New King's Quest from TellTale!

[Maxor127]

I didn't like King's Quest VII either. My main gripe with it is that it was too cutesy and girly, and I remember the voice acting being irritating. I particularly remember hating that dog town. I still haven't played Mask of Eternity because I haven't wanted to deal with the bugs and crashes, but it seems like it at least has an interesting story under the horrible graphics and gameplay.

And I don't like episodic content either for most of the reasons others have already mentioned.

[El Ravager]

WARNING: Wall of text to follow!

I think we're talking past each other a little, guys, so let me try to clarify what I've been trying to say.

First, I fully understand that taste is subjective. One man's garbage is another man's treasure; granted. That being said, I'm not reacting against arguments like "I don't like TellTale's typical style, so I probably won't like their reimagining of King's Quest." Rather, I'm responding against what appears to me to be a kind of purist mentality that "TellTale's cartoony, streamlined style is incongruous with established King's Quest style and ethos." That kind of argument, which at first blush seems more objective, is in my opinion rather fallacious, since established King's Quest canon does indeed incorporate Cartoony elements, the progression toward a more streamlined interface, and the progressive elimination of the "torture the player" philosophy so prevalent in KQ's early days. In essence, what I'm saying is that even if TellTale does incorporate these elements, purist arguments won't apply since there is precedent for those very elements from the official Sierra series itself.

Kq7 is of course the quintessential example of this, but apparently I'm not allowed to use it since some fans were disappointed with it. But I would contend that these elements are present in the rest of the series as well, just to a lesser degree. Cartoony elements? You bet!













Simplified GUI? Of course! However much TellTale's interface might simplify that of 5-6, it will almost certainly be far less of a simplification than the shift from 4 to 5. For crying out loud, we went from a text parser with which to enter conceivably dozens and dozens of commands, to four verb icons and an inventory! If that isn't GUI simplification, then I don't know what is. (In fact, it's even more simplified than the classic LucasArts GUI that had NINE verb icons and an inventory. And here I though LA adventures were supposed to appeal to the less cereberal, unsophisticated gamers among us!) But if Kq 5-6, arguably the two most beloved installments of this series, use a significantly simplified GUI, then why is it wrong for Kq7 to simplify it a little further? Or for TellTale to do the same? You and I might not subjectively LIKE that degree of simplification, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that GUI simplification itself is somehow incongruous with established KQ stye.

What about the gradual elimination of "torture the player" elements? Those are there too! With KQ5, the days of impossible-to-navigate staircases and mountain paths are virtually expunged. Then, with KQ6, we see an incredible decrease in the number and frequency of potential dead-end situations. And personally, I think the games are far better off for having streamlined thusly! I HATE those stupid staircase navigation sequences, and counteruntuitive dead-end scenarios are just lame. Why should the player be unable to finish the game just because he didn't wander around the fatally dangerous desert looking for a boot he didn't know he was supposed to find?

That's my argument. Didn't like Kq7 and don't think you'll like the TellTale KQ installment? Fine, go ahead and vent. But please don't suggest that these elements and trends are OBJECTIVELY incongruous with established KQ ethos.

Second, it bears mentioning that I actually agree with those of you who were disappointed when Kq7 was released. But time has softened the blow, and I now look on it with fondness. As I said earlier, I actually find it far more engaging and enjoyable than Kq 1-2. So, MI, you asked me:

So you're saying you'd accept a new King's Quest no matter how it was designed?

Let me answer that question using Kq7 as an example. If you were to ask me in in 1994 if I was thrilled with the style Sierra chose to use in Kq7, I'd have definitely answered "no." And frankly, I still maintain to this day that I would prefer the game to have been designed with a syle closer to Kq6. But if you were to ask me in 2011 whether I would prefer to have Kq7 in my possession with all its cartooniness and simplicity, or to have Kq7 expunged from history and never have ever existed in any form...well, frankly I'd be inclined to keep my cartoony, simplistic version of Kq7. Give me the game I've grown fond of, warts and all, over the option of never having played it at all. So, if TellTale's KQ game is stylistically more like Kq7 than Kq6...well, sorry if I'm coming across as a KQ fan with low standards, but I'll take it! It's not like I'm going to get my wish for another Kq6 just by rejecting everything that falls short of that standard.

Third, (I'm almost done!) I have to say that I'm a little taken aback by the level of disappointment I've seen manifested in this thread when so far the only news we've received is that a KQ game is in the works. We don't yet know what the style or plot or approach will be. If you don't want to get your hopes up too high, I fully understand that, but why be such a downer before any details have even been released? For my part, I'm inclined to maintain a cautiously optimistic outlook. Maybe it won't be any good, but maybe it will! And I'm at least willing to entertain the notion that even if it's different, it could still be enjoyable, and it could still feel like a King's Quest game. (And whatever the case, I think we can probably all agree that whatever this game looks like, it will almost certainly be leaps and bounds better than MoE!)

There, I've spoken my piece. Am I starting to make sense?

[Tawmis]

WARNING: Wall of text to follow!

*is hit with Wall of Text for 3D6 Damage!*

First, I fully understand that taste is subjective. One man's garbage is another man's treasure; granted.

In the end, that's what it's all about. There is no wrong or right, just preference.

Kq7 is of course the quintessential example of this, but apparently I'm not allowed to use it since some fans were disappointed with it. But I would contend that these elements are present in the rest of the series as well, just to a lesser degree. Cartoony elements? You bet!

Keep in mind; just because one person likes one style, doesn't go across the board. For example, I am 40 years old; and I still dig cartoons. Whether it's He-Man, Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends, Dungeons & Dragons, etc... However, I can't stand anime, for the most part. I was never a fan of Robotech, or any of those styles of cartoons. Now it's all still cartoons - but different styles can make all the difference in the world. (Strangely, I liked Battle of the Planets, which was definitely anime - but that was that rare exception).

So that said -

I don't see this as overly cartoony, as I see it more towards the typical King's Quest, where they had all kinds of kids stories referenced within their stories (since KQ seemed to reach for more of a family feeling; where parents could sit with their kids and assist their kids {for example} throughout the game), and the kids could identify with the story elements being presented.

This, again I don't see as cartoony. I am sure if the technology was available, this dragon would have looked pretty fierce. As it is, it looks pretty fierce considering the graphics and what they were able to do back then. (Dragon? Hydra? Whatever you want to call it).

Again, not what I would consider all too cartoony; I think they were going for a sense of realism. Again, if the technology was there...

This was a bad example, don't you think, as almost anyone and everyone who has played King's Quest V hates Cedric? Over all, with it's hand painted backgrounds, I feel like KQV was trying for a more "cinematic" look.

These I would agree, are a little more cartoony. But near the caliber of KQ7? Or even Back to the Future from TellTale - not even close.

I HATE those stupid staircase navigation sequences, and counteruntuitive dead-end scenarios are just lame.

I will echo the hatred of the stairs; but I didn't mind the "dead ends" - this actually made me far more cautious; rather than just run through everything; get to a screen, back track and and easily get what I need to keep going. Save Early, Save Often - I loved that motto.

Why should the player be unable to finish the game just because he didn't wander around the fatally dangerous desert looking for a boot he didn't know he was supposed to find?

Because it presents a challenge? And if you're a smart player, you saved early, saved often?

I'd rather play a game that requires some thinking. I don't want to pay 50 bucks (or more) for a game, that I am basically going to have my hand held through. Give me something to challenge my brain! Give me a reason to say, "Damn! I forgot to pick up that coin!"

Perhaps it's because King's Quest 1 EGA & LSL1 EGA were indeed some of the VERY first computer games I ever played (well, besides the text adventure games) - that this is what I am used to when I think of "Adventure Games."

Again, it ALL boils down to preference; in both appearance of the game, and the content within the game. If we were all the same; I would be successfully rich off one of my many side projects! But, alas, we're all different, and alas, I make no money on my side projects!

That's my argument. Didn't like Kq7 and don't think you'll like the TellTale KQ installment? Fine, go ahead and vent. But please don't suggest that these elements and trends are OBJECTIVELY incongruous with established KQ ethos.

So it seems as if you're suggesting that your view is right, and your view is the only choice, in terms of this?

Second, it bears mentioning that I actually agree with those of you who were disappointed when Kq7 was released. But time has softened the blow, and I now look on it with fondness. As I said earlier, I actually find it far more engaging and enjoyable than Kq 1-2.

What about King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity? I am not asking smuggly, mind you. You may have loved KQ8 from the start. But it's a matter of how it's still King's Quest, no matter how many of us joke it isn't; and it was done in a fashion that was different; and as a result was not well received.

And it's certainly not to say every King's Quest was perfect, either. King's Quest 1 and 2, as I said before, were more of a puzzle than a story. King's Quest III finally really gave us a story, but even recently I vented in another thread about the bastard wizard. King's Quest IV didn't have any flaws (for myself). King's Quest V, myself and the general population seemed to hate Cedric (or at least his voice). King's Quest VI, most loved. King's Quest VII, most disliked the cartoony style (I happened to have liked it, because it looked like Disney to me, which I also happen to think was a great movement forward). King's Quest VIII, many disliked for many reasons.

Let me answer that question using Kq7 as an example. If you were to ask me in in 1994 if I was thrilled with the style Sierra chose to use in Kq7, I'd have definitely answered "no."

So how do you feel about King's Quest VIII?
And are you a fan of Leisure Suit Larry? What about Leisure Suit Larry: MCL, or BOB? Do you think in a few years you will appreciate them? I know DPX and I discussed that these were games made by a company that didn't understand Adventure Games; which is a valid point. But the question that MI asked was - if you'd like King's Quest no matter how it was made?

So, if TellTale's KQ game is stylistically more like Kq7 than Kq6...well, sorry if I'm coming across as a KQ fan with low standards, but I'll take it!

And I think many will also enjoy it. When someone's passionate about the game, and considering the general gaming market - it's, in my opinion, perfectly fine to be a bit dubious about the final outcome. Perhaps because I was one of those defending LSL:MCL, saying to give it a chance (since people were ranting about it before it came out) - and sure enough, I bought it when it came out - didn't wait for reviews - and spent 50 bucks (or whatever) for a game I could not tolerate more than an hour worth of game play.

Third, (I'm almost done!) I have to say that I'm a little taken aback by the level of disappointment I've seen manifested in this thread when so far the only news we've received is that a KQ game is in the works. We don't yet know what the style or plot or approach will be.

I think you're confusing disappointment, with being cautious. Several have said, "I hope it doesn't have this or that" - but, that's all. No one is disappointed; we're all just speculating on what we would like to see, and what we don't want to see, given TellTale's games previous games.

If you don't want to get your hopes up too high, I fully understand that, but why be such a downer before any details have even been released?

Because current adventure games out there don't really fit what we hope to see in King's Quest? And such blunders as Leisure Suit Larry's MCL, BOB, etc - put a damper on things? Whether adventure gaming companies or not, I was hopeful (for MCL) and had that crushed by the trash that is MCL. Now, I know to be a little more cautious. (Heck, you can even apply that to movies - when I saw the previews for Phantom Menace of Star Wars, I was bouncing out of my chair! It looked epic! Needless to say, I strongly, STRONGLY disliked Phantom Menace - and that's by the same guy who made the originals!)

So... I am cautiously optimistic.

But I will not be rushing out to purchase this. Especially since it's Episodic in nature. This will give me time for them to finish the game entirely; and see/hear everyone's reviews, and see what the final cost will be for all the episodes, to see if, in the end, it's worth it.

(And whatever the case, I think we can probably all agree that whatever this game looks like, it will almost certainly be leaps and bounds better than MoE!)

So... you've not grown to appreciate KQ8 like you did KQ7?
Guess that answers my repeated questions above.

There, I've spoken my piece. Am I starting to make sense?

Most of what you said seemed like it was in French.
(I kid! I kid!)

[El Ravager]

This was a bad example, don't you think, as almost anyone and everyone who has played King's Quest V hates Cedric?

Well, again, I'm not suggesting that cartoony elements are necessarily good or preferable, only that they're there. So just because we all hate Cedric with a passion, doesn't mean we can declare him Un-King's-Quest-y on the basis of that hatred.

These I would agree, are a little more cartoony. But near the caliber of KQ7? Or even Back to the Future from TellTale - not even close.

Agreed. I'm not saying the cartoony elements in 1-6 are all-encompassing as they are in Kq7, or even that they're normative. I'm just saying that King's Quest and cartoony elements are not and never have been, mutually exclusive.

Because it presents a challenge? And if you're a smart player, you saved early, saved often?
I'd rather play a game that requires some thinking.

I would too, but the boot-in-the-desert isn't really a matter of thinking, it's merely a case of being fortunate enough to stumble randomly across the proper screen without dying of thirst first. If anything, the process of thinking would lead a player to conclude that he should spend as little time in the desert of possible since "the hot sun and choking sands are taking their toll on Graham; he must drink, and soon!" No logical sequence of thought would result in the conclusion, "Maybe I'd better explore and map out every single screen of this seemingly infinite expanse of desert!"

I wouldn't even be as annoyed at this particular dead-end scenario were it not for the case that you don't have infinite time to come back and get the boot. If you don't have either the boot or the stick in hand when you randomly stumble across the "mangy cat chasing a terrified rat," then you're screwed.

So it seems as if you're suggesting that your view is right, and your view is the only choice, in terms of this?

What I'm suggesting is that if someone thinks that cartoony elements, progressively simplified GUIs, and the gradual mainstreaming of game design, are in and of themselves incongruous with established KQ ethos, then that person is objectively wrong. Factually incorrect. Mistaken. Now as to whatever your personal views about those elements happen to be, you're free to hold them. Most likely your view and Collector's and MI's are the same as mine: namely, that Kq6 is the epitome of King's Quest done rightly, and that where those three elements depart from the paradigm of how Kq6 handled them, they tend to be unsatisfactory to a degree. At least for how a King's Quest game should be done. But that's not to say that any game that falls short of the Kq6 standard doesn't belong in the King's Quest franchise, or else we'd have a King's Quest series comprising only one game.

So how do you feel about King's Quest VIII?

Well, as you inferred by the end of your post, I was incredibly disappointed with MoE (far more than I ever was with Kq7) when it came out, and while Kq7 really grew on me as time passed, MoE didn't. Or at least, it didn't do so in the same way. Let me try to explain: When I play Kq7, I feel like I'm playing a King's Quest game, and I enjoy it in that context. If I try to approach MoE as a King's Quest game, I will find only disappointment and disillusionment, and enjoyment will be unattainable. That being said, I have over time learned to enjoy MoE on occasion if I compartmentalize it into a different category. If I think of MoE as a non-King's Quest game set in the King's Quest world, then I really can appreciate it for what it is. But it's nowhere near as enjoyable to me as Kq 1-7, and it will always in my mind stand in a category of its own, not in the same category as its seven more fortunate step-brothers. Does that make sense?

And are you a fan of Leisure Suit Larry? What about Leisure Suit Larry: MCL, or BOB? Do you think in a few years you will appreciate them? I know DPX and I discussed that these were games made by a company that didn't understand Adventure Games; which is a valid point. But the question that MI asked was - if you'd like King's Quest no matter how it was made?

Personally, I've never found LSL very engaging, so I've never considered myself to be a fan. I own the Ultimate Pleasure Pack, but I think I've only ever played LSL1 and part of LSL2. I never even bothered with MCL or BOB, so I can't really make a fully-informed comment. But from what I've heard, those aren't even adventure games at all, right? Just as MoE isn't really an adventure game. So, if TellTale's KQ game was a button-mashing game or a 3d platform/combat game or a flight sim or a hidden-object game or a Myst clone, then no, I don't think I'd like that. But I don't think anyone believes that TellTale will actually make a King's Quest game that isn't in the adventure game genre, right? And I don't think many people would argue that Kq7 wasn't really an adventure game, either.

[DeadPoolX]

I HATE those stupid staircase navigation sequences, and counteruntuitive dead-end scenarios are just lame.

I will echo the hatred of the stairs; but I didn't mind the "dead ends" - this actually made me far more cautious; rather than just run through everything; get to a screen, back track and and easily get what I need to keep going. Save Early, Save Often - I loved that motto.

The implementation of "dead end" scenarios are the one of the primary reasons I prefer LucasArts games over Sierra. "Dead end" situations are the product of poor game design.

I shouldn't have to worry that because I happened to miss an object that's size of one pixel that I'll eventually have to restart the entire game. No, the "save early, save often" mantra doesn't hold here.

Why?

Because even if you save a lot, the point in which you missed an object may set you back by hours of game play. Let's not forget that you only had a limited number of save game positions as well, after which you have to overwrite earlier saved games. So it's entirely possible -- and has certainly happened -- that you'll need to restart the entire game simply because you missed something and had to overwrite an earlier save.

Why should the player be unable to finish the game just because he didn't wander around the fatally dangerous desert looking for a boot he didn't know he was supposed to find?

Because it presents a challenge? And if you're a smart player, you saved early, saved often?

I'd rather play a game that requires some thinking. I don't want to pay 50 bucks (or more) for a game, that I am basically going to have my hand held through. Give me something to challenge my brain! Give me a reason to say, "Damn! I forgot to pick up that coin!"

The point of an Adventure game is to get the player thinking. That has nothing to do with making the player paranoid, which "dead end" situations tend to do.

No amount of thinking can prevent missing one tiny seemingly insignificant object. Clicking randomly on the screen or within your inventory does not constitute thinking.

Other times there are actions that make no sense at all and if not done exactly how planned, the game itself is screwed up.

I know Maia got really ticked off at KQ5 for this sort of bullshit. She didn't realize you had to throw a pie at the yeti. There's no mention or hint of this action being necessary. So this means if you give the pie to someone else or eat it yourself, you've just run into a "dead end."

The above has nothing to do with thinking and everything to do with "hey, let's try a random set of actions and hope it works!" That's as poorly designed as inventory puzzles, where everything eventually boils down to clicking every item on another item out of frustration.

[Tawmis]

This was a bad example, don't you think, as almost anyone and everyone who has played King's Quest V hates Cedric?

Well, again, I'm not suggesting that cartoony elements are necessarily good or preferable, only that they're there. So just because we all hate Cedric with a passion, doesn't mean we can declare him Un-King's-Quest-y on the basis of that hatred.

Oh, he's King's Questy (is that even a word? Let's make it a word!) all right. Because in a fantasy setting, a talking owl isn't so far fetched. However, just because it is King's Questy (that's right, I used that word again!) mean that it's a good thing! Like I said somewhere in my previous post - I don't think any of the King's Quest games are Holy Grails, without in perfections! But at the same time, just because it is King's Questy (yes, google will soon be picking up that word!), mean that it has to be enjoyed! And I think that may be the root of some of the cautious optimism (for myself). If Sierra couldn't make a perfect King's Quest (well, aside from KQ4 and KQ6, for myself!) - then how is another company that has none of the factors, people, etc who actually worked on King's Quest - going to make a good King's Quest! They might, I am not questioning that, too much. I am just being cautiously optimistic. I want this to work. I want it to be awesome. (I also want it to not be episodic!)

Because it presents a challenge? And if you're a smart player, you saved early, saved often? I'd rather play a game that requires some thinking.

I would too, but the boot-in-the-desert isn't really a matter of thinking, it's merely a case of being fortunate enough to stumble randomly across the proper screen without dying of thirst first. If anything, the process of thinking would lead a player to conclude that he should spend as little time in the desert of possible since "the hot sun and choking sands are taking their toll on Graham; he must drink, and soon!" No logical sequence of thought would result in the conclusion, "Maybe I'd better explore and map out every single screen of this seemingly infinite expanse of desert!"

And that is a completely valid point! I won't argue anyone who feels that way! I think it's just a matter of preference! I didn't mind getting lost and dying frequently, wandering around in Sierra games...

I think it's because when you died; it was a matter of figuring out the puzzle. Unlike, say - fighting games, and such - you're not stuck because you can't widdle down a boss' hit points, or something. It's a matter of figuring out what it is you need to pass the current puzzle.

So how do you feel about King's Quest VIII?

Well, as you inferred by the end of your post, I was incredibly disappointed with MoE (far more than I ever was with Kq7) when it came out, and while Kq7 really grew on me as time passed, MoE didn't. Or at least, it didn't do so in the same way. Let me try to explain: When I play Kq7, I feel like I'm playing a King's Quest game, and I enjoy it in that context. If I try to approach MoE as a King's Quest game, I will find only disappointment and disillusionment, and enjoyment will be unattainable. That being said, I have over time learned to enjoy MoE on occasion if I compartmentalize it into a different category. If I think of MoE as a non-King's Quest game set in the King's Quest world, then I really can appreciate it for what it is. But it's nowhere near as enjoyable to me as Kq 1-7, and it will always in my mind stand in a category of its own, not in the same category as its seven more fortunate step-brothers. Does that make sense?

It does make sense; because that's pretty much how I treat King's Quest. But this goes back to your comment - where you said you can't discount Cedric just because people hated him (and saying he wasn't King's Questy) - can't the same thing be applied to King's Quest VIII? You are saying not to discount Cedric - but you're excusing King's Quest VIII. See what I am saying?

The implementation of "dead end" scenarios are the one of the primary reasons I prefer LucasArts games over Sierra. "Dead end" situations are the product of poor game design.

Which makes perfect sense. I can see why people would prefer that over the way Sierra handled puzzles.

Because even if you save a lot, the point in which you missed an object may set you back by hours of game play. Let's not forget that you only had a limited number of save game positions as well, after which you have to overwrite earlier saved games. So it's entirely possible -- and has certainly happened -- that you'll need to restart the entire game simply because you missed something and had to overwrite an earlier save.

I believe you had 12 save game points, in the default location. But someone correct me if I am wrong (as I usually am) - you actually could click the:
//...
At the top, and it would go one folder back. And you would have another 12 save games. (You could browse into folders). I believe this was the case, at least from King's Quest III forward? I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's what I'd do (at least with King's Quest IV).

The point of an Adventure game is to get the player thinking. That has nothing to do with making the player paranoid, which "dead end" situations tend to do.

I think this depends on how a person handled the game. I never felt paranoid. I did try to pick up anything that wasn't nailed down.

No amount of thinking can prevent missing one tiny seemingly insignificant object.

Oh, I am not saying that some games had absolutely horrible puzzles... (You mentioned one of them with the pie in the face to the Yeti... that's pretty obscure... and Gabriel Knight 3 has a tough one with the hair thing...)

Clicking randomly on the screen or within your inventory does not constitute thinking.

I'd like to point out, I have always been against the point and click. I believe we had a thread somewhere about point and click vs typing. I have always preferred typing, because Sierra games HELPED me learn how to type; and I am sure they're VASTLY responsible for my typing speed (which is pretty good!) I disliked the point and click interface, for the very reason you mentioned. There'd be no need for the look icon, or anything. Just put it on the HAND icon and click every inch of the screen. I hated that. Even took the time, back in the day, to write Sierra about my dislike of the point and click interface.

I know Maia got really ticked off at KQ5 for this sort of bullshit. She didn't realize you had to throw a pie at the yeti. There's no mention or hint of this action being necessary. So this means if you give the pie to someone else or eat it yourself, you've just run into a "dead end."

Admittedly, as I said, some of the games had bad puzzles... and this is definitely one of them (as it makes no sense... would be something if there was a story that it was referring to or something, where a Yeti was beat by having pie thrown in its face...) - but I believe, that you can't give that pie away; nor can you eat it. I could be wrong here (again).

[Tawmis]

I know Maia got really ticked off at KQ5 for this sort of !!!!!!!!!. She didn't realize you had to throw a pie at the yeti.

Go to the 9:05 mark of this video. Maia may appreciate it (if she's passed the Yeti for some time now! If the wound is still fresh, don't show her!)

[MusicallyInspired]

My argument is that a Telltale-style cartoony King's Quest would be incongruous to what I want to see in a King's Quest game. I never once said it would be incongruous with what has been established in the past as King's Quest (whether it was a success and appealing to some people or not). I'm only talking about personal opinion here. I've only ever been talking about personal opinion. As has anybody else.

And yes, all the other King's Quest games are cartoons as well. Even MOE. But they're not as over-exaggerated as KQ7 is. Every King's Quest game besides KQ7 has properly proportioned characters. Look at every single close-up from King's Quest 5. Heck, a lot of the closeups for KQ6 look like actual live action photos.

[Tawmis]

Just to counter balance this - I will say, that graphics, in the end (as long as they're not anime or something similar) won't be the deciding factor for me. To date, King's Quest IV remains one of my favorite KQ games (I know you KQVI fans are gasping! But KQVI is right behind KQIV!) The graphics for KQIV were primitive (well by today's standards)... and I still love KQIV.

[AndreaDraco]

Just to counter balance this - I will say, that graphics, in the end (as long as they're not anime or something similar) won't be the deciding factor for me.

Same here. As long as the story is good and the writing solid and consistent I'm on board.

[Tawmis]

Just to counter balance this - I will say, that graphics, in the end (as long as they're not anime or something similar) won't be the deciding factor for me.

Same here. As long as the story is good and the writing solid and consistent I'm on board.

That's what I am hoping for.

There's a lot of variables out there - that are completely unknown. Because it's King's Quest, does not mean it will take place in Daventry or even with the Graham family! (For example, look at Police Quest IV). So there's still a lot of questions, a lot of unknowns, so I remain cautiously optimistic until more information comes in. (Have I mentioned that I hate that it's episodic?)

[El Ravager]

It does make sense; because that's pretty much how I treat King's Quest. But this goes back to your comment - where you said you can't discount Cedric just because people hated him (and saying he wasn't King's Questy) - can't the same thing be applied to King's Quest VIII? You are saying not to discount Cedric - but you're excusing King's Quest VIII. See what I am saying?

I might be inclined to agree, except that it appears that MoE was never really intended to be seen as a continuation of Kq 1-7. Don't agree? Consider these two factors:

1.) The first seven King's Quest games are entitled "King's Quest 1: Quest for the Crown," "King's Quest 2: Romancing the Throne," etc. But MoE is entitled simply "King's Quest: Mask of Eternity." See that? No episode number. It's as though this game is intended to be understood as an entity distinct from the 1-7 series.

2.) Here's quote from Mark Seibert, producer of Mask of Eternity, while the game was still in production. It's taken from the "Making of King's Quest - Mask of Eternity" documentary on the King's Quest Collection Series (1997). "Mask of Eternity is a game that's set in the King's Quest world, but it's not necessarily King's Quest. We have a character that's running around maybe with, like, knives and swords and shields and stuff. It's gonna have a lot more edge to it." That's one reason I said earlier, "If I think of MoE as a non-King's Quest game set in the King's Quest world, then I really can appreciate it for what it is." I chose those words carefully to parallel what Mark Seibert indicated the game was intended to be in the first place.

Where MoE really failed was in presentation. By and large, the gaming public wasn't let in on the secret that the next King's Quest game wasn't really supposed to be a King's Quest game. Hence, disillusionment, disappointment, and anger.

I have always preferred typing, because Sierra games HELPED me learn how to type; and I am sure they're VASTLY responsible for my typing speed (which is pretty good!)

For what it's worth, my experience is exactly the same.

My argument is that a Telltale-style cartoony King's Quest would be incongruous to what I want to see in a King's Quest game. I never once said it would be incongruous with what has been established in the past as King's Quest (whether it was a success and appealing to some people or not). I'm only talking about personal opinion here. I've only ever been talking about personal opinion. As has anybody else.

And I, for one, am fine with that. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you, if not to quite the same degree; give me a Kq6-style game over a Kq7-style any day. But, that being said, I enjoy Kq7 too, so a cartoony style wouldn't by itself be a major point of contention for me.

But apparently I misread your opinion with respect to personal taste rather than some kind of purist objectivity. Sorry 'bout that, mate; one of the hazards of text without tone, I suppose...

And yes, all the other King's Quest games are cartoons as well. Even MOE. But they're not as over-exaggerated as KQ7 is. Every King's Quest game besides KQ7 has properly proportioned characters. Look at every single close-up from King's Quest 5. Heck, a lot of the closeups for KQ6 look like actual live action photos.

True. Although the earlier games a re a lot harder to judge, given the limitations of the technology. Graham's head is squashed and Gwydion's is massive! I wonder what the style would have been like (in terms of cartoonyness versus photo-realism) had the technology not been so limited.

[Tawmis]

Let's not forget that you only had a limited number of save game positions as well, after which you have to overwrite earlier saved games. So it's entirely possible -- and has certainly happened -- that you'll need to restart the entire game simply because you missed something and had to overwrite an earlier save.

Well I tried to see if I could find a screenshot of the old games, and all I could dig up was KQ5. Which actually has a "Change Directory"... But I think the older games, had the option to back up a directory (or browse, but it wasn't user friendly).

[Datadog]

My only two bits here is that Telltale doesn't always do the cartoony style. So far, they've always made their games in whatever design best suits the story and characters.

CSI: Their first major game used photo-realistic characters in a serious setting.
Bone, Sam & Max: These are based on comic books, so of course they look cartoony.
Homestar Runner: Looks exactly like the 2D flash series.
Wallace & Gromit: The graphics were done in the style of stop-motion animation, as per the series.
Tales of Monkey Island: Graphic-style is a toss-up between the art of MI2 and MI3. MI was only ever more realistic in MI1.
Jurassic Park: Just like in CSI, realistic characters.

"Back to the Future" is the only one that's really up to debate since the characters are all caricatures of their live-action counter-parts. But I think it works considering how well even the BTTF movies lend themselves to caricaturization. Turning a comedy into a video game requires some creative art changes. Otherwise, realistic people would just look silly doing comedy in a 3D game. I imagine they'd do the same thing if they did "The Goonies" or "Bill and Ted."

As for "King's Quest," I don't think they'll go full-blown cartoon with it, but I don't think it'll be too realistic either. Much like KQ5 or KQ6, somewhere in-between would be the best match for a fantasy adventure.

[MusicallyInspired]

But apparently I misread your opinion with respect to personal taste rather than some kind of purist objectivity. Sorry 'bout that, mate; one of the hazards of text without tone, I suppose...

No worries. Just wanted that to be clear.

True. Although the earlier games are a lot harder to judge, given the limitations of the technology. Graham's head is squashed and Gwydion's is massive! I wonder what the style would have been like (in terms of cartoonyness versus photo-realism) had the technology not been so limited.

That's true. We can only guess.