User Avatar Image

Kingdom of Sorrow

posted by exo on - last edited - Viewed by 2K users
Infamous Adventures (guys who remade KQ3 originally), recently released their SQ2 remake and anounced a King's Quest game based somewhat on the Kingdom of Sorrow novel.

Think I may be more excited about that game then this one. Likely won't have the production value of Tell Tale, but it looks like it may 'feel' a lot more like a traditional sierra game.

Too bad the guys at AGD Interactive aren't doing it though - they seem to have the best grasp of the aspects of KQ games that I enjoy.
56 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Too bad the guys at AGD Interactive aren't doing it though - they seem to have the best grasp of the aspects of KQ games that I enjoy.
    What aspects are those?

    I always felt IA's game while not early as polished or having the same production value of AGD's works, at least stuck closer to the original KQ storyline (though even it took some detours from KQ3 a bit)... In that way I think it was truer to KQ series.
  • I'm on both teams (AGDI and IA) and I can tell you that Kingdom of Sorrow is something every KQ fan is going to love.
  • If its like most 'adaptations' from books to movies or books to games, I'll probably like the 'book more'. ;)...

    But that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the game for what it is!
  • Kingdom of Sorrow has by far the best production values of any of our projects. We've really stepped up our game, art & music-wise, even from SQ2, which was very nice in those aspects.
  • User Avatar Image
    Can't wait. For me art direction and polish really does go a long way, and IA was at a disadvantage when they get going as AGDI/Tierra had been at it for years and had released several patches.

    SQ2, from what I have seen so far, is very impressive compared to the KQ3 remake, and the art on the website for KoS so far looks astounding.

    Ironically, while I loved AGDI's remakes, I thought their solo game, Al Emmo, was fairly blah.

    Either way, I will be judging KoS on its own merits and it is the first KQ project in a long time that I have been excited about.
  • Personally I think KQ2 remake is the best game AGD interactive has released. I liked KQ3+ as well, but there was a couple of bits in it I didn't like. Those being the added tresure storyline that tied into that god afwul pinball ending. That's why I like IA's KQ remake better.

    I have to agree with EXO about Al Emmo with the difference that I loathe that game. It was surprising how badly they managed to drop the ball with their first commercial endeavour.
  • Those being the added tresure storyline that tied into that god afwul pinball ending. That's why I like IA's KQ remake better.
    If you hadn't realized that 'treasure storyline' was brought up in KQ2 remake as well, just in that game it was more vague, and just hinted at things to come... See the vision of KQ3 in KQ2, and the various points where the Father tries to get the 'Crown' so he can search for the "Item"...

    It's all a setup for a sequel, that will probably never be made (first hinted at in the KQ2 remake)... The Father's attempt to bring about the Ascension...

    But personally, I'm not a big fan of the Father, and his 'gary stu'-like intrusion on the KQ story at all... There was no need to add overarching prophecy to the KQ series, no reason to completely change characters and the plot of KQ2...
  • No, there was no need. But if was fun. Nothing wrong with that. Some people enjoy it.

    I find it ridiculous to state things like there was "no need" or "no reason" for this or that when we're talking about stories here. Fiction. Fan-made fiction at that. That isn't canon. Why care so much? It's just interesting. Somebody thought it would be interesting to bring the KQ storyline in that direction. It's their personal expression of their love for the series and it was done well. They thought there was a need. And many agree. That doesn't make it official and that doesn't mean everyone has to like it (indeed, clearly not everyone does). If it's not your cup of tea than that's ok. But you can't say there was "no need" for anything or "too much" of anything else because it's all completely subjective.

    There's no denying that KQ2 needed fleshing out. It was the most bizarre of all the King's Quests, really. In that regard, there was a reason to change characters and plot points. Of course, if you want the original it's always there. And if you want a remake without anything changed, well.....I haven't given up on KQ2SCI yet. :)
  • Ok, I think some changes in fan fiction border on hubris... or as mentioned previously intruduce 'mary stus' and 'gary stus', original characters that are intended to be more important to that universe in some ways, than even the 'canon' characters. Influencing the destiny of the 'main characters' in some major way...

    I suppose AGDI's changes are no more less good or bad as those in The Silver Lining, infact the plot points pretty much parallel each other... Strangely enough... But I'm not really a fan of either (at least in comparison to the originals).

    I've heard there were individuals involved in AGDI that hoped they could have gotten the 'official' right to commercially produce the next KQ game/sequel, and hoped they could have made their 'Father' sequel, that commercial game... Apparently they were disapointed that it went to Telltale instead... Of course this may just by 'gossip'? But if there was any truth that, it would be hubris on their part... as it would suggest that they did consider their series as 'replacing' the old (at least in all future releases)... Maybe not physically replace the older games 'existence' (which they can't) but perhaps prevent true and direct sequels to the original series from having been made... I'm glad on that level that they didn't receive the commercial license (though there are valid reservations about Telltale having the license as well)...

    But, I prefer to play the originals mostly.

    Personally I never found KQ2 that strange. In someways, I find it to be one of the most pure of the KQ games, the closest to a classic fairy tales... the story was simple, but you easily knew your mission, but the puzzles were challenging enough to make it interesting. Granted their was a disconnect between the game and the manual, where Roberta made Dracula the ultimate villain the game, and the author of the manual Annette Childs, made Hagatha the most important villain, yet she's not that important in the game!

    KQ1AGI original on the other hand, now that was a game that had little story at all originally, and was just a hodge podge of things thrown together... If you forgot to go into the castle at the beginning of the game, you could completey miss the 'story'... The rest of the game is more a less a bunch of random encounters thrown together with nothing tieing them together. It took a year or two for Roberta to rewrite the manual, and sort of bring a more defined plot to KQ1, but that wasn't really incorporated in more detail until her official remake...
  • This is Anonymous Game Developer 2 from AGDI. I hope to clarify a few things here.

    First up, Baggins, I've truly been able to appreciate the contributions you've made to the KQ Omnipedia. It's a an excellent reference resource, and you clearly know your stuff as far as the KQ universe is concerned. I also agree with quite a bit of what you say. Though, I do think there are overly negative connotations attached to words like retcon, mary stu/gary stu, and other staples associated with fan-fiction, almost to the point that they have become dirty words! However, these types of additions are not always such terrible things if they're approached in the right manner and aid the storytelling subtly.

    Regarding licensing: at the time we developed the King's Quest II remake (an entire decade ago in 2002), we had no commercial aspirations toward any Sierra IP. The game was, for all intents and purposes, a work of fan fiction written & submitted to us by a beta-tester-turned-team-member. We thought it would be a great, fleshed-out opportunity to expand upon the original AGI game's story. It was also the obvious logical step after our KQ1 remake. So, we decided to turn it into a game. The King's Quest 3 Redux design document was being penned around the same time KQ2VGA released, so much of the Father continuity flowed into KQ3 Redux's design from an early stage. It wasn't until much later that we realized we could potentially make something commercial out of our games. The non-canonical nature of our early KQ plots can be viewed as the result of fans making a free KQ game for kicks (and having freedom to take some liberties) as opposed to a group focused on developing part of the official series.

    However, I want to be clear that King's Quest 2 RTS was never advertised or marketed to be an official sequel to the King's Quest series and our disclaimer at the beginning tried to make this clear. We've always claimed it to be exactly what it is: an alternate retelling in playable form, as opposed to written fan-fiction form. Truth be told, there are some elements in Romancing the Stones that I felt strayed from the King's Quest paradigm, even at the time of development. But we've always listened intently to fan feedback and tried to cater to suggestions. That's part of the reason why the Father role was drastically reduced in KQ3 Redux. Actually, the latest rewrite of the Redux design document had it so that all of the Father plot points were avoidable and the game could alternatively be played as more of a 1:1 experience, but sadly time constraints and other factors forced us to abandon that idea.

    As I've mentioned before, had such a KQ remake been an officially licensed product from the outset, rest-assured it would have been designed and approached with the established canon in mind at all times. We really have no intentions of diverting official canon into a new form of pseudo-canon and effectively insta-rewriting the way a plethora of KQ fans perceive the series history in the minds. That would be an incredibly arrogant thing to do, in my opinion, and honestly, I feel no third party developer has the authority to make those kinds of changes to the official product line - lest they incur the wrath of the fans. Suffice it to say, should we ever be in such a position to officially license Sierra IP, I assure you we'd take every measure to make it canonical through and through. :)
Add Comment