Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts
-
No new posts
Currently online
Is it illegal if someone wants to make a cancelled game ?
I don’t think Broken Sword is any bigger or popular franchise than Gabriel Knight.
It is all relative, but I think there’s enough evidence to argue that Broken Sword is BOTH bigger AND more popular than Gabriel Knight ever was.
Simply looking at the statistics: 5 original games + 2 remasters vs. 3 original games + 1 remake. And sales numbers for individual games would seem to make Broken Sword the more popular of the two.
Not to mention, Broken Sword has inspired Broken Sword 2.5, a fan game with (almost) commercial quality (even though the story is kind of bad). What about Gabriel Knight fan games, has there been, like, even one?
Whether Gabriel Knight has had more impact on the genre than Broken Sword is another discussion altogether. I personally think Gabriel Knight is the least inspiring of Sierra series, but there are some who almost worship those games. So, it’s a tough call. On the other hand, Broken Sword is criminally underrated in all kinds of “top something” listings. Some outrageous YouTube video even had it in the category of obscure games.
And if the numbers don’t add up for a sequel (and I don’t see why they wouldn’t, since releasing a license which is not profitable makes as much sense as holding on to it, if not more), why not try an appeal to the heart? Activision is run by people, and even CEOs are human. Tell them how much we love the series, how much gratitude we would have to the company for allowing this to happen.
1) There are costs involved in “releasing” something. For instance, the main reason why No On Lives Forever is in legal limbo is because no one wants to pay the legal fees for actually finding out who really owns it. Presumably the situation is not as hard with Gabriel Knight, as those games are being sold even now, but there can be unexpected issues. My guess is that Activision has nothing against selling or licensing Gabriel Knight, but presumably Jane Jensen is not willing or able to pay what it takes to cover the legal fees + profit that Activision wants.
2) Activision is owned by shareholders, who have absolutely no interest in pleasing fans. Those shareholders can be corporate entities themselves, so they don’t even have a heart to appeal to.
It’s very different from something like Revolution where Charles Cecil is the founder of the company (which is also privately owned), and happens to be involved in game design too, and goes out to game expos to meet fans and everything.
I don’t think Broken Sword is any bigger or popular franchise than Gabriel Knight.
It is all relative, but I think there’s enough evidence to argue that Broken Sword is BOTH bigger AND more popular than Gabriel Knight ever was.
Simply looking at the statistics: 5 original games + 2 remasters vs. 3 original games + 1 remake. And sales numbers for individual games would seem to make Broken Sword the more popular of the two.
This is a dubious example.
Let’s try another.
Full Throttle: 1 game
Goblins: 4 games
Carol Reed series: 14 games
Conclusion: Goblins and Carol Reed are more popular than Full Throttle.
I played GK2 recently and really had no problem with “translating” the plot to modern times. If anything, FMV screamed 90s, not the plot, and especially not - the puzzles, which are still something modern games should look upon to (bearing in mind that GK2 puzzles were considered “weak” at that time - it was considered an “interactive movie” which seems absurd now with the rise of walking simulators in the last 5 years or so.)
Beneath the “pulp fiction” framework, The Beast Within has some “serious” life-lessons that don’t get old, and history lecture as a bonus.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
I wonder, what if Revolution suggested to produce the new Gabriel Knight game? I think this could’ve interested Activision as well as Jane Jensen. Both series have been often compared to each other after all, they share real-life scenarios mixed with fiction, detective and adventure themes, have similar pairs of characters, drew inspiration from the Holy Grail and the Knight Templars… Sounds like a working elevator pitch to me. Also a chance to play the proper 2D Gabriel Knight game, Broken Sword-style without remaking other chapters.
PC means personal computer
^I imagine both Charles and Jane turning up their nose at that idea. BS and GK are both their brainchildren and I think many see them as in friendly competition.
Conclusion: Goblins and Carol Reed are more popular than Full Throttle.
If Full Throttle actually is as popular as its fans want to believe, then why did Full Throttle: Payback and Full Throttle: Hell on Wheels both get cancelled?
Conclusion: Goblins and Carol Reed are more popular than Full Throttle.
If Full Throttle actually is as popular as its fans want to believe, then why did Full Throttle: Payback and Full Throttle: Hell on Wheels both get cancelled?
Did the fans cancel it?
There are a few quotes from that article that are far more encouraging than the situation you are portraying.“They contacted me a couple of years ago during the time of our Kickstarter because I was just very visible during [the campaign] and there were people in-house [at Activision] who really wanted to do something with those Sierra franchises. They pretty much just called me to brainstorm to see if I had any ideas and what I thought about the market.
““Gabriel Knight rights in general are still with Activision and I really hope that they would love to make more GK games. I think they will and of course I’d love for Pinkerton Road to be involved with that.”
These tell me it’s really up to Jane and maybe, to a lesser extent, the fans, to prove to those in Activision who are interested in doing something with the series. And a lot has changed since 2014. A lot of sequels to more obscure series have been successfully funded. So I see little justification for your outlook that it’s never going to happen.
Activision did try something with Sierra brans, King’s Quest on the lead. https://www.sierragames.com/
While the game itself got praises, that didn’t translate into sales. They did the sensible decision of trying out the biggest brand Sierra had, but if that didn’t sell, why would they risk spending more money on other brands? And however the romantic notion of Jensen you have as an artist, she needs money as well. There’s a reason why she writes homoerotic romances under a pseudonym.
This is a dubious example.
Let’s try another.
Full Throttle: 1 game
Goblins: 4 games
Carol Reed series: 14 gamesConclusion: Goblins and Carol Reed are more popular than Full Throttle.
Within their audiences, that is actually true. Had Goblins games not sold copies, it would not have spanned into multiple games. But as they did, that does indicate that the profits were good enough for the studio in comparison to cost. The same thing with Carol Reed games. There are 14 of them and I have no idea what the series is. But other people who are not me apparently do and have bought them in plenty. It is obviously popular enough to keep its developers afloat.
You do have to take the developer size in account with these matters though. Activision is a big company, so their perspective on what is profitable and popular is entirely different from smaller studios. What is enough for whoever is responsible for Carol Reed-games might not be enough for Activision.
This is a dubious example.
Let’s try another.
Full Throttle: 1 game
Goblins: 4 games
Carol Reed series: 14 gamesConclusion: Goblins and Carol Reed are more popular than Full Throttle.
Within their audiences, that is actually true. Had Goblins games not sold copies, it would not have spanned into multiple games. But as they did, that does indicate that the profits were good enough for the studio in comparison to cost. The same thing with Carol Reed games. There are 14 of them and I have no idea what the series is. But other people who are not me apparently do and have bought them in plenty. It is obviously popular enough to keep its developers afloat.
You do have to take the developer size in account with these matters though. Activision is a big company, so their perspective on what is profitable and popular is entirely different from smaller studios. What is enough for whoever is responsible for Carol Reed-games might not be enough for Activision.
Those are completely unfounded assumptions, based on the idea that profit is the
motivating factor for a sequel.
Let’s at least get some real evidence.
Here’s an interview with the creator of Carol Reed. Nowhere does he mention money as a motivating factor for making the games:
Questtime: What was the main factor, which brings you to the profession you have, and what is your recipe to solve difficulties and problems on your way?
Mikael Nyqvist: I started out making short films, and then moved on to making games. I had been interested in adventure games since the early Sierra games, and after years of discussing it, Eleen and I finally decided to try to make our own game.
I find it more satisfying to create games than films. One of the advantages is that I reach a much larger audience than was possible with the films. Game designing also gives you more control over the finished product.
How do I solve difficulties and problems? I depends on the situation of course, but one has to plan as much as possible, but also be prepared for improvisation. My advice for people that are planning to make a game is always “Don’t make any plans that you aren’t sure that you can realize”. So many game projects fall through due to that particular mistake.
There are so many reasons for making a game. As a hobby, for artistic reasons, for the audience, and yes, for money. To say a game wouldn’t have received a sequel if it weren’t popular is to discount all those reasons.
Maybe I’m just failing to see why Jane absolutely needs millions of dollars to make a game. As far as I’m aware, a reasonably specced PC is enough for graphic design, and her husband is the music composer. Voice actors and programmers need to be paid, yes, but not millions.
Loving the conversation here, really good points. I do know for a fact that Jane is on board with making a GK4 with smaller studio, and she is as passionate about getting it done as the fans.
I was highly skeptical about whether I should give it a go or not when I first started thinking about it (I am the person who did the major one over a decade ago that got a lot of press but lead to nowhere), but after speaking with people it became obvious they’re totally on board if it were possible.
I am aware they lost a TON of money with the anniversary edition and it didn’t go anywhere.
Even so, I’m not gonna give up. I’ll give it this one last shot. If it fails, then I’m ready to let go. No harm done.
It was not Jane Jensen’s idea to do GK1 again. That was Activision. Jane wanted to make 3 new GK games instead. Even if the remaster would’ve done well, she wouldn’t had remade 2 and 3,she would’ve done GK4. I just wanna make this clear cause she honestly isn’t to blame there.
So yes, Jane and Robert are on board for sure. But making it happen is something they’ve given up on as far as I know. But they do support petitions and appreciate the passion.
As for funding the game… Like someone suggested, other game studios would probably chip in, as Gabriel Knight series were a huge influence to those people. Fans would for sure back up GK4 kickstarter or donation campaign. Anniversary edition got nearly 0.5 million dollars alone. GK4 would get people really interested
Maybe I’m just failing to see why Jane absolutely needs millions of dollars to make a game. As far as I’m aware, a reasonably specced PC is enough for graphic design, and her husband is the music composer. Voice actors and programmers need to be paid, yes, but not millions.
The amount of money obviously depends on what the plans for a game would be. Meaning the quality of graphics, amount of voice acting, length etc. Another factor in is the number of people they’d employ in making the game as well as the salary range of those people.
You can get a good indicator from Jensen’s own Moebius, which was clearly too ambitious of a game for the budget they had in hand. They tried a lot, but in the end, didn’t have the needed resources to pull it off technically or narratively. It’s the same reason why Gabe remake feels like a budget remake because that is exactly what it is, a game made with a tight budget.
Just like Nyqvist states on your quote: “Don’t make any plans that you aren’t sure that you can realize”. That was exactly where Jensen stumbled the last time in contrast to what her budget allowed her to do. And the way I see it, to make proper justice to Gabriel Knight, GK4 can’t be a game that is overshadowed by games that came out a couple of decades ago.
Maybe I’m just failing to see why Jane absolutely needs millions of dollars to make a game. As far as I’m aware, a reasonably specced PC is enough for graphic design, and her husband is the music composer. Voice actors and programmers need to be paid, yes, but not millions.
The amount of money obviously depends on what the plans for a game would be. Meaning the quality of graphics, amount of voice acting, length etc. Another factor in is the number of people they’d employ in making the game as well as the salary range of those people.
You can get a good indicator from Jensen’s own Moebius, which was clearly too ambitious of a game for the budget they had in hand. They tried a lot, but in the end, didn’t have the needed resources to pull it off technically or narratively. It’s the same reason why Gabe remake feels like a budget remake because that is exactly what it is, a game made with a tight budget.
Just like Nyqvist states on your quote: “Don’t make any plans that you aren’t sure that you can realize”. That was exactly where Jensen stumbled the last time in contrast to what her budget allowed her to do. And the way I see it, to make proper justice to Gabriel Knight, GK4 can’t be a game that is overshadowed by games that came out a couple of decades ago.
They could go another direction completely. Something like Telltale’s Walking Dead series or even.. Life is Strange 1.
They could go another direction completely. Something like Telltale’s Walking Dead series or even.. Life is Strange 1.
Yes, yes they could, but for that, they’d need a proper budget. Phoenix Online was willing to work cheap because they were fans of Jensen as well as they wanted to prove they had what it takes to be a proper developer. They are nowadays, as far I’ve understood, mostly just publishing small indie games, not developing them, so I guess that says something.
They could go another direction completely. Something like Telltale’s Walking Dead series or even.. Life is Strange 1.
Yes, yes they could, but for that, they’d need a proper budget. Phoenix Online was willing to work cheap because they were fans of Jensen as well as they wanted to prove they had what it takes to be a proper developer. They are nowadays, as far I’ve understood, mostly just publishing small indie games, not developing them, so I guess that says something.
Something tells me they aren’t involved with Jane anymore, and I tried reaching out to a certain key figure of their studio and he was rather rude so I doubt they’ll be in charge of GK 4 were it to happen. This is just pure speculation, but the vibe I got was that they’re not in good terms. I can see fans funding the game easily, but also other studios chipping in on it.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread