MOE in TSL

[Baggins]

So here is that schism between viewponts. Cez asked me that it would be nice if I listed all the viewpoints and references, and sources, and says in his experience I haven't. Then you'd rather I didn't, list every reference, citation and source...

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

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

For two examples--a FW article referred to the Isle of Mists (or Isle of the Mist, I forget) as a slightly different name. You went to the trouble of pointing and saying you were 'sure [we] had a reason for changing the name.' A minor point like that I don't think most people would even consider a full-on name change (which it wasn't--as I

Well I worded it that way on purpose, because if I had said, "I think you made a mistake", you would have went about accusing me of "accusing you of making mistakes". The way I worded it was to give you the benefite of the doubt and an attempt to keep neutral about it. Because there were times when I said, you made a there is "mistake/inconsistency about such and such", and then someone got defense about as if I attacked them. Even if I did point out an actual inconsistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not like I was going to bring it up in the first place, I intentionally chose to not point it out. In the future I won't be pointing out minor inconsistences like that, since its obvious someone will take offense...

[KatieHal]

Yes, and to be honest I appreciate that it was dropped after that.

Well, I'll be honest--at this point, it would be hard for me not to take it personally, either. I don't really know where that leaves the matter, though. Our game has differences from canon, and it's clear that what we considered "large" differences and what some fans consider "large" differences were not the same thing. In retrospect, we probably should've said a little more to that effect beforehand to prepare people for it, but that is retrospect and there's not much to be done for it now.

[Baggins]

Understandable. But really you shouldn't have to feel like a victim, anytime you think there is perceived "criticism". Its not the end of the world right?

Sometimes I think its best not to say anything at all, in these situations and walk away from it, rather than take things personally. Things shall pass, and probably will pass. Taking it personally can cause things, to escalate.

[Cez]

BTW, I didn't say that you haven't used references. I know you have.

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

And that's often how I feel you use your knowledge. Not to inform, but to impose. And that's where the difference lies.

[KatieHal]

True--at the same time, I don't think it's such a bad thing to want to defend our work.

In any case, we've THOROUGHLY derailed this thread from its stated purpose! So a little something on that, since someone new asked a few pages back, I think. MoE is referenced in TSL, but it's plot doesn't have too much bearing on ours. It had a greater influence once upon a time, but that was before the game was cut down and condensed into the five episodes we now have.

[Baggins]

Actually Cez, I don't know if you missed, I did say that your team has the right to take creative license, and not follow exact by the letter descriptions in the game (that was actually an admittence that alternative view points do exist). I also said that the difference, was only minor. Not a big deal. That's why I was never going to bring it up at all. I was just pointing out, it was slightly different.

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

In the future, you won't have to worry abot that, as I won't even to attempt to point differences here in the future. I'll stick to my initial view, that it was minor, and best not worth discussing, and leave it at that.

[Cez]

And, again, I think that's the problem. You were trying to prove a point with Valanice that wasn't completely clear. Yes, Rosella said their parents had given up, and the book said they had given up, but obviously, they didn't give up completely because they did not go as far as taking their own lives. The fact that they came back from it is self-explanatory in the sense that she was at the verge of a full breakdown, and even if she did have one, there was hope somewhere. She never gave up. She may have given fully into despair, she may have felt hopeless at times, but that strength that continued to carry her through life was there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lambonius]

Uh, guys?  These are FICTIONAL characters from a 20+ year old game series.  Let's have some perspective here.

*I also think its worth pointing out that you guys have always been just as adamant and unflinching about your "rightness" as Baggins ever has.  Heh...usually in arguments WITH Baggins, as a matter of fact.  So let's not dish out what we can't take, okay? 

[Cez]

No, I agree, which is why I say we are the other half of the equation and sometimes to blame as well. But the fact is that even when we do defend our arguments blindly, we tend to come around at one point and either recognize where we are wrong, or find a compromise without fully disbanding the other side's argument. For example, changes we've made to the game.

[KatieHal]

And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb? 

[Lambonius]

And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  

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

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

[wilco64256]

And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  

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

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

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

[Cez]

And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  

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

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

This is very true, actually. We do waste a lot of time at this sometimes. Let's go be creative instead!

[Delling]

And where else do you get such good fodder for your forum, Lamb?  

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

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

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

But that leads only to this...

[Damar]

Wow, this thread grew while I was at work!

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

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

Oh, and Katie, I believe you asked about whether the dragon asked for Rosella or Rosella volunteered (I think that was, what?  Five pages ago or something?)  As I recall, the Oracle Gwydion talks to says something like "your own sister has been chosen as the sacrifice."  That said, though, if you talk to Rosella after rescuing her (and show her your birthmark) she mentions that she chose to be sacrificed and that she had a premonition that it would all work out and that she wouldn't be harmed.  And she attributes your coming to save her with all that.  So that seems to be what happened and what the Oracle says is also technically true, since Rosella volunteering made her the official sacrifice.  It also removes the responsibility of Graham actively sacrificing his daughter.  Though it puts him in the just as awkward position of accepting his daughter's death without trying to stop it.  So he was either that depressed, or he's one of those dads who just lets his daughter do whatever she wants.  Personally, I'm going with the "Rosella is a 'daddy's little girl'" theory.

[Baggins]

These are most of the quotes in KQ3 referring to the dragon; I don't know if I'm missing any (you did miss you miss the Gnome's account, which states the dragon demanded her sacrifice), so actually Rosella didn't quite go by her own choice, she only "tried to be brave", and Graham was forced the decision to the agree to the dragon's demands (also note that the game has 2-3 quotes that mention Graham and Valanice's depression)

Oracle (KQ3): I've been awaiting for you a long time. I have sorrowful news for you. Years ago, a terrible dragon three-headed dragon invaded Daventry, and keeps the people in a state of terror. This monster requires, once a year, the sacrifice of a young maiden. Sadly, your own sister, Princess Rosella, is the chosen one this year. Time is running out for her, your parents, and Daventry.""You, Gwydion, are the only one who can save them. But, you must hurry!!!

,

Old gnome (KQ3):"It's about time you got here, lad... I mean, Prince Alexander. Welcome home! Heaven knows, we need you. Daventry's been suffering for years now, since that despicable dragon came. That monster demanded the sacrifice of your poor sister, Princess Rosella, and I'm afraid time is running out.""Your parents, the King and Queen,  are suffering such grief they have locked themselves in yon castle and refuse to see anyone. It's up to you, Alexander. Your country and family need you. It's written in the wind."

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 it was like they had lost their will. We were down on our guard, and the terrible dragon came. We all thought it was the end. I was scared, you know. But, I DID want to be brave. I was hoping my sacrifce might somehow help. Maybe, it did. Because of me, YOU came. Now we're together again, and together we can put Daventry right!""The dragon did all that. He burnt our countryside, and we were all terrified to even come out of our houses. You don't remember, but it used to be beautiful.", "Alexander, I wish you could have seen it in better days. It wasn't always like this, you know

Then when you return the castle;

Narrator: The heavy feeling of oppression is gone; hope has at last returned to Daventry;

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

But ya, the game/manual/Roberta only stuff really changes the context, if you think about it :p (its not the so happy world found in the novels, and possibly the Companion). Although even the companion took the route that Graham is haunted by guilt, :p...

[MusicallyInspired]

Heh. I started this thread. 

[wilco64256]

That post is so big it got its own scroll bars.  Cool.

[Baggins]

Ya, i'm not sure what broke the formatting on it... probably something in the quotes boxes?

Edit: it was apparently the highlighted part that said;

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."

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Maybe the mirror clouding wasn't the work of some wizard, but fate; What I mean is--
The Mirror can foretell the future. Maybe Alexander's kidnapping was an unexpected twist of fate, and for the Daventry, with their son (and presumably, thus their heir) missing, the future of Daventry was clouded; unclear.
Perhaps the Fates and whoever controls them were bickering....