Telltale announces every adventure game ever

[Snarky]

So, I guess people who follow Telltale announcements already knew they were making a Jurassic Park game. Today they announce 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.

[LeftHandedMatt]

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!

[Grundislav]

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.

[Radiant]

Awesome news!

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Diath]

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!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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

[moshboy]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[GarageGothic]

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.

[Radiant]

Is 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.

[blueskirt]

My 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.

[Snarky]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[qptain Nemo]

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.

[Snarky]

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.

[qptain Nemo]

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?

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.

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.

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.


 

And 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

[m0ds]

Oh, 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

[Snarky]

Oh? Out of pity for the said fanbase?

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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...)

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".

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."

[Snarky]

Oh, 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.