Were the (original) King's Quest series shitty games?

Korgoth of Barbaria · Nov 6, 2016

In recent years, the tide has turned against King's Quest from one of nostalgia to more harsh critique. For example, here were some words on the series last year by the AV Club:

Those who do still fondly remember those games would acknowledge that, today, they are archaic and broken, full of inscrutable puzzles and random unavoidable death. King’s Quest was what needed to be fixed about video games, a cautionary history lesson.

and:

I have a pretty good idea why three major studios have now tried and failed to bring King’s Quest into modern times. In terms of story or characters, there’s not much there. What can we say about King Graham? What was he like? What were his daughter and wife like? With the exception of his son—who grew up as the abused slave of an evil wizard—none of the characters really have interesting characteristics or backstories. They just assist random strangers they meet, receive items from them, and then concoct seemingly nonsensical combinations of those items. Even the super-square Officer Jim Walls from the original Police Quest games has more personality. And he turned down an offer for sex in exchange for tearing up a speeding ticket.

Would you agree with these assessments? Were the original KQ games - not just 1 or 2, but the entire series - shitty, bad games? "Broken", and that they represented the worst of video games - aka "what needed to be fixed about video games"?

Correct_Carlo · Nov 7, 2016

I'd agree with the second quote and have said more or less the same thing word for word in the past on these forums (Including my love of King's Quest 3, which I've always thought the best of the series). I don't think they are shitty games, though. They have massive flaws that stem from their pioneering the genre in many ways, which can be a headache for modern gamers, but I find their simplicity and odd gameplay quirks charming. Partly in a "history of games" way, but also partly for what they are. They don't have deep stories or interesting characters because their appeal has always just been wandering through fairy tale lands while solving puzzles. I always found the wide eyed "Gee whiz, let's have an adventure!" aspect to them charming. I agree, though, that their charm makes them pointless to "reboot" as a modern series. It's the most generic fairy tale universe imaginable, so there's really nothing of substance to the games worth adapting that isn't already public domain.

Dedup · Nov 7, 2016

While story is often considered a key part of adventure games, I never really considered it much in the King's Quest games. I'll admit that I've never been much of a storyfag when it comes to games in general so I never really needed Graham's life history or a complex set of ideals that motivate him. In King's Quest he's a knight and he wants to save the kingdom by recovering the 3 treasures. What more do you need? You get your back story from the manual and/or the game intro so you know what the goal is, then you're dropped into the world where you accomplish that goal by exploring and solving the challenges within it. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

As far as the games being inscrutable and broken, I find it hard to believe that I could beat those games when I was young teenager if they were so irredeemably broken. Sure it was hard to get the max score but figuring that stuff out made me want to replay those games. About the only puzzle I had a hard time with was in King's Quest 2 with the whole snake and the antivenom sugar cube thing (though I think that I was once able to get through the poison brambles without it by being very slow and cautious), but then a friend told me how to do it and the rest of the game wasn't an issue.

The complaint about unfair deaths I find a little strange since you could save anywhere and were encouraged to do so often. Even if you end up in a dead man walking scenario, the games were short enough that it wouldn't take long to restart and get back to that point in the game.

So I guess I agree with some of their assessments. It's just that I never saw those things as problems and they didn't lessen my enjoyment of the games.

Korgoth of Barbaria · Nov 7, 2016

Juan_Carlo said:
I'd agree with the second quote and have said more or less the same thing word for word in the past on these forums (Including my love of King's Quest 3, which I've always thought the best of the series). I don't think they are shitty games, though. They have massive flaws that stem from their pioneering the genre in many ways, which can be a headache for modern gamers, but I find their simplicity and odd gameplay quirks charming. Partly in a "history of games" way, but also partly for what they are. They don't have deep stories or interesting characters because their appeal has always just been wandering through fairy tale lands while solving puzzles. I always found the wide eyed "Gee whiz, let's have an adventure!" aspect to them charming. I agree, though, that their charm makes them pointless to "reboot" as a modern series. It's the most generic fairy tale universe imaginable, so there's really nothing of substance to the games worth adapting that isn't already public domain.

I don't think it's a generic fantasy universe. As of the first game? Yeah. But by the time you get to KQ7 there's already a lore built up, and a universe within it. Is it as in-depth as D&D or Warhammer? No. But what makes the KQ universe unique is that sense of fairy tale whimsy. Any and every combination of fairy tale characters can and do exist. The KQ formula, in a modern context, is easy to replicate if you understand that it's the simplicity of the games and their characters that helped make it special. Graham, Alexander, etc have some basic character traits, but they are YOU for the most part, and you are THEM. Through them, you get to experience these wonderful and whimisical worlds. Maybe the fairy tale landscape in general wasn't that original, but Sierra's spin on it often was. IE The Winged Ones; using Abdul Alhazred as a villain; Their take on "The Boogeyman" in KQ7 and trolls as a gentle, if rather boorish, race; areas like The Island of Wonder in KQ6 or Falderal in KQ7. I'd argue that the games have a singular magic that has never been replicated because audiences nowadays demand depth and story - which to me is needless really. That's part of where the new KQ failed. It was more story than pure experience. You weren't Graham. You were playing as Graham in the new game.

MRY · Nov 8, 2016

I don't particularly like the King's Quest games, but I still think that there has been insufficient attention paid to the fact that folklore and fairy tales abound with characters who die or suffer horrible fates because of trivial deviations from rules that are often invisible to them or, alternatively, succeed as a consequence of dumb luck. Now, the KQ games were often stupid (especially the earlier ones), but I think much of what people consider "random" in them is actually reasonably mimetic of the fairy tales that are the source material for the games. A fair case could be made that fairy tale "logic" is not the stuff of good game play, but it seems to me that a fair rejoinder to that is that the KQ series was beloved at the time and is beloved today, so there's reason to think that the games were actually pretty good. Similarly, the thinness of characterization in the KQ series is consistent with folklore. That is why I think that the "enhanced" KQII is so dumb (and, I have the same view of KQVI): it tries to have fantasy levels of characterization and coherence, rather than accepting the thin and arbitrary structure of fairy tales.