KQ1 & KQ2 stories

[crayauchtin]

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

Not at all! It's my third least favorite in the series (first being MoE, second being KQ2 -- although I don't hate any of them!) It's just that -- and this is my problem with KQ2 as you may noticed -- from a storytelling point of view it's downright shoddy. You don't have someone treated as a main character who is only there for fluff! I enjoy the fluff, I really do. I enjoy being immersed in the world. But you can't have a main character who isn't important and that's exactly what they did with Cedric.

[KatieHal]

This topic has been split off since it was derailing.

Additionally, try not to get TOO heated up over this debate guys.

[Baggins]

Well, your right, its not something to be heated over... But erm he unfortunately has some misconceptions about the original AGI KQ1 vs. KQ2 ...

http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=8944.msg287157#new
Concerning KQ1
1. in the original and even to some extent the remake witch is not directly connected to Dahlia in game. Infact Dahlia was an addition that originated from a later manual (not the original manual), and is not mentioned in the game at all. Some versions of the game do not even come with any of the manual stories. Instead the witch is "a witch", and all dialogue treats her that way (this "witch" has no backstory in game).

2. The storyline that the treasures were stolen from Edward only appears in the second version of the manual. It was not part of the original manual, nor is it part of the story inside the original version of the game.

3. You are sent into the game in the original version, looking for the treasures without any clue where they might be. Its a random treasure hunt. Edward's missive holds no clues. You can get any treasure in any order... there is no structure to collecting them.

3. There are no screen descriptions in KQ1, and thus there is little fluff or explanation for the various screens in the game. The game gives you a generic, "you need to be more specific."

Concerning KQ2
5. He was unfortnately unawhare of the fact that KQ2 actually does have an introduction cutcene (the first game in the series to do so), and it also has a firm reason for finding the doors, and thus discovering that he needs to search for the keys. The cutscene is seven or eight paragraphs long of narration, and is fully animated. Graham is shown sitting in his thrown wearing his crown he gets up looks at the mirror, we are shown several images in the mirror, and he goes back to the throne to exchange his crown for the Adventurer's cap, and then heads out of the castle on his journey.



6. The game introduction from the get go tells you Graham's quest is to find the doors in the introduction. Said doors then give you clues to where the keys are hidden from inscriptions on the doors. Thus the game actually has a structured linear objective, whose purpose is to open the doors and reach the enchanted realm, so he can reach Valanice (also stated in the introduction).

7. It was the first game of the series to have global descriptions on every screen, as in "Look Screen", or "Look Room", or even just "look" will offer a description of the entire screen.

8. Like the witch of KQ1, Hagatha has no backstory mentioned in the game (other than she is a cannibal, like the previous "witch"). She has a name ingame unlike the previous "witch". Although in general the descriptions for hagatha are a great more detailed than any of the descriptions for the "witch". Showing an advancement in the dialogue system in the AGI engine.

So yes in many ways, KQ2 had evolved from the more primitive nature of the original version of the KQ1. Added things that the original game lacked, and improving on the diaologue. In its day, the developers pushed the limits of the engine in KQ2, pushing it beyond the technical aspects of the previous game, and making it do things they hadn't done with it previously.

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Romancing_the_Throne_Development

[Allronix]

I never played MoE...but nothing I've read about it was good. Even the most flattering description said "It's a perfectly great game...but don't call it a King's Quest." and you know something's not quite right when it's treated like Leisure Suit Larry 4 (namely, it does not seem to exist).

The original King's Quest 2, though? Definitely weak. Non sequitur puzzles (who the hell thinks of throwing a bridle on a snake?!) , too many loose ends (like why Granny had the ring and cloak, absolutely nothing done about Hagatha), and Valanice going "But I'm afraid to take the stairs!" (Graham, about your taste in women...).

OK, it's not canon...but AGD did us all a big favor by writing something that made sense! You'll pardon me for thinking that the "official" game is the report Graham sent home to Gervain...and the AGD is the "unofficial" story.

KQ3 - now this is more like it, though you did not know why it had the KQ title until the Oracle of Llewdor dropped ye olde bombshell. Sense of humor, still a fair amount of danger, good use of fairy tale tropes, a lot of fetch and gather for an ulterior purpose. I can get behind this. My biggest beef with the game is the copious amount of waiting you have to do. Seriously - there are parts where I can leave the game running, go get a beer, finish the beer, and still have to wait for the plot to advance.

KQ4 - The series definitely found itself here. Four and Six are probably my favorite official installments, actually. Still some of the non sequitur and "Guide Dang It" issues that the previous games had, but the storytelling was more cohesive, the time limit added some urgency, and it worked.  

KQ5 - it added some elements that were definitely needed, but there were a lot of pointless ways to die here and some annoying Guide Dang Its (why should we have believed that stinky cheese powers a wand machine?). Making up for that was some interesting characters, like Mordak and Cassima. I also thought the shapeshifting duel in the end was great. Graham is no sorcerer - that's Alex's department - but he still holds his own in a cool fashion.  (As I recall yet another plot bunny...)

KQ6 - it all came together here. Crowning moment of awesome. Sierra pulled out everything - top notch voice talent, an elegantly done story, great music, streamlined cursor interface, logical puzzles, and solid graphics. The Award Bait Song was the only dissonant note. (Holy ****! Did Alex just make Death cry?! AWESOME!")

KQ7 - Unfortunately, the engine and art style that worked so well in Space Quest 6 just didn't work as well here. It had that "dumb it down and dye it pink" feel that 80's girls cartoons had.  Though it was worthy for the fact that Valanice finally got to step up to the plate, we get to see what was the deal with Edgar. And three cheers for Rosella - out of her entire family, she seems to be the one who wants to get to know her future spouse as a person first. (I've joked that Alexander takes after his mom and Rosella takes after her dad...)

[Baggins]

never played MoE...but nothing I've read about it was good. Even the most flattering description said "It's a perfectly great game...but don't call it a King's Quest." and you know something's not quite right when it's treated like Leisure Suit Larry 4 (namely, it does not seem to exist).

Nearly every game has its critics, and nearly every game of the series has had someone say "its not a King's Quest game". Actually MOE had mixed reviews ranging from those that loved it to those that hated it. Anywhere from 40% to 90% ratings, most were over 70%. Each game in the series sold more than the previous one, MOE was no different. So it actually did very well.

I recommend reading this for many quotes from Roberta on why she made certain decisions for the game. I suggest also listening to the talkspot interviews in the article for more details about creation of all the games in the series, as well as critiques she has had throughout the series.
http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Mask_of_Eternity_Development

BTW, the only reason why Mask of Eternity is not for sale anymore is because it doesn't work on modern computers, they only released the KQ1-7 pack because it uses dosbox for most of the games... and didn't require VU Games, and later Vivendi to have to patch them for modern machines... Unfortunately they also didn't realize that the version of KQ7 they tossed in doesn't work on modern 64 bit windows either (which came later).

Believe me if someone made a patch to get MOE working again on Vista and Windows 7, they would probably be putting the game up on GOG, or Steam or any of the other online services in order to make a buck if they could. Like they have done with the half-assed 1-7 collection that uses nearly broken version of dosbox...

KQ7 was actually lambasted for its animation style, having two players, and its overly linear chapter based gameplay. Actually btw, KQ7 preceded SQ6...

Here is a quote from Roberta Williams and Mark Seibert about VII:

KQ7 was considered one of the controversial King's Quest games, as the animation made alot of people think the game was alot more kiddy-like than the King's Quest Games had been. It was criticized for choppy graphics (although this was probably a limitation of some of the systems that the game was played on), and having inconsistent graphics (due to the fact that different animation houses did the the animation).-Talkspot interview

As you are aware, "King's Quest VII" received some negative reviews. Do you pay attention to those reviews or do you take them lightly?

I never take any reviews or opinions of game players lightly. If I did, I would have been gone long ago! I pay very close attention to these opinions. As far as "King's Quest VII" receiving "negative reviews" - I really don't know what you are referring to. Perhaps some people didn't like it as well as others, but overall it has done very well. Some people actually think it was the best. True, it got some negative reviews, but it also received many very positive reviews. Some "veteran" game players perhaps didn't like it quite as well as many of the older-style adventure games, but many of the "newer" game players loved it. Therefore, if you're me, who do you listen to? How do you interpret the opinions? With "King's Quest VII," I've seen everything from horrible reviews to the most glowing reviews I've ever received. I've heard from many who didn't like it at all to those who felt it was the best game they've ever played. Also, it sold very well, and is still selling! When it comes to interpreting reviews and/or opinions, it's a very delicate business, and even though I do pay attention to these things, I try to remain objective and never let the "bad news" get me down, or the "good news" get me too self-assured.

Once it's all said and done, however, and it comes to the next game, even though I always keep in mind everybody's opinions, it ultimately comes down to my opinion...and what I find enjoyable. I must enjoy the game. I'm working on and to ultimately trust my own judgment.

As for the rest, KQ2, was actually pretty soundly praised back in the day, it pushed KQ1 beyond what KQ1AGI actually did.

Beyond that, KQ3 was controversial for having Gwydion. Roberta received letters from fans who hadn't beaten the game who complained that "it wasn't a king's quest game". She also got critics of the magic spells and mapping system in the game, because it eliminated most of the puzzles in the game, basically the manual spelt out nearly everything that the player had to do.

Some complained about KQ4, because you played a girl...and again you didn't play a "king" :p But overall it received great reviews.

KQ5, has had its critics for a variety of things... Including it destroyed the parser, and thus destroyed what "true emersive KQ" game really was, or made things "too easy". Others criticized Cedric for various reasons. Others complained about the huge number of dead ends.

KQ6 was probably the only one that received few criticism...

But you have to understand that they are all products of their times, you have to look at each one individually, based on the fact that when they came out they were top of the line, and were pushing the boundaries of the technology, and storytelling methods those games could do (sometimes beyond what a person's computer could handle). Yes many of the earliest ones are weak by today's standards, but when they were first released, they were phenomenal, and people were astonished.

http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Romancing_the_Throne_Development

[Enchantermon]

KQ3 . . . My biggest beef with the game is the copious amount of waiting you have to do. Seriously - there are parts where I can leave the game running, go get a beer, finish the beer, and still have to wait for the plot to advance.

I've actually gotten it down close to a science; I've gotten familiar enough with the game that I can take care of Manannan the first time he returns. I was pretty proud of that achievement for a few seconds. Then I realized that there were probably a hundred others who have done the same thing. But it eliminates most of the waiting; usually I'm only sitting around for around 10 minutes or so (total of before and after he leaves). Then again, I suppose this also all depends on how fast you drink your beer.

[Allronix]

Manny isn't the issue. The pirate ship is the biggest offender. Snatch shovel, snatch your stuff and...wait...and wait...

[Baggins]

Here is an interesting fact from the annal's of King's Quest trivia on why they never bothered to make KQ2 and KQ3 remakes;

The 1990 project to revamp the original King's Quest was widely viewed as a critical failure because many reviewers and gamers took offense at what they perceived as an attempt to "destroy the classics." In fact, the project was compared to the controversial practice of "colorizing" classic black-and-white movies. Valid or not, these reactions essentially stopped work on future attempts to modernize later King's Quest installments-KQ Collection II manual.

Hmm, ya pegasus and the bridle... I wonder what obscure reference that is... Roberta was pretty well read, and I'm guessing she got it from somewhere.

I know the bridle itself was original Athena's wasn't it? Is it a loose reference to the idea of Pegasus being born of the neck of Medusa, she of the viperous hair? Plus the fact that every single item from the genie relates to the second door quest and/or that viper in some way?

[Enchantermon]

The 1990 project to revamp the original King's Quest was widely viewed as a critical failure because many reviewers and gamers took offense at what they perceived as an attempt to "destroy the classics." In fact, the project was compared to the controversial practice of "colorizing" classic black-and-white movies. Valid or not, these reactions essentially stopped work on future attempts to modernize later King's Quest installments-KQ Collection II manual.

My guess is that the same people who complained about that are the same ones who complained about playing a slave in KQ3 and a girl in KQ4. I don't know what they're talking about; the SCI version is great.

[Allronix]

The SCI version was ahead of its time. Now, no one blinks at these kind of updates. In fact, they bring great cheers because gamers are old enough to get a nostalgia filter...but welcome a smoother interface.

I'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time. The way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too. Even the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

[Baggins]

My guess is that the same people who complained about that are the same ones who complained about playing a slave in KQ3 and a girl in KQ4. I don't know what they're talking about; the SCI version is great.

How do you figure?

As far as I know there were only a few people who complained about KQ4 (infact Roberta has said that it mostly had received high praise, there was actually "very little controversy"), in fact it received a couple of industry awards at the time.

...and as far as  I know not many people complained about KQ3, though apparently far more than KQ4 ever received (enough to be considered one of the more controversial games in the series), and quickly changed there minds later on.

Whereas the majority of people, including most reviewers compained about KQ1 remake when it came out, this was back 1990, less than a decade after KQ1 so the original was fresh on their minds, and still much loved.......

You know if it was the same about of people complaining about KQ3 and KQ4, there might not have been any more games past 3... Because if critics had overly panned the series, it wouldn't have sold as Sierra had intended... So largely in comparison the fans out numbered the critics in those cases.

KQ1 SCI apparently didn't sell like they intended... So they actually lost money on it... Do you think they would have risked making more, and possibly losing again? No.... Its the fans that stopped that practice from continuing, so Sierra only persued making later games in the series, since those were actually getting increased sales...

I'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time. The way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too. Even the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

I think the space quest remake sold a bit better than the KQ remake, and was slightly better welcomed by society back in the day but not by much (ialthough t still sold terribly).

Its interesting to note that if you look at some of the Official Guides/the official Companions released back then the authors usually sided on the remake of Space Quest being the 'canon' if you will, rather than the original. Peter Spear sided with the remake for Space Quest Companion, but sided with KQ1 original as the canon for the KQ companion (this was partly having to do with KQ1 companion had already been released before there was a KQ remake, and he had no intent to rewrite, and instead called the remake, just a video game by Roberta and not the real story he was sent previously).

Most authors sided with the original Police Quest as the true story rather than the remake. Granted the remake contradicts several aspects of PQ2 and PQ3 in the series, including the fact that it is is set chronologically after PQ3...

I don't think the LSL remake did well either...

I think the only series where remakes were actually viable and did well was Mixed-Up Mother Goose, which was remade like 4 times... going from AGI, to EGA, to VGA and Super VGA.

[Enchantermon]

The SCI version was ahead of its time. Now, no one blinks at these kind of updates. In fact, they bring great cheers because gamers are old enough to get a nostalgia filter...but welcome a smoother interface.

Granted, as proved by the sales figures.
I know that I would not have played King's Quest if not for the SCI version; I was young enough that the mouse control and the fact that I could more easily recognize objects made it more accessible to me, whereas King's Quest 2 was confusing (to me at the time).

I'll admit I thought the Space Quest VGA was a great deal of fun, especially the remixed music! The soundtrack is still one of my favorites, especially the ZZ Top homage that landed Sierra's rear in a sling at the time.

Really? They got sued for that? Dang.

The way to prevent having to Save Scum the Slots o' Death was VERY welcome, too.

I never played the original AGI version, only the VGA remake. I went through it many, many times over the course of the years...and never realized until the most recent play (a year or so ago) that you could fix the slot machine. Words cannot describe how incredibly dumb I felt at that moment.

Even the sarcasm was cranked up a notch by the cave deaths that used the Two Guys and the "How He Blew It Cam."

I LOVE the "How He Blew It Cam"! I mentioned in another thread here how I always kill myself in the cave just so I can see that!

How do you figure?

Sorry...I didn't mean the actual numbers, but more like the type of people; the ones who are likely to lodge a complaint about "destroying a classic" when it was really doing the classic a favor (imo). That sort of thing.

I think the only series where remakes were actually viable and did well was Mixed-Up Mother Goose, which was remade like 4 times... going from AGI, to EGA, to VGA and Super VGA.

Perhaps because it's a game for young children that's taken less seriously by the adults.

[Baggins]

Well I doubt it was people with the same mentality, unless the critics who loved KQ3 and KQ4 somehow changed into the mentality of the few fans who complained about the previous game, LOL...

It might have worked out better, if Sierra had maybe waited another 5 or so years to make it, then the remake probably would have been appreciated more. It was just too soon after the original's release... The original was too fresh on people's minds, and/or they already bought the previous version. Sierra offered an upgrade deal to the owners of the original (send in your first disk or manual cover as I recall) , but people opted out on it or Sierra lost money on the upgrade... (if they had many people taking up the offer). I really don't know how that went about exactly.

I can think of other remakes where critics got annoyed though. As I recall the Final Fantasy 1 remake, people loved it but it was something like 15 years after the original's release. But then Squenix basically tried to milk it release by "remaking it" every other year... The critics started complaining, saying if you already had one of the earlier remakes, there was no reason to buy the "newest" version, even if they added some extras, or increased visuals.

[crayauchtin]

Okay, Baggins, you are correct that I didn't read the original manual (because I had read it a long time ago and I thought I remembered all the differences... but I apparently, I didn't!) Still, the fact that the witch has the note that gets you to Cloudland (if you understand it) could be considered a sign that she's somehow connected to it. But, yeah, you're right, fairly shoddy storytelling -- but they weren't trying to set much up either
.
As for the riddles in KQ2.... I don't remember them word for word but I certainly don't recall ever thinking "Oh, well that explains it!" Why is there a door? Why are there THREE doors? Nothing.
So, the storytelling is kind of on par with the AGI KQ1... except here they really WERE trying to set things up. They handed you a villain, they handed you a victim, they handed you a hero, they even handed you the objective of rescuing Valanice -- and then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it. What would have been more effective storytelling is if they'd put in a little bit less content in favor of more, well, story.

By the by, the bridle thing is a reference to Bellepheron (or however you spell it) in Greek mythology. He was the second man to ride Pegasus, and he did so him by putting a golden bridle on him. Together they slew chimaera. There's several different versions after that, all of which end with Bellepheron getting cocky and then getting thrown off Pegasus. Of course, you would never know about that without knowing some very obscure mythology... and when I was first playing KQ2, I didn't know it yet. Years later, when I was doing a paper on Greek myths (vengeful gods -- in some versions, Bellepheron is trying to ride Pegasus up to the top of Olympus, Zeus turns into a horsefly, stings Pegasus, who bucks and Bellepheron falls to his death, good times!), I came across it and went "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh I get it!"

You know what stopped me from getting into SQ? Those FREAKING SLOT MACHINES. Which I am only just know hearing that you can fix. Why was that not in any walkthroughs I looked at?? I could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Anyways, I would guess that the reason that official remakes tend to become the canon, is because (as we just pointed out elsewhere) the storytelling is better. First of all, you have better technology with which to tell a story. Secondly, you also have begun a series so you sort of know where you're headed better. It's often easiest to write a story backwards.

PS Allronix, you are quickly becoming one of my new favorite forumites!

[Enchantermon]

I could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Well, at least the Space Quest Collection has been released so you can enjoy it now.

[Baggins]

Still, the fact that the witch has the note that gets you to Cloudland (if you understand it) could be considered a sign that she's somehow connected to it. But, yeah, you're right, fairly shoddy storytelling -- but they weren't trying to set much up either

Extremely distant connection if any... I mean, its just a note hinting at the name of Rumplestiltskin. While yes, the gnome is the means to reaching the top of the mountains, there doesn't seem to be any direct connection between witch and rumplestilkin. Our friend the gnome is actually a good guy, who wants to help Graham on his quest, and the witch just an obstacle that wanted to kill Graham, there is no direct sense why she would have that note... (I'll admit it might be the loose inspiration for why later manual connected her to the treasure chest, but its obviously extremely obtuse). There is literally no reason in the game explaining why she would have a note, nor why she would have such a note. If someone was playing the original KQ1 with the original manual, they would have no clue whatsoever... LOL. Nor does the note say anything directly to do with Cloudland, infact all it is a vague clue, about Rumpy's name, "Sometimes its best to think backwards". I mean really what does that have to do with cloudland directly?

I mean the witch also has the cheese needed to get past the rat in Leprichaun land, does that mean she's connected to the shield as well?

No really the only thing you can say about the treasures in the original version was one was connected to the dragon, one was connected to the leprichauns, and one was connected to the giant. There was no "stolen treasures of daventry" plot line... Just legendary treasures thought to be hidden somewhere in daventry... :p

for the riddles in KQ2.... I don't remember them word for word but I certainly don't recall ever thinking "Oh, well that explains it!" Why is there a door? Why are there THREE doors? Nothing.

The doors are mentioned in the introduction movie. No there isn't really anything in the game that explains them in great detail. Just that they are a magical door that leads to enchanted world (the mirror tells him about them, and where to find them). Nothing that gives them a background story as such. The riddles just explain where the keys are being held (so you are at least given clues where to find the keys). There is of course brief descriptions about the doors in the global screen descriptions, describing their function IIRC (but nothing as such giving them a huge historical background). Actually the description for the magical doorway ingame is basically the "door that will lead to your heart's desire".

As far as I know only Companion attempted to give them sorta of background... Basically that it was a magical doorway built to allow eastern Kolyma to travel to western Kolyma, and vice versa, but can also be used to access other parts of the world based on individuals desire (I'm going by memory here, so I might be off a bit). Guess that means there might be another doorway on the other side of those eastern mountains... But its not entirely clear. I have at least part of those facts on the Kolyma page if you want to check them out. There might have been more in 2nd Edition Companion from the An Encyclopedia, but I don't think I ever added the information into the omnipedia.

In anycase I think the doors are a nod back to several fantasy ideas such as the Wardrobe in Lion, Witch and the Wadrobe, or the Door in the last book of the Narnia series. Not always explained in great detail, and intended to be mysterious.

So, the storytelling is kind of on par with the AGI KQ1... except here they really WERE trying to set things up. They handed you a villain, they handed you a victim, they handed you a hero, they even handed you the objective of rescuing Valanice -- and then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it. What would have been more effective storytelling is if they'd put in a little bit less content in favor of more, well, story.

Well as I said, Hagatha isn't even mentioned in the intro, I'm not sure if its ever mentioned in the game if she was the "captor of Valanice", or any variation. I think I put up most of the quotes from the game about her up on the omnipedia. I'll try to go through sometime again and try othe combinations to see if "Valanice" pops up in the dialogue. But I somehow doubt it the game has a rather strange thing that it doesn't recognize female names directly, any female name will work for any female character.

So while she is slightly more well thought out than "a witch" from KQ1, she's still rather simple in the game (she at least has a name). Her background is mainly limited to the manual. Ingame quotes are more or less about her appearance and nasty habits... Oh and of course the Antique Dealer also sends you on a quest to Hagatha's cave, and talks about how the witch stole her nightengale (I don't think any other character ever referred to the witch in KQ1).

I'd stilll argue that the story is a bit more advanced than the original KQ1 (which actually doesn't have much story at all), yes its still less than KQ3. Did you check out  the KQ2 development link I put up? It talks a bit more about that. Each game's story essentially evolved from the last, as Roberta had more technology to worth with.

But ya beyond that, as I was saying for its time KQ2 was more sophisticated at storytelling than KQ1 was, it tried for a linear plot, with a beginning a middle and an end. Unfortunately like Roberta said in one of her quotes, although they attempted to have story come first, they were limited by their technology, memory limits and the size of disks. KQ2 was her attempt to do a "larger story than KQ1" within those limitations.

and then they threw in a lot of stuff and didn't bother explaining any of it

Do you know you can almost say that about quite a few secondary characters in every game of the series? The three bears aren't really explained, the pirates aren't really explained, the gnome definitely is not really explained... (KQ3), KQ4 there is alot of mysteriousness about the desert temple, that is not explained, very little is known about the witch in that game, again very little known about the gnome (oh yes the witch stole his spinning wheel, that's helpful backgorund :p), Icebella has little background, Ancient Mariner is not explained... (KQ5), KQ6 (alot of stuff is explained in the manual, but not in the game), but overall I suppose most characters have backgrounds. In KQ7, its mixed (some characters are explained, others not necessarily, or weakly explained). KQ 8, uh well the wizard isn't really explained, nor are the weirdlings, and quite a few of the Hillmen are pointless, as are most of the miner gnomes, IIRC (but I suppose most characters have some background of sorts)... :p...

Back to KQ2 for a bit though, there are some clues to Dracula. He and Grandma apparently once had a thing together. But its rather mysterious... I think there are some clues that are mentioned when looking/talking/interacting with the Ghoul Ferryman, same with the spooks on the island (concerning the fact that he is there master, and they are his guards). There are details on the island or within the castle, if you look at certain things, or interact with certain things. Oh there are some details given by the monk, and looking at certain things in or around the monastery that nod towards Dracula as well. Actually if you think about how much he's worked into several other characters and major key events (Grandma, Monk, Ghoul Ferryman, ghosts, even Pegasus/Suger Cube comments), he's actually way more advanced storywise than "a witch" was in the original game, although still about Hagatha level on the villain use scale in the game (although he probably has more use in the game that Hagatha technically since you can actually kill him). Hmm, he probably has more connection to more characters in game than hagatha as well (both directly and indirectly)... As mentioned before Hagatha's interaction with other characters mentioned in game is more or less limited to the antique store owner.

Why he or any of the characters has the keys is not clearly explained. But at least his influence around Kolyma is actually mentioned or hinted at as mentioned above. Neptune on the other hand we are given the basic, "he's the ruler of the underwater empire" description on one or two screens. Has no connection to any other characters in the game (other than the mermaid, and the sea horse :p).

Pegasus is connected to the enchanter that runs around. But that's about all you really know about that enchanter, that he likes turning your character into a frog. However, its not even clear if the enchanter is connected to the key in the cave or not. All we know is the enchanter cursed the winged horse, because it wouldn't let him ride him. Which doesn't specify if he also put him there to act as a guardian or not... Although it could be possible...

As you may know the the little thieving dwarf is used a bit more than he was in the previous game too (if they are the same character), and has a slightly bigger background, but not by much. You can visit his house, raid his treasure chest, and steal his soup (or he stole the soup, its unclear). Perhaps thief is closer to the role of "the witch" in KQ1, but but certainly nowhere to the level of all the connection and influence of Dracula on various characters in the game.

By the by, the bridle thing is a reference to Bellepheron (or however you spell it) in Greek mythology.

As I understand it the Bridle was given to Bellerpheron by Athena, or she put it on Pegasus to tame it so Bellerpheron could ride Pegasus. There are different variations so I don't know which you have read.

Its a an interesting bit of Trivia that the "winged horse" isn't actually referred to Pegasus in the game, and the game doesn't understand "Pegasus" as a word in the parser (so it gives you one of those "I don't understand this word errors). I mean its rather obvious its Pegasus, but the game doesn't directly treat it is such, lol.

You know what stopped me from getting into SQ? Those FREAKING SLOT MACHINES. Which I am only just know hearing that you can fix. Why was that not in any walkthroughs I looked at?? I could have enjoyed an entire series that I missed out on cause I was bitter over that!

Ya, you can only cheat in the remake. You get points for doing so, IIRC.

Anyways, I would guess that the reason that official remakes tend to become the canon, is because (as we just pointed out elsewhere) the storytelling is better. First of all, you have better technology with which to tell a story. Secondly, you also have begun a series so you sort of know where you're headed better. It's often easiest to write a story backwards.

Well I wouldn't say the remakes tend to become canon, as far as I know it only occured for space quest really :p...

KQ is one of those "who knows" issues, the companion took the original game route, and the KQ novels nod back to the remake... Obviously the original is also canon, as Roger travels there in SQ4 (the Companion also nods at this fact, and points out that its an effect of time travel).

The Official Book of Police Quest more or less followed the original trilogy route, I.E. original Police Quest, for obvious reasons... The remake doesn't fit with PQ2 and PQ3, its essentially nearly a complete retelling. Also from a story telling standpoint PQ1 actually was a later version AGI game, post KQ3, so already had the advantage of multiple story telling improvements in the engine. So it actually stands up fairly well by today's stands, if not graphically.

As for LSL, I have no idea what route they took... Probably doesn't matter much either, the remake doesn't really have a timeline as far as I know, and really doesn't change the story... For that matter LSL was more less a remake of Softporn Adventure, and didn't really change from that story much.

We at least know that QFGV seems to use a combination of details from QFG1 original and QFG1 remake in the game. Sam's appearance is more to that of the original QFG1, but the whole Black Bird plot about Elsa bringing the Blackbird from Spielburg is a direct link back to the remake (basically telling you that was the real blackbird).

[crayauchtin]

Extremely distant connection if any...

I didn't say it was *good*, I just said it was there. I think the idea (particularly once the witch had been connected to the chest) is that she had the note so that she could remember his name and get up there herself. Why she couldn't fly, I don't know. Maybe it's too high? :\
As for the cheese... you found it in a pantry cupboard. Doesn't actually take much explaining or thinking about. Obviously, it just means that she's on that same diet from The Devil Wears Prada. That's also why she uses you as decoration when she catches you, rather than eating you. Can't fault a villain for watching her girlish figure!

The doors are mentioned in the introduction movie.

No, a magic door is mentioned in the intro movie.
KQ2 Intro

No there isn't really anything in the game that explains them in great detail. Just that they are a magical door that leads to enchanted world (the mirror tells him about them, and where to find them). Nothing that gives them a background story as such. The riddles just explain where the keys are being held (so you are at least given clues where to find the keys). There is of course brief descriptions about the doors in the global screen descriptions, describing their function IIRC (but nothing as such giving them a huge historical background). Actually the description for the magical doorway ingame is basically the "door that will lead to your heart's desire".

As far as I know only Companion attempted to give them sorta of background... Basically that it was a magical doorway built to allow eastern Kolyma to travel to western Kolyma, and vice versa, but can also be used to access other parts of the world based on individuals desire (I'm going by memory here, so I might be off a bit). Guess that means there might be another doorway on the other side of those eastern mountains... But its not entirely clear. I have at least part of those facts on the Kolyma page if you want to check them out. There might have been more in 2nd Edition Companion from the An Encyclopedia, but I don't think I ever added the information into the omnipedia.

Right, but the Companion doesn't factor into the storytelling of the actual game.

In anycase I think the doors are a nod back to several fantasy ideas such as the Wardrobe in Lion, Witch and the Wadrobe, or the Door in the last book of the Narnia series. Not always explained in great detail, and intended to be mysterious.

It is a pretty common trope but that certainly doesn't excuse them from just being there.

Well as I said, Hagatha isn't even mentioned in the intro, I'm not sure if its ever mentioned in the game if she was the "captor of Valanice", or any variation.

It's not in the game at all. It's like, in the game they wanted Dracula to be the baddie and in the manual they wanted Hagatha to be the baddie. Very attention deficit of them. Probably sticking to one main villain would have helped the game a *lot*.

I'd stilll argue that the story is a bit more advanced than the original KQ1

Well, they were trying to have a more advanced story but I feel like they jumped the gun on that since they didn't have the technology to support the game they were trying to make. And this is one reason why I find KQ2+ is better -- it has the technology behind it to pull off the story it was intended to tell.
In any good series, each one builds off of the one before it, as each KQ did. That doesn't mean that the stories need to get better or more complicated or bigger, it just means each one needs to have its roots somewhere prior in the series (excepting, of course, the first one in the series ). That's one of the reasons we love King's Quest, it does that well.

But ya beyond that, as I was saying for its time KQ2 was more sophisticated at storytelling than KQ1 was, it tried for a linear plot, with a beginning a middle and an end. Unfortunately like Roberta said in one of her quotes, although they attempted to have story come first, they were limited by their technology, memory limits and the size of disks. KQ2 was her attempt to do a "larger story than KQ1" within those limitations.

As I said, they jumped the gun and then they never remade it to do it properly. As such, it's one of the weaker installments of the series and that's why I personally prefer KQ2+.

Do you know you can almost say that about quite a few secondary characters in every game of the series?

Not absolutely everything needs incredible depth. It's mostly major things that go unexplained that bother me. The magic doors, the fact that there's three and the keys are scattered all across Kolyma... that's something that should have had some explanation at least in the manual's backstory. But for smaller things, some assumptions can be made. For instance, it's a fantasy world so I can accept that there are bear-people who live in Llewdor. I can accept a crypt with a mummy in it in Tamir (although its unusual architecture does bear at least some going over, if only because it's wear Pandora's Box is. Furthermore, why Pandora's Box is there could have been touched on at the very least.) The Gnome in KQ5 should have had a little more explained, particularly how the witch got his most valued possession and whether or not it's the same as the one in KQ1 (although that was a much bigger spinning wheel!) Icebella was okay (not good, but I could live with it) except for the whole... she's a powerful ruler with at least two very strong wolves working for her. The wolves couldn't take out the yeti, but a pie could? The Ancient Mariner was again, acceptable though not great. Hermits just don't pop up, there's a reason someone become a hermit. If they could explain it in QfG1 (family tradition ) they can explain it in KQ5!
And to be honest, I haven't played MoE enough to know how many storytelling complaints I have about that one.

Back to KQ2 for a bit though, there are some clues to Dracula. He and Grandma apparently once had a thing together. But its rather mysterious...

I think the KQ2 story is MUCH closer to the original than you seem to think. Switching Dracula to being a good guy and the monk to being a villain is a *big* switch but if you look at it.... because they did that they were able to delve into the Grandma/Dracula (okay, Caldaur) relationship a bit more. They also went into more detail with the Enchanter and the Winged Steed. And, yes, even into the Antique Dealer and Hagatha (although I'm not a huuuuge fan of the antique dealer being evil myself, it's better than "my nightingale was randomly stolen by Hagatha!") And, they explore the fact that the dwarf looks the same, which is a nice touch I think.

Why he or any of the characters has the keys is not clearly explained.

And that is my biggest gripe -- there's not even enough to guess why they have them. And even the Companion's explanation is a huge fail as far as that goes. If it's meant to get people through the mountains, it shouldn't be locked or there should specifically be someone who's job it is to keep the keys.

But at least his influence around Kolyma is actually mentioned or hinted at as mentioned above. Neptune on the other hand we are given the basic, "he's the ruler of the underwater empire" description on one or two screens. Has no connection to any other characters in the game (other than the mermaid, and the sea horse :p).

Well, that makes sense. None of the other characters are under the ocean. The real question is: why was his trident on the beach!

As I understand it the Bridle was given to Bellerpheron by Athena, or she put it on Pegasus to tame it so Bellerpheron could ride Pegasus. There are different variations so I don't know which you have read.

In some versions, it was her bridle on Pegasus so she could ride it, and Bellerpheron managed to grab a hold of the reins. That's my favorite version, since he spends much of the rest of the legends being similarly disruptive and jerkish to the gods.

Well I wouldn't say the remakes tend to become canon, as far as I know it only occured for space quest really :p...KQ is one of those "who knows" issues, the companion took the original game route, and the KQ novels nod back to the remake... Obviously the original is also canon, as Roger travels there in SQ4 (the Companion also nods at this fact, and points out that its an effect of time travel).

I would say, in general, the canon seems to be that the treasures are recovered after Edward lost them. That's the remake.

We at least know that QFGV seems to use a combination of details from QFG1 original and QFG1 remake in the game. Sam's appearance is more to that of the original QFG1, but the whole Black Bird plot about Elsa bringing the Blackbird from Spielburg is a direct link back to the remake (basically telling you that was the real blackbird).

The blackbird is in both versions of QfG1, just different places in the screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9biXBt4brI
There's differences, but the biggest one is Sam's appearance. They definitely went with the original for QfG5, you're right!

[Baggins]

didn't say it was *good*, I just said it was there.  I think the idea (particularly once the witch had been connected to the chest) is that she had the note so that she could remember his name and get up there herself. Why she couldn't fly, I don't know. Maybe it's too high? :\

Umm, the 1984 (4th release PC/Apple II) and/or 1987 (5th release AGI repackaging) version manuals which is the source of most of the Dahlia story says she flew up there doesn't it, to deposite the chest in the first place?

Hmm let me check;

from the manual: The treasurer stood frozen to the spot. The Princess' bright laughter changed to a witch's cackle as her form grew old and withered. She grasped the Chest and mounted her broom to fly out the open window. The treasurer watched in dismay as she swooped up through the clouds and disappeared.

So yep she flew up into the clouds... Seriously that doesn't explain the note anymore than lack of explanation in the original version of the manual (1984 1st/2nd release).

Actually, as we know the Gnome only helps Graham because of his good heart, and because he's on a mission to save the country. Notice his comments when you first talk to him. You honestly think he would help the witch? Seriously, LOL. Basically we know yes she can fly into the clouds, no she doesn't need the gnome's help, nor would the gnome actually help her.

But no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...

Oh btw, the thief dwarf lives up in the Door into the Mountain and can attack you in the tunnel. As far as we know that could have connected him to the treasure chest in the original game, as one of the "guardians of the treasures" mentioned in the original manual (1984 1st/2nd release). He's probably a bit more closer to that treasure, probably more directly than some random confusing note... If you want to get nitpickity, how in the world would he be able to get past the locked door? He's found both sides of that door near the mountain and inside.

I also point back to that original manual, remember it talked about the "dangerous creatures" and the friendly creatures, the gnome is on the latter, and the witch is on the former, the two don't meet...

No, a magic door is mentioned in the intro movie.

Umm, the the three doors are called the "magical door". Thats' its name, its not the "magical doors". Its literally one door with three inset doors. This is all described when you get to the door itself :p... It's the "door that leads to one's heart desire". and the game explaisn as you open one, that the next is behind it when you get to the door.

Again, I state the game's backstory of the door is that it's the "door that gives the heart's desire".

Its about as relevant as a "Chest of Gold" tha never empty, or a magical shield that stops any army, or a mirror that fortells the future. Its the "magical door that gives one's heart's desire"., and tells you it is "mysterious".

Except we are also told that its the door that is the only entrance which leads to the echanted realm., and when we get to the door, we are told that it requires three keys in order to open it.... and are sent through riddles to where the keys are located.

Beyond that there is a bit more about the door in the manual story, and in the "explore kolyma" section of the manual, IIRC.

Actually remember the Ancient Well in KQ1? The past isn't really spell out out to us, and the first KQ described it in more detail than the remake... Saying it was mysterious well of ancient times, shrouded in history and mystery. It only hints at its deep past. Most of that is stripped in the remake... It's still very old in the remake, but most of what made the well cool and mysterious is not mentioned. That's one example where KQ1 remake text sucks in comparison.

As I said, they jumped the gun and then they never remade it to do it properly.

They jumped the gun? You know maybe if they didn't make the game, we wouldn't even have a king's quest series? Maybe they shouldn't have made the first game, perhaps it "jumped the gun"... because it tried to push things that they clearly didn't have technology for at the time...

I think your again making evaulation based on hindsight, and you know what htey say about hindsight right?

They couldn't predict the future :p....

You know if they didn't start somewhere, the genre would have never existed... And the genre worked its way up in baby steps, based on the technology they had, and each one was technically more advanced than the last, as more and more memory and video cards, and sound cards were introduced. When they made the game there wasn't even any clue those things would even exist....

In fact it was Roberta's pushing of the technology that was pushing the industry forward... She needed to make these games in order to actually get companies to develop better technology. It's said that KQ4 did more to get people to buy EGA cards and sound cards than the design of sound cards in the first place... That's why they scrapped the AGI version, since people were buying the advanced hardware just to play her games.

You are incredibly hard on the game, and seem to be ignorant of how important it was at the time it was made...  At the time she more or less received mostly praise for these games. I don't think there was really any negative reviews for either KQ1 and KQ2, because they were technologically far beyond anything any other company was doing at the time, and KQ2 pushed the technology further than the previous games. Forcing players to actually have to buy new hardware in most cases... As far as stories were told, hers were beyond anything other companies were capable of doing at the time on pcs...

Basically you can't have the cart before the horse...

although that was a much bigger spinning wheel!)

Hmm, there wasn't even a spinning wheel in the original...


Come to think of it hmm I think Peter Spear mentioned the spinning wheel in the KQ1 novelization, in the first edition of the Companion, before the Remake ever came out... Is this a case where one of the KQ game actually made a nod to the Companion? (of course not necessarily it could just be there to be an extra clue as to his name, to set things closer to the original fairy tale)

I would say, in general, the canon seems to be that the treasures are recovered after Edward lost them. That's the remake.

No, I was referring to the order of how the treasures were found, and also other details like the use of the ring, where the pebbles were found, the castle description, etc.... alligators in the moat, etc :p... They are not in allignment. Peter Spear's a bit of mix of the original version and 1st-4th  release  (1984-1987) version of the game, plus the story from the manuals from the 4th release (1984, title cover "King's Quest by Roberta Williams') anor/or 5th release (1987 AGI repackaging) manual  (that manual whenever it was published was, was the first appearance of the Edward's treasures being stolen, although it wasn't mentioned in the game at that time).

The Companions ignore the 1989 remake. The 1989 remake just included the 1987 manual into the package again. The KQ4 manual actually references the 1984 4th release manual, at least I think it was the 1984 one, might have been the 1987 :p (cover title, "King's Quest by Roberta Williams). All later games have been referencing that 1984/87 manual, rather than the remake itself directly (most of those details aren't even mentioned within the remake game itself).

Course you are probably awhare that KQ3 follows the original King's Quest canon, using the same castle and many of the same locations from KQ1 AGI (although the graphics have been modified to give them the appearance of ruin).

Interesting tidbit, the Sega KQ1, was made after the remake I think but was based on the original KQ1 as far as puzzles, but had a mix of the 1984 4th edition manual plot and KQ1 original game.

The blackbird is in both versions of QfG1, just different places in the screen.

Um,in the original it was just an easter egg, there was no story for it. Read the design note I pout on the blackbird page... It was put in there by an artist, and a reference to "bogey" was made. The Coles liked it and decided to create a mythos around it. When the remake was made, they then added a reference in the remake that states that implies it was the real one, and not yet another "fake". so the reference in QFG5 is actually a reference to the remake not the original, its referencing the updated note in the remake.




Hmmm I was just thinking, ya, Sierra could have waited 5-10 more years (we're talking post KQ7 territory) to make KQ1 remake (it may or may not have sold better), but that would have put it into the period they sold the company, and new management actually didn't care about the games as much, and it was the beginning of the end for Sierra :p... It might not have been appreciated anymore than it was, and who knows Roberta might have completely changed it even further, she might have even pushed to have it in KQ7 style animation or even 3-d :p, added in action etc... Since she was more about pushing whatever technology she had at the time. ...or the new management wouldn't even allowed the remake... So basically it may not have even existed...

Not only that since most of the remakes failed financially, if probably wouldn't have been made after KQ1 and LSL remakes since those also failed finanacially :p... Sierra wouldn't have been willing to take the risk (we're talking classic Sierra here)...

Ya, it failed finanancially, but you should be happy that she succeeded in making it... Even if was hated by most fans at the time... It was made at probably the only time it could have been made in Sierra's history. Other factors probably would have prevented it from being made after that period.

[crayauchtin]

So yep she flew up into the clouds... Seriously that doesn't explain the note anymore than lack of explanation in the original version of the manual (1984 1st/2nd release).

We don't actually know how high up cloudland is. It's possible to be able to go up in the clouds and maybe not be able to get to Cloudland.

But no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...

Maybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

If you want to get nitpickity, how in the world would he be able to get past the locked door? He's found both sides of that door near the mountain and inside.

He's a thief. He can probably pick locks. Or maybe he has a key, since obviously keys exist. You, on the other hand, do not have a key (unless you mess up the gnome's name) or the ability to pick locks (or anything to pick locks with!)

I also point back to that original manual, remember it talked about the "dangerous creatures" and the friendly creatures, the gnome is on the latter, and the witch is on the former, the two don't meet...

Dangerous creatures and friendly creatures never meet?

Again, I state the game's backstory of the door is that it's the "door that gives the heart's desire".

Its about as relevant as a "Chest of Gold" tha never empty, or a magical shield that stops any army, or a mirror that fortells the future. Its the "magical door that gives one's heart's desire"., and tells you it is "mysterious".

And that's not a backstory. When they remade KQ1 at least they gave the treasures a little bit more backstory. "Mysterious" is not a backstory for an important story element unless it's a mystery that can be solved.

Except we are also told that its the door that is the only entrance which leads to the echanted realm., and when we get to the door, we are told that it requires three keys in order to open it.... and are sent through riddles to where the keys are located.

Leading us to ask: why is this the only door? Why is it here? Why are the keys scattered? These are kind of important details of the story that are utterly unexplored.

Actually remember the Ancient Well in KQ1? The past isn't really spell out out to us, and the first KQ described it in more detail than the remake... Saying it was mysterious well of ancient times, shrouded in history and mystery. It only hints at its deep past. Most of that is stripped in the remake... It's still very old in the remake, but most of what made the well cool and mysterious is not mentioned. That's one example where KQ1 remake text sucks in comparison.

Calling something ancient is fine, but adding in that it's mysterious implies there's more story to tell about it. That's probably why, in the remake, they just made it old and not mysterious. A well is a well, and sometimes they are very old. It adds to the world by telling us that Daventry is a very old kingdom, but it's not unnecessary storytelling and doesn't imply there's more than there is.

They jumped the gun? You know maybe if they didn't make the game, we wouldn't even have a king's quest series? Maybe they shouldn't have made the first game, perhaps it "jumped the gun"... because it tried to push things that they clearly didn't have technology for at the time...

Or they could have told it and made the story slightly simpler so that they could have fit in one game and not left these glaring questions and story problems? They began a relatively elaborate story knowing full well they wouldn't be able to tell it all with the technology they had to use. So, the solution, it seems to me, should have been to simplify and do it right.

You are incredibly hard on the game, and seem to be ignorant of how important it was at the time it was made...  At the time she more or less received mostly praise for these games. I don't think there was really any negative reviews for either KQ1 and KQ2, because they were technologically far beyond anything any other company was doing at the time, and KQ2 pushed the technology further than the previous games. Forcing players to actually have to buy new hardware in most cases... As far as stories were told, hers were beyond anything other companies were capable of doing at the time on pcs...

I am not at all hard on the technology or the importance of the game, I am hard on the storytelling. It would have been fairly simple to still push the technology in the ways that they did and tell a simpler story. They were pushing it, yes, but they still knew what they were working on.

Come to think of it hmm I think Peter Spear mentioned the spinning wheel in the KQ1 novelization, in the first edition of the Companion, before the Remake ever came out... Is this a case where one of the KQ game actually made a nod to the Companion? (of course not necessarily it could just be there to be an extra clue as to his name, to set things closer to the original fairy tale)

Because you were working off of the Rumplestiltskin fairy tale, I think it's safe to assume that even in the original there is a spinning wheel. It's an added hint in the remake... although it's also quite possible that it's a nod to the companion.

No, I was referring to the order of how the treasures were found, and also other details like the use of the ring, where the pebbles were found, the castle description, etc.... alligators in the moat, etc :p... They are not in allignment. Peter Spear's a bit of mix of the original version and 1st-4th  release  (1984-1987) version of the game, plus the story from the manuals from the 4th release (1984, title cover "King's Quest by Roberta Williams') anor/or 5th release (1987 AGI repackaging) manual  (that manual whenever it was published was, was the first appearance of the Edward's treasures being stolen, although it wasn't mentioned in the game at that time).

Those are mostly details though, not the major fact of whether or not the treasures were original Daventry's or not.

Course you are probably awhare that KQ3 follows the original King's Quest canon, using the same castle and many of the same locations from KQ1 AGI (although the graphics have been modified to give them the appearance of ruin).

Well, of course. KQ1 hadn't been remade yet!

Um,in the original it was just an easter egg, there was no story for it. Read the design note I pout on the blackbird page... It was put in there by an artist, and a reference to "bogey" was made. The Coles liked it and decided to create a mythos around it.

The mythos was made in QfG2, before the remake. Even though there was no reference to its value in the original, that made it the real one prior to the remake's creation.

[Baggins]

We don't actually know how high up cloudland is. It's possible to be able to go up in the clouds and maybe not be able to get to Cloudland.

Now you are just stretching...  

I'm not sure I should attempt to give you a serious answer... Its rather obvious what Roberta Williams et al had intended in the updated manual story... They are clues to set the player in direction where to find the treasures :p... The same thing was done for the "false dwarf", "went into a dark hole". Not so much of a hint for the sorcerer though, "taken to his dwelling, and had one of his beasts guard it".

Umm also I recommend looking at the clouds when your in KQ1... The game makes a big point of usually calling "cloudland" the clouds... and makes a big deal about the "clouds". Go around looking at "sky" in the remake even. Especially around the mountain.

But no its really no way to easily explain why she had that note...
Maybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

No, as its enxplained he jsut enjoys riddling, he would have helped either way... Infact he states this more clearly in the remake... He's not a friend of the witch... :p...

He's a good guy... By KQ3 his position as a friend of the Daventry's family is given a deeper light, as he helps Alexander reach his potential.

Also he has the riddle, since he is essentially rumplestiltskin and that's his MO... Roberta was trying to toss in as many random Fairy Tale references as possible... If he didn't riddle, he would have been a generic gnome... :p...

The magic ring itself is taken from a handful of various fantasies...

Maybe she was trying to keep it from good guys? Maybe she ate the last person trying to get the chest?
As for the gnome helping because you have a good heart.... that's suspect if you ask me (), if he wanted to help he wouldn't have riddled you to get the beans. The elf doesn't riddle you to get the ring. Your fairy godmother just casts protection on you, she doesn't make you do anything.

...and are you done trying to widly speculate?

Seriously, sure maybe it was one of the kids outside of the house... maybe someone she cooked in her oven...Maybe she accidently picked it up, from someone she killed and had no idea what it meant... We could pontificate all day and not get anywhere...

Again we could speculate all day, and its not going to get us any closer to the truth... Again in the original version of the game the witch was not part of the plot in any meaningful or explained way... So there is really no point to even try to speculate... it its tiresome... we could come up with any dozens of "fan theories" and it still wouldn't clear things up...

There are a few more problems, the giant has the chest, and there is no explanation what he would have to do with the witch... in the original version he's just a guardian of the chest... in the second manual, he doesn't even get mentioned...

We could speculate all day what the giant and witch have to do witch each, other but in the end it would be just speculation and pointless waste of our time...

Peter Spear didn't even try to explain the note exactly, I think there was something along the lines that it referred to "to a backwards realm within daventry were people spell there names outs backwards or do othings backwards." (thus stretching it outside the scope of just Rumpy)... This was probably one of Peter Spear's attempts at humor, I'm not sure...

 IIRC,  he did go with the idea that Dahlia flew up to clouds (as up into Cloudland) and hid the chest up there directly, as is stated in the manual. Although I don't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember  that he said something along the lines, that the giants just live up there naturally, and that one particular giant accidently discovered the chest... Thus the reason why the giant isn't technically evil, and why you lose points if you kill it. Thus the reason why you take the route of just waiting for the giant to fall asleep.

It also takes Dahlia out of the equation sorta, as she lost the treasure not long after having stole it, :p... We are told the giant has been carrying the treasure chest for longer than he can remember :p...

Dangerous creatures and friendly creatures never meet?

They might of met who knows, teh game doesn't state they did or they didn't... But even if they did it wouldn't be in friendly terms...

In the remake he doesn't even like the troll, and says it prevents him from having many friendly visitors :p...

He's a thief. He can probably pick locks. Or maybe he has a key, since obviously keys exist. You, on the other hand, do not have a key (unless you mess up the gnome's name) or the ability to pick locks (or anything to pick locks with!)

Well point of note in the original manual, it states there are "dwarfs" trying to attack Graham, so originally it was more than one dwarf. That could have been anywhere. But that's fairly vague, they could have meant one in the cave one outside, or any screen they appear as representing individual "dwarfs"

In the companion we are told of at least two, the one that you normally see running around Daventry, and his wife.

In the remake I think it makes it more clear that there is probably only one in that version of the story.

However, my point actually was that a dwarf in the mountain that opens up into Cloudland has a more direct closeness to the chest, than some random note that isn't even about the chest, but someone's name. He/she  (its hard to tell with dwarfs)acts as yet another obstacle to reach the chest, or to even escape with the chest (after getting the chest).

And that's not a backstory. When they remade KQ1 at least they gave the treasures a little bit more backstory. "Mysterious" is not a backstory for an important story element unless it's a mystery that can be solved.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this, tell that to Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and many fantasy authors.... They routinely made vague references to mysterious histories, and locations, just tangible clues, to make his readers want to know more, without actually putting the answers in the his books. I'd use the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings here specifically, you are given tiny bits of poetry, legends, mysterious objects, and places, characters, etc.

Take for example Tom Bombadil, the books never explain him, but hint about his grand powers, and his resistence to the Ring. Vague references that that may not actually be his name, and that he has gone by many names. People routinely argue over who what the character is, what he means,etc. Its simply not told to us, and this was intentional.

Take Shelob as another example, there are these vague hints about her being from a ancient time, when the world was whole (a nod to the fact that the world was sundered in a war in a distant time). There is a reference to her being the spawn of a powerfuly supernatural terror, Ungoliant. You however are not told all the details, its intentionally kept vague and mysterious. You don't even get these details in the Appendices. Tolkien intended for them to be left mysterious (although he did write many backstories for Ungoliant for his life's work, these were not published until after his death, and were works in progress). But they were not details he wanted to put into LOTRO itself, in order to give his world a backdrop and depth, and an idea that more is too the world than what the hero's experience and know. Hell even Sam Gamgee states this much towards the end of the Two Towers. He's like the reader, he doesn't know everything, and suspects he'll never learn everything, and he and Frodo will probably end up in the great tales himself at some point, and then those tales will fade as the next person writes the next chapter of the great tales.

As Peter Spear says in Companions this is actually how you make the world seem bigger than it really is, and is all about the world building, and adding a certain type of depth, that the world is bigger than it is, and that there are things that not everyone knows, nor will they necessarily discover all the world's secrets. If you simplified it even further, then you destroy the sense of mystery and exploration (sense of a lived in world that exists beyond what the player experiences or learns). He has a whole chapter devoted to how he thinks this actually made the early KQ better in some ways in the companion (I think its in the introduction chapter actually).

Maybe that's not what you like in the stories you read, and you prefer having you hand held, and everything spelled out for you, but for many people that kind of thing, the extraneous and unexplained is considered a plus (as something that actually adds depth to the world).... I'm just going to say Tolkien is better than you... But maybe you don't like those books, maybe you prefer overly simplifying stories so that every thing is spelled out and that all mystery is destroyed...

Also in King's Quest is meant to be a fairy tale story... In most cases fairy tale stories don't generally give you backstories for every single little mystical bauble, character, or land that pops up in the story... :p They often very simple, and have some kind of moral 'message' hidden in them. The details themselves are largely irrelevent. You generally don't find most people bashing fairy tales... Again I understand if fairy tales are not to your taste...

Because you were working off of the Rumplestiltskin fairy tale, I think it's safe to assume that even in the original there is a spinning wheel. It's an added hint in the remake... although it's also quite possible that it's a nod to the companion

Yes it could just be an added hint, but like I said it wasn't in the original...and Peter Spear beat them to it (creating something that wasn't in the original, and adding it into his book)...  So he apparently didn't do a straight adaptation. However, his adaptation is based on the second version of the manual...

However, I still must remind that the witch doesn't have a name in KQ1 nor in the remake in the game, and every single line just calls her "a witch"... so she maitained her rather generic stature from the original :p... There is nothing in the game, that specifically states that she is directl tied to any one of the treasures.

We could speculate all day, on how to connect her to the treasures (that's what Peter Spear and others have done), but its a fact in the game, that none of that is actually stated within either version of the game. Nor is it stated if wizard, dwarf or "a witch" are the same individuals from the manual.

Peter Spear was the only one as far as I know, until King's Questions, that stated that "a witch" and Dahlia were the same, and vaguely hinted that the Sorcerer may be the same (although in game text actually implies that Daventry is being overun by evil sorcerers, and he's just one of many :p). He actually picked up on the second manual story calling the so-called 'dwarf' a "false dwarf", and took that to mean that he was probably a leprechaun and not a dwarf, and thus explaining how the Leprechauns got the treasure.

...and as I said, it actually states are actually, multiple "dwarfs" in the original version of the manual, and even Peter Spear went that route to a degree. I think he even mentions this in the "An Encyclopedia of Daventry" as well, about how many dwarves, wolves, and other evil individuals were overunning Daventry at the time.
 
BTW, as far as canon, obviously its not something Sierra clearly defined, however I point out that Sierra continued to reference the original as a source as 'canon'. When sierra was around, most material nodded back to the original game, rather than the remake. Maybe partly because most fans like the original. Roberta has even sided with the original in many interviews (although commenting on things she liked about the remake). King's Questions primarily sides with the central canon of series as original, kq2, kq3, etc. Although I think there is a sense that it treats remake as an equal to the original to some degree. Though we are talking "original with the second manual". There are very few references to the original version of the story from the original manual, after Roberta updated the story for the late 1984 and/or 1987 release.

The mythos was made in QfG2, before the remake. Even though there was no reference to its value in the original, that made it the real one prior to the remake's creation.

No, actually alot of people back in the day who only played the original QFG1 assume that the original easter egg version of the bird, was just another "fake". Because its not actually hinted at in the game... "It once belonged to bogey"... Why did they assume it was a fake? Because the second game stated that there were "four fakes", so as each game was released people were assuming that it was still a fake... Others thought maybe one of the fakes moved around (like the one in Tarna at that market) for example (a reference in QFG3 could be implied that the one in Tarna was the one from Spielburg or somewhere else or another fake)... It wasn't until QFG1 remake staing that the "bird's fate is entertwined with the hero's" (although it also doesn't state specifically that it is the "real one"), and more specifically QFG5 that there was a more straight answer to the conundrum.... that there was a nod that the one in QFG1 was the original rather than just another fake.