Telltale announces every adventure game ever

[Snarky]

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).

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: "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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[qptain Nemo]

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.

While 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.

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...

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.

Fuck, why am I even discussing this? The producer and writer of the game, Rick Gush, said in an interview: "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.

That still doesn't make it not a clone by my standards.

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

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!

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.

A 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.

I'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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[monkey0506]

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.

[Dualnames]

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.

[qptain Nemo]

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 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.

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.

[Radiant]

First, King's Quest games are widely considered to cure insomnia.

[citation needed]

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

[Dualnames]

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)

[Ali]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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 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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

BTTF 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.

[Igor Hardy]

BTTF 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.

[monkey0506]

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 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.

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.

[voh]

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.



edit: re: kyrandia

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