Gabriel Knight: 20th Anniversary Edition - remake by Jane Jensen

[suejak]

I mean, whatever. A remake isn't necessary or even something I'm excited about, but I'll buy it if it means a sequel in the future.

All the people bitching about the voice acting crack me up. I originally played GK without the voice acting, and when I turned it on after first completion, I hated it.

Actually, no adventure game needs voice acting. Fuck it.

 

[Stabwound]

I don't buy the "testing the waters" shit. I just see it as a quick and easy cashgrab to market an old classic game to new iPad kiddies and the like. I guarantee it will be simplified with a "click on everything on screen" interface like Grey Matter. Painting over an existing classic takes much less work than designing an entirely new game: see Spiderweb software and his 5-year cycle of re-making the same set of games.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Get ready for:

Which was OK, even if the art was cartoonish... Only real problem is guybrush's hair.

I think you need a reminder:

So, you see, the only real problem is the remake itself.

GK remake seems to look OK, though, doesn't look like it's gonna go newfag retarded cartoony.
That said, I also don't like this "let's make remake to see if a sequel would be successful". At least to me it doesn't make sense, but hey, what do I know about businesses? However, I do know that I won't buy it unless they have a boxed version (which seems unlikely as it won't be Kickstarted), like I did with Larry Reloaded.

Pfffff, you graphixxxwhores make me sick.

In these portrait shots, I aways liked EGA version more than VGA. The VGA looks like they were trying to make a "photorealistic" aproach. The EGA version reminds me of steve purcell paintings, see guybrush hair and compare to the original guybrush painting of Monkey 1 cover. But I prefer the VGA version when it comes to actual gameplay graphics, mostly due to consistency with Monkey 2.

The monkey remakes embraced a cartoonish style to fit monkey 3 and it's sequels and aproach their styles. Monkey 2 remake was a lot more respectful to the VGA than monkey island 1 were. Anyway, you could play the original VGA version in both remakes. It didn't bother me at all. The remake was just "redrawn" over the old graphics: Animations were exactly the same in the hi-res sprites.

BTW, I played it like this, only with PC-speaker sound:

 

[FeelTheRads]

Monkey 2 remake was a lot more respectful to the VGA than monkey island 1 were

Huh, didn't know about that one. That indeed looks better. But if we're talking cartoony, I prefer MI3. The remake of the first is just a butt-ugly abomination.

 

[Redlands]

Do NOT fuck this up. Especially the music.

I shouldn't think that was likely, she's still married to Robert Holmes, right?

Honestly, I can see why Activision would take this stance, even though it means putting on my work hat, so fuck you Codex for making me do this.

These are really old IPs in computer game terms; it's the 20th anniversary, so there's a whole generation of people who were born after the games came out. The gaming landscape has changed: people - including a lot of (now 20 years older) original fans are going to be mostly using phones and tablets for their casual computing needs.

We can in fact see how much things have changed by comparing what the world is like now to what it is in Gabriel Knight, which was a relatively contemporary game at the time it was made: far fewer computers, almost no use of the internet, certainly no Google or Wikipedia for research assistance, sending actual mail rather than email, little mobile phone use, etc.

There's also no real "positive trending" data for them to go on:

• Free fan games, or just free adventure games in general whatever the popularity or number of downloads or quality of the game, are going to be worthless. A lot of people will download anything that they might like if it's free, but getting them to pay money for it is a whole other issue.
  
• Other successful "adventure" "games" - the QTE stories - are completely dissimilar from this type of adventure game.
• There haven't been many, if any, releases post-Kickstarter boom for adventure games, and the biggest one has been having financial problems, which is a big red warning light to the money people.
• The numbers for other modern adventure games are going to be really skewed towards the low end because of Steam: there are 422 games categorized as adventure games for sale on there, and that includes a whole range of games that aren't anything like what I'd consider an adventure game in this sense. Hell, Grey Matter isn't even available on Steam yet (though it has been Greenlit). The Wadjet Eye games haven't been allowed on Steam either, or at least until recently, unless they were part of a bundle.
• Moebius hasn't come out yet, and that would have been the best card to play comparison-wise.

This is also the IP that helped to "kill" the genre in the eyes of gaming media thanks to Old Man Murray.

If I was working at Activision, and I was put in charge of running analysis on options for investing money in a new game, I couldn't possibly recommend it, even being the huge Jane Jensen and Gabriel Knight fan that I am.

Now, if you reduced development costs by making a remake and so can cut down on some development time, and ended up with a reusable engine that could target the growing tablet market as well as PCs for future games, then that might make it easier for me to get my managers to sign off on it.

Yeah, I was really disappointed in the announced game being a remake, rather than a new GK game or even just a new game. FFS Ubisoft figured it out with Might and Magic X. It's frustrating and so fucking stupid, but I know from a little experience just how difficult it can be to convince a company that a profit-generating idea, backed up with evidence, is worth implementing. Especially for a large company like Activision.

But we're already getting a new Jane Jensen game with Moebius, which I'd honestly rather prefer they spend the most time on getting right, because if that's a success then it's an IP they have full control over rather than requiring oversight from Activision. If the remake sucks, then we'll still have the original game and you don't have to buy the remake; and if it turns out to be good you can always buy it later after you've heard the good word on it.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Has a video game remake ever successfully relaunched a brand? I'm actually curious if there has been any that has slipped my mind.

 

[lurker3000]

I always thought GK was pretty raciest.

 

[SCO]

We know you did Bryce. We know you did.

 

[evdk]

I always thought GK was pretty raciest.

Yeah, Malia's wardrobe was pretty racy in some of the scenes.

 

[lurker3000]

Racist, dumbfuck.

 

[Sceptic]

These are really old IPs in computer game terms; it's the 20th anniversary, so there's a whole generation of people who were born after the games came out. The gaming landscape has changed: people - including a lot of (now 20 years older) original fans are going to be mostly using phones and tablets for their casual computing needs.

This is all completely irrelevant to the initial question: why make a remake when you can make a sequel. You can make the sequel work on a tablet just as easily as you can make the remake work on a tablet. And if you're making a sequel or a remake, I'm assuming you're targeting the same people (and if you're not, then making a sequel in name only a la KQ8 would be a better idea than the remake).

There's also no real "positive trending" data for them to go on:

And a remake of a game that people already have (you just said mentioned the original fans) is useful in predicting if they'll buy a new game... how, exactly? It's an even worse "positive trending data" than any of the things you've mentioned.

If you really want to talk trend data, I'll give you one: adventure game remakes don't sell well. Sierra tried, many, may times. KQ1SCI flopped. SQ1VGA and LSL1VGA flopped. In fact they flopped so badly that Mark or Scott (don't remember) refuses to acknowledge SQ1VGA as his own. They flopped so badly that Sierra stopped making remakes.

This is also the IP that helped to "kill" the genre in the eyes of gaming media thanks to Old Man Murray.

If all they care about is the mainstream media then they should go back to churning out their Call of Duty. And that Old Man Murray article is full of shit, we've already been through this many times.

If I was working at Activision, and I was put in charge of running analysis on options for investing money in a new game, I couldn't possibly recommend it, even being the huge Jane Jensen and Gabriel Knight fan that I am.

Because you're still going by the MAKE IT BIG mentality that is so pervasive in the game industry: every project has to be huge and cost 300 million dollars, and then has to make 600 million dollars to both recoup its cost and fund the next big project. For an idea of how successful this has been, please have a look at Atari (bankrupt) and EA (going there).

Now, if you reduced development costs by making a remake and so can cut down on some development time, and ended up with a reusable engine that could target the growing tablet market as well as PCs for future games, then that might make it easier for me to get my managers to sign off on it.

Unless you realise that you are trying to sell this to people who already have this game. Specifically, to people who already have this game and are not part of the big mainstream. The big mainstream buys 5 copies of the same game just because. Those outside it tend not to. So... what do you end up with, exactly? A game that cost $800,000 instead of $1,000,000? And that will sell less because it's nothing new and some people won't buy it because they feel they already own it? How is this more profitable, exactly?

FFS Ubisoft figured it out with Might and Magic X.

And there you go, you've just given the couterexample to the entire point you were trying to build up.

It's frustrating and so fucking stupid, but I know from a little experience just how difficult it can be to convince a company that a profit-generating idea, backed up with evidence, is worth implementing. Especially for a large company like Activision.

So, uh, "Activision are dumb"? Yeah we knew that. How does this fit in with "I can see why Activision would take this stance" and "If I was working at Activision, and I was put in charge of running analysis on options for investing money in a new game, I couldn't possibly recommend it"? I mean sure I can understand why they're doing it, and if I was dumb I would do it too... but it's STILL dumb, and it's STILL counterproductive to their stated goal, and it's STILL going to make them lose fan confidence (the one and only thing that can save the IP at this point). Again, how is this sound and understandable business?

if it turns out to be good you can always buy it later after you've heard the good word on it.

Once again: why the hell would I buy something I already have?

Oh right, because this is the only way I can convince Activision to make the sequel I want! Thank you Activision! Take my money! Take it!

 

[Keshik]

Another interview with her at AdventureGamers - http://www.adventuregamers.com/articles/view/25453

I always thought GK was pretty raciest.

How did you see it as racist ?

 

[evdk]

Another interview with her at AdventureGamers - http://www.adventuregamers.com/articles/view/25453

I always thought GK was pretty raciest.

How did you see it as racist ?

All the villains are black people with their scary human sacrificing voodoo.

Also trolling, but that should be self evident.

 

[suejak]

But the Asian in the game is so smart! If a little bookish, asexual, and passive.

 

[Boleskine]

I can see why GK seems racist at first glance, but the backstory you learn later in the game actually places much of the responsibility on

Spoiler

Gabriel's ancestor for betraying his lover, who is the main antagonist in the game.

The heart of the story is about how that conflict grew and destroyed two families.

 

[Infinitron]

Later in the game? Real fans bought the game and read the comic.

Also, "film"?

 

[Boleskine]

Heh, small brain fart on the "film" thing. Fixed!

I wish I could have gotten a copy of the game with the printed graphic novel. I only picked up a bargain copy a couple years after release, which was just a jewel case.

In a way that made the experience better because the first time playing I didn't know that backstory until Gabriel learns it.

 

[Gragt]

Damnit, don't feed the troll.

 

[DalekFlay]

I think you need a reminder:

.

Not saying the remake is better, but I never liked this attempt at realism bullshit in the original Monkey Island. It looks kind of terrible compared to the main game graphics, and they realized this and stuck to the stylized look for the rest of the series.

 

[Insane Psychic]

Am I the only one who was surprised that GK1 is 20 years old? It feels as if I played it just a couple of years ago... Ah, the joys of growing old.

 

[Western]

I wouldn't mind remakes for GK2 and 3 with this art style, the fmv and 3 didn't appeal to me personally.

 

[Boleskine]

I think each GK games works well in its respective graphics medium.

GK1 came out near the end of the SCI engine's life cycle. It has some of the best 'pixel art' among adventure games, imo.

GK2 is easily one of the best FMV games, maybe the best. It did FMV right, and there was more than enough gameplay and puzzling there to satisfy (at least for me).

GK3's graphics are nowhere near as bad as people say. The gameplay in GK3 is actually pretty amazing - the free floating camera allows a huge degree of exploration that people previously dreamed about for adventures. The conversation system is also great. Sure, a couple puzzles in GK3 are a little out of place, but they aren't as bad as people make them out to be.

 

[Stabwound]

I'd say GK1 was the only one that was good in every way. GK2 was good despite the FMV shit and it certainly didn't do the game any favors. I enjoyed the cheesy acting in a way as well as the actor's take on the Gabriel character, but again, the game would have been much better if it was done in GK1 style.

I've tried several times to get into GK3 but everything about it turns me off, from the puke-enducing 3D engine and awful graphics, to Gabriel's glacial walking speed coupled with massive areas, yet the free-roaming camera moves at the speed of light making it virtually impossible to control, and bizarre bugs which lead to him walking through walls and solid objects actually breaking the game, which I assume has something to do with modern operating systems. Maybe some day I'll feel like trying to stomach the engine and enjoy what I hear is a great story, but I could handle GK2 to completion and couldn't play GK3 for more than an hour, and that's saying something.

And yeah, I think everyone knows about the cat moustache puzzle.

 

[Kz3r0]

GK 3 is irremediable shit, and the story could have been a novelty back then but now everyone's knows about the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Boleskine]

GK 3 is irremediable shit, and the story could have been a novelty back then but now everyone's knows about the Da Vinci Code.

Jane wrote her story years before Dan Brown wrote his. She was ahead of the curve. It doesn't make sense to say the story is bad because people know about its subject matter now.