ActiVision Reconsidering KQ9's Release
[url]http://kotaku.com/5529809/the-sequel-th ... rise-twist[/url]
Due to "overwhelming fan response" apparently. It's unclear whether this is a negotiation for the game's release or the sale of the King's Quest IP.
Due to "overwhelming fan response" apparently. It's unclear whether this is a negotiation for the game's release or the sale of the King's Quest IP.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
And how much do you think they make with that?
What does this b4 (whatever it is) have against Roberta? She did some decent adventure games back in the day. I wish that Activision would re-release her Laura Bow series on GOG or somewhere else.
I agree.
b4 = before
And no, she didn't do any decent adventure games back in the day. She did a couple ok ones and all the really good ones that are credited to her were actually made by other people (Josh Mandel designed LB2 and Jane Jensen designed KQ6, for instance).
Oh, my mistake. I didn't understand his meaning, because I'm not native speaker. I'm used to seeing expressions like "in the past", but I don't remember seeing "in before" earlier, so I didn't get his meaning and all I could think that he was speaking about some place or group and not about time.
(Also my first thought about b4 was that it's a coordinate on a grid, just like in Battleship or Chess. So no wonder I was confused.
Making an adventure game is often a team work and not work of a single person. Jane Jensen has said in an interview that she learned a lot from Roberta while they worked together.
No. Bruce Balfour was the primary designer for The Dagger of Amon Ra. It was stated in interviews that Roberta's primary purpose on that game was making sure Laura Bow was consistent as a character and that was basically it.
Yes, there are a lot of fan projects out there that don't have the level of quality.
But the fan remakes of KQ 1 and 2 with full voice and modern graphics are a huge upgrade and don't lose anything.
Indeed.
KQ4 was the first adventure game I ever played, and I figured that dying in some games for waiting too long or for clicking on the wrong pixel, or getting permanently stuck because you didn't pick up the right item at the right time was just part of the game (ie. GET OVER IT.)
The experience of these things happening taught me 1) there's nothing wrong with reading a walkthrough and 2) save early, save often and rarely overwrite.
I think many post-Maniac Mansion LA fanboys/girls are spoiled by the inability to die or get stuck.
I don't think it has anything to do with being spoiled. It's just a matter of taste. I dislike adventure games where you die too often and for reason that seem illogical. I just end up not wanting to try anything because it might kill me. Adventure games should be about experimenting with stuff.
I'm okay with games where you can die in some logical situations, like the first two Broken Sword games for instance.
Of course, I don't see a point in complaining about Sierra games. I just don't play them.
Another thing I dislike is games where you can't save whenever you want. I gave Metroid Prime a try a while back, and I enjoyed it, but when I wanted to stop I couldn't save. I had to find a save point. If I stopped I'd have to start over the whole game! I ended up rushing to find a save point, and half my session was just that, trying to get to the first save point and not enjoying any of the game.
Needless to say I haven't touched it since.
I've also been playing New Super Mario Bros for the Wii, and I end up playing the first castle like every other level. It's extremely annoying. Plus I couldn't stop until I reached the first castle so same thing, I didn't get to enjoy the last few levels because I was just rushing so I could save.
At least they have a "quick-save" thing though so that's better, but I don't like using these things. Half the time I play a bit, then go "oh well, actually I'll play it another time", turn it off and the quick save is just deleted. That sucks.
As I said, it's a matter of taste. But something that takes the fun out of a game for me isn't something I'm going to like. If it doesn't take the fun out of the game (or if, indeed, it makes the game more fun) for you, then good for you, keep playing them. But I don't think it fair to say that people with different tastes are spoiled.
I'm old geezer, so I don't always get the Internet slang, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't use it. There's always someone who don't get the joke, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Deadends can be annoying, but in old Sierra games you could avoid deadends by saving often and paying attention. Most of the time reason for deadend was doing something stupid.
In old games I actually sometimes killed my characters to see if there's some funny dead animation or joke. Saving often reduces the pain and in later Sierra games you died rarely and there was retry button. It was also possible to die in early LucasArts games. I have died several times in both Indy adventures because a Nazi was better in a fist fight.
But I agree with you that it should be possible to save whenever you want. I don't have much time for playing and if I have to spend 15-60 minutes I have for trying to find next save point it takes fun out of the game.
After that, I don't think I would survive in an old Sierra game without a walkthrough.
Sierra games are for perfectionists. LucasArts games are for everyone else.
Hey, I'm a perfectionist and I enjoy both! I resent your generalizations!