Getting married in the Green Isles

[Lambonius]

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

See?  Now this is an example of a retcon.  

[crayauchtin]

Something can only be retconned if it's being billed as canon. I'm sorry, but otherwise it is a work of fan fiction and hence NOT a retcon since the contradictory information is not official. Since we're being all hung up on definitions of adaptions and retcons etc.
The reason for this is because retcon is (as you said!) short for "retroactive continuity" but since all fanon (no matter how widely accepted) is not canon it is not a part of the same continuity and therefore is incapable of retroactively affecting the continuity that it is not a part of.
Even when this game had "King's Quest" as part of the title, it was always always always referred to as unofficial (at least by the people involved, I dunno where you heard about that they apparently weren't billing it that way) and therefore completely incapable of retcon.

Lamb, you're part of IA -- would you say it is a retcon that you shifted the amount of time between KQ3 and KQ4? By the (flimsy) definition of a retcon that you're using and that you're indicating is so "low" it's a retcon. It's actually a pretty freaking big retcon since it sort of blows Graham's motivation for passing on the hat since neither of his children have just returned from an adventure....
(That being said, I do personally like the fact that there's months in between, I just have to imagine that some kind of adventure that both Alexander and Rosella partook in happened in-between, that's all! So, if you're curious, Alex and Rosella saved the world in those months. I'm still coming up with the details. )

Furthermore -- TSL *is* a pure (unofficial, non-canon) sequel even if it DOES "retcon". Just because something retcons does not make it less of a sequel. A sequel is simply a storyline that continues a previous storyline and/or takes place in the same world/universe and/or with the same characters that, chronologically, takes place AFTER the storylines that were published beforehand.
More eloquently (from dictionary.com): "noun: a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work."
If they suddenly stuck this in between KQ4 and KQ5 then, no, it would not be a sequel. But, it all takes place after the last installment of King's Quest making it -- say it with me now -- pure sequel!

In summary, stop defining stuff to make your arguments. You're just being silly.

What it comes down to is this: you are, personally, having a hard time with your suspension of disbelief in regards to the story TSL is spinning. That's fine. But that doesn't mean there are plot holes, retcons, or anything actually wrong with the story. It just means, it doesn't work for you and your "personal canon" of King's Quest.

I never thought I'd say this after all of our debates, but out of everyone in this whole thread, Baggins is the most correct. Except for in the cases of "personal canon" (in which case you can't really criticize the creators, you can just ignore it ) all fan-made works are pretty much "alternate realities".

PS While I was writing this I was looking for this article I read once that was like "Ten Movies Disney Should Never Have Made" which explored the grotesque, not family-friendly endings to most of Disney's fairy tales and compared them to what Disney did with them. Can't find it though, if anyone can please post a link!!

[Lambonius]

How is it silly to take pains to know what one is arguing about?  If you have people throwing words around without really knowing what they mean, aren't THEY the silly ones?

BTW, the term "personal canon" is an oxymoron.   

[Cez]

and then you wonder why people are confrontational

I'm actually really looking forward to the reply on the retconning of KQ3 VGA accusation. I would think that after having such a big mouth about how we've changed things, your stuff would be impeccable

or, wait, was it also billed as an alternate reality? 

[Lambonius]

I would absolutely define that bit in KQ3 VGA as a retcon, albeit a pretty minor one, since it in no way changes the plot of KQ4 or the motivations of its primary characters as you imply.  Strawman argument, by the way.  

Also, just to clarify, I'd like to point out that I personally had no part in KQ3VGA's creation at all, as I didn't join IA until years after it had been released.  It's the type of thing I would have argued against had I been around.  I also would have argued against the major changes to the game's spellcasting system as well (which I actually did way back in the day on the IA forums as a regular member ).

There's another point I was making that I tried to clarify earlier--though I guess I didn't do too good a job at it, since it seems to have gone unnoticed.

There are different types of retcons.  There are retcons where the new author simply tries to fill in the gaps in the original story, adding material to existing canon, and there are retcons where the new author deliberately attempts to contradict existing canon, in order to shoehorn said canon to fit their ideas for the series.

The former type, I have no problem with whatsoever, as it doesn't do any harm to the series as it's already been established.  The latter type, however, is problematic for me, because it involves a certain level of disrespect for the original source material--as if the new author believes he or she can do a better job than, or is somehow justified in replacing, the intent of the original creators.  Which to me smacks of arrogance and a certain lack of ethics.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

The latter type, however, is problematic for me, because it involves a certain level of disrespect for the original source material--as if the new author believes he or she can do a better job than, or is somehow justified in replacing, the intent of the original creators.  Which to me smacks of arrogance and a certain lack of ethics.

Are you talking about someone we know? 

[Novem]

Are you talking about someone we know? 

Welcome to the Forums...
Btw.: I have a GREAT idea: IA should team up with these other guys and remake TSL!

[Lambonius]

Are you talking about someone we know?  

Well actually I was trying to speak in general, as I would feel the same way no matter who was doing it.

Also, I'd like to take this moment to distance myself from IA.  My views are my own, and I do NOT speak for IA as a group.  We are a diverse bunch of guys, and we all have our own opinions about games and the legacy of Sierra.  Luckily for us, we usually see eye to eye on things like game design and stuff, and we have a diverse array of talents that come together nicely in the service of creating games (and having fun doing it!)   

[Cez]

To make things extremely clear, obviously we are having this conversation back and forth because you are attacking me (and Katie) directly, since we wrote the majority of that script.

So we go in circles... Isn't that the same as AGDI did with KQ2+?

You accuse us of changing Manannan's intentions altogether because that changes KQ3 in its entirety. Yet, you have seen the cutscene and you have seen how Alexander recognizes every bit of what happened in KQ3 and believes it.

You say that KQ2+ didn't do this. Other than the fact that this mysterious "father" figure contacting Hagatha to order her to kill King Graham? Other than the fact that Hagatha obviously being part of The Black Cloak Society? That's not rewriting intentions, plots, etc. I don't think that falls under the category of "add-ons". That just changed my perception of Hagatha completely.

We haven't changed the events behind what happened in KQ3. We are just playing with the idea of "what if" Manannan had a different plan, one that Alexander didn't know about. Which is the same exact thing done in AGDI. Again, if you say that they billed is as an alternate story, we billed ours as the unofficial sequel.

On a completely different topic, I will agree that some of the lines in TSL could have been better, yes, had Katie and I had more time to spend with them before they were recorded, or perhaps had had more experience. To call it "mediocre" I think it's taking it a bit too far. Extremely too far, I would say. As much as Jason, for example, plays an excellent Graham, there's no magic an actor could do to make a believable character if the lines don't help.

If you have a problem with seeing drama and King's Quest in the same bag, that is something entirely different to saying that the writing is bad. I can admit it's not perfect, and it's also not award winning material, but for the first published work of Katie and myself, something that was written about 7 years ago when we were in our early 20s, it's a darn good effort. At least that's something that I can say of Katie's work. And especially when aside from writing it, again, I was directing it, producing it, and wrote a 1500 page script that had all to be revised in time for the 2004 recordings. Because yes, when you mention that our programmers, musicians, artists, etc, should get away from the writers, you fail to realize that the writers wore many of the other hats of the things you enjoyed --for example, the camera work at the Sacred Circle was pretty much done by me. And the PR work you say we've done greatly, also Katie and myself leading the efforts.

So yeah, I'm not saying that because we've done many good things, we are great writers. For all I know I may be an awful one, but when I see so many scenes working on TSL, I sometimes find myself proud of the writing behind it.

We respect your opinion and indeed value it (if you want to know, you are the reason why the vines and foliage was added to the Gate scene), but what I don't appreciate is when you cross the smartass line and seemingly contradict yourself to make a point, just looking for a way to win the argument --when you do that, you remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing. Because that's just when I roll my eyes and turn the other way.

And you are right -- I have never heard of conciseness in writing That's why Katie spends a lot of her time editing down whatever I write

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

To make things extremely clear, obviously we are having this conversation back and forth because you are attacking me (and Katie) directly, since we wrote the majority of that script.

So we go in circles... Isn't that the same as AGDI did with KQ2+?

You accuse us of changing Manannan's intentions altogether because that changes KQ3 in its entirety. Yet, you have seen the cutscene and you have seen how Alexander recognizes every bit of what happened in KQ3 and believes it.

You say that KQ2+ didn't do this. Other than the fact that this mysterious "father" figure contacting Hagatha to order her to kill King Graham? Other than the fact that Hagatha obviously being part of The Black Cloak Society? That's not rewriting intentions, plots, etc. I don't think that falls under the category of "add-ons". That just changed my perception of Hagatha completely.

We haven't changed the events behind what happened in KQ3. We are just playing with the idea of "what if" Manannan had a different plan, one that Alexander didn't know about. Which is the same exact thing done in AGDI. Again, if you say that they billed is as an alternate story, we billed ours as the unofficial sequel.

On a completely different topic, I will agree that some of the lines in TSL could have been better, yes, had Katie and I had more time to spend with them before they were recorded, or perhaps had had more experience. To call it "mediocre" I think it's taking it a bit too far. Extremely too far, I would say. As much as Jason, for example, plays an excellent Graham, there's no magic an actor could do to make a believable character if the lines don't help.

If you have a problem with seeing drama and King's Quest in the same bag, that is something entirely different to saying that the writing is bad. I can admit it's not perfect, and it's also not award winning material, but for the first published work of Katie and myself, something that was written about 7 years ago when we were in our early 20s, it's a darn good effort. At least that's something that I can say of Katie's work. And especially when aside from writing it, again, I was directing it, producing it, and wrote a 1500 page script that had all to be revised in time for the 2004 recordings. Because yes, when you mention that our programmers, musicians, artists, etc, should get away from the writers, you fail to realize that the writers wore many of the other hats of the things you enjoyed --for example, the camera work at the Sacred Circle was pretty much done by me. And the PR work you say we've done greatly, also Katie and myself leading the efforts.

So yeah, I'm not saying that because we've done many good things, we are great writers. For all I know I may be an awful one, but when I see so many scenes working on TSL, I sometimes find myself proud of the writing behind it.

We respect your opinion and indeed value it (if you want to know, you are the reason why the vines and foliage was added to the Gate scene), but what I don't appreciate is when you cross the smartass line and seemingly contradict yourself to make a point, just looking for a way to win the argument --when you do that, you remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing. Because that's just when I roll my eyes and turn the other way.

And you are right -- I have never heard of conciseness in writing That's why Katie spends a lot of her time editing down whatever I write

Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9  being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?

[Lambonius]

Okay.  I will concede the point about KQ2+, since you're right--the changes you're talking about certainly do fit the idea of a retcon as I've repeatedly defined it.    So I'll give you that.  Personally, I think KQ2+ nailed the original KQ tone a lot better than TSL does, but then, you guys have repeatedly said that you were deliberately trying to make something different than the original KQ tone.  Personally, I don't think it's a wise decision, but that's just my opinion, so whatever.

I do think that the idea of self-representation is an issue here though.  Regardless of what you are officially calling the game now, you guys have, throughout the course of the game's development, whether implicitly or explicitly, supported the perception that yours is the continuation of the series that fans have been waiting for.  Whether the words "official sequel" ever came out of your mouth/fingertips is beside the point.  I think it's the same issue Josh Mandel brought up all those years ago--rewriting canon is one thing when you bill yourself as TSL: Inspired by King's Quest.  It's another when you bill yourself (again, either implicitly or explicitly) as KQ9, the conclusion to the KQ series.  And let's face it, the only reason you guys changed the name was because you were legally forced to.  

So I dunno, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.  Like I said initially, I don't really want to debate the merits of TSL's story, because I don't know all of it yet.  So I can't possibly argue with any kind of validity about it (and I'm not trying to--I'm only commenting on things we've seen so far.)

I will also concede an apology for being perhaps excessively blunt in my language in the post to which you are referring, though I DO stand by my views that the writing is the weakest link in the TSL chain.

Again, by writing, at this point I don't necessarily mean story--my comments in that post were more referring to dialog and style, which I still think could use some improvement.  And though I'm not crazy about the darker tone and more "psychological" nature of TSL's story direction, I'm reserving final judgment until I see how the rest of it plays out.

Lastly, I will say again that I definitely appreciated all the little touches you guys have been putting into the improvements in each episode.  They are definitely helping improve the overall experience, and it's a nice show of respect to the fans who have supported the project and given genuine constructive criticisms in an effort to better the overall production.

[Cez]

Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9  being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?

No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9  being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?

No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.

Well perhaps the cutting was better--Easier to tell a more concise story and not get lost in it.
JRR Tolkien died without finishing the Silmarillion because it kept getting bigger and bigger, and even he, the author, began to get lost in it and wasn't sure how much was complete, what should be revised, etc.
This happens a lot. Look at Lucas. He crowed in the 70s how Star Wars was meant to be told in 9 movies. We only ended up getting six of those nine.

[Cez]

And I will admit that yes, we wanted to be seen as the game that closed off the saga. And like I said to you once before, Josh Mandel was right. He didn't quite know how to handle the situation, which is why it left a sour taste in our mouths, but he was right about the fact that we shouldn't have called ourselves King's Quest IX if we were planning to do what we wanted to do.

We wanted to keep the name for other reasons, actually. One of them because we needed people to follow us because we wanted to do a very ambitious project and we needed the help. And yes, I will admit that back then, 21 years old me did fight with Mandel over things I now agree with him.

However, I don't go to the extend of over analyzing things unless someone puts me on the spotlight. I'm the kind of guy that wouldn't lose sleep over, say, somebody grabbing Gabriel Knight and making a fairy tale story out of it. I'd most likely check it out, dislike it and ignore it and move on. I personally never check out the website of something I didn't like, so I'm very : live and let live" sort of guy. I don't obsess over details of someone else's work. I have enough with mine lol

So I don't personally see a huge deal about calling our game The Silver Lining, King's Quest, The Ninja Bonsai Tree or whatever. Everyone knows at the end what it is, and everyone will have a different opinion of it regardless. That said, I agree that because some people do care, it's the best idea to call it "The Silver Lining". I'm glad that out of the two very unusual fights we had with the big guys, we managed to be recognized as a King's Quest game, yet using our name of "The Silver Lining". That's what I wanted to make sure people got across. That regardless of the different steps we took, we still were inspired by King's Quest.

Anyhow, I also apologize if I seemed a jerk at points. You have a very good way of getting under my skin sometimes and get the not so good side of me out.

[Cez]

Are you saying the game was cut to it's present form (as in the events of Chapters 1-9  being condensed into Chapters 1 and 2) back in 2004?

No, it wasn't. That was done fairly recently. The script was written by 2004, however, and many of the recordings and dialogs that now take place in Chapters 1 and 2, were recorded around then.

Well perhaps the cutting was better--Easier to tell a more concise story and not get lost in it.
JRR Tolkien died without finishing the Silmarillion because it kept getting bigger and bigger, and even he, the author, began to get lost in it and wasn't sure how much was complete, what should be revised, etc.
This happens a lot. Look at Lucas. He crowed in the 70s how Star Wars was meant to be told in 9 movies. We only ended up getting six of those nine.

A mistake we didn't see until it was too late, and we had to do it to fix things. To be honest, this game, as it was originally was a good saga, but man, it was drawn out as heck. The end result was not optimal, because like I told Lamb, if we had know what we were getting into, I would have started right off somewhere else and not spend time in the Green Isle. So, to me, the shame was that the gameplay and story ended up being somehow disconnected, but I'm pretty proud of it after all. It almost works like Kingdom Hearts, where they have the overall plot and then each world's plot.

But yeah, as I write future projects, I want to make sure they are the right size, and that they get to the point right away. If I write too much material, then save it for a sequel that COULD be produced, but don't count on it --unless that's the plan from the get go.

I personally do like it best from a writing standpoint when you know you will be making sequels, because you can set it up for that instead of "now I have to come up with the sequel!" sort of thing. But only very few projects have done it. It's a very risky thing to do. You run the risk that the saga is never completed and cut halfway through like many series we see on TV and even films. 

[Novem]

You remind me of the guy I found in IA whining about hating us because we were getting all the attention over nothing.

I've read some of the posts. Who are you referring to?

Edited by Cez: That's just not cool to do that. If they want to voice their opinion over here, they can come to do it. If they choose not to do so, then you don't need to transfer their messages.

[Baggins]

BTW, the term "personal canon" is an oxymoron.

This is an assessment I agree with.  Because if only the ones owning a universe can define what is and isn't canon (even if they only define it loosely), and anything fans do is "fan fiction, unofficial, non-canon". Then one cannot have a personal canon.

It would be more accurate to say that someone has a 'personal continuity', in which they create their own fan fictional, unofficial, non-canon timeline (I.E. continuity), in which they ignore things, add there own things, etc.

Panon (personal canon) and fanon (fan canon) are pretty much two sides of the same coin. Both a bit oxymoronic.

[Lambonius]

Anyhow, I also apologize if I seemed a jerk at points. You have a very good way of getting under my skin sometimes and get the not so good side of me out.

Accepted.    Sometimes I have that effect on people. 

[KatieHal]

And really, you should save up the fire for when we reveal Graham's a cyborg, anyways. (no one ever said he wasn't!!)

[Baggins]

One of the reviewers for episode one claimed he was Roger of Daventry... Does that make him Wilco?