one seems to have that episode anymore...
As for if its a "Roberta" game or not that comes down to opinions. In my opinion the fact that she wrote the script and dialogue in the game is enough for me.
There is more to making KQ games than just the story, true (and some say that wasn't necessarily Roberta's strong point). Such as art design, and music design. But in general starting with KQ5, those duties were handed off to other people, rather than Roberta herself.
It seems most of the stuff KQ5 on up are a team effort and not just Roberta herself. There are a handful of names that can essentially be put on the games for having left their own influences on the series. Mark Seibert left his mark on the games since KQ5. Hudgins, Hoyos, etc, left there mark on the games, etc.
As for Temple of Doom, it's one of my favorite movies ever. They had no reason to apologize for it... I think all three have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Now if they would apologize for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I would accept that... Seriously I can't take there comments seriously if they consider Crystal Skull to be superior to Temple of Doom... That's just crazy talk.
Well you can find interviews where Roberta developed a kind of ambivalence to each previous game in the series. Her view point was usually always, "look towards the present and future", and ignore the past. Her opinions of each game in the series changed as each new game was released. She actually mentions this in the Talkspot interviews as well.
That is actually a problem if you really want to know her original opinion when the game was released. You really have to go with primary sources, that were created at the time the game was released, since her opinions changed dramatically the further she moved from each previous games.
As for the script, she claims she wrote the final script for it in the Talkspot interviews. Unless you are accusing her of lieing? Which case, I rest my case, you are a jerk, and an ass :p...
Seriously there is a reason why I don't take Lucas and Spielburg seriously. Just look at Crystal Skull... if you want a good example why... Frankly, I don't take anything Lucas says about the prequel trilogy seriously either... Its a bunch of crap, and what he did to the special edition dvd releases are crap as well... So no to Hayden is what I say... As far as I'm concerned Lucas has lost alot of who he was in his younger years, he is not the same person.
Your a jerk, if not an ass, I rest my case.
Ripping off the characters and settings from someone else's IP does not make your game "true" to that world. If you wanted to do something so original and "true to your vision," you should try creating some original characters, not just riding on the shoulders of someone else's success.
Ripping off the characters and settings from someone else's IP does not make your game "true" to that world. If you wanted to do something so original and "true to your vision," you should try creating some original characters, not just riding on the shoulders of someone else's success.
Jack, they are creating original characters. The name of the project is "Corridor 9."
Fierce Diety, while I think use of previous characters (I.E. use of the members of the Royal Family, and occasional character like Manannan, the wizened Gnome, Edgar & Cassima) is something that made earlier King's Quest games King's Quest games.
However, the settings were original with each game, as in there was a creation of an entire new kingdom to explore (with lots of new characters to interact with), with the exception of Daventry which was always fit into the game somewhere as either the starting point, or ending point, or in some cases both the starting and ending point in a single game.
This game has deviated from that formula a bit, by returning to a setting/land from a previous game, other than Daventry. That's not to say that Daventry might not show up in a cutscene or something later on, but this game has deviated because it returned one of the previous non-Daventry kingdoms (although it will be adding new areas to explore within than kingdom).
There were ideas to have completely new lands in the game back when it was three games, one for Graham, one for Rosella, and one for Alexander. But most of those ideas were cut as far as we know. We still don't know if the game will go outside of the Green Isles or not.
If this probably minor deviation from previous games formula is good or bad really depends on each person's opinion :p...
Fierce Diety, while I think use of previous characters (I.E. use of the members of the Royal Family, and occasional character like Manannan, the wizened Gnome, Edgar & Cassima) is something that made earlier King's Quest games King's Quest games.
However, the settings were original with each game, as in there was a creation of an entire new kingdom to explore (with lots of new characters to interact with), with the exception of Daventry which was always fit into the game somewhere as either the starting point, or ending point, or in some cases both the starting and ending point in a single game.
This game has deviated from that formula a bit, by returning to a setting/land from a previous game, other than Daventry. That's not to say that Daventry might not show up in a cutscene or something later on, but this game has deviated because it returned one of the previous non-Daventry kingdoms (although it will be adding new areas to explore within than kingdom).
There were ideas to have completely new lands in the game back when it was three games, one for Graham, one for Rosella, and one for Alexander. But most of those ideas were cut as far as we know. We still don't know if the game will go outside of the Green Isles or not.
If this probably minor deviation from previous games formula is good or bad really depends on each person's opinion :p...
I realize all of that. I guess it was really how I was viewing the entire project. This game is being advertised as a "fan-fiction" game, is being made by a new team that nobody has heard of before, and is being given out for free. This may just be me, but my expectations were limited prior to playing the game. I understand that King's Quest had trends that progressed with each passing sequel, but the series was created and developed by Sierra. If Sierra broke the chain in the series, I could understand peoples' disappointment. However, this is not the case, so I honestly don't know what people were expecting from this game. I understand the logic of their disappointment, but the circumstances of the project change everything.
I really don't understand the logic of their disappointment as the first episode is only a small portion of the entire game. It is akin to reading the cover and introduction of a book and saying "I don't like this book!"
I would argue that your analogy is faulty because Episode 1 essentially functions like the opening movie in KQV or KQVI - it only sets up the game. You wouldn't judge all of KQV or KQVI from the opening cutscene, and by analogy, you shouldn't judge TSL based entirely on Episode 1. Episode 1 was basically a drawn-out opening cutscene with interactivity. The actual game part of TSL begins with Episode 2.
I really don't understand the logic of their disappointment as the first episode is only a small portion of the entire game. It is akin to reading the cover and introduction of a book and saying "I don't like this book!"
I'm not saying they're wrong, necessarily - just that they are judging the whole prematurely.
Looking from the outside, I can see how people would say, "They spent 8 years, and this is all there is?"
Ideally, yes. But in reality...
"Episode 1 wasn't quite what we were hoping for, Episode 2 better really seriously deliver."