Adventure Game Studio

So, I guess people who follow Telltale announcements already knew they were making a Jurassic Park game. Today they announce (http://www.telltalegames.com/community/blogs/id-764) that they'll also be producing: The Walking Dead, Fables (both of these based on the comics), more Puzzle Agent, Hector: Badge of Carnage (in partnership with another studio), and finally... King's Quest!

They have of course already made Sam & Max, Monkey Island, Wallace & Gromit, Strong Bad/Homestar Runner, Bone and CSI games, as well as a couple of others, non-franchise titles.

Ummm... wow.

Very cool! I generally like Telltale's games, although they do seem to be missing the magic factor that made 90's adventure games so enjoyable. The graphics really need a bit more attention, the cartoony style they go for doesn't work with everything they do.

The press release seems to indicate that they got the rights to all of Sierra's games - let's hope more than just King's Quest is also on the way!

I have to admit a little concern.  While I think it's cool that Telltale is expanding and establishing adventures as a legit genre again, a couple of red flags get raised.

First of all, have they indicated the timeframe of when these projects will be released?  Back to the Future came out pretty quickly relative to its official announcement, and while I'm personally enjoying it, there's no denying that the games are somewhat buggy.  Telltale used to announce events where they would have regular fans come and test their games when they were doing Sam and Max, and those games were pretty polished.  It seems they're starting to focus more on quantity than on quality, which is a shame.

Second, Telltale doing King's Quest?  I really don't know what to think of that one.  A bunch of ex-LucasArts employees handling one of Sierra's most bland series (aside from KQ6) just seems like it could go either way.  But I guess we'll see what happens.

I've enjoyed all of Telltale's games so far, so I have faith in them, I just hope they don't get overwhelmed and allow their projects to suffer as a result.

Awesome news!

I don't know about this. Sam & Max has been Telltale at it's strongest so far, but everything else of theirs that I've played has been a bit..eh.

I'm still not feeling Telltale's approach to character design and graphics. It seems they've yet to find a great animator or a consistently strong character modeler (the animations in BTTF were fairly bland and strangely robotic, while the characters in the Jurassic Park trailer are somewhat lifeless ), and it seems like they'll be spreading whatever talent they do have even thinner; that's a lot of franchises in the hands of one developer.

But they can meet their release dates and turn a profit, so who can blame them?

I really would've liked to see some of those titles at another developer, just to see a fresh set of hands on them, though.

I hope the company isn't chewing more than they can swallow. I can imagine in the distant future that if these games do turn out to mildly successful than Activision will soon buyout Telltale and that usually is not a good thing either. But I cannot lie that im excited about the walking dead game!

Walking Dead by Telltale?  Sounds like a yawnfest to me.

Sounds like they are trying to expand but the quality may suffer as a result of the sheer amount of projects that they have going on.

As stated though, if they are successfully turning over a solid profit, I guess maybe that is the bottom line for them.

I'm not too worried about quality. Telltale is expanding for some time now, and actually I find the recent games of theirs much better than their first few offers.

I'm the most curious about what will come from those Sierra licenses, because it's like combining Sierra and LucasArts and also testing if there's still commercial value left in the likes of King's Quest.

Also Hector and Puzzle Agent get bonus points from me for being fresh concepts and not borrowed from comics/TV/movies.

I generally support Telltale because they seem to be the only mainstream adventure developers who give a shit about innovation - some of the game mechanics in Sam & Max season 3 were mindbogglingly refreshing. And they do release quality product, if perhaps lacking a certain je-ne-sais-quoi. Back to the Future didn't really turn out the way I'd wished - the story ideas they pitched in their pre-release survey were way more interesting than the generic cartoon gangster plot that seems to continue in episode 2, but hopefully Telltale have some surprises up their sleeve. The Sam & Max games had some pretty clever time travel and alternate reality puzzles so I hope there'll be some more going back and forth in time in the upcoming episodes.

I can't see myself getting excited about any of these new licenses though. Zombies? That's so last decade. Dinosaurs? Nah, not unless it's a remake of Trespasser. And bloody fucking King's Quest?!?! They seriously *pay* to use a concept that's entirely based around ripping off public domain fairy tales and mythology? Is the title really *that* much of a selling point? At least go with something that has a bit of personality to it, not a franchise where wearing a blue hat is considered a defining character trait.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Sun 20/02/2011 00:10:33Is the title really *that* much of a selling point?

Considering that a team of fifty-odd people worked almost for a decade on KQ9, I'd say that yes, yes it is, very much so.

Wanna bet that this KQ game of theirs will be a big hit, and that they'll try Space Quest next? Fans have been clamoring for ages for a sequel to that.

Quote from: Mods on Sun 20/02/2011 02:03:28My bottom line - f**k episodes. When as a kid did you ever buy & play an episodic game.

I pity the fool who missed Commander Keen, Epic Pinball, Duke Nukem and all the good old games from the shareware era. ;)

I assume the decision to focus on established licenses is a commercial strategy to reduce the risk. A built-in fan base guarantees a certain number of sales, and a recognizable name is easier to promote. That makes sense to me: when you're running a company that has to turn a profit, you have to consider the sales potential of what you produce.

I don't think working with well-known titles restricts their capability for creativity and originality that much. They are making new games, with new stories, new puzzles, and often new supporting characters. The King's Quest title really just means that it's going to be a fantasy game, and probably a semi-serious one suitable for all ages. (It would be curious if the license meant that they were partnering with or had bought Himalaya Studios, who still have another KQ remake in the pipeline. Doubt it, though.)

If they have ideas that don't fit into that formula, well, they can go into Fables (modern-day, mature fantasy) or BTTF, or The Walking Dead. By picking the franchises to work within, they have nearly unlimited freedom. That the company has specialized in adventure games probably restricts the game designers more than mostly staying away from original titles does.

I have to admit that I haven't fallen in love with any Telltale games so far. I started the Sam & Max and Monkey Island series, but they didn't really grab me, and I hated the UIs, so I never even completed the first episodes. There are those who think highly of them, though, and I've heard mostly good things about the later S&M titles in particular. The company is certainly full of talented people, and I'm glad to see a business model for slightly higher-profile commercial adventure games succeed.

If you don't like the episodic model, just wait until the season is complete and buy it as a bundle!

Oh, and Mods; I have no idea what you mean by... well, most of what you say. Telltale is pretty engaged with the fan base and adventure game community as far as I can tell. They're not around the AGS Forum because they don't work in AGS! Obviously. And to take for granted that a commercial producer of p&c adventures has "got it made" ignores that for the last decade, running a studio or publisher of adventure games has been a near certain way to lose money. Where is Microids, White Birds, Cing, Dreamcatcher/TAC, and not to forget Bad Brains today?

I guess what I'm saying is, you can like the games by Telltale or you can dislike them, but I see no need for resentment or actively wishing them bad luck.

To cut Telltale some slack, from what Dave Grossman says in his interviews they're aiming at popularizing adventure gaming among people who don't normally play games, but are suckers for good stories. That's evidently an additional reason for getting into the well known TV/movies/comics franchises (and Telltale's choices are pretty classy I'd say).

So even if Telltale's motivations are purely selfish and profit-driven, and their idea that you can make everything intuitive for everyone is misguided, the aforementioned goal of theirs is still after my own heart. I do very much miss the times when the obvious choice for a new Indiana Jones game was the adventure game format.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 10:12:35
I don't think working with well-known titles restricts their capability for creativity and originality that much. They are making new games, with new stories, new puzzles, and often new supporting characters. The King's Quest title really just means that it's going to be a fantasy game, and probably a semi-serious one suitable for all ages.

Well, sure, in theory, but it still affects creativity and how the company looks in an unpleasant way. It maybe not a grave wrong decision, especially considering that there is a relatively big King's Quest fanbase but it's still a strikingly ridiculous decision since the said fanbase is the sole possible reason anyone would make a King's Quest game today. Because no one gives a toss about KQ except KQ fans, in fact no one ever has. It has zero appeal on its own for anybody unfamiliar with it. And bearing what you've said in mind it raises the issue Grundislav mentioned even higher: why King's Quest, indeed one of the blandest Sierra series except from part six? Why not play with something tasty like Gabriel Knight franchise or Space Quest? I kinda don't see that as a very inspiring premise for making "new stories and new games". It's either way too careful approach or a completely idiotic one. And well, sure, either isn't a crime, i wish them luck and whatever, but i can't help but like developers who act more clever and brave much much more.

Having said that, it'd be very amusing to watch how it goes i suppose.

I don't really understand any part of your argument, Nemo. The big KQ fanbase is surely a good reason in itself to consider it for a revival. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if many of the people at Telltale count themselves among those fans, either.

I also don't agree that King's Quest is any less appealing than any other title for people who aren't already fans. You might just as well say that no one gives a toss about Space Quest other than SQ fans, or about Gabriel Knight other than GK fans. It's true of anything pretty much by definition.

One of the appealing things about KQ for a developer studio with their own ideas must be that it's so open. If you were to make another Gabriel Knight game, you'd pretty much have to imitate Jane Jensen. KQ is essentially just a fantasy setting, and fantasy settings are popular among gamers in general and adventure gamers in particular. And it comes with a pretty recognizable and well-regarded name (kind of like "Final Fantasy"), which should help attract new players.

It all comes down to what they do with it. Just because you think Sierra's King's Quest games were bland doesn't in any way imply Telltale will make a bland game, just as them picking an - in your opinion - more distinguished series wouldn't in any way guarantee they'd make something interesting. They chose a classic series with high name-recognition, a large and devoted fan base, a premise with wide appeal, and the opportunity to put their own stamp on the games they make. I fail to see how that's in any way idiotic.

At the same time, they're now in charge of the original graphic adventure series, which was the flagship of one the biggest adventure game studios throughout its existence. That's a pretty heavy responsibility. So I also fail to see how they're being over-cautious.

Personally I'm not really interested in a game franchise just because it bears a certain title. If the game is good I'm interested, if not then I don't care. I'll follow creators whose work I like more than I'll follow series.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31
I don't really understand any part of your argument, Nemo. The big KQ fanbase is surely a good reason in itself to consider it for a revival.

Oh? Out of pity for the said fanbase? :P

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31
I also don't agree that King's Quest is any less appealing than any other title for people who aren't already fans. You might just as well say that no one gives a toss about Space Quest other than SQ fans, or about Gabriel Knight other than GK fans. It's true of anything pretty much by definition.

Not really. Imagine yourself describing GK1 to a friend who doesn't know anything about the game in order to recommend it to them. Now try imagining doing the same with KQ1. Not the same picture, is it? When describing GK you can point out many positive and unique pros, quite appealing to anybody interested in adventure games. With KQ you'll have to go with various synonims to "generic fantasy", "epic quest" and so on. So you can't say that it's the same for people who aren't familiar with it, it's not even closely true.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31One of the appealing things about KQ for a developer studio with their own ideas must be that it's so open. If you were to make another Gabriel Knight game, you'd pretty much have to imitate Jane Jensen.

Yes, that's a safe approach. And while it can be reasonable (and it obviously is) for the developer as a player I feel disappointed and betrayed, because I'd definitely prefer to see an ambitious attempt to at least imitate Jensen than watch somebody trying to stop KQ being boring completely unappealing to me series.


 

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31And it comes with a pretty recognizable and well-regarded name (kind of like "Final Fantasy"), which should help attract new players.

For ignorant people maybe. Because I don't know what kind of well-regarded name King's Quest is if you consider that at the time the series were out there were almost countless numbers of much better fantasy adventures.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31It all comes down to what they do with it. Just because you think Sierra's King's Quest games were bland doesn't in any way imply Telltale will make a bland game, just as them picking an - in your opinion - more distinguished series wouldn't in any way guarantee they'd make something interesting. They chose a classic series with high name-recognition, a large and devoted fan base, a premise with wide appeal, and the opportunity to put their own stamp on the games they make. I fail to see how that's in any way idiotic.

Well, it'd make a good point if you completely exclude the creative aspect of creativity whatsoever. Sure you can make great original game and then pretend it's just another Monkey Island spin-off. But that's not how you make great art and that's not how you handle it. I'm not saying it's idiotic from commercial point of view, you have a valid point here, but from artistic point picking some old forgotten concept without any advantages over something original is surely idiotic. There's nothing about King's Quest that would make your game better if you base it on it. So from the point of creativity it's absolutely nonsensical to reach back for it and use it in the game just so it's there. So I think your defense of their approach isn't entirely valid.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31At the same time, they're now in charge of the original graphic adventure series, which was the flagship of one the biggest adventure game studios throughout its existence. That's a pretty heavy responsibility. So I also fail to see how they're being over-cautious.

Oh what a responsibility. Oh come on. Try and prove that King's Quest had or has any real impact on adventure gaming or any importance aside from the very first moments when it was amongst "omg first graphical adventures". Whatever happens to their KQ everyone will just laugh for a bit and walk away. Silver lining didn't shake the gaming society, did it? Now Gray Matter release was a big deal. Actually, even it wasn't big enough deal it should've been, but anyway the point is - Jane Jensen is legendary for a reason. King's Quest is legendary too, but there's no real reason, it's just a long-going series, like Nancy Drew. It just happened to be in a spotlight for a while, because of good marketing maybe, I don't know. It's only legendary as a historical artifact, like something that represents a certain kind of game, marks its existence, not as a timeless exemplar that represents it really well. So from gamer's point of view, it's close to worthless.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 20/02/2011 21:11:31
Personally I'm not really interested in a game franchise just because it bears a certain title. If the game is good I'm interested, if not then I don't care. I'll follow creators whose work I like more than I'll follow series.

Well, I just care for good games too, so it's funny we seem to be on some kind of opposite sides here. :)

Now to be entirely honest I must argument a bit against myself. Because King's Quest 6 actually demonstrates that what you said can actually happen. So it can happen again. But you know, then again, as a player, after I play this good King's Quest i'd still wonder why did they have to make it a KQ game instead of just making a fantasy adventure. Or some other kind of adventure. But you probably won't care it all if the game is enjoyable. So, I'm obviously pressing quite a subjective point here. And here I admit that. And you know, personally and subjectively I feel ten times more excited about a game with an interesting description than about another "hey let's revive some more old cult classics".

QuoteOh, and Mods; I have no idea what you mean by... well, most of what you say.

My bad, just a drunken rant really. I think it's best I just get on and play BTTF. I'm looking forward to JP, so I guess I can't complain :)

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Sun 20/02/2011 22:25:36
Oh? Out of pity for the said fanbase? :P

Because people will want to play it. And yeah, sure, to make a group of fans happy.

QuoteNot really. Imagine yourself describing GK1 to a friend who doesn't know anything about the game in order to recommend it to them. Now try imagining doing the same with KQ1. Not the same picture, is it? When describing GK you can point out many positive and unique pros, quite appealing to anybody interested in adventure games. With KQ you'll have to go with various synonims to "generic fantasy", "epic quest" and so on. So you can't say that it's the same for people who aren't familiar with it, it's not even closely true.

I actually don't particularly rate Gabriel Knight, so apart from "has more talking" and "main character is a dick", I probably would describe the series in similar terms, yeah. (Obviously I wouldn't compare KQ1, from 1984, to GK1, from 1993. If anything, KQ6 would be the fair comparison.)

QuoteYes, that's a safe approach. And while it can be reasonable (and it obviously is) for the developer as a player I feel disappointed and betrayed, because I'd definitely prefer to see an ambitious attempt to at least imitate Jensen than watch somebody trying to stop KQ being boring completely unappealing to me series.

You're not making any argument here beyond "I don't like King's Quest, so Telltale are poopyheads for wanting to make more King's Quest games." Which is fine, as long as you don't try to present it as some objective analysis of the artistic and commercial wisdom of their decision.

QuoteFor ignorant people maybe. Because I don't know what kind of well-regarded name King's Quest is if you consider that at the time the series were out there were almost countless numbers of much better fantasy adventures.

The mere fact that KQ has a large fan base shows that it's well-regarded. Also, I'm pretty sure it was Sierra's highest-selling series for most of the company's history.

Some would argue that Quest for Glory and Kyrandia are better fantasy adventures than KQ. Others would disagree. I can't really think of any other plausible candidates, so I question your "almost countless numbers."

QuoteWell, it'd make a good point if you completely exclude the creative aspect of creativity whatsoever. Sure you can make great original game and then pretend it's just another Monkey Island spin-off. But that's not how you make great art and that's not how you handle it. I'm not saying it's idiotic from commercial point of view, you have a valid point here, but from artistic point picking some old forgotten concept without any advantages over something original is surely idiotic. There's nothing about King's Quest that would make your game better if you base it on it. So from the point of creativity it's absolutely nonsensical to reach back for it and use it in the game just so it's there. So I think your defense of their approach isn't entirely valid.

Oh no! The way Telltale is producing their next adventure game is not how you make great art! Now how will we ever prove Ebert wrong?!

Or in other words: So effing what?

If they have their own original ideas, so that they don't need to buy them along with a franchise license, what do we care if they put the King's Quest label on them? Or if they see something in KQ that inspires them or is worth building on?

It's hard to see any way that using the KQ license will make for a poorer game.

QuoteOh what a responsibility. Oh come on. Try and prove that King's Quest had or has any real impact on adventure gaming or any importance aside from the very first moments when it was amongst "omg first graphical adventures".

That's a breathtakingly ignorant statement. As any history of the genre will tell you, the King's Quest series introduced a long series of innovations in adventure games, and each installment pretty much set the technical standard for its generation of games. King's Quest games were the first to use sound cards, the first major VGA adventure, the first to use the modern point&click (not the windowing UI of Deja Vu) and Sierra multi-cursor interface, the first to be fully voiced, and so on. They introduced the first female protagonist in a graphic adventure (in fact, KQ must have been one of the first adventure games where you play as a defined character of any kind, rather than as an anonymous player avatar), day/night cycles, quest point scores, etc. And for a long time they pretty much defined what a graphic adventure game was, setting the standard that others imitated or tried to distinguish themselves from.

QuoteWhatever happens to their KQ everyone will just laugh for a bit and walk away. Silver lining didn't shake the gaming society, did it? Now Gray Matter release was a big deal. Actually, even it wasn't big enough deal it should've been, but anyway the point is - Jane Jensen is legendary for a reason.

Silver Lining was an amateur effort, and was treated accordingly. Though I would point out that even to this day, the AGDI KQ remakes are probably some of the highest-profile AGS titles out there. And like you say, Gray Matter was a big deal to a tiny group of die-hard Jane Jensen fans, and not something anyone else gave much of a toss about.

There is certainly a limit to how big a deal the revival of a classic adventure game license can be, but to the average gamer I would say this is about on par with Telltale making new Monkey Island adventures. (Though unless they get at least one Williams on board, it's not quite the same.)

QuoteKing's Quest is legendary too, but there's no real reason, it's just a long-going series, like Nancy Drew. It just happened to be in a spotlight for a while, because of good marketing maybe, I don't know. It's only legendary as a historical artifact, like something that represents a certain kind of game, marks its existence, not as a timeless exemplar that represents it really well. So from gamer's point of view, it's close to worthless.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. See above. It didn't just "happen" to be popular. KQ always tried to push the boundaries and do something new, particularly in technical terms. Usually that means it did it first, and often that means it didn't perhaps do it best. But that reputation for always being the shiniest, most cutting-edge title out there, games that did things no one had seen before, was one of the big factors in creating the golden age of adventure games, and one of the reasons it is still remembered.

Now, I'm not particularly a fan of KQ, but I don't think the games I've played in the series are really any weaker than other games from the same period either. A lot of the issues simply stem from how old they are, and are not going to be relevant for the new installments. Telltale obviously aren't going to return to sudden deaths and dead ends, or a crappy parser, or even to barely motivated fetch quests that take up the whole game. Similarly, if they were making a GK game I wouldn't worry about ill-conceived motion capture, trial-and-error timed survival puzzles, or a stupid number of cursor modes, you know? (Exceedingly far-fetched puzzles might be a concern, on the other hand...)

QuoteNow to be entirely honest I must argument a bit against myself. Because King's Quest 6 actually demonstrates that what you said can actually happen. So it can happen again. But you know, then again, as a player, after I play this good King's Quest i'd still wonder why did they have to make it a KQ game instead of just making a fantasy adventure. Or some other kind of adventure. But you probably won't care it all if the game is enjoyable. So, I'm obviously pressing quite a subjective point here. And here I admit that. And you know, personally and subjectively I feel ten times more excited about a game with an interesting description than about another "hey let's revive some more old cult classics".

Let me point out that we haven't seen a description of the game yet, so there's no way to tell whether that description will be interesting. If you're not interested, just ignore it. Every game isn't meant to appeal to every player, so just because it sounds boring to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be made. And if you do end up liking it, may I suggest you take the attitude of "Finally a King's Quest game I can enjoy!" rather than "Damn! Why did they have to make this game that I like a King's Quest title."

Quote from: Mods on Sun 20/02/2011 23:39:29

QuoteOh, and Mods; I have no idea what you mean by... well, most of what you say.

My bad, just a drunken rant really. I think it's best I just get on and play BTTF. I'm looking forward to JP, so I guess I can't complain :)

Haha, I kind of figured.  ;)

I've put in a lot of words defending a company and a franchise that I'm honestly pretty indifferent to. It's unlikely that I'll play Telltale's King's Quest. And I certainly agree with Grundislav that the whole thing could go horribly wrong or simply underwhelm. I guess it just annoys me whenever people have a go at creators for making the game they're making, rather than some completely other game.

Criticize the execution or argue how certain creative choices were not for the best, sure. But it's their game, and they get to decide what it is. If that's not a game you want to play, then don't. And if no one is making the game you want them to make, you'll probably have to do it yourself.

Don't get me wrong, when I said it could go either way I wasn't stopping at underwhelming.  For all we know they might take the King's Quest universe and craft an amazing story out of it.

I know a lot of people didn't care for Tales of Monkey Island, but I though it was a pretty amazing feat that Telltale took what had essentially been 4 games of "Guybrush needs to save Elaine and defeat LeChuck" and gave it a little drama and history, all the while making it still feel like Monkey Island.

Spoiler

I mean, they killed off the main character, something the old Monkey Island games only joked about! Plus they added some intrigue with the Voodoo Lady being behind the scenes and had some genuine dramatic emotional moments.

[close]

Anyway, we'll see how it goes.

Quote from: Grundislav on Mon 21/02/2011 01:05:46

Spoiler

I mean, they killed off the main character, something the old Monkey Island games only joked about!

[close]

Spoiler

What they did in TOMI is they pretty much turned death in the MI universe into something easily cured. That doesn't make for such great drama. It fact it awfully cheapens death.

Personally I was more impressed by the musical number in COMI than by all the attempts at plot twists in EFMI and TOMI. But still that was a cool cliff-hanger in episode 4 - way to finish a Monkey Island playing session!

Oh, and Guybrush could already die in Secret of Monkey Island and it was a more permanent state then.

[close]

Spoiler

I thought death was already pretty easily cured in MI, what with LeChuck coming back EVERY SINGLE GAME

[close]

I'm amazed at what Telltale are doing, really. Personally, I'd like to see them put out one big full-length game now that they clearly have the staff but I've enjoyed their efforts despite not playing too many. (ToMI, S&M and W&G) They're spreading themselves quite widely.

It's hard for me to judge King's Quest as a series beause I was born too late to really see them in context. It gives us hope that TellTale could make some awesome Space Quest games though!

Quote from: Jared on Mon 21/02/2011 07:49:46

Spoiler

I thought death was already pretty easily cured in MI, what with LeChuck coming back EVERY SINGLE GAME

[close]

Spoiler

The important difference being LeChuck is the series' main villain. And underdog heroes like Guybrush fighting all-powerful villains is what fantasy fiction is all about. Also, LeChuck paid the price for being brought back to life - he's ugly, rotten, and possibly sold his soul to some dark gods. Guybrush being revived, completely healed, and even getting a perfectly healthy body again is a cheesy deus ex machina ending that weakens all that happened before, as well as the importance of death in the Monkey Island universe.

[close]

Quote from: Ascovel on Mon 21/02/2011 12:34:35

Quote from: Jared on Mon 21/02/2011 07:49:46

Spoiler

I thought death was already pretty easily cured in MI, what with LeChuck coming back EVERY SINGLE GAME

[close]

Spoiler

The important difference being LeChuck is the series' main villain. And underdog heroes like Guybrush fighting all-powerful villains is what fantasy fiction is all about. Also, LeChuck paid the price for being brought back to life - he's ugly, rotten, and possibly sold his soul to some dark gods. Guybrush being revived, completely healed, and even getting a perfectly healthy body again is a cheesy deus ex machina ending that weakens all that happened before, as well as the importance of death in the Monkey Island universe.

[close]

Well,

Spoiler

isn't it more that they're both being manipulated by the Voodoo Lady - who Telltale seemed to make out to be the real villain of the series?

[close]

But anyway, should be interesting to see what they do with the old Sierra stuff.

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Sun 20/02/2011 22:25:36
For ignorant people maybe. Because I don't know what kind of well-regarded name King's Quest is if you consider that at the time the series were out there were almost countless numbers of much better fantasy adventures.

Such as?

I finally played the Back to the Future game. I actually enjoyed it and I can't believe how much he sounded like young Mikael J Fox.

The user interface is quite clunky. I hated how you control the character to walk or run around. The inventory menu sucked badly too. The user interface was definitely poorly designed and harder than it needed to be. You can't even examine an inventory item without clicking that tiny little magnifying lens.

This is the only game I've ever played by Telltale games, but honestly, I think they 'might' have what it takes to improve Kings Quest. But the games themselves were quite boring as they were.

I'm a little worried about them doing The Walking Dead though.

It might be worth pointing out that according to AdventureGamers, Telltale has made a deal with Activision to license several of the Sierra franchises, and King's Quest is just the first one out the gate:

"Telltale has entered into an agreement with Activision, current owner of the rights to the classic Sierra On-Line adventure franchises, to create new episodic games based on these series. The first will be King’s Quest."

If that is correct, and KQ doesn't bomb, we might expect to see some of the other "Quests" resurrected as well.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29
I actually don't particularly rate Gabriel Knight, so apart from "has more talking" and "main character is a dick", I probably would describe the series in similar terms, yeah. (Obviously I wouldn't compare KQ1, from 1984, to GK1, from 1993. If anything, KQ6 would be the fair comparison.)

It has some advantages over an average adventure game, like originality, good intriguing premise and good design and writing, but if you choose to ignore it, ok.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29You're not making any argument here beyond "I don't like King's Quest, so Telltale are poopyheads for wanting to make more King's Quest games."

Yup, pretty much. Though if i subjectively don't like KQ it doesn't mean there're no reasons for that. Which means that these reasons could be applied to other people, not all of course, but still.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29The mere fact that KQ has a large fan base shows that it's well-regarded. Also, I'm pretty sure it was Sierra's highest-selling series for most of the company's history.

Some would argue that Quest for Glory and Kyrandia are better fantasy adventures than KQ. Others would disagree. I can't really think of any other plausible candidates, so I question your "almost countless numbers."

Yeah, but some games are well-regarded even outside of their fanbase. Is King's Quest? Ooo, doubt that. I never heard a wide-taste experienced gamer say "surely i prefer well-written RPGs with dozens of choices and consequences but hey, remember KQ? i miss that".
Almost every decent fantasy adventure of the time feels like a better one. Kyrandia series, Simon the sorcerer, Death Gate, Eric the unready, Companions of Xanth, Goblins series, Dragonsphere... I feel like I've forgotten something but meh, it's not about quantity, is it?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29Or in other words: So effing what?

It's not about maintaining "art" status of course. It's primarily about being entertained. And I'm concerned about being properly entertained. In my own subjective weird way.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29It's hard to see any way that using the KQ license will make for a poorer game.

*sigh* Well, if it really really inspires them then yeah, sure.
But you know, it's not my fault that i've witnesses great games sprouting from bold and risky original ideas more often than from attempts of ressurecting old stuff that was forgotten for a good reason.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29That's a breathtakingly ignorant statement.

Haha! Alright, it may be incorrect to a certain, quite big degree but it surely isn't ignorant since I'm far from being unfamiliar with old games of the time. So it wasn't wild guessing, but my own analysis of what i saw. And looking back at them I find it hard to really see in good games of the era some major inspirations that could be attributed to King's Quest. Especially if you shift from technical-related ones. You may be correct about KQ first using VGA graphics but so what? It's not like without KQ nobody would figure out that they can make VGA adventures. And more importantly the innovations you're talking about are about are more purely technical, while in the terms of content and design, well pretty much everything had their own way, as you put it "tried to distinguish themselves from". And I wouldn't be so kind to attribute every difference and every invention of every classic adventure game to King's Quest as something they tried to distinguish themselves from. Obviously I want to make a better game than an average Nancy Drew episode but it doesn't mean I'm heavily influenced by Nancy Drew.

And oh by the way, an example of a graphical adventure with a female protagonist before KQ4: http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit (http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit)

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29And like you say, Gray Matter was a big deal to a tiny group of die-hard Jane Jensen fans, and not something anyone else gave much of a toss about.

Not in the slightest. You seem to completely miss my point about some games being important outside of a specific fanbase. Gray Matter was a big deal to everybody who cared to notice a great game, made by Jensen or not. And so I can easily recommend it to anyone as such.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29Usually that means it did it first, and often that means it didn't perhaps do it best.

Wow, that's exactly my point!

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29But that reputation for always being the shiniest, most cutting-edge title out there, games that did things no one had seen before, was one of the big factors in creating the golden age of adventure games, and one of the reasons it is still remembered.

It's almost assuming that without KQ we wouldn't have what we do. But it'd be only true if KQ was unique in any other way than being there first in technical sense. And why couldn't adventure games draw inspiration from non-adventure titles anyway?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29Now, I'm not particularly a fan of KQ, but I don't think the games I've played in the series are really any weaker than other games from the same period either.

So you're saying adventure games from first half of 90s are just as good as KQ series? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, okay.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29A lot of the issues simply stem from how old they are,

Now that's ignorance on your part. I fail to see how age is relevant design-wise. We're still yet to see adventure game that top stuff that Legend entertainment did back then in terms of quality gamedesign.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29Let me point out that we haven't seen a description of the game yet, so there's no way to tell whether that description will be interesting.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29If you're not interested, just ignore it.

Oh, I am interested because I think that reviving King's Quest in 2011 is freaking hilarious.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29Every game isn't meant to appeal to every player, so just because it sounds boring to you doesn't mean it shouldn't be made.

Well, that's kinda obvious. But i tried to make a point here about that it seemed to be a sad waste of time not that i personally really mind them making it because it ruins my day or something. As i said in the end i rather find it amusing.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29And if you do end up liking it, may I suggest you take the attitude of "Finally a King's Quest game I can enjoy!" rather than "Damn! Why did they have to make this game that I like a King's Quest title."

We'll see, we'll see. Maybe I'll take both :D

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Mon 21/02/2011 18:28:38
And oh by the way, an example of a graphical adventure with a female protagonist before KQ4: http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit (http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit)

Completely off-topic but that site has the funniest game description text I've ever read.  Amelie is a "blonde hardworker" and has to do her "female mission in one hour."

Anyway, regarding the Telltale thing.  I've always been very impressed with everything they've made.  The third Sam & Max season alone had more clever gameplay mechanics than any game I've played in years.  They've really put the finger on what makes adventure games fun, as well as what makes them commercially viable.  KQ has the potential to be both.  I don't see a cerebral game like Gabriel Knight working for them as much.  It would have to be watered down significantly.  At least, it would be to fit TT's market strategy.  Hopefully one day they'll grow confident enough to tackle something like Gabe, or even an original IP.

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Mon 21/02/2011 18:28:38

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29You're not making any argument here beyond "I don't like King's Quest, so Telltale are poopyheads for wanting to make more King's Quest games."

Yup, pretty much. Though if i subjectively don't like KQ it doesn't mean there're no reasons for that. Which means that these reasons could be applied to other people, not all of course, but still.

Yeah, but some games are well-regarded even outside of their fanbase. Is King's Quest? Ooo, doubt that. I never heard a wide-taste experienced gamer say "surely i prefer well-written RPGs with dozens of choices and consequences but hey, remember KQ? i miss that".

You've made it very clear that you don't like KQ, but you're making the mistake of assuming that that means other people don't like it either. The simple truth is that KQ were very popular at the time, and are generally fondly remembered to this day. It has quite a large committed fanbase (witness all the fan remakes as well as Silver Lining), a good number of more casual "fans" (people who liked it and might buy a new game in the series), and as far as I can tell both high name-recognition and a decent reputation among players who've heard of it but never played it.

QuoteAlmost every decent fantasy adventure of the time feels like a better one. Kyrandia series, Simon the sorcerer, Death Gate, Eric the unready, Companions of Xanth, Goblins series, Dragonsphere... I feel like I've forgotten something but meh, it's not about quantity, is it?

QuoteSo you're saying adventure games from first half of 90s are just as good as KQ series? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, okay.

Those aren't really "of the time". They all came out after KQ6, the last major title in the series (KQ7 didn't make much impact, though IMO it's pretty good, and Mask of Eternity doesn't count). And KQ6 stands up quite well in comparison, doesn't it?

I'm saying that KQ1 is as good as any other graphic adventure from 1984 or so, and that the series up to KQ4 compares well to other adventure games of the late 80s. KQ5 I haven't played (and I've heard it's one of the weaker entries), but KQ6 is an early 90s classic, and like I said I think KQ7 is pretty good too (and the production values were very good for its time).

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29A lot of the issues simply stem from how old they are,

Now that's ignorance on your part. I fail to see how age is relevant design-wise. We're still yet to see adventure game that top stuff that Legend entertainment did back then in terms of quality gamedesign.

Now that's a more relevant comparison. I've tried a few of the Legend games (some of the Spellcasters, Gateway and maybe Shannara, though those came later), and my experience was that they were very forbidding, with complex and confusing interfaces, unhelpful introductions, nothing to hook your interest... and generally not much fun off the bat. There might be some good games there once you get past all those problems, but just for being immediately accessible to the general player I would rank KQ above them. They are more illustrated text-adventures than real graphic adventures, and as such have completely different constraints from the Sierra games. Sure, they could do more complex things with gameplay and story, but it was primarily told through text rather than as something you experienced directly, and the controls had all the excitement of a spreadsheet. (I don't remember: Did you have to do your own mapping? I never again want to play a game where I have to draw a map based on text description.)

Quote*sigh* Well, if it really really inspires them then yeah, sure.
But you know, it's not my fault that i've witnesses great games sprouting from bold and risky original ideas more often than from attempts of ressurecting old stuff that was forgotten for a good reason.

I would actually say that the VGA-style remake of KQ2 is one the best fantasy adventure games I've ever played, so I see definite potential. Anyway, this is Telltale we're talking about, and they clearly prefer to work on established franchises. According to people who've played more of their games, like Dave Gilbert here, this doesn't stop them from doing clever and innovative things.

QuoteHaha! Alright, it may be incorrect to a certain, quite big degree but it surely isn't ignorant since I'm far from being unfamiliar with old games of the time. So it wasn't wild guessing, but my own analysis of what i saw. And looking back at them I find it hard to really see in good games of the era some major inspirations that could be attributed to King's Quest. Especially if you shift from technical-related ones. You may be correct about KQ first using VGA graphics but so what? It's not like without KQ nobody would figure out that they can make VGA adventures.

QuoteIt's almost assuming that without KQ we wouldn't have what we do. But it'd be only true if KQ was unique in any other way than being there first in technical sense. And why couldn't adventure games draw inspiration from non-adventure titles anyway?

You can't just dismiss the technical leadership. Sure, the technology would have advanced either way, but without Sierra and KQ there's no guarantee that adventure games would have led it.

In the late 80s, turn of the 90s, bells and whistles like better graphics and sound card support were really impressive, and one of the main things people bought computer games for (kind of like 3D graphics were for the 90s and at least the first half of the 00s). One of the things that made adventure games so popular was that they were the cutting edge: they looked better and sounded better than any other games, and you could show off way cool intros and effects. Sierra was the clear leader in this race (which took a fair bit of money and resources, for the time), and KQ was their flagship and showcase. King's Quest made adventure games significant in a way that they have probably never been since.

By the criteria of the times, the KQ titles were great adventure games.

QuoteAnd more importantly the innovations you're talking about are about are more purely technical, while in the terms of content and design, well pretty much everything had their own way, as you put it "tried to distinguish themselves from". And I wouldn't be so kind to attribute every difference and every invention of every classic adventure game to King's Quest as something they tried to distinguish themselves from. Obviously I want to make a better game than an average Nancy Drew episode but it doesn't mean I'm heavily influenced by Nancy Drew.

The most obvious example of games that patterned themselves after KQ are... all the other Sierra series. And Kyrandia was a very conscious KQ-clone (with the benefit of more advanced technology and some gameplay principles borrowed from LucasArts). The main point of departure from the Sierra model came with Ron Gilbert's manifesto/design principles, embodied in Monkey Island, which he arrived at after an analysis of Sierra games (as well as reflecting on his own Maniac Mansion).

QuoteAnd oh by the way, an example of a graphical adventure with a female protagonist before KQ4: http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit (http://www.mobygames.com/game/cpc/amelie-minuit)

OK, so one game that was apparently only released in France. An adventure game starring a heroine was seen as groundbreaking at the time.

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29And like you say, Gray Matter was a big deal to a tiny group of die-hard Jane Jensen fans, and not something anyone else gave much of a toss about.

Not in the slightest. You seem to completely miss my point about some games being important outside of a specific fanbase. Gray Matter was a big deal to everybody who cared to notice a great game, made by Jensen or not. And so I can easily recommend it to anyone as such.

As far as I can tell, you're saying it was a big deal because you say it was a big deal (which is because you personally like it). I've not seen anyone seriously argue that Gray Matter is an important or significant release unless you're a die-hard Jensen fan, the way something like Heavy Rain was.

Ultimately, the question of whether the Sierra KQ games were any good is subjective. It's not even that I disagree very strongly with your opinion: I wouldn't rank (most of) them all that high myself. But it doesn't really matter, because Telltale aren't Sierra, and they aren't going to be making those games that didn't impress us. What we'll get are new installments drawing on their talents, based on their own understanding of what makes a good adventure game, and (I assume) using modern design principles. Whether the new KQ episodes are any good is up to Telltale, not to any inherent property of the... property.

What is not so subjective is that the KQ games are a significant series of adventure games, that they haven't been forgotten (at least not compared to most other adventure games), and that they are still relevant for adventure gamers. That makes it an obvious target for revival.

I don't understand why are you arguing so intensely about this, but Nemo has got a point. KQ is both the best recognized as well as  the most bland of Sierra's franchises. I don't know a single game critic who gives a toss about the original titles and barely any gamers who do. Yet GK, Larry, Quest for Glory, SQ keep being eagerly discussed everywhere, and everyone wishes for sequels to them.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10
As far as I can tell, you're saying it was a big deal because you say it was a big deal (which is because you personally like it). I've not seen anyone seriously argue that Gray Matter is an important or significant release unless you're a die-hard Jensen fan, the way something like Heavy Rain was.

Depends on what you mean by important or significant. If Gray Matter is a success and Jensen will be able to get back to adventure gaming business for good, it's much more significant to all of us here than Heavy Rain's mass-market success. Regardless, if we're personally fond of Jensen's work or not.

Same goes for Telltale's KQ actually, but I think if it sells it will be more because of Telltale's reputation and not KQ's.

I don't have anything against KQ myself, but you'd have a hard time to find someone who really enjoyed a game in the series other than KQ VI or AGDI's remakes. In fact AGDI might have considerably redeemed the originals.

Quote from: Ascovel on Mon 21/02/2011 23:05:34
I don't understand why are you arguing so intensely about this, but Nemo has got a point. KQ is both the best recognized as well as  the most bland of Sierra's franchises. I don't know a single game critic who gives a toss about the original titles and barely any gamers who do. Yet GK, Larry, Quest for Glory, SQ keep being eagerly discussed everywhere, and everyone wishes for sequels to them.

Oh, you know, "Someone is wrong on the Internet!"
Like I mentioned before, it's mainly my annoyance with people who set up their own tastes as the authoritative rule for which games ought and ought not to be made.

I've come across a lot of KQ fans and people who are fondly inclined towards the series. (More so in America than in Europe, which leans more heavily towards LucasArts, in my experience.) And I don't really think the adventure game fan communities are all that representative of the overall audience, anyway.

QuoteDepends on what you mean by important or significant. If Gray Matter is a success and Jensen will be able to get back to adventure gaming business for good, it's much more significant to all of us here than Heavy Rain's mass-market success. Regardless, if we're personally fond of Jensen's work or not.

If one doesn't care about Jensen's work, why would her return to the industry be significant?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 23:44:08
If one doesn't care about Jensen's work, why would her return to the industry be significant?

The same reason recent return to the genre by Tim Schafer (and supposedly Ron Gilbert too) is significant, and all the Monkey Island releases in the 2 past years. It catches everyone's attention and carries the message "Adventure Games Sell". That impacts everything in the genre, including how freeware adventures are perceived.

I read the whole announcement e-mail pretty much aghast at how they could take on so much work (although I suspect some of these projects might be functioning more as pilots than anything)but I'm firmly in the yaysayers boat as I dig Telltale and I think they're completely successful at what they do (ie, chuck a few hours of easygoing entertainment the way of poor schmoes like me every month). I thought all the Sam & Max's were great and Tales Of Monkey Island was... aaahhh... I loved it, I worry because I feel like the first couple of episodes seemed to prove everything the cynics were saying right; it wasn't that funny, the graphics were bland, the puzzles weren't very solid but by the end it was a masterpiece! A high point of the whole franchise! It was all I could do not to hulk out and snap my keyboard in half as I howled "I want mooooooore!" to the moon.

That's where I think the BTTF games are going, the first couple of episodes (I haven't played the second one yet) will be finding their feet, rough around the edges but by about episode four it'll be something special.

KEEP THE FAITH!

As an addendum: I see no reason Jenson couldn't pen an episodic adventure game, the Gabriel Knight's all had a chapter-based structure. If their Kings Quest revival goes down well they should give her a call.

I never liked or had much respect for the King's Quest series, mainly because it showed so little respect for the player with all the trial and error deaths and just Sierra's general sadism model of design.

That said, I'm not terribly surprised Telltale is double dipping into the old adventure library.  They tackled Lucasarts mainly because of Dave Grossman, but now they've got the resources to profit from reviving some Sierra titles so why shouldn't they?

My only issue, and one that surprises me, is their sudden expansion in light of the rather limited audience and the economic situation.  I would have figured they would secure a few sure-sell titles (like BTTF) and focus primarily on those to see them through the downturn.  This rapid expansion of titles could either really benefit them or stretch Telltale too thin, so I'll just wait and see how some of these titles turn out.

Based on some of the negativity on their official forums surrounding Jurassic Park, I think there's considerable pressure being put on them to switch from the Telltale tool to something that can support higher graphic quality with more flexibility in gameplay.  I'm not terribly impressed with their listed approach, where you just quick travel between quicktime segments.  Sounds pretty boring to me, but that's as much a result of the limitations of the engine as it is their paying lip service to Heavy Rain, which JP seems set up to be a much inferior copycat of.

My hope is that eventually Dave Grossman will come to his senses and license a more powerful engine and start committing to different gameplay models other than adventure.  The Walking Dead as a walk-and-solve?  Pass.  Jurassic Park as a really dumbed-down Heavy Rain (with no ability to walk around the environments!?).  Pass.

These could have easily have been hits for me with a better engine and some attention to the action aspects INHERENT in both franchises.  

Oh well, there are people who will still play these even if they're reduced to Dragon's Lair style controls.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. New King's Quest? Yes please. Telltale will receive my dollars.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10but you're making the mistake of assuming that that means other people don't like it either. The simple truth is that KQ were very popular at the time, and are generally fondly remembered to this day. It has quite a large committed fanbase (witness all the fan remakes as well as Silver Lining), a good number of more casual "fans" (people who liked it and might buy a new game in the series), and as far as I can tell both high name-recognition and a decent reputation among players who've heard of it but never played it.

I never said that no one likes it, i admitted the existence of KQ fanbase since i mentioned it first, didn't i? What i assume is that that fanbase is very limited. There's a difference between saying that, say, NetHack has its own following and that people generally like NetHack and its widely considered an interesting game by most people.
And neither did say that expect everyone to follow my line of thought on KQ, but rather i expect at least some to follow them, since i'm not that unique on this issue.
Now you claim to have different observation on the public reaction to KQ than me and Igor, but oh well, a matter of perception, eh?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10Those aren't really "of the time". They all came out after KQ6, the last major title in the series (KQ7 didn't make much impact, though IMO it's pretty good, and Mask of Eternity doesn't count). And KQ6 stands up quite well in comparison, doesn't it?

Okay, maybe KQ stands quite nicely if you take strictly the time perious until 1992 (though if you ask me first Kyrandia alone beats the whole series). But i'd say it's debatable whenether it is that relevant, since we're not living in 1992 now and for me the games that overshadowed KQ are clearly more important than that KQ has been there before.
And KQ6 stands up quite well, yeah.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10
Now that's a more relevant comparison. I've tried a few of the Legend games (some of the Spellcasters, Gateway and maybe Shannara, though those came later), and my experience was that they were very forbidding, with complex and confusing interfaces, unhelpful introductions, nothing to hook your interest... and generally not much fun off the bat. There might be some good games there once you get past all those problems, but just for being immediately accessible to the general player I would rank KQ above them. They are more illustrated text-adventures than real graphic adventures, and as such have completely different constraints from the Sierra games. Sure, they could do more complex things with gameplay and story, but it was primarily told through text rather than as something you experienced directly, and the controls had all the excitement of a spreadsheet.

I real fail to see what's so confusing about Legend game controls. You can type whatever in the parser. You can choose actions and items to interact with in the convenient menus, or even click some things on the picture. They're amongst the most cozy and comfortable controls I've ever seen in games.
Now they're quite hard to get into, but they're also very rewarding. (Well, except for spellcasting maybe, it does seem to be genuinely boring) The good old "no pain no gain" principle. I'd like to kindly ask you to try Eric the unready, Time Quest and especially Death Gate. All control scheme debate aside there's something to be experienced in these games.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29(I don't remember: Did you have to do your own mapping? I never again want to play a game where I have to draw a map based on text description.)

All of Legend adventures have automap.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10King's Quest made adventure games significant in a way that they have probably never been since.

Okay, yeah, i'm very grateful to Sierra and King's Quest for saving my favourite genre and giving it a kickstart. But I still can't look up at it because games aren't only made of technical leadership and good economical situation. They're also made of content and passion, they're made of things that makes them great entertainment. So I can't just only be grateful to KQ for everything forever.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10By the criteria of the times, the KQ titles were great adventure games.

Never understood this "by the criteria of the times". Looking at all games i hold as great ones, old or new, i see no need to excuse them for anything. A truly great game is always a great game.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 00:22:29And Kyrandia was a very conscious KQ-clone (with the benefit of more advanced technology and some gameplay principles borrowed from LucasArts).

It was a KQ-aware project alright, it's a confirmed fact, but to call it a clone would be a overstatement, quite insulting to all original creative factors it has which are not related to KQ in any way. Kyrandia is one of the most original fantasy games/settings up to this day so to call it a KQ-clone is like calling Max Payne a Doom clone just because Doom was a 3D shooter game.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10As far as I can tell, you're saying it was a big deal because you say it was a big deal (which is because you personally like it). I've not seen anyone seriously argue that Gray Matter is an important or significant release unless you're a die-hard Jensen fan, the way something like Heavy Rain was.

I'm saying it's a big deal because I think it should be, because i personally liked it and i've seen other people who were excited about it, for the reason of it being good. I don't care how much people in reality would actually break through their laziness to discover something beutiful or how many wouldn't. Why do you bring up the sad comparison with tasteless mainstream crap like Heavy Rain that gets its popularity totally undeservedly is beyond me. I beg you to tell me in what way Heavy Rain is important or significant aside from being flashy and accessible to every mindless button-masher? Maybe it's an enjoyable game for some people, it obviously is, but why do you consider it being more important aside from its advantage in promotion that makes it pressed against everyone's face so it's almost like everyone really cares about it more?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 22:40:10What is not so subjective is that the KQ games are a significant series of adventure games, that they haven't been forgotten (at least not compared to most other adventure games), and that they are still relevant for adventure gamers. That makes it an obvious target for revival.

Truth. Yet a very formal one.

Quote from: Ascovel on Mon 21/02/2011 23:05:34
I don't understand why are you arguing so intensely about this

I enjoy a good intense argument.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 21/02/2011 23:44:08Like I mentioned before, it's mainly my annoyance with people who set up their own tastes as the authoritative rule for which games ought and ought not to be made.

Oh, what do you suggest then for me, to not have an opinion or not express it? And why my opinion is less respectable for decision-making and more annoying than other people's wish for a cash-in attempt? (Not that it insults me, you see, but I'm still curious) Not to mention that i never implied that my thoughts are should be set as rules for anybody instead of rather just be suggestions that i just happen to strongly believe in.

QuoteIt was a KQ-aware project alright, it's a confirmed fact, but to call it a clone would be a overstatement, quite insulting to all original creative factors it has which are not related to KQ in any way. Kyrandia is one of the most original fantasy games/settings up to this day so to call it a KQ-clone is like calling Max Payne a Doom clone just because Doom was a 3D shooter game.

The connection is stronger than that. Westwood originally tried to sell Kyrandia to Sierra (http://www.tap-repeatedly.com/Reviews/Kyrandia/Kyrandia.shtml), but Sierra offered to buy the whole company instead, which Westwood didn't want to do. Then it got picked up by Virgin, who were specifically looking for a series to compete with King's Quest (which is how Westwood ended up making Dune II (http://www.above-the-garage.com/rblts/vie16b.htm), since Virgin had the license lying around and had lost confidence in Cryo making the game... which in turn led to Command & Conquer). After the release, Sierra objected to the "use of its King's Quest mark in advertisements and packaging (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SIERRA,+VIRGIN+RESOLVE+TRADEMARK+DISAGREEMENT-a012585356)" for Kyrandia (as far as I can tell, this just means that they think it looked too similar to KQ; the packaging at least makes no direct reference to Sierra's series), and to settle they had to place a sticker (http://www.mobygames.com/game/legend-of-kyrandia/cover-art/gameCoverId,881/) on it that said the two games were not related. So if any game deserves being called a KQ clone, it's Legend of Kyrandia.

Incidentally, I would disagree that Kyrandia is a particularly original fantasy setting. It's not really any less generic than KQ.

QuoteI'm saying it's a big deal because I think it should be, because i personally liked it and i've seen other people who were excited about it, for the reason of it being good. I don't care how much people in reality would actually break through their laziness to discover something beutiful or how many wouldn't.

"You seem to completely miss my point about some games being important outside of a specific fanbase. Gray Matter was a big deal to everybody who cared to notice a great game, made by Jensen or not."

I'm saying that objectively, it's not a big deal outside of the Jane Jensen fan base, and you just think it is because you are part of that fan base. Others seem, for the most part, to agree that the game is good, but not great or outstanding.

QuoteWhy do you bring up the sad comparison with tasteless mainstream crap like Heavy Rain that gets its popularity totally undeservedly is beyond me. I beg you to tell me in what way Heavy Rain is important or significant aside from being flashy and accessible to every mindless button-masher? Maybe it's an enjoyable game for some people, it obviously is, but why do you consider it being more important aside from its advantage in promotion that makes it pressed against everyone's face so it's almost like everyone really cares about it more?

Personally I find Heavy Rain way more interesting and groundbreaking than Gray Matter (I haven't played either game, just going by what I've read about them). The reason I compared them though is that Heavy Rain, unlike Gray Matter, clearly is a big deal outside of its fan base, and interesting even to people who don't like it, because of its technical achievements, its production values, its unique gameplay and storytelling mechanics, the split reception and reviews making it quite controversial, and the unusually high profile for such an atypical title. It's only "mainstream" in the sense that everyone has heard about it, which is exactly my point: it is a big deal.

QuoteOh, what do you suggest then for me, to not have an opinion or not express it? And why my opinion is less respectable for decision-making and more annoying than other people's wish for a cash-in attempt? (Not that it insults me, you see, but I'm still curious) Not to mention that i never implied that my thoughts are should be set as rules for anybody instead of rather just be suggestions that i just happen to strongly believe in.

I find the opinion that something that others like shouldn't exist because you're not interested in it - or that only the interests of certain groups of players matter, because other audiences are inferior - to be very arrogant and obnoxious. So any kind of "Why are there so many games like X when I prefer Y?" (where X is invariably presented as something inferior and unworthy) or "They shouldn't be wasting their time making X, since X doesn't appeal to me"-type argument makes me bristle. If you can't see the appeal of doing a KQ game, well then the game isn't for you! Just ignore it and play something else.

I don't mind you having an opinion about KQ, or about Telltale, or criticizing and complaining about the game when it comes out. I wouldn't mind you questioning the wisdom of the decision as a business matter (e.g. "Is there really a big audience for this?"), or doubting that the result will be successful on a critical level. The only thing I object to are statements like "reviving King's Quest in 2011 is freaking hilarious", "a sad waste of time", "completely idiotic", "strikingly ridiculous", and re: that a lot of people regard the KQ series well and will be interested in a revival: "ignorant people maybe", just based on the fact that you happen to dislike KQ.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53So if any game deserves being called a KQ clone, it's Legend of Kyrandia.

Yeah. If you ignore the actual content whatsoever. Because that's how you characterize games: you tell a short business story regarding them and ignore what the game is actually like. Kyrandia is actually a real-time strategy because the company that made it was making real-time strategies ok.
Seriously, now this is just plain ridiculous. Neither their attempt to sell the game neither Sierra's pretenses actually say anything about the actual game's content. If they see a rival on the market of course they wouldn't bother to spot all the subtle differences because if they do then they would just admit that the rival is better and their complaining attempt will fall apart!
And there's enough subtle and not-so-subtle differences to make Kyrandia not KQ a clone more than Discworld.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53Incidentally, I would disagree that Kyrandia is a particularly original fantasy setting. It's not really any less generic than KQ.

Strange to say that with all these little charming twists they'd made to the ordinary fantasy during the series. But if you choose to intensively not to notice them, ok, your loss.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53I'm saying that objectively, it's not a big deal outside of the Jane Jensen fan base, and you just think it is because you are part of that fan base. Others seem, for the most part, to agree that the game is good, but not great or outstanding.

Yes, I'm saying it's a big deal as an idealist. I know it isn't a public's big deal. And I'm a fan of the game, but it doesn't mean that I can't tell if it's good or not. And since I see some positive qualities in it of course I expect other people to recognize it. As you said, some people agree that it's at least good. So I completely acknowledge - with sadness - that it's not a massive hit making major audience orgasm. But you're kinda trying to use that as argument as to that Gray Matter doesn't have the potential to be a big deal (i maybe wrong but that is my only interpretation of why you're saying this part at all), and i disagree with the very validity of such argument. Public opinion is a very feeble and immature thing and can't be used for serious measurement of a potential of anything.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53Personally I find Heavy Rain way more interesting and groundbreaking than Gray Matter (I haven't played either game, just going by what I've read about them). The reason I compared them though is that Heavy Rain, unlike Gray Matter, clearly is a big deal outside of its fan base, and interesting even to people who don't like it, because of its technical achievements, its production values, its unique gameplay and storytelling mechanics, the split reception and reviews making it quite controversial, and the unusually high profile for such an atypical title. It's only "mainstream" in the sense that everyone has heard about it, which is exactly my point: it is a big deal.

I have played both games, and I found Heavy Rain terribly failing at every "exciting" aspect it tries to show-off, and Gray Matter while mostly using the old formula at least did excellent job at performing what it tries to be. I'm very curious what unique do you find about HR, since linear-ish stories with multiple branches and quick-time events are hardly new. As isn't the fake pseudo-interactive storytelling that teases you with illusion of choice while really giving it in humiliatingly insignificant small pieces that they've already exhibited in Fahrenheit anyway. Not mentioning that the term "gameplay" is barely even applicable to HR because there's no game, you just push buttons for stuff to happen with a very little influence on what this stuff is.
It's mainstream in the sense that it has zero modesty and it's made to have easy appeal, not made to have fine qualities or be different. And well, it succeeds at that, it has very good graphics and nice voice overs while the story is the stupidiest mockery of drama and detective I've seen in a while. It strives with zero modesty to be a big deal as its sole purpose so it becomes one. Wow, surprise, innovation.
And I don't see anything unusual either. Dumbass Fahrenheit was just as popular years ago.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53I find the opinion that something that others like shouldn't exist because you're not interested in it - or that only the interests of certain groups of players matter, because other audiences are inferior - to be very arrogant and obnoxious. So any kind of "Why are there so many games like X when I prefer Y?" (where X is invariably presented as something inferior and unworthy) or "They shouldn't be wasting their time making X, since X doesn't appeal to me"-type argument makes me bristle. If you can't see the appeal of doing a KQ game, well then the game isn't for you! Just ignore it and play something else.

I am being arrogant, no denying that. But that's because I care. And believe me, if I really believed that they make a KQ game because they genuinely care about KQ fans and whoever else would want to play it, I wouldn't bitch or would bitch less, because I perfectly understand your point and I agree. I don't waste days ranting like "damn, why make so many realtime strategies i couldn't care less about", no. I'm bitching here because unlike you I don't believe (yet) in any sincere concern about anything at all here. I only see "hmmm, some potentially worthy franchise, let's make a cheap-ass cash-in in hope that some naive fans still exist, not much to lose anyway", y'see. I maybe paranoid here and wrong, but don't take me wrong it's not only about my taste, I'm just very concerned about the motivation for making of the game. And while it may not be a crime to make a game without genuine passion, why can't i as a player be concerned and worried if somebody makes a game just to make money and not to try to make me or other gamers really happy and make the world and game industry better and blah blah blah? You may say that they achieve both goals since the KQ fanbase already exists as fact, but really, what is the primary concern? And well, i am very concerned with sincerity of goals because i think that it affects the final product a lot.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 22/02/2011 18:54:53I don't mind you having an opinion about KQ, or about Telltale, or criticizing and complaining about the game when it comes out. I wouldn't mind you questioning the wisdom of the decision as a business matter (e.g. "Is there really a big audience for this?"), or doubting that the result will be successful on a critical level. The only thing I object to are statements like "reviving King's Quest in 2011 is freaking hilarious", "a sad waste of time", "completely idiotic", "strikingly ridiculous", and re: that a lot of people regard the KQ series well and will be interested in a revival: "ignorant people maybe", just based on the fact that you happen to dislike KQ.

Well, I guess i take a certain fun in ignoring people who like KQ? They like something I  don't, I try being ironic about it. But as a said, if somebody would be seriously devoted to making them happy, I wouldn't mind. I don't run around laughing at every KQ remake project. Not unfriendly laughing anyway. They're still my adventure gaming buddies after all.  But as I said, I don't believe that to be the case. When a big company suddenly announces that? I'm sorry I just can't take it seriously. I mean, even if i take your side and start caring about King's Quest then I'm even less able to take seriously statements like "oh hey, you waited for this ten years? good! we care, you know, so we're finally making another game soon, yay! no, it's not only because the license has happened to be in our hands and we can make easily make money from it". So, it's not only based on fact that i happen to dislike KQ .
Having said that I don't really understand what's the problem in me being bitter about this issue or disliking KQ. I thought it only fair if KQ fanbase gets their sequels and i get my bitching material.  :=

You've finally been up-front about the fact that you're basically trolling, and I think we've covered the points that motivated me to discuss, so I'll leave it with this post (initially intended to be brief).

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Tue 22/02/2011 21:27:17
Yeah. If you ignore the actual content whatsoever. Because that's how you characterize games: you tell a short business story regarding them and ignore what the game is actually like. Kyrandia is actually a real-time strategy because the company that made it was making real-time strategies ok.
Seriously, now this is just plain ridiculous. Neither their attempt to sell the game neither Sierra's pretenses actually say anything about the actual game's content. If they see a rival on the market of course they wouldn't bother to spot all the subtle differences because if they do then they would just admit that the rival is better and their complaining attempt will fall apart!
And there's enough subtle and not-so-subtle differences to make Kyrandia not KQ a clone more than Discworld.

While you're being so cynical about Telltale's motives, you're touchingly naive about Westwood's. Sure, they just happened to make a fantasy adventure game starring a young prince who never knew of his royal parentage on a quest find a talisman, defeat an evil wizard (in this case a magic-wielding jester), and claim his family's throne. All similarities to any King's Quest title is purely coincidental, they were not at all imitating the best-selling adventure game series around!

Westwood, of course, would never copy other companies' games! Oh, except that a number of the puzzles in Kyrandia, as well as the title, were taken from a MUD called "Kyrandia" (which they bought the rights to), and that they deliberately copied Herzog Zwei to make Dune II, and that Eye of the Beholder is apparently a clone of Dungeon Master...

Fuck, why am I even discussing this? The producer and writer of the game, Rick Gush, said in an interview (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,110): "When I started at Westwood I did not know what adventure games were, and was just shown Kyrandia as it was in progress. I saw a King's Quest game and thought, gee; I can do that sort of thing." How much clearer can you get?

Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. If you come across something you like or that works well, then imitating it is eminently sensible. Nor am I denying that they mixed in other influences (a number of ideas from LucasArts, primarily) and added some touches of their own: apparently they were particularly proud of the single-click UI. That still doesn't make it not a clone by my standards. Many good games and games that move the genre forward are clones. Duke Nukem 3D was a DOOM clone, for all that it added to the formula. Hey, that's how genres are created in the first place!

QuoteStrange to say that with all these little charming twists they'd made to the ordinary fantasy during the series. But if you choose to intensively not to notice them, ok, your loss.

It's been a while since I played the games, so I can't deny that there were "charming twists" here and there. King's Quest had that as well. As a whole I'd still say it was a pretty generic setting - particularly in the first game. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you changed "Kyrandia" to "Daventry" and some other small details, you could have published Legend of Kyrandia as a King's Quest title with no problem.

I quite liked the Kyrandia games. A generic setting isn't necessarily a drawback for a fantasy game in my opinion, since they are more about being archetypal than surprising. Most fantasy worlds are so conventional anyway that not much is lost. In fact, in adventure games I'd rather take a lightly sketched standard-model fantasy backdrop than some exhaustively detailed, annoyingly complicated world of revisionist races and centuries of history any day of the week.

QuoteYes, I'm saying it's a big deal as an idealist. I know it isn't a public's big deal. And I'm a fan of the game, but it doesn't mean that I can't tell if it's good or not. And since I see some positive qualities in it of course I expect other people to recognize it. As you said, some people agree that it's at least good. So I completely acknowledge - with sadness - that it's not a massive hit making major audience orgasm. But you're kinda trying to use that as argument as to that Gray Matter doesn't have the potential to be a big deal (i maybe wrong but that is my only interpretation of why you're saying this part at all), and i disagree with the very validity of such argument. Public opinion is a very feeble and immature thing and can't be used for serious measurement of a potential of anything.

I doubt Gray Matter has a hope of becoming a major hit, but I wish it all the best. You're trying downplay popularity as having any importance to this discussion, but that's what it was about from the beginning. You argued that no one apart from a small group of fans is going to care about the new KQ episodes, whether they're good or bad, unlike Gray Matter. I'm simply pointing out that Gray Matter is in exactly that same position.

QuoteI have played both games, and I found Heavy Rain terribly failing at every "exciting" aspect it tries to show-off, and Gray Matter while mostly using the old formula at least did excellent job at performing what it tries to be. I'm very curious what unique do you find about HR, since linear-ish stories with multiple branches and quick-time events are hardly new. As isn't the fake pseudo-interactive storytelling that teases you with illusion of choice while really giving it in humiliatingly insignificant small pieces that they've already exhibited in Fahrenheit anyway. Not mentioning that the term "gameplay" is barely even applicable to HR because there's no game, you just push buttons for stuff to happen with a very little influence on what this stuff is.
It's mainstream in the sense that it has zero modesty and it's made to have easy appeal, not made to have fine qualities or be different. And well, it succeeds at that, it has very good graphics and nice voice overs while the story is the stupidiest mockery of drama and detective I've seen in a while. It strives with zero modesty to be a big deal as its sole purpose so it becomes one. Wow, surprise, innovation.
And I don't see anything unusual either. Dumbass Fahrenheit was just as popular years ago.

I thought Fahrenheit was an exhilaratingly original and impressively executed game concept that opened new horizons in gameplay and storytelling, even if it wasn't able to carry it through to the end of the game. The promise to build on that in Heavy Rain is one of the main reasons I'm excited about it. Whether it succeeds or fails (and in terms of popularity and critical opinion, it has generally succeeded), there certainly isn't anything else like it.

Mainstream? A game that starts out (as I understand) with a lengthy section of you as a dad hanging around at home, playing with your kids and doing chores? Mainstream is annual sports games and shooters, Grand Theft Auto and JRPGs, games that run up sequels in the double digits. You are projecting your own dislike of the game onto the motives of creators. Check out some interviews with David Cage, and see if you can doubt that he is passionate about his work and has a strong vision for what he wants to achieve.

QuoteI'm just very concerned about the motivation for making of the game. And while it may not be a crime to make a game without genuine passion, why can't i as a player be concerned and worried if somebody makes a game just to make money and not to try to make me or other gamers really happy and make the world and game industry better and blah blah blah? You may say that they achieve both goals since the KQ fanbase already exists as fact, but really, what is the primary concern? And well, i am very concerned with sincerity of goals because i think that it affects the final product a lot.

QuoteI'm even less able to take seriously statements like "oh hey, you waited for this ten years? good! we care, you know, so we're finally making another game soon, yay! no, it's not only because the license has happened to be in our hands and we can make easily make money from it".

The license didn't "happen to be in their hands"; they actively negotiated it with Activision, presumably because they'd had the idea that they'd like to make sequels to some Sierra games.

Telltale was started by a bunch of ex-LucasArts employees who left when that company gave up on adventure games. I think it's unlikely that they're not sincerely fond of the adventure game genre and dedicated to making good games that adventure game fans will enjoy. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there are King's Quest fans at the company who are really excited to be working on this.

At the same time, of course they have to make money; of course they have to think about what will sell. That's true of all studios, whether it's Wadjet Eye or EA. Hardly any professional game is made without an eye on commercial considerations. Obviously one of the main reasons for licensing a franchise is that the title will help sell the game.

But you've set up this simplistic dualism where there are only two possible motives, which are opposed, and where the only true artist is a stereotype who is driven solely by inner inspiration, untouched by worldly matters. That is nonsense. Artists from Shakespeare to Picasso have been very commercially savvy, and not the least bit shy about creating works to order rather than blindly following their inspiration. I just read that Mark Twain took notes for Huckleberry Finn in a book about how to market your novel. Westwood could set out to make a game that was pitched right at the King's Quest market, and still end up with something you consider charming and original. So why shouldn't Telltale?

If you don't believe it and insist that it's all mercenary motives (or that its unclean conception must inevitably corrupt the product), fine. I think complaining that companies are doing it for the money is pretty stupid myself, but it doesn't piss me off like your earlier arguments.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04
You've finally been up-front about the fact that you're basically trolling, and I think we've covered the points that motivated me to discuss, so I'll leave it with this post (initially intended to be brief).

Now that's just plain rude. How is an extreme and expressive opinion is equal to trolling? I explicitly stated that I actually believe in what I'm saying even if i realize that it can taken badly and easily be disagreed with.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04While you're being so cynical about Telltale's motives, you're touchingly naive about Westwood's.

I'm touchingly attached to Westwood yes, but I'm not naive. They'd made great games and I'm judging them by what they actually have done, not by what great chances or potential they have or had or blah-blah-blah. I don't see how is that naive. They made rational choices and I know that well, but what I respect them for is that they also turned these rational choices into wise choices game quality-wise. Unlike many, many developers, mind you.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Westwood, of course, would never copy other companies' games! Oh, except that a number of the puzzles in Kyrandia, as well as the title, were taken from a MUD called "Kyrandia" (which they bought the rights to), and that they deliberately copied Herzog Zwei to make Dune II, and that Eye of the Beholder is apparently a clone of Dungeon Master...

I'm well aware of how much stuff they have licensed. And it would be strange to assume that they didn't take inspiration from other stuff. But what they did with that is the whole other story.  Not "copied" that's for sure.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Fuck, why am I even discussing this? The producer and writer of the game, Rick Gush, said in an interview (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,110): "When I started at Westwood I did not know what adventure games were, and was just shown Kyrandia as it was in progress. I saw a King's Quest game and thought, gee; I can do that sort of thing." How much clearer can you get?

Fuck! Clearly Kyrandia had all the premises to become KQ clone, but even the first part of it had completely different atmposhere and as a series it went in completely different direction than KQ. So as I said to say that it actually became one is to ignore what it is. I don't understand how Gush's words are evidence that Kyrandia is KQ clone. He saw a game, he tried to make something in the similar genre. It doesn't mean that he actually copied, it doesn't even mean he tried to immitate it. In fact it quite obvious to me that he and the whole Westwood team went their own creative way with it and that what matters.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04That still doesn't make it not a clone by my standards.

Okay. I have not intention to press on your principles.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Many good games and games that move the genre forward are clones. Duke Nukem 3D was a DOOM clone, for all that it added to the formula. Hey, that's how genres are created in the first place!

Not a bad point, but I wouldn't really take the outstanding milestones of each genre and call them clones of some "original" title that was there in the beginning and possibly sucked, because it sounds extremely discouraging and unfair to their achievements.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04A generic setting isn't necessarily a drawback for a fantasy game in my opinion, since they are more about being archetypal than surprising.

I'd just like to note that in my opinion surprising factor is one of the most crucial for game/entertainment to be enjoyable. That's obviously not true for many people, though.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04I'm simply pointing out that Gray Matter is in exactly that same position.

I wouldn't really agree that a brand new curious-inducing title has the same chances as a revival of something from the past that many people considered uninteresting, but meh, don't wanna argue about that more.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04
I thought Fahrenheit was an exhilaratingly original and impressively executed game concept that opened new horizons in gameplay and storytelling, even if it wasn't able to carry it through to the end of the game.

What was original about it? The linearity? The quick-time events? What exactly? It seemed it was going for the illusion of choice and feeling of control and it did it pretty horribly in comparison to titles that actually pulled nonlinearity off well (Blade Runner, The Last Express, Culpa Innata) and to other ones that pulled the feeling of control well (Another World is a great example of that).
But you liking Fahreheit explains a lot though. It means you embrace and appreciate anything for merely trying to be anything. Very noble of you to defend these little games and poor harmless developers from a demanding bitch like me.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Mainstream? A game that starts out (as I understand) with a lengthy section of you as a dad hanging around at home, playing with your kids and doing chores? Mainstream is annual sports games and shooters, Grand Theft Auto and JRPGs, games that run up sequels in the double digits.

JRPGs contain playing with children and doing chores (Persona for example). So  congratulations on disproving yourself without any help. But if you want some help - it's funny to take separate from mainstream the very core things that make it mainstream. And Heavy Rain sure as hell has them all: accessibility, primitivity, flashiness etc. And there's no need to make loads of sequels if you can make one very successful game, because you make it exactly to be sucessful.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04You are projecting your own dislike of the game onto the motives of creators.

Oh surely my dislike entirely consists of crazy emotional negative energy. And I'm never ever actually able to think about things and analyze them.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Check out some interviews with David Cage, and see if you can doubt that he is passionate about his work and has a strong vision for what he wants to achieve.

Is that supposed to be an insult or something? What exactly do you expect to happen here? I have a deep rationally justified mistrust for him and when he says "i love making awesome games lol" you expect me to drop all my observations of the actual stuff he made and change my view immidiately? And no, I don't care how passionate he is about stuff that makes him loads of cash.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04Telltale was started by a bunch of ex-LucasArts employees who left when that company gave up on adventure games. I think it's unlikely that they're not sincerely fond of the adventure game genre and dedicated to making good games that adventure game fans will enjoy. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there are King's Quest fans at the company who are really excited to be working on this.

That's possible. I really hope you're right about there being some personal motive after all. That'd even almost explain why they're making something that KQ fans are supposed to enjoy rather than something than everybody is supposed to enjoy.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04But you've set up this simplistic dualism where there are only two possible motives, which are opposed, and where the only true artist is a stereotype who is driven solely by inner inspiration, untouched by worldly matters. That is nonsense.

How is that nonsense? Look at the game history. Half of the outstanding innovative projects are lucky bestseller hits, and half are underdogs failed at sales. Sadly they're pretty much opposed most of the time and it's not only idealistic belief but also the pure experience. So it takes a true master to satisfy both of the motives and I deeply respect people who manage to pull off both aristic brilliance and audience/commercial success. So while I agree that being concerned about both and even succeeding at them is possible, I say they remain to be strongly opposed, because going for one immediately makes it incredibly harder to go for another.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 23/02/2011 00:53:04
I think complaining that companies are doing it for the money is pretty stupid myself, but it doesn't piss me off like your earlier arguments.

I hope pointing it out and laughing isn't stupid. And I hope I'm not really seen as seriously complaining about something so expectable and mundane as company making sequels for money.

I can appreciate and understand the arguments both for and against Telltale, particularly in lieu of this announcement of their upcoming projects, and in light of their history. Personally I like TTG as a company. I think that of the modern game development companies that they are probably the most genuinely interested in what their consumers actually want instead of what they can pawn off on them for a quick buck.

They have a history, for example, of paying a high level of attention to the feedback they receive when they start a new series, and trying throughout the remainder of the series to improve upon things that the consumers liked or disliked. This is not strictly uncommon, but TTG has shown significantly higher attention to consumer feedback than some other companies.

It's fair to say that TTG's actual games are not the most technologically advanced pieces of artwork to ever grace the gaming world, but they have come a long way since they first started. Considering the relatively small size of the company, and the fact that unlike a lot of game "development" companies, they are actually developing the games themselves instead of just stamping their logo on it and shipping it off to BioWare, I'd say that they have accomplished a fair amount. They have written their own engine and are constantly working to improve it to overcome obstacles and limitations of the "Telltale Tool", but that's not something that happens overnight.

I think people should also bear in mind that unlike the FPS or RPG or RTS genres, there are not a (relatively) high number of 3D-based adventure game engines for them to compare to. They are essentially working to improve their engine almost entirely based upon their own experience. They don't have the benefit of looking to see what mistakes other companies are making because they are one of the only companies working in this field.

I'm not a die-hard TTG fan. The only full series I have bought from them was Tales of Monkey Island, which I personally enjoyed. I have played some of the S&M games, I even got the first 3 episodes of season 1 on a DVD at Walmart for $10. I've played some of their other games like the free episode of Strong Bad, the free episode of Wallace & Grommit, and I played the demo of Puzzle Agent (which a friend of mine who purchased the game for his iPad (which was in-fact where I played the demo) told me is quite fun).

So all this being said, I support TTG as a company, but I'm not just some blind follower. I believe that they do have the talent to make these games with reasonably good quality; and I think that just because they have been announced does not inherently mean that they are going to spread their resources paper-thin to get them out immediately. For example, the BTTF and JP titles were announced at the same time, and note has been made about the relatively short turn-around for episode 1 of BTTF, but by contrast we have barely yet seen any materials for the JP title. I'm not saying they're going to just hold onto the titles until the licenses rot away in their hands, but I don't think that the announcement means that they are going to rob themselves or their "current" projects in any way either.

Regarding this whole issue that has arisen around King's Quest, let me first say that I have literally never played any of the KQ games. Feel free to blither mindlessly and then afterwards announce that I am a poser and not a true adventure gamer. In all honesty I played very, very few (by which I mean exactly two) adventure games growing up (The Secret of Monkey Islandâ,,¢ and LOOMâ,,¢). Say what you will, but that's simply how it came about. I do enjoy the adventure game model, but even today I don't spend a vast deal of time playing adventure games (or any other games really).

The reason I announced this is to show that with regard to KQ, I consider myself a justifiably unbiased observer.

That being said, I really do have to side with Snarky on the matter. It does come across from what I've read that Nemo is attacking TTG for obtaining the KQ license due to a personal dislike of the series. It seems rather obtuse to me for someone to suggest that King's Quest is only a highly recognized title in the adventure gaming world due to some advanced marketing scheme employed by Sierra. Not having played Gabriel Knight either, I would question how many GK fans have joined forces to try and keep the series alive, at least in the way of fan-content. By absolutely no means of Sierra's marketing, I am personally aware of several remakes and continuation projects of the KQ series conducted entirely by fans. I am not personally aware of any such projects with regards to Gabriel knight.

I'm not saying that TTG's KQ game will be good, or that it will be bad. However, I do think that Snarky makes the most valid case for his argument (which to me simply comes across as him saying that he will be open minded enough to give the game its own credence instead of basing his opinion entirely upon his personal perception of the previous games in the series, or the series as a whole). But that is just my opinion. :=

First, King's Quest games are widely considered to cure insomnia. At first I thought it was just me that hated the Sierra Interface and that I was failing to see the magic. The story is boring to death, the characters are boring to death, the controls don't fit that game. On the other hand, there's Space Quest. We have a direct parody of anything sci-fi, and we have a very awesome narrator that will always make fun of our and roger's idiocy. What's more important though is that the keyboard interface of Sierra, actually fits this game perfectly. On the one hand we have a to-be-king that can't walk a damn bridge, and on the other hand we have roger that is diving avoiding poisonous plants. Plus roger is a complete idiot, so no matter HOW he dies, it's expected.

And now let's add Telltale. Telltale is one of those companies that takes those AWESOME franchises and makes me go meh. I mean have you played the Sam and Max games. Apart from the funny dialogs (IMHO) and the okay story, it's all a bloody repetition without any progress. Look at Monkey Island for example. The first episodes were okay, then comes my favorite episode, the only episode I thought I wasn't playing a Telltale game, and the ruin it for the sake of a happy ending! Telltale simply needs guts.

Mind that King's Quest when it was out was also a showcase of technology, and now that this is gone, we see an empty game. Cause that all there was from the beginning.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 26/02/2011 09:41:16I think people should also bear in mind that unlike the FPS or RPG or RTS genres, there are not a (relatively) high number of 3D-based adventure game engines for them to compare to. They are essentially working to improve their engine almost entirely based upon their own experience. They don't have the benefit of looking to see what mistakes other companies are making because they are one of the only companies working in this field.

I don't know what is relatively high for you but there's a loooooong list of 3D adventure games starting from very long time ago up until now. And I'd say for example Broken Sword 3 and 4 and Culpa Innata alone are enough to learn and draw a lot of experience from.

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 26/02/2011 09:41:16
It does come across from what I've read that Nemo is attacking TTG for obtaining the KQ license due to a personal dislike of the series.

If you wish to reduce my argument to "i hate KQ and i want to see no more of it" then yes, you're right. What my argument actually was about is "you can do better than just a KQ game".

Yeah, and btw ignore Grundislav, Igor Hardy, Ali and Dualnames, I hypnotized them so they could help me spread my deeply subjective bullshit about the interest factor of KQ series.

Quote from: Dualnames on Sat 26/02/2011 14:37:59
First, King's Quest games are widely considered to cure insomnia.

[citation needed]

Please don't assume that your opinion is "widely" agreed upon.

Quote from: Radiant on Sat 26/02/2011 17:06:41

Quote from: Dualnames on Sat 26/02/2011 14:37:59
First, King's Quest games are widely considered to cure insomnia.

[citation needed]

Please don't assume that your opinion is "widely" agreed upon.

Of course not. That was a joke attempt. My post of course is my personal opinion. There are people that like King's Quest and still play it to this very day, like I do with Monkey Island 2. I don't mean to insult anyone's tastes. And if I did, it's because the game frustrates me. It's not MY kind of thing.


I allow everyone to play shitty games. Cause we have democracy.  8)

Quote from: Dualnames on Sat 26/02/2011 14:37:59
First, King's Quest games are widely considered to cure insomnia.

I agree and I live on a different continent. (Edit: I mean different country...) That's pretty wide?

I must say I've loved everything I've played by Telltale. SBCG4AP, and Puzzle Agent haven't received much attention but are gems, and the last series of Sam and Max tops the Lucas Arts game in my opinion. My only reservation is that I'd like their puzzles to be about 25% more challenging (and I do miss right-clicking...)

Sadly, none of these new franchises seem up my street, but hopefully some folk will enjoy 'em.

I've found Telltale's games, even WITHIN episodes of a series, to be very very hit and miss.  I used to just think it was me who thought so, but if you look around the internet a lot of people seem to agree.  Certain episodes of Sam and Max stand out because they have clever puzzles or some unique gimmick they only exploit ONCE to get you to go 'neat', like Reality 2.0 which had that very brief but surprising text adventure sequence.

One thing I've noticed with BTTF is that they are shifting more and more away from one-shot gameplay gimmicks or clever puzzles to what I will call 'environmental events'.  Episode 1 did this at the finale and Episode 2 used it no less than 3 times (the delorean intro, the speak easy, the encounter with Kid) and it seems as though they intend to exploit and amplify this mechanic further.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking adventure games in new and innovative directions beyond the basic fetch or solve puzzle variety, but I see their approach in BTTF more and more as just sheer laziness and lack of vision for how to adequately translate the cinematic aspects of the franchise into a videogame, and so they've resorted to these rather cheap and repetitive environmental events to compensate.  I'm saying it now and for the record that I don't find these events either entertaining OR challenging and they made episode 2 feel rather cheap and short for having them.  I didn't mind the event at the end of episode 1 because it was 'different', but now that has worn off and I see them trying to push this approach more and more as a substitute for real, thoughtful gameplay. 

I also strongly suspect that these environmental events in BTTF are the basis for much of Jurassic Park and that they are trying to 'transition' adventure players into accepting this approach as some kind of future for adventure games, and all I can say is good luck with that.  The environmental events are a huge turn off in Episode 2 and I can imagine only being more annoyed by them as they will inevitably pop up in the next episodes.

Progz, I don't think Telltale is trying to establish a single winning formula for all of their games. BTTF and Jurrasic Park are aimed at a more causal gamer audience than, say, Monkey Island.

As for KQ franchise, we can like it or not, but it's always been the subject of a huge backlash. Even during its bestseller days.

Famously, Ron Gilbert used King's quest as an example how not to do adventure games in the essay that was the basis for Monkey Island 1 and the series continues to be mentioned in this kind of tone. Here's an example from an article (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/26/gaming-made-me-leisure-suit-larry-1/) posted today by a popular British critic on a popular gaming website:

"Buy a drink at the bar. Use the jukebox. Watch a comedy show. Bang a hooker. Kiss a girl. The relatable setting made it a much more interesting game to explore than any of the random fantasy dreck over in King’s Quest CXVII: Boring Is The Head That Wears The Crown."

I've been seeing comments like these for years (they've become something akin to running jokes by now) and they are what I remember the most when it comes to popular perception of King's Quest. Of course the whole genre suffers from not such a different kind of backlash, but I have little doubt KQ has gotten the largest number of scathing remarks out of all adventure games in existence.

QuoteBTTF and Jurrasic Park are aimed at a more causal gamer audience than, say, Monkey Island.

You think so?  Could you provide me with some proof of this from Telltale's end?  A blurb by Dave Grossman would do, because that's not the impression I got from the marketing.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 26/02/2011 20:13:43

QuoteBTTF and Jurrasic Park are aimed at a more causal gamer audience than, say, Monkey Island.

You think so?  Could you provide me with some proof of this from Telltale's end?  A blurb by Dave Grossman would do, because that's not the impression I got from the marketing.

I think I read something to that effect in an interview with Grossman or with Stemmle some time ago, but how to find it now I have no idea. :(

I also remember that at some point they confirmed they were trying to have more complex puzzles in TOMI (proper item combining in particular) than in their previous series, because it was something that MI fans expected to see.

Regardless if I remember it right, or if I only imagined reading these things (or Dave was just coaxing the more hardcore fans), I'm sure Telltale will keep adapting to their audience as the audience changes. And I agree with you there is the danger that the more it grows the more casual the games might become.

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Sat 26/02/2011 16:45:30

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 26/02/2011 09:41:16I think people should also bear in mind that unlike the FPS or RPG or RTS genres, there are not a (relatively) high number of 3D-based adventure game engines for them to compare to. They are essentially working to improve their engine almost entirely based upon their own experience. They don't have the benefit of looking to see what mistakes other companies are making because they are one of the only companies working in this field.

I don't know what is relatively high for you but there's a loooooong list of 3D adventure games starting from very long time ago up until now. And I'd say for example Broken Sword 3 and 4 and Culpa Innata alone are enough to learn and draw a lot of experience from.

In the given context I should think it obvious, but obviously not. Relative, as in, relative to the number of FPS, RPG, and RTS games. Pick any other genre than "adventure game" and there are a significantly higher number of games than there are in the adventure game genre. Hence the reason that for years the genre was proclaimed far and wide as being dead.

The number of games in the adventure genre fall abysmally short in comparison to the quantity of games in other genres. Don't believe me? Walk into a GameStop somewhere and see how many adventure games you can pick up off the shelf. Then, if you do happen to actually find some, compare that to the entire inventory of the store.

I didn't say that there weren't any 3D adventure games, I said that the number is relatively low. Even if TTG were to examine other 3D adventures, they still do not have nearly as much to pool information from as other genres have, which was my point.

Quote from: qptain Nemo on Sat 26/02/2011 16:45:30

Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 26/02/2011 09:41:16
It does come across from what I've read that Nemo is attacking TTG for obtaining the KQ license due to a personal dislike of the series.

If you wish to reduce my argument to "i hate KQ and i want to see no more of it" then yes, you're right. What my argument actually was about is "you can do better than just a KQ game".

Yeah, and btw ignore Grundislav, Igor Hardy, Ali and Dualnames, I hypnotized them so they could help me spread my deeply subjective bullshit about the interest factor of KQ series.

In my defense on this, I actually didn't realize until after posting that I had only read the first of three pages. The argument between yourself and Snarky had become so lengthy that I had utterly failed to realize that I was still on page one.

That being said, just because there are people who, like you, do not like the KQ series does not mean that this is true for everyone. You admitted that KQ has a "fan base", so I hardly think that the "fans" would simply be those who hated the games least instead of those who actually found something enjoyable within the games. You're being extremely overly general and imposing your personal opinion on everyone who doesn't label themselves as a die-hard KQ fanatic. Or at least, that's how it comes across.

As for you saying that your argument was actually about "doing better" than another KQ game, again, that never came across to me in most of what you said. After having spent a couple hours having read page two of this thread after posting the other night, I realized that you did, at a couple points say things to this effect. However, you immediately turned around from that point and just continued your KQ-bashing in what seemed to me a rather biased and irrational manner.

You have said that it was about wanting TTG to try something that would be, in your personal opinion, a better game, but in the end your argument always seemed to loop back around to just how much you hate KQ and all things associated with it.

Again, I'm not definitively saying that this is absolutely how you feel, but after reading your posts this is what it invariably comes across as, to me.

Re: KQ

I hate King's Quest. With a passion. Never before have I played games that bored me to death so incredibly fast. KQ6, imnsho, wasn't a classic or gem. It was just as boring after you got 15-30 minutes in, it just looked a little better.

BUT.

TTG has had success bringing these old franchises to new people (and to old fans) and they're still in business, so they're obviously doing something right.

I don't like TTG's games. Never did. I loved Sam&Max, didn't like the TTG ones. I loved Monkey Island, the TTG 'tales of' series made me feel a little uncomfortable. It just didn't feel right. I was seeing a Guybrush-lookin' dude, and there was a LeChuck-lookalike, and then there's that girl who looks a lot like Elaine. But it was like watching a group of kids playbacking Iron Maiden. It just ain't the same.

HOWEVER.

If TTG is doing something right (and I'm assuming as much), and they've managed to bring life back to some franchises which were quite stale by then (and I'm assuming as much), and they've managed to pick up not just KQ but also SQ, QfG and GK (and I'm assuming as much), then I wish them ALL the best, and hope it works out!

I'll be checking up on 'em, and seeing how these games work out. I might not have liked what they've done before, but let's face it:

The chance of them maybe getting it exactly right can't be ruled out.

And seriously, while as far as I'm concerned, KQ can die in a fire, I WANT MORE SQ.

:D

edit: re: kyrandia

Kyrandia 1 & 3 bored me. Hand of Fate is, to me, one of my favoritest games ever, though. Zanthia <3