My first KQ game, in which I knew I was playing a KQ game, was KQ5. Then I played KQ6.

I had to adapt to the more archaic styles of KQ1-4 when I went back through the games! Going form true point and click to 'parser' is a major change! But I have to say I've loved every single game. I even enjoyed KQ7, if it is my least favorite game in the series!

I think part of my enjoyment of the series as a whole was 'what kind of worlds' could we explore? What new places, what new characters to interact with?

KQ1 both versions are generally at the top of my favorite KQ games. I find KQ8 to be sort of in line with the earliest game. In both KQ1 and KQ8 you are playing as a lowly 'knight' trying to save the kingdom.

Graham also had useless random encounters to deal with. Not necessarily any puzzles just avoiding them. The flying witch, wolf, wizard, ogre, and dwarf.They were there to get in the way. The enemies of KQ8 more or less filled in the same role, except this time you could fight them instead of just having to escape them. Both games had the most wide open worlds to explore (KQ8 didn't just give you one world, but six-seven large worlds to explore, so it was almost like having 7 classic games in one).. Graham could jump in the first game, offering some action elements. KQ8 brought that feature back, and made it more useful. Both King's Quest 1, and KQ8 have you exploring parts of Daventry (with lots of secrets to uncover ), though with KQ8, its only the first part of the game.

There is part of me who would love to have seen what KQ9 had been like had Roberta had a chance to make it. What would KQ be like if she could have still been developing games based on advances to the technology in the last 17 years. So that there was a clear 'evolution' from KQ8 today.

Personally with me, my first was KQ3 haha :3 I remember I was terrified of Manannan as a kid. But seeing those simple graphics as a kid for the first time, burned into my mind. I also remember as a little kid, with the King's Quest Companion, I literally believed that Sierra was communicating with Daventry via Derek Karlvagaen.

Though personally, I am a dreamer. I love fantasy, and it's fun to imagine that every idea, every story ever written or thought up, is a reality in some other plane of existence where even logic has it's own rules. Whether that subconsciously caused this idea in me, I honestly don't know.



Exactly :D

Fun is the only reason games should exist.

I mean, how I feel about Final Fantasy XIII. The graphics are BEAUTIFUL but... at the cost of nerfing most of the gameplay to make more or less an interactive movie.

I personally have more fun with Might and Magic 1, and while it's graphics are very minimal, I enjoy the gameplay <3

Uhhh... the remake wasn't shortly after and wasn't VGA. Ohhh, the OP is an idiot. Never mind then.
Oh yeah, so it did: http://www.sierrahelp.com/Assets/Covers/KQ1SCI-c.png

Wow, that thread was quite entertaining.

________________________________


That's not quite right. Even if your graphics card does still support EGA and or VGA modes (which I'm not disputing), DOSBox isn't actually putting your graphics card into those modes. The emulated graphics card in DOSBox is running in whatever mode the game has put it into, but DOSBox isn't putting your graphics card into low colour modes even if it is setting the resolution to 320x200.

http://www.sierrahelp.com/Assets/Covers/KQ1VGA-c.png
http://www.sierrahelp.com/Assets/Covers/KQ1AGI-c.png
http://www.sierrahelp.com/Assets/Covers/KQ1-c.png
http://www.sierrahelp.com/Assets/Covers/KQ1Gray-c.png

The boxes only show the front, system requirements were typically printed on the side and back. I mostly remember the cover designated in this list as the AGI release which was fully compatible with all machines (and as you can clearly see, it specified VGA there on the box, in addition to four other video modes).

Not sure if you were trying to troll me or not. The end result is we do not have the final release of KQ1 on GoG.com. I do believe I have the CD release, though. I'd just like it on GOG.com because it is a real pain getting dosbox to work on my machines without the customized installer to do the work for me.

Uhhh... that first box you linked to is the 2001 fan remake, sometimes referred to as King's Quest VGA because there hadn't been a VGA version in the past.

As for the others, listing that it's compatible with a VGA card is meaningless. IBM's video cards were (mostly) backwards compatible, so EGA cards supported most CGA modes and VGA cards supported most (if not all?) EGA modes. When running an EGA game, a VGA card was effectively just being an EGA card.
By your logic, all EGA games are VGA games, all Game Boy games are Game Boy Advance games and all PS1 games are PS2 games.

And if you find using DOSBox difficult without someone holding your hand then I further doubt you know what you're talking about. Please, keep making no sense at all though, it's hilarious.

LOL, now you see my frustration with dalbozofgurth's arguments. I think at this point it's like beating a dead horse *sigh*

At the moment I'm finding it quite amusing! I'll probably give up when it wears thin for me.

LOL. I totally know whatcha mean. I was having fun with it also ;)

You are an ignorant moron, you really are.

It was marketed as a VGA game. They had VGA listed on the boxes. That is what I said. That is what the marketing said. Your argument is fucking stupid. It really is, because it was created specifically for the VGA cards, it was optimized for them, while allowing for backwards compatibility. It was not just programmed for EGA. Even Sierra's own marketing says VGA. The official hintbook produced BY Sierra said VGA. I produced at least a half dozen links showing the VGA requirement and marketing. This bullshit that you and the other poster brought up was NOTHING more than trolling.

The Sierra VGA remake was sold and produced as an SCI/VGA remake with EGA compatibility. Period. It is not offered on GoG.com. I am asking for it to be offered on GoG.com.


At this point, All Ic an say is I'm poreting this thread again, asking for moderation and for you and the other poster to be banned. The original response I got was they weren't going to ban the other guy because he backed off and admitted he was making a bullshit argument, but apparently that was only done to save his ass.

Sierra's official position is their Sci/VGA remake was an SCi/VGA remake with EGA compatibility. That's the position I'm on, not some bullshit "I'm a fan so I am going to pretend how things were 30 years ago because it wasn't "TRUE VGA" so I'm going to ignore all of the marketing like a dipshit and start a flame war for the purpose of trolling".

BTW, I got you admitting you were trolling, so thanks for bragging about that.

And I love you too darling.

It's less that I'm trolling you and more like I'm watching you troll yourself? All I have to do is present you with facts and you do all the hard work and make yourself look foolish. So yes, I admit to indulging in a little schadenfreude here but I'm not messing with you. I do genuinely think you're incredibly wrong on this matter and my argument is serious.

As I've said before. The game was compatible with VGA cards by virtue of VGA cards supporting EGA modes. The game used the same graphics mode regardless of whether you played it on an EGA card or a VGA card. The only evidence I've seen from you that actually calls it a VGA game is the externally authored guidebook. The fact that the box lists VGA amongst the supported cards means just that - it would run on a VGA card. It ran in EGA mode though. The fact that you'd try and get people banned for arguing with you is ridiculous.

You didn't present any facts. Yes, ONE of the boxes I listed was from a fan site, but the one that I directly referenced in my post was an official box.

I have cited actual marketing material where Sierra refers to the SCI remake as their VGA remake. Despite the fact it was optimized for EGA, it was SOLD as a VGA remake.

I listed Marketing that said that.
Websites that said that.

They weren't talking about the FAN remake, they were talking about the OFFICIAL SIERRA MARKETING.

The fact you insist on this bullshit argument because you think you know better is no more than harassment, and you made that ever apparent in your bullshit response about how you're doing this for your own entertainment.

I call the official release an SCI/VGA remake because Sierra called it that in their promotional material, guides, and on their own goddamned box.

Could you - for the benefit of this ignorant moron - re-cite this material? Boxes that simply include VGA in a list of supported adaptors don't count. You mention marketing material; do you have an advert or something where they call it a VGA remake? Seriously, if it was actually advertised as a VGA remake then someone should have complained about false advertising.

And you really need to grow up if you consider someone disagreeing with you harassment. The fact that I find you amusing does not mean that my disagreement is not genuine.

I will grant you, officially sanctioned sources have referred to this as VGA after the fact (such as the guide you quoted and the manual for the KQ collection), but that doesn't make it the truth. I will agree that people representing Sierra have referred to it as a VGA version, but there is literally no technical basis for it and they were simply mistaken (case in point, the manual for the collection also claims the remake is point and click - clearly the author had no idea what they were talking about). As I said, the game is a VGA game in the sense that PS1 games are PS2 games and GameCube games are Wii games. The VGA card simply added new modes to what the EGA already did, the KQ1 remake ran exactly the same whichever of the two you were using. The new graphics modes are referred to as VGA and the older modes continued to be referred to as EGA, the remake runs in EGA mode on a VGA card.

If you google King's Quest 1 VGA, 99% of what you find is stuff about the 2001 fan remake (Tierra/AGD). There's a reason that remake was named VGA and it's because the previous one was EGA!

I am not and never have been debating what they may or may not have referred to it as. I am debating whether it was a VGA remake. It wasn't.

Go back through the thread and read it.

Also, the remake was VGA compliant because despite the fact it was made with EGA color palette, not all VGA cards were backwards compatible during that era. Sierra made sure that their remake was fully VGA compliant. The only thing you and that other troll were doing and have been doing is counting the millions of colors. The programming for the remake to be VGA compliant was there and present at every step of the way, which is why the OFFICIAL re-release was marketed as SCI/VGA by Sierra, in combination with CGA, EGA, etc...

VGA cards that weren't backwards compatible? Source please.

I also have no idea what you're talking about with this millions of colours nonsense. VGA supported a palette of 256 colours.

I suppose it would be technically possible to display EGA artwork using only 16 colours of a 256 colour palette, but there's no evidence they did that because there would be no point.