Is TSL Narrator the new Cedric?

[Baggins]

I'll gladly admit that Cedric is on my top 10 favorite characters in the series.

[shadyparadox]

Yeah, Cedric was unnecessary but so was the talk icon.

[wilco64256]

but so was the talk icon.

How would you envision the game working without any talking at all?

[Baggins]

He's got a point, most characters either automatically talk to you, or you can just give them the items, in which case they automatically talk to you.

All the talk icon is used for is just to add a little extra fluff from each characters you encounter, including Cedric, and usually they only answer you once, to say some random inane thing that just only adds to the story or the atmosphere, but serves no purpose. In many cases the narrator tells you they don't want to answer you...

Whereas in KQ6 there were actually puzzles that required you to use the talk icon to go through two or three series of converstations to learn something before it would allow you to talk to someone else. For example you need to learn about the boatman from Ali before the Ferryman lets you on his boat. You need to talk to the Ferryman before the Pawne Shoppe
owner will sell his map.

If you have the disk version of KQ5 there was also a rather useless extra walk icon. It was cut from the cd-rom version.

[shadyparadox]

Not only is it possible to beat the game without ever using the talk icon, but I can't even think of a single example of it providing a marginally useful hint.

[wilco64256]

Talking to Cedric gets you directions around town.

To get the silver coin you must talk to the man trying to fix the wagon on the outskirts of town, then leave the screen and return.

In the forest you have to talk to the elf you catch to get the shoes from him.

I think (I could be wrong on this one) you have to talk to Prince Herbert while he's sitting on the log in order to complete the whole saving the tree quest.

[Enchantermon]

In the forest you have to talk to the elf you catch to get the shoes from him.

That's done automatically, though.

If you have the disk version of KQ5 there was also a rather useless extra walk icon. It was cut from the cd-rom version.

So in the disk version there was a total of two walk icons? What was the extra one supposed to do?

[Rosella]

I feel like one walk icon was supposed to be "Walk here" and one was supposed to be "pathfind to here avoiding obstacles." That's just if I recall correctly though.

[Enchantermon]

Hmm. That is pretty useless...I wonder why they would do that, if that is what it was.

[wilco64256]

Ah ok I couldn't remember if talking to the elf happened automatically or not, it seemed to me like if you didn't do it manually he got away and ran off or something.  Been a while.

[Jafar]

To get the silver coin you must talk to the man trying to fix the wagon on the outskirts of town, then leave the screen and return.


I think (I could be wrong on this one) you have to talk to Prince Herbert while he's sitting on the log in order to complete the whole saving the tree quest.

I just checked, and you actually don't have to talk to the man to get the silver coin. You just need to leave the screen and come back.

You also don't have to talk to Herbert, I never talk to him these days.

Hmm. That is pretty useless...I wonder why they would do that, if that is what it was.

I figured it was just that since KQ5 was their first game to use the SCI1 engine, they got a little experimental.



Not as streamlined, is it?

[crayauchtin]

Not only is it possible to beat the game without ever using the talk icon, but I can't even think of a single example of it providing a marginally useful hint.

I'm fine with having "fluff" in the game, conversationally speaking. I'm NOT fine with that fluff replacing narration. I'm also not fine with making someone a companion that is in nearly every screen and does absolutely NOTHING. And I'm CERTAINLY not fine with a big ol' red "x" coming up on the screen! It's not just that he's useless, it's that he's *important* and useless!

[Baggins]

You don't actually have to use the "eye" icon either in the games. So one could say its useless... In the game the only three that are really useful, are walk, hand, and your inventory box.

It offers more explanation why they did away with most icons in KQ7, and went the single cursor method (since those could all be folded into two, the hand/walk and the inventory box).

Which unfortunately did away with the fluff, and in a way created a giant red X everywhere, (or in the case of that game, the non-glowing cursor) but the things you could interact with. (glowing cursor)

Note of trivia, apparently early demo build of KQ7 actually has graphics for a full icon set (walk, look, talk, pickup, etc), like previous games, hidden in the game files. So its possibly they originally were going to make it like the previous games, but removed it from the finished product, to use the context-sensitive single cursor instead.

I'm also not fine with making someone a companion that is in nearly every screen and does absolutely NOTHING. And I'm CERTAINLY not fine with a big ol' red "x" coming up on the screen! It's not just that he's useless, it's that he's *important* and useless!

Cedric's and the X are two separate issues. Just because X's seem to appear more when he is on screen is a coincidence... :p... And as best as I can tell, no fluff actually replaced any narration (there is more on screen "fluff" narration than there was in any previous game in most screens). Cedric's brand of fluff is more or less the same kind of fluff represented by talking to any character on screen you are in, and getting a tiny bit of background to what and why they are in that particular screen.

I don't know why there are X's maybe its because they didn't quite know how to use the engine yet... It was a new engine, and it looked like they were experimenting with it, and quite figured out what to do with it.

Seriously though, without Cedric, the game wouldn't be as fun... People would probably have forgotten about it and there wouldn't be anything to talk about... You'd lose all the interaction between him and other characters, such as the Mariner, that adds to those characters backgrounds... Hell they might have just did away with the Ancient Mariner and just allowed you to talk to Pearl directly... Cause mariner is kinda useless in a way (without the Cedric scene his diaologue is completely bland, and he's uninteresting)... Oh even Crispin is kinda of useless (gives you a couple of items, expects you to take on a wizard on your own, and doesn't show up until the very end)... Yep they probably could have streamlined and simplified the game and gotten rid of a few characters, and unneeded puzzles and characters. No need for Amanda and her son (they did get rid of them in the NES version), no real need for man working on the wagon, no real need for the second baker brother in the back of the shop, no real need for the two people in the Shoe shoppe, no need for toymaker's grand daughter and son, no need for the tailer's assistant and the customer, no need for gnome's son (they could have folded that interaction into a single gnome), no need to have three thugs in the inn, you could have easily been knocked out with 1 or just two of them. Probably could have did away with most of the bandits. You can't even go into one of the tents, so really only needed to be one tent. Hmm, Herbert doesn't really do anything important, so he could be cut. You'd could still be able to save Alicia however. Yes, I wonder how much useless stuff could be cut from the game... It simply wouldn't be the same game...

Its starting to sound like you hate KQV about as much as most people hate MOE, LOL.

Also, does anyone know if early SCI1 allowed for more complex companions interaction? Maybe there were limitations with what they could actually do with that type of character, in the engine? Again, it was the first time they used the engine as well... They hadn't learned how they could "push" it yet.

Actually many of these complaints about the game may actually be complaints about technical limitations of the early version of that engine, and their lack of knowledge of how to use the engine, and experimental use of it.

King's Quest VI was built on the SCI1.1.

[Enchantermon]

I figured it was just that since KQ5 was their first game to use the SCI1 engine, they got a little experimental.

A Stop button? What was that for? Quitting?

[Jafar]

Yeah. The Stop button gives you the option to Restart or Quit, the Floppy Disk button is for saving and restoring, and the Slider button has the Speed\Volume\Detail settings.

Actually, as far as I know, the disk version of KQ5 was the only game to have the over-complicated menu.

As for Cedric, I remember reading some "Making of" thing that said something about how Cedric is supposed to be a guide in the first part of the game (Giving new players hints on where to go), and later on, he's more of a friend and companion.
Sure, other adventures may have made better use of companion characters, but can you blame Cedric for just trying to keep you company?


It also puts an interesting perspective on the part of the game where he's injured. (Or maybe it's just me who thinks that.)
He may be obnoxious, cowardly, and unhelpful, but he's really the only friend you have. You can't just leave him there, can you?

(Funny how I'm defending Cedric when that's my video in the first post mocking him... )

[tessspoon]

Not at all! It's my third least favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2

At first read that as "my third favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2" - needless to say was a bit confused.

[crayauchtin]

Not at all! It's my third least favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2

At first read that as "my third favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2" - needless to say was a bit confused.

"Why does Graham always complain about his favorite games?"

[tessspoon]

Along with, "Why would anyone have MoE as their favorite game and KQ2 as their second?"

[Baggins]

I know its hard for you whippersnappers to believe this but when KQ2 came out it was top of the line, cutting edge technology for digital computer story telling. There really wasn't much better out there., and the technology to improve on it hadn't been worked quite yet... It was literally impressive to most reviewers at the time. If you compare it to most games at the time by most companies it was far ahead of what they had. ...and the story is actually in the game, but you have to make sure you use many different verb noun combinations to discover it. It doesn't spell it out for you, and but has you discover it on your own. That is perhaps the biggest limitation in the early AGI games (albeit it was way ahead of most other companies adventures at the time, and quite impressive at the time)...

Anyone who has played KQ1 original vs. KQ2 would actually see how much it improved on the previous game... If you thought KQ2 had little story, KQ1 original was even less... and that game was cutting edge when it came out. There were less things to look at on screen, and most verb noun combinations in KQ1 AGI end up giving you "I don't know what you are trying to do warnings". There is roughly three times the amount of text in KQ2 over KQ1, as best as I could tell when I went through them. You can can pretty much look at almost everything, and every screen had a unique description of some sort, not some "you are in a forest, there are trees around you" type message of KQ1 original (with the occasional its a beautiful lake, its a long lang, it's a pond, its a meadow to mix things up).

You honestly have to look at this games as a product of their times, and not try to look at them through eyes of someone who expects the quality afforded by today's modern technology.... they simply didn't have that to work with. They told the stories that they could, within the limits of the technology they had.

Your reviews now is like going back and trying to rate the original Super Mario Bros. game by todays standards as if it came out today... or criticizing Casablanca because its in black and white... or steam boat willie sucks because it doesn't look like the modern Mickey Mouse...

I'm may have to start putting together a development/review pages, just so people have an idea how these games were treated back in the day... Its a bit harsh to try to treat them by todays standards, when what you expect today didn't even exist at that time...

Back in my day shonnny, we didn't need no stinking 64 bit processesors, 32 kadzillion colors, or Sound Blaster Aural Reality 360, or your fancy polygons and ThreeeDEEEE, eh ehh... We had our pc speaker with its scratchy bleeps and bloops  (some had there Apple IIGS sound chips...), and 3-d meant something different to us (3-d Animated Adventure Game), and we loved it... You darn kids have it too good. You are like spoiled brats,  

Ok, i'm not that old, but you get the picture...

[crayauchtin]

That may be, Baggins, but compare it to the first King's Quest -- which is older. You didn't have to look for the story, because the story was central to what was going on. It was present, a constant. AND you even took care of the villain (Dahlia, the witch).
In KQ2, you can actually beat the entire game with full points and never lay your eyes on Hagatha at all. I know, I have done it more than once. Yes, you have to take out Dracula for a full score.... but what does Dracula have to do with the main story? Absolutely nothing! He's just put in the game and you have to kill him.

Yes, it was top of the line technology for telling a story. At the time, the graphics were impressive. The scope of the game was impressive. The storytelling was an utter failure, even for that time period.