Getting married in the Green Isles

[Rick_Florez]

Hmm, are we looking at the same picture here?  In the KQ6 pic the throne room cannot be any wider than the width between the staircases.  The only section that is tall enough to hold the throne room is the middle part which is no wider than the staircases even on the second floor.  So the first floor hallway in TSL would be to the left of the throne room.

In the intro you can see that there is a corridor between the door and the hallway presumably the size of the stairs before you get to the hallway.  Such a thing would not muffle the sound enough for you not to hear it though especially if stuff is going on in the hallway.  In any case proportions have always been weird in adventure games.  The tower connected to the throne room is another example of the original layout not working exactly right unless you assume there is an additional corridor between the tower and the throne room.

[KatieHal]

In any case proportions have always been weird in adventure games. 

Most notably where adventurer's pockets are concerned!

[Baggins]

Hmm didn't mention this before but I don't know what to think about you considering me an oponent. That sounds awfully confrontational. I honestly don't consider you guys ad adversaries. Grr typing from an iPhone is slot of work.

[Rick_Florez]

I say opponent in friendly terms.  To me this is all in good fun.  We simply have opposing views on things.

[Cez]

LOL, he's part of IA, Cez, not AGDI

Eriq told me he was first hired at AGDI.

[Cez]

I was referring to wideness of entry hall in comparison to throne room. Both are just as wide in kq6. In entry hall the staircases take up but more than third of the room. So if you entered into staircase door you would still be under entry hall and within boundaries of the wall between it and the throne room. In fact if you were standing under staircase there would a bit is sloping roof.

(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 04:38:47 PM)

I'm not part of any game team cez. I make same comparisons I make for your game on their game as well. I enjoy seeing where the games make detours.
I don't know about lambonius opinion since kq3+ made detours. Is even made ignore the fact that Derek moved into manny's house.

In my mid I just ignore last star trek, grrr. To be fare that's probably closer to how I take fan fiction as well.

I was quoting Lamb.

[KatieHal]

Perhaps sparring/debate partner is a better term, Rich & Baggins.

[Lambonius]

Also, Lamb, by that statement, you pretty much probably think that Disney's retconning of the original fairy tales is crap, right? I mean, they didn't only change them, they crapped on them and retold them in ways that the spirit of the original stories were lost in translation to suit them for children.

In the same vein, Roberta Williams retconned the same storylines to make them fit the King's Quest universe.

So... what were we talking about again?

FYI--I've never been affiliated with AGDI--I am a member of IA though.

Well first of all, it's not retconning if you're the original author.

And secondly, what does Disney have anything to do with it?  

And lastly, AGDI's KQ2+ doesn't retcon the other games in the series.  It rewrites the story of the original game yes, and adds some new information that happened between KQ2 and 3, and a hypothetical scene that happens after KQ8--BUT, the main difference is it doesn't alter or rewrite anything that had already been established in the other games.  The story of KQ1 is still the same, the motivations of the characters are still the same.  All details the same.  The one scene that it adds in post-KQ2 Daventry doesn't change anything about the story of KQ3.

TSL does this.  You guys rewrote the motivations of all of the enemies throughout the series (most notably, as seen so far, Manannan) which completely changes how they would be perceived when replaying the original games.  You are changing what has already established.  In the case of Manannan, you actually are removing the entire motivational factor for the whole plot of the game!  KQ2+ rewrites the original KQ2, yes.  But the other games remain untouched.  

And perhaps most importantly, KQ2+ was also unabashedly advertised as an ALTERNATE take on the story.  TSL has always been advertised as a SEQUEL, meaning that plot points established in TSL reflect directly back onto its prequels.

There is a clear difference.  Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?  

[KatieHal]

*sigh* Well I tried removing his post and telling him to re-phrase that, but apparently a little late....

Anyways. I suppose the point is well, yes, we are taking a "What if...?" stance on some of the old games. Looking at them in a new light, taking a few twists. Why? Because it's interesting to do so!

It happens all the time in TV shows, movies, comic books (heh, maybe a little TOO much there), even books, etc. We don't see it as "oh my god, how dare they change this sacrosanct script!", we see it as "hey, here's a slightly new twist that makes things interesting, let's see where it goes!" And yet our explanation of that never seems to be acceptable for some reason to some people and we are continuously judged so very harshly for daring to do so.

It is still fanfiction, we are 'allowed' to do that. If it helps, do like Baggins does and think of it as an alternate universe. I don't happen to think it ruins the game to either do so or not do so, but that's just my opinion.

[Cez]

Disney has to do with it the fact that you said that changes to a storyline is the lowest thing a writer can do. By that statement, a reinterpretation of a story (the same way Star Trek was with the latest movie) falls under that same category. If your statement holds true, then everything Disney did falls under the same.

And I mention Roberta because she wasn't the original author of the many fairy tales she used. She retconned those to make them fit the universe of King's Quest.

Retconning is retconning. You said it yourself. You either take the official source as canon or you don't. The fact that AGDI changed a full storyline, whether it was one game or all, makes no difference altogether when you are trying to make your point. Whether you call it alternate, inspired, or whatever, you said it very well: You either take the official source as canon or you don't. You can't contradict yourself to make exceptions.

The Silver Lining doesn't even have the King's Quest name on it. Although we started calling it the Unofficial King's Quest IX (Note the word Unofficial), we always were very clear that we were not Roberta Williams, and this isn't what Roberta Williams would have written. We always said we were going to be different, darker and more mature. We never tried to bill this as what Sierra would have done.

The problem here is that you are trying to make a point. But your point falls flat with the other things you try to defend. If we are to be fair, we need to be measured by the same stick of the things you personally like. If TSL's story fell under the stuff you love, which obviously it doesn't, you would defend it by comparing it to KQ2+, because it doesn't matter that they only changed 1 game or two, the fact remains that they did it, as minimal as it is, or as large as it can be, the minute you change a minute detail from a pre-established story, that falls under the category of what you blatantly described as "the lowest of the low fanfiction storytelling", and that "A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes. "  Your words, not mine.

If you start making exceptions that include the things you approve, then I'm going to take your word as only when it's convenient for you to make a point. If you want me to take your word fully serious, don't apply rules that you disengage when they are applied to works you like.

For what it's worth, I applaud what AGDI did to KQ2, and I don't mind that they changed the story at all. Yes, they changed a whole lot of details and basically rewrote the whole thing --not just expanded it, but I don't have a problem with that sort of storytelling, obviously. The same that I don't have an issue that Disney turned the very dark fairy tales into enchanting versions of it. Or even the retelling of Nightmare on Elm Street. Even films like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings retconned the heck out of the books to fit their medium. Arwen, anyone?

Some other works I may not like, but I don't go saying that what they did with changing something was wrong, otherwise I would be the heck of a hypocrite. I just don't like the story, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they rewrote it or not.

[Baggins]

To be fair there are many scholars and literary critics that do criticize the disneyfication of stories.

In fact the term disneyfication is derogatory.

IMO kq2+ actually does go against a few details from other games, the reason for the heart attack, manipulation of the twins destinies, the heir to kingdom. It has similar changes to motivation of the BCS.

In that respect I don't see any difference in tsl.

[Cez]

To be fair there are many scholars and literary critics that do criticize the disneyfication of stories.

In fact the term disneyfication is derogatory.

And that's perfectly fine if that's an opinion that you carry through all the works of arts --unless your opinion is not about the act of retconning, but about the way it Disney did it. My point is that if you have a problem with "retconning" then you can't pick and choose what works do it well and which don't. That to me means that someone doesn't have a problem with retconning, they have a problem with a particular story. But Lamb was making a point about how bad he thinks is the act of retconning is (again, I quote "Retconning official canon is the lowest possible form of fan fiction storytelling(...)  A good writer should be able to expand on official canon without altering it to suit their purposes." ), not what he thinks about the story of TSL, and based on what he defends, to me at least, he's just contradicting every point he's trying to make.

[Baggins]

To be fair, most movie rewrites are adaptations not retcons. The term retcon suggests a change to continuity for the sake of changing continuity, that retroactively replaces previous continuity, or to fix problems between two or more sources to help them fit. The change directly effects past and future releases.

Whereas adaptations may rewrite the story to fit the medium but doesn't take the place of the original source. It doesn't retroactively replace the previous source.

Oof course there is the reboot which's starts the story over ignoring the previous while also trying bill itself as the new primary source. The previous ceases to have any direct relevance.

Then you have the deplorable star trek that tries to be both retcon and a reboot and IMO fails at both.

[Cez]

To be fair, most movie rewrites are adaptations not retcons. The term retcon suggests a change to continuity for the sake of changing continuity, that retroactively replaces previous continuity.

Whereas adaptations may rewrite the story to fit the medium but doesn't take the place of the original source. It doesn't retroactively replace the previous source.

Oof course there is the reboot which's starts the story over ignoring the previous while also trying bill itself as the new primary source. The previous ceases to have any direct relevance.

Then you have the deplorable star trek that tries to be both retcon and a reboot and IMO fails at both.

And the full name of our game is "The Silver Lining: Inspired by the King's Quest series", as seen in the 2006 trailer, and the name of our website for a long time. So you can call it adaptation, alternate universe, etc, but the fact remains that when anything undergoes a massive change in direction, and that includes putting a book on the silver screen, it becomes a retcon.

In the case of Disney for example, you cannot rule out that aside from the movies, they also had the same stories in book form, to the point where they completely displaced the old stories. In modern culture, many people do not know the source of those stories.

So, like Katie said, if you want to see TSL as a reinterpretation of what would have happened, then see it that way. But my point still stands to the fact that you can't condemn TSL and praise KQ2+ for the same reasons, just because you didn't like the approach of one over the other. That's a personal point of view over how the retcon was made, not the retcon itself --Otherwise, Lamb's words about the creators of TSL hold exactly the same weight to those of AGDI.

[Baggins]

I for one don't praise kq2+ in the sense you are mentioning. I think it takes more liberties than your game, much more.

[Lambonius]

   LOL...Cez, your posts remind me a lot of the dialog in TSL.  Excessively wordy to the point where my brain hurts reading/listening to it.  Have you ever heard of conciseness in writing?

In all seriousness though, as Baggin's pointed out, you are confusing adaptations with retroactive continuity.  Disney's takes on fairy tales are adaptations, as are Roberta's use of them in her games.  Turning Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter from novel form into a movie script is again, an adaptation.

Retroactive continuity by definition only refers to works of serial fiction--i.e. books in a series, games in a series, etc.  So if one were to take a KQ game's story, and write it into a movie script, that would be adapting the story, not retconning it.  But if one were to write a new sequel to Harry Potter, for example, which rewrites or changes events in the past novels, that would be a retcon.

But you're right about one thing--I should have been more specific in my generalized statement about retconning.  Some retcons simply add material to existing works or series story arcs, which in my opinion is more what KQ2+ did.  But you're right, they do change a few things, but like I said, they were explicit from the beginning in saying it was an alternate telling of the story.  The problem as I see it, is that TSL contradicts several previously established facts while purporting to merely add material and bring closure.  It's a matter of representation, and I think TSL has misrepresented itself as a pure sequel several times over the past 8 years, despite what you guys are trying to call it now that you've been forced to adapt to the conditions of two C&D's.

I'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument with you about this.  I haven't seen the rest of TSL's story, so I'd be coming at the debate from a serious point of weakness right from the start.  I don't want to give the game an unfair shake when I've only seen about a quarter of it.  

I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though.  Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.

[KatieHal]

I don't think I can stress enough the difficulty of trying to not get defensive when you've spent eight to ten years pouring your heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears into something.

[Cez]

I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though.  Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.

Aside from what Katie said, I also tend to read what you post in other places --places you are perfectly aware of we read. I have never said something about KQ3 or IA in your forums, and then come here and posted something different to put it in one way. That's just the type of stuff that has always irked me about some people, nothing personal.

[Lambonius]

I don't understand why you seem intent on baiting me into a confrontation though.  Sure, I can be sarcastic and a smart-ass sometimes, but I typically try to be respectful here when I post--even when I complain--and I think most people here understand that.

Aside from what Katie said, I also tend to read what you post in other places --places you are perfectly aware of we read. I have never said something about KQ3 or IA in your forums, and then come here and posted something different to put it in one way. That's just the type of stuff that has always irked me about some people, nothing personal.

Honestly, I really haven't expressed any views over there that are any different from anything that I've expressed here.  I always try to give praise where praise is due.  I will certainly admit to letting my mouth run a little more on my own forums and perhaps at times being a little more blunt, but hey--I'm not the only one guilty of that.  

[Blackthorne]

Don't worry.  This will all be solved when at the end of The Silver Lining, it's revealed this is all a wacky dream Sonny Bonds had after accidentally spilling some confiscated LSD from a drug bust.  Problem solved!!!


Bt