SHP Forums

This is subject that keeps arising on the Adventure Gamers' forum. There is some resistance to the conventional wisdom that a continuation of a series without the original author would not be good or would not be a "true (fill in the blank)" game. While it is certainly possible to have a good game, I feel that the possibility of it being botched is higher than if the new designer were to make a game of their own.

Sierra used a tiered system where newer, or 2nd tier writers/designers were assigned to make new games for established series, to ghost write them for the 1st tier writers that created the series. This, to me, seems like a good way to apprentice new talent, as the creator often still had a hand in it. Even though Roberta Williams handed over the reins of some of her games to others, she would still be a guiding force to make sure that the game was "true" to the series. The Dagger of Amon Ra is a case in point here, as King's Quest VI. I feel that King's Quest VI is very much a King's Quest game, but Jane Jensen's influence is unmistakable.

The reason that I am starting this thread here is that Josh Mandel is a member of Adventure Gamers and feels very strongly about this. I do respect his works, but he is a little too close to the issue to be objective and I don't want him to feel insulted. We do have examples of what can happen when the creator is completely divorced from the game making process. The two Larry games produced without Al Lowe stand as testament to this. While Roberta Williams had a hand in the start of MoE, she lost control of the game with the sale of Sierra.

So, what do you think? Can a new game in a series without its creator be good or is the deck stacked against it?

Collector wrote: The reason that I am starting this thread here is that Josh Mandel is a member of Adventure Gamers and feels very strongly about this. I do respect his works, but he is a little too close to the issue to be objective and I don't want him to feel insulted.

By the same token, of being too close to the issue to be objective - that also he has the most experience with how the gaming industry works. He would know better than you or I how it really works. We can only speculate. And while Sierra was this haven of truly beautiful games; and I thought it would be a dream come true to work there (back in the day) designing games; have you ever read Scott Murphy's little rant about Sierra? How things were not as they seemed? Certain games and designers (read: Roberta Williams) obviously got a much stronger push with their products, while other designers had to beg, plead, and pray to have a fraction of the push that those other designers were getting. It baffles me, because when I think of Sierra - the games I think of are King's Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry and Police Quest - these were the real landmark games. And yet, here's Scott Murphy saying that SQ often got the shaft.

So how that whole gaming industry works is much more complex than what you or I (non game designers) could probably ever guess it to be like. So while you may think Josh may be too close; I also happen to think it's no doubt because he has had first hand experience with it.

Collector wrote: We do have examples of what can happen when the creator is completely divorced from the game making process. The two Larry games produced without Al Lowe stand as testament to this. While Roberta Williams had a hand in the start of MoE, she lost control of the game with the sale of Sierra.

You know I am almost glad the Vivendi Boards are gone. Because it erases the proof of me shouting, "Give them a chance for MCL!" (before MCL came out). I was firmly saying that it sucks that they excluded Al Lowe, but at least it looks like they're trying to tie it and make some references to what Al Lowe did.

That is one of my darkest hours; when I bought MCL and was about 2 hours into the game and realized, all those words I plastered on the internet saying I believe these guys can make a good LSL game... they would haunt me forever! So there's one blessing that the Vivideni Boards went away!

Collector wrote: So, what do you think? Can a new game in a series without its creator be good or is the deck stacked against it?

I think it all really depends right?
Sometimes when a company has what can be a hot product, and they dump the original creators (or no longer want to work with the original creator, when bringing back this product) - it can go very poorly. We saw this in Leisure Suit Larry, the last two games, as you said. But sometimes, even if one of the creators is involved or at least a small part of it - it can still not be as good. (Space Quest 5 & 6, for example - while great games, no doubt - they lacked a certain... flavor the previous Space Quest games had, in my opinion).

For example, I am a huge, huge fan of the Leisure Suit Larry series. And if I was magically hired to do the next Leisure Suit Larry series, and the company said, "Do whatever you want with it, but it can't involve Al Lowe..." Even if I were to try and make it like the classic Al Lowe LSL games; it'd still be lacking. Because Al Lowe's humor is a huge part of LSL. I think I have a pretty great sense of humor, and am wild enough to come up with some zanny things to put Larry through; but the truth of the matter is, Al Lowe created these games; he DEFINED the character. Anyone else stepping up to bat and trying to fill those shoes is going to have one hell of a time.

While Jane Jensen came in and did an amazing job of KQ6, as you said Collector, her influence is very heavy in KQ6 - it's unmistakable. And it's perhaps why I don't love KQ6 as much as everyone else does; and that's why KQ4 remains one of my favorites of the KQ series. KQ6 was an amazing game (just like SQ5 & SQ6 in their own rights) - but there was something different about it. (And back then, I didn't even know Jane Jensen had a hand in the game when I first played it). I loved KQ6 but I could tell it was different.

I am rambling, aren't I?

So to go back - yes, I think it CAN be done. However, I think there's a lot of "X" factors that also come into play. A designer brought onto a game, may have one plan - but the actual company may have another. For example, what if the folks who made LSL: MCL had wanted to make it like LSL7 or something; but Vivendi said, "No. These days people like those games that rely on timing and reflex. You need to implement that into the game somehow." So now the designer is being forced to work around what the company is saying they want vs what the designer had hoped to do. (Just as a fake example of what could happen).

Am am aware of the things you mention about the behind the scenes of Sierra, but that is not what I was getting at. I was thinking of SQ6 when I said that Josh Mandel was too close. Many consider it the weakest of the SQ games. Mark Crowe had nothing to do with it and Scott Murphy was only involved with it as what amount to an after thought at the end.

Collector wrote:I was thinking of SQ6 when I said that Josh Mandel was too close. Many consider it the weakest of the SQ games. Mark Crowe had nothing to do with it and Scott Murphy was only involved with it as what amount to an after thought at the end.

Aye, see that's what I am saying.... When I said yes, it is possible, but without the original creator it lacks something.

Space Quest 6, to me, is indeed a great game! However, when I look at SQ1-4, Roger Wilco is quite different than how he's shown in SQ6. Even the humor is clearly different. The original four SQ games saw a lot of puns and spoofs; and while SQ5 had the Star Trek pun/spoof, it didn't do much else beyond that; and SQ6, I think they spoofed a fighting game and the Windows Environment (which I admit, was pure genius!), and that was about it really. (I am sure there's others I am not remembering...) But regardless, SQ6 was still a pretty fantastic game! So Josh probably feels that a game can be made without the creator, and cite SQ6 - and I'd say, "Josh, you're right! A new game can be made without it's creator, and still be an amazing game! SQ6 is proof of that!"

However, it would be missing a little something. It's like when I said if I was hired on to do a new LSL - I would obviously shoot to make it like the classic LSL games. But even with my best intentions, there's no way I could make it true to the previous LSL - because Al Lowe is the one who defined Larry. He's the one that gave the LSL games their brand of humor. So while I may do my best, and perhaps kick out a fantastic game - it would still be lacking a certain touch.

So yeah - it can be done. We have seen it before. KQ6. SQ5. SQ6.
But then we have also seen the failures. (LSL:MCL, LSL:BOB, KQ:MOE, Phant2 - sorry for anyone who liked it; but it was such a departure from the original Phant game; not even the same style... too whacked out and weird for my tastes!).

And of course, defining a good game is all personal taste. While clusters of us "Old Time Sierra fans" call LSL: MCL a failure; I actually believe that over all, in sales, and popularity outside of us, LSL: MCL actually did fairly well on the sales market and popularity... why, is beyond me. But I believe it did pretty good.

I feel that there are pros and cons to both an original creator continuing the series and someone else taking it over for newer games. Both have dangers. Original creators tend to get lazy and tired or something which eventually makes the series suffer and lose something that it had in the beginning (the Star Trek franchise, for instance). On the other hand he might still be able to deliver something that made the originals so great and continue to make great games in the series.

Then there's the other side. It's not always great when a new writer/designer/whatever takes over a beloved series and does it all wrong (SQ6 is a decent example to this...a fine game and probably the funniest in the series, but it totally lost everything Space Quest about Space Quest. Or the two latest Larry games. Nothing like the original at all). On the other hand, sometimes you need a new writer who loves the original series but has newer fresh ideas on how to make it marketable and/or much more awesome to a new audience as well as the original audience (again, the Star Trek franchise is a great example of this. J. J. Abrams took Star Trek and made it awesome again. Sure, many would disagree but you can't deny he breathed new life into it for a bit. I'd be amazed to see a new series with him behind it but it sadly doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon).

I honestly think the best out of these two would be for someone new who loves the original series and has newer ideas to continue a series. Why? Because at least they're trying something new and taking risks...which is what the original games were all about anyway (if they aren't taking risks or trying something new, as opposed to making some that's simply safe and marketable with new (bad) ideas, then I say it's garbage). I honestly think people let their nostalgia talk too much when they say things like "It won't be a <insert game title> game without <insert original game designer>!" The fact is it will never be the same as it was. Nothing ever is. And keeping an original designer might just be dangerous and keep things stale and stagnant. I wouldn't mind if the original creator had a hand in the overall direction, but as far as pure game design and writing goes, I almost exclusively prefer newer talent who are in love with a given franchise.

But like I said, it could go either way in either case. But I still prefer something newer to take precedence over the same old thing. If the original creator can do that, fine. But usually they can't. Unfortunately, most times when a new writer or designer takes over it's usually never as good an impact as the original was, but when it is good boy is it good!!

MusicallyInspired wrote: I honestly think people let their nostalgia talk too much when they say things like "It won't be a <insert game title> game without <insert original game designer>!"

I think you just pretty much said:

I honestly think Tawmis lets his nostalgia talk too much when he says things like "It won't be a <insert game title> game without <insert original game designer>!"

I've talked a lot with Josh about the behind the scene issue with Sierra and while Collector's right in saying that he's perhaps too close to the subject to be completely and wholeheartedly objective, I also think that he got it right and many games we love from that heyday - such as King's Quest VI - were already designed by "new faces", and not by the titular designers that became synonimous with their titles.

But does this mean that I would like to see a Gabriel Knight 4 without Jane Jensen involved? I know that the chances of this happening are pretty slim (or totally non-existent), and maybe a new designer could really pull it off and make a great game, but my answer is a convinced no. I wouldn't want to see a Gabriel Knight 4 without Jane Jensen involved, for many different reasons.

Not only I think that she is an amazing writer and a wonderful storyteller - and why fix if it ain't broken? -, and not only I think that she is the perfect person to write a mystery adventure that blends historical facts and supernatural myths, but also, given that I'm a continuity buff, I think that she is the only one who can envision the prosecution of the series with the respect that the previous material deserves. Even with only one designer behind them, the first three games already presents some little inconsistencies (Gabriel's year of birth, Gran's first name, etc.), and I can't even imagine what will happen with a different pen behind a fourth game.

And there's also another fact, one that is pretty pivotal to me. When it comes to artistic creation, I think that only the author deserves to have the final word upon said creation - it is their child, their labor of love and, much like a parent, only the original author should have the right to say "Let's move in this direction now". If the author wants to do it by writing every single thing about his world (Martin, Rowling) or also allowing others to write about it (George Lucas, for example), this is his call, but no author should ever be stripped by his natura tights upon his artistic creation.

You can't say with absolute certainty that an established series with someone new at the helm would suck. Some people might believe there's a greater likelihood for failure without the original creator, but until the game was finished, they really wouldn't know.

Previous games designed by other people aren't a good indication. MCL and BOB sucked, but does that mean all new "Sierra" games would equally suck without the original creator? Maybe, maybe not. All anyone can do is take a "wait and see" approach.

Like MI said, sometimes it's better to get someone new who has a fresh viewpoint. I think keeping the original designer on as an adviser might work, but the actual content would be up to the new guy.

As for game authors and having the final word... well, we all know that doesn't work. Even when Sierra was around, the creators didn't own their games. Those games belonged to Sierra. Whoever publishes the game gets to own the IP. If a game creator wants to keep complete control over their game, then they'll need to publish it themselves. In today's gaming market, that'd be incredibly tough to do.

To me, it's a touchy subject.

1. Sometimes the original creator wants to continue the series, but money-people won't let them, then assign the job to someone else and drive the series into an iceberg (LSL, KQ, or to a more confusing extent, SQ.)
2. Sometimes the original creator is finished with the series, but other people want to continue it anyway according to their canon, with mixed results (Monkey Island)
3. And then there's fan-games.

In the case of 2 and 3, it's all a matter of the series being in the right hands. "Curse of Monkey Island" was a great success without Ron Gilbert even though it didn't follow his story. And the KQ2 fan remake was brilliant in my opinion.

The biggest problem is that when someone new is taking over a series, they don't yet possess the same inner critic needed to come up with a truly original sequel. Would any fan have made KQ3 with Alexander as a character? Or have Roger Wilco rescue his own creators from an evil software company? Nope. They need to make at least one game before they can be progressive with it. Otherwise, they just emulate what's comfortable to them.

MusicallyInspired wrote:I honestly think the best out of these two would be for someone new who loves the original series

I think that this is the key. Whether the original creator or someone fresh, it requires someone, not only with talent and the abilities, but with a love and understanding of the series to make it work. The makers of MCL didn't really understand the Larry series. They were clueless as to what made the series work. To replace the protagonist, a balding, middle-aged looser with some know-nothing college punk was the first sign that they didn't understand the series. They also ignored a huge part of the fan base by trying to appeal only to 14 yearolds that start to breath heavy at the though of pixelated boobies.

In the case of Gabriel Knight I don't think it could work. Aside from the emotional reasons Andrea mentioned, Gabriel is too much of an evolving story line. I'm in suspense of what happens to Gabe, and the only one who could take that to an acceptable closure is Jane Jensen.
(btw Andrea: I didn't find any other first name for Gran than Rebecca; where did her name change?)

In Leisure Suit Larry's case, I think... most people out here seem to be great fans of the first three games. Me, I prefer 1, 6 and 7. LSL never had that much of a story line, and it doesn't need one either. A decent writer with a good sense of humour and a taste for what's naughty and what's filthy, could do a decent job.
I don't know any other Sierra series well enough yet to really give any insightful comments. I'm bad, I know.

Datadog wrote:"Curse of Monkey Island" was a great success without Ron Gilbert even though it didn't follow his story.

Actually I wouldn't say that all. Curse followed the Monkey Island storyline quite nicely, I thought. It picked right up where MI2 left off pretty much. I liked Escape from MI as well. Haven't played Tales yet, though I have it downloaded.
Back on topic, I also feel it can go either way, as examples given have already shown. MCL and BOB completely killed the LSL series, its quite obvious they only slapped the LSL name on them to appeal to the older fans of the series. "Our Larry" only had a cameo in MCL and I don't think he even appears in BOB. I don't even think either game features a Leisure Suit (though I haven't played either one, only read about them, and have no desire to even acknowledge them). While on the other end of the spectrum, the MI series remained faithful to the original designer without his involvement.
Then again, another difference of the two series is that Sierra was sold off and eventually killed (sadly) while Lucasarts is still around. The company behind the series could have to do with the series directions as well.

Rayminette wrote:"Our Larry" only had a cameo in MCL and I don't think he even appears in BOB.

Actually he does appear in BOB, well... sort of... In BOB, nephew Larry works for uncle Larry Laffer at his movie studio, so yes, he's in it. Unfortunately his character is so molested that you wouldn't recognize him if you wouldn't know it's him.

Advice: only watch the following clip if you're a total masochist. The opening chapter is sadistically titled "Call me Al" and, yes, i do believe they intended the pun. "Larry Laffer" is the guy in the pink suit from 0:18 on. Once again, watch only if you're willing to have nightmares for the next few weeks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IG1JlhrEo

I haven't played any of the Larry games yet (just got the 1st 2), so i watched the video. It reminded me of my nephew's old Mario games the way he was running and jumping all over the place.

BBP wrote:(btw Andrea: I didn't find any other first name for Gran than Rebecca; where did her name change?)

In the Sins of the Fathers novel, she is called Ester Wright, rather than Rebecca.

Back on topic, I was solely talking about Gabriel Knight and Jane Jensen, and the strong continuity between the three games that BBP mentioned is another reason why I wouldn't trust anyone but Jane to continue the series.

Admittedly other series would prove less problematic, with the only possible exception of Quest for Glory, which too has a rather strong canon.