I saw this mentioned a couple of times since episode 1 was released. Rosella getting married in the Green Isles is NOT A PLOT HOLE.
Its not like the majority of people get married in their own homes (unless its a really nice one) nor does everybody get married in their local church. In fact I know a lot of people who decide to take a cruise and get married on a distant beach because they like the scenery. What it comes down to for many people is that the site of their wedding be a place that will make it a special memory.
In the case of Rosella she was visiting Cassima and Alexander, saw the garden and loved it. Upon realizing this Cassima offered to use it for her upcoming nuptials. Remember travel between Daventry and The Green Isles is now possible because of Shamir and due to the Royal Family's adventures trade routes have been opened between the lands of Daventry/Green Isles and Serenia as made evident by the Four Winds newsletter.
I know its a royal wedding and due to its importance would be held in Daventry. However Rosella is strong willed and gets what she wants. Besides as Edgar mentioned in episode 2 it wouldn't be the first time they did something to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to themselves. Finally wasn't Graham married in Kolyma before taking his bride home to Daventry? And he was the bloody king!!
Agreed!! I said all this a few times.
Speaking of "plot holes" that aren't... I know everyone is up in arms over the scene between Manannan and Alexander but.... isn't that Alexander's dream? So, while I think it's plausible given the fact that Alexander lived in this timeline, that Manannan never intended to kill him but Alexander didn't know that (or perhaps intended to drain his power and then kill him), nothing in that scene is really Manannan admitting to anything. Nor is it Manannan returned to human form. It's just a dream that we happen to be witnessing.
It's certainly not a plot hole. However, I always figured that if Rosella and Edgar were to marry, it would have definitely been in Etheria. Although it threw me off at first, this is not a problem for me now. What does kind of irk me though is that the two got married at the Castle of the Crown on her and Alexander's birthday!
Just a nitpick, but it doesn't actually ruin anything. It's all good. :)
She wanted to make sure Edgar would NEVER forget her birthday!!!
In fact, this whole thing is a hoax cooked up by Rosella as a punishment for the fact that Edgar forgot it last year! How dare he??
On an almost completely unrelated note, I watched a wedding on the beach yesterday. It was pretty sweet.
I never thought twice about Rosella's wedding being there. Rick mentioned a lot of good reasons, and I thought that perhaps there was some backstory concerning Alexander and Cassima's duties and King and Queen that required them staying in the Green Isles.
Plus, for the birthday celebrations it would be easier on Alexander (consideration for the fact that he's a new king) for the family to come to him rather than for him to come to them.
Haha, I'm always kind of amused that Rich's forum name says 'Rick'. I've never called him that or known him to be called that! Maybe he went by it at one point, I wouldn't know, but we all call him Rich. :)
My sister calls me Rick. I go by many names ;)
So Rich or Rick they are both fine to me
Quote from: KatieHal on September 26, 2010, 06:39:28 PMHaha, I'm always kind of amused that Rich's forum name says 'Rick'. I've never called him that or known him to be called that! Maybe he went by it at one point, I wouldn't know, but we all call him Rich. :)
Ah. I was just going by what the forum name told me. I thought I had seen him called Rick before, but perhaps I was seeing Rich and my mind was reading it as Rick.
QuoteFinally wasn't Graham married in Kolyma before taking his bride home to Daventry? And he was the bloody king!!
I think I got everything else that you said, but I don't really understand this point. I don't see what was so strange for Graham to get married there since it's Valanice's homeland (and she's royalty, according to the Kings Quest Companion).
It's true it is her kingdom. She was a princess of that fair land, to quote the KQC. Her father was the prince of that land. Next in line to being the king? Who knows.
But of what castle? That's what gets me about the Companion's added storyline about Valanice's parents...there's NO government to be seen at all in KQ2. There are very few people living there, and we see the whole island. The only castle is Dracula's, and the rest of the people are scattered loosely around the place.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 28, 2010, 09:50:46 PM
But of what castle? That's what gets me about the Companion's added storyline about Valanice's parents...there's NO government to be seen at all in KQ2. There are very few people living there, and we see the whole island. The only castle is Dracula's, and the rest of the people are scattered loosely around the place.
It fell into the canyon.
Maybe it's up in the Kolyma mountains? ;)
LOL, Weldon.
Haha, right--surrounded by snakes :snake: who are really winged horses! (really, I just wanted to use that smiley again!)
Quote from: Rick_Florez on September 26, 2010, 02:50:16 AM
In the case of Rosella she was visiting Cassima and Alexander, saw the garden and loved it.
I don't remember a garden from King's Quest 6 and it doesn't look that great in Episode 1. No bushes, no trees, no flowers. It's just a flat green texture. There's nothing that could justify the marriage there. The architecture of the castle wouldn't allow a garden inside the high castle walls anyway.
Quote from: Novem on September 29, 2010, 03:56:51 AM
Quote from: Rick_Florez on September 26, 2010, 02:50:16 AM
In the case of Rosella she was visiting Cassima and Alexander, saw the garden and loved it.
I don't remember a garden from King's Quest 6 and it doesn't look that great in Episode 1. No bushes, no trees, no flowers. It's just a flat green texture. There's nothing that could justify the marriage there. The architecture of the castle wouldn't allow a garden inside the high castle walls anyway.
You've never seen a garden surrounded by walls? They're fairly common actually.
The castle in general is nicer than the castle in Daventry (Alexander himself says just that in KQ6) and the garden area is plenty beautiful without flower and trees all over the place - I've attended weddings in settings almost perfectly identical, open grassy area with benches and a walkway, arch, and altar.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 28, 2010, 10:02:30 PMHaha, right--surrounded by snakes :snake: who are really winged horses! (really, I just wanted to use that smiley again!)
POIsonous snakes! ;)
No! I was going to say it, Enchantermon! ;)
Bahahahaha! Beat you to it! ;)
Grrrr. I'll get you next time, Gadget. Next time... :evil:
I'd like to see you try! Go go Gadget Helicopter Hat! *flies away*
Blast! Thwarted again! :argue:
Oh, hey, a nickel! *Wanders off*
QuoteBut of what castle? That's what gets me about the Companion's added storyline about Valanice's parents...there's NO government to be seen at all in KQ2. There are very few people living there, and we see the whole island. The only castle is Dracula's, and the rest of the people are scattered loosely around the place
Umm, the Companion actually explains it pretty well... that the main population center of the kingdom is east of the mountain range (you know that mountain range that's a barrier to the east?). You don't visit her home realm in Kolyma. You only visit a remote outer edge of the kingdom. The companion's has the whole angle covered... Her home was in a population center in the region that you conveniently cannot visit in the game. So no contradictions.
In addition its explained that western region is covered in the magical law of "containment" that prevents travel to the north or south of the island. A person just wraps, i.e. teleported back to where they started from if they continue in one direction.
What you see in the game is only the western side of the continent. You can't travel east, because of that mountain. So no you "don't see the entire island". You do see see the entire continent on a chart in KQ3 though.
Its a shade better than how KQ2 manual had it (which just said she was a maiden of Kolyma, kidnapped by Hagatha, and you would still be left wondering where her home was located before she was kidnapped)...
On a related note, in one of the novels, Kingdom of Sorrow, you learn about Matilda a maid that Rosella brought from Kolyma when she journeyed to Daventry. She remembers Valanice's castle. Chasing the young girl from the dungeons up into the parapets of her castle (ya Valanice is said to be of nobility in that book). That's about the limits to description of Kolyma castle that has ever been made. Beyond that Companion alluded to the castle beyond the mountains when discussing Rosella's father Cedric. What happened to Cedric and Coignice? The books leave a mystery, but its never actually explained.
Maybe Dracula killed them for Hagatha :p... Shame no one tried to tie Dracula castle into being her former home.
QuoteThe architecture of the castle wouldn't allow a garden inside the high castle walls anyway.
Well to be fair that door actually just lead directly into the kitchen in KQ6. You only 'see' (have it described to you) it during the short path though. Alexander goes to the door, briefly looks in (sees its a kitchen, dishes are piled to the ceiling, and food is being prepared for the wedding feast), he walks in, sees the staff/cook inside, he quickly runs out before the staff tries to give him a job. Actually as I recall the cook actually yells at him from the door as he exits (telling him not to bother them or some such). In long path, there is a short chance to look at the door, and have the narrator state its a kitchen. But that is the limits to the interaction with it (since Saladin has his sword on Alex at that point).
Where was the wedding itself being held? Not a garden but the throne room.
Quote from: Baggins on September 29, 2010, 05:28:24 PM
Well to be fair that door actually just lead directly into the kitchen in KQ6.
Yeah, the location of the kitchen is wrong, too. :-(
Yep. Rosella getting married in the Green Isles is a large plot hole and thus renders the game totally unplayable. You guys should just scrap the whole thing and start over. THROW IT ALL AWAY.
Bt
Quote from: Baggins on September 29, 2010, 05:28:24 PM
Umm, the Companion actually explains it pretty well... that the main population center of the kingdom is east of the mountain range (you know that mountain range that's a barrier to the east?). You don't visit her home realm in Kolyma. You only visit a remote outer edge of the kingdom. The companion's has the whole angle covered... Her home was in a population center in the region that you conveniently cannot visit in the game. So no contradictions.
In addition its explained that western region is covered in the magical law of "containment" that prevents travel to the north or south of the island. A person just wraps, i.e. teleported back to where they started from if they continue in one direction.
Oh right, i forgot about that part of the companion. It's a weird idea, but it sure makes a lot more sense than having the only buildings in Kolyma be a castle, a cottage, a home in a tree and an antique shop. :D
Back on topic, I just realized that the way Rosella was oohing and aahing over Etheria in KQ7, I'm surprised she didn't want to get married there. ::) But still, I don't think Rosella and Edgar getting married in the green isles was a *bad* idea at all, it just would have made more sense if someone in the game explained why they got married there (actually, was it explained? I don't remember).
Hmm I was reminded, in KQ2 novelization in the companion, Gerwain actually said something to the effect;
QuoteIt wasn't proper that Graham wed far away from his own land, out of sight of his own subjects.
:suffer: :suffer:
Actually strangely enough, Roberta contradicted herself once, in one of the synopses she wrote (in KQV Hintbook), she claimed Graham and Roberta returned from Kolyma and were married in Daventry.
QuoteAfter returning to Daventry, in a beautiful wedding ceremony, Valanice became King Graham's wife, and Queen of Daventry.
Oh god here we go with the kitchen again. ;)
TSL didn't forget the kitchen from KQ6, all it did was put it across the hallway. Its there. The door is there in the game and clearly says its a kitchen. Its not a stretch of the imagination to assume Alex actually wandered a few steps further than you thought since you never saw him once he stepped through the doorway nor is it impossible that the hallway could have been used as a staging ground for the wedding of Alhazared and Cassima.
Seriously you are willing to accept a convoluted explanation about how Kolyma had this whole other part to it that no one ever mentions just off screen with an entire back story for Valanice that was never mentioned in the game that even in some ways contradicts the original game manual which by your logic should be gospel because it came first and was written by the original creator, BUT are unwilling to accept the notion that maybe there are parts of the Castle of the Crown that you never got to see despite the fact it looks a lot bigger from a distance and has several additional towers that there is no physical way to access in the game. (Wow talk about a run on sentence :suffer:).
By the same logic Graham must have always slept in his throne room since there are no other visible access points to Castle Daventry in KQ 1-3. I guess Rosella steps through a wall when she walks south to Graham's bed chamber at the end of KQ4 because I couldn't walk there in previous installments when I had full control of Graham.
A lot of care and thought went into any extension we made to the original game screens. Every door from the original KQ6 castle is there, even though you can't actually open them (nor could you in KQ6). I will admit a few details did get changed like the Pegasus got drawn on the East and West wings by accident and the Alcove is not quite as round as it was in the original (mainly because the modeler didn't think about it and back in the day making that round would have added a lot more faces to an already heavy set so we left it more square plus it is easier to hang portraits there this way).
Back to the garden, ultimately it came down to finding the most logical place to extend that castle and that was it. We didn't want to make a new door you had never seen because that would have been a major contradiction. The extension is logical and we tend to give the player a little credit and assume he can use his/her brain to reason why certain things are the way they are.
Actually I was just mentioned how it was portrayed in the KQ6. Specifically, that he looks inside, sees that it was a kitchen. Then walks in, cook yells at him, then he walks out. He wouldn't have known it was a kitchen, if there was a hallway there. All he would see would have been a hallway. Not to mention, in long path, just staring at the door tells you its a kitchen... No way he should have known that of course (since in long path he doesn't actually get a chance to check the door), but all-knowing narrator knows.
You moved the kitchen, I get that... But don't try to rewrite KQ6's intent... Because it was very specific. So much so that KQ6 Hint book, and King's Quest Companion, etc, explicitly state that room as a kitchen. Its very clear what the designers were going for at the time KQ6 was made.
The kitchen isn't the only difference in your castle's architecture, that isn't explained in-game, but I won't go into that. Last time I did, the TSL's designers claimed a wizard/Shamir did it, and did it along with the kitchen ::) ;D.
What you choose to do, and what the Sierra designers chose to do are two different things... Your game takes place in an alternate universe. 'que sera sera'. The fact that you changed things actually doesn't bother my 'enjoyment' of your game, its still interesting play. I just find it interesting to discover things that are different. Like in those 'spot the differences' artworks.
QuoteBy the same logic Graham must have always slept in his throne room since there are no other visible access points to Castle Daventry in KQ 1-3. I guess Rosella steps through a wall when she walks south to Graham's bed chamber at the end of KQ4 because I couldn't walk there in previous installments when I had full control of Graham.
There is actually a simple explanation, there is a door there. As stated in novels. Graham just chooses not to open them/turn the handles, etc, in KQ1 original. In KQ2 and KQ3, you don't have full control in the throne room, so its not really a valid point.
On the one hand, in KQ6 disk version, as the room pans, there is no door there, LOL. So uh maybe he does step through a wall, ;). or they bricked up the doors between KQ4 and KQ6, ;) Or maybe one of those fancy smancy doors designed to look like the wall (went to Buckingham Palace they explained about some doors that were designed to look like a mirror and furniture, heh heh).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmt6gE1k9A8
Quotean entire back story for Valanice that was never mentioned in the game that even in some ways contradicts the original game manual which by your logic should be gospel because it came first and was written by the original creator,
Hmm, how does it contradict the manual? The companion actually repeats what the manual (the original creators) said about Valanice, and then extends it from there. The companion only tries to explain what the manual said about her.
All the manual (original creators) has to day about Valanice was;
QuoteThis is the maiden Valanice. She is from the kingdom of Kolyma, and is known for her goodness no less than her beauty
It goes on to say she was kidnapped from Kolyma by the witch Hagatha.
The companion states;
QuoteKing Graham, our most wise and beloved monarch, took to wife a maiden of the tropical land of Kolyma. Valanice is her name, and her beauty, wisdom and goodness are beyond compare.
It also says she was kidnapped from the land by the witch Hagatha.
I already covered the additional information that companion added. As I said before the KQ2 manual states that Valanice was from the kingdom of Kolyma, and was kidnapped from there by Hagatha. As it has been stated if you were going by the game and manual alone you would be left with questions.
The companion just tried to answer some of those questions, and give a plausible explanation for what the manual didn't explain. It didn't actually change anything, it repeated what the manual said about it, and just expanded on it.
You seriously can't complain about the companion, because the problem Katie was complaining about, and accusing the companion of committing (I.E. 'where did valanice live'?), was actually the problem with the original game documentation itself (by the developers). The problem was not with the companion (which attempted to avoid that particular problem).
Quote from: Baggins on September 30, 2010, 08:08:52 AM
You moved the kitchen, I get that... But don't try to rewrite KQ6's intent... Because it was very specific. So much so that KQ6 Hint book, and King's Quest Companion, etc, explicitly state that room as a kitchen. Its very clear what the designers were going for at the time KQ6 was made.
If we're talking about rewriting the intention of the original series creators, I would say that TSL goes A LOT further than just moving around an insignificant kitchen...
QuoteIf we're talking about rewriting the intention of the original series creators, I would say that TSL goes A LOT further than just moving around an insignificant kitchen...
Yes, :suffer:, LOL. The kitchen is but one small, extremely minute, example. There are a lot more.
I love playing spot the differences, ;) I'm sorry it annoys the designers, lol. Because of that I've actually decided to step back, and not point out others in the forums I've discovered as I've played their game. Or at least, avoid trying to make a big deal over it here.
(http://www.sharpbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/spot_the_difference.png)
It's in the Companion that the story of Valanice being a princess comes up, isn't it? Whereas in the game she's just "the maiden Valanice." I think that's what Rich was referring to; also that the castle, etc, she's from aren't in the game KQ2 at all, and only in the companion. (Not a contradiction, no, but I think you get what I mean.)
In any case, we have said our primary canon that we went by (aside from a few architectural issues...) is what was shown in the games themselves.
Quotet's in the Companion that the story of Valanice being a princess comes up, isn't it? Whereas in the game she's just "the maiden Valanice." I think that's what Rich was referring to; also that the castle, etc, she's from aren't in the game KQ2 at all, and only in the companion. (Not a contradiction, no, but I think you get what I mean.)
In any case, we have said our primary canon that we went by (aside from a few architectural issues...) is what was shown in the games themselves
Well to be fair it doesn't specifically state that she is a "princess" just that she is the daughter of a prince and a miller's daughter. Yes, that would make her a princess.
It is said that the land "is a kingdom" in the KQ2 manual though. The manual states that she was kidnapped from there, but there is no explanation as to where she was living. Remember in the parts of Kolyma we see, we already know where each individual is living for the most part.
BTW, Dracula is a count (not a king), so his castle isn't likely the castle of KQ2 manuals "kingdom".
All the companion did was try to explain where she was living before she was kidnapped. It also tried to explain the KQ2's reference to why the land was a "kingdom". It repeated everything else from the manual, and just expanded on it.
It seems you team is trying to do the same thing (from a different direction). If your game has its own explanation for where Valanice was living, cool. I can't wait to see the difference, :).
Hmm, I need an eyebrow waggling smiley. :)
Well, it did call it a kingdom, but I suppose I never found that odd for a few reasons. One, it's a fantasy world...it's always a kingdom! Two, there *was* a castle, it was just full of undead people. It did leave one wondering just where she was kidnapped from, though.
Which reminds me, I need to get back to replaying KQ2+!
Quotene, it's a fantasy world...it's always a kingdom!
Well as far as I know, Llewdor was never called a "kingdom" in the games or manuals as far as I know. Neither was Tamir? Was even Serenia said to be a kingdom in KQV/manual? I think they were just called lands, or nations, or countries.
I know Daventry and the Green Isles were specifically called kingdoms. They also had kings.
In KQ7, I think Vulcanix Underground was called a kingdom, and Etheria is as well. The rest of the lands were not called kingdoms, as far as I know. Ooga Booga specifically is referred to as a land.
QuoteTwo, there *was* a castle, it was just full of undead people. It did leave one wondering just where she was kidnapped from, though..
I mentioned that Count Dracula is a count, not a king. Everything else living there ghoul ferryman and his ghost guards, the rat, are not kings either.
IN the end it still would leave the question in your view of Kolyma where was Valanice living? With Grandma? With the Monks? At the antique store? Maybe with the dwarf? In the cave at the top of the cliffs? Or with Hagatha in her cave?
On a related note I remember a discussion on these forums where I brought up information about King George IV and Princess Priscilla from the companion. Someone here complained about it, pointing out that no castle can be seen in KQV. So how could it have a king and princess?
I then pointed out that King George and Priscilla actually originated from Wizard and the Princess which took place in the same land. Still in that game you don't see the castle. But you knew from that king that it was a kingdom of some sort. Even if you can't see the castle in the game.
Was it the fault of the companion? Nope, again it just tried to expand on what manuals of a game had previously said...
I don't understand why the Companion is being referenced as though it ISN'T part of the KQ canon. Canon, by definition, refers to any officially licensed story material--which the Companions would most certainly be. You can't pick and choose what's canon. It either IS canon, or it ISN'T.
Retconning official canon is the lowest possible form of fan fiction storytelling (well, aside from making a KQ porno or something.) ;) A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes.
I'm not outright saying it's not canon, but it's definitely problematic. The biggest example is that the Companion at first called Edgar a fisherman's son, something that come KQ7 was obviously wrong; and from what I understand, the Companion seems to have a lot of things to say about KQ7 that try to say things from it aren't true and aren't what really happened.
LOL, then most fanfiction is the lowest form of fanfiction, since that's almost exclusively what it does as a rule!
What I'm saying is in terms of adhering to canon, we concerned ourselves with the primary sources which are also the ones most fans know--the games themselves.
Quotefirst called Edgar a fisherman's son
Actually, I added that bit into the Omnipedia recently. Its said specifically to be one of many rumors to try to explain his background. No one knew who his father was, some thought maybe son of one of the local fisherman in the region, others thought maybe the son of an evil sorcerer.
So it was never "specific on the issue". It was just random inuniverse speculation, much like the kind you see in the Guidebook to the Land of the Green Isles to explain the creation of each of the islands, or the history of the Ancient Ones.
QuoteCompanion seems to have a lot of things to say about KQ7 that try to say things from it aren't true and aren't what really happened.
Yes, Derek from his in-universe perspective states he doesn't think the events of KQ7 ring true to him. However, he admits this is only his opinion, and he could be wrong. This is basically the same as the in-universe rumors like in the Guidebook to the Land of the Green Isles. In-universe rumors and speculation, doesn't mean its "wrong" just that the guy who was speculating in-universe was wrong.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 30, 2010, 10:11:54 AM
What I'm saying is in terms of adhering to canon, we concerned ourselves with the primary sources which are also the ones most fans know--the games themselves.
Does that also include the printed manuals, which in the cases of games like KQ3 and 6 were an indispensable part of the experience?
(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 12:18:53 PM)
Quote from: KatieHal on September 30, 2010, 10:11:54 AM
LOL, then most fanfiction is the lowest form of fanfiction, since that's almost exclusively what it does as a rule!
I agree. Fan fiction, by its very nature, is in almost all cases, laughably bad. And it's usually because of all the shameless retconning (and amateur writing quality that typically comes with non-professional writing.)
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 10:18:53 AM
Does that also include the printed manuals, which in the cases of games like KQ3 and 6 were an indispensable part of the experience?
I'm pretty sure I see where you're going with this. And yes, those are part of the games, and we've tried to account for those. If it's about what's said in-game towards the end of Episode 2, the subject's been covered in the forums beforehand (in a thread that I'm fairly certain included you).
Quote from: KatieHal on September 30, 2010, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 10:18:53 AM
Does that also include the printed manuals, which in the cases of games like KQ3 and 6 were an indispensable part of the experience?
I'm pretty sure I see where you're going with this. And yes, those are part of the games, and we've tried to account for those. If it's about what's said in-game towards the end of Episode 2, the subject's been covered in the forums beforehand (in a thread that I'm fairly certain included you).
Lol...just keeping you on your toes, Katie. I'll leave it alone. ;)
Appreciated ;)
I think the manuals were indepensible part of the game for 1, 2, 3, & 6. Very important part of the backstory. You need manual for 4 in order to play the game so pretty much indispensable.
Although you can also get to backstories for early games repeating what was said in the manuals in the about screen of kqv and kq6 which state facts such as Alex needing to escape manannan because he was about to kill him. I think even narrator in kq3 stated that one as well in the introduction. It's also in the manuals for kqv and kq8 as well.
That was exactly my point Katie about Valanice. The original game never made her royalty. She was just maiden. Then years later somebody else came along added that extra fact about her heritage. Its not a bad thing, we actually mention some of it in episode 3. My point is every time we expand on something that was not defined in the original we get railed on and attacked and told we're b******izing the series. Even for small things that we give explanations for. That's what gets annoying.
I have no problem with people pointing out things we overlooked, things we weren't aware of. As I said if we can accommodate those we'll fix them.
QuoteThere is actually a simple explanation, there is a door there. As stated in novels. Graham just chooses not to open them/turn the handles, etc, in KQ1 original. In KQ2 and KQ3, you don't have full control in the throne room, so its not really a valid point.
Two things on this. If I play king's quest 1 and type OPEN DOOR it doesn't work. So no Graham does not simply chose to not open the door, he has to do what I tell him to do even if it kills him :P Ultimately you missed my original point. For 3 games it was assumed nothing was there then in the 4th they needed to expand on it for story reasons so they chose the spot that made the most sense. You didn't tap on the monitor to get Rosella's attention to tell her "Hey girl, there is nothing that way, you're running into a wall." You just accepted it as something you had never seen before.
The kitchen/hallway is really no different. This is how I always assumed this would work. In KQ6 Alex stepped into the hallway, the door to the kitchen was open (maybe that's not clear from the in-game model but it does open) and the first thing he saw that this hallway led to the kitchen. The hallway was full of servants, tables and most of all an angry chef who told him to immediately get out which he promptly did. Now if I were wandering through someone's home, encountered a situation like that and someone asked what was that way, my reaction would be that's the way to the kitchen since that's the first thing I encountered. Maybe there was a door to the backyard but I probably would not have had a chance to notice it. Simple, elegant and straightforward.
Ultimately I enjoy discussing this stuff, just don't dismiss what I say as not making sense or invalid simply because it was not written in a KQ companion.
You can type a lot of things in kq1 that the game doesn't understan that's hardly an indication of anything.
Example just try opening the cabinets in the woodcutters house. It doesn't even acknowledge they are there. In anycase didn't the manual explain a bit more about the castle?
Still as I pointed out in kq6 there is only a wall there ;) so how did rosella walk out?I freely admit that castle daventy and even davantry were never consistent throughout entire series.
I personally disagree with your explanation of the kitchen because it doesn't match up with the ingame descriptions in my opinion. We will have agree to disagree on this point. The kitchen has no impact on my enjoyment of the game however. So don't take this as slight towards it.
The practice of PRIMARY and SECONDARY continuities/canon are very common in long time franchises. Star Trek, Star Wars, Robotech. They all follow the same basic guide line. What happened on-screen is the primary source of information. Even then they contradict themselves at times. This is really because novels, comics, rpg books, games are all written by different authors, authorized to do so but not necessarily involved with a show's production so the content tends to not always be accurate or contain ideas that go off on their own tangent to a point where they cannot fit into the universe established by the ongoing series.
In our case, we try to stick to the games themselves as much as possible. The manuals are our next source of information since they actually came with the game. The novels after that since unlike the companion they were not in constant flux and finally the companion, mainly because that one started throwing in its own ideas even rewriting the origins of the KQ universe.
The author's of TSL know the series pretty well overall. Having someone like Baggins on board back when the script was written who's really broken it down into a science might have been useful to avoid certain issues we might have overlooked however.
We did try to merge all of these various sources into one coherent universe. Unfortunately its been cut, but the original chapter 4 was going to allow the player to explore the Daventry keep in detail and our now lead programmer at the time had managed to create a layout of the castle that pretty much resolved most of the inconsistencies from the games and books. Even the dreaded question of why the room seen in MOE did not look like the throne room we've seen. Basically because it wasn't, but it did fit another room mentioned in the novels. It would have been a fun chapter and honestly I wish we had started the story there. Oh well.
Getting back to the manuals we're not trying to contradict them so Lambonius let us know where you feel we are. For the record we're not changing the fact that Manannan kidnapped boys and trained them as slaves, nor that he would kill them at 18. In fact Alexander confirms this in his statements at the end of episode 2. I have the KQ3 manual and just reread it now to be sure. It is never mentioned directly in the manual that Alex must escape before he's 18 to save himself. Its something you assume I agree but the story in the book predates Alexander completely and makes not reference to that. So there is room to assume there might be more to the story in Alex's case but yes it is a very delicate line to walk on.
The kq3 thing is mentioned in kq3 intro isn't? By the narrator? I know it's mentioned in kq6 in 'about' menu.
Lol...you ARE a persistent one aren't you? I did say I was going to leave it alone, now didn't I? But since you bring it up...
You do know that you DIE in KQ3 if you take too long to escape Manannan, don't you? It doesn't get much more explicit or in-game than that. Why do you think the whole game is on a timer?? ::)
But I don't want to really assume things about TSL's plot yet, since it's hard to tell how much of an affront it is to the original source material until the whole story has been revealed. So we can end this discussion here if you like.
(//)Manny will kill you for many differnt mistakes. Disobey 6 times. Get caught off the mountain. Taking too long. Having forbidden contraband. Not putting wand in it's right place, etc.
No I don't think he was trying to keep him alive.
In any case despite it's differnces tsl is much closer to original source material than kq2+ and even kq3+ and I commend you guys for it.
Although I sort of wish you would have ignored the companion completely because the partial references makes the differences/inconsistencies between the two sources stand out even more when they appear.
We can agree to disagree but since you honestly have pissed me off about this in the past and still refuse to acknowledge that the explanation is at least possible I must prove my point since you insist on being so specific. ;D
Below are the quotes directly taken from KQ6.
Narrator when first entering Mainhall dressed as servant :QuoteFrom the open door comes the clatter of pots and pans, yelled instructions, and other busy kitchen noises.
This description clearly works in a scenario where the kitchen door is open or that they are using the hallway as staging ground. The sound could easily travel such a short distance from the kitchen, through the hallway to the doorway. Plus servants who are preparing plates and food for the wedding in the hallway would also be making additional noise.
The waiter says this to you when he sees you :QuoteYou! Girl! Don't just stand there! There's a stack of silver almost to the ceiling that needs polishing for the wedding! Get a move on!
There is nothing there specific about the the silver being in the kitchen, it could be in the hallway if once again its a staging ground. Even if its in the kitchen, nothing says its immediately behind the door, just close by in that general direction.
Look at Door :QuoteThere's a door on the west wall, under the stairs. It's the door the waiter came through, and probably leads to the kitchen
This is the message you get when clicking eye on door both before and after you go through it. The important words here are "LEAD" and "PROBABLY".
Lead implies that it might not directly go there but allow you to eventually get there by going through the door.
Probably just implies even more that what's right behind the door may not be the kitchen.
Hand on Door :QuoteAlexander decides to check out the door the waiter came through.
This line tells us nothing specific about whats behind the door.
QuoteNo lunch is being served today! We're busy catering the wedding!
Though this implies you are heading in the general area of the kitchen, nothing in this statement says that you are directly inside it. If the hallway is the staging ground then there would be servants and maybe even an angry wedding planner or cook that would assume you are here for that and tell you to leave.
QuoteApparently, the kitchen is no place to be today.
This is the final statement when Alex returns from the doorway. It also does not directly say that he was in the kitchen, but simply that the kitchen itself is busy and not somewhere you want to be. Also it is not uncommon for such a statement to imply not only the room that is the kitchen but whatever nearby area is also being used in the preparation of the meal.
Going back into the doorway gives me the same results, even multiple times. Are there additional dialogs I am not aware of. The eye message does not change either.
This is all through the short route. As I recall you cannot go top side in the long route because if you do when the wedding starts you automatically walk to the throne room door, and if you go before you simply get caught which is why you need to use the secret passage.
P.S. I did notice 1 glaring mistake we made about the kitchen/hallway door. We put the door nob on the left and hinges on the right when it should have been the opposite. As such the door pivots on the wrong side.
Oh well, you can't get everything right I guess :suffer:
For the Manannan thing, there's another way you can look at it if you can't deal with the possibility that he wasn't going to kill Alexander.
Alexander is important to the plans of the BCS. However, the "mighty leader" of the BCS is imprisoned and unable to do anything. Maybe not all of the members of the BCS were fully on board with the leader's plans. They are part of the BCS, but they probably have their own ambitions and plans that may not entirely fit with the leader's plans. Anyway, short-term issues often take precedence over long-term plans. Of course, now that the leader's prison is weakening, they don't want him to know that they would have gone against him. They didn't actually do it, so it's all good.
The guy who says no lunch is being served is said to be the the Chef in the credits iirc. Anycase I think you missed the point that I was discussing developers intent and the sierra kq6 guide states that is the kitchen as well.
I accept that you chose to change things to make the story easier for you but the truth was in kq6 that wad intended to be the kitchen.
On an additionalnote where you placed you hall seems to cut right accross where the throne room is located I'm not sure it takes into consideration the physical dimensions of thenthrone room. Your hall seems to impossible overlap.
The throne room is bigger than the open hall area? Didn't seem any wider in KQ6.
I just view your game an alternate universe(as wilco suggested) it makes everything easier. I just enjoy it for what it is, as stand alone.
(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 03:40:51 PM)
Door is under the staircase. The staircases make the area considerable less wide. Your hall seems to be directly through the door. Thus placing it within dimensions under staircase. It would be passing through the space taking up the throne room. Unless of course you have another passage room between 2 doors(a kind of airlock). That would of course move the kitchen further away three doors away. Muffling kitchen sounds, even further departure from kq6.
You're right Lambonius I am persistent. That persistence is one of the things that got me to the level of project director. But I also like these debates not only because they are fun but also because they force us to analyze our game ideas and make sure they work correctly. There is nothing I hate more than we get sloppy and miss and something obvious we should have seen.
As suggested by episode 2 there may be more to Alex's kidnapping than we knew about. There may be more of a master plan than we thought. However lets keep something in mind. Even though he may answer to a hire power, Manannan is still an old solitary man who spies on the people of Llewdor. He's likely prone to paranoia and sudden rage black outs. If he thought a simple boy who was dabbling in magic was enough of a threat to kill him on the spot, a boy prophesied to hold great power would be an even bigger threat if Manannan lost control of him.
I've always escaped before the timer ever ran out on me but from what I've read in the walk through documents on KQ3, you don't die because the timer ultimately reaches a point where you're 18 and your time has come. From my understanding you simply run out of food to feed the wizard and he kills you for it. (Once again pesky rage black out). However if I am incorrect on this let me know.
As for the whole story of Alex being murdered by 18, though you need to take a step back to accept it (in some ways its the same type of explanation you might find in the companion) it is possible that whole notion is something that Alexander assumed upon learning of Manannan's past horrors since his situation was quite similar. From there all notions of Manannan's real plans we're lost and replaced with Alexander's interpretation of events since he was the only person able to recount the tale.
Snabbott's theory about rogue elements in the BCS is something I also think is possible. I tend to think of Mordack that way. He's part of the group because his brother was but he's more of a rebel which is why he didn't flinch at threatening Valanice when he captured the royal family.
Manny in companion is described by Alex as having extreme mood swings at times threatening to kill him when he turns eighteen (or even younger) and sometime promising to let him go. More often than not he threatened the boy telling him about his previous servants. Alex mentions he nearly killed him a few times but calmed just enough to let him off.
QuoteManny in companion is described by Alex as having extreme mood swings at times threatening to kill him when he turns eighteen and sometime promising to let him go. More often than not he threatened the boy telling him about his previos servants.
Thanks Baggins. For once you actually prove my theory ::)
Baggins you are a valiant opponent which is why I continue these debates. I respect you. You've broken down the KQ universe to a practical science. I tend to think I know a lot about Star Trek and kicked my friend's butts when we played Star Trek Scene It but you my friend take fantasy universe analysis to a whole new level.
That being said, do not even go the route of scale in an adventure game. There is no such thing. I'm not gonna deny that the proportions are slightly out of wack. We did have to cheat a bit to make the flythrough of the introduction work. Despite that, the proportions and layout of the original castle do not work in KQ6 either.
The throne room is definitely taller than the staircase to the second floor. You can easily see this because the doors to the throne room are much smaller and closer to the height of Alex and Saladin. Yet when you see the throne room itself its got a high ceiling, chandeliers, etc. Which forces the throne room to be in an area no larger than the space between the staircases since thats the width of the inner core seen in the mainhall which is the only part of the castle that extends past the second floor. Otherwise the second floor hallways would be cutting into the throne room. Now you might argue that maybe the upper ceiling is smaller. But even if that were true, there is still that matter of the round alcove with the painting. There is no evidence a small cavity extending through the ceiling area of the throne room. Not to mention that the throne room includes a back door to a tower which seems to be immediately connected to the throne room. However that cannot be the case since there is north wing on the second floor that the tower would be cutting through :P
There are many other discrepencies too. Like the Door Alexander paints on the castle wall. The way the basement is designed it makes it look like you're right on the other side of it. Even using hole in the wall it looks like the wall isn't thick at all. Yet the spot where Alex walks in has a room right next to it that is not visible from the outside. Lets not even consider the interior to exterior ratio of Manannan's house in KQ3 or the size of Daventry castle in KQ1-2-3. For those to have worked the doors should have been on the right side of the castle to give enough room for you to walk north and then left to the throne room.
I'm sure we can think many more inconsistencies if we really looked.
At any rate I've proven my point on the hallway/kitchen idea. I've proven that even the dialogs from the game do not disprove it. And if the last thing you can fall back on is that we're not the original designers then really that's not a valid argument because there is no way for us to win that one.
I agree the original design on the designer's layout was probably kitchen, however as was done many time before things have changed over the games to fit story necessities. It has a precedent.
Anyway if you prefer to create parallel universes in your mind to rationalize things that's fine. I did the same thing with the last Star Trek movie. Just don't tell me my argument has no merit ;)
Now lets move on to the Manannan stuff since that the next juicy thing to debate.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 10:08:06 AM
I don't understand why the Companion is being referenced as though it ISN'T part of the KQ canon. Canon, by definition, refers to any officially licensed story material--which the Companions would most certainly be. You can't pick and choose what's canon. It either IS canon, or it ISN'T.
Retconning official canon is the lowest possible form of fan fiction storytelling (well, aside from making a KQ porno or something.) ;) A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes.
Aren't you part of AGDI? How comes you accept KQ2+ then? I'ts ok for you to retcon, but not for us? :)
LOL, he's part of IA, Cez, not AGDI ;)
I was referring to wideness of entry hall in comparison to throne room. Both are just as wide in kq6. In entry hall the staircases take up but more than third of the room. So if you entered into staircase door you would still be under entry hall and within boundaries of the wall between it and the throne room. In fact if you were standing under staircase there would a bit is sloping roof.
(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 04:38:47 PM)
I'm not part of any game team cez. I make same comparisons I make for your game on their game as well. I enjoy seeing where the games make detours.
I don't know about lambonius opinion since kq3+ made detours. Is even made ignore the fact that Derek moved into manny's house.
In my mid I just ignore last star trek, grrr. To be fare that's probably closer to how I take fan fiction as well.
Hmm, are we looking at the same picture here? In the KQ6 pic the throne room cannot be any wider than the width between the staircases. The only section that is tall enough to hold the throne room is the middle part which is no wider than the staircases even on the second floor. So the first floor hallway in TSL would be to the left of the throne room.
In the intro you can see that there is a corridor between the door and the hallway presumably the size of the stairs before you get to the hallway. Such a thing would not muffle the sound enough for you not to hear it though especially if stuff is going on in the hallway. In any case proportions have always been weird in adventure games. The tower connected to the throne room is another example of the original layout not working exactly right unless you assume there is an additional corridor between the tower and the throne room.
Quote from: Rick_Florez on September 30, 2010, 02:51:27 PM
In any case proportions have always been weird in adventure games.
Most notably where adventurer's pockets are concerned!
Hmm didn't mention this before but I don't know what to think about you considering me an oponent. That sounds awfully confrontational. I honestly don't consider you guys ad adversaries. Grr typing from an iPhone is slot of work.
I say opponent in friendly terms. To me this is all in good fun. We simply have opposing views on things.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 30, 2010, 02:36:41 PM
LOL, he's part of IA, Cez, not AGDI ;)
Eriq told me he was first hired at AGDI.
Quote from: Baggins on September 30, 2010, 02:43:11 PM
I was referring to wideness of entry hall in comparison to throne room. Both are just as wide in kq6. In entry hall the staircases take up but more than third of the room. So if you entered into staircase door you would still be under entry hall and within boundaries of the wall between it and the throne room. In fact if you were standing under staircase there would a bit is sloping roof.
(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 04:38:47 PM)
I'm not part of any game team cez. I make same comparisons I make for your game on their game as well. I enjoy seeing where the games make detours.
I don't know about lambonius opinion since kq3+ made detours. Is even made ignore the fact that Derek moved into manny's house.
In my mid I just ignore last star trek, grrr. To be fare that's probably closer to how I take fan fiction as well.
I was quoting Lamb.
Perhaps sparring/debate partner is a better term, Rich & Baggins. :)
Quote from: Cez on September 30, 2010, 04:29:53 PM
Also, Lamb, by that statement, you pretty much probably think that Disney's retconning of the original fairy tales is crap, right? I mean, they didn't only change them, they crapped on them and retold them in ways that the spirit of the original stories were lost in translation to suit them for children.
In the same vein, Roberta Williams retconned the same storylines to make them fit the King's Quest universe.
So... what were we talking about again? :)
FYI--I've never been affiliated with AGDI--I am a member of IA though.
Well first of all, it's not retconning if you're the original author.
And secondly, what does Disney have anything to do with it? :)
And lastly, AGDI's KQ2+ doesn't retcon the other games in the series. It rewrites the story of the original game yes, and adds some new information that happened
between KQ2 and 3, and a hypothetical scene that happens
after KQ8--BUT, the main difference is it doesn't alter or rewrite anything that had already been established in the other games. The story of KQ1 is still the same, the motivations of the characters are still the same. All details the same. The one scene that it adds in post-KQ2 Daventry doesn't change anything about the story of KQ3.
TSL does this. You guys rewrote the motivations of all of the enemies throughout the series (most notably, as seen so far, Manannan) which completely changes how they would be perceived when replaying the original games. You are changing what has already established. In the case of Manannan, you actually are removing the entire motivational factor for the whole plot of the game! KQ2+ rewrites the original KQ2, yes. But the other games remain untouched.
And perhaps most importantly, KQ2+ was also unabashedly advertised as an ALTERNATE take on the story. TSL has always been advertised as a SEQUEL, meaning that plot points established in TSL reflect directly back onto its prequels.
There is a clear difference. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? ???
*sigh* Well I tried removing his post and telling him to re-phrase that, but apparently a little late....
Anyways. I suppose the point is well, yes, we are taking a "What if...?" stance on some of the old games. Looking at them in a new light, taking a few twists. Why? Because it's interesting to do so!
It happens all the time in TV shows, movies, comic books (heh, maybe a little TOO much there), even books, etc. We don't see it as "oh my god, how dare they change this sacrosanct script!", we see it as "hey, here's a slightly new twist that makes things interesting, let's see where it goes!" And yet our explanation of that never seems to be acceptable for some reason to some people and we are continuously judged so very harshly for daring to do so.
It is still fanfiction, we are 'allowed' to do that. If it helps, do like Baggins does and think of it as an alternate universe. I don't happen to think it ruins the game to either do so or not do so, but that's just my opinion.
Disney has to do with it the fact that you said that changes to a storyline is the lowest thing a writer can do. By that statement, a reinterpretation of a story (the same way Star Trek was with the latest movie) falls under that same category. If your statement holds true, then everything Disney did falls under the same.
And I mention Roberta because she wasn't the original author of the many fairy tales she used. She retconned those to make them fit the universe of King's Quest.
Retconning is retconning. You said it yourself. You either take the official source as canon or you don't. The fact that AGDI changed a full storyline, whether it was one game or all, makes no difference altogether when you are trying to make your point. Whether you call it alternate, inspired, or whatever, you said it very well: You either take the official source as canon or you don't. You can't contradict yourself to make exceptions.
The Silver Lining doesn't even have the King's Quest name on it. Although we started calling it the Unofficial King's Quest IX (Note the word Unofficial), we always were very clear that we were not Roberta Williams, and this isn't what Roberta Williams would have written. We always said we were going to be different, darker and more mature. We never tried to bill this as what Sierra would have done.
The problem here is that you are trying to make a point. But your point falls flat with the other things you try to defend. If we are to be fair, we need to be measured by the same stick of the things you personally like. If TSL's story fell under the stuff you love, which obviously it doesn't, you would defend it by comparing it to KQ2+, because it doesn't matter that they only changed 1 game or two, the fact remains that they did it, as minimal as it is, or as large as it can be, the minute you change a minute detail from a pre-established story, that falls under the category of what you blatantly described as "the lowest of the low fanfiction storytelling", and that "A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes. " Your words, not mine.
If you start making exceptions that include the things you approve, then I'm going to take your word as only when it's convenient for you to make a point. If you want me to take your word fully serious, don't apply rules that you disengage when they are applied to works you like.
For what it's worth, I applaud what AGDI did to KQ2, and I don't mind that they changed the story at all. Yes, they changed a whole lot of details and basically rewrote the whole thing --not just expanded it, but I don't have a problem with that sort of storytelling, obviously. The same that I don't have an issue that Disney turned the very dark fairy tales into enchanting versions of it. Or even the retelling of Nightmare on Elm Street. Even films like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings retconned the heck out of the books to fit their medium. Arwen, anyone?
Some other works I may not like, but I don't go saying that what they did with changing something was wrong, otherwise I would be the heck of a hypocrite. I just don't like the story, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they rewrote it or not.
To be fair there are many scholars and literary critics that do criticize the disneyfication of stories.
In fact the term disneyfication is derogatory.
IMO kq2+ actually does go against a few details from other games, the reason for the heart attack, manipulation of the twins destinies, the heir to kingdom. It has similar changes to motivation of the BCS.
In that respect I don't see any difference in tsl.
Quote from: Baggins on September 30, 2010, 05:55:44 PM
To be fair there are many scholars and literary critics that do criticize the disneyfication of stories.
In fact the term disneyfication is derogatory.
And that's perfectly fine if that's an opinion that you carry through all the works of arts --unless your opinion is not about the act of retconning, but about the way it Disney did it. My point is that if you have a problem with "retconning" then you can't pick and choose what works do it well and which don't. That to me means that someone doesn't have a problem with retconning, they have a problem with a particular story. But Lamb was making a point about how bad he thinks is the act of retconning is (again, I quote "Retconning official canon is the lowest possible form of fan fiction storytelling(...) A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes." ), not what he thinks about the story of TSL, and based on what he defends, to me at least, he's just contradicting every point he's trying to make.
To be fair, most movie rewrites are adaptations not retcons. The term retcon suggests a change to continuity for the sake of changing continuity, that retroactively replaces previous continuity, or to fix problems between two or more sources to help them fit. The change directly effects past and future releases.
Whereas adaptations may rewrite the story to fit the medium but doesn't take the place of the original source. It doesn't retroactively replace the previous source.
Oof course there is the reboot which's starts the story over ignoring the previous while also trying bill itself as the new primary source. The previous ceases to have any direct relevance.
Then you have the deplorable star trek that tries to be both retcon and a reboot and IMO fails at both.
Quote from: Baggins on September 30, 2010, 06:37:53 PM
To be fair, most movie rewrites are adaptations not retcons. The term retcon suggests a change to continuity for the sake of changing continuity, that retroactively replaces previous continuity.
Whereas adaptations may rewrite the story to fit the medium but doesn't take the place of the original source. It doesn't retroactively replace the previous source.
Oof course there is the reboot which's starts the story over ignoring the previous while also trying bill itself as the new primary source. The previous ceases to have any direct relevance.
Then you have the deplorable star trek that tries to be both retcon and a reboot and IMO fails at both.
And the full name of our game is "The Silver Lining: Inspired by the King's Quest series", as seen in the 2006 trailer, and the name of our website for a long time. So you can call it adaptation, alternate universe, etc, but the fact remains that when anything undergoes a massive change in direction, and that includes putting a book on the silver screen, it becomes a retcon.
In the case of Disney for example, you cannot rule out that aside from the movies, they also had the same stories in book form, to the point where they completely displaced the old stories. In modern culture, many people do not know the source of those stories.
So, like Katie said, if you want to see TSL as a reinterpretation of what would have happened, then see it that way. But my point still stands to the fact that you can't condemn TSL and praise KQ2+ for the same reasons, just because you didn't like the approach of one over the other. That's a personal point of view over how the retcon was made, not the retcon itself --Otherwise, Lamb's words about the creators of TSL hold exactly the same weight to those of AGDI.
I for one don't praise kq2+ in the sense you are mentioning. I think it takes more liberties than your game, much more.
;D LOL...Cez, your posts remind me a lot of the dialog in TSL. Excessively wordy to the point where my brain hurts reading/listening to it. Have you ever heard of conciseness in writing? ;)
In all seriousness though, as Baggin's pointed out, you are confusing adaptations with retroactive continuity. Disney's takes on fairy tales are adaptations, as are Roberta's use of them in her games. Turning Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter from novel form into a movie script is again, an adaptation.
Retroactive continuity by definition only refers to works of serial fiction--i.e. books in a series, games in a series, etc. So if one were to take a KQ game's story, and write it into a movie script, that would be adapting the story, not retconning it. But if one were to write a new sequel to Harry Potter, for example, which rewrites or changes events in the past novels, that would be a retcon.
But you're right about one thing--I should have been more specific in my generalized statement about retconning. Some retcons simply add material to existing works or series story arcs, which in my opinion is more what KQ2+ did. But you're right, they do change a few things, but like I said, they were explicit from the beginning in saying it was an alternate telling of the story. The problem as I see it, is that TSL contradicts several previously established facts while purporting to merely add material and bring closure. It's a matter of representation, and I think TSL has misrepresented itself as a pure sequel several times over the past 8 years, despite what you guys are trying to call it now that you've been forced to adapt to the conditions of two C&D's.
I'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument with you about this. I haven't seen the rest of TSL's story, so I'd be coming at the debate from a serious point of weakness right from the start. I don't want to give the game an unfair shake when I've only seen about a quarter of it.
I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though. Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.
I don't think I can stress enough the difficulty of trying to not get defensive when you've spent eight to ten years pouring your heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears into something.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 07:54:02 PM
I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though. Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.
Aside from what Katie said, I also tend to read what you post in other places --places you are perfectly aware of we read. I have never said something about KQ3 or IA in your forums, and then come here and posted something different to put it in one way. That's just the type of stuff that has always irked me about some people, nothing personal.
Quote from: Cez on September 30, 2010, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 07:54:02 PM
I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though. Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.
Aside from what Katie said, I also tend to read what you post in other places --places you are perfectly aware of we read. I have never said something about KQ3 or IA in your forums, and then come here and posted something different to put it in one way. That's just the type of stuff that has always irked me about some people, nothing personal.
Honestly, I really haven't expressed any views over there that are any different from anything that I've expressed here. I always try to give praise where praise is due. I will certainly admit to letting my mouth run a little more on my own forums and perhaps at times being a little more blunt, but hey--I'm not the only one guilty of that.
Don't worry. This will all be solved when at the end of The Silver Lining, it's revealed this is all a wacky dream Sonny Bonds had after accidentally spilling some confiscated LSD from a drug bust. Problem solved!!!
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on September 30, 2010, 11:03:00 PM
Don't worry. This will all be solved when at the end of The Silver Lining, it's revealed this is all a wacky dream Sonny Bonds had after accidentally spilling some confiscated LSD from a drug bust. Problem solved!!!
Bt
See? Now
this is an example of a retcon. ;D
Something can only be retconned if it's being billed as canon. I'm sorry, but otherwise it is a work of fan fiction and hence NOT a retcon since the contradictory information is not official. Since we're being all hung up on definitions of adaptions and retcons etc.
The reason for this is because retcon is (as you said!) short for "retroactive continuity" but since all fanon (no matter how widely accepted) is not canon it is not a part of the same continuity and therefore is incapable of retroactively affecting the continuity that it is not a part of.
Even when this game had "King's Quest" as part of the title, it was always always always referred to as unofficial (at least by the people involved, I dunno where you heard about that they apparently weren't billing it that way) and therefore completely incapable of retcon.
Lamb, you're part of IA -- would you say it is a retcon that you shifted the amount of time between KQ3 and KQ4? By the (flimsy) definition of a retcon that you're using and that you're indicating is so "low" it's a retcon. It's actually a pretty freaking big retcon since it sort of blows Graham's motivation for passing on the hat since neither of his children have just returned from an adventure....
(That being said, I do personally like the fact that there's months in between, I just have to imagine that some kind of adventure that both Alexander and Rosella partook in happened in-between, that's all! So, if you're curious, Alex and Rosella saved the world in those months. I'm still coming up with the details. :P)
Furthermore -- TSL *is* a pure (unofficial, non-canon) sequel even if it DOES "retcon". Just because something retcons does not make it less of a sequel. A sequel is simply a storyline that continues a previous storyline and/or takes place in the same world/universe and/or with the same characters that, chronologically, takes place AFTER the storylines that were published beforehand.
More eloquently (from dictionary.com): "noun: a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work."
If they suddenly stuck this in between KQ4 and KQ5 then, no, it would not be a sequel. But, it all takes place after the last installment of King's Quest making it -- say it with me now -- pure sequel!
In summary, stop defining stuff to make your arguments. You're just being silly. :P
What it comes down to is this: you are, personally, having a hard time with your suspension of disbelief in regards to the story TSL is spinning. That's fine. But that doesn't mean there are plot holes, retcons, or anything actually wrong with the story. It just means, it doesn't work for you and your "personal canon" of King's Quest.
I never thought I'd say this after all of our debates, but out of everyone in this whole thread, Baggins is the most correct. Except for in the cases of "personal canon" (in which case you can't really criticize the creators, you can just ignore it :P) all fan-made works are pretty much "alternate realities".
PS While I was writing this I was looking for this article I read once that was like "Ten Movies Disney Should Never Have Made" which explored the grotesque, not family-friendly endings to most of Disney's fairy tales and compared them to what Disney did with them. Can't find it though, if anyone can please post a link!!
How is it silly to take pains to know what one is arguing about? If you have people throwing words around without really knowing what they mean, aren't THEY the silly ones?
BTW, the term "personal canon" is an oxymoron. ;)
and then you wonder why people are confrontational ;)
I'm actually really looking forward to the reply on the retconning of KQ3 VGA accusation. I would think that after having such a big mouth about how we've changed things, your stuff would be impeccable :)
or, wait, was it also billed as an alternate reality? ::)
I would absolutely define that bit in KQ3 VGA as a retcon, albeit a pretty minor one, since it in no way changes the plot of KQ4 or the motivations of its primary characters as you imply. Strawman argument, by the way. ;)
Also, just to clarify, I'd like to point out that I personally had no part in KQ3VGA's creation at all, as I didn't join IA until years after it had been released. It's the type of thing I would have argued against had I been around. I also would have argued against the major changes to the game's spellcasting system as well (which I actually did way back in the day on the IA forums as a regular member ;)).
There's another point I was making that I tried to clarify earlier--though I guess I didn't do too good a job at it, since it seems to have gone unnoticed.
There are different types of retcons. There are retcons where the new author simply tries to fill in the gaps in the original story, adding material to existing canon, and there are retcons where the new author deliberately attempts to contradict existing canon, in order to shoehorn said canon to fit their ideas for the series.
The former type, I have no problem with whatsoever, as it doesn't do any harm to the series as it's already been established. The latter type, however, is problematic for me, because it involves a certain level of disrespect for the original source material--as if the new author believes he or she can do a better job than, or is somehow justified in replacing, the intent of the original creators. Which to me smacks of arrogance and a certain lack of ethics.
Quote from: Lambonius on October 01, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
The latter type, however, is problematic for me, because it involves a certain level of disrespect for the original source material--as if the new author believes he or she can do a better job than, or is somehow justified in replacing, the intent of the original creators. Which to me smacks of arrogance and a certain lack of ethics.
Are you talking about someone we know? ;)
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 02:26:54 AM
Are you talking about someone we know? ;)
Welcome to the Forums...
Btw.: I have a
GREAT idea: IA should team up with these other guys and remake TSL! ;)
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 02:26:54 AM
Are you talking about someone we know? ;)
Well actually I was trying to speak in general, as I would feel the same way no matter who was doing it.
Also, I'd like to take this moment to distance myself from IA. My views are my own, and I do NOT speak for IA as a group. We are a diverse bunch of guys, and we all have our own opinions about games and the legacy of Sierra. Luckily for us, we usually see eye to eye on things like game design and stuff, and we have a diverse array of talents that come together nicely in the service of creating games (and having fun doing it!) :)
To make things extremely clear, obviously we are having this conversation back and forth because you are attacking me (and Katie) directly, since we wrote the majority of that script.
So we go in circles... Isn't that the same as AGDI did with KQ2+?
You accuse us of changing Manannan's intentions altogether because that changes KQ3 in its entirety. Yet, you have seen the cutscene and you have seen how Alexander recognizes every bit of what happened in KQ3 and believes it.
You say that KQ2+ didn't do this. Other than the fact that this mysterious "father" figure contacting Hagatha to order her to kill King Graham? Other than the fact that Hagatha obviously being part of The Black Cloak Society? That's not rewriting intentions, plots, etc. I don't think that falls under the category of "add-ons". That just changed my perception of Hagatha completely.
We haven't changed the events behind what happened in KQ3. We are just playing with the idea of "what if" Manannan had a different plan, one that Alexander didn't know about. Which is the same exact thing done in AGDI. Again, if you say that they billed is as an alternate story, we billed ours as the unofficial sequel.
On a completely different topic, I will agree that some of the lines in TSL could have been better, yes, had Katie and I had more time to spend with them before they were recorded, or perhaps had had more experience. To call it "mediocre" I think it's taking it a bit too far. Extremely too far, I would say. As much as Jason, for example, plays an excellent Graham, there's no magic an actor could do to make a believable character if the lines don't help.
If you have a problem with seeing drama and King's Quest in the same bag, that is something entirely different to saying that the writing is bad. I can admit it's not perfect, and it's also not award winning material, but for the first published work of Katie and myself, something that was written about 7 years ago when we were in our early 20s, it's a darn good effort. At least that's something that I can say of Katie's work. And especially when aside from writing it, again, I was directing it, producing it, and wrote a 1500 page script that had all to be revised in time for the 2004 recordings. Because yes, when you mention that our programmers, musicians, artists, etc, should get away from the writers, you fail to realize that the writers wore many of the other hats of the things you enjoyed --for example, the camera work at the Sacred Circle was pretty much done by me. And the PR work you say we've done greatly, also Katie and myself leading the efforts.
So yeah, I'm not saying that because we've done many good things, we are great writers. For all I know I may be an awful one, but when I see so many scenes working on TSL, I sometimes find myself proud of the writing behind it.
We respect your opinion and indeed value it (if you want to know, you are the reason why the vines and foliage was added to the Gate scene), but what I don't appreciate is when you cross the smartass line and seemingly contradict yourself to make a point, just looking for a way to win the argument --when you do that, you remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing. Because that's just when I roll my eyes and turn the other way.
And you are right -- I have never heard of conciseness in writing :P That's why Katie spends a lot of her time editing down whatever I write :P
Quote from: Cez on October 01, 2010, 02:45:06 AM
To make things extremely clear, obviously we are having this conversation back and forth because you are attacking me (and Katie) directly, since we wrote the majority of that script.
So we go in circles... Isn't that the same as AGDI did with KQ2+?
You accuse us of changing Manannan's intentions altogether because that changes KQ3 in its entirety. Yet, you have seen the cutscene and you have seen how Alexander recognizes every bit of what happened in KQ3 and believes it.
You say that KQ2+ didn't do this. Other than the fact that this mysterious "father" figure contacting Hagatha to order her to kill King Graham? Other than the fact that Hagatha obviously being part of The Black Cloak Society? That's not rewriting intentions, plots, etc. I don't think that falls under the category of "add-ons". That just changed my perception of Hagatha completely.
We haven't changed the events behind what happened in KQ3. We are just playing with the idea of "what if" Manannan had a different plan, one that Alexander didn't know about. Which is the same exact thing done in AGDI. Again, if you say that they billed is as an alternate story, we billed ours as the unofficial sequel.
On a completely different topic, I will agree that some of the lines in TSL could have been better, yes, had Katie and I had more time to spend with them before they were recorded, or perhaps had had more experience. To call it "mediocre" I think it's taking it a bit too far. Extremely too far, I would say. As much as Jason, for example, plays an excellent Graham, there's no magic an actor could do to make a believable character if the lines don't help.
If you have a problem with seeing drama and King's Quest in the same bag, that is something entirely different to saying that the writing is bad. I can admit it's not perfect, and it's also not award winning material, but for the first published work of Katie and myself, something that was written about 7 years ago when we were in our early 20s, it's a darn good effort. At least that's something that I can say of Katie's work. And especially when aside from writing it, again, I was directing it, producing it, and wrote a 1500 page script that had all to be revised in time for the 2004 recordings. Because yes, when you mention that our programmers, musicians, artists, etc, should get away from the writers, you fail to realize that the writers wore many of the other hats of the things you enjoyed --for example, the camera work at the Sacred Circle was pretty much done by me. And the PR work you say we've done greatly, also Katie and myself leading the efforts.
So yeah, I'm not saying that because we've done many good things, we are great writers. For all I know I may be an awful one, but when I see so many scenes working on TSL, I sometimes find myself proud of the writing behind it.
We respect your opinion and indeed value it (if you want to know, you are the reason why the vines and foliage was added to the Gate scene), but what I don't appreciate is when you cross the smartass line and seemingly contradict yourself to make a point, just looking for a way to win the argument --when you do that, you remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing. Because that's just when I roll my eyes and turn the other way.
And you are right -- I have never heard of conciseness in writing :P That's why Katie spends a lot of her time editing down whatever I write :P
Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9 being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?
Okay. I will concede the point about KQ2+, since you're right--the changes you're talking about certainly do fit the idea of a retcon as I've repeatedly defined it. ;) So I'll give you that. Personally, I think KQ2+ nailed the original KQ tone a lot better than TSL does, but then, you guys have repeatedly said that you were deliberately trying to make something different than the original KQ tone. Personally, I don't think it's a wise decision, but that's just my opinion, so whatever.
I do think that the idea of self-representation is an issue here though. Regardless of what you are officially calling the game now, you guys have, throughout the course of the game's development, whether implicitly or explicitly, supported the perception that yours is the continuation of the series that fans have been waiting for. Whether the words "official sequel" ever came out of your mouth/fingertips is beside the point. I think it's the same issue Josh Mandel brought up all those years ago--rewriting canon is one thing when you bill yourself as TSL: Inspired by King's Quest. It's another when you bill yourself (again, either implicitly or explicitly) as KQ9, the conclusion to the KQ series. And let's face it, the only reason you guys changed the name was because you were legally forced to. :)
So I dunno, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. Like I said initially, I don't really want to debate the merits of TSL's story, because I don't know all of it yet. So I can't possibly argue with any kind of validity about it (and I'm not trying to--I'm only commenting on things we've seen so far.)
I will also concede an apology for being perhaps excessively blunt in my language in the post to which you are referring, though I DO stand by my views that the writing is the weakest link in the TSL chain.
Again, by writing, at this point I don't necessarily mean story--my comments in that post were more referring to dialog and style, which I still think could use some improvement. And though I'm not crazy about the darker tone and more "psychological" nature of TSL's story direction, I'm reserving final judgment until I see how the rest of it plays out.
Lastly, I will say again that I definitely appreciated all the little touches you guys have been putting into the improvements in each episode. They are definitely helping improve the overall experience, and it's a nice show of respect to the fans who have supported the project and given genuine constructive criticisms in an effort to better the overall production.
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 03:01:23 AM
Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9 being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?
No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.
Quote from: Cez on October 01, 2010, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 03:01:23 AM
Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9 being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?
No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.
Well perhaps the cutting was better--Easier to tell a more concise story and not get lost in it.
JRR Tolkien died without finishing the Silmarillion because it kept getting bigger and bigger, and even he, the author, began to get lost in it and wasn't sure how much was complete, what should be revised, etc.
This happens a lot. Look at Lucas. He crowed in the 70s how Star Wars was meant to be told in 9 movies. We only ended up getting six of those nine.
And I will admit that yes, we wanted to be seen as the game that closed off the saga. And like I said to you once before, Josh Mandel was right. He didn't quite know how to handle the situation, which is why it left a sour taste in our mouths, but he was right about the fact that we shouldn't have called ourselves King's Quest IX if we were planning to do what we wanted to do.
We wanted to keep the name for other reasons, actually. One of them because we needed people to follow us because we wanted to do a very ambitious project and we needed the help. And yes, I will admit that back then, 21 years old me did fight with Mandel over things I now agree with him.
However, I don't go to the extend of over analyzing things unless someone puts me on the spotlight. I'm the kind of guy that wouldn't lose sleep over, say, somebody grabbing Gabriel Knight and making a fairy tale story out of it. I'd most likely check it out, dislike it and ignore it and move on. I personally never check out the website of something I didn't like, so I'm very : live and let live" sort of guy. I don't obsess over details of someone else's work. I have enough with mine lol
So I don't personally see a huge deal about calling our game The Silver Lining, King's Quest, The Ninja Bonsai Tree or whatever. Everyone knows at the end what it is, and everyone will have a different opinion of it regardless. That said, I agree that because some people do care, it's the best idea to call it "The Silver Lining". I'm glad that out of the two very unusual fights we had with the big guys, we managed to be recognized as a King's Quest game, yet using our name of "The Silver Lining". That's what I wanted to make sure people got across. That regardless of the different steps we took, we still were inspired by King's Quest.
Anyhow, I also apologize if I seemed a jerk at points. You have a very good way of getting under my skin sometimes and get the not so good side of me out. ;)
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 03:33:07 AM
Quote from: Cez on October 01, 2010, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 03:01:23 AM
Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9 being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?
No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.
Well perhaps the cutting was better--Easier to tell a more concise story and not get lost in it.
JRR Tolkien died without finishing the Silmarillion because it kept getting bigger and bigger, and even he, the author, began to get lost in it and wasn't sure how much was complete, what should be revised, etc.
This happens a lot. Look at Lucas. He crowed in the 70s how Star Wars was meant to be told in 9 movies. We only ended up getting six of those nine.
A mistake we didn't see until it was too late, and we had to do it to fix things. To be honest, this game, as it was originally was a good saga, but man, it was drawn out as heck. The end result was not optimal, because like I told Lamb, if we had know what we were getting into, I would have started right off somewhere else and not spend time in the Green Isle. So, to me, the shame was that the gameplay and story ended up being somehow disconnected, but I'm pretty proud of it after all. It almost works like Kingdom Hearts, where they have the overall plot and then each world's plot.
But yeah, as I write future projects, I want to make sure they are the right size, and that they get to the point right away. If I write too much material, then save it for a sequel that COULD be produced, but don't count on it --unless that's the plan from the get go.
I personally do like it best from a writing standpoint when you know you will be making sequels, because you can set it up for that instead of "now I have to come up with the sequel!" sort of thing. But only very few projects have done it. It's a very risky thing to do. You run the risk that the saga is never completed and cut halfway through like many series we see on TV and even films.
Quote from: Cez on October 01, 2010, 02:45:06 AM
You remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing.
I've read some of the posts. Who are you referring to?
Edited by Cez: That's just not cool to do that. If they want to voice their opinion over here, they can come to do it. If they choose not to do so, then you don't need to transfer their messages.
QuoteBTW, the term "personal canon" is an oxymoron.
This is an assessment I agree with. Because if only the ones owning a universe can define what is and isn't canon (even if they only define it loosely), and anything fans do is "fan fiction, unofficial, non-canon". Then one cannot have a personal canon.
It would be more accurate to say that someone has a 'personal continuity', in which they create their own fan fictional, unofficial, non-canon timeline (I.E. continuity), in which they ignore things, add there own things, etc.
Panon (personal canon) and fanon (fan canon) are pretty much two sides of the same coin. Both a bit oxymoronic.
Quote from: Cez on October 01, 2010, 03:34:12 AM
Anyhow, I also apologize if I seemed a jerk at points. You have a very good way of getting under my skin sometimes and get the not so good side of me out. ;)
Accepted. :) Sometimes I have that effect on people. ;)
And really, you should save up the fire for when we reveal Graham's a cyborg, anyways. :P (no one ever said he wasn't!!)
One of the reviewers for episode one claimed he was Roger of Daventry... Does that make him Wilco?
Quote from: KatieHal on October 01, 2010, 01:50:02 PMAnd really, you should save up the fire for when we reveal Graham's a cyborg, anyways.
And let me guess: Connor's first name is Kyle, he married Sarah and they have a son named John? ;)
Quote from: Baggins on October 01, 2010, 02:08:45 PM
One of the reviewers for episode one claimed he was Roger of Daventry... Does that make him Wilco?
Lol...that's a game I would play. ;)
Quote from: Enchantermon on October 01, 2010, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on October 01, 2010, 01:50:02 PMAnd really, you should save up the fire for when we reveal Graham's a cyborg, anyways.
And let me guess: Connor's first name is Kyle, he married Sarah and they have a son named John? ;)
Reese was Kyle's last name.
It's all part of how we get TSL to become a part of the Tommy Whestphall universe (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html)!
Quote from: Sir Perceval of Daventry on October 01, 2010, 03:22:12 PMReese was Kyle's last name.
Yes, I know, thanks for ruining an otherwise perfect pun. ;)
Quote from: Lambonius on October 01, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
I would absolutely define that bit in KQ3 VGA as a retcon, albeit a pretty minor one, since it in no way changes the plot of KQ4 or the motivations of its primary characters as you imply. Strawman argument, by the way. ;)
No it isn't.
Graham's motivation for passing on the adventurer's cap was that both of his children had proven how very brave they were -- Alexander had just returned to Daventry from an epic adventure and defeated the dragon, and Rosella had (we can all pretty much assume, although I don't believe it's stated or refuted anywhere) volunteered to be sacrificed to the dragon. The motivation was to pass on his grand tradition of heroism to the two new heroes as a reward for the brave adventures
just completed.
While, yes, months later that would still be a justified motivation; the urgency, the need, etc... those have all been worn away by time at that point. It makes more sense to be immediately following heroic acts. That may be small to you -- but it isn't. It's a major turning point in the series. Furthermore, Rosella's in an emotional state as it is at the beginning of KQ4 -- she
just survived a dragon, her brother
just returned, and she's about to (maybe) inherit the legendary adventurer's cap. Then her father has a heart attack -- yes, she impulsive but it's stupid even for her to jump through a mirror for a fairy she's never heard of before (and who tells her straight up that she can't go back without dealing with a problem she refuses to discuss via the mirror), ditch her family in a dire hour, and all before the doctor ever shows up. It's only because she's in such an emotional state that the beginning of that game never bothered me. If you let months pass, then it's not only.... "Gee, Graham, why are you doing this now? "Oh, no real reason! Just felt like it!" But it also makes me want to slap Rosella hard across the face. It changes the entire situation, so no -- that's *not* a small retcon and it changes the motivations of two MAIN characters. Not even villains. MAIN CHARACTERS.
But it wasn't actually a retcon because in order for there to be retcon it must be
official canon. However, if it were official it would change the entire situation at the end of KQ3/beginning of KQ4 and make it utterly nonsense (without some adventure taking place in-between!)
No one on the PO team ever claimed, pretended, or tried to pass this game off as being official canon. It was said it was a "conclusion to the classic series" but no more or less than KQ2+ was called a "retelling of the classic tale". Both made it sound official (by your argument) by not including "unofficial" in the phrase. So, explain what's wrong with PO Studios that AGDI didn't do wrong? I fail to see a difference.
Was it because AGDI had already done a remake -- a remake in which the biggest change they made was giving names to the guards at the gate in an easter egg? :-\
QuoteBTW, the term "personal canon" is an oxymoron. ;)
Hence the quotes -- it's a term we've been using occasionally on the forums in regards to the things people pick and choose out of the official game canon, the official Companion canon, and yes even fanon and to some extent their own imaginations.
I suppose "personal continuity" is more accurate (as Baggins said) but nobody likes saying "continuity" -- isn't that why we say "retcon"? :P (Or do you guys say it because you dislike "retroactive"?)
I like "panon" though.... So now we have canon -- which is official; fanon -- which is widely known (and sometimes accepted in places where it does not contradict the canon) but unofficial; and panon -- which is individualized to each fan and therefore is not widely known and is certainly not accepted.
Works for me.
Quote(we can all pretty much assume, although I don't believe it's stated or refuted anywhere) volunteered to be sacrificed to the dragon.
I think it was more or less she was forced to go by her father, but she resigned herself to it. I forget exact phrasing in the original KQ3 on the issue.
In the companion novelization for KQ4, it mentions she willingly went when the Dragon demanded her personal sacrifice, and because her father forced her to go, because it was for the good of the kingdom, but it wasn't her idea. She doesn't seem to have wanted to go. It even says later in the KQV novelization, that "Rosella forgave her father for taking her to the dragon", and that Graham has nightmares for the decision he made and forcing his daughter into that situation. There is more on his decision (and prime ministers involvement), and forcing her to go, in the An Encyclopedia of Daventry chapter. Related and mentioned in the encyclopedia chapter, and KQ7 novelization, is a bit about Valanice standing in front of her daughter's room with a sword attempting to prevent Graham from taking Rosella to the dragon.
It wasn't a straight forward "volunteer" as most people would interpret volunteer to mean. But rather that she agreed to go, but she didn't have much of a choice, on the issue, and was still forced. I don't think any official source specfically claimed that she "volunteered" (in that choice of phrase)?
Quoteand all before the doctor ever shows up.
Actually the physicians had already looked at the king, tried all manner of remedies, and pronounced they couldn't do anything for him. While we know there was about an hour between the start of Alexander's return celebration and the heart attack. It's actually unclear how much time passed while she was waiting by her father's bed, and when she left for the throne room, and was contacted by Genesta.
In the companion it seems implied that there must have been at least several hours, though probably not more than half a day (probably considerably less) before Genesta got into contact with her. She got into Tamir about 6:00 AM or so, iirc. The companion suggests that between the time she was tied to the stake and the time she saved her father took place in the course of two days total.
QuoteNo one on the PO team ever claimed, pretended, or tried to pass this game off as being official canon. It was said it was a "conclusion to the classic series" but no more or less than KQ2+ was called a "retelling of the classic tale". Both made it sound official (by your argument) by not including "unofficial" in the phrase. So, explain what's wrong with PO Studios that AGDI didn't do wrong? I fail to see a difference.
Was it because AGDI had already done a remake -- a remake in which the biggest change they made was giving names to the guards at the gate in an easter egg?
This was a quote from early version of omnipedia page that was created for TSL, it might have been edited in by Yonkey, though it could have just been a fan of the team, i'm not sure (its from 2005 or so, before the first C&D, things have changed since then);
QuoteKing's Quest IX: Every Cloak has a Silver Lining aka KQIX is a fanmade sequel to the series and will answer many of the unsolved problems in the series. It is currently being developed by Phoenix Online Studios.
So I don't know if it was TSL leaving out "unofficial" and claiming that they would answer unsolved problems, or if just another editor that assumed POS would be doing that. Who knows.
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 01:31:25 AM
I think it was more or less she was forced to go by her father, but she resigned herself to it. I forget exact phrasing in the original KQ3 on the issue.
I don't think the game actually says one way or the other, so perhaps this is just in the Companion?
I gotta say though, I don't buy that she'd be so upset about her father if he'd just done that -- particularly if she doesn't forgive him for making that choice for her until KQ5.
QuoteActually the physicians had already looked at the king, tried all manner of remedies, and pronounced they couldn't do anything for him. While we know there was about an hour between the start of Alexander's return celebration and the heart attack. It's actually unclear how much time passed while she was waiting by her father's bed, and when she left for the throne room, and was contacted by Genesta.
That's another thing that's not clear in the game at all -- but looking at the game, I'm gonna say those are some AWFULLY long hugs if an hour passed between Alexander's arrival and the heart attack. :P
QuoteThis was a quote from early version of omnipedia page that was created for TSL, it might have been edited in by Yonkey, though it could have just been a fan of the team, i'm not sure (its from 2005 or so, before the first C&D, things have changed since then);
QuoteKing's Quest IX: Every Cloak has a Silver Lining aka KQIX is a fanmade sequel to the series and will answer many of the unsolved problems in the series. It is currently being developed by Phoenix Online Studios.
Wouldn't the term "fanmade" mean it was necessarily unofficial?
QuoteI don't think the game actually says one way or the other, so perhaps this is just in the Companion?
Actually I think the game has a very brief comment on who sent her there. The oracle states the "dragon requires once a year, the sacrifice of a young maiden" and that his sister is the "chosen one this year", and the gnome states "That monster demanded the sacrifice of your poor sister, Princess Rosella". I know Rosella mentions if you talk to her several times, that when she was sent, she scared, but she wanted to be brave, hoping that her sacrifice might somehow help, and that it probably did, because of it Alexander had come for her. There might be a few more bits of info from the animal messages in Lledor, but I don't remember exactly.
In anycase yes in original KQ3, Rosella had no choice, even if you suggest Graham had no involvement in the decision, the Dragon was still the one that chose her, and made her go. So she didn't have a chance to "volunteer" on the matter. She tried to go as bravely as she could
QuoteI gotta say though, I don't buy that she'd be so upset about her father if he'd just done that -- particularly if she doesn't forgive him for making that choice for her until KQ5.
Actually, she probably forgave him long before KQV, Graham is just giving a recap of his own personal feelings on the matter, and how his decision still gives him nightmares. It doesn't specify when Rosella forgave him exactly. She was never so upset that she wished ill on her father, or his death. Otherwise KQ4 wouldn't have been possible.
QuoteThat's another thing that's not clear in the game at all -- but looking at the game, I'm gonna say those are some AWFULLY long hugs if an hour passed between Alexander's arrival and the heart attack
.
LOL, really don't try to think about the timing too much... especially when you consider in KQ4, an hour passes about every minute or two in the game's internal clock :P
There is another example in one of the manuals (as I recall), where time description doesn't necessarily match up with what's shown in game. As I remember, it basically said something along the lines that Graham brought the three treasures back to Edward, and then he died several hours later that night.
In anycase, the "hour" might also be including the time he was going through the castle halls to reach the throne room. Not sure.
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 09:12:09 AM
QuoteI don't think the game actually says one way or the other, so perhaps this is just in the Companion?
I gotta say though, I don't buy that she'd be so upset about her father if he'd just done that -- particularly if she doesn't forgive him for making that choice for her until KQ5.
Actually, she probably forgave him long before KQV, Graham is just giving a recap of his own personal feelings on the matter, and how his decision still gives him nightmares. It doesn't specify when Rosella forgave him exactly. She was never so upset that she wished ill on her father, or his death. Otherwise KQ4 would have been possible.
I thought I remembered when talking to Rosella at the end of KQ3 that she makes the comment it was her idea, that she somehow knew it would all turn out alright and she wouldn't die. And I think she ends that exchange by saying something like (and I am loosely paraphrasing because I haven't played the game or gotten it to run on my new computer in some time), "And now you're here so I guess I was right."
Quote from: Damar on October 02, 2010, 09:23:31 AM
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 09:12:09 AM
QuoteI don't think the game actually says one way or the other, so perhaps this is just in the Companion?
I gotta say though, I don't buy that she'd be so upset about her father if he'd just done that -- particularly if she doesn't forgive him for making that choice for her until KQ5.
Actually, she probably forgave him long before KQV, Graham is just giving a recap of his own personal feelings on the matter, and how his decision still gives him nightmares. It doesn't specify when Rosella forgave him exactly. She was never so upset that she wished ill on her father, or his death. Otherwise KQ4 would have been possible.
I thought I remembered when talking to Rosella at the end of KQ3 that she makes the comment it was her idea, that she somehow knew it would all turn out alright and she wouldn't die. And I think she ends that exchange by saying something like (and I am loosely paraphrasing because I haven't played the game or gotten it to run on my new computer in some time), "And now you're here so I guess I was right."
From the Omnipedia:
Rosella (KQ3): "Mum and Dad were heart-broken when you disappeared as a baby," she explains. "Dad searched EVERYWHERE for you. Obviously he never found you. Hard times hit Daventry right after you were kidnapped. Dad and Mum tried, but had lost their will. We were down on our guard, and the terrible dragon came. We all thought it was the end. I was scared, you know. But, I DID want to be brave. I was hoping my sacrifce might somehow help. Maybe, it did. Because of me, YOU came. Now we're together again, and together we can put Daventry right!"
Don't forget what the Oracle and Gnome say, they say specifically that it was the Dragon that demanded Rosella specifically. She didn't get a chance to "volunteer" for it. Rosella's comment relates how even though she was made to go,and was scared about it, she tried to be brave about it, and hoped it that her sacrifice would somehow help.
QuoteOracle; Years ago, a terrible dragon three-headed dragon invaded Daventry, and keeps the people in a state of terror. This monster requires, once a year, the sacrifice of a young maiden. Sadly, your own sister, Princess Rosella, is the chosen one this year."
QuoteOld gnome (KQ3):"Daventry's been suffering for years now, since that despicable dragon came. That monster demanded the sacrifice of your poor sister, Princess Rosella, and I'm afraid time is running out!"
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 02, 2010, 12:06:21 AM
While, yes, months later that would still be a justified motivation;
That's exactly my point though.
The motivation is basically the same. A slightly different sense of urgency perhaps, but it doesn't change the reasoning behind Graham's decision. He wants to pass on his adventurer's cap not necessarily because his children have just finished a quest. It's not a direct reward for an action completed. He's doing it out of a sense of pride for the adults his children have become. You make it sound like he's paying them for services rendered. A loving father's pride in his children doesn't wane over time, so regardless of how much time passes between Alexander's return and Graham's passing on the cap, he's still just as proud as ever and just as motivated as ever to express that love and pride to his children.
It would be much more similar to TSL's motivation revision if IA had said, "well actually Graham didn't REALLY intend to pass on his adventurer's cap--what you saw was him practicing his throwing arm in a game of catch with his children. What he was really going to do was..." ;)
Also, I feel like I need to reiterate that even though I'm defending the IA retcon here (basically because you pressed me into this position,) I would have argued against the change had I been directly involved in the design of the remake myself. :)
Now please, I'm tired of this line of discussion. Cesar and I already brought our argument to a resolution and agreed to disagree. Can't we do the same? ;)
In the KQ3 ending it starts with Rosella and Alexander entering the castle and directly going to the throne room where they meet their parents. Valanice asking where Alexander has been all this time. Then graham pointing out the magic mirror, and how it been clouded since Alex was kidnapped. The magic mirror then clears, and Valanice declaring that future looks bright. Then graham retrieves his 'Adventurer's hat'. Then he states;
Quote"Alexander, Rosella, believe it or not, this old hat and I have been through a lot together. Now, it's time he had a new travelling companion.
Then he flings the hat towards Alexander's direction. Both Alexander and Rosella raise their arms to catch it. It draws near and near to them.
Before it lands, it pops up, "The End ?.??" (with three question marks).
The KQ4 recap is about the same, although I don't think Graham speaks, or if he does give the exact same message? In it just before it lands, Graham has his heart attack and goes into a coma.
Yeah, I could've sworn there was something in the dragon sacrifice thing that was either the dragon wanting her specifically or her volunteering. Which makes more sense re: Graham, because he hasn't ever seemed like the type to just toss his daughter to the beast! That made no sense to me that he would've chosen her to go and then forced her to. That's something the evil king you're supposed to overthrow would do, not the good guy king we've come to know and love!
I can certainly see him feeling guilt over her going regardless, of course.
Ya, companion's motivation is that the dragon demanded her specifically, like said in the game. But Graham agreed to it, and was the one who personally forced her up the mountain and tied her up. That's what Rosella had forgiven him, and the reason why he had such nightmares. It goes on to suggest that Graham feels remorse for making the decision (he was partially implicated in the decision), and he didn't do more to defy the dragon's demands. Further more his prime minister was the one who gave him bad advice to agree to sending maidens in the first place, which apparently drove the dragon to demand more and more maidens, which ultimately lead to dragon demanding Rosella specifically. So ultimately Derek, Graham and others belief that Graham fell to bad judgement (and perhaps slight madness) in his remorse over the loss of his son, and the destruction of the kingdom by the dragon. Actually there are additional comments in KQ3 about the state of the kingdom after loss of Alexander that hint at the extreme grief, and depression felt in the kingdom.
Maybe it's the word choice. "Forced" just...does not compute. For example, it's completely different if you say he went up there with her to say good-bye, even though it broke his heart, etc. "Forced" her up there says something completely different.
Well she was "forced", in as much that Valanice tried to prevent her from going (standing in front of her room with a sword), but Graham took her anways, and he never tried to defy the Dragon. Even if he had no choice himself (or at least he tried to justify his decision to agree to the Dragong's demands by stating that he had no choice), he felt as if he forced her to do something, she didn't want to really do. The fact of the matter was, he himself was forced into agreeing to the issue, and kowtelling to the dragons' demands. Rosella and Graham are both victims, but Graham was forced into being an accomplice to the terrible deeds. He had allowed untold number of maidens to be killed.
Actually, had Graham and Valanice not suffered from the melancholy of losing their son (and a few other hardships), they might have actually been able to put up a fight against the dragon. Rosella suggests in KQ3 (if you talk to her a few times), that it was that melancholy that prevented them from defending against it in the first place, "they had lost their will, and were down on their guard when the dragon came", and probably why they agreed to such horrible and evil demands.
Strangely enough, some of the later synopses of KQ3 in KQ4 manual, by Roberta in KQV hintbook, in KQV/VI menus, etc, state that Rosella was "abducted" from the Castle by the dragon. They make know note of the fact that Dragon demanded her, and that she went bravely. Infact making it sound like she was even more of an unwilling victim.
I wrote the ending for IA's KQIII. I took a lot of time and effort to think about King's Quest when I wrote it - and I had to make some decisions. Yeah, in the original, Alexander walks in and says "I'm your son!" and everyone else is like "Yes you are!" And Graham just decides to give his adventuring cap to a boy he hasn't seen for 18 years? It really seemed like it was a limit of the technology, not the storytelling. I thought that by showing Alexander learning to know his family and Graham beginning to know what it was like to have a happy reunited family it would give more of an impetus to pass along the "torch" so to speak.
So, yeah, in a sense, it's a retcon, as far as time-line goes. I don't think it changed any motivations, though - it just gave them more shape and form.
Some may like it, some might not - the original game is always still there, so our "alternate" take on it is just that. Another option. I like it, personally.
Bt
I think the ending was decent enough, the only issue, was that it doesn't fit with the recap in KQ4 (and its manual). Which just more or less repeats much of the same info from the KQ3 ending, in that Alexander had returned to the kingdom, defeated the dragon, and saved Rosella "moments before", etc.
So it makes your game inconsistent with the series as a whole (or at least inconstent with KQ4 itself). Basically you'd have to rewrite the narration text of KQ4, if you were to make a remake, in order to make it fit with your remake's ending.
Blackthorne -- as I said, I personally like the ending although I don't consider it such a minor retcon. That's why there's an untold adventure in there in my panon. (I'll probably write that out as an addendum to my Companion that I'm writing -- which is basically just my panon being shared with some creative things added to it. I already have two other addendums planned. :P)
At the very least the retcon changes Rosella's motivations -- and I'm not saying she would have wished him harm, I'm just saying she did a really stupid thing due to her heightened emotions and sure it worked out fine but it was still stupid even for her. Those heightened emotions would not exist to the same extent in a different situation and therefore the entirety of KQ4 was changed.
So.... TSL's making a "What we didn't know..." about the villains' motivations seems way less of a big deal to me than that. I mean, you don't spend any time as the character whose motivations are changed whereas..... IA did change the motivations of the next game's protagonist.
Lamb, I know you said you would disagree with this statement, I'm just pointing out that if the complaints you've raised are more than "it disagrees with my panon" that the same rules need to apply to all of the unofficial material -- including KQ2+ and KQ3 VGA -- at least one of which you said that you like and the other of which you at least don't mind.
I mean, I'm having to readjust some major parts of my panon to work in the storyline so far.... Lord only knows how twisted it will become -- if I'll even be able to work TSL into it! But I don't find that to be a problem with the plot.
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 02:51:17 PM
So it makes your game inconsistent with the series as a whole (or at least inconstent with KQ4 itself). Basically you'd have to rewrite the narration text of KQ4, if you were to make a remake, in order to make it fit with your remake's ending.
Actually, no - the opening narration of King's Quest IV merely says "With the return of his long lost son Alexander..." That could mean any length of time, honestly, as long as it was recent. The codecil of IA's KQIII takes place a couple of months after the inital return.
QuoteAt the very least the retcon changes Rosella's motivations -- and I'm not saying she would have wished him harm, I'm just saying she did a really stupid thing due to her heightened emotions and sure it worked out fine but it was still stupid even for her. Those heightened emotions would not exist to the same extent in a different situation and therefore the entirety of KQ4 was changed.
Let me ask you: has your father ever been in a life or death situation? Have you had to stand there, with your health, and love for the man, and feel powerless? I have. And I know that in that moment I saw my father in the hospital ICU, tubes attached to him, with doctors telling me the only thing we could do is wait - I would have made a rash and bold decision if the panacea was offered to me. So I don't think Rosella's motivations are changed. When your loved ones are in deep distress, your reactions and actions are often different than when things are "normal".
Bt
Without commenting on retcons, etc, I do have to agree with Bt on the motivation note--Rosella's decision was made more from her father's dire condition than anything else. When you add in that's it also JUST after all these other emotionally intense things have happened, it just heightens that.
QuoteActually, no - the opening narration of King's Quest IV merely says "With the return of his long lost son Alexander..." That could mean any length of time, honestly, as long as it was recent. The codecil of IA's KQIII takes place a couple of months after the inital return.
Well the manual for KQ4 also states;
Quote"According to legend, shortly after Rosella's rescue King Graham decided it was time to pass on his adventurer's cap. Gathering in his wife and two children, the King offered a grateful smile upwards, for each member of his family had given him great pride. Gazing down at his children, he couldn't help but see the glint of spirited valor in their eyes. Knowing the future of his kingdom would rest soundly in the hands of its future heir, he slowly lifted his hands to display the infamous adventurer's cap."
I suppose either it matters how you define "shortly", or you made a choice to willingly ignore the game documenation. I personally wouldn't consider 'several months later', as "shortly".
In KQ6, there is a summary offering details about KQ4, accessed from the save game menu (btw Cray, here is another reference to those physicians, outside of the companion, but was included in one of the official games itself);
QuoteShortly after Prince Alexander's Return, King Graham's health began to fail. The royal physicians were powerless to help him. Only a magical fruit from the faraway land of Tamir could bring about a cure and restore the health of Daventry's beloved monarch.
It also suggests that it was "shortly" after. Again I suppose it matters on how you define "shortly", or if there was a personal decision to ignore material from the other games.
Here is a reference from the KQV Cd-rom (click on about, when you are in the save menu):
QuotePrince Alexander has returned home and all seems well again. However, as things are prone to go, King Graham suffers a major heart attack and hovers near death. It's up to his daughter, Princess Rosella, to go in search of a magical fruit that will restore her father to perfect health again.
Albeit it implies that he has just returned, but I suppose you can argue that its not specific (at least not in the way of the one in KQ6 menu).
This one is for you Cray, another reference to the physicians who tried to help Graham (outside of the Companion), from the KQV manual;
QuoteIn later years, King Graham's health began to fail, and the royal physicians were powerless to help him. Only a magical fruit from the faraway land of Tamir could bring about a cure and restore the health of Daventry's monarch. Graham's daughter, Princess Rosella, set off in pursuit of this healing magic for her father. On her journey, she performed many brave deeds, and had many great adventures. The chronicles of Rosella's travels and experiences in Tamir are described in King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella
If you read too much into that, though some might interpret that KQ4, took place several years after KQ3, LOL.
Those references are all just from the games and manuals, the material in some of the official hintbooks, and the King's Quest Companion, were a bit more specific (although these sources are more obscure of course, and less accessible to most fans);
This is from the KQ6 hintbook (article by Lorelei Shannon);
QuoteThe pure delight of the prince's homecoming and Rosella's rescue was fated not to last. During the happy celebrations poor King Graham collapsed, clutching his chest. The day's events had been too much for his stout heart to take.
This is from the KQV hintbook (article by Roberta Williams);
QuotePrince Alexander and Princess Rosella were tearfully and joyfully reuniting with their parents, King Graham and Queen Valanice, who had feared they had lost BOTH of their children to devious circumstances, when the stress of it all proved too much for King Graham. He was about to pass his old adventurer's hat on to his two children, when he was suddenly struck with a severe heart attack.
From the KQ7 hintbook (article by Lorelei Shannon);
QuoteThe royal family of Daventry just can't get a break. During the big party after Alexander's return, poor King Graham collapsed. Watching his daughter almost get turned into Dragon Flambé and then suddenly finding his long-lost son was just too much for his heart to handle.
This is from an article in Insider Magazine by Roberta Williams;
QuoteFrom there, the two went home to a joyful reunion with their parents.
The saga of "King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella," begins where King's Quest III" leaves off. As the whole family was rejoicing in the return of Alexander and Rosella, King Graham was suddenly stricken with a severe heart attack. Doubling up in pain, he then fell to the floor while his shocked family rushed to his aid.
For last, here is some quotes from the King's Quest Companion;
QuoteIn the space of two days, just before her eighteenth birthday, Rosella was tied to a stake and left as sacrifice to a draogn, was rescued by the brother she had never met and had thought dead, watched her father collapse into a near-death coma...
QuoteRosella was gone but two or three hours when the gnome came shouting to the castle's gates that she was safe and well...This news, this happy shock, left Graham and I so weak-kneed that we literally could not stand after hearing it. Thus it was that we were sitting on our thrones to greet the daughter who came back to us as if from the dead. She was leading her long-lost and presumed-dead brother, our only son, Alexander, by the hand. It seems hours, but 'twas only minutes that we laughed and cried hugged and cried and cried some more...It lasted less than hour...Graham dropped to the floor clutching his chest.
Well, exactly. Almost all of those examples say "shortly", which can really be any length of time after his return. I don't think it's much of a stretch, or that it changes anything to set it several months later. I mean, if it was in "celebrations" of their returns, I'm sure they'd wanna clean up the wreck that was Daventry!
Heh. Now I'm getting too pedantic about this kind of stuff. Sometimes you have to just enjoy something without examining every little detail. Also, when it comes to games, I tend to really only pay attention to what's in the actual game, not what accompanies it. Sometimes the literature written for games slightly contradicts what happens IN game.
Bt
QuoteWell, exactly. Almost all of those examples say "shortly", which can really be any length of time after his return.
So we (and the English language) just have different interpretations of what "shortly" means, I'll give you that.
I've always heard "shortly" used in context of the same day in real life, in the English language.
Quoteshortly
adverb
1. soon, presently, before long, anon (archaic), in a little while, any minute now, erelong (archaic or poetic) Their trial will begin shortly.
I can't think of examples where 'shortly' has been used in context to mean several months in the future, in actual grammatical examples... But who knows maybe people do use the word in that context? Although I'm pretty sure most people would interpret it to mean within a few minutes or hours or so.
I guess we just have to all admit to the fact that we are all fan games, and any changes that we've made or not all pertain to our stories.
That has been my point since day one, regardless of how these games were billed, we have all changed the storylines. Some more than other, but we have all resourced to retconning in order to fit our own wishes and expectations first. Saying for example it was a technology limit is really not an excuse, you could have still worked something that would have been exactly the same.
But, I understand your wish to have changed it. It seemed a better choice to you and your team. And at the end of the day, it's your vision of KQ3.
Whether they change motivations, or not, whether some fans see it or not, whether we try to explain it through personal experiences or stuff we've never experienced, or whether we wanted to enhance it, the truth of the matter is that we are all doing the same.
What, in the end, has always bothered me, is that there seems to be a sense of rivalry from some members of IA towards TSL. I wouldn't say everyone because I have received personal email from some guys over there supporting us and I appreciate that a lot. But, in the end, I really don't understand this "we are doing it better than you" sort of thing. And pardon me if I'm getting the wrong impression, it's just that everytime I gazed over at those forums, I'm taken aback by the number of negative comments. We've tried to go over there, make our peace, and at the end nothing seems to work --which is why I told Weldon that the best thing we could do is keep our distance and not get involved anymore.
I seriously don't understand it because we have done nothing but express our gratitude over KQ3 VGA and our excitement over KoS and SQ2. If I truly wanted to put my producer/designer hat and criticize KQ3 VGA to the end, I could, especially over things that couldn't be helped, because they were a choice made by the team in style, etc I could nitpick it to the end, break it into pieces, and leave everyone with a sour taste in their mouths about my comments, and you would never hear the end of it. But seriously, what would be the point in slashing an incredibly amazing effort that I know by my own hand and experience how hard it is to put together. I'd expect it from the press or people that have no idea whatsoever what it is to do what we are doing. But from people that mirror efforts? I truly wish things were different and that things were more like it is with the guys at AGDI, but I guess it's a futile effort.
Again, that's not to say this happens with everyone, but I just keep scratching my head over why. We have all done a tremendous effort in keeping Sierra alive, and waving their flagship high and not letting the work of so many talented people fade into obscurity. Some have taken different approaches than others, but at the end, our legacy is that we are making thousand of fans happy. All of us. And that's what we should cherish.
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 06:24:48 PM
QuoteWell, exactly. Almost all of those examples say "shortly", which can really be any length of time after his return.
So we (and the English language) just have different interpretations of what "shortly" means, I'll give you that.
I've always heard "shortly" used in context of the same day in real life, in the English language.
Quoteshortly
adverb
1. soon, presently, before long, anon (archaic), in a little while, any minute now, erelong (archaic or poetic) Their trial will begin shortly.
I can't think of examples where 'shortly' has been used in context to mean several months in the future, in actual grammatical examples... But who knows maybe people do use the word in that context? Although I'm pretty sure most people would interpret it to mean within a few minutes or hours or so.
To be completely fair, "shortly" could mean more than a day. When you say things like "Shortly after they returned to the city, they became engaged in gambling activities" for example, that doesn't mean the same day. In that sentence, I would interpret it as in "a few days or weeks after". Another example would be "Shortly after X became CEO of the company, he implemented new laws that changed its structure". That's definitely not the same day kind of deal.
But, in your defense, it depends on the context. "I'll give it to you shortly" does indeed mean in the next few minutes.
I have to say, I don't understand people getting upset over video games. I'm as big a fan as any, and played the ALL the original "quest" games in the 80s. They were a major part of my childhood, and suprisingly happy to see them back regardless of who makes them. Even with as much passion as I have for this stuff, I still can't fathom people getting upset over it. I would think people would be happy regardless. I have read a lot of nit picking in the forums, and stuff downright rude. I understand passion, but there is a limit when it comes to showing respect to other people, especially people with the same general interests. I'm truly baffled. I don't think ANYTHING can be said and just say "oh, it's passion. We want to help". No, don't think so. Just rude. I really applaud the team for trying to listen to others on a variety of topics. I know this is off topic, but this has to be said. And I'm an extremely laid back guy, this is the closest to "negative" I could get. Can't we all just get along?
Actually, Cez, I just came over to give my perspective on the changes I wrote into our version of KQ3, not to compare them to any ideas or changes you made for TSL. I just thought since it was being discussed, someone would probably like the opinion right from the horses mouth... it wasn't to make any kind of comparisons or judgments on your work. I was just offering my opinions as a writer on my own motivations to the changes I made.
If there's any kind of rivalry, it's friendly, really. People often love to compete and compare and sometimes we play into that. At the end of the day, though, I know I have a tremendous amount of respect for the PoS team and their games - I know how hard it is to make a game, especially freeware, and how much time and effort goes into it. In reading all these forums we all frequent, I've noticed that Sierra fans are some of the most particular and pedantic fans around - they're ravenous about the games, and that might lead to some silly arguments - but the truth is, we all love the games. And I love that our passions are keeping them alive.
Bt
QuoteI guess we just have to all admit to the fact that we are all fan games, and any changes that we've made or not all pertain to our stories.
That has been my point since day one, regardless of how these games were billed, we have all changed the storylines. Some more than other, but we have all resourced to retconning in order to fit our own wishes and expectations first. Saying for example it was a technology limit is really not an excuse, you could have still worked something that would have been exactly the same.
I think this is what I've personally come to expect from the various fan communities, I don't think there is one group that hasn't resorted to rewriting or reinterpreting some aspect of the games in some way. Other than say KQ1 VGA, which more or less just was a remake of KQ1SCI with a facelift with some art changes here or there.
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 06:24:48 PM
I can't think of examples where 'shortly' has been used in context to mean several months in the future, in actual grammatical examples... But who knows maybe people do use the word in that context? Although I'm pretty sure most people would interpret it to mean within a few minutes or hours or so.
Are you serious? ;)
The meaning of chronological terms, with the exception of words that specifically refer to set increments (like minutes, hours, days, etc.) are ALWAYS contextual. This means that in the case of Alexander's absence, which was 18 YEARS, BTW, "shortly" most certainly could describe a couple of months. I mean, come on, a couple of months is a few heartbeats in the context of an 18 year stretch of time. :)
Quote from: BlackthorneIn reading all these forums we all frequent, I've noticed that Sierra fans are some of the most particular and pedantic fans around - they're ravenous about the games, and that might lead to some silly arguments - but the truth is, we all love the games. And I love that our passions are keeping them alive.
Yeah, I definitely agree with this. Honestly, I've never been one to get super nitpicky and pedantic about stuff. Sierra games are literally the ONLY thing I get that way about. And honestly, I have no friggin' idea why.
Well, actually, I get that way about Indiana Jones stuff, too, but yeah--only Sierra games and Indy. hehe. I guess that's just what it means to be a nerd about stuff. :) We've all been there.
Quote from: Cez on October 02, 2010, 07:34:05 PM
If I truly wanted to put my producer/designer hat and criticize KQ3 VGA to the end, [...] I could nitpick it to the end, break it into pieces...
Really? I think KQ3VGA was excellent. I can't remember things that bothered me.
QuoteAre you serious?
Should I bring up thesaurus and definitions?
QuoteMain Entry: shortly
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: right away
Synonyms: anon, any minute now, before long, by and by, in a little while, presently, proximately, quickly, soon
Antonyms: later
and webster (which I suppose has American english bias);
Quoteshort·ly adv \ˈshȯrt-lē\
Definition of SHORTLY
1a : in a few words : briefly b : in an abrupt manner
2a : in a short time <we will be there shortly> b : at a short interval <shortly after sunset>
Quote
Shortly:
2at or within a short time <the meeting will begin shortly, so don't go too far away to find a bathroom>
Synonyms anon, before long, by and by, directly, momentarily, presently, soon
Related Words forthwith, immediately, incontinently, instantaneously, instantly, now, promptly, pronto, right away, right now, right off, straightaway, straightway
For good measure, here is Oxford which uses a context with perhaps a bit more giving.
Quoteshortly (short·ly)
Syllabification: On Off Pronunciation:/ˈSHôrtlē/
adverb
1 in a short time ; soon:
the new database will shortly be available for consultation
the flight was hijacked shortly after takeoff
On average its a term that is used for minutes, hours, maybe days, and even a few weeks if one stretches it (although that is not a definition that standardized dictionaries or thesauri seem to have to accepted as of yet, so perhap it would be 'slang' use of the term), but not several months. Not saying that it can't be forced into other contexts as slang, but by definition means something much less (in standardardized dictionaries/thesaurus of the English language).
For that matter the context was within "shortly" after saving his sister" and/or "shortly after he returned to Daventry", it had nothing to do with the relation to his 17 years living in Llewdor (the time it is referring to starts after his return, and after he saved his sister, not from the moment he was living in llewdor).
Besides we know what Sierra's context for the sentence was, don't you know? I've put up all the information that denotes what context the designers were going for.
Why else do you think Roberta Williams herself, went on to say that while the family was reuniting, the stress was too much for Graham and he had a heart attack?
You can admit that you changed the information, but in no way can you state that you were using Sierra's context. That would be dishonesty on your part.
I should ask you the question 'are you serious'? Can you 'seriously' state that you stuck to the context that Sierra themselves were using with a straight face?
When Cez said;
QuoteI guess we just have to all admit to the fact that we are all fan games, and any changes that we've made or not all pertain to our stories.
That has been my point since day one, regardless of how these games were billed, we have all changed the storylines. Some more than other, but we have all resourced to retconning in order to fit our own wishes and expectations first. Saying for example it was a technology limit is really not an excuse, you could have still worked something that would have been exactly the same.
He is certainly correct.
How do you think TSL fan base would have reacted, if POS had said that they would be releasing TSL, "shortly", and it took 3 months to 10 years for them to release it? If you use that term, first thing people think will probably be within a few days at the most. There are better phrases to use, if its going to be weeks, or months, or years from the point in time of the phrase.
Besides Lambonius weren't you the one earlier in this thread wondering why TSL wasn't maintaining continuity between all the official sources? You do know that same accusation can be made for KQ3+ as well right? This is the point Cez has been trying to make. You honestly can't defend one, and try to argue for the other, when both have "changed things".
QuoteIn reading all these forums we all frequent, I've noticed that Sierra fans are some of the most particular and
pedantic fans around - they're ravenous about the games, and that might lead to some silly arguments - but the truth is, we all love the games. And I love that our passions are keeping them alive.
Then you have never encountered discussions with star trek fans, star wars fans, stargate fans, or any large franchise there are large numbers of fans. I've found Splinter Cell fans to be exactly the same as well. Oh, I've had discussions with Highlander fans, and Warcraft fans as well that are exactly the same. Perhaps worse. Actually if encounterWarcraft fans, many would be crying foul if you attempted to make a fan game :p. Though that might have something to do with the fact that Warcraft is still a living IP... Who knows what they would do if their was a 10-15 year period since the last game in the series.
To be honest I think King's Quest is probably small time compared to kind of debates that arise out of popular franchises with large fan bases. Those are dog eat dog... and it sometimes spills over to two violent debates between fans of two seperate franchises, i.e. star trek vs. star wars debates. Both trying to prove the technology in their favorite euniverse is more powerful than the other fan's universe (in case where the fans like one franchise but not the other).
Most of those definitions don't directly support your argument. ;) In fact, I'd say they would further support the argument that the word is totally contextual. You can certainly use it to express a period of a few minutes or hours, but you could also say something like "Shortly after George W. Bush took office, he was forced to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil." In that case, "shortly" obviously means several month, which is a short period in the context of the 8 years Bush was in office.
I'm happy to admit that the original designers didn't conceive of the reunion that way, but if you're going purely by what's in the game, it really doesn't directly contradict the intro of KQ4 as you guys are implying. :)
QuoteShortly after George W. Bush took office, he was forced to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil."
I wouldn't use a sentence like that it, its so imprecise, and has accuracy issues, 9/11 actually took place almost a year into his office, almost 9 months to be exact. I wouldn't call that "shortly", nor would I call it "soon".
It would be have been better to write the sentence using, a more specific qualifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_modifier), like "within months" of taking office, or "within a year" of taking office. In my years of writing, that's one of the things they drummed into me, when there are more precise qualifiers, "use them", it improves accuracy.
In world of politics, a year into office can be a lifetime... Look how much blame for various things Bush received one year into office, and look how much blame Obama has been receiving for various things one year into office (it's gotten worse now that he's two years in)...
Your sentence also doesn't specify that its looking at his complete time in office as a whole, but you started it from the moment he took office. Which again I would argue almost a year into office is not a shortly after. If you meant for it to refer to the whole time in office, you should have specified that within your sentence (or added an additional sentence within the quotes), to show that was the context you were going for.
Quote from: Baggins on October 03, 2010, 10:47:37 AM
QuoteShortly after George W. Bush took office, he was forced to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil."
I wouldn't use a sentence like that it, its so imprecise, and has accuracy issues, 9/11 actually took place almost a year into his office, almost 9 months to be exact. I wouldn't call that "shortly", nor would I call it "soon".
It would be have been better to write the sentence using, a more specific qualifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_modifier), like "within months" of taking office, or "within a year" of taking office. In my years of writing, that's one of the things they drummed into me, when there are more precise qualifiers, "use them", it improves accuracy.
Heh...I'm not saying it was the best way to say it--just saying you could use that word and it would still work. :)
And I disagree. You didn't specify within the sentence, (the sentence within quotations) that the context you were going for was in relationship his entire time in office. You only stated, from the time he took office (January 20th, btw) to Sept 11, nothing in the sentence indicates that you were looking at his "entire time in office". I and many would argue that nearly one year into office is not a "shortly after taking office". One year into office, is enough time for presidents to start receiving blaim for anything that happens while they are under office. It was enough time for Bush to be blamed for 9/11, although many tried to blame Clinton, and one year is enough for Obama to be blamed for any conceived problems (although many try to blame bush). A year in office in president can be a lifetime... Seriously just look how much Obama has aged since he took office (and its been two years), LOL.
If you had written it as;
"Shortly within George W. Bush's two presidential terms, he was forced to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil."
The context you were going for would have been more clear. Hell you could have even combined the fact you were trying to include the context of within his entire time in office, in a second sentence within those quotes to specify the context you were going for. But you didn't. All you did was try to explain that the sentence alone, contained context that specified that it was meant to be comparing his entire term in office (yet I disagree that the sentence alone contains that kind of specific information).
Baggins, you crazy! ;D
Bt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yGJGTjV2WE
Or I could have taken a page from the TSL narrations book and written:
"Shortly into the 43rd President George W. Bush's two terms, which lasted from 2001 through the end of 2008, the president, who was living in the White House at the time, a large building in Washington D.C. that has traditionally served as both the residential abode and official center for presidential business, so named because of the predominantly white color of its exterior, had to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil, which happened in New York City on September 11th of the president's first year in office, which was 2001, seven years and four months before the president left office near the end of January of 2009. The President often spoke of the weighty monumentality of his decisions in the fateful hours immediately following the attack, which were some of the most significant and stressful of his entire presidential tenure. During the rare quiet moments in those early post-9/11 days, the president found himself longing for the carefree days of his childhood, when the most stressful decisions he faced on a regular basis were whether or not to play baseball or go fishing during a sunny afternoon in the summer."
Would that have better helped establish context?
*Just teasing you guys, btw. ;)
Quote from: Lambonius on October 03, 2010, 01:14:38 PM
Or I could have taken a page from the TSL narrations book and written:
"Shortly into the 43rd President George W. Bush's two terms, which lasted from 2001 through the end of 2008, the president, who was living in the White House at the time, a large building in Washington D.C. that has traditionally served as both the residential abode and official center for presidential business, so named because of the predominantly white color of its exterior, had to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever to happen on American soil, which happened in New York City on September 11th of the president's first year in office, which was 2001, seven years and four months before the president left office near the end of January of 2009. The President often spoke of the weighty monumentality of his decisions in the fateful hours immediately following the attack, which were some of the most significant and stressful of his entire presidential tenure. During the rare quiet moments in those early post-9/11 days, the president found himself longing for the carefree days of his childhood, when the most stressful decisions he faced on a regular basis were whether or not to play baseball or go fishing during a sunny afternoon in the summer."
Would that have better helped establish context?
*Just teasing you guys, btw. ;)
if this forum had rep/karma, you would get some.
QuoteWould that have better helped establish context?
Yes, yes it would.
There was a long digression, here, but I deleted it because it was pointless.
I'm really going off the subject. Sorry, Katie et al, LOL.
Quoteif this forum had rep/karma, you would get some
Good or bad?
Quote from: Baggins on October 03, 2010, 01:48:39 PM
QuoteWould that have better helped establish context?
Yes, yes it would.
There was a long digression, here, but I deleted it because it was pointless.
I'm really going off the subject. Sorry, Katie et al, LOL.
Quoteif this forum had rep/karma, you would get some
Good or bad?
good.
that was pretty funny in it's excessiveness.
Note to self, I'm getting antsy having finished my Master's dissertation (waiting for the grade) and having nothing to do and need to go write a journal article or something for the fun of it... I'm apparently still stuck in "writing mode" :P :suffer: :suffer: :suffer:
Quote from: Baggins on October 03, 2010, 02:26:03 PM
Note to self, I'm getting antsy having finished my Master's dissertation (waiting for the grade) and having nothing to do and need to go write a journal article or something for the fun of it... I'm apparently still stuck in "writing mode" :P :suffer: :suffer: :suffer:
When I finished my Master's thesis, I didn't want to write another word for a good long while. :) I spent a good week just relaxing and gaming, and drinking. I know, I'm a d*****. ;)
EDIT: Wow. Lol...d0uche is blocked by this forum's censors. ::) Does it also block words like tampon, diaphragm, menstruation, condom, maxi pad, s****icidal lubricant, etc?
EDIT 2: Apparently not. Well, almost. Heh...I'm suddenly in the mood to listen to George Carlin. ;D
QuoteWhen I finished my Master's thesis, I didn't want to write another word for a good long while.
I know, LOL, i've been goofing off (adjusting to back to normal from the jet lag). Except now, its almost three weeks now, I feel like I need to do something productive, LOL. Actually my prof wants me to write an article for something to be published next year. I need to continue the research (I haven't worked on it for several months). He needs a draft by early december. I'd start on a PHD, but I don't have funds right now... :p
But enough on that.
Heh, it mostly just blocks words that are swears or common insults. :)
Also kind of funny, that ridiculously lengthy story about grapes? Is one that Cesar and I fought over because I was like, this story is insanely long, no, we're cutting it! He didn't want to, partly for amusement based on how overly long it was (in fact, I think if you click on the grapes a second time, the narrator even refuses to repeat the tale!)--which is why another 'LOOK' response in the garden has the narrator actively saying she's not interested in hearing another of Graham's long trips down memory lane instead. My tiny revenge!
And now we commonly joke about 'that damn grapes story!' (as I like to call it!)
Quote from: KatieHal on October 03, 2010, 04:45:40 PM
Heh, it mostly just blocks words that are swears or common insults. :)
Also kind of funny, that ridiculously lengthy story about grapes? Is one that Cesar and I fought over because I was like, this story is insanely long, no, we're cutting it! He didn't want to, partly for amusement based on how overly long it was (in fact, I think if you click on the grapes a second time, the narrator even refuses to repeat the tale!)--which is why another 'LOOK' response in the garden has the narrator actively saying she's not interested in hearing another of Graham's long trips down memory lane instead. My tiny revenge!
And now we commonly joke about 'that darn grapes story!' (as I like to call it!)
Ooh, I think that's one that I actually missed during my first playthrough of Ep. 2--I'll have to go back and do that now. :)
Hmm...looks like it's not there after all. I'll see if I can find what screen/item brings that up and post it!
Ahh, there it is. If you LOOK at the Hole in the Wall when it's in your inventory.
Quote from: KatieHal on October 03, 2010, 05:03:04 PM
Hmm...looks like it's not there after all. I'll see if I can find what screen/item brings that up and post it!
Ahh, there it is. If you LOOK at the Hole in the Wall when it's in your inventory.
Cool--I'll check it out.
PS: I just replayed Episode 1 the other day attempting to click on just about everything possible. :) While a fair amount of the background description narrations are somewhat irrelevant and overly long, I have to commend you guys on the amount of detail put into them. When you're going through with the specific intent of hearing everything (and not worried about having to stop and interrupt the flow of the game/story,) it's pretty impressive just how much there is to hear, (especially in an episode that can be beaten in about 15 minutes if you just race through it.) And I still love the graphics. :)
Coming from you especially, we'll gladly take that compliment! Haha, thanks :)
Since we brought up the changes of KQ3 in general, I do want to add that altering Alexander's kidnapping was pure genius, actually. The original (Manannan steals the baby while the family isn't paying attention in broad daylight) was like.... really? He's scary? He has no minions, and he doesn't kill anybody. It didn't do it for me. In the IA version not only does he obviously have minions, he also is perfectly willing to kill them for no real reason. Now THAT is a villain worth being scared of! :D
After reading these 8 pages of debate about retcons, I'm having a slight problem with the definition here. Isn't 'retcon' supposed to mean changing past events?
In that sense, what KQ3VGA and KQ2+ did wasn't a retcon, it was a re-write since they're making up they're own 'version' of the story, not adding information that changes facts established in KQ1 & 2. TSL is retconning KQ3 because it contradicts the events of the original game. If they made a KQ3/5 remake where Manannan/Mordack weren't trying to kill Alexander, that would not have been a retcon either. This makes the comparison on who is less faithful to the original source material a little redundant ::)
(Posted on: 05-10-2010, 02:39:40)
Quote from: Baggins on October 02, 2010, 05:58:29 PMthe manual for KQ4 also states;
Quote"According to legend, shortly after Rosella's rescue King Graham decided it was time to pass on his adventurer's cap. Gathering in his wife and two children, the King offered a grateful smile upwards, for each member of his family had given him great pride. Gazing down at his children, he couldn't help but see the glint of spirited valor in their eyes. Knowing the future of his kingdom would rest soundly in the hands of its future heir, he slowly lifted his hands to display the infamous adventurer's cap."
But this also contradicts KQ3 - it says Graham gathered his wife and children, when in fact he didn't - they were all already in the throneroom. This suggests the hat throwing didn't happen right after Alex and Rosella arrived (as portrayed in KQ3).
QuoteSince we brought up the changes of KQ3 in general, I do want to add that altering Alexander's kidnapping was pure genius, actually. The original (Manannan steals the baby while the family isn't paying attention in broad daylight) was like.... really? He's scary? He has no minions, and he doesn't kill anybody. It didn't do it for me. In the IA version not only does he obviously have minions, he also is perfectly willing to kill them for no real reason. Now THAT is a villain worth being scared of!
In KQ3, its unspecific and just says Manannan kidnapped Alexander from his cradle (it specifies it as being at night).
QuoteMum and Dad were heart-broken when you disappeared as a baby...Dad searched EVERYWHERE for you. Obviously he never found you.
QuoteThat was once a magic mirror...On the night you disappeared from your cradle, it clouded up; and has remained that way ever since.
QuoteSee that young fellow over there? When that old wizard, Manannan, kidnapped him, I heard tell his real parents were heartbroken over his loss.
QuoteWhen he was a baby, he was stolen from his cradle one night by that awful wizard, Manannan, who brought him here and raised him. I hear he treats the boy terribly.
If you are referring to Companion's extended account, it wasn't necessarily in "broad daylight", the book does say a summer evening (thus still suggesting it was at night). It also says he put a sleep spell on them.
In the alternative version from Roberta, it was at night while everyone was sleeping, from the nursery.
QuoteBut this also contradicts KQ3 - it says Graham gathered his wife and children, when in fact he didn't - they were all already in the throneroom. This suggests the hat throwing didn't happen right after Alex and Rosella arrived (as portrayed in KQ3).
Oh its worse than that, it doesn't even suggest Alexander was kidnapped, actually the way the manual was worded you'd think Alexander grew up in Daventry, and witnessed the dragon when it first came. Whoever wrote it really made it misleading.
QuoteKing Graham married the beautiful girl he had rescued, and two years later the young Queen Valanice gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl. Alexander bore a striking resemblance to his father, and likewise Rosella to her mother. The family lived a very happy and peaceful life...at least for awhile.
But from deep within the forests came rumblings of a terrible beast who was ravaging a bloody trail towards the land of Daventry. Sightings of dragons had been rare in these tranquil times, and never before in the kingdom of Daventry had one witnessed such a beast as the terrible three-headed dragon. As the years crept by the notoriety of the beast grew as great as the destruction it wrought. Soon the whole population of Daventry tremored with the news of the dragon's approach, and each homestead dwelt in terror.
Meanwhile, in a land far away, lived the malevolent wizard Manannan. Manannan kept a watchful eye upon the kingdoms of the world. With a sardonic grin he watched as the three-headed dragon rampaged its way towards Daventry. Manannan's hatred of mankind had intensified with his great age, and his coal-black eyes burned a strange reflection upon the glass of the crystal as he mirthfully watched another human swallowed whole by the vicious beast.
Preferring his solitude, the powerful Manannan was only allowed to be observed by one servantboy, who maintained his house and performed all of his menial chores. Of course, Manannan could have conjured up spirits to do his dirty work, but he much preferred to see the toil and strain of a young mortal suffering under his thrall.
Most would call it depravity, but it was fear that fueled the flames of Manannan's hatred of humanity, a fear instilled by a vision from his prophetic crystal ball. For within its walls of quartz had Manannan seen his own hideous destruction at the hands of a conquering hero.
Time has wrought many changes, and with it much sorrow. The kingdom of Daventry was ravaged by the deplorable dragon, and the young Princess Rosella was abducted. The entire kingdom was overcome by the brutal onslaught of the beast, and though forewarned, found themselves helpless to defend against its supernatural strength. Much weeping and wailing was heard throughout the land. Even with its power of prophecy, the Magic Mirror could provide no answers, not even a clue, for some bearer of black magic had cast a cloud of darkness upon its face...
And the wizard watched with eyes of venom...!
The entire tale of Rosella's rescue, the wizard's downfall, and the restoration of the royal family are chronicled in the saga To Heir is Human.
According to legend, shortly after Rosella's rescue King Graham decided it was time to pass on his adventurer's cap. Gathering in his wife and two children, the King offered a grateful smile upwards, for each member of his family had given him great pride. Gazing down at his children, he couldn't help but see the glint of spirited valor in their eyes. Knowing the future of his kingdom would rest soundly in the hands of its future heir, he slowly lifted his hands to display the infamous adventurer's cap.
Funny part is you need that manual to even get into KQ4... LOL.
Also if anyone is paying attention the intro in KQ4 is not exactly the same as in KQ3. Graham doesn't talk as he's throwing the hat, as he did in KQ3.
Quote from: Baggins on October 04, 2010, 11:17:53 PMOh its worse than that, it doesn't even suggest Alexander was kidnapped, actually the way the manual was worded you'd think Alexander grew up in Daventry, and witnessed the dragon when it first came. Whoever wrote it really made it misleading.
Maybe it was written that way to avoid KQ3 spoilers for those who haven't played it yet? IIRC Gwydion's identity was supposed to big secret back then.
Storm, ya, I'm pretty sure that's the reason why it was written the way it was.
It's not completely wrong however, when Alexander enters palace with his sister in KQ3, Graham does gather them together before his throne to hug them. But you are right the way it it is worded, especially without information on Alexander's kidnapping or involvement in rescuing Rosella, it does sound more like Graham set the initiative and gathered them from other parts of the castle (rather than gathering together while they are already in the throne room).