KQ: The Best/Worse Part Of This Game Was...

[MusicallyInspired]

You guys are trying to make way too much sense out of these old games lol. It wasn't supposed to make THAT much narrative sense back then. They weren't cohesive sensible story experiences, they were very clearly games.

Except for that genie thing in KQ6. I'm honestly really confused how that could "break immersion". It's so obvious what it is. Would you be happier if the narrator said "You're about to jump in the water with the boy, but at the last moment change your mind. There's something about him that makes you uneasy. You're sure he can't be trusted!" or would you be bothered that you couldn't have the freedom to try and do what he wants you to do? It's a staple of Sierra game design to allow that level of freedom. I know my reaction would be "Aw I can't kill myself trying?" I'd want to see how it would kill me anyway. Morbid curiosity was a big part of Sierra.

Sometimes I think modern "adventure" design has skewed what these original experiences actually were. KQ5 being a prime example.

The 3 bears were in KQ3 by the way.

And regarding KQ's tendency to lean on fairy tale characters, at least in the later games they started making characters that resembled fairy tale characters instead of outright using those characters.

[adeyke]

I definitely agree that later games were better with their fairy tale use than earlier ones.

I don't really know how I'd "fix" the genie thing and I don't want it to sound like a bigger deal than it is. It's just something I find a bit dissonant: the strange mix of whimsy (it's a comic relief character, it's obvious that it's a trap) and deadly (the character who sent him actually wants to kill you and you can actually die).

I do think it's generally a problem if there's a mismatch between character knowledge and player knowledge. If the player knows something the character doesn't (e.g. because the player restored the game after trying something), the character might have no motivation for their actions. Alexander just happens to correctly guess the genie's lamp shape, for example. Conversely, if the character knows something the player doesn't, the player might be surprised or confused by what the character is doing.

In the case of the genie, it seems that Alexander simultaneously does know it's the genie (since canonically he avoids all the traps) and doesn't know it's the genie (since he just talks to him as though he were the character he's currently disguised as and doesn't recognize the strangeness when he disappears). But I suppose if it's just comic relief, that's fine.

I really need to stress that I don't think it's a major problem. I just quite like KQ6 and was trying to think of something to put in my "dislikes" list.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, fair enough. I was just trying to follow the thought process. It still doesn't make much sense to me, but to each their own. I don't see a problem at all with the player knowing something the character doesn't. I don't have a problem with Alexander just guessing the lamp. I can let that go. But then I'm more of a gameplay-oriented adventure gamer than a narrative consistency adventure gamer. I'll point out glaring plotholes and I care much more than say John Carmack (or was it John Romero?) who said "Games are like p0rn. They have stories but that's not why you're there" or something to that effect.

In the case of Alexander knowing and not knowing about the genie, I just think of it as (and I'm being extreme with this example if only to explain how I feel about it) the player being Alexander's "intuition". He doesn't know who the genie is at all and you're just the unseen force guiding his path "Ah ah ah. No no no. Don't do that, just stay on track. There you go..." I think it goes hand in hand with Roberta's intention of the player being "the actor, the director, and the audience all at the same time." It's an interactive movie. Not an RPG. You're not JUST taking on the role of Alexander, you're also quite aware that it's like an interactive story and has a flow like a movie. You can see things Alexander can't. You can see things in games like SQ5 that Roger can't (with Quirk talking to the space pirates or whatever they were called), or all the "Meanwhile" cutscenes in Monkey Island 1 and 2 with LeChuck. It's all the same to me and doesn't bother me.

Interestingly, KQ5 would follow more closely your favoured method of storytelling since there's not a single cutscene of information that flows to the player that doesn't also flow to Graham. You're experiencing what Graham is experiencing. Period. Except for the very beginning of the introduction, but then Cedric explains it all to Graham anyway shortly after.

EDIT: Lol! Is the board automatically renaming "p0rn" in my post with a '0' instead of an 'o'? That's hilarious.

[adeyke]

Yeah, fair enough. I was just trying to follow the thought process. It still doesn't make much sense to me, but to each their own. I don't see a problem at all with the player knowing something the character doesn't. I don't have a problem with Alexander just guessing the lamp. I can let that go. But then I'm more of a gameplay-oriented adventure gamer than a narrative consistency adventure gamer. I'll point out glaring plotholes and I care much more than say John Carmack (or was it John Romero?) who said "Games are like p0rn. They have stories but that's not why you're there" or something to that effect.

In the case of Alexander knowing and not knowing about the genie, I just think of it as (and I'm being extreme with this example if only to explain how I feel about it) the player being Alexander's "intuition". He doesn't know who the genie is at all and you're just the unseen force guiding his path "Ah ah ah. No no no. Don't do that, just stay on track. There you go..." I think it goes hand in hand with Roberta's intention of the player being "the actor, the director, and the audience all at the same time." It's an interactive movie. Not an RPG. You're not JUST taking on the role of Alexander, you're also quite aware that it's like an interactive story and has a flow like a movie. You can see things Alexander can't. You can see things in games like SQ5 that Roger can't (with Quirk talking to the space pirates or whatever they were called), or all the "Meanwhile" cutscenes in Monkey Island 1 and 2 with LeChuck. It's all the same to me and doesn't bother me.

That's an interesting view regarding the role of the player, but I don't think it really matches with how the games actually play out. You're in direct control of the protagonist and no one else, and you try to take the actions that work in the character's interests. That's not how directing works.

I do think cut scenes are a good way to increase tension or to fill the player in on things the character already knows, but I don't like when they convey information that the character then uses without having access to.

One thing that really bothers me about the second half of Broken Age is where you control two characters concurrently and use information one learned while controlling the other, without them being able to communicate. That just felt like a violation.

Interestingly, KQ5 would follow more closely your favoured method of storytelling since there's not a single cutscene of information that flows to the player that doesn't also flow to Graham. You're experiencing what Graham is experiencing. Period. Except for the very beginning of the introduction, but then Cedric explains it all to Graham anyway shortly after.

Except that KQ5 is major case of trial-and-error gameplay. If the player and character both find something out, but you then restore the game, the player remembers even though the character doesn't. In the final, canonical playthrough, Graham is able to navigate the desert perfectly without a map, guess that the inn isn't safe to enter until after the rat has been saved, guess that the genie bottle is deadly to open, guess which stones are safe to step on in the mountains, etc.

[Tawmis]

KQ is just using the characters from the fairy tale. It's not retelling the tale. Just the fact that there's Little Red Riding Hood already gives the context for who the grandma is; it doesn't really need more. The simple structure of KQ2 means it's just a character who wants one item and will give you another item in exchange. Actually having the whole story there would draw a lot of focus.

I do think that KQ's use of contextless fairy tale characters is one of the series's weaknesses. It's more compelling when have their own characters/settings, or at least adapt the character to make it their own instead of just sticking it in.

I can see that - because it breaks a little of the immersion, perhaps? For me, I am a junkie for doing Easter Egg references all the time. Some would say it's a lack of creativity, but for me, it's a tip o' the hat to the things I've loved.

[adeyke]

To me, an easter egg is either a joke reference that isn't intended to be part of the game's canon (e.g. the Batmobile in KQ2) or a subtle reference that most players will overlook (e.g. a bulletin board in GK1 references a lecture by Laura Bow Dorian). If there's a girl literally named Little Red Riding Hood, looking for a basket of goodies for her grandma, and you interact with her as part of your quest, that's not an easter egg.

[notbobsmith]

I needed to collect my thoughts on these. Some of them have been covered but here's my list:

KQ1:
GOOD: It's what started it all. Can't really think of anything specific
BAD: Any place where you can fall.

KQ2:
GOOD: Psychedelic world where Valanice is being held.
BAD: The self-destructing bridge. My first time through I went over the bridge more than the required times and had it collapse. I figured out what I had done wrong pretty easily, but I had no idea when I made the mistake. Had to start over.

KQ3:
GOOD: I liked the spell crafting, even if the incantation had to be typed exactly.
BAD: The mountain path.

KQ4:
GOOD: The haunted house
BAD: Troll cave.

KQ5:
GOOD: Cedric... just kidding. The spell casting duel at the end was fun.
BAD: The shifting perspective maze.

KQ6:
GOOD: It's widely regarded as the best adventure game of all time with good reason. I probably enjoyed the Isle of Wonder the most. Humor done right. Plus a puzzle involving a grammatical rule that no one uses correctly.
BAD: Alexander's "suicide"

KQ7:
GOOD: The shifting perspectives between Rosella and Valanice was clever
BAD: How Malicia is defeated is kind of hokey

[Tawmis]

KQ1:
BAD: Any place where you can fall.

That sums up just about every King's Quest game.

KQ3:
BAD: The mountain path.

How was Manahahananayhahanana not the bad?

KQ4:
GOOD: The haunted house

That really was done exceptionally well.

KQ5:
BAD: The shifting perspective maze.

Agreed. I did hate that part. I literally (in my most recent play through) just kept clicking and clicking until I got somewhere.

[Rath Darkblade]

KQ6:
BAD: Alexander's "suicide"

When does Alexander commit suicide? I don't remember that bit.

[adeyke]

At one point, you find a bottle of liquid on the Isle of Wonder that, when drunk, will make your heart temporarily stop. You use that in the presence of the genie to make him think that you've been driven to suicide.

[MusicallyInspired]

What's bad about that? Isn't that an homage to Alice in Wonderland?

[adeyke]

Only superficially, in that the bottle is labeled "drink me", same as the ones in Alice in Wonderland. However, both the effect of drinking it and its role in the narrative are completely different.

[Datadog]

That's a minute quirk of mine as well. Years ago, I was showing the game to a friend, and when we got to the mysterious "Drink Me" bottle, she kept insisting I don't drink it because the genie obviously filled it with poison. Then she kept trying to poison other people with it. It's an odd case where Alexander needs save/load knowledge in order to justify drinking it in the first place.

I try to brush off a lot of adventure game logic by assuming I'm playing as these characters' gut instincts. So every game is like a crazy trust fall exercise, where Alexander has to trust I'm not poisoning him or leading him into a trap in the catacombs.

[adeyke]

If you just pick up the potion and drink it immediately, you'll see the effects and Alexander will hint at how to use it ("Phew! For a minute there I thought.... What if someone ELSE had seen me and thought.... Zounds!"), but you'll actually still have it in your inventory. You might be able to notice that because it's still your active mouse cursor, but the text ("Alexander decides to swallow the potion in the bottle labeled 'drink me' to see what happens.") doesn't really indicate that he's just drinking part of it.

So if Alexander immediately drinks it, he will have a good justification for staging that scene with the genie. However, if he doesn't drink it first, or if the player restore the game after drinking it, he still does that scene even without knowing what the potion does.

And yes, he's certainly very trusting to just drink unknown potions. And a bottle of poison labelled "drink me" wouldn't be that far off from the genie's usual obvious traps, so your friend's suspicion isn't unreasonable.

[adeyke]

Oh, I also wanted to get some more of my pet peeves regarding KQ games out.

One thing that bothers me a bit is the use of third-person narration in KQ5 and KQ6. That is, almost every line of narration will mention "Graham" or "Alexander", respectively. This just sounds so awkward compared to the "you" that's used in KQ1-4, and just about every other game (KQ7 doesn't have any narration at all). GK1 also does the third-person narration, but it uses it sparingly, since much of the narration is instead first-person (i.e. Gabriel narrating his own thought and actions).

Also, at the start of KQ4, it asks if it's your first time playing the game. If you say no, you get the intro movie. If you say yes, you get the start of the screen. KQ5 has the opposite question, asking if you've previously played it, but with the same pair of results. This is terrible. In the vast majority of cases, you want neither of those outcomes, and instead want to immediately load a game. Even in those cases where you do want to start a new game, you may well want to see the intro again for the full experience, even if you've played the game already, so you'll have lie. I'm glad that with KQ6 they finally got their act together and just had a menu at the start with options for "restore", "opening", and "play".

The unskippable Sierra logo and title screen are also annoying.

Also, I should have included copy protection and interface issues (e.g. not allowing text and speech simultaneously, not having the usual hotkeys) as part of my standard disclaimer. They all mar the gameplay experience.