KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Message

quentinschilling · #1 Post by **quentinschilling** » Wed Aug 28, 2002 12:38 am

Hey, how about after all the EGA versions have been converted over to VGA take the next step and Convert them over to Super VGA with say 640 by 480 graphics. the AGAST engine will support that and they have great documentation on the engine.

#2 Post by **Erpy** » Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:18 am

Seeing that the games run in 16-bit color instead of 256 colors, the games are already SVGA. Personally, I don't see the point of putting months of work in refining all the graphics, so people can see a little bit more detail. <img src="http://httpd.chello.nl/c.vanempel/Nashu ...

Wolfgang Abenteuer · #3 Post by **Wolfgang Abenteuer** » Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:46 am

I agree. The games (KQ1VGA anyways and, undoubtedly, KQ2VGA) are gorgeous as they are, and I imagine it would take forever and a day to remake the already remade games, just to have perhaps a bit more detail. ~Wolfgang

glassminotaur · #4 Post by **glassminotaur** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:28 am

Plus it would be harder for people w/ slow connections to DL, due to the fatter file size.

Broomie · #5 Post by **Broomie** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:20 am

But on the plus side, it would be nice to see a cartoony version of King Graham, Valanice and Rosella got it, why not Graham and Alexander. But I'm not rooting for it to happen as Wolfgang said they are great as they are now. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <div style="text-align:center">Broomie</div><img src="http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/ ...

adeyke · #6 Post by **adeyke** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:22 am

If a higher resolution would necessitate cartoon-style graphics, I'm even more in favour of 320x200 <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . I really don't like the way KQ7 and SQ6 look in comparison to the VGA games.

MusicallyInspired · #7 Post by **MusicallyInspired** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:04 pm

I agree with Adeyke. I don't understand why Sierra had to make thier games look so cartoony when they went up a notch in resolution. Granted they were a bit cartoony already but it looked good. Lots of shading and way more detail. I was really dissapointed with KQ7 and SQ6 (SQ6 especially). It would be interesting to see a SVGA game with the same style graphics but with even more detail. But it would be hard to keep the same feeling. I guess it's the pixels that help the older games. Something about those pixels...... "Requires MCGA, CGA, VGA, PGA, or TA-RA-RA-BOOMGA!!" -Gary Owens, SQ4

Lira Lindriel · #8 Post by **Lira Lindriel** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:00 am

I absolutely hated the cartoony style of Kq7! It's absolutely the worst game of the series in my opinion. The only thing I liked was the music! <div style="text-align:center">--- <img src="http://liralindriel.bbboy.net/tags/lira ... </div> <center> <table> <tr><td nowrap style=filter:glow(color="mintcream", strength=#+15)> Lira Lindriel - - - - - - - Magic is real - unless defined integer!</td></table> <a href="http://pub88.ezboard.com/bbackyarddiscussions">Backyard Discussions</a> ~x~ <a href=http://denim.bbboy.net/lirasduchy>Lira's Duchy</a> ~x~ <a href="http://liralindriel.bbboy.net/">My poems, stories and tags</a> </center>

Broomie · #9 Post by **Broomie** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 3:11 am

you forgot Leisure Suit Larry 7, I liked the game but didn't like the cartoony graphics.

El Ravager · #10 Post by **El Ravager** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:16 am

/me agrees with the mighty Erpy ~El Ravager~

kqlovera162k · #11 Post by **kqlovera162k** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:54 am

well i guess your right! it should have the animation style like KQ6 or KQ5!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... tongue.gif ALT=":b">

Dark Avenger51 · #12 Post by **Dark Avenger51** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 4:42 am

There's no need to make the graphics better. Even though the newer video cards can't support that resolution. Besides Tierra could be working on another KQ game instead of remaking the graphics.

optic · #13 Post by **optic** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 3:40 pm

You mean that newer video cards can support that resoulution. Well, in my opinion, this sort of refining should be done when Tierra has no other projects to work on, but other than that, there isn't really any point in refining the graphics into SVGA. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)">

Alex Lowes · #14 Post by **Alex Lowes** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 4:05 pm

well the style sierra used in kq6 was the best I saw. And hey!kq7 wasn't the worst you forgot kq8(if you can even call it a kq game at all)<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /happy.gif ALT=":D">

MusicallyInspired · #15 Post by **MusicallyInspired** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:44 am

No...KQ"8" had much better graphics then KQ7 <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"> . KQ7 was the ultimate worst. <hr /> "Requires MCGA, CGA, VGA, PGA, or TA-RA-RA-BOOMGA!!" -Gary Owens, SQ4

Gronagor · #16 Post by **Gronagor** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:27 pm

Agreed. 7 & 8 both jumped off the wagon... 8 by too far obviously.

Vildern · #17 Post by **Vildern** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 11:41 pm

KQ8 didn't jump off the wagon. It were the fans that jumped off <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /devil.gif ALT=":evil"> <img src="http://navynuke.netfirms.com/ezboard/vildern.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

Gronagor · #18 Post by **Gronagor** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:49 am

Hehe. Half-agree there. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"> People will always disagree about these things. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"> Personal opinions. For me, I can't believe to see people saying QfG2 is the worst of the series!?!? It was by far the best! But... it is still a QfG. I love them all (even though QfG5 was somewhat dissapointing, but would probably have been better if the Coles had more time to do what they've planned to do)

lazygamer · #19 Post by **lazygamer** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:12 pm

While I agree that there is no need to redo the GFX, something Erpy said didn't sit well with me. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Seeing that the games run in 16-bit color instead of 256 colors, the games are already SVGA. Personally, I don't see the point of putting months of work in refining all the graphics, so people can see a little bit more detail.[/quote[ Dude... there is a massive difference between 320x200 and 640x480! No offense man, but how could you possibly say that just a little bit more detail is seen?! Although 320x200 is important for the 0ld$k0<hr></blockquote>

optic · #20 Post by **optic** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:32 pm

Although that doubling the resoulution may increase the amount of detail shown, the graphics and backgrounds would have to be redrawn to accomdate all that room...<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... s/wink.gif ALT=";)"> (correct me if I'm wrong, oh powerful AGDs!) <img src="http://www.southwest.com.au/~jackie/my_signature.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

#21 Post by **Erpy** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:38 pm

Aside from the editing the backgrounds would need, the game would also be nearly 4 times as big and we'd need a lot more sprites in order to preven the animations from "skipping". All in all, not really worth the extra time it'd require. <img src="http://members.chello.nl/c.vanempel/Nas ...

lazygamer · #22 Post by **lazygamer** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 5:17 am

Note:I messed up my original post, so I'm gonna repeat it, although Erpy probably understood it anyways. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)"> While I agree that there is no need to redo the GFX, something Erpy said didn't sit well with me. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Seeing that the games run in 16-bit color instead of 256 colors, the games are already SVGA. Personally, I don't see the point of putting months of work in refining all the graphics, so people can see a little bit more detail.<hr></blockquote> Dude... there is a massive difference between 320x200 and 640x480! No offense man, but how could you possibly say that just a little bit more detail is seen?! Although 320x200 is important for the 0ld$k00l look. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Aside from the editing the backgrounds would need, the game would also be nearly 4 times as big and we'd need a lot more sprites in order to preven the animations from "skipping".<hr></blockquote> Four times? Well I guess i't possible, I thought it would be two times. 320x240=76800 pixels 640x480=307200 pixels YUP! That's four times. What the heck is up with values being equal to quadruple when you double something? Must be a principle of math. I thought that only applied to the energy of stuff. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... /smile.gif ALT=":)">

MuzlakOofmay · #23 Post by **MuzlakOofmay** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 9:29 am

You doubled two values silly. <img src="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/bryce/pimpbot.gif" style="border:0;"/> ---------- <a href="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/spongefactory/" target="top">Sponge Factory</a>

KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Re: KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Re: KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Re: KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Re: KINGS QUEST I Super VGA version

Hmmm...

Re: Hmmm...

Re: Hmmm...

Re:Amazing...............................

Re: Re:Amazing...............................

WELL...

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'

Re: The are already butt-kickin'