Telltale Autumn Sale

Exclusivity over the license.

edited March 2011 in Kings Quest Game
Just because I'd like to see (one of) the AGDI guys stop their whining, even though it's very unlikely to be answered here...

Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?
«1345

Comments

  • edited February 2011
    I hope they signed a deal to use the property for more than one game under the condition that it sells well.
  • edited February 2011
    Sslaxx wrote: »
    Just because I'd like to see (one of) the AGDI guys stop their whining, even though it's very unlikely to be answered here...

    Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?
    Yeah, one of the AGDI team members in particular seems to be rather pissed that it was Telltale and not they who got the license to make KQ sequels.
  • edited February 2011
    No, actually he's not whining - He's specifically said not to slander Telltale. He just asked that if you liked what AGDI has made, let Activision know.


    Bt
  • edited February 2011
    Yeah, that's a bit of a misleading exaggeration.
  • edited February 2011
    Also, AGDI's agreement with Vivendi/Activision was technically supposed to end after they finished their last game, which is KQ3 Redux (as far as I know.)
  • edited February 2011
    No, actually he's not whining - He's specifically said not to slander Telltale. He just asked that if you liked what AGDI has made, let Activision know.


    Bt

    I have read all his comments on the board and from the sounds of it, he seems rather upset that TT has the license; he compared TTG getting license with Pepsi making toothpaste. However, he wants us to tell Activision on how we feel about it without slander TT. Just that it seems that he wants other companies or people who understands King's Quest to make the games since they understand the series more. That is what I have gotten from the guy's comments

    I see where he is comming from. Him and his company has helped revived interest in the series by making fan sequels. He is probably upset that Activision didn't come to his team, and instead came to TTG, a company who is known to make sequels of games from a revival company. Guess it is like having coke making pepsi products.
  • edited February 2011
    doom saber wrote: »
    I have read all his comments on the board and from the sounds of it, he seems rather upset that TT has the license; he compared TTG getting license with Pepsi making toothpaste. However, he wants us to tell Activision on how we feel about it without slander TT. Just that it seems that he wants other companies or people who understands King's Quest to make the games since they understand the series more. That is what I have gotten from the guy's comments

    I see where he is comming from. Him and his company has helped revived interest in the series by making fan sequels. He is probably upset that Activision didn't come to his team, and instead came to TTG, a company who is known to make sequels of games from a revival company. Guess it is like having coke making pepsi products.

    I'm fan of the King's Quest and own legal copies of all 8 games and I have never heard about these guys, although I have heard about that other fan group who are making a fan sequel. So at least in my case it was TTG's announcement which revived my interest towards the series. Personally I trust that TTG can handle this job better than some amateur group. TTG has made some of the best adventure games of the recent years, only issue I have with their games is that those are easier than old Sierra adventures (but then again difficult adventure games are rarity these days).
  • edited February 2011
    I really enjoyed playing their King's Quest remakes, and it was through their website that I found out about the King's Quest IX project. Also, after playing both of the remakes, I wanted to see if King's Quest III and King's Quest IV were being remade. That's how I ended up finding IA's King's Quest III, which I really enjoyed. As for King's Quest IV, I saw the backgrounds that the main artist, Karen, painted, and I liked them all. I would love to get the chance to play the remake.

    Not only did AGDI's remakes encourage me to look for other King's Quest remakes, but they also encouraged me to look for other adventure games. That's how I came across Just Adventure, and now I often check their list of upcoming releases, previews and reviews to see if there are any games I want to play. I bought a few games that were listed like Fairy Tale About Father Frost, Ivan and Nastya http://justadventure.com/reviews/Father_Frost/FatherFrost.shtm, Wanted: A Wild Western Adventure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjMlK6IqwY, and Everlight: Magic and Power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCXlBhS2zk. When I saw the news that Telltale was making a game based on the Bone graphic novels from Jeff Smith, I wanted to try it because I had fun reading one of the novels at Barnes and Noble. I played the demo and then I bought the full version. I've also bought Wallace and Gromit and Tales of Monkey Island.

    Overall, if it weren't for AGDI's King's Quest remakes, I wouldn't be here on the Telltale Games Forums, and I also wouldn't have gotten into the adventure gaming genre.
  • edited February 2011
    AGDI is definitely not an amateur outfit. They have already sold at least one professional game under their Himalaya banner, and created 4 excellent remakes of Sierra titles. I think that it is likely that Telltale and Himalaya would be rivals, not unlike Sierra and LucasArts in their heyday.

    That said, I do find it rather puzzling that Telltale was entrusted with the King's Quest license, considering how well AGDI handled the license, while Telltale has no previous history with it. That said, maybe this would help motivate Himalaya to begin one-upping Telltale. :)
  • edited February 2011
    I'm fan of the King's Quest and own legal copies of all 8 games and I have never heard about these guys, although I have heard about that other fan group who are making a fan sequel. So at least in my case it was TTG's announcement which revived my interest towards the series. Personally I trust that TTG can handle this job better than some amateur group. TTG has made some of the best adventure games of the recent years, only issue I have with their games is that those are easier than old Sierra adventures (but then again difficult adventure games are rarity these days).

    My bad. I meant fan remakes, not fan sequels. Both AGD and the TSL group started on their fan games around the same time. I agree that TTG can handle a better than AGD, though AGD is one of the main reasons why Kq is still revalant today, and were the group who inspired other fan groups to make Sierra fan remakes.

    even though AGD is now a commercial studio, their work is that of an indy studio, no offense. The Kq remakes are fine as fan games, but I am iffy of seeing an official sequel from them unless they hire a professional writer for the story.
  • edited February 2011
    AGDI is definitely not an amateur outfit. They have already sold at least one professional game under their Himalaya banner, and created 4 excellent remakes of Sierra titles. I think that it is likely that Telltale and Himalaya would be rivals, not unlike Sierra and LucasArts in their heyday.

    That said, I do find it rather puzzling that Telltale was entrusted with the King's Quest license, considering how well AGDI handled the license, while Telltale has no previous history with it. That said, maybe this would help motivate Himalaya to begin one-upping Telltale. :)

    I think Telltale was chosen over AGD because of studio size and experience. While it is true that AGDI is now a commercial company, the studio is made up of at least six people whereas TTG has more than maybe 20 for a project. AGDi, imo, is an Indy studio with the programmers also doing the art and storyline. TTG has programmers, artists, and writers. TTG has a better track record in releasing games in a timely manner since they have a bigger budget. The Kq series was a big property during its prime, so it would be more appropriate to give the license to a company that has more professional experience making commercial games. Perhaps Activision is not certain if a full fledge Kq game would sell, so they probably give it to a company who makes episodic games to test the waters.
  • edited February 2011
    I'm pretty sure Activision don't give a toss beyond "how much money is this going to make us". In that regard, TTG are far more likely the safe pair of hands. And really, considering the way that Activision treats its studios and franchises, are the guys at AGDI really that surprised?
  • edited February 2011
    No one mentioned the Infamous Adventures team :(
  • edited February 2011
    Bagriin wrote: »
    No one mentioned the Infamous Adventures team :(

    I love Infamous Adventures :). Really looking forward to their Space Quest II remake.
  • edited February 2011
    Personally I trust that TTG can handle this job better than some amateur group.

    While I do still love Telltale, each and every amateur group, even the mediocre ones, makes games that feel a lot more like Sierra than anything Telltale's ever made.
  • edited February 2011
    Sslaxx wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Activision don't give a toss beyond "how much money is this going to make us". In that regard, TTG are far more likely the safe pair of hands. And really, considering the way that Activision treats its studios and franchises, are the guys at AGDI really that surprised?

    Agreed. While AGDI only made one professional game so far, it didn't left a mark like their fan games have made.
  • edited February 2011
    Sslaxx wrote: »
    Is Telltale's license to use the various Sierra-related IP exclusive?

    Um...I don't work for Telltale or Activision, so for all I know maybe there really is such a deal, but why would a new King's Quest game give Telltale the license to every other Sierra property?

    We didn't see any other LucasArts properties getting revived after Tales, because, well...Telltale only had the license to do Monkey Island.
  • edited February 2011
    Um...I don't work for Telltale or Activision, so for all I know maybe there really is such a deal, but why would a new King's Quest game give Telltale the license to every other Sierra property?

    We didn't see any other LucasArts properties getting revived after Tales, because, well...Telltale only had the license to do Monkey Island.

    The difference is that Lucasarts is an active company and Activision effectively killed their Sierra division after the merger. So the speculation would be that Activision might have licensed multiple franchises to TTG if they were interested.
  • edited February 2011
    Sierra was killed long before the ActiVision merger. In fact, it was killed before the Vivendi buy-out.
  • edited February 2011
    doggans wrote: »
    While I do still love Telltale, each and every amateur group, even the mediocre ones, makes games that feel a lot more like Sierra than anything Telltale's ever made.

    Quoted for truth. And I'm not just saying that because I'm in one of those groups.

    Seriously though, anyone who isn't impressed by AGDI's just-released KQIII Redux is no fan of King's Quest. The game is fucking fantastic. Probably the best fan product out there.

    And no, I'm not on the AGDI team. ;)
  • edited February 2011
    doggans wrote: »
    While I do still love Telltale, each and every amateur group, even the mediocre ones, makes games that feel a lot more like Sierra than anything Telltale's ever made.

    I think we all have to wait and see in what TTG has in store for King's Quest. Maybe they'll hire ppl who worked on sierra games or will try their best to make the games like Sierra of old.

    AGDI games are impressive especially Quest for Glory 2, but they are remakes. I wonder if they or TTG can make a King's Quest game that is true to the series.
  • edited February 2011
    King's Quest II+ is more than just a remake. It has a completely overhauled story and set of game puzzles. It's practically a brand new game compared to the original! Though the skeletal plot outline is the same: save girl in tower.
  • edited February 2011
    King's Quest II+ is more than just a remake. It has a completely overhauled story and set of game puzzles. It's practically a brand new game compared to the original! Though the skeletal plot outline is the same: save girl in tower.

    True. I didn't mention KQ2 since honestly, the overhauled story seemed too convoluted. Having it as a fangame is okay, but having it as a retail game might alienate those who wanted to see something more polished in a retail game.
  • edited February 2011
    Lambonius wrote: »
    Quoted for truth. And I'm not just saying that because I'm in one of those groups.

    Seriously though, anyone who isn't impressed by AGDI's just-released KQIII Redux is no fan of King's Quest. The game is fucking fantastic. Probably the best fan product out there.

    And no, I'm not on the AGDI team. ;)

    It's bit harsh thing to say that people who aren't impressed by it aren't true fans of King's Quest. Personally I'm not friend of fan games (or any other fan fiction), but I don't mind if other people love those games. However when people start claiming that people who love the original King's Quest games and don't want to see anything changed aren't true fans, then I'm starting to get bit annoyed.
  • edited February 2011
    I've always felt like the whole idea behind the fan remakes was kind of weird. These '80s games are being updated to look and play like '90s games. I understand that the remakes are inspired by Sierra's own VGA remakes, and that a lot of people (myself included) consider that mid-nineties era to have been the pinnacle of the adventure gaming Golden Age, but it's still odd. Why stick to the archaic 320x200 resolution when you could show off your new beautiful hand-painted artwork in high-definition? Why make the remakes point-and-click instead of being truer to the original games and developing a more sophisticated parser? If it's just for nostalgia's sake, then it's weird that you feel more nostalgic for the style of the later games when you're putting forth all this effort to recreate these earlier games. Is it just that low-res sprites are easier to animate and point-and-click interaction is easier to program?
  • edited February 2011
    doom saber wrote: »
    True. I didn't mention KQ2 since honestly, the overhauled story seemed too convoluted. Having it as a fangame is okay, but having it as a retail game might alienate those who wanted to see something more polished in a retail game.

    I was just pointing out the fact that they're not all just silly remakes that don't deserve attention. My point was that KQ2+ is like a brand new game rather than a simple remake.
    I've always felt like the whole idea behind the fan remakes was kind of weird. These '80s games are being updated to look and play like '90s games. I understand that the remakes are inspired by Sierra's own VGA remakes, and that a lot of people (myself included) consider that mid-nineties era to have been the pinnacle of the adventure gaming Golden Age, but it's still odd. Why stick to the archaic 320x200 resolution when you could show off your new beautiful hand-painted artwork in high-definition? Why make the remakes point-and-click instead of being truer to the original games and developing a more sophisticated parser? If it's just for nostalgia's sake, then it's weird that you feel more nostalgic for the style of the later games when you're putting forth all this effort to recreate these earlier games. Is it just that low-res sprites are easier to animate and point-and-click interaction is easier to program?

    Yes, it's definitely faster and easier to make low-res sprites and animation (a BIG detriment to higher-res games!) and background art. Generally, the higher the resolution you got the more animation frames you have to have to make things look smooth and natural. KQ3Redux would have taken us 16 years instead of 8 if we were working in hi res! ;)
  • edited February 2011
    Why stick to the archaic 320x200 resolution when you could show off your new beautiful hand-painted artwork in high-definition?

    Have you checked the setup program? With the right options you can get the resolution up to 1280x800. High enough?
  • edited February 2011
    That won't change the resolution of the in-game graphics. It just scales it up and doubles the pixel sizes.
  • edited February 2011
    it still looks nice though. And it helps on bigger monitors.
  • edited February 2011
    Why stick to the archaic 320x200 resolution when you could show off your new beautiful hand-painted artwork in high-definition? Why make the remakes point-and-click instead of being truer to the original games and developing a more sophisticated parser? If it's just for nostalgia's sake, then it's weird that you feel more nostalgic for the style of the later games when you're putting forth all this effort to recreate these earlier games.

    I wouldn't say it's JUST for nostalgia's sake. :)

    There is a real beauty, in my opinion, to those so-called "archaic" 320x200 screens. Not only is it an interesting artistic challenge to make the most with the low resolution (there are techniques you develop as an artist that you simply wouldn't use in higher res) but the whole pixelated look is really an aesthetic choice. We choose that resolution because yeah, that's what the golden age games looked like, but also because we still think it looks great even today. People don't make games like that anymore, so if we want a game in that particular style, and we have the abilities, we may as well try to make it ourselves. ;)

    The games by AGDI and IA in particular are labors of love, intended to stick as close to the feel of the originals as possible, while slightly updating them visually or with a few new puzzles/fleshed out characters to make them feel fresh again. Compared to TSL, which threw the feel of the originals out the window, but updated the LOOK to something more contemporary, I'd choose those "archaic" 320x200 games any day of the week. ;)
  • edited February 2011
    It's bit harsh thing to say that people who aren't impressed by it aren't true fans of King's Quest. Personally I'm not friend of fan games (or any other fan fiction), but I don't mind if other people love those games.

    Fair enough. I'm sorry. :) I'm just saying that if you liked the feel of the old VGA KQ games, you owe it to yourself to at least give AGDI's games a try. The just-released KQ3Redux in particular is probably the best fan-made game yet, by any group.
  • edited February 2011
    Lambonius wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it's JUST for nostalgia's sake. :)

    There is a real beauty, in my opinion, to those so-called "archaic" 320x200 screens. Not only is it an interesting artistic challenge to make the most with the low resolution (there are techniques you develop as an artist that you simply wouldn't use in higher res) but the whole pixelated look is really an aesthetic choice. We choose that resolution because yeah, that's what the golden age games looked like, but also because we still think it looks great even today. People don't make games like that anymore, so if we want a game in that particular style, and we have the abilities, we may as well try to make it ourselves. ;)

    The games by AGDI and IA in particular are labors of love, intended to stick as close to the feel of the originals as possible, while slightly updating them visually or with a few new puzzles/fleshed out characters to make them feel fresh again. Compared to TSL, which threw the feel of the originals out the window, but updated the LOOK to something more contemporary, I'd choose those "archaic" 320x200 games any day of the week. ;)

    Fair enough. I didn't mean to come off as a graphics whore. I like '90s-style VGA pixel art and the low-res scanned hand-painted backgrounds, and I like the '80s-style blocky 16-color widepixel artwork of the originals too. Both looked absolutely beautiful not just given the limitations of the technology of the time but also in their own right. I was just asking why you would go for a low-res look, when generally the point of a remake is to modernize an old game using the most current technical resources that didn't exist when the original was made. Artist preference is, of course, a legitimate reason.

    But why get rid of the parser? I really, really loved the old parser-driven games. When the genre switched over to point-and-click interaction, it destroyed a lot of the interactivity and the sense that you could do anything you wanted. Of course, Sierra's parsers didn't always understand you, and they weren't as sophisticated as Infocom's. You'd think that if you were going to remake a game that had a somewhat simplistic parser, though, you'd want to remake it with a more sophisticated one. Instead they replaced the parser with a '90s-style point-and-click icon bar.

    Of course, artistic preference is a legitimate reason to do that too. But when you do both, when you model both the graphics and the gameplay after the later games, then it feels like you're more interested in staying true to KQ5 and KQ6 than KQ3.
  • edited February 2011
    Because nobody wants a parser anymore. Or rather, the majority doesn't want it. Going through all the work to create a parser system that is more responsive and reliable than Sierra's would be too much work for only a small minority who would enjoy it.

    At IA, we were actually throwing around the idea of having both a parser and P&C interface for SQ2, but we decided against it for the same reason. It's just too much work when only a fraction of the audience would actually use it.
  • edited February 2011
    I think that it would be worth attempting. While parsers do not currently offer user-friendliness, it can't be denied that they grant a lot more atmosphere to adventure games. This in part is because you can poke and prod the game and get some unique responses for the situation, or try multiple ways to get to the same destination. Whereas, with a P&C interface...well, you can only use the Icons granted to you. The simplicity is good for advancing through the game, but it also deadens the amount of interaction you can do.

    The Quest for Glory II remake offered a parser for dialogues, which allowed me to more quickly access specific topics or ones that are not apparent. That was definately enjoyable for me, and I liked how the dialogue trees offered user-friendliness as well. I am of the belief that while it would take more work to pull off, offering Combo Parsers in adventure games would be a worthy goal in advancing the gameplay and atmosphere.

    Is it really the case that no one actually wants Parsers? That is hard to say because we don't have much in the way of commercial adventure games that actually try it, in my opinion. This is probably a good place for independent game developers to fill up, since where there is a void in a market, there is opportunity.
  • edited February 2011
    If you think it's worth it you try making a full-length free adventure game :p. There's a reason why we don't have much in the way of commercial adventure games that actually try it. For the most part, the world screamed in excitement and joy when the P&C interface was created. So much so that even Sierra abandoned it eventually after LucasArts came along. And after that nobody did it ever again (except for some instance in LSL7, which I've never experienced myself).
  • edited February 2011
    That is the thing - a game is all about what elements are put together, and there are differences in gameplay that arise from how an interface is used. Point and Click interfaces are great for making things very simple in terms of letting people play the game, which undoubtedly would make them quite common.

    However, there is also going to be potential customers who are not satisfied with that level of gameplay. Someone who taps into other forms of adventure games would access a source of money that is unavailable to P&C adventure game developers. That is how small and independent companies get started - they exploit things that are too 'risky' for more established companies, and would establish a foothold in their chosen niche.

    People once thought the adventure gaming genre was dead, due to the overabundance of shooters and the decline of the genre when DOOM was released. This has been proven untrue with the advent of digital distribution and the internet, which allows people to more easily find and purchase niche products. Observe the Dwarf Fortress roguelike, which has garnered over $2,000 dollars in donations during January, and $9,000 during the December of 2010. That is a fair bit of dough received for something that is free.

    While most independent games admittedly wouldn't be so successful, it still means that there are openings and opportunities for Independents to profit from what bigger companies wouldn't dare to do.
  • edited February 2011
    Lambonius wrote: »
    Fair enough. I'm sorry. :) I'm just saying that if you liked the feel of the old VGA KQ games, you owe it to yourself to at least give AGDI's games a try. The just-released KQ3Redux in particular is probably the best fan-made game yet, by any group.

    King's Quest 3 redux is starting to grow on me. The only AGDI title I didn't enjoy playing was KQ2+. However, both QG2 and KQ3 are fun. Perhaps it is because AGDI stuck with the main story and added new content that was present in the manual or Greek mythology,

    I like how they added the journal entries from the previous slave boy.
  • edited February 2011
    The majority doesn't seem to want deaths and dead ends anymore either. Sierra eventually got rid of those too. Where do you draw the line when attempting to modernize something?
  • edited February 2011
    Sierra eventually got rid of those too.

    In what adventure-games? [maybe LSL7?]
  • edited February 2011
    KQ7, SQ6, LSL6 and 7 I think to name a few...
Sign in to comment in this discussion.