Messages

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.

[I saw a King's Quest game and thought, gee; I can do that sort of thing.]

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.

[or other gamers]

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. 

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.

[outside]

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

[the original]

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".

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.

Luckily enough my nickname was already an anagram of IqeyNames which is close enough, so I didn't have to change it, but happy birthday nonetheless, Icey. I wish you +5 WIS +3 CHA +1 STR +2 AGL +10 INT +1 LCK and 37% cold resistance!

Greetings, critic people.
I absolutely need to improve the following picture to stunning perfection. All critique and suggested improvements are strongly appreciated.

original:

4x:

Regarding gamma etc. Galen, you run a black n white horror game WINDOWED???!!! That's like watching the air duct scene in the first alien movie, in broad daylight.  :o

But... but it's a good way to prevent yourself from wetting yourself and screaming in terror so all neighbours can hear you!

Technocrat, thank you so much. For many things. For bringing back sweet oldschool (love the "quit to dos" menu item!) spirit reminiscent of Beneath a steel sky. Finally someone did that. For two really good, well thought-out well-written, pleasant to play and inspiring games. My hat is off to you, I respect people who do games like that. I haven't played everything and I don't how the voting will go, but if you ask me - TB2 is pretty much the best ags game of 2010. And really curious about what you'll do with the part three. Good luck with it, I wish your creativity stays with us and flourishes.
And Pablo's theme was really nice, I'm kinda surprised you used it only in the first game. So each part will have unique main theme?

Will there be original soundtrack?

Can't really explain why but the horned chick got me. She's hot. As the project itself is. Really nice oldschool charm and all. Will be waiting for it and wishing you luck guys.

As a Westwood studios fanatic can't really pass by without saying that this EoB-reminscent screens gave me a nice pleasant nostalgic feeling as well.

7314
loved the music and the chainsaw sounds

Doubt if falls into the cathegory of "classic" but still there's a very good off-beat horror adventure game called Echo Night for PS1. Since it's one of my all time favourites I would recommend it. If you like mysterious atmosphere and mystical stuff I definitely recommend it.

Can't be helpful due to lack of any comparable skill, but let me just say that your style is admirable

Omg, I didn't know about Amiga versions of Personal Nightmare and Sci-mutant priestess with 256-color graphics. Very interesting. Much thanks, GarageGothic.

Oh yeah, I saw this one. Some parts were simply hilarious. 

That was really impressive and enjoyable and not only because of the techonology but of interesting concept too. Though I did enjoy mocking chin motions of lieutenant. All in all, well done, victory well deserved.

But sadly I must admit that I didn't get the logic behind the choice of location.