User Avatar Image

What SHOULD be changed for the new KQ?

posted by gamingafter40 on - last edited - Viewed by 2.7K users
There has been a lot of good discussion here about what makes King's Quest King's Quest, and what old-school styles and design elements we'd like to see retained. With that in mind, what are some things we feel SHOULD be changed for a new King's Quest? And what are some risks the new designers should be willing to take?

These are strictly my own opinions:

I for one would like to see more personality -- I never felt like I knew who Sir/King Graham really was as a person. Who is this man who apologizes for disturbing insects, yet pushes old women into ovens without thinking twice about it? Is he a wise and effective ruler, or in over his head?

I'd like to see a few conversation puzzles, along with traditional give-the-right-thing-to-the-right-character KQ interactions. There are always colorful characters in the KQ universe, and monologues don't tell us very much about them.

I'm also happy to let navigation challenges fade away -- spending twenty minutes gingerly edging around the poisonous thorns in KQ II (because I didn't find the better alternate solution, I know!) was not an experience I'm anxious to repeat. If we must have physical movement puzzles, let them be like climbing the aerie cliff in KQ VI, where it's more a matter of timing and planning a route than pixel-level maneuvering.

I'd like to see "background" elements that are transformable conceal themselves better -- this shouldn't be a problem now, but the VGA palette subdivision provided unintended hints in a few of the old games.

And I'd like to get rid of the absolute dead-ends the old games were prone to -- I realize this may be seen as dumbing-down by many, but I would argue that forced backtracking does not create play value either. I'm very happy to realize I must have missed something after beating my head against a puzzle -- but I'd like an opportunity to find my way back to where I can correct it, without having to replay what I've already done!
48 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • BagginsKQ wrote: »
    Come on Graham is the sort of king who would sacrifice his own daughter if it would save his own life!

    He also stole the leprichaun king's scepter!

    Point taken
  • I can at least accept him pushing the witch to her death. I mean she did try to capture him outside in the woods... He had to duck to miss here! She kept on mumbling about making him dinner... She was heating up the oven, claiming she knew he was there, and preparing things for him... Plus in the remake, those children outside the cottage! She was likely the same witch who stole the magic chest, and wronged King Edward as well...

    She wasn't some 'little old lady'!

    Although, one could ask the moral and ethical questions, was it right for Graham to trespass on her property, to plan his attack? Plus the cheese and note robbery after?

    Plus, what's so wrong about killing a dragon? Perhaps his mistake was letting that dragon live! Maybe as it grew up, it grew two more heads, and came back for revenge! Maybe, it left to another kingdom and caused havoc, after it got its flames back?

    He has a weird mixed sense of justice...
  • When it comes to evil people and bad guys, forget ethics.
  • An officer of the law must at least file for a search warrant! For the blue knight, Sonny Bonds it works that way, ;)

    Things obviously work differently in Daventry!

    Still doesn't explain why he killed a witch, but didn't do anything about the threat of a dangerous and bad dragon!

    Hell, even the giant fell under that category...

    He likely did kill the troll though! Or rather the goat helped!
  • See, this is the problem - putting such a complex system of ethics, values and morals into a situation where these things do not exist.

  • The problem is these people (Graham, Connor, Derek Karlavaegen, etc) talk about 'values' and 'morals' all the time, but don't seem to follow any strict code!
  • I'm beginning to think that these amoral elements are just part of Roberta Williams' approach to game design. I finally played through her first game, "Mystery House," recently and discovered that I was not penalized in any way for (SPOILERS!) killing Joe the Gravedigger and stealing his shovel, even though I had no need to do either in the game. My required killing of Daisy, the main villain, was perhaps justifiable -- but my opting to stab Joe with a dagger myself instead of letting Daisy off him in due course brought no comment whatsoever. It made my ultimate victory as the sole survivor of 7 competitors a little more morally questionable than might have been the case -- she killed 4 people, I killed 2, so if I'm justifying killing her on moral grounds then I'm still half (or one-quarter) as evil as she is.
  • LOL! Now if Laura Bow had the option of murdering off the 'suspects'!
  • Laura Bow doesn't murder people herself, but she certainly seems to bring bad luck upon them. Everywhere she goes, the corpses start piling up! If Clara Bow was the "IT" girl, perhaps Laura Bow is the "HIT" girl. :)
  • Laura Bow is the hit girl. Congratulations, sir! You have made me genuinely laugh today! Hahah... that's funny. Nice reference.

Add Comment