An embarassing confession...

[Andail]

Clearly it's possible to love something even though you know it's bad, which is fascinating!

Lure of the temptress will always have a special place in my heart, even though it's a very poorly designed game, looking at it objectively. There is not a single "clever" puzzle in the entire game - they're either completely straightforward (use lockpick on lock, use tinderbox to start fire, etc), or downright dumb (the only way to get an empty flask is to have a character drink its contents - instead of just emptying it anywhere).
There are very long chains consisting of giving random objects to random characters, who will in return give you new random objects to give to new characters.
To defeat the dragon, you have to use a magic potion *yawn*, and to create the potion you need some ingredients that are simply picked up at random places.

Still love it.
But I don't look at it for cues on puzzle design

[Victor6]

heh, I was just going to mention Lure of the temptress too, because I once spent 4+ hours looking for a way to start the fire, and the tinderbox had disappeared by that point. I didn't actually find out that it was a dead-end until I re-installed the game 6 months later.

- Unfortunately that sort of thing dumps it in the 'mediocre' camp for me. It's not good or bad, it's a mix of the 2. That makes recommending it, particularly when money is involved, a difficult prospect, even if I personally enjoyed it.

If the good and bad are balanced, it's average\medicore\5/10 stuff. Anything else will come down to personal perspective. You might love it regardless of the flaws, Or you might hate it and wish you'd bought something else.

It's like recommending Marmite to people.

[miguel]

I tend not to like sierra games much. I can see the nostalgia for the early King's Quest and Quest or Glory games, and the humour of Space Quest kept me going in spite of the horrible puzzles.

However Gabriel Knight is a category on its own, for me. GK III is really one of the best adventure games ever. All the criticism levelled against it is true. The graphics and interface are awful, and the cat-moustache puzzle is as silly as they get. But it the atmosphere and plotting is so enthralling that I forgive everything.

It's not a 6/10 game. It's 2/10 AND 9/10.

That's exactly how I feel about it.
I guess adventure games turn out to be as any other art form. Like people can love the Beatles Yeah-yeah-yeah simplicity or a classic book like Bram's Dracula. Although things have changed we all learned to distance ourselves from the flaws and admire those works of art for its innovation and concept.

So, I guess we guys, true lovers of adventure games, must cherish the classics of adventure gaming, and remember new-comers that a lot had to be done for the earned possibility that we now have to criticize (based on solid understanding of the genre)  every new game that comes out.

Those Sierra and Infocom games are a gift to us, it allowed room for LucasArts and the rest to emerge and polish the genre.

[Stupot]

Is Dracular considered flawed?  Crikey.  People have high standards, don't they? It's an amazing read.

[miguel]

If you're talking about my reference to Bram Stoker's Dracula then here's my opinion on the book: yes it is a step-stone work about vampires and a fascinating story, but the endless diary pages between the main character and his beloved and yet more diary entries are, in my opinion, the most boring time I've ever had while reading. But, and this is the issue, because I know that there's more to the book than those middle pages I did read them and can distance myself from that. So, to me it is a flaw. For you might be exciting to go though the diary entries. It's all a matter of taste in the end. And the reason me and you can discuss Bram's book is because the book meant something and was ultimately--good.

[Ilyich]

I'd say that what makes a bad game is not the flaws, but the lack of anything good, and so it's no wonder that there are a lot of very flawed games that manage to find their place in our hearts because of what they got right. And what is "right" is very much a matter of opinion, hence the Sierra bashing/loving.

Personally, I'd pick Sierra over Lucas Arts any day of the week, even though I'd admit that LA released more great games. It's just that none of them are as special to me as Quest for Glory 4 and Gabriel Knight are. I've never finished a single KQ game, but at least I enjoyed playing them (parts 2, 5 and 6). Which brings me to an embarassing confession of my own - I haven't finished any of the Monkey Island games, because I didn't really like anything about them. I tried my best to fall in love with them, but failed miserably every time. Is there something wrong with me?

[Babar]

While technically, they'd be referred to as dead ends, in my mind, if there is stuff that you forget to pick up, and then just a couple short screens later you are stuck in a position where you can't return to get that stuff, but you need it for a puzzle in front of you, I wouldn't REALLY consider that one of those game-breaking dead-ends, since you can probably reload a save you had (stuff like what Blueskirt mentioned about KQ5 near the end in Mordack's castle). The explanation I agree to is when it is described as "forget to do or do something wrong at the beginning of the game, and then near the end of the game (or much later, I guess), you get stuck (or even killed)".

Again, while today I have no patience for that sort of gameplay, back when these games came out, I understood that these games operated with a certain ruleset of what was expected of the player, and what was expected of the game. Many of these don't make "realistic" sense , but there they were:

You were expected to have multiple saves, and constantly create new ones (you were probably expected to save before attempting any "new" thing).
You were expected not to do anything obviously stupid (or at least save before doing it, doing it, watching the result, then reloading)
You were expected to try and pick up everything.
You were expected to explore as much as possible, but still always save first.

There were a couple of times when Sierra itself turned these rules on its head, of course, which I found annoying and unfair. The unstable ordinance in SQ4 was an example. The boulder rolling over and killing you if were on the wrong side in KQ1 (which I care about less, because I don't really consider it a relevant game in terms of puzzle design or immersion in the game world, it was just the first at what it did) is another example. Mazes generally operated on a completely different ruleset from the rest of the game as well (take out some paper and plot the maze, save every screen, save before going to the next screen, you are very probably EXPECTED to have to die several times to do this properly, etc.), but again, it was generally understood that this is the way it was.

As far as the original topic is concerned, if it is still relevant in any way, I'd recommend:

King's Quest 5 (with the caveat that you should understand that you should pick up everything you find, and if there is a cat doing bad things, THROW SOMETHING AT IT , and be careful what you eat, and don't eat too much ) and 6

SQ1 (I personally prefer the VGA remake), 3 and 4 (and 5 if you REALLY want to)..

Quest for Glory 1, 2 (you might like the VGA remake AGDI did for that, I haven't really played it fully, though), and 4.

I'd definitely recommend Gabriel Knight 1. I wasn't too fond of the FMV of 2, and I don't share Ali's love of 3, but sure, you can check those out if you feel like it.

I'd also recommend Conquest of Longbow, and if you are able to overcome the more slightly troublesome interface (and slightly more evil puzzle design ), I'd definitely recommend Conquest of Camelot and The Colonel's Bequest.

You might also want to try Heart of China from the Dynamix Games Sierra published. I'd recommend Willy Beamish too, but I'm not sure if that is just my nostalgia speaking...it was difficult in such an insanely scary, yet hilarious way. Snake will back me up on that . I've heard Rise of the Dragon is also great.

Perhaps it is my personal taste, but I could never really care for the Police Quests (they just seemed to be "follow police procedure to the dot, and win"), Leisure Suit Larrys, and Freddy Pharkas (the aimlessness and lack of goals of the first half of the game didn't motivate me enough to continue, even though it seemed very well made otherwise).

If I had to choose much fewer, I'd say KQ6, SQ4 (and maybe 3), QfG4, GK1

* Babar embarrasedly confesses to have not realised Technocrat was only talking about KQ.

So yeah...play KQ6.

PS: Ilyich, if you didn't like ANYTHING about Monkey Island 2 (the music, the atmosphere, the humour), then yes, something is wrong with you .

[Secret Fawful]

Heh. That's pretty much why I like Police Quest. 

[Armageddon]

Oh, another confession, I have LOOM, and I've never finished it, I just can't get into it, the whole interface. It's confusing to me.

[blueskirt]

In Loom, sometimes when you examine an object, a four note melody will be played on your staff. You got to write down those melodies and use them to solve puzzles.

One of the first melody you learn is the Open melody. When you look at an object and play the Open melody on your staff, whatever you are looking at will open (if it's an object that can be opened of course, like a door.) If you play the melody in reverse, the object will close. You start with three different notes, as you progress in the game you will unlock more notes and be able to play more melodies.

Most of the game is spent exploring your surrounding, learning melodies and using them to solve puzzles and make the story progress. There are no inventory puzzles. And one last advice, if it's your first time, play on Beginner, not Expert. The interface has more information and is easier to use on that difficulty. It's not like Lechuck's Revenge, the puzzles are not different from one difficulty level to another (although a cutscene near the end of the game is extended if you play on Expert.)

Play it, it's a short and easy but fun game.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I think a case can be made for Lucasfilm Games, later Lucasarts having the clear advantage over Sierra out the door.  Not only did they come along with a massive heavy hitter for an entry adventure game but they were Lucasfilm Games.  This wasn't a company put together by a husband and wife in a tiny studio but a major player with the resources and talent available to pop out games like Monkey Island 2 and Full Throttle without really breaking a sweat.  As much as I dislike most Sierra games, at least I am willing to see the differences between the two companies.  When you take that into account, genre-defining games like Gabriel Knight and even the experimental efforts like Quest for Glory become more impressive, and I think the reason for it is that Sierra was willing to take greater risks than Lucasfilm/Lucasarts was willing or able to, which locked Lucasarts games into the category of safe, sure bets that preferred to be innocuous rather than be potentially offensive, with the notable exception of The Dig where they tried out an adventure based on a movie narrative.  You can see this dynamic play out in how one company chose a conceptually safer route of preventing dead-ends and player deaths vs. a company that often refused to hold your hand and would punish you for making mistakes.  Some people prefer the former, others the latter.

I've always been somewhere in-between where I thought deaths were fine if the game justified it.  Gabriel Knight never infuriated me with the death scenes but games like Space Quest and Kings Quest did because they were treated like an essential game mechanic rather than an unfortunate consequence in those games, and to make it worse, they would often poke fun at you as well.  This to me was the absolute worst aspect of Sierra games and why I despised many of them, so comparatively I favored Lucasarts games much more highly.

As far as games I've missed, I'm not aware of any major ones.  I pretty much gave every game that came my way a chance (including some of those Sierra Ecoquest games).

[DutchMarco]

When I was a tike, and having a PC was still the exception, for years I've thought that me and my little circle of friends were quite unique (and nerdy) for owning a PC - the nerdy bit was probably very true, but the uniqueness wasn't, I've played KQ - mostly just walking the little guy aroundusing the arrow keys, getting chased by the witch and wondering why I couldn't just shoot the bitch off her broom with a lasergsun, like in a "proper" game - there wasn't even a car or a racetrack in the forest. It never dawned on me that it was a puzzle game hence I never got far, and I always got killed by the witch.
Here's a game I recall reading about when I was older than in my KQ-days, I'm still  curious about it: http://www.lbahq.com/

Here's a game that I played too much: Remember how in Castle Wolfenstein 3D you could push walls and some of them would slide back to reveal a hidden room with weapons etc? It got to the point that, when I closed my eyes, I would see chunks of wall sliding back. That's when I told myself I had to cut back playing the game. Luckily, my brain quickly reverted to portraying the normal images after that. in art because soon after, Doom was released, without sliding walls. A much better game to play.

Oh, and I've never played LSL or PQ.

Oh, and I've played 13 days (I think that's the one), but I didn't finish it (is it actually possible to?)

[blueskirt]

games like Space Quest and Kings Quest did because they were treated like an essential game mechanic rather than an unfortunate consequence in those games, and to make it worse, they would often poke fun at you as well

To each their own I suppose. A little pleasure I have with Sierra games is to die in every ways I can think of because much of the humor and some little pearls of animations are hidden in these deaths. I would have loved if they implemented a Try Again button from the get go to remove the hassle of having to save and load every time, especially when some of their series took so much joy in killing and poking fun at the player's or protagonist' expense. But I also think in some games the whole walk one pixel off and you die gig is taken too far.

[theo]

I personally feel that from a sheer dramaturgic perspective, having the lead character die every twenty minutes, doesn't really give the story a coherent feeling. I'm not saying I don't enjoy watching Roger die in all sorts of humiliating ways, all I'm saying is that it does leave the player with a rather disjointed narrative. (Which I think perhaps is one of the reasons why I never really managed to bond with any story or character for that matter in a common fps or arcade game.)

That being said, I can totally understand the love for the Sierra classics. They had a lot of good things going for them. I personally think GK1 is just about one of the best games ever made, and I loved the space quest parser games though frankly I can't remember if I beat a single one of them.

Oh and another thing that has been mentioned but might need to be reiterated: People like different games. That's cool and should be respected. Different things are important for different people. No point convincing people to change their minds. 

[EKM]

I used to play the King's Quest series as a kid, but I never beat them. Not a single one. Instead, I let this older dude beat them, and he owned pretty much the entire series. I think I was kind of afraid of the whole Hansel & Gretel type atmosphere and the general oddity of the game's inner nightmare-inducing mysteries.

However, when it comes to Sierra, my favourite title of all time is certainly the Space Quest series. I LOVED this series. From the moment I first played Space Quest IV and heard Gary Owens narrate comically, I was sold. That game had one of the most memorable stages and for those who remember, that MALL!! Seriously, how fun is that? You go to the arcade and can play Astro Chicken! And then you can go apply for a job at the burger joint and make burgers!

When I played Police Quest IV and Space Quest VI, they literally blew my mind. Police Quest IV was so creepy and Space Quest VI was all kinds of goofy fun. Stooge Fighter was the best!

But, as much as I loved the Sierra games, the deaths did piss me off at times. I especially hated it in the Space Quest games 'cause there are many times when you have to do certain things in a limited amount of time. Messing up means death and it does deter from the experience a little, especially when it's so difficult.

[voh]

The first adventure game I ever played was Maniac Mansion. And I hated it. I at first thought I was too young when I first tried it, but having tried to replay it many times since, I've found myself still hating it.

That said, I've played every single SCUMM game there is by LucasArts, and even some Putt Putt games (with a nephew).

Grim Fandango is one of the best games ever. The controls are weird, but unlike MI4, the game itself isn't insultingly bad, so the controls don't bother for too long.

When it comes to Sierra, I've played almost every one of them.

I've finished SQ1, 2, 5 and 6. Space Quest 5 is one of my favorite adventure games ever (go Dynamix!) My nickname isn't voh without reason.

I've also finished KQ 1, 5, 6 and 7. Torin's fricking Passage (and I loved that game SO BAD). QfG 1, 3 and 4. LSL 1, 4 (sadly, was on self-destructing floppies), 5 and 6.

I prefer LucasArts over Sierra, but that's a style thing. I prefer the lack of dead ends, deaths and such. But there's never been a moment where I disliked either's.

I've never understood Sierra VS LucasArts. Also, I've never understood consoles VS PC, Sega VS Nintendo, Sony VS Microsoft. Hell, I hardly understand Mac VS Everyone Else or Windows VS Linux. I just use whatever's best for the job at hand, or, in the case of games, whatever I find fun.

Live and let live. Why so serious?

[blueskirt]

Can't speak for the other wars but console wars are easy to explain. When you're young, you have no money, it's your parents who buy your games and consoles so you'll be stuck with only one up 'til you get a job and money. So, "Every consoles sucks except mine" is a coping mechanism to compensate for the fact you can't buy every consoles out there.

Then you become old, make carloads of money and you can buy all the consoles and the games in the universe. Except by now you have a job, a promotion 'round the corner, friday's poker night with the friends, a loving spouse, a bunch of kids, a yard to maintain, in laws to visit... but you only have twenty four hours a day, not a minute more. So you start hating dozens of game series, genres, even consoles as a coping mechanism for the fact you can't play all the cool stuff that get released every years, even if you wanted to.

There, the reason why console wars exist.

And on a sadder note, I too have an embarrassing confession to make: I am not participating to this year AGS award on the account that I haven't played all the cool games that got released last year, thus I am unqualified to vote.

[Iliya]

+1

I have no respect for someone who doesn't like Sierra or calls one of their games "mediocre", and I never will. Ever.

Well, this applies to adventure game fans only...

[Atelier]

I'd watch this instead: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ACDE10D49E44AA3&feature=plcp (pretty funny KQ 5 Let's Play)

Somebody poured themselves some water at my job interview today. I couldn't help laughing at that 'nectar of the gods' line. It's not even that funny and probably cost me the job.