Talk:King's Quest (2015 video game)
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Requested move (2014)
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
King's Quest (2015 video game) → King's Quest: Your Legacy Awaits – new subtitle: http://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/05/new-kings-quest-coming-from-activision-the-odd-gentlemen/ 84.51.184.155 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:SUBTITLES. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- For (but open to 'oppose' if the standard is addressed and applied equally to related material): So far previous games in the series have had the subtitle listed, where the 'number' is not on the regular packaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Quest:_Mask_of_Eternity (or does that need to be 'moved' as well).
Other articles that may need to be 'moved' to shortened title pages (if the subtitle policy is taken into account): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Quest_I:_Quest_for_the_Crown_(AGD_Interactive) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Quest_II:_Romancing_the_Stones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Quest_III:_To_Heir_Is_Human_(Infamous_Adventures) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Quest_III:_To_Heir_Is_Human_(AGD_Interactive) -37.152.250.127 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that subtitles should always be removed from the title - if journalists, media, etc calls a game "Game: Subtitle", then we should use that as well. It would be unnecessearily confusing to say, let's say "Phoenix Wright (2002 video game)" instead of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All. Either way, is the game's title really "King's Quest: Your Legacy Awaits"? Sure, Joystiq seems to think so, but from the trailer it's kind of unclear. When I first saw it I thought it was just some sort of tagline. The developers themselves only call it "King's Quest". IDVtalk 21:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sierra seems to be calling it Your Legacy Awaits too. https://www.facebook.com/OfficialSierraGames "KingsQuest: Your Legacy Awaits". It may still be a tentative title however? But I too thought it was initially a tagline, but more and more places are supporting it to be some kind of subtitle. Edit: Looks like they might have removed the post that called it "King's Quest: Your Legacy waits."84.51.137.236 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. A classic case of the rationale at WP:official names which reads in part Official names of unreleased games may change several times within a week.... Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
TItle
editUmm, I think A Knight to Remember is only the name of the first Chapter, Chapter I, as per the trailer not the name of the entire five part series. As of yet the entire series is still simply "King's Quest".213.205.252.159 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 16 June 2015
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move to King's Quest (2015 video game). We have unanimous consensus to move to a more appropriate title for this upcoming game, and this one is preferred by participants and the relevant guidelines. We may need to revisit the situation as more sources appear. Cúchullain t/c 13:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
King's Quest: A Knight to Remember → King's Quest (2015) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 78.151.105.146 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Return to King's Quest (2015 video game), where it was before a WP:BOLD move yesterday. It should also revert there in case there's no consensus. For now, we don't know if there will actually be more than one game. If so, this article would be more about a new series than a single game. At that point, we should really just discuss the new series at the main article and have standalone articles for each "episode", assuming they will be full-length games. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with BDD. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to Odd Gentlemen, it is a five chapter series akin to Telltale's Walking Dead, in as much that actions you make in one will affect later chapters. You'll have to buy the game as a season, each part will come out later. The first part is Chapter I: A Knight to Remember, and it come sout in July, later parts will come out in later months.213.205.252.223 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Move it, its not the game's title, but a title of one chapter/episode of a episodic game.Questfan (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with moving back. The subtitle appears to be for the first chapter/episode and not the entire game. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Plot section
edit@Questfan: I appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, but the plot section is getting way too big. It's just covering the first episode out of five so far, and it's already too large. MOS:PLOT recommends 400-700 words for feature films - obviously this isn't a film, and it's released in episodes, so it will likely be a little bit longer, but it's still something to keep in mind and aim for. Tales of Monkey Island, a similar episodic adventure game in five parts, is a featured article, and so looking at it specifically might be helpful - note how the entire plot across all five episodes is described in just 780 words, or four paragraphs.--IDVtalk 00:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Mirror
editIt says in the plot summary of "A Knight to Remember" that the prologue sequence changes the story of King's Quest 1 such that the magic mirror was the only treasure that Graham needed to find to become king. Can anyone provide a source for this? I've just watched an entire let's play of that first chapter and I don't remember seeing anywhere that the magic mirror was the only treasure. Fair enough that the magic mirror was the only one mentioned in the prologue sequence but I sort of assumed that the other 2 were still cannon but just not mentioned in that sequence. Besides, the other 2 treasures, namely the magic chest and the magic shield can be seen in Graham's bedroom. 197.86.188.245 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's what Gwendolyn states to Graham, and in what Graham states himself, that he was on a "King Edward sent me, the greatest knight in all of Daventry, on a quest to return his stolen mirror.", "Quest to find the Magic Mirror". "With the magic mirror safely in my possession, I dreamt of the Daventry I would be rewarded with... and the kingdom it could become." In anycase the entire prologue sequence is completely different than the events in the actual KQ1, for the same events of the mirror. Also in the later part of the game, only the Magic Mirror is missing according to the information board you find in the middle of the forest as listed on a 'wanted poster'.
- That being said the other two treasures exist (they can be seen in the room with the mirror), its just not said that they were 'stolen' or how Daventry obtained them. There is only the evidence that the Mirror was stolen, it is the only thing that characters mention was stolen.
- It is interesting to note that it does mention also that Edward was spending loads of money for his knights, and that with the bridges out he was failing to pay for the upkeeping of the kingdom, and bussines were struggling. But in a line at the end of the chapter, it states that because Graham fixed the problem with the trolls that the economy in Daventry was fixed again, and business started picking up again.213.205.252.167 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Release schedule
editAccording to a post on the official Sierra Facebook page:
Sierra Games
...is still on track to release in 2015, but Chapter 3 won't be until 2016.
Out of curiosity, who's been calling it King's Quest 2015? Even before Chapter 1 released, we've tried to make it very clear that the chapters would be released over the course of 2015-2016. For example, here's a snippet of text from our Steam page: "Future chapters can be downloaded from in-game upon individual release throughout 2015 and 2016."
If we've referred to it as "King's Quest 2015" at some point, please drop us a link so we can correct the post or delete the tweet, b/c that would definitely be misleading.
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialSierraGames/photos/a.769718133063756.1073741831.708856695816567/909517299083838/?type=3213.205.252.167 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The post you linked does not make it clear where Sierra made any statement. It goes to an image of KQIII, celebrating the anniversary of it's release. Also, in the quote you made above, no mention was made of Q1 2016, only 2016. -- ferret (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this works... Its at the bottom of the first conversation thread, the one where a poster asks about the '2015 release of King's QUest'. You are right it only talks about it being released in 2016. Although I doubt it would be released in anything later than Q1, but that is irrelevent.213.205.252.167 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
GameRankings
edit31.48, per BRD, when you dispute a change, you bring it to the talk page for discussion instead of warring back and forth. It does not make sense to restore the PC GameRankings metascore. It is an aggregate of one—a single review and not even from a reliable source. We don't include such scores. 
czar 01:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, MetaCritic has the same single PC review, from ActionTrip. MC simply doesn't assign a score till there are four reviews. GR adds no value here. -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)