Is it worth playing...

[JimmyTwoBucks]

I've only ever played King's Quest 5 and 6... is it worth playing 1-4 and 7?

Or are there some I should avoid?

 

In general, I like to avoid things like arcade sequences, things where there is a timer, and dead ends.

So would those earlier King's Quests be too frustrating for someone like me?

[MusicallyInspired]

Inb4 Troels says "Avoid them all!"

 

KQ5 is the worst offender for dead ends. Seeing as you've already passed that, the worst is behind you. KQ3 has a timer but for long sequences. You must accomplish tasks while the wizard is away pr sleeping. There's a timer on the status line and it's easy enough to figure out how long his trips/naps take. There aren't any bad timer areas, though, like you're referring to.

 

KQ7....I personally don't like it at all. Try it. Some love it.

[JDHJANUS]

Yeah, the King's Quest games don't really have arcade sequences, but they do have a lot of tricky footwork, especially in the first 4 games. Climbing the beanstalk in the original King's Quest I is a pain, as is navigating the stairs in Dracula's castle in King's Quest II. King's Quest III has the mountain path, and King's Quest IV has both Lolotte's Castle and the abandoned house.

 

All of the King's Quest games have possible dead ends, although, as Brandon said, King's Quest V is by far the worst.

 

I wasn't a big fan of King's Quest III, but then again, I'm not generally a fan of Sierra's AGI games (Space Quest II is a notable exception). I would recommend playing the fan remakes by ADGI, although they do add some stuff for King's Quest II and III (ah, who am I kidding? They totally overhauled King's Quest II, but for the better, I think). Infamous Adventures also has a remake of King's Quest III as well that added a few minor scenes.

 

King's Quest VII has been criticized by a lot of adventure game fans, but I rather enjoyed it myself. It is a bit more kid-friendly then the rest of the series, and it does have a simplified interface. But the animation is rather well done, and I really liked the story overall.

 

Talk to you later!

 

JDHJANUS

Josh

[Frede]

I really enjoyed KQ7 last time I played it. It's good fun. KQ6 is absolutely brilliant, which you of course already know. Never been a fan of the rest of them.

[tomimt]

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.

[suejak]

I think KQ7 is the easiest to like. It's very Torin's Passage-y in that it's too "modern" and slick, but it's pretty good.

 

After that, I think 3 and 4 are worth playing in their original form.

 

KQ 1 and 2 are of interest for historical value only. KQ 1 SCI is very pretty, and the VGA remakes are worth playing if you enjoy beautiful adventure games.

[MusicallyInspired]

What would have been nice is a "classic" mode for KQ2+ where you could just play the original game. The graphics were all there. It would have taken a bit to program, yeah, but it would have been worthwhile. I love KQ2+, though.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm going through KQ7 from beginning to end for the first time and I'm passed halfway through now. I have to say that the puzzle design, for the most part, IS challenging. Especially that first chapter. It's almost a return to roots! However, the parts that aren't challenging are VERY VERY easy..at least to me. But that's subjective, I suppose. I really enjoyed that whole area of the first chapter and piecing that stuff together. Reminded me of Myst, actually. No instructions just hints and clues everywhere. The animation bothers me at times, but it's not THAT bad. The music is...well, the music is a low point for me personally. The story is a good idea, but I believe poorly executed. The voice actors are hit and miss...mostly miss. The writing (of the dialogue as opposed to the whole story) is very lackluster for me as well.

 

But still, none of those things are the one BIG reason that bugs me about the game...what IS it? It just....it just feels like it has no soul like the earlier games did. I don't know how else to describe it. Maybe it's just all of it together. The whole recipe. It's just a little off. I dislike it. It didn't suck me in, I didn't care about anybody, I didn't care about the plot at all. It just didn't reel me in like all of the other games did. It felt very rushed and slapped together, actually. Others' opinions vary on this, but that's my honest opinion.

[suejak]

Random thought, but reading your preferences, I think you'll hate King's Quest 3. Many of us did at first. I tried to play KQ3 sooo many times over the years, but the first sequence with the wizard drove me nuts.

 

But then someone told me to stick with it. Take to heart Josh's comments in the other thread about hiding stuff under the bed and eventually being able to beat the wizard. Also, just wait -- be obedient at first and don't try to rush it. You may have to restart a few times, and it'll seem annoying because the wizard just ambushes you and resets your progress over and over.

 

Stick with it, though, and try not to let the first few minutes spoil you on the whole game. It's worth playing. No Space Quest, but it's worth it.

[Collector]

Pretty sure MI has played KQ3.

[MusicallyInspired]

Think he was referring to the OP.

[suejak]

I'm talking to Jimmy TwoBucks.

 

In response to: 

"In general, I like to avoid things like arcade sequences, things where there is a timer, and dead ends.

So would those earlier King's Quests be too frustrating for someone like me?"

[JimmyTwoBucks]

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated.

I decided to start playing the original KQ1 yesterday and played it for several hours. 

 

I'm finding it... ok.

 

It's enjoyable, but I almost feel like it's a bit too open-ended in places. Like with the troll - 

just hand him a random thing that's close enough to work while thinking, "mm, I wonder if

that item was really meant for something else."

Or where the game is like, "here's a magic ring, use it whenever the heck you want!"

I've definitely used the ring in a sub-optimal way already  :(

 

I guess the open-endedness avoids some of the frustration of other games, like where you might need to get

a stick to solve a puzzle and you HAVE a stick, but it's the wrong kind of stick so you need to go find another

stick and you're thinking, "dammit, just let me use the stick I've got!" 

I get the impression KQ1 would probably let you use any stick in a scenario like that.
 

But it also feels very random to me in the game, it feels like I haven't really figured out some clever

puzzle, I've just sort of done a bodge-job on it and it's randomly worked, so it feels a bit less satisfying.

I know that means that there is replay value in going back through and finding the "best" ways to do the puzzles,

but eh, I kinda just wish they'd only let me do it one way!

 

The other thing I quickly realized is we're not dealing with "normal" answers to some of the puzzles here.

Like get the bowl, give it to the woodcutter - that's logical enough. But then what to put in it?

Not the cheese, not the carrot? Aw come on, those are perfectly good foodstuffs!

Oh, you have to randomly say "fill" and it fills itself even though you have nothing to fill it with? Whaaaaaaaaaaaat.

So then on that occasion, it's not open-ended at all, in fact it's so specific, that it's something

that only works if you're on the same planet as the game designer.

 

I think I'll definitely give KQ7 a go, as it sounds a bit more relaxing than the others,

and I'm kind of on the fence about the other games from what you've all said so far...

 

It seems like KQ2 is the most skippable one?

And KQ4 is the best of the first four?

[MusicallyInspired]

KQ1 does indeed have multiple solutions to almost every puzzle. I like that. Remember this was the very first animated graphic "3-D" adventure game ever made. Really, it's a short game. So they used the point system in conjunction with lesser and greater puzzle solutions to increase replay value because they didn't have the memory or disk space for anything more advanced (which came later). Also, if you look at the bowl in your inventory you will see that it says the word "fill" inside it. So, not random. Just have to be observant. I don't call that moon logic. Look at EVERYTHING. SPECIFICALLY. Not just a general ">look around". People say that KQ2 is skippable, and it's not much different than KQ1, but the graphics are prettier and it's a little more polished than KQ1. As far as KQ4 being the "best of the four", that's entirely subjective. There are many people who think that KQ3 is the best. It depends on what you're looking for, I guess. KQ4 is definitely not universally heralded as the best of the four by everyone.

 

Also, watch out for the gnome puzzle in this version of KQ1...although I'm sure you've probably already heard about it.

[tomimt]

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.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

 

I think I'll definitely give KQ7 a go, as it sounds a bit more relaxing than the others,

 

Don't forget to brush your teeth afterwards. Otherwise the saccharine kitsch will rot them in no time!

 

 

Inb4 Troels says "Avoid them all!".

Troels gets a proxy-like for that! :D

[Frede]

It's not that bad. Just don't look at the comb when you're playing as Valanice, lest you feel like playing "Depression Quest".

[Fronzel Neekburm]

It's not that bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIqsoc9rQrc

 

You were saying?

[Frede]

This video features the one biggest flaw in King's Quest VII: the statuette's claim is blatantly inconsistent with the rest of the game. All conversations near the end of Chapter 4 indicate that Valanice left Falderal BEFORE Rosella arrived; therefore, it is impossible for Rosella to already be back underground (the statuette already showed Rosella going up the elevator in Chapter 3) by the time Valanice gets rid of the Falderal guard. Besides, even if it were true, it would imply that Rosella stares at the troll brawl for a couple hours while Valanice completes this entire chapter.

Still beats the fucking owl.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Hehe, I didn't even read the description. Just that Chapter 5 opening cutscene was enough to make me turn my back on this game for life.

 

But yeah... I agree that the poooooisonous owl was a pain in the ass.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's not that bad. Just don't look at the comb when you're playing as Valanice, lest you feel like playing "Depression Quest".

Actually, looking at the comb is an important clue to a puzzle right in the first chapter. You MUST look at it. :(

[JimmyTwoBucks]

HOOOORAY! I finished KQ1!

(with a little help from a walkthrough a few times, haha)

 

I know it's unfair to judge it too harshly as they were inventing the genre by the seat of their pants at the time,

so you expect it to be a kind of work-in-progress almost, as they iron out things in later games.

 

I found it kind of fun, but it felt sort of underwhelming in a lot of ways, somehow the puzzles weren't that satisfying.

I like that it's a short game in a contained area with not that many puzzles to complete, but some of them are such

random mindbenders that I could see being stuck on some parts for years if I hadn't looked them up:

 

--The bowl still seems random to me... I had looked at it and saw "fill" but that only suggested to me that

it needed filling with something at some point, not that you can just say "fill" to fill it.

 

--The bird... ok, it's swooping down, but how would you know that it's going to carry you away unless

you spent hours trying every random thing? I didn't know if I was meant to give it something, throw something at it,

put something on the rock for it to eat, whether it had something in its mouth I needed, etc.

Even when you know roughly what to do, it's not that easy to actually do it, so I could see being stuck on that part for ages.

 

--The gnome... wow. Just wow. 

 

I think with some of the puzzles, having to use the exact right words and be standing in the exact right place often makes

them even tougher... you think you've tried something and ruled it out, but you just weren't in quite the right place, etc.

 

And then conversely some puzzles were really straightforward - give cheese to a rat, put water on dragon's fire,

eat mushroom to get through opening. 

 

I was really surprised that some items like the diamonds, egg, walnut did not have specific uses.

I was like, "yesss, I have the diamonds, now I get to complete some puzzle somewhere else with them

and progress!" Nope, they stayed in my pocket the whole time.

 

The most interesting items in the games were ones you couldn't pick up...

"Wow, an axe! And I wonder what this water pump does! Hey there's a bottle of something at the bottom of this well!"

Yeah, well tough sh-t, you don't get to pick up any of that stuff. Here, have a carrot.

 

I'm not sure if I would recommend the game to someone else apart from historical value...

it was fun while I was going around picking things up and trying to work things out,

but it seemed to never find the sweet spot of puzzles between "too obvious" and "brain-melter".

 

Surprisingly though, I actually enjoyed the challenge of climbing the beanstalk. At least I knew what I was meant to be doing.

All in all I am glad I played it, just so now I know what it's all about.

 

Anyway... onwards to KQ2!

[tomimt]

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.

[MusicallyInspired]

Congrats!

 

You know, you raise some good points. The "fill" bowl, for instance. I guess it isn't obvious on first playthrough that you have to say it to magically fill it up. I take it for granted now that that was the solution. I don't even remember how I figured it out. I may not have. It may have been from my childhood days when I wasn't smart enough or too impatient to figure it out and just cheated my way through it. Even so, I still defend it. Also, regarding the flying eagle, KQ1 (and KQ2, for that matter) has hotkeys for ducking and jumping. Obviously they're meant to be used for some reason. And that moment when you figure you might just try jumping to catch the bird just to see what happens and having the bird pick you up and take you to a previously unreachable location is just a very exciting and magical moment. This was also around the time of simple platformer games where things like jumping and ducking were common, so the instinct to use them in an adventure game wasn't far fetched (especially seeing as they were documented) because KQ1 was the very first 3d graphic animated adventure game ever made. Why wouldn't you try jumping? Mindsets.

 

The treasures in KQ1 give you points for finding them (why shouldn't they!) but they're also used for alternate solutions to puzzles in the game. For instance, you can give a treasure to the rat or the troll instead of using the appropriate item. But you get less points in the end. So there's nothing that has absolutely no purpose. This approach is also present in KQ2, by the way.

 

Remember, these are all best case scenario puzzle solutions. You weren't expected to get full points on the first playthrough. That's why there are alternate solutions. You could argue that it's impossible to know whether you've gotten the best scenario or not, but I say the clear indicator is that you didn't finish the game with full points. It also adds to replayability. Going through the game and trying alternate solutions. The best-case solutions, however, would be more challenging by design. To the point of absurdity. It's still fair because the game isn't un-completable because you couldn't figure out some "moon logic". You can still beat the game, just without full points. At that point it isn't "what does this developer expect me to do here" it's about "how else can I go about this situation that might be a better way". Then beating the game with max points becomes all about discovering new methods to do things and then feeling personal satisfaction at having actually figured that out.

 

As adventures went on this design philosophy and approach to playing adventures was lost. It's just a different mindset now. We HAVE to beat the game with everything or it's not fair. No, you don't HAVE to beat the game with everything. You can just beat the game and consider beating it with full points as a bonus for both replayability and personal accomplishment/bragging rights. Turning to a walkthru for such puzzles is counterproductive to this mindset.

 

TL;DR the internet ruined adventures :P.

[JimmyTwoBucks]

That's a key point about being able to finish the game without figuring out all the puzzles...

 

Thinking about it now, I was definitely playing it with the underlying assumption that I HAD to 

to figure them all out to complete the game (as you would expect in later games), and that was probably

the wrong way to go about playing KQ1. As you say, I was looking up solutions to puzzles that didn't even

need to be completed in some cases, as I could have finished it without solving them. I just assumed

that they all needed solving otherwise I wouldn't be able to progress to the next puzzle.

 

I think coming to the game after having already played a whole bunch of later, more typical adventure games

meant that I subconsciously brought those modes of thinking with me and applied them to everything, like,

"I have a gold egg, now is there a particular situation that calls specifically for this item and its attributes of 

being an egg and gold" or things like where you need a helmet and you have a bucket, so you make a makeshift

helmet from the bucket...

Thinking like that probably made it more frustrating when it turned out the "answers" weren't really

along those lines in many cases.

 

And obviously when the game first came out, no one had any of those approaches built up in their minds already, 

so I'm guessing they could be more "open-minded" almost and would probably try things I didn't

(like the jumping that you mentioned). 

 

Out of the puzzles I had issues with (gnome/bowl/bird), I think only the bird one is actually necessary

to complete the game? I think I read the gnome one doesn't need to be answered correctly and I don't

think you need the fiddle from the woodcutter (the clover keeps the leprechauns away and I don't think you

need the sceptre to complete the game) so that would mean you don't need to complete the bowl puzzle.

 

So from that perspective it does seem a lot better weighted in terms of difficulty if you know you don't HAVE to solve everything...

 

It's almost like instead of having an easy/medium/hard difficulty setting at the beginning (like Nintendo games

used to sometimes have), it's like the different difficulty settings are built directly into the game through the puzzles.

 

That's really clever, though I can see the dangers of it (if it had been used in all the later games) -

eg. a player might finish the game quickly the easiest way possible and then not really want to play it again,

especially if they had already opening up all the areas of the game.

In more regular adventure games opening up a new area to explore is almost a kind of reward for solving several

relatively tough puzzles, so the KQ1 approach might not work as well in larger games.

 

Having said that, some games could have definitely done with a couple more solutions to notoriously

difficult puzzles... the skate-o-rama having just one more way to get past the police would have been good.