Alright...

edited June 2012 in Discuss
I've been defending this game a lot BUT:

I watched a BTTF playthrough (I haven't had much cash so not really able to afford games) and I have to say...If TT takes the BTTF route with KQ, then it will have been a very big mistake.

I'm a fan of interactive movies; I loved Phantasmagoria--but even Phantas didn't explicitly hold you by the hand and tell you exactly what to do and where. From what it seems, BTTF is truly an interactive movie--a movie which tons of cutscenes, no REAL puzzles and very little interaction with the surroundings. I'd take an interactive movie in the Phantas vein with a narrator added--that could be cool, because Phantas was pretty challenging in parts. But not BTTF style? No way!

Also, I hope they don't go for the Pixar/3D cartoon look of BTTF. I'd love an updated VGA sort of look, or even a KQ7 look. But not a 3D Pixar look. It just looks goofy.

I've been supporting this game because I want KQ to come back from the dead, and from a plot perspective, I fear the alternative to TT (TSL). I don't ever want POS going near KQ officially. I'd accept AGDI doing an official KQ game as they get the feel and the puzzles and the atmosphere down pat, but I'm not a big fan of them tying all the games together tightly and having GK style conspiracies just like TSL does.

If AGDI would do a KQ game with the sophistication of KQ2VGA but without the intricate plot and "epic" backstory, I'd 100% support them getting the license....

So, yeah right now it's a "lesser of two evils" situation.....
«1

Comments

  • edited March 2011
    If anyone else hasn't played "Back to the Future: The Game" and doesn't understand the criticisms that stem from that title, the first episode can be played for free. Jurassic Park pre-release media has overall shown a continued dumbing down of the genre, by removing even more interactive objects per screen and taking out the exploration by gutting navigation(walking) and relegating it to a menu screen interface.
  • edited March 2011
    The Jurassic Park pre-release media has overall shown a continued dumbing down of the genre, by removing even more interactive objects per screen and taking out the exploration by gutting navigation(walking) and relegating it to a menu screen interface.

    At first I thought it would've been optional weather to walk or not, whith in all honesty wouldn't have been a bad to have both. Though the fact that it only includes pictures to move from place to place and a cmaera to look around is extremely pathetic for any sortive adventure game. To me, as of right now, it seems like a slighty better than average interactive movie of Jurassic Park, rather than an actual adventure game. Which is the reason why I'm not purchasing this game.
  • edited March 2011
    I agree, Kings Quest needs to be treated differently, and I will be disappointed if it shares the same style/structure. Although I like the BttF series, and you know I don't see it as the ending of traditional games by TT. It may be dumbed down, but it is still enjoyable to me. But, yeah... Kings Quest needs to be something else.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    Gameplay probably won't be as "interactive movie" as BTTF. But also don't expect an old Sierra game, you are not going to get it in terms of gameplay. But you'll get your atmosphere and the type of story you are looking for.

    And stop worrying about us going for the KQ license. Even if I've said that we wanted it, we've been working on the damn thing for the past 10 years, you know. Some other people in the team wanted it more than I personally did, but I'm the voice of the team. I'm ready to move on --got too many other things I want to do, and right now, we got other big fishes to fry. Just playing our cards to see what that fish is going to be.
  • edited March 2011
    Cez wrote: »
    Gameplay probably won't be as "interactive movie" as BTTF. But also don't expect an old Sierra game, you are not going to get it in terms of gameplay. But you'll get your atmosphere and the type of story you are looking for.

    And stop worrying about us going for the KQ license. Even if I've said that we wanted it, we've been working on the damn thing for the past 10 years, you know. Some other people in the team wanted it more than I personally did, but I'm the voice of the team. I'm ready to move on --got too many other things I want to do, and right now, we got other big fishes to fry. Just playing our cards to see what that fish is going to be.

    U mad, bro? I'll give you this. You reached out and said something, and you actually gave a blunt, honest answer. That's what I personally want the most, and want to keep seeing from you guys. It's felt far too absent lately.
  • edited March 2011
    Cez wrote: »
    don't expect an old Sierra game, you are not going to get it in terms of gameplay. But you'll get your atmosphere and the type of story you are looking for.

    I dunno... I can't really say anything until I see it I guess.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    U mad, bro? I'll give you this. You reached out and said something, and you actually gave a blunt, honest answer. That's what I personally want the most, and want to keep seeing from you guys. It's felt far too absent lately.

    Actually, not mad, just being honest. I love KQ to pieces, but 10 years of my life is enough --that's not how the whole team feels, however, I think some of them would die happy working on TSL forever haha.

    For me it's too many other stories to write, too many other games to produce, too little time :)
  • edited March 2011
    Fair enough. Thanks again for the reply.
  • edited March 2011
    To be fair, the easier difficulty level in BttF was to appeal to newcomers who don't really get the adventure genre. But with King's Quest the target audience is used to difficult puzzles and feels that they are integral to the experience. So I'm fairly certain that telltale will(or at least try to) make this game have the hard puzzles that one would expect from a KQ game.
  • edited March 2011
    If BTTF played like King's Quest, it wouldn't be BTTF... :p

    BTTF isn't based on MacGyverisms...

    Marty didn't go about picking up random junk, to create devices to get by things. He solved his problems through running away, car/hoverboard chases, out talking his opponents, or just plain rocking out to Johnny B. Good.
  • edited March 2011
    Valiento makes a pretty solid argument.
  • edited March 2011
    Valiento wrote: »
    If BTTF played like King's Quest, it wouldn't be BTTF... :p

    BTTF isn't based on MacGyverisms...

    Marty didn't go about picking up random junk, to create devices to get by things. He solved his problems through running away, car/hoverboard chases, out talking his opponents, or just plain rocking out to Johnny B. Good.

    I'm not talking about MacGyverisms, though.

    I'm talking about the WAY in which the puzzle is presented to you in BTTF. Not the puzzles themselves. In BTTF, you are literally told what to do/pick up/mess with by a little rtext box in the game.

    I don't want to be told what to do in a KQ game, to have my proverbial hand held. The other KQ games didn't do this---and some puzzles were so damn hard they themselves could take hours to solve without any sort of hintbook. You were given no hint as to what to do and why to do it.

    That can be refined and made a bit easier; you can have smart puzzles with less dream logic, or with less "WTF?" solutions--But they must be a puzzle, not just some two second interaction which is spoonfed to you that simply moves the movie along to the next cutscene as in BTTF.
  • edited March 2011
    I seriously never paid attention to the hint systems while playing through BTTF, I avoided reading the text box.
  • edited March 2011
    Valiento wrote: »
    I seriously never paid attention to the hint systems while playing through BTTF, I avoided reading the text box.

    how did you do that. Did you put a piuece of paper over the top 1/5 of your screen and turn off the sound + subtitles? The hints are worked in so much you cannot escape them at all.
  • edited March 2011
    Lol @ thread. Oh the irony.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    Lol @ thread. Oh the irony.

    Yeah, right?

    @Anakin: You should support a game on its own merits, not because you were happy that it went against PO's "wishes". You said a lot of stuff in these forums and defended a lot of points without doing any kind of research. And like I told you in a PM to you, your personal vendetta against me has led you to do stuff that you probably should be a lot more careful in doing.

    But anyways, I don't even know why I keep trying with you.
  • edited March 2011
    Cez wrote: »
    Yeah, right?

    @Anakin: You should support a game on its own merits, not because you were happy that it went against PO's "wishes". You said a lot of stuff in these forums and defended a lot of points without doing any kind of research. And like I told you in a PM to you, your personal vendetta against me has led you to do stuff that you probably should be a lot more careful in doing.

    But anyways, I don't even know why I keep trying with you.

    Not sure what kind of "research" you're talking about.
    Right now there are no merits to either support or be against it, the game, on. There are merits towards being optimistic or pessimistic about the CONCEPT of it--but right now the game has no merits to either be supported or rejected. I accept the premise, the concept of a TTG KQ. I am optimistic about such a concept coming to be. But the concept and the execution are two different things, and only time will tell how TT goes about making this game.

    As to your last point, you are your game; You are the public face and head of your company, and as such the buck stops at your feet. I will never support your game, nor your vision for King's Quest. You had your chance, and when your game was a concept I supported it too--I supported it even beyond when it was just on paper, even when I had seen trailers and screenshots. And I was let down, big time.

    AGDI, while flawed in their story arc (IMO) did capture the feel, tone and atmosphere of the originals--And that for me makes their games acceptable.

    Now TT has a chance--just as you did, to make a KQ game. They could do well, or they could completely fail. I may be let down by TT's game, but for me as of now, the glass is half full rather than half empty. The blinding glow of "OMGZ A NEW OFFICIAL KQ GAME!!" has worn off to a more realistic stance.

    I think it's a lot less excusable for a fan group to mess up than it is for the original creator to mess up, or in TT's case, a company that doesn't know KQ as well as the fans or Roberta or Josh might. Which is why I excuse, and even accept, the vision/direction which Sierra/Roberta presented us with KQ8. And I might be willing to let go of any foibles in TT's first episode, provided they improve.

    Not to drift off point, but I'm not really a fan of the episodic format in general--Whether with this or TSL. I simply don't like it for a KQ game. Maybe for something like a Flash Gordan based game it would work or an Indiana Jones based game (since it was inspired by adventure serials), but I hate that this format seems to be THE formula of future adventure games. You don't buy a book one chapter at a time. But that's the selfish fan in me who wants all the game, the whole thing, at once.

    On the other hand, objectively speaking, the episodic format is beneficial to both designers and fans. Reception to one episode can allow the designers to learn from the fans/customers where improvement is needed, as it did for your game, which in the end makes for a better game--And this is good is both for the fans and for the company.

    Ultimately I am a KQ traditionalist, a purest in terms of the storyline. I can go for utterly different gameplay dynamics (ala KQ8, which is a direction I would've LOVED the series to go), so long as it's a simple fantasy story. It can be epic in tone, so long as it's not convoluted--And the convoluted storyline (along with the WTF backstory and utterly twisted characters of certain characters and the tying every game together) is where TSL failed the most in my eyes.
  • edited March 2011
    Not sure what kind of "research" you're talking about.
    ...anything in the history of this company?
    Right now there are no merits to either support or be against it, the game, on. There are merits towards being optimistic or pessimistic about the CONCEPT of it--but right now the game has no merits to either be supported or rejected. I accept the premise, the concept of a TTG KQ. I am optimistic about such a concept coming to be. But the concept and the execution are two different things, and only time will tell how TT goes about making this game.
    Personally, I would have preferred hearing that Zynga had acquired the rights. It would imply more or less the same quality and difficulty curve, but at least nobody would take it seriously.
    As to your last point, you are your game; You are the public face and head of your company, and as such the buck stops at your feet.
    I don't think that's an excuse to go about harassing him no matter where he posts, putting words in his mouth. He's a member of the community just as much as anyone else, and like everyone else deserves a voice and respect in the public space. You may not agree with the direction of his fan works or his views on the game, but that's not an excuse for harassing the guy.
    Now TT has a chance--just as you did, to make a KQ game. They could do well, or they could completely fail. I may be let down by TT's game, but for me as of now, the glass is half full rather than half empty. The blinding glow of "OMGZ A NEW OFFICIAL KQ GAME!!" has worn off to a more realistic stance.
    If that's the case, could you please stop quoting my first reaction? It's somewhat embarrassing, my knee-jerk reaction just happened to be negative, and while my current reaction remains negative, I'm somewhat less explosive about it and would like to keep explosive responses in the past, where they belong. Just a request, thanks.
    I think it's a lot less excusable for a fan group to mess up than it is for the original creator to mess up, or in TT's case, a company that doesn't know KQ as well as the fans or Roberta or Josh might. Which is why I excuse, and even accept, the vision/direction which Sierra/Roberta presented us with KQ8. And I might be willing to let go of any foibles in TT's first episode, provided they improve.
    I think it's MORE excusable for a fan group to "mess up". I think fan art allows a person to make something highly personal, or for a group to experiment and play around. Because they're fans, they can kind of skew the product into a direction that they want and still see it through the eyes of a fan of the series. And because it's a fan work, it's provided free of charge, so it's not something that you can really put outside demands on. I also think that a work that doesn't have to worry about actually being in the "canon", as it is a fan work, doesn't have to worry about "messing anything up" because it's not going to have an adverse affect on the situation. And as Cez posted in this forum earlier, a commercial product has entirely different requirements to a non-commercial one, and he thinks that a commercial King's Quest shouldn't go the "big overarching story" route. As it is, TSL is not a "proper" sequel, but it is definitely a "shout out" to all the events of previous games. Maybe it's not something that should be tied together. Maybe it should be handled with less levity. Maybe a commercial game couldn't get away with this sort of thing. But this is just another fan theory given game form.

    I think that, even if you really dislike a fan work, you have to respect the effort and love for the series that had to spawn that much work without promise of a paycheck at the end of the day. All they get is the enjoyment that some set of fans might gleam from it and the promise that Activision won't ruffle their feathers over the whole thing. With so much invested with so little in terms of any sort of actual profit, at the very least I don't think it's a thing that requires being heckled over. Yeah, it's more of an interpretation and creative work rather than a "proper sequel", per se. Maybe that's not what you wanted. But again, you're not in a position to be making demands.
    You don't buy a book one chapter at a time.
    Actually, a lot of the novels that are considered classics now were released in an era in which books were released serially. There are plenty of people who actually have bought their books one chapter at a time.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    Thank you, RD.

    I don't know how to put these ideas together without making me sound like a pompous ass, but I'll try.

    I will never get tired of saying how thankful I am to have been working with the incredible team that made TSL. Those guys all worked without pay, and continue to do so to bring fans something they loved to make.

    If anything, whether you can't support it, Anakin, you should at least be grateful at the idea that TSL had probably a lot to do with the fact that today Telltale is making KQ.

    Considering te events with Vivendi and Activision helped TSL to put back the name of "King's Quest" in the headlines, and certain things that happened internally between PO and Telltale, I'm sure it all had a big role in all of this.

    A lot of your threads against TSL lose validity quickly and fast, and people start calling you a troll, because the hate is very strong and unsupported. Why do I mean? You may dislike TSL's story, but I'm sure that if you'd look objectively into it, you could recognize many of its merits. Instead, you look for the very minute details to slash it, often coming up with roll eye inducing arguments. You'd make a stronger point and stand if you weren't going just about the hate towards it.

    But anyways, my point is that won't lead you anywhere. There's a discussion going on right now in facebook with Sierra Chest and Scott Murphy. We are talking about Jane Jensen and how great Sierra was. And that's the sort of thing that we should be cherishing. I continued the conversation privately with Scott, and had a lot of fun talking to him. As I do talking to Jane, and Ken, and other Sierra people I've talked to over the past months. They know what I'm trying to do, and they support it. They've all seen and are amazed and glad at the work done in TSL. So, if these Sierra people are happy for what we fans are doing, and they've accepted and validated The Silver Lining, I don't understand if you respect these people so much, why do you want to bring down something they are quite happy with.

    At the end of the day, TSL is a statement of what fan power can do. What passion can do. Everyone from Sierra that has ever seen it is happy for is existence. They've supported it and have checked it out. I do not get hate mail from any of them, but it's always a pleasure to talk to them, and I feel both honored and flattered by our conversations.

    Because we cherish Sierra. This, at the end of the day is not only about the product itself, but about what the love for Sierra, and how that legacy has marked us. And that's what we cherish, and that's why PO has met with success. In a very heartfelt recommendation, the way you are approaching it, won't leave you with nothing good at the end of the road. The way you are making a stand against it is only painting yourself in a very bad position by doing it. If the Sierra people read what you've posted in all of these threads, especially the way you've posted things, it wouldn't do you any good.

    So, express your opinion, but leave all the hate out. Because people with great energy (i.e. the people that made Sierra happen) didn't get where they got because they focused on the negativity. And so shouldn't you.

    Cez
  • edited March 2011
    Not to drift off point, but I'm not really a fan of the episodic format in general--Whether with this or TSL. I simply don't like it for a KQ game
    What was your opinion of KQ7's 'episodes' (chapters)? The main difference back then they didn't split up the game and distribute it overal several months.
  • edited March 2011
    That's a pretty big difference.
  • edited March 2011
    Cez wrote: »
    Thank you, RD.

    I don't know how to put these ideas together without making me sound like a pompous ass, but I'll try.

    I will never get tired of saying how thankful I am to have been working with the incredible team that made TSL. Those guys all worked without pay, and continue to do so to bring fans something they loved to make.

    If anything, whether you can't support it, Anakin, you should at least be grateful at the idea that TSL had probably a lot to do with the fact that today Telltale is making KQ.

    Considering te events with Vivendi and Activision helped TSL to put back the name of "King's Quest" in the headlines, and certain things that happened internally between PO and Telltale, I'm sure it all had a big role in all of this.

    A lot of your threads against TSL lose validity quickly and fast, and people start calling you a troll, because the hate is very strong and unsupported. Why do I mean? You may dislike TSL's story, but I'm sure that if you'd look objectively into it, you could recognize many of its merits. Instead, you look for the very minute details to slash it, often coming up with roll eye inducing arguments. You'd make a stronger point and stand if you weren't going just about the hate towards it.

    But anyways, my point is that won't lead you anywhere. There's a discussion going on right now in facebook with Sierra Chest and Scott Murphy. We are talking about Jane Jensen and how great Sierra was. And that's the sort of thing that we should be cherishing. I continued the conversation privately with Scott, and had a lot of fun talking to him. As I do talking to Jane, and Ken, and other Sierra people I've talked to over the past months. They know what I'm trying to do, and they support it. They've all seen and are amazed and glad at the work done in TSL. So, if these Sierra people are happy for what we fans are doing, and they've accepted and validated The Silver Lining, I don't understand if you respect these people so much, why do you want to bring down something they are quite happy with.

    At the end of the day, TSL is a statement of what fan power can do. What passion can do. Everyone from Sierra that has ever seen it is happy for is existence. They've supported it and have checked it out. I do not get hate mail from any of them, but it's always a pleasure to talk to them, and I feel both honored and flattered by our conversations.

    Because we cherish Sierra. This, at the end of the day is not only about the product itself, but about what the love for Sierra, and how that legacy has marked us. And that's what we cherish, and that's why PO has met with success. In a very heartfelt recommendation, the way you are approaching it, won't leave you with nothing good at the end of the road. The way you are making a stand against it is only painting yourself in a very bad position by doing it. If the Sierra people read what you've posted in all of these threads, especially the way you've posted things, it wouldn't do you any good.

    So, express your opinion, but leave all the hate out. Because people with great energy (i.e. the people that made Sierra happen) didn't get where they got because they focused on the negativity. And so shouldn't you.

    Cez

    We can agree to disagree. Even from an objective, non-KQ perspective, I don't like your game's storyline, or it's dialogue, or it's characterization of the characters--Even if I was looking at it as a game utterly independent of KQ. I'm simply not a fan of the "teen fantasy" genre. I despise stuff such as Twilight and the only teen fantasy story I like is Harry Potter. A large part of my like of Harry Potter comes from the great writing, the characters, etc etc; Another large part of my appreciation for it comes from Emma Watson. :p

    But in all seriousness, teen fantasy has never been my favorite genre. I'm more a fan of stories like those by De Troyes, Malory, Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, William King, or The Song of Roland, Beowulf, Robin Hood and the like, and the original fairy tales and myths and legends that inspired KQ, and light stuff like Alice in Wonderland. And as far as TSL's storyline outside of it's genre--That would be a whole 'nother thread, and even the story in large part I don't agree with. I feel it's very cliched, to say the least.

    Maybe TSL had something to do with the TT game coming into being; Maybe it didn't. I don't know for certain. To be honest, I don't really care if the KQ name is back in the headlines or not. As a fan, it's a bonus to see something you love getting attention, new fans, and a new revival...But it's not necessary.

    hether KQ is in the headlines or not, the old games still exist and will always, and that's all that matters. I'll still have the games I love no matter what happens. I'd love if a whole new generation got into KQ, SQ...But let's be frank, it isn't going to happen unless those games are reinvented in a way most fans would hate (ala Mask of Eternity). So at this point, another new game is a BONUS. It's a gift.

    As to Jane Jensen, Ken, Scott etc "validating" your game. Yes, they may appreciate your game, and your efforts, and your time, and helping get their own names back in the news. Some may appreciate your direction; Some may not--I don't know if all or any of them know about your storyline or how they feel about it. They may validate it as a fan game--as a good work of fan fiction, but that doesn't make it KQ9. It doesn't make it the story Roberta, Josh, Lorelei or Jane would've told. It doesn't make it the true ending of the series, the future; you and POS are not solely the heirs to Roberta and Sierra as you once proclaimed; TSL's retcons of the originals aren't I'm pretty dang sure how Roberta would've went about things.

    (That's one reason I'm happy TT's game is a reboot--a restart. It's kind of like the movie Never Say Never Again--a James Bond film which was a competitor's take on the series that happened to be released the same year as an official Bond film was. The only official sequel or addition to the original continuity should IMO either be by or at least contain major creative involvement/direction by Roberta, Josh, Jane or Lorelei)

    I'm sure also some might not appreciate their own work being rewritten by TSL--and a LARGE chunk of the original series thus far has been rewritten in TSL, particularly 2 & 3, along with parts of 1, 4, 5 and 6. I would imagine AGDI's games were appreciated by Roberta, Ken, Josh, etc too as they were also labors of love, you know what I mean? Appreciation for one's efforts and deification or naming one the heir apparent are two very different things.

    And yes, I do respect Ken, Roberta, Jane, Scott, and everybody else at Sierra. Your tone and manner seem to imply I do not. Well, let me tell you something. When I was growing up, Ken Williams was to me what Walt Disney was to millions of children growing up in the '50s and '60s. Roberta was my hero. King's Quest was my escape from reality, probably my favorite thing in the whole world, literally, from the time I was five years old onward--It has essentially been a part of my life since I can remember.

    I loved and still love KQ more than I liked most movies or books, and more than any other game series. I've yet to find another fantasy game series that has measured up to KQ. I've yet to find any science fiction game series that has quite the magic and genius of SQ. I'm a lover of almost everything Sierra. Sierra to me was, and remains, the Disney of the computer game industry. I'm old fashioned--I haven't moved on and embraced WoW and the like.

    But that doesn't mean I have to agree with them on everything or that my opinions must be in lockstep with their own. I'm not the biggest fan of SQ5, or it's direction--that doesn't mean I underestimate or would ever argue against Mark Crowe's talents as a storywriter or designer given that I love pretty much everything else he had creative input in. He's a genius regardless.

    I don't have to agree with Ken's opinions on certain games (I'm sure there's some Sierra games he looks back on as not being quite good enough that I might love), or Roberta's; I don't agree with Scott on SQ6.

    I don't agree with Ken that selling Sierra to CUC was EVER a good idea--even in 1996 when there was no hint of the corruption of CUC's management; Even when looking at it without the benefit of hindsight. But that doesn't mean I don't respect him, because one bad decision doesn't negative 20 great business decisions; It doesn't mean that I don't love what they created in the 20 magical years that Sierra ruled the computer game industry.

    Now, my opinions may have been put forth in a negative fashion--Yes. But understand that negativity is born out of an intense passion for these games. As I said, they've been a part of my life since I was five years old (KQ5 was brought into my home when I was 5).

    SQ has been in my life since I was 7--and I happened upon SQ in what was probably one of the worst weeks of my life and the only reason that week didn't leave me totally traumatized was because I was able to escape into the wonderful world that SQ1VGA offered.

    So, my negativity toward your game comes from my sense of love and passion for these games--the same passion and love that drove and drives Rather Dashing's own negativity toward TT's game. We all have love, appreciation and passion for Sierra. We all have different visions of what makes a KQ game a KQ game.

    I can admit we--you, me, POS in general, AGDI, IA, Rather Dashing, and every other fan here, there and everywhere in the Sierra Network of fans--all have passion for Sierra. But that doesn't mean all o us have to or will agree on everything. It doesn't mean we have to sing Kumb-by-ya. Nor does it mean I have to like or appreciate your game, or accept it. And I'm sorry--but that's something I won't do. Call it negativity, but just as many on your team aren't the biggest fans of KQ8--Some even view it as not being a KQ game--I'm not a fan of your game or it's direction or it's take on KQ.

    I'm more passionate and louder in my opinions against your game than most because I know that the loudest voice, even if it's the voice of the minority, always wins. The silent people--even if they are in the majority--always lose; History remembers those who have the passion and willpower to talk the loudest, proudest and most boldly on their position. History has proven this in many cases to be so. I amplify my opinions because I know FOR A FACT that there are many who agree with me in many aspects on your game, but prefer to publicly keep silent or keep a happy or neutral face for the sake of things, in order to avoid the risk of inciting a "fandom war" or whatever.

    But I think that silence or only timid disagreement just makes things appear as if all generally agree--with you and your vision. And I raise my voice louder to show that no, not everybody does; there are many indeed who don't. And I love KQ so much that I'm willing to sacrifice my reputation in order for that point to at least be heard by the fandom in general.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    I just have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. I have Sierra designers interested or even willing to work with us because of the work we've done on TSL. You are a voice that is not only not being listened to --if our download numbers and overall coverage is proof of something-, but you also give the community a bad name. That doesn't make you a winning voice, that makes you very annoying, as everybody, even people that agree with you, tell you in every forum you visit.

    You don't have to say that you know for a fact people agree with you as if you are unraveling the biggest secret ever. Everyone knows not everyone likes TSL. But your stand is not even smart --when you annoy people that think the same as you do, and actually make them realize that maybe it's all just silly to have such strong feelings against TSL, you are actually even doing us a favor --but, regardless, you still create discomfort in the community, and that's just not right. I know you are young, and at your age, I tended to be that stubborn too, but you'd do some good in listening to what a lot of people have advised you to do over and over.

    Again, that's not to say that people don't agree with you, but even the people that does keep telling you what I've always said from day 1. TSL isn't canon and it doesn't even bear the KQ name in its title. It's our fan dream version of KQ. If PO had gotten their hands on the KQ License, we would have put it directly in the hands of Roberta Williams, and, as likely as it is that Roberta wouldn't have worked on it, we would have then put it in the hands of any of the other designers. That's our goal.

    Cez
  • edited March 2011
    Bless your efforts, César and Phoenix. That has been my wish all these years. Repayment, at least in part, not usurpation (as some fear).
  • edited March 2011
    You know what? You're right.
    I'm going to throw away my copies of the games. I have no place in the Sierra fan community. KQ, and SQ, will be left in the past--The long ago past for me. You've won, and you're right--download numbers speak for themselves and thus, no one else's opinion in the end matters. No point in voicing your opinion when you have download numbers against you.

    I get it now; I have seen the light. KQ was always a dark, angsty universe full of complex plots, emotionally scarred characters and twisted, convoluted backstories. And my God, I have been blind these 16 years in not seeing it. I always thought it was a light world of fairy tale-esque happenings and characters...But you're right.

    I'm not going to unwittingly help your cause any further by opposing your game, and really, I guess I'm not truly a fan of Sierra, since technically you are the heirs to Sierra, right? So, you've won. Enjoy it.
  • edited March 2011
    You know after this interview, I'm still not worrying too much;
    Dave Grossman: Looking at our forums (or the ones at Adventure Gamers, for that matter), I get the sense that there are some fans who are rather leery about what we might do with a beloved license like King’s Quest. Which is all well and good, I would expect to encounter that kind of protective feeling from a die-hard fan of any franchise. To them I would say this: Telltale does have a significant Lucas background, but we also have a lot of lifelong Sierra fans in the studio. We are neither LucasArts nor Sierra, what we are is a studio that puts a huge amount of emphasis on staying true to the license we’re working with, no matter where it comes from. We approach our work as fans, we wanted to work with King’s Quest because there are a lot of people here who love it, and those are the people who are going to be building this game.

    Also, we take input from our community seriously, so if there are particular things that you love about King’s Quest that you would like to see in the game, by all means post those thoughts to the Telltale forums. The designers read them, and a designer’s whole job is to make the audience happy.

    AG: Why did you choose King’s Quest? Which other Sierra licenses did you consider?


    DG: There is internal enthusiasm for a number of the Sierra titles, but King’s Quest is something of a flagship. It seemed like the clear choice, simple as that. When you ask people here which titles they think we should do, they tend to start with, “Well, we’ll do King’s Quest of course, and then I think…” As for others, we have a couple of favorites among the staff, but we don’t have any additional statements to make on these right now.


    AG: Will your KQ game follow up on old storylines and characters or should fans expect something completely new? Will we play as King Graham and/or do you have other playable characters in mind?

    DG: To do something completely new would kind of defeat the point, wouldn’t it? There’s a lot of great history in KQ, and we want to make a game that fits into the established canon, and that fans will actually want to play. As for the details therein, I plead the fifth. No, wait, that makes it sound bad—I plead whatever amendment it is where game developers are cagy about the details of the game until it’s closer to the time when it comes out.
  • CezCez
    edited March 2011
    You really don't get it, do you?

    That notion of "I'm the heirs of Sierra" is really dumb. My wish is to resuscitate it and give the IPs back to their designers --for them to do what needs to be done with them. What's wrong with that?

    TSL may be a dark approach to KQ, but that doesn't mean that I would do the same under a commercial contract. In fact, even though I'm still proud of TSL, and I know a lot of people love it, and I've enjoyed it immensely, I've come to question its approach. But TSL is also our learning ground, our love for Sierra, our fully fan dedication to it. It's not our commercial project.

    Cez
  • edited March 2011
    You know what? You're right.
    I'm going to throw away my copies of the games. I have no place in the Sierra fan community. KQ, and SQ, will be left in the past--The long ago past for me. You've won, and you're right--download numbers speak for themselves and thus, no one else's opinion in the end matters. No point in voicing your opinion when you have download numbers against you.

    I get it now; I have seen the light. KQ was always a dark, angsty universe full of complex plots, emotionally scarred characters and twisted, convoluted backstories. And my God, I have been blind these 16 years in not seeing it. I always thought it was a light world of fairy tale-esque happenings and characters...But you're right.

    I'm not going to unwittingly help your cause any further by opposing your game, and really, I guess I'm not truly a fan of Sierra, since technically you are the heirs to Sierra, right? So, you've won. Enjoy it.

    And that right there is why even other people who dislike TSL won't take you seriously, you flat out refuse to hold any kind of mature discussion about anything. The second anybody points out that you're misrepresenting anything you immediately go this place of being whiny and sarcastic and just won't look at anything with even the smallest bit of logic.
  • edited March 2011
    Cez wrote: »
    You really don't get it, do you?

    That notion of "I'm the heirs of Sierra" is really dumb. My wish is to resuscitate it and give the IPs back to their designers --for them to do what needs to be done with them. What's wrong with that?

    TSL may be a dark approach to KQ, but that doesn't mean that I would do the same under a commercial contract. In fact, even though I'm still proud of TSL, and I know a lot of people love it, and I've enjoyed it immensely, I've come to question its approach. But TSL is also our learning ground, our love for Sierra, our fully fan dedication to it. It's not our commercial project.

    Cez

    That "heirs of Sierra" or "heirs of Roberta" notion was one you yourself kicked around.

    Personally, I question your motivations. What you say publicly and feel privately may well be too very different things. You're a businessmen, and from my experience knowing several, businessmen are like politicians:

    They'll say whatever is most expedient and whatever makes for the best rhetoric at the moment. As a friend of mine put it, "say whatever gets the product sold." Right now, you're here in a bigger pond--outside of your borders so to speak- and are using populist talk.

    "I'm just the little guy, trying to do the right thing, what's wrong with that?"

    It just kind of makes me doubt your words considering just some months ago you were Mr. Ambitious, "I wanna buy up KQ, SQ, GK and make my own versions of them." Now Mr. Ambitious becomes Mr. Noble? Kinda fishy.

    It's funny, you question it's approach here, yet on your forum firmly stand by it and each episode gets darker and darker, even with the development time alloted to tweak things.
  • edited March 2011
    That "heirs of Sierra" or "heirs of Roberta" notion was one you yourself kicked around.

    Personally, I question your motivations. What you say publicly and feel privately may well be too very different things. You're a businessmen, and from my experience knowing several, businessmen are like politicians:

    They'll say whatever is most expedient and whatever makes for the best rhetoric at the moment. Right now, you're here in a bigger pond--outside of your borders so to speak- and are using populist talk.

    "I'm just the little guy, trying to do the right thing, what's wrong with that?"

    It just kind of makes me doubt your words considering just some months ago you were Mr. Ambitious, "I wanna buy up KQ, SQ, GK and make my own versions of them." Now Mr. Ambitious becomes Mr. Noble? Kinda fishy.

    It's funny, you question it's approach here, yet on your forum firmly stand by it and each episode gets darker and darker, even with the time alloted for time to tweak things.

    That's just your conspiracy theory that you made up, we never once said anywhere that we intended to remake all of the Sierra franchises into something else. We have always said all along that any franchise we worked on we would do everything possible to keep them true to their roots and get original designers involved. This crap about us re-making entire series is something you made up all by yourself.

    And yeah, we're three episodes into a five episode game, we're sticking with the plot we have and finishing this game. Even if we feel it might have been better to do it a little differently, we're not going to try and rewrite the entire tone of the game with only two episodes to go. That wouldn't accomplish anything other than confusing people and taking too long to finish the game.
  • edited March 2011
    wilco64256 wrote: »
    And that right there is why even other people who dislike TSL won't take you seriously, you flat out refuse to hold any kind of mature discussion about anything. The second anybody points out that you're misrepresenting anything you immediately go this place of being whiny and sarcastic and just won't look at anything with even the smallest bit of logic.

    Kind of hard to be mature when you write a long, mature, calmly written piece expressing your view, and you're replied with what amounts to:

    "yeah well we have Sierra designers talking to us and big download numbers, so no one is listening to you and basically your opinion means nothing, and you're giving the community a bad name, and by the way, tee hee, in opposing us, you're actually helping our cause."
  • edited March 2011
    Kind of hard to be mature when you write a long, mature, calmly written piece expressing your view, and you're replied with what amounts to:

    "yeah well we have Sierra designers talking to us and big download numbers, so no one is listening to you and basically your opinion means nothing, and you're giving the community a bad name, and by the way, tee hee, in opposing us, you're actually helping our cause."

    Maturity isn't about writing some long, mature, calm thing. Anybody can write something long and calm. Maturity is about how you react when someone disagrees with you.
  • edited March 2011
    wilco64256 wrote: »
    That's just your conspiracy theory that you made up, we never once said anywhere that we intended to remake all of the Sierra franchises into something else. We have always said all along that any franchise we worked on we would do everything possible to keep them true to their roots and get original designers involved. This crap about us re-making entire series is something you made up all by yourself.

    And yeah, we're three episodes into a five episode game, we're sticking with the plot we have and finishing this game. Even if we feel it might have been better to do it a little differently, we're not going to try and rewrite the entire tone of the game with only two episodes to go. That wouldn't accomplish anything other than confusing people and taking too long to finish the game.

    Well, you've had 8 or 9 years of development time, and almost a year has passed since Episode 1 came out. I don't know when you began to question your plot or it's tone...But whenever it happened, there's been plenty of time to change even a bit of it to make it lighter, more KQ-esque. And you've had detractors for years, almost half a decade at least, and in all that time, never once did any criticism, even from Josh Mandel himself about the darkness of the plot, make you rethink anything major, about the tone or darkness or anything.
  • edited March 2011
    wilco64256 wrote: »
    Maturity isn't about writing some long, mature, calm thing. Anybody can write something long and calm. Maturity is about how you react when someone disagrees with you.

    Maturity isn't about calmly putting forth your opinion?
    So what is maturity--basically telling someone "my company is bigger than you, we're bigger, no one listens to you or cares what you have to say, so just shut up"?

    If someone antagonizes me, I give it right back to them. I gave you in that long post what I felt was the greatest amount of respect I can give, I gave acknowledgement that even if I loathe your game, you are fans nonetheless, I was pretty fair on some points.

    And I was responded with an antagonistic, arrogant response.
  • edited March 2011
    Well, you've had 8 or 9 years of development time, and almost a year has passed since Episode 1 came out. I don't know when you began to question your plot or it's tone...But whenever it happened, there's been plenty of time to change even a bit of it to make it lighter, more KQ-esque. And you've had detractors for years, almost half a decade at least, and in all that time, never once did any criticism, even from Josh Mandel himself about the darkness of the plot, make you rethink anything major, about the tone or darkness or anything.

    Actually you have no idea what the original plot actually was or how much has changed or what the exact details of Josh's beef with the game were so your entire post has no basis in anything but your own opinion.
  • edited March 2011
    Actually, I remember clearly Cez saying something to the effect of if POS got the Sierra IPs they would do what they wanted with them because they're the ones who got the IP and that he was sorry but they can only do what they like doing (I'm heavily paraphrasing). So that's not entirely true. Still, whatever. If that happened and POS did screw up Sierra IPs I just wouldn't acknowledge them. Like I won't acknowledge Telltale's KQ if they screw it up. But at this point I'd support POS any day in a commercial venture over Telltale as things stand right now.
  • edited March 2011
    wilco64256 wrote: »
    Actually you have no idea what the original plot actually was or how much has changed or what the exact details of Josh's beef with the game were so your entire post has no basis in anything but your own opinion.

    Considering a large portion of what seems to have been the original plot (circa 2002?) leaked on Google Groups nearly a decade ago and portions of it have remained the same since, I'd imagine stuff like "Manannan is Valanice's father!" would've evoked a "WTF?" response from Josh.

    And in his infamous fight with Cez on AdventureGamers, Josh did give inklings as to his own doubts plotwise.
  • edited March 2011
    Actually, I remember clearly Cez saying something to the effect of if POS got the Sierra IPs they would do what they wanted with them because they're the ones who got the IP and that he was sorry but they can only do what they like doing (I'm heavily paraphrasing). So that's not entirely true. Still, whatever. If that happened and POS did screw up Sierra IPs I just wouldn't acknowledge them. Like I won't acknowledge Telltale's KQ if they screw it up. But at this point I'd support POS any day in a commercial venture over Telltale as things stand right now.

    Right, with new games yes we'd be responsible for plot and gameplay and stuff like that. What I'm referring to here is Anakin's ongoing claim that if we had the rights to do KQ games we would replace all the old KQ1-8 with our own new versions and get rid of those.
  • edited March 2011
    Considering a large portion of what seems to have been the original plot (circa 2002?) leaked on Google Groups nearly a decade ago and portions of it have remained the same since, I'd imagine stuff like "Manannan is Valanice's father!" would've evoked a "WTF?" response from Josh.

    And in his infamous fight with Cez on AdventureGamers, he did give inklings as to his own doubts plotwise.

    As you said, it's been 8 years since then and the game has been massively overhauled in that time. And you're still trying to speak for Josh Mandel when he's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Yes he disagreed with the plot, but he also understood that the game is fan fiction and he was able to let it go at that.
  • edited March 2011
    wilco64256 wrote: »
    Right, with new games yes we'd be responsible for plot and gameplay and stuff like that. What I'm referring to here is Anakin's ongoing claim that if we had the rights to do KQ games we would replace all the old KQ1-8 with our own new versions and get rid of those.

    Well, you've already retconned most of the originals out of importance as it is. Do I think you'd go and remake all of the originals? No.

    But you admit yourself that "with new games we'd be responsible for plot and gameplay and stuff like that." As TT is being judged by their previous work for what they're going to do with this game, why isn't it just as fair to judge you and what you might do with a commercial KQ by what you've done so far?

    By rights, one can vehemently oppose such a possibility. You see, that's the major and main thing I'm opposed to: Your vision becoming canon. Make all the fangames you want--I don't care.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.