Whats the diffbetween Siera and Lucas?

[gamester]

Whats the diffbetween Siera and Lucas style games?

I know this sounds like a lamer questions but Ive played very few of these types of games.
Monkey Island and Grim Fandango is about it :/

And I cant find any text explaining this.If there is a text out there,  let me know.

[Scummbuddy]

The difference between them is only in what motivates them.  Both get a game idea across, both usually very well.  Different styles of portraying these stories are used, mostly by the interface.

For some ideas, check out this list.  It may not be most agreed on, but its good.
http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=186

[gamester]

Thanks.  I appreciate the thought.
But the page didnt help much.

I just wanted to know basic diferences in the two.

I keep hearing stuff on both styles but no text ON
the subject.

Geuss it aint a real big deal. But thanks for the advice.

[Raggit]

I don't think there really IS a difference between Sierra and Lucas.

People often use the classic Sierra or Lucas debate as something to argue about. I personnaly wish the debate would die and not come back.

Why can't people like both?

Anyway, I better shut up before I start the mass debate again!

[gamester]

Cool.  Good to know then.
My curiosity was for which could do what. As far as
things yoiu can do in the game. interface wise. But if you can
do everything in either mode, no skin of my nose :|

Thanks

[Raggit]

Well both have all the needed interface functions.

Look, talk, walk, interact.

The games are different of course. Sierra adventure games had more photo realistic graphics, while some Lucas games had a cartoonish look.

Lucas games from what I've heard have more humor and most Sierra games had a more serious twist.

Personally I'm a solid Sierra fan.

[Sluggo]

I think the two big things that people notice differently about the two is the interface and dying.

Sierra interface is either a text parser, or the interface bar thing with the walk, look, interact, talk, and inventory buttons (the only exceptions I can think of are GK and KQ7). Sierra games are more action based also.

Lucasarts interface was the walk, look, push, pull, open, close, talk, take, etc. I guess with so many options the player seems more in control. There was also a verb coin, and some games had sierra-like interfaces. I haven't played every lucasarts game so I don't know every single interface that was used. Inventory was also displayed in an open area on the screen. There were choices for dialog in Lucasarts games, which I don't think Sierra ever had.

In Sierra games you can die practically everywhere, and there are probably some times where there is walking dead. To my knowledge you can never die in a Lucasarts game, and I'm pretty sure there is no walking dead at all either.

Those are the main differences in the guidelines the game developers went by.

[Scummbuddy]

When Sam n Max came from LucasArts, it came a little closer to sierra style with its interface.

[Raggit]

You can't die in Lucas games?

I thought you could.

KQ7 had a pretty bad interface.

Sierra did have conversation options in some games. Laura Bow 2, QFG series and so on. As well as with the typing games, you could have multiple conversation options.

I'm kinda confused by the term "walking dead". I assume you mean ghosts and stuff. I really don't like that stuff in the Sierra games. It kinda creeps me out with all the ghosts and things. Not all Sierra games had that though.

The only two I can think of that had the creepiest walking dead stuff was KQ4, and KQ6. KQ6 especially, since you have to travel to the Realm of the Dead. I hate that part. It keeps me awake at night!

(I only tinkered with KQ4, I never finished it.)

[Cerulean]

"Walking dead" means that you can find yourself in a position you can't win from; you're basically dead and you don't know it. Like if you forget to pick up some vital thing and then the game doesn't let you go back and get it.

[Scummbuddy]

If you do something extremely stupid in a LucasArts game, you can die, but they wont penalize you that bad.

[NTL.]

I hate dying in Advents.

[Las Naranjas]

FOA is the only post Loom/MI LEC adventure when you can die.


LEC also put alot more emphasis on dialogue and character over action. Sierra only really did this in the GK games and to a degree in the Laura Bow games.

[NTL.]

Robin Hood made by Seirra is good.

[earlwood]

The GUI's are different..thats about it

[Timosity]

I think you can die in MI2 when you are hanging in the jail cell with wally, if you take too long you die, but I can't remeber what happens next, I think you probably get to play from the start of the scene again

[Gilbert]

Actually you can sorta die in Full Throttle many times in certain scenes, you're brought back to the start of the scenes after that immediately though.

[Toefur]

I think Sierra and Lucasarts adventures are very different.

I don't mean the style of graphics, or interface, but in the way the stories are told and portrayed to us. They are very, very, different in my mind.

I think.

I havn't really played any for a long time.

[Gonzo]

I think it's that LucasArts are more character-driven, putting a lot of emphasis on dialogue, whereas Sierra games were more object-driven. The points tally in Sierra games was a different slant on the genre too. Also, Sierra games seem to have quite often been geared towards a big epic storyline (except for a couple like LSL), whereas with LucasArts the objective was often a bit less grand, or it seemed it to begin with and then escalated into something big (e.g. DoTT).

I always saw LEC as the superior company, with the more polished games, and for a time I was quite anti-Sierra, but I came to appreciate them. That was partly because I *needed* to Sierra games to tide me over, as LEC have tended to release adventures at least a year apart. That gap has now got even bigger, and I'm now playing Sierra games I never tried to fill the void, and being pleasantly surprised. I've recently been doing the Quest For Glory series, which is great (on #3 now).

[Barcik]

I'd say the big difference is in atmosphere and style, but it is really hard for me to put in words. I think you'll have to play both companies' games to know what I am talking about.

[Raggit]

I'm just the opposite Gonzo.

I've always saw Sierra as the superior company. They started the graphic adventure game. But really, there isn't a superior.

I hope we can all just appreciate both companies and let the big fight die.

 

[Barcik]

I think you can die in MI2 when you are hanging in the jail cell with wally, if you take too long you die, but I can't remeber what happens next, I think you probably get to play from the start of the scene again

Yeah, that's what happens.

[Gonzo]

Yeah, you plummet into the acid, then it cuts back to Elaine and Guybrush hanging underground (as seen in the intro), and Guybrush says something like 'Just joking, this is what really happened...'. Nice touch.

[Andail]

I think Lucasart has done marvellous games, but I consider it a bit strange how some people can prefer comical games exclusively...that would be like only watching comedies on TV ...I absolutely need some kind of seriousity once in a while.

[CheapAlert]

Sierra is based upon a sierra, and Lucasarts is based upon Hollywood. Lucasarts usually has bigger budget games than Sierra, hence the much better voiceacting.

[Barcik]

I think Lucasart has done marvellous games, but I consider it a bit strange how some people can prefer comical games exclusively...that would be like only watching comedies on TV ...I absolutely need some kind of seriousity once in a while.

*cough*grimfandango*cough*

[Adamski]

Lucasarts did Grim Fandango and Monkey Island 2 and Indiana Jones and The Fate of Atlantis (undoubtably three of best adventure games around), so that pretty much clinches and wipes the competition off the board for me.

[Las Naranjas]

LEC did get alot more polish on the games, if only for the fact the games were cleanly coded, which made Sierra games seem a bit buggy (of course Sierra could make themselves seeem buggy) and they didn't do silly things like use the CPU as a timer instead of the clock.

But you generally like what you grew up with.(Though I prefer LEC when I grew up with KQ2 and Mixed up mother goose)

[Ben]

Is seriousity a real word?

Lucas Arts games definitely had a bigger budget. I don't think that really had any effect on the gameplay or storyline, but it did make the animation and voices better. Not necessarily the acting (Sierra had plenty of famous/has-been actors in their games), but more the production quality and consistency of the voices..

The thing I like most about Lucas Arts games is that the games are chalenging withour being frustrating. Even in games like FOA where I could die in a lot of places, I never felt like the game was unfair in any way. Sierra games have so many walking deads that I play them knowing I'll probably have to start over at some point because I forgot to pick up a grape thirty screens ago. And when I have to start over, the game really isn't fun anymore.

[Andail]

Well, it's a bit delicate, since Sierra more or less invented the genre...it's like comparing...
something that was much earlier...with something later....though prettier

[Las Naranjas]

If we compare the early 90's we might get something.

Both were at a high point.

[Sluggo]

I think you can die in MI2 when you are hanging in the jail cell with wally, if you take too long you die, but I can't remeber what happens next, I think you probably get to play from the start of the scene again

yeah, you can die in MI1 also, when you're in the water under the dock and you wait ten minutes, Gybrush drowns. But dying like that in Lucasarts games is only because you want to (unlike Sierra).

[Raggit]

I'm I the only one here who likes Sierra?

I can't see how there would be that much difference between them.

What we have here is a difference in opinions. Some like serious and others like comedy. Sierra did a pretty good job on their games. And I'm certain Lucas did good with theirs too.

Sierra made flaws here and there, but you can't tell me Lucas was perfect. Yeah, Lucas Arts had a bigger budget, but were the creators talented?

Money isn't the definition of a qaulity adventure game.

Talent is.

[Adamski]

Yes, the creators were damnned talented. No, Lucasarts did not primarily do comedy games. Sam and Max and Day Of The Tenticle could probably be described as 'comic' games... but the rest just had a lot of good dialog and sharp wit. The games i mentioned above are not comedy games, they just have humor in them.

[Gonzo]

LucasArts obviously had the talent AND the money for extremely good quality control, whereas Sierra were probably less at a liberty to polish everything so much, even though they had a lot of talent. I think Sierra produced a lot of adventure games at the same time whereas with LEC it seems they only ever developed a maximum of two games simultaneously, maybe that had something to do with it.

[Las Naranjas]

That may also be why a few more Sierra games have slipped through the cracks of history than LEC ones.

Sierra definately had talented people, its a pity they kept putting them in tired franchises

[Timosity]

I like both companies for different games, I feel sorry for people who only like one or the other.

At least in my mind I get to live in a world, gaining enjoyment from both.

but I also agree with Las, it's usually the games you are brought up with.

I first played LSL3 and SQ3, They will always be my favourites, later on I discovered MI 1&2, and thought wow another company is making cool games too.

It just doubles the Gamee Goodness

They are all good in there own ways.

The first game I actually recieved was Hero's Quest: So you want to be a hero. That series is up there too, along with the indy games, I actually probably played The Last Crusade before the MI series, at the time never even noticed the company (LucasFilm)

[Raggit]

Quest for Glory is arguably one of the best adventure game series ever made.

But don't argue about it.

I'm going to do my part of keeping peace between the companies and say Lucas is cool and Sierra is too.

I like Timostie's perspective. Why not enjoy both instead of trying to compete?

[Gonzo]

Quest for Glory is arguably one of the best adventure game series ever made.

I'm starting to agree with this, having started the games a short while ago. I've just begun QFG4, and I'm most impressed. I can't believe the series has just passed me by. I even put QFG2 in my personal top 10 adventure games in a thread on adventuregamers, such was the impression it made on me. To be honest I think the standards did drop slightly with QFG3, which is annoyingly buggy and doesn't really get that interesting til the end, but still a great game. Definitely the best Sierra games I've experienced.

I'm going to do my part of keeping peace between the companies and say Lucas is cool and Sierra is too.

I like Timostie's perspective. Why not enjoy both instead of trying to compete?

Exactly - that's the best thing, just have an open mind and appreciate the best of both worlds, and you'll have more adventure-gaming fun than otherwise.

[Matt Brown]

I used to be die-hard sierra. But after I played some lucusarts games, I became converted.
Sierra did a better job telling a story, and worked in a few suttle gags
Their games were bigger, cost more and tended to be a wee bit more buggy. these games werre hard.

lucusarts had more budget, more gag, dialog and wit orented. The story wasn't as good, but still okay. The difficulty wasn't as bad as sierra games, and it was rare when you oculd die. but but but...the mad MI4...which was horrible.

I also liked dreamworks myself. The neverhood was great

[Trapezoid]

Well, there are the different GUIs, and various differences in puzzle, character and dialog styles. But the core difference, I think, is LucasArts games have a more cinematic style of storytelling, and they'll stick in your memory for that reason. Sierra games don't seem to based on the three act structure so much, but they're still great fun.

[Las Naranjas]

Sierra seems to draw great contrasts between the fantastic stories (gk series), the capable but unmememorable (Operation Iceman) to King's Quest, which is acceptable in context only.

[TheYak]

As to the dying thing.. I do like the freedom that I have in Lucasarts' games to try anything without penalty but I also enjoy the dying in Sierra games (at least the interesting ones).  Thanks to the save-game feature, I've played all the King's Quests and Space Quests both to win with as many points possible and to see if I could find all the different ways to die.  Maybe I'm just morbid.

[DragonRose]

Sierra is based upon a sierra...

CheapAlert, what does this mean? I've been trying to figure that out with absolutly no success. The company is based upon a mountain?

Anyway, I think that the main difference between Sierra and Lucasarts is the way they treat the players.  Sierra always seemed to want the players to have fun with the games, using things like that Trite Phrase thing in LSL2, or going crazy with easter eggs, or making customizable characters in QFG (yeah, I know it's partially because it's half RPG, but still).  Lucasarts is a lot like Lucasfilm- if there is anything they can do to milk more money from a franchise, they do it.  Canceling fangames, Monkey Island 4... you get the idea.

I must also say that I am incredibly biased, having never played LucasArts adventure games until I started getting involved with the AGS forums.  Take anything I've said with a grain of salt.

[Gonzo]

I think the franchise-milking thing with LucasArts is now true to an extent, as they pour out Star Wars tie-ins. But if you're gonna include MI4 in that criticism, Sierra have been just as guilty of overdoing franchises - King's Quest 8, the Leisure Suit Larry non-adventure game thing, Police Quest SWAT or whatever.

In the golden days of adventure gaming, LucasArts were a far more creative company, probably the more creative out of the two. In fact they were originally founded on the principle that they would not make SW or Indy tie-in games, it was only later than they starting milking that (specifically Star Wars here, Indy hasn't been exploited to that ridiculous extent).

But back in the day, they were making a lot of interesting and original stuff all the time, rather than the odd gem in between a dozen SW tie-ins. I love Star Wars, but 90% of those games are crud with a capital C...the Knights Of The Old Republic RPG coming this year does look interesting though.

[MillsJROSS]

The differences between the two, as they are today, are vast. Sierra can no longer be considered an adventure game company, whereas Lucasarts still puts out a game or two, Sierra hasn't made a proper one in about seven years (not that they haven't made great games, just not any adventure games). In the olden days the difference wasn't so great. Sierra was the first to make a graphic adventure game, and so really back then it was all experimentation. The stories, while present, could be written in a sentence. The puzzles were few. This mostly because of the hardware we had to work with, and the limited space we had available.  Lucasarts games and Sierra games are diffrent, while both making great games. Lucasarts is more cinematical and more plot dependant. Sierra, I feel, was more puzzle oriented. I love them both, although, I do have a stronger feeling towards Sierra as I grew up with its games, specifically Space Quest.

-MillsJROSS

[Las Naranjas]

Mills-They did put out GK3, which was awesome, but apart from that it's a dearth back to, well, GK2.

[uNdEaD pRiEsT]

lucasarts games are far bettethe monkey island series is the best out

[Ciro Durán]

Well, I've played games from Sierra and Lucasfilms(later Lucasarts) since a long time, and as the AGS manual says, Sierra games at the beginning where more action-oriented, as the text parser obliged you to type actions for the character, and Sierra made games much before Lucasfilms, and much before the mouse was a requirement more than a commodity (AGI and SCI0, Sierra's interpreters, were text driven, although SCI0 had mouse support, it was just for walking).  Then with SCI0 and SCI1, Sierra added a bit of conversation support (Quest For Glory is one of those games, where you can talk to a person with the "Ask about" phrase).

In short, Sierra almost never included some dialog options as Lucasfilms included. Thus, Lucasfilms entered the game business when mouse was beginning to be more common in the PC market, Maniac Mansion didn't include much talking, but the next games did, with multiple characters support.

Both companies were similar when they started in the sense that much of the game puzzles were of those annoying kind: "you didn't get that junk mail lying in the floor in your house in the first part of your game?, oooh, sorry, you need that to finish the game, please restart."    In Maniac Mansion you can "die" if the three kids get caught, in Zak McKraken you can die in even more ways, it was with DOTT when they began their "no-diying" policy.   Sierra, on the other hand, did include death scenes in almost all their games (I never played KQ7, I don't know if you can die there), and there was some hell of puzzles to die (I remember the rock stair in KQ5 ) .

Well, I'll end this post saying that Lucasarts also included 'cinematic' scenes in the middle of the game, which complemented the game very well, whereas Sierra had very sparse cutscenes. I hope this gives you a more objective view of the differences between the two companies, more than some biased opinions I've seen here .

[Trapezoid]

Loom was their first non-dying game, not DOTT.

[Ciro Durán]

Well, looks like Loom was one of those games I didn't played too much .    I didn't like too much the interface.

[Scavenger]

My two cents and a small pepperoni pizza:

The Interface:
Both the Sierra and Lucasarts adventures were based upon the text adventure. Sierra first used the AGI Parser, and on the advent of the mouse based interface (SCI) they wanted to get as far away from the parser as possible, due to it's complexity, and need to be able to spell. So they created an icon based interface, which was much simpler and more user friendly. It also was able to be translated into different languages easily. While Lucasarts was a sentimental old soul, and didn't want to go far beyond the parser. Notice the statusline. -Look at item-? Seem familiar? Also, their first interface, SCUMM (Script Creation Utility for Maniac Mansion), was very much like a mouse based text parser. Even like the EGA AGI. But from the text parser, two distinct interfaces evolved.

Gameplay and Animations:
As has been proven, Sierra had less of a budget than LucasArts, so it had to tell the story through a narrator. Notice in the early Sierra games that you get a description more often than an animation. This is partly because in the early AGI games you couldn't have many animations, due to the extra low resolutions, and text adventures were the previous step in this genre. LucasArts, on the other hand, had started just beyond AGI, in the Lo-Res era (not the XLo-Res, like AGI) and had a bigger budget, so that meant lots of animations. While Sierra had sprites that were too small for talking animations (the portraits were not the sprites) LA did, and could make talking animations, as they were more used to drawing in a higher resolution, while Sierra wasn't.

Story:
N/A, haven't played enough Sierra Games

Theres my opinion

[Esseb]

For me, LEC has several games I remember more fondly than Sierra's, but that's only because I've played many more LEC games so I can't participate in this debate.

* Esseb goes to finish kq6 and mumbles "stupid god damn poisoned berries, I only asked Graham to pick one up, not eat it"

[Krynge]

Well there's no point in rehashing EVERYTHING the others have already mentioned, so I'll try my best to avoid doing so...

 Firstly in terms of gameplay, Sierra titles (in general) were more challenging than LA, but on a more 'technical' basis. For example, in games like the KQ series, the old-school KQ3, and the newer KQ5, you had to guide the character around ledges or cliffs by clicking the mouse to EXACTLY where you wanted the character to go. If you didn't, Gwydion of K. Graham (Sierra) would tumble down a cliff face. Whereas Guybrush (LA), would simply walk to most locations with the click of a single mouse key.
 The second example is the hotspot. LA games revolved around clicking the 'Verb Coin' or action bar combined a little cursor which would a display a descrition of a particular item/character/object on the screen, as the player 'scanned' across the screen. By use of this description, players had an eaiser task of accomplishing objectives in comparison with Sierra titles. This is because in Sierra titles (I'm now referring to the later SCI titles (PQ3, SQ4 etc,) not the older SCI or AGI titles (LSL1, QFG2)) you had to select an icon for the top menu and click on the object you saw on screen. For example, you would have to LOOK at a perculiar object to find out what it was, and then interact with it, without getting a description of it first.
 One more thing in regards to technical gameplay was the use of saving/loading games in Sierra titles. This referred to more of the older AGI titles like LSL1 and KQ3 where you had to save/ load to win in blackjack or the slots if you ran out of money (LSL) and make sure you got the spell components written in the parser EXACTLY as they were in the manual (KQ3).

(By the way, I don't think this description was inaccurate, but remember this is coming from a dedicated Sierra fan BECAUSE THEY WIN THE GAMES BATTLE HANDS DOWN!! But for any LA fans who think I may have written something untrue or misleading, feel free to correct - K)

[Trapezoid]

They only win the "games battle" in terms of challenge. LucasArts games, in my opinion, had more integrity, and were simply much better written (Sierra's stories were rather hit and miss. Gabriel Knight is among the best, though.) Sierra told plenty of stories, but LucasArts understood how they worked.
I think there was a lot more theory and careful design behind the stories and puzzles of LucasArts games, or at least once they hit their stride around Loom and Monkey Island. Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken were sort of Sierra-ish... And Last Crusade must've woken them up to the idea that they had the power to tell a story as good as any film. After all, it was based on an awesome movie.
Sierra had their own strengths. They were very prolific, and their good games outweigh their bad games. While most of them lacked any interesting art design, they still have a strong nostalgic effect. And the puzzles were pretty intricate and well designed, even if they weren't very well tied into plots, which were usually rather thin.
In conclusion. Sierra = better games. LucasArts = better Art (not only in the graphical sense.)

[Teh Crabe]

I think there's a divide over how much "story" you need in your games.  Sierra games were more "game"y while LA's were more "story"y.  If that makes sense.  Sierra did try to do more storytelling later on, but they weren't as successful as LA in my opinion.  I don't think either is "better".  I've played both companies games extensively.  They're both well made and thoght out.  Just had different design goals.  If anyone has a preference, it's really a matter of taste.  They're both fruit, but one's apples, one's oranges.  

[big brother]

The problem I had with Sierra games was not the content or the game design (though dying sucks, and being able to unknowingly screw yourself over does, too).

I didn't like the "feel."

This may sound petty, but the sprite movement in Sierra games (all the ones I've played, KQ, Longbow, GB1, QFG1, etc.) was far too sluggish. The characters seemed to painstaikingly struggle across the screen and there was no way to adjust the speed.

Also, in many Sierra games, the player has no way of telling the hotspots from the background. In some of those beautifully detailed scenes, some of those tiny objects are game objects, while some of the larger ones exist only as art. However, even as early as LEC's (then Lucasfilm Games, I think) MM, you could use the "look" command to scan the screen for hotspots.

With a LEC game (besides MM), I know that the character will move at the right speed, that I'll be able to skip cutscenes with the ESC key, and dialogue with the . key (I can even adjust the dialogue speed, imagine that). It was almost that every LEC game came with an implied guarantee of quality, while Sierra games varied wildly depending on their designer.

Naturally, both companies were very creative, and their games featured many unforgettable characters (Sierra: Larry Laffer, Gabriel Knight, Laura Bow, etc. LEC: Bernard Bernoulli, Ben Throttle, Guybrush Threepwood, Manny Calavera, etc.), and comparing them on this scale is totally subjective.

[Punch]

You didn't die in MM if everyone was caught, all you had to do was get one guy to push the loose brick and then walk the other two out. This left two people free, which was enough to finish the game. Plus, you could get a key and just let people out at will.

Also, the cutscenes could be skipped in MM and Zak. It was one of the function keys. I can't remember which. Right clicking did it in the PC version.

Lucasarts' design philosophy outlines the differences very well:

"We believe that you buy games to be entertained, not to be whacked over the head every time you make a mistake. So we don't bring the game to a screeching halt when you poke your nose into a place you haven't visited before. We try to make it clear, however, when you are in a dangerous situation.
"We think you'd prefer to solve the game's mysteries by exploring and discovering, not by dying a thousand deaths. We also think you'd like to spend your time immersed in the story, not typing in synonyms until you stumble upon the computer's word for a certain object.
"Unlike conventional computer adventures, you won't find yourself accidentally stepping off a path, or dying because you've picked up a sharp object. There are a few dangerous situations which will bring the game to a premature end, but to avoid them takes just a little common sense, not excessive paranoia. Save the game when you think you may be entering a dangerous area, but don't assume that every wrong step will result in death. Usually you'll get another chance."

Sure, it's tilted towards Lucas' way being 'better' because it was written by them, but it gives all of the main points.

- Punch

[DragonRose]

I hadn't played any of the Sierra "Quest" games in quite a while, and I recently reloaded SQ5, because I have a french translation of it and I wanted to practice my french.  I was actually shocked by how many times I died. I died because I didn't get to class quickly enough.  I died because I couldn't tell if I'd cleaned the crest or not.  I died because I got caught cheating on a test.

I don't remember death being quite so pervasive the last time I played.  It's bloody annoying, now!

It's kind of interesting: the Sierra games that I really like and want to play again and again, it's quite hard to die.  If there is a sequence where there is sudden death, I can't stand that part.  

Take KQ6.  Most of the time wandering around doesn't get you killed, except maybe in the labyrinth, and it's easy to tell when you're not supposed to do something, because there'll be ominous music or the genie.  The only problem is in the land of the dead, when you have to avoid the ghouls.  I always had to get my sister to playthrough that part for me, because I would panic and end up running right into the darn things.

The Gabriel Knight games: You're only in real danger at the very end.  The rest of the time, though there's a real sense of tension, Gabe is never in any real danger.

Quest for Glory: The deaths are slightly more random in this one, but they usually aren't UNEXPECTED.  If you go out into the woods, yeah, you're going to find monsters.  You can always run away.

[xenogia]

Sierra is an excellent company and so is LucasArts .. but both companies are now shitty.

Point 1: Sierra was bought by Yosemite Entertainment in 98 I think, and 3/4 of the original employee's left the company.  This explains why no more adventures are being made at all.  It isn't really Sierra anymore as such.

Point 2: LucasArts now just churn out Star Wars games, the new Full Throttle game is sorta Resident Evil in its interface.  Eurgh!

What has happened to original gameplay!

[Trapezoid]

LucasArts aren't working on Full Throttle 2 anymore. The much more promising Sam and Max 2 is still in the works, though.

[Lazy Dragonrose]

Xenogia: It wasn't "Yosemite Entertainment."  That was just the name of one of Sierra's sudden plethora of sub-companies.  The Yosemite National Park is in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, so they just used the name.  Sierra was bought out by CUC International in 1997.

CUC proof!

Yosemite proof!

[xenogia]

Ah okidoki, but anyway it was the buy out that destroyed them.

[big brother]

You could die in MM. Didn't you ever nuke the mansion before?