Telltale announces every adventure game ever

[Grundislav]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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]

[Jared]

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!

[Igor Hardy]

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]

[Sslaxx]

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.

[Radiant]

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?

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

[Snarky]

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.

[qptain Nemo]

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.

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."

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.

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."

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?

Or 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.

It'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.

That'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

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.

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.

Usually that means it did it first, and often that means it didn't perhaps do it best.

Wow, that's exactly my point!

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.

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?

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.

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

A 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.

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.

Absolutely.

If you're not interested, just ignore it.

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

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.

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.

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."

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

[Dave Gilbert]

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

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.

[Snarky]

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."

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.

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?

So 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).

A 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.)

*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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

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.

[Snarky]

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.

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.

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

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Eggie]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[PatientRock]

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

[qptain Nemo]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

(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.

King'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.

By 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.

And 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.

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.

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?

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.

Truth. Yet a very formal one.

I don't understand why are you arguing so intensely about this

I enjoy a good intense argument.

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.

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.

[Snarky]

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.

The connection is stronger than that. Westwood originally tried to sell Kyrandia to Sierra, 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, 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" 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 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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[qptain Nemo]

So 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.

Incidentally, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.