Quest for Glory 5 Thoughts...

[Zazzaro]

First im sorry if this is in the wrong place. I couldnt decide if it should go here or the forum below this.

Anyways, i have the Quest for Glory anthology and Quest for Glory 5. QFG is in my top 3 series of all time, but strangely i have never beat or really even played QFG5. When i got it i had a 486 and couldnt really run the game, so it got put away and i pretty much forgot all about it. Well i was cleaning my closet the other day and found my anthology and QFG5. After playing A tale of two kingdoms my adv game itch was back and was happy to find it. I played back thru QFG1-4 so i could import a paladin and play thru 5 the right way.

Anyways the point of this thread is this. After running around QFG5 for about an hour trying to get the lay of the land, people that have played this game what are your thoughts and reviews. Please if you do reply, keep it spoiler free as since fresh adv game experiences at this stage of the gaming age are extremely extremely rare and since QFG5 is one of my fav. series of all time i want to savor this game and beat it without any spoilers at all no matter how long it might take. This game seems to be different than 1-4, but similar enough to feel like im revisiting an old friend that just looks different. Will i enjoy this chapter of the game as much as i enjoyed 1-4? Thanks for the future replies (if there are any) and im really sorry if i posted this in the wrong forum. Obviously mods moderate as needed if needed .

[Radiant]

It's a poorly written game that doesn't do the series justice. It ignores several of the class abilities, gets the heroic thief started on the anticlimatic beginner's task of pickpocketing, has annoyingly poor controls for actually hitting things in combat (but if you go machine gun you'll be ok), only barely distinguishes between the four different classes, and relies too much on an overdose of health and/or mana potions to get you through.

Aside from that, the game has virtually no sidequests whatsoever, and every single quest in the game consists of going to some place and killing stuff, except for one which is fedex. And it has "rush job" written all over it.

Just like there's only seven King's Quest games, there's only four Quest for Glory games.

[Afflict]

Just like there's only seven King's Quest games, there's only four Quest for Glory games.

Agreed

[LimpingFish]

And one Gabriel Knight game. ¬¬

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

It's certainly the low point of the series, though fans and purists will play it for completion's sake (as I did).  I found parts of it quite enjoyable, though overall the story was lacking the depth of its predecessors, most skills seemed redundant or useless altogether, and the 'let's try to wrap everything up since this is the last one' approach was less than successful.  The shift to 3d also looked half-hearted and wasn't implemented very well; it makes one wonder why companies try to jump on trend bandwagons when they're ill-equipped to do so.  The game could have been rather striking in hi-res 2D, but as it stands it's just a mediocre-looking, poorly presented and failed attempt to net a certain gaming demographic these games were never meant for.  Casual adventure gamers would do well to pass by the game, but die-hard fans of the series will no doubt want to play it just to see what happens.  3 and 4 were definitely highlights of the series, although the first four are all quite enjoyable and represent some of the better games ever to come out of Sierra land.

[Ozzie]

Just like there's only seven King's Quest games, there's only four Quest for Glory games.

I haven't played the QfG series, but I always think it's funny how the eighth King's Quest gets bashed overall.
I don't think it was great. The controls were clumsy, the graphics not so impressive even at its release and some levels were plain boring.
But it also had some fun levels, like Daventry, the Swamp and the Ice Realm. The ending was a huge anti-climax, though.
The ambitions were just too high for that time. Would it have been planned more small scale it could have been much better...

My point is: if we would only count the King's Quest games which are good then there would only be a few leftover.
Let's count the first one for historical relevance. The second is mostly a copy of the first one, set on a different island and has a different goal. It still contains the same design errors, so I wouldn't consider it a good game.
The third one has its moments, so I'm not sure about that. Being trapped in Mordacks castle and having to find a way to free yourself was certainly a nice part. But it also had the usual unwarned, poorly integrated dead ends. Oh, and didn't you have to wait some minutes for a ship to arrive?
I haven't played the fourth one, but I think it's generally regarded as a good title.
The fifth is plain bad. Great graphics, yes, but terribly boring gameplay. And the story is very linear, even for a King's Quest.
The sixth one is the definite highpoint, no arguing.
Part seven is probably the second-most controversial of the series.
I think some didn't even consider that a King's Quest anymore initially. It's very cartoony and family orientated.
I'm not sure if it's bad or not. My memory says me that it was average.
I couldn't get it to run in fullscreen recently, so I didn't bother to play it for a longer time.
Oh, and it has some of the most dreadful voice acting of all time. The german version at least.
And number eight...still bad voice acting. But at least there wasn't much talking. In my opinion, it's probably the best King's Quest game Roberta did without a co-writer.
It's just very different. But that was planned from the beginning. Every new King's Quest game was a vehicle for the newest technology. But by the time it was released, far behind schedule, it looked a bit dated...

[Pesty]

QFG is my favorite game series, let's just start off with that. I think QFG1EGA is an example of a perfect adventure game. I play through the series at least once a year.

Having said that, I have nothing bad to say about 5. It's mediocre compared to the other QFG games, but it's still a good game. It is always included in my playthrough, and I always enjoy it.

As far as KQ8 is concerned, most of the series isn't all that good. The only two I still like at all are 4 and 6. I think there is only a fondness there because for some people it was their first, or one of their first, adventure games, and nostalgia factors in. Don't get me wrong, 8 did suck. But so did pulling on a rock and dying because you were pulling it from the wrong side. I'm looking at you, KQ1!

[Scummbuddy]

Hey, its alright. It happens to the best series. Just do what us LucasArts fans do and say Escape from Monkey Island is really just a fan game. A really well-funded and decent-if-it-was-a-stand-alone game written and developed by top developers. 

[cosmicr]

Let's count the first one for historical relevance. The second is mostly a copy of the first one, set on a different island and has a different goal.

The same could be said for all AGI adventure games. Btw, the first one isnt on an island, and only the latter part of 2 is on an island.

It still contains the same design errors, so I wouldn't consider it a good game.

What were the design errors? I thought the design was pretty flawless, especially for the time.

Being trapped in Mordacks castle and having to find a way to free yourself was certainly a nice part.

I think you mean manannan?

The fifth is plain bad. Great graphics, yes, but terribly boring gameplay. And the story is very linear, even for a King's Quest.

hardly. Kings Quest V at the time was heralded as one of the greatest adventures ever made.

Part seven is probably the second-most controversial of the series.

Why?

Oh, and it has some of the most dreadful voice acting of all time.

no arguments there.

sounds to me like you're just not a fan of kq. kings quest fans sure have their faves, but they 'count' all of them up to 7.

[Radiant]

My point is: if we would only count the King's Quest games which are good then there would only be a few leftover.
Let's count the first one for historical relevance.

It was actually a breakthrough in gaming history, so it's more than a little relevant.

The second is mostly a copy of the first one, set on a different island and has a different goal. It still contains the same design errors, so I wouldn't consider it a good game.

What design errors are these? I haven't seen any, and they're notably bug-free. Also, KQ2 is in no way a copy of KQ1 except that they have the same main character and incorporate fairy tales, and neither is set on an island.

The third one has its moments, so I'm not sure about that. Being trapped in Mordacks castle and having to find a way to free yourself was certainly a nice part.

KQ3 contains neither Mordack nor a castle, that would be KQ5. Assuming you mean Manannan's HOUSE, let me point out that design-wise, KQ3 was very innovative at the time; however, puzzle-wise it suffers from too many mountain paths, and the fact that 2/3rds of the game are basically the "spellbook" copy protection.

But it also had the usual unwarned, poorly integrated dead ends. Oh, and didn't you have to wait some minutes for a ship to arrive?

Dead ends were considered normal in adventure games back then; it wasn't until LucasArts started with the Loom / Monkey Island formula that this changed. Still, as dead ends go, KQ3 doesn't really have that many; the two main ones are eating your inventory (well duh that's a bad idea) and omitting one of the spells (but they're spelled out in the friggin' manual). It does, however, involve waiting for a few minutes, but the ship is actually a story-triggered event.

The fifth is plain bad. Great graphics, yes, but terribly boring gameplay. And the story is very linear, even for a King's Quest.

I agree with you here. Design-wise, KQ5 is abysmal. The main reason people love it is nostalgia, because it was the first adventure game they ever played. It does have good graphics and music, but it also has more dead ends than any other adventure game.

I think some didn't even consider that a King's Quest anymore initially. It's very cartoony and family orientated.

Well, yes, but people also didn't consider KQ3 a King's Quest at first, because the relationship between Gwydion and Graham isn't obvious until you're past the first half of the game.

Every new King's Quest game was a vehicle for the newest technology. But by the time it was released, far behind schedule, it looked a bit dated...

That's false. KQ8 sold exceptionally well for an adventure game. And none of the earlier games were released "far behind schedule".

Methinks you need to get your facts straight. And play the KQ games again

[Ozzie]

My point is: if we would only count the King's Quest games which are good then there would only be a few leftover.
Let's count the first one for historical relevance.

It was actually a breakthrough in gaming history, so it's more than a little relevant.

I don't care that much for historical relevance, to be honest. Maybe because I don't feel nostalgic? I wasn't even born when that game was released so it's not such a big argument for me.
There are games, like the old Infocom text adventures, most of the Lucas Arts titles which are old, but still playable to this day. "Another World" with its polygon graphics was also a big breakthrough, and is still very playable.
KQ1 was a technical breakthrough, but, at least in my opinion, not in terms of game design.

The second is mostly a copy of the first one, set on a different island and has a different goal. It still contains the same design errors, so I wouldn't consider it a good game.

What design errors are these? I haven't seen any, and they're notably bug-free. Also, KQ2 is in no way a copy of KQ1 except that they have the same main character and incorporate fairy tales, and neither is set on an island.

Well, Kolyma seemed like an island to me. Maybe because you could visit the ocean? It's not clear how big Kolyma is, so it could be the one or the other, I guess.
About "design errors":Stupid event triggers which make the gameplay in such an wide open world very linear. Pick up this totally unrelated item before something happens elsewhere. I could also say that the parser wasn't that good in the game, but I don't know about that. If it is so bad like in SQIII or even worse, then, yes. I guess these are cases of "read the designer's mind"...
It also has a few dead ends afaik. The bridge could fall apart if you walk too often over it. If you don't throw the fish back into the ocean then it will die and you won't be able to catch another one.

The third one has its moments, so I'm not sure about that. Being trapped in Mordacks castle and having to find a way to free yourself was certainly a nice part.

KQ3 contains neither Mordack nor a castle, that would be KQ5. Assuming you mean Manannan's HOUSE, let me point out that design-wise, KQ3 was very innovative at the time; however, puzzle-wise it suffers from too many mountain paths, and the fact that 2/3rds of the game are basically the "spellbook" copy protection.

Okay, I haven't played KQ3 that much. A friend showed it to me. I meant house with "castle", yes. I guess it just was bit bigger than a usual house.
To be honest, I don't know that much about the game except for the beginning. I couldn't be bothered to play it after many other of the KQ games looked pretty bad. Not only in terms of graphics, but gameplay, story...

Every new King's Quest game was a vehicle for the newest technology. But by the time it was released, far behind schedule, it looked a bit dated...

That's false. KQ8 sold exceptionally well for an adventure game. And none of the earlier games were released "far behind schedule".

I'm not sure if you read what I wrote. Maybe I wasn't clear enough? KQ8 was behind schedule, I didn't say that any of the other KQ games were.
Afaik the release date was planned for mid 97 initially. I remember reading a preview about it. It had a screenhot with an underwater scenery. I guess some ideas got scrapped.
And I didn't say anything about the sales. But I would say that KQ8 sold bad for a general game. In Germany at least. Don't know for the rest of the world.

Methinks you need to get your facts straight. And play the KQ games again

NOOO!!! Have mercy! I don't want to play them.   
Okay, you proved me wrong on KQ3. I guess I take facts sometimes not seriously enough. Sorry.
But I don't enjoy most of the King's Quest games. The stories are so linear, the gameplay at best bearable.
Except KQ6 of course. That's why it is also one of my favorite games.

And, I still have to play KQ4. Oh, and maybe KQ7 in the english version. When I have time.

[FrancoFranchi]

I always thought of QFG3 as the black sheep of the franchise.  That one seemed to either throw you into a situation with absolutely nothing to do (particularly wandering the plains) or force you along a LSL5-style pre-ordained path with absolutely no freedom involved. 

[Radiant]

KQ1 was a technical breakthrough, but, at least in my opinion, not in terms of game design.

True, but neither are most of the Infocommies and LucasArts games you mention.

About "design errors":Stupid event triggers which make the gameplay in such an wide open world very linear. Pick up this totally unrelated item before something happens elsewhere.

That doesn't happen in either KQ1 or KQ2, and the former is highly non-linear.

I could also say that the parser wasn't that good in the game, but I don't know about that.

The parser is effectively the same as in SQIII, and less versatile than in Infocom games. This means you have to type verb-noun commands like "get cup", rather than true English like "read all books except the black then drop them in the cauldron" (yes, Infocom can parse that properly). But there are little or no cases of "read the designer's mind" in any of the games you mention. The most infamous instance of Sierra mindreading occurs at the end of Larry 2, because the game doesn't understand "bag" as a synonym for "airsick bag".

But I would say that KQ8 sold bad for a general game.

True, but that's because adventure games sell poorly as compared to games in general, since 1995 or so. That's why most companies stopped making adventure games. Of course, it is debatable whether or not KQ8 qualifies as an adventure game.

I guess I take facts sometimes not seriously enough. Sorry.
But I don't enjoy most of the King's Quest games.

You're welcome to your opinion, KQ is not everybody's cup of tea. I kind of agree with you in that I consider the LucasArts legacy much better than just about anything Sierra has produced. But I do consider facts to be somewhat important

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

You're welcome to your opinion, KQ is not everybody's cup of tea. I kind of agree with you in that I consider the LucasArts legacy much better than just about anything Sierra has produced. But I do consider facts to be somewhat important

I think an important distinction to make here is Sierra's typical 'punish the player for just about any creative/logical choice we didn't think/want to implement' and Lucasart's 'reward the player with funny/silly things for weird solutions and don't kill them' methodologies.  I think death in games is fine if handled properly, but it almost feels like there's a twinkle of sadism in most of Sierra's early titles.

[Ozzie]

Oh. Some posts I totally overlooked.

Hey, its alright. It happens to the best series. Just do what us LucasArts fans do and say Escape from Monkey Island is really just a fan game. A really well-funded and decent-if-it-was-a-stand-alone game written and developed by top developers. 

I totally agree with you about MI4.
But QfG5 was also designed by Lori Ann Cole. So, it's not the same I think. I'm not sure if you meant that, though.

Let's count the first one for historical relevance. The second is mostly a copy of the first one, set on a different island and has a different goal.

The same could be said for all AGI adventure games. Btw, the first one isnt on an island, and only the latter part of 2 is on an island.

I see that I implied that the first one was set on an island. But I didn't mean that. And I always thought of Kolyma as an island....whatever.

The fifth is plain bad. Great graphics, yes, but terribly boring gameplay. And the story is very linear, even for a King's Quest.

hardly. Kings Quest V at the time was heralded as one of the greatest adventures ever made.

Are you sure?

Of course, there were also positive ones (here for example, when you scroll down), but the response to this game was divided at best. To be honest, I think many critics were just wowed by the graphics. Like it was also the case with Unreal 2, for example.

Part seven is probably the second-most controversial of the series.

Why?

Because it was cartoony, like a Disney movie. Not much of the romantic fantasy atmosphere was left.

@Radiant:

About "design errors":Stupid event triggers which make the gameplay in such an wide open world very linear. Pick up this totally unrelated item before something happens elsewhere.

That doesn't happen in either KQ1 or KQ2, and the former is highly non-linear.

Well, then this (german) review must be wrong.
There is an example that you have to collect some items before Red Riding Hood appears. There doesn't seem to be a connection.

True, but that's because adventure games sell poorly as compared to games in general, since 1995 or so. That's why most companies stopped making adventure games. Of course, it is debatable whether or not KQ8 qualifies as an adventure game.

MI3 was the last adventure that got gold status in Germany (I think that means 100.000 sold copies).
Since it was compared to Tomb Raider at its release I wouldn't called it an adventure game. It has more puzzles than that, but the emphasis is on action.

[blueskirt]

Btw, the first one isnt on an island, and only the latter part of 2 is on an island.

Also, KQ2 is in no way a copy of KQ1 except that they have the same main character and incorporate fairy tales, and neither is set on an island.

From a technical point of view, KQ2 is set on an island, two islands if you include the second island. The main land is indeed an island because the backgrounds loop and just in one direction. Just imagine a circle, on the outer rim of this circle are located all beach screens, and in the middle of the circle is the mountain. That's how it should look realistically speaking, unless if it's some sort of ring world. Since KQ1 loop in all direction, that pretty much means KQ1's Daventry is a very tiny planet, or something like that.

[Ali]

But so did pulling on a rock and dying because you were pulling it from the wrong side. I'm looking at you, KQ1!

As someone who did that for the first time last week, my rage still knows no bounds. "The rock rolls downhill and crushes you!" Downhill? There's a downhill now!?

[Ozzie]

Btw, the first one isnt on an island, and only the latter part of 2 is on an island.

Also, KQ2 is in no way a copy of KQ1 except that they have the same main character and incorporate fairy tales, and neither is set on an island.

From a technical point of view, KQ2 is set on an island, two islands if you include the second island. The main land is indeed an island because the backgrounds loop and just in one direction. Just imagine a circle, on the outer rim of this circle are located all beach screens, and in the middle of the circle is the mountain. That's how it should look realistically speaking, unless if it's some sort of ring world. Since KQ1 loop in all direction, that pretty much means KQ1's Daventry is a very tiny planet, or something like that.

Huh? Wasn't that post much more longer initially? Or did I daydream?
You had a valid opinion, so why did you change it???
Whatever...

[Klaz]

Well, in my opinion, QFG3 was worse than QFG5. It was basically a paladin game, not a Quest for Glory game.

[Radiant]

Well, in my opinion, QFG3 was worse than QFG5. It was basically a paladin game, not a Quest for Glory game.

Not true. Try the wizard's duel on for size.