King's Quest series

[Katakis]

This is now done. Let me know if you want me to make any changes to it.

[MZ per X]

Thanks, Glenn, will have a deeper look at it after Christmas.

[MZ per X]

Stellar work, Glenn, unwinding the KQ release jungle. This series seems pretty interesting for data modelling, too.

Taking a look at the big picture, I have some comments.

1) In the first group "Original series" you added "King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown" which I assume is Sierra's own remake here.

At first glance, I would say that this should rather be a new Release Group to the original King's Quest I, shouldn't it? Or are the differences in game play too big?

2) The remakes of KQ 1, 2, 3 by AGD Interactive and KQ 3 by Infamous Adventures also look like new RG's to their original games to me, as the game play seems mostly the same (beyond new graphics, sound, and user interface).

3) Believing the MobyGames entries for the AGD remakes of KQ 1 and 2, there were new versions released in 2009 that vastly improved on the earlier remakes, and thus could be considered additional RG's, too.

What do you think?

[Katakis]

Stellar work, Glenn, unwinding the KQ release jungle. This series seems pretty interesting for data modelling, too.

Taking a look at the big picture, I have some comments.

1) In the first group "Original series" you added "King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown" which I assume is Sierra's own remake here.

At first glance, I would say that this should rather be a new Release Group to the original King's Quest I, shouldn't it? Or are the differences in game play too big?

In the KQ remake, the castle is spread over three screens instead of two. Also, object locations are different to the original game. I think it's fine the way it is, but if you say there should be a new RG, what should it be called?

2) The remakes of KQ 1, 2, 3 by AGD Interactive and KQ 3 by Infamous Adventures also look like new RG's to their original games to me, as the game play seems mostly the same (beyond new graphics, sound, and user interface).

AGD's KQ2 and KQ3 have extended storylines; they expand on the original games. IA's version of KQ3 and AGD's KQ1 remain untouched. Again, I see no need in creating a new RG.

3) Believing the MobyGames entries for the AGD remakes of KQ 1 and 2, there were new versions released in 2009 that vastly improved on the earlier remakes, and thus could be considered additional RG's, too.

Then, I see the entry for the AGD remakes as follows:

Release Group: Windows
2002 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 1.1)
2002 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 2.0)
Release Group: Windows (2009)
2009 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 3.0)

[MZ per X]

This is a great opportunity to develop our different game criteria and different RG criteria a bit.

At first glance, I would say that this should rather be a new Release Group to the original King's Quest I, shouldn't it? Or are the differences in game play too big?

In the KQ remake, the castle is spread over three screens instead of two. Also, object locations are different to the original game. I think it's fine the way it is, but if you say there should be a new RG, what should it be called?

I think that these minor changes don't qualify for a new game, but they do qualify for two new RGs to the original game. I suggest calling these "DOS (Sierra Remake)" and "Amiga (Sierra Remake)" for now.

AGD's KQ2 and KQ3 have extended storylines; they expand on the original games.

Indeed, the KQ2 remake seems to have such significant changes over the original game (see here) that it looks like a new game to me, not just like a new RG. The adjusted title suggests the same.

In contrast, the KQ3 remake doesn't seem to retain this level of changes, thus being called "Redux". Did you play the remake, Glenn? Is this still King's Quest III, or does it feel like a new game? Does it follow up to the significant changes of the KQ2 remake story-wise? Not sure. From the marketing blurb alone, I would go for a new RG, not for a new game.

IA's version of KQ3 and AGD's KQ1 remain untouched. Again, I see no need in creating a new RG.

Oh, there is a need, I think. We have Release Groups to distinguish the main versions of a game from one another in the database. And completely new graphics, sound and user interface qualify for a new main version.

3) Believing the MobyGames entries for the AGD remakes of KQ 1 and 2, there were new versions released in 2009 that vastly improved on the earlier remakes, and thus could be considered additional RG's, too.

Then, I see the entry for the AGD remakes as follows:
Release Group: Windows
2002 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 1.1)
2002 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 2.0)
Release Group: Windows (2009)
2009 - Release: King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Download / Version 3.0)

Looks good. According to this release history, I'd add version 1.0 to the first RG, and version 3.1 to the second. And do we need these two RGs for Linux and Mac, too?

The release info for the KQ1 remake is here.