User Avatar Image

King's Quest Spin-offs

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 3.9K users
The first 'KQ' game per se that you could ever say was released was Adventure in Serenia (Aka Wizard and the Princess). An adventure game released by Sierra in the early 1980s and designed/written by Roberta, it was set in Serenia, a land later revisited in KQ5. Roberta making the land in KQ5 be Serenia tied that game to KQ--Making it a game set in the same world, but not "KQ".

Would you ever support spin offs--in any genre, or different from KQ--that are set in the world of KQ, but don't concern The Royal Family or Daventry? Think sort of like Star Trek: The Next Generation, or spin offs of the series set in the same world--Expanding the universe of KQ and it's boundaries and mythos and perhaps even expanding the world KQ is set in into something truly large and interesting--Sort of making the "World of Daventry" into a setting like "The Forgotten Realms"--where the main KQ stories are just one of many stories in the same universe--Where the Royal Family are just one set of heroes in that world.

It'd take away a lot of the restrictions that the "rules" KQ has puts on stories and open up a lot of potential new ground but would allow you to also revisit beloved characters and lands that KQ first showed us, while offering up new ones as well. Perhaps in a story or two The Royal Family could even make a cameo appearance.
51 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I just think there's no sense in arguing about this. At the end of the day people will believe whatever they want about the games. It doesn't matter what Sierra considered it to be. And it's ok because it's just a game. People aren't going to go to hell for saying it isn't KQ8 or anything.
  • KQ1 isn't KQ, because its nothing like KQ6, which was the very best KQ of them all...

    The Princeless Bride isn't KQ, because its split into chapters, and has two characters, and is far too cartoony and silly for my tastes...

    ...and I choose to believe 2+2 = 5 and that there are 5 lights...


  • It is not KQ8 to me. Okay?

    Crap. It's not KQ8 to me. It's not. TO ME. It has combat, and combat is a very large part of the game. The other games merely have some puzzles where creatures/people may die when the puzzle is solved a certain way. You can't just wander around and kill random creatures in the old games without consequence--if you kill the goat in KQ1, the game becomes unwinnable. That's not combat, it's a fatally incorrect puzzle solution.

    The games from KQ1 to KQ7 are a progression of technology. Mask of Eternity up and changes whole aspects of the gameplay in one fell swoop, causing the game to feel out of place with the others. And Sierra didn't make it heavily combat-based because the technology suddenly allowed it. They made it that way because a large part of the gaming market was interested in shooters.

    It is not KQ8 to me. There are certain aspects that separate a graphic adventure game from an action adventure RPG, and MoE lept over that line. The franchise didn't ease into it like MoE should be the next logical step.

    Now shut your trap telling me that I'm deluded just because I consider the graphic adventure games of the series to be the core titles and the only titles I care about. Graphic adventure is the core genre for the franchise. KQ1-7 are in that genre. MoE is an action adventure RPG, thus does not fit within the core genre. Therefore, to me, it is not a core title.
  • old games without consequence--if you kill the goat in KQ1, the game becomes unwinnable.
    No it doesn't become unwinnable... You just have to be kindly generous and give away a treasure to the troll...

    Roberta designed it that intentionally.

    BTW, you are still wrong, its officially KQ8... Maybe not the best of the KQ games, but still KQ8. Don't tell me to shut up!

    2+2=5 = you!
  • BagginsKQ;617990 said:
    Don't tell me to shut up!
    Shut up then and I won't.

    Also, Paw agrees with me.
  • We all know Sierra intended it to be KQ8. That's not in question. But some people personally don't consider it KQ8 and that's ok because it's just a game. This isn't math, politics, philosophy, or I don't know, etymology or something where everything has a clear right and wrong. This is fiction. This is just a game. So it DOES NOT MATTER what people think, regardless of original intentions of the author/company. People can think whatever they want about fiction.
  • Reason? Logic? Bueller?

  • Actually, MusicallyInspired its gaming "history", and that actually is a valid
    erudite subject anymore.

    There are even video game and computer archaeologists and anthropologists now, and historians. Infact, their are universities with courses, textbooks, and even museums on the subject!

    These things are no longer considered 'just a game' but pieces of cultural heritage, like books, artwork, music, plays and movies, etc!

    They are not just a 'childhood' hobby or a hobby for nerds and geeks (the fat kid that everyone tried to pick on back in gradeschool).

    So any honest historian who would discuss KQ8 in an honest and encyclopedic way, would cite the fact that KQ8 or King's Quest 8 is one of the game's valid abbreviations and descriptions, continued to be used then, and now (as used by Sierra, as used by Activision, Ken Williams own website, on most sites that sell the game, gaming websites that categorize the game (based on quotes in Roberta's and other developers own interviews), etc). Both official sites and unofficial sites.

    Saying its 'not KQ8' would be verifiably false opinion and 'statement', one that could not be cited in an encyclopaedic way.

    Likewise interesting enough several attempts to make the ninth game in the series called King's Quest IX have failed to finish production!

    Will telltale's currently unnamed game fail, before it's even released?
  • No, they are just games. And like I said, everyone accepts that MOE was meant as KQ8 by Sierra. That's not in question. You're missing the whole point here. This is a personal preference issue. If you're saying that having a personal opinion about something that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of anything important, or has any level of significance to the human race, is culturally and personally damaging then we're heading into Godwin's law territory.
  • The only person trying to invoke Godwin's law is you (since I haven't actually compared anyone to a particular specific organization from the 1940s)... Now if you were to compare me to such a thing, for stating that KQ8 is KQ8, then it would be you invoking Godwin's law, and you would be the one resorting to hyperbole. There won't be another KQ8, and more than likely there will be a "KQ9", or a KQ10 in the future.

    Btw perhaps you need a refresher on what Godwin's Law is, and what it actually applies to...;
    "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

    ...Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
    I can assure I for one am not resorting to any Reductio ad Hitlerum...
Add Comment