Jump to content

tomimt

Members
  • Content Count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by tomimt

  1. KQ3 is sadistic game, there's no way around it. But it does turn more enjoyable after you've been frustrated with at first, maybe it's some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
  2. What I've understood of the Codex is, that it's mostly populated by people who firmly believe that everything was better yesterday. I do enjoy following the conversations there, they can go so off the rails, that there's a lot of entertainment value there alone. And they do know their stuff when it comes to RPG's. They might not agree about anything anyone says, but they do know their stuff.
  3. I know you're joking Fronzel, but I have no anger towards RPGCodex for that emoticon. It's the most entertaining game site on the web.
  4. Gotta love RPGCodex... I read their page quite often, but I've never dared to post there, as they would propably hurt my feeble feelings. :(
  5. Personally I want to hear more about what they are going to do with it before I comment anything else. If it's just the same game, then good to see that they bring it back to the market place. If they are going to do more to it, I want to see where they are going before I say anything else.
  6. The thing is, you need other people to buy the game as well. Not that many games have managed to do so. We already know that Jane Jensen won't be making continuation for Moebius, that game was a disaster that wore her out. It might have sold just barely enough to cover the additional money they poured in it. Tesla Effect wasn't a high seller either, though Big Finish is hoping it could make profit at some point. A lot of those games have ended up being more expensive than what they got from the KS. Even Larry Reloaded ended up costing over a million (if Trowe is to be trusted, but think Josh Mandel said the same) A lot of those KS budgets just aren't the whole picture, as many devs have already poured in money in their games even before they come to KS. And many devs end up pouring more money in the development, because in some cases what they get isn't necessarily enough, because stuff happens.
  7. I honestly don't think they actually even need the "old" fans that much. They don't even need adventure game fans that much. The people they are aiming this one doesn't have the nostalgic connection to the game, but they still might have brand recognition. Some people might even be interested of seeing what the fuss those old, grumpy gamers were all about really is about, when they talked about KQ with a tear in their eye. Or actually they do need the old fans, but only to talk about it, not really buy it. Talking by itself is enough, the tone of discussion matters here very little. What Activision is doing here, and I think it is a very smart move at that, is the rebirth of a name. Two names, actually, and both of them in their own right iconic, but neither is a name you need to have played, or experienced yourself at first hand, as both KQ and Sierra do still echo in many places, in written word and in many game videos. There's a lot of people still talking about them and that could be what they want to spark. A bit like what movie studios want to spark when they dig a classic monster from its slumber, like Dracula or Frankenstein. There's no need for the new viewer to have seen Bela Lugosi's movies to know Dracula. There's no real need for that nostalgic connection for the potential viewe to be interested about it, as the name stands tall itself. Will it work? Who knows. The difference between Dracula and KQ or Sierra is time. Dracula has hanged around a lot longer. A lot of people know him even if they haven't seen nor read any movies or books about him. But a lot of iconic actors have portrayed him. What I'm interested here the most really is, if they can make it work.
  8. I do understand why they do try to reach other than P&C gamers really. Despite there has been some success stories in KS front, none of the released P&C adventures have really done anything remarkable in the market place. The best ones have propably done enough money for a small studio, like Revolution for an example, but even the game that kickstarted the Kickstarter trend didn't really do a thing in the market, especially from the POV of a big company. So in that sense the way to go is pretty clear: either an interactive adventure story like what Telltale does or to try something different if you don't want to spend that much money, but still want something that might sell better than traditional adventure games.
  9. The trailer did actually remind me of Trine. I can see how a KQ game could work as such a game, especially if it's retelling of the previous games.
  10. I just started to play KQ4 again. I must admit I had forgotten how much unfair puzzles that game has as well. It's filled with puzzle items you can miss because you just didn't think enough to just search the ground which you don't even see or that you just aren't able to see in the future in order to know how to solve something that you just can't know is coming. It is a lovely game though. It's not as punishing as KQ3 is and you can even have an alternative bad ending in it as well.
  11. Indeed... KQ3 suffers from a severe case of "you have to know things you just can't know before they happen" design.
  12. Molyneyx does have a point, sadly he's the wrong person to have that point given what he promised and is now delivering. He's just pretty much detatching himself from the responsibility of what he has himself created. "if it sucks, it's not me, it's the method."
  13. I always hated the cat more... and that's a lot from me as I love cats. Even before it was the thing to do in the internet.
  14. Now that you are entering KQ3, let me warn you before hand, when you do the spells, one of the spells has a wrong incantation line in the manual, so be sure to check out the right lines. The error is, if I recall right, included in every version of the game.
  15. I do recall most of the treasure items can be actually used to solve at least one specific puzzle. It won't give you max poinst, but it will get you past that point if you don't have the max point item.
  16. I'd say the root of the problem is the amount of games out there today. The games themselves don't need to last for months and if they stump people for too long they migrate quickly to play other games. And if someone has stopped playing your game, it is likely they won't be returning customers to your next game.
  17. I'd go and pronounce it something like this: Aivn-kovh-grogh-prem It's clearly a name from some dead language.
  18. Yes, the gnome puzzle is optional, as if you answer wrong you'll get a key you can use to unlock a door that has a ramp which leads to the giant. The big three puzzles, getting the shield, mirror and the chest, have multiple solutions, which is very clever. KQ1 has a lot of design elements which were sadly dropped from adventure game development, but I think that has more to do with how difficult it is to design such open puzzles, especially when the games themselves are more and more difficult and costly to produce. What was really fun back in the day with KQ1 was to try to find out the optimal ways of doing the puzzles. Though the unfair gnome's name puzzle made that pretty difficult, unless you knew the answer.
  19. It's pretty difficult to think any modern first time player would go gaga over any of the first 3 KQ games. As they are, they really work best seen as historical relics and views on where games have started and how they've evolved. They have a lot of stuff that can be compared to modern games really in a way, that you can see that some ideas we think are modern have been thought of in the early years of computer games.
  20. KQ1 really is one of the most open adventure games there is. It's interesting just because it was not only the mother of animated adventure games, but because its approach on the world and puzzle design. It is open world, small, but still you can go almost everywhere immediatly. You can pick up a lot of stufff, some just for points, but some can be used to solve multiple puzzles. But at the same time it has stuff in it that just isn't in any way fair towards the player, as the game really doesn't give that many hints on how some of the more obscure puzzles work, nor does it generally give that many hints at all. KQ2 is far more guided and "traditional" in approach, I'd even call it less ambitious. It's clearly more of a midwork, that was done to fill in the need for a new game more than anything else. In terms of game design only KQ3 is far ahead of KQ2, which really didn't bring anything new to the table. I think KQ2 might actually be the only KQ game that didn't bring any significant improvements to the game engine itself, nor Roberta's design.
  21. Personally I think KQ4 is the best game in the series. I've also always liked KQ7, which some people seem to hate with a passion. KQ6 I think has always been a bit bizarre mix of extremely naive and overly dark narratives, which don't mix together very well. KQ5 is a pretty looking game, but it also frustrates me the most in the series thanks to some pretty poor design choices. Out of the first 3 games, I really recommend playing KQ1 and KQ3. KQ2 is pretty much just together shoestringed pieces that make very little sense. KQ3 has a bit different approach to the first 2 games and has interesting experiments in narrative.
  22. Visually KQ5 is a very nice game and the storytelling ain't bad either. But I do think the puzzle design is at places a step backwards from KQ4 and KQ5 has more puzzles with very abstract logic. I think it might be, as just like Al Lowe said, he didn't at first understand that going from parser to icons made his puzzle design too easy, Roberta might have realized that and made some of the puzzles of KQ5 more obscure because of that. And that lead into some pretty clunky puzzle design.
  23. KQ5 is actually a pretty interesting step backwards for Roberta. KQ4 is much better game and has a pretty solid design overall. Also I've always liked Colonel's Bequest a quite a bit, which still is IMO a solid game with fairly logical puzzle design, which has none of the "pie in the Yeti's face" kind of puzzle design. I think going from parser to icons threw her off the balance, just like what happened to Al Lowe with Larry 5, which beame too easy because of it.
  24. Well luckily enough Roberta was smart enough to create an alternative puzzle to get you where answering right to the gnomes name puzzle would have taken you. For all it flaws, which can be forgiven being that during the 80's game devs were just making it up on the run, King's Quest 1 is a great example of a game where several puzzles can be solved differently, In many ways King's Quest 2 was a step backwards from it and it has even more mind blowing puzzles than KQ1 has. Like the suagar cube, or the harness and the snake, or that damned bridge. But it also is pretty non-linear. And, IMO, Roberta just like the guys did got better and better as they went on. Was she favourited by her husband? Most likely as she always hade the first hand access to newest tech and most likely the best resources of the company, but at the same time she did strive to go forwards, which is more than can be said even on many current devs.
×
×
  • Create New...