Is the KQ series considered "craptastic"

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Given how a lot of pop culture is much more mature than it was in the 80s-90s, how game writing and design has evolved (especially in the adventure genre) since the era of the KQ series, and also given the series' puns, instances of "bad humor", the instances of bad voice acting, the folksky overally lightheartedness, non-violence, and whatnot...Is the KQ series considered (whether by adventure gamers, gamers in general, or pop culture in general) to be "craptastic"?

Craptastic definition:
"1. In a good sense, the quality of being so crappy that the object is humorous or desirable."

[Jafar]

I can't say I've ever heard the term "craptastic" used in a good sense before.
And I certainly wouldn't call KQ craptastic just because it's a lighthearted series with a silly sense of humor.
Sure, some people have the mindset that once you reach a certain age, you're not allowed to appreciate anything that doesn't reach a certain quota of sex, violence, and general dark and edginess, but who takes THEM seriously?

There's always a place for lighthearted works like KQ. It's not something that can just be phased out like that.

(Oh, and don't knock the puns. That's grounds for severe pun-ishment.)

[GrahamRocks!]

I agree with Jafar completely.

[drusain]

Well you have to compare it to whatever other games were around at the time, and King's Quest certainly was innovative for its time. The voice acting in KQ5 is atrociously bad, but in 1990, it was such an innovative function. The "lightheartedness" and the puns etc were really just the way the games were presented; I don't have an issue there and I think that the whole tone was generally what helped to keep the series magical for the player.

For me, the test of time is a good barometer for whether or not the game was able to mature with age and could still be enjoyed today. In many ways, the KQ games still stand up to that test. Where they do fail is that nobody would ever make a game today that would potentially force you to start the game all over again because the player missed an item or something earlier in the game without the player knowing about it.

[Rosella]

I've also never heard "craptastic" used in a way that meant anything but "excelling at being so undeniably crappy." The first thing that came to mind is this Extra Credits episode, which, if you haven't seen, is probably my favorite episode of Extra Credits (a fantastic video series focusing on game design) ever.

To sum up its main points, yeah, games these days have more blood or gore or swearing or sexual content, but that's not mature. Jafar is right. People who think that things aren't "mature" just because they're fun or silly are ridiculous.

Working at a GameStop, I see tons of people. Today, I had a great conversation with a 20-something who was trying to figure out whether he wanted to get Pokemon Black 2 or White 2, but I also have conversations with 12-year-olds who don't want to buy New Super Mario Bros. because that's a "kid game." There's definitely an age where you grow out of "kid stuff," but that's usually because you are so focused on maturity even though you don't know what that means, and then when you get older you realize "Hey, this stuff is awesome."

And I think drusain has a good point too. The only reason KQ seems aged is because it has a lot of artificial challenge. No one wants a game where you get punished for something that you had no reason to think was wrong (though if you get pun-ished as well, it might be worth it). That'd never stand up in today's market, but I don't think that makes it necessarily bad. It was a different kind of challenge, not the best one, but different. The audience wanted and expected different things back then than we do now, and that's fine.

[Bludshot]

In all seriousness though where did you get a definition for "craptastic?"

[Numbers]

I think the correct term is "guilty pleasure."

But overall, I think the games were good then and they're still just fine today. At least, they're just fine if you're not some nut who thinks good graphics=high quality (Call of Duty, I'm looking at you). As has already been stated, the lighthearted tone and general silliness was actually a strong point for the series.

It was only after the sixth game when KQ7 got TOO lighthearted, and then MoE was TOO serious immediately after, that the fans became concerned with the constant mood whiplash they were witnessing.

[Bludshot]

I think this thread is working off a lot of assumptions.  Namely that there is currently some overwhelming demand for violent games.  If you take a look at the big bestsellers these days, it is true CoD titles show up, but they are matched and often eclipsed by series like The Sims, Gran Turismo, New Super Mario Bros. and Mario Kart, and the annual sports games that come out. 

I don't think there has been a rejection of "silliness," rather we just have a lot more to choose from than we did back in the KQ days. 

Now if you are talking about the unintentionally funny moments, those sort of problems are timeless.  

[Enchantermon]

In all seriousness though where did you get a definition for "craptastic?"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=craptastic

[Blackthorne]

Nope.


And screw whoever "defined" craptastic. 


Everything Bludshot has posted is absolutely correct. 


Bt

[Bludshot]

screw whoever "defined" craptastic.

I suppose you could say it was a craptastic definition. 

Although it would be really craptastic of me to use the word in its own definition.

[inm8#2]

Given how a lot of pop culture is much more mature than it was in the 80s-90s, how game writing and design has evolved (especially in the adventure genre) since the era of the KQ series, and also given the series' puns, instances of "bad humor", the instances of bad voice acting, the folksky overally lightheartedness, non-violence, and whatnot...Is the KQ series considered (whether by adventure gamers, gamers in general, or pop culture in general) to be "craptastic"?

Craptastic definition:
"1. In a good sense, the quality of being so crappy that the object is humorous or desirable."

No.

[Lambonius]

As long as there is no need for a "Short Narrations" option.

[KatieHal]

[snabbott]

As long as there is no need for a "Short Narrations" option.

You should like Cognition - there IS NO narrator.

[crayauchtin]

I think that if the KQ games were being made today, the stories might be more in depth and the graphics would be better but I think those would be the only changes -- and I think the games would still sell, though perhaps not as well only because of the sheer number of choices we have these days.

(And the only reason I'm suggesting the stories would be more in depth is because as technology allowed the stories to be more in depth as the series went on, the stories became more in depth. Also because the creators of almost every one of Sierra's Quest series has said at one point or another that their storytelling was vastly limited by the technology. I think we can all agree that would no longer be an issue.)

[Lambonius]

Except for KQ7 and 8 (especially which had abysmal stories.

[crayauchtin]

Except for KQ7 and 8 (especially which had abysmal stories.

Whether or not you liked the story isn't about the depth of the story.

KQ7 was the first KQ game where you were literally saving a world from destruction -- instead of *just* rescuing your family/this girl you saw once in a mirror or on the rare occasion saving a single kingdom. It definitely raised the stakes. It also gave us the story from a few different perspectives -- even though Malicia was absolutely insane, she's one villain who we got a good deal of insight on through the story. We also got to see, because Rosella and Valanice were meeting the same people at different times, the way they impacted other characters and the way the plotline affected them as it unfolded.

MoE's characters were mostly flat, it's true, and Lucreto was certainly not explained as well as he could have been *but* we had a whole series of lands that each had at least some history to them, some culture from the people that lived there, not to mention their own political arrangements.

[drusain]

I think from just a game perspective (and not as a "King's Quest" game) KQ7 was really good at what it was. The Retry function was also a good change from the previous installments.