KQVGA: A Review

[Matt Brown]

what?? LASSI QUEST DIDNT SUCK! LASSI QUEST POWNS J00! BLASPHAMY!11!!11oneone

[Barcik]

King's Quest is the first adventure game with graphics, animation and sound. It set a new era. I do not think that you should judge it like that.

We had a similar discussion in the Indy DVD thread. We can't judge a creationg today by the standards of yesteryear. Once, when it came out, it could have been all that - a true groundbreaking masterpiece. But today it isn't. Today, it seems old, dated and, quite frankly, bad.

[Vel]

Alky, you mean oly KQ 1 and 2 originals, right?
All KQs from 3 to 7 had pretty good plot and storytelling. I exclude 8, for it is not a king's quest. It is a tomb quest of king raider.

[Vel]

Barcik: I just couldnt disagree more.
You judge a game, a movie, a piece of music or a book by the standards of the time it was released, if possible.

[SSH]

Barcik: I just couldnt disagree more.
You judge a game, a movie, a piece of music or a book by the standards of the time it was released, if possible.

I think that the 1909 film version of Les Miserables is by far the best, despite being black-and-white and silent.

Also, I think that the book "Ugh!!!" written in pictographs by anonymous caveman #56 on the wall of a cave in the south of France is by far the best book ever written.


btw, You know that there's an edit button, right, Vel?

[Barcik]

Did I play it in 1984? Did I even live in 1984? Not according to my knowledge.

I can't play a game in 2003, and enjoy it because it was good in 1984. I didn't play it in 1984, so how can I judge? And besides, if a game is bad now, do I need to give it credit because it was good 20 years ago? Should I enjoy it, despite the fact that it is horribly flawed.

True classic creations never wither - they are timeless. Monkey Island managed to keep its charm, even after 20 years. 2001: A Space Odyssey didn't age a day since it was released back in 1968. Mozart's simphonies are all several level's above the current trash. But the first King's Quest, now, is old and dated. Is it really such a classic?

[Vel]

Barcik, KQ is timeless.

[Barcik]

Then how come so many people today find it old and dated? How come so many people think that the current (well, almost current) games have much more to offer?

A timeless creating is one that always stays as good as it initially was. King's Quest does not fit that category.

[Vel]

So many people?
I GUARANTEE you that there are far many more people who think that kq1 is timeless. Post a thread on tierra's forums, for example. The members of their boards are, for good or for bad, far more than the AGSers. On the whole, I think that AGS is made for newer adventurers, who like adventure games hence the early 90s.

[SSH]

Vel, if you asked all PC owners today if they like KQ or prefer something more modern, I think we all know  the answer. Obviously, if you ask a bunch of self-selecting people who are obviously fan of Tierrra's work enough to register on their forums if they like KQVGA... well what does that prove?

[Vel]

SSH, that applies to all the lucas games too.

[Pessi]

Which proves that asking on Tierra's forums would not help proving your point, right? So... What is it exactly you're trying to say?

I don't understand how you can claim King's Quest 1 to be timeless even though Barcik just gave very good reasons for the contrary. We understand you like the game a lot - but unfortunately it doesn't make the game timeless for everyone else. If someone can't enjoy a game without knowing its background - is it really a timeless game?

What really intrigues me though, is, what did you mean by the members of Tierra's forum being far more than AGSers? If you decide to give another short, self-confident answer, please pick this question because I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.

[Las Naranjas]

This isn't really a Sierra Vs. LEC.

Maniac Mansion survives mainly as a curiosity, as does Zak and the last crusade since they are also full of flaws. Pioneering flaws, but flaws nonetheless.

Whereas MI survives in it's own right because of it's strengths.

In the same way SQ3 and to a lesser extent LSL can survive from Sierra's early camp (although perhaps to a lesser extent than MI, they are older anyway).

And anyway, twere I to evaluate KQ1 on the values of 1983 I could still find most of the same flaws. The graphics and direct control (they must have been pandering to console makers like BS3 right?) were pioneering [and are the only things changed in the VGA remake ironically enough] , the rest of the construct of the game was present in text adventures. By that standards the plot was still dreadful, and the puzzles simplistic and unimaginative as compared with earlier games going all the way back to Colossal Caves. If I was to judge by 1983 standards, the only criticism I think I'd drop would be of those scenes where an ogre of the like would come on screen and you'd run away. That was part of the excitement of the new "3d action adventure" I guess.

[Matt Brown]

I dont really understand the whole KQ1 being timless simply because it was revolutionary arguement. Games are classics based on their own merits. Yeah, it might have been kick arse in 1984, but it didnt stand the test of time. It was outdated really before even 1990. The king quest games as a whole are timeless, and certainly a few of them indivudually can be considered timeless, (in my view anyways. KQ5 and KQ6 spring to mind), but not so much the first.

[Jodo Kast]

KQ1 VGA was a remake like the movie Psycho that came out in 1998.  Very well crafted however, meant anyone who beat the first could beat the remake.  If you never played the game before, what's the point in playing it?  You won't understand it.

I read Hugos House of Horrors 1 was remade, but now banished due to copyright problems, but since I never played the original, it didn't matter much to me.  However I can understand the frenzy if Sierra suddenly cancelled Tierra's new Quest for Glory 2 remake... it would be pointless as playing a remake of a game you never heard of!

As I understand it, all the graphic adventures by the company 'Sierra On-line' before they went VGA are game.  I'm suprised there aren't more remakes!  I'll do my part, and thanks to you guys who keep makin' 'em.

Back to the thread, I liked the original KQ1, so I liked the remake... it basically replaced all my memories of the original graphics.  Tierra made no mistakes in their remake and thus score 100% for achieving their goal!  :o

[Las Naranjas]

The hugo's remake was sorta different because it was playable to those who never played, or tried to play the original but couldn't [like myself].

It improved on gameplay, not just graphics, whereas the reviwers point in the first post of this thread is that KQVGA is completely cosmetically an improvement in nature, and that the inherent flaws have not been dealt with.

[Vel]

The best AGI games are Gold Rush and KQ3 IMO. KQ1, though, started it all.

[Nico]

What the hell does Chernobyl have to do with it? Idiot! Bad analogy...

Also, the reason why some people would rather play the remake than original is because original won't even run properly on newer systems and it looks ugly as hell. 'Nuff said.

(yea yea, I don't care how this post sounds, I don't post here anyway, so don't lecture me)

[Meowster]

Funny how we got all these once-off post newbies posting all of a sudden. Nearly suspicious.

Kings Quest was one of the most frustrating games ever, yet I loved it. I loved the atmosphere, I loved being chased, I loved the magic and the mystery. On the other hand, I hated dying because the main character sees fit to walk over the edge of a cliff like a lemming, or because of every other way you could die in a stupid and pointless manner. In the end, pure frustration won out and I stopped playing them, but I have to admit Kings Quest were excellent games, if you were patient and suicidal.

But being neither patient nor suicidal, I guess they never really appealed to me.

But since this was the style of the original game, it's kinda unfair to flame tierras remake because they stuck to the style and made it better. That's kinda like somebody releasing a bug-fix of Monkey Island 3, and then somebody complaining that their version has annoying voices.

But I know exactly what you mean

[deltamatrix]

I have to agree after reading this thread that KQ is crap!

When I first played it, I wasn't wowed at all and what sort of person would want to walk about in a charming valley full of peace and beauty and flower while having to dice with certain death over stupid annoying things.

If Sierra insisted on making KQ games so bloody frustrating in this way, the least they should have done is give you lives rather than just dieing instantly or DON'T DIE AT ALL! Just return to before you died like at the end of Full Throttle. That worked wonders but nooooo,
Sierra insists on making our computer games which we may like to use to escape the frightening and annoying things in life like work, taxes and bitchy girlfriends and anything else that causes frustation, frustrating.

KQ sucks! It might have been great at the time and amazing at the time which is why Sierra didn't bother to make the actual plot and game specticular. (It takes more to create an everlasting game like MI)
It has a boring basic plot ripped off mystery rhymes and bad gameplay and the walking speed is TOO SLOW! (The only thing KQ1VGA DID FIX)
The plot could have been written by a five year old and maybe Roberta DID write at that age.

Tierra can't be blamed for this mistakes though because there are some foundations you can't break in this case. If the remake didn't have that annoying moat at the castle, it wouldn't be much of a KQVGA remake. Sierra laid the foundations for the game and all Tierra could do was build it up according to their nasty rules to keep it a KQVGA.

Come to think of it. I think Tierra SHOULD have removed all the annoying death situations and have that as Royal Quest.