Decline New King's Quest game - MASSIVE DECLINE Everything is shit

[Bubbles]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiN_Episodes

 

[Jasede]

D4.

 

[Blackthorne]

Fester Mudd: Curse of the Gold.


Bt

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-03-14-kings-quest-chapter-3-dated-for-april

King's Quest - Chapter 3: Once Upon a Climb is due 26th April on PS4, Xbox One, PS3, Xbox 360 and PC.

This time it out we follow the exploits of young King Graham rescuing his future bride from the witch Hagatha's tower.

 

[Archibald]

I'm honestly surprised that its getting released. Did earlier chapters pick up some steam?

 

[Blackthorne]

Not really - I bet if this chapter doesn't do any better, they may not finish the remaining chapters. It seems like Activision dropped the ball on this one a little.


Bt

 

[Irenaeus III]

I'm hoping for a total catastrophe for anyone involved in this abomination, from the top suits who OK'd this through the clueless devs to the retarded players who bought this. We need a curse working here.

 

[pippin]

It seems like Activision dropped the ball on this one a little.

I think they expected the "retro gaming" tag to attract marketing on its own, because that's what it does most of the times. Problem is most people who are into "retro gaming" were probably born after KQ8 was released.

 

[Blackthorne]

I just think as a King's Quest game, it was ill-conceived. The art direction is nice - the writing would be fine, if it wasn't saddled with the KQ moniker. But I think they missed their audience and really screwed the pooch. This game just didn't make the waves they'd hoped; I've seen a lot of apologist Sierra fans TRY to like this, but it's kind of sad. Not that every adventure game has to really look retro, but I think they just messed up tonally on this one. They made Graham act like Guybrush Threepwood, and they went too cutesy and funny. Like I've said, if it wasn't King's Quest, it'd work. But with the KQ name, it's just lame.

Bt

 

[Archibald]

Would anyone care at all if it wasn't KQ?

 

[Blackthorne]

I think some might, if they came up with a good enough backstory - lord knows they spent a lot on marketing. They spent a ton on marketing a King's Quest game, which should have been like shooting fish in a barrel, and instead they turned out a game that most people are solidly "meh" on. Sometimes I think making a game people are indifferent to is worse than making a total failure!


Bt

 

[Jackalope]

They wanted to bank on the nostalgia, but they also made a game that has nothing in common with King's Quest. That's the problem. The tone, the characters, the mechanics, the puzzles, even the art style is just wrong. And people can see that.

In contrast, Telltale's Tales of Monkey Island feels like a Monkey Island game, because Telltale cared (back then). Sure, it's not the best game in the series, but it's fine, it feels like a real game thats part of the same world. This is also true for the three seasons of Sam and Max and how they compare to Hit the Road.

NewKing's Quest cares about being hip and quirky and odd. It is Princess Bride starring fake Guybrush Threepwood with no death, less interaction, way too much walking and simple puzzles. And that's not the King's Quest fans wanted.

 

[Blackthorne]

Exactly. You nailed it.


Bt

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Let's be honest. No one wanted any King's Quest game in any form. Even a KQ6 Pt. II would've been trashed.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Eh

 

[RuySan]

The critical response to this game got me confused. Many critics liked it, some were even surprised by it, while John walker absolutely hated it.

I like some not-really adventures like Life is strange, so I don't know if I should try this or not

 

[Blackthorne]

As a King's Quest game, it sucks. As a generic Fairy Tale Adventure game, it's a quirky and humorous game. Just tonally wrong for King's Quest. It was a Herculean effort, but in the absolute wrong direction. It's like if someone built the Pyramids of Giza in Nebraska. Cool to look at, but wrong.


Bt

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Thing is, I don't think people - even adventure gamers - want Sierra games anymore. For one thing, they've mostly been forgotten by the public at large. The last KQ before this one came out 18 years ago, the last SQ came out over 20 years ago...The Gabriel Knight remake bombed, and that was a pure adventure game remake with Jane Jensen herself participating - one of Sierra's most enduring, critically acclaimed series, and by modern standards, it bombed. Sierra games were never blockbuster bits. I've read Sierra's financials - as of 1995, for example, King's Quest, which was their primary title, had sold 1.5 million copies as an entire series. In 1995, that might have been good money, but today, that's chump change. KQ5 was a massive hit in 1990 with an astonishing 500,000 copies sold...And then three years later, Myst blew it out of the water with millions of copies sold. Sierra games have never been commercial successes, not by modern standards. They only were successful when Sierra was a big fish in a relatively little pond and there was shit offerings from other companies.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Never liked GK or Myst to be honest. Would love a new KQ. A REAL one, not this faggotry we got. The KQ2 remake by AGD was the next best thing.

Anyone looking for something close to the KQ experience, grab it for free here: http://www.agdinteractive.com/games/kq2/

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Never liked GK or Myst to be honest. Would love a new KQ. A REAL one, not this faggotry we got. The KQ2 remake by AVGD was the next best thing.

I don't think even a REAL KQ, as you put it, would do great numbers. Outside of the Sierra community of fans, hardcore adventure gamers, no one really cares about Sierra games anymore. Even in the larger adventure community, Sierra games are seen as archaic, outdated punchlines - relics of a horrible, pre-LucasArts era full of dead ends, horrible gameplay, and lacking in political correctness. Even the larger adventure game audience has abandoned Sierra style adventure games. As such, even a totally traditional KQ sequel would've done poorly- definitely not the kind of numbers Activision was unrealistically hoping for with this game.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Fuck your great numbers, I'm talking to KQ fans. GTFO

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Fuck your great numbers, I'm talking to KQ fans. GTFO

When you're dealing with a company like Activision, sales are all that matter. I'm a KQ fan. I'm just being realistic. Would I have loved a Hi-Res 2D KQ game, with beautiful high quality handpainted backgrounds that was a direct sequel? Yeah. But that's utterly unrealistic, and would never happen, probably even if Sierra was still an independent company run by Ken Williams. This game is probably the closest one could come to it. It's certainly a lot better than KQ8 and KQ7 were.

 

[Jackalope]

I don't agree. Kickstarter showed that there's plenty of people who'd pay for old school games. Not just adventure games, old school games! Broken Age, Spaceventure, Pillars of Eternity, Thimbleweed Park, Mighty No. 9, Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Broken Sword, Armikrog and many more. Old school games. People wanted those games to happen and voted with their cash. And some games were good, some bad, some never came out, but that doesn't change the fact people wanted those. Adventure games are still being made and people still love them. So there's a market.

And sure, big games make big bucks. But by that logic Activision should just release a new Call of Duty every six months.

They could have made a good King's Quest game. And could have made some good cash. But they just had an IP they didn't care about and dropped it on some hipsters with almost no experience in game development.

And that's a crime because the Sierra classics really deserve better.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

I don't agree. Kickstarter showed that there's plenty of people who'd pay for old school games. Not just adventure games, old school games! Broken Age, Spaceventure, Pillars of Eternity, Thimbleweed Park, Mighty No. 9, Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Broken Sword, Armikrog and many more. Old school games. People wanted those games to happen and voted with their cash. And some games were good, some bad, some never came out, but that doesn't change the fact people wanted those. Adventure games are still being made and people still love them. So there's a market.

And sure, big games make big bucks. But by that logic Activision should just release a new Call of Duty every six months.

They could have made a good King's Quest game. And could have made some good cash. But they just had an IP they didn't care about and dropped it on some hipsters with almost no experience in game development.

And that's a crime because the Sierra classics really deserve better.

The Kickstarter people paid in the range of, tops, 700k for those projects. And I'm being generous there with that figure. Activision spent probably several millions of dollars on the new KQ game and was hoping, for some unrealistic reason, to make back several millions. Adventure games are, when it comes to big companies, wastes of money. Why invest in creating a High Quality adventure that will run you millions and millions of dollars to produce, when you're only going to make several hundred grand? And I'm talking not just mainstream adventures, but old school ones as well. Pillars of Eternity is in the RPG genre, which is still very much a thriving genre, so that's like comparing apples and oranges.

A "good KQ game". Again, in what style? Pleasing everyone when making a KQ game is a losing proposition as KQ/hardcore adventure game fans are generally never sated or pleased. Define what would be a "good KQ" game to you.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

A comparable project (to a new KQ) would be SpaceVenture. The Two Guys netted a grand total of 500k for their game. That's like pennies to a company such as Activision.