Quest for Glory 5 Thoughts...

[Klaz]

The wizard and the thief couldn't do as much as the paladin. And the poor fighter is even worse. In fact, the only thing I noticed with the thief was sneaking into the huts and making the thief sign to the rope seller.

[blueskirt]

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

You did not daydream. There are moments where I re-read post I made a few hours earlier and think it sound better in my head than in words, or I tell myself "This is crap" or "Thank you Captain Obvious! ". But I did save the post somewhere, and if you think it had its place, I can always repost it...

Regarding the quality of the KQ series:

KQ1 finally brought adventure games out of IF mess and first person text adventure. I doubt we'd be here without it.

KQ2 however doesn't improvement over the first KQ. Same gratuitous falling to your death sequences that were so awful in the first game, same illogical puzzles, no map, looping backgrounds to get yourself lost worst than any games featuring labyrinths, the game is shorter, KQ1's non-linearity isn't present in KQ2, and unless if I'm mistaken, it's generally considered as the weakest game of the series story speaking. When one take into account that sequels should do better than their predecessors, KQ2 fails at that.

With KQ3, Manannan's house was the only good thing in the entire KQ3. And even then, it had its flaws, yet again falling to your death sequences but on steroids this time, Manannan's popping out of nowhere at specific (and unknown to the player) time to kill the player, silly formula... As for the rest of the game, begining at the pirate ship the game sinks lower than the rest of the series, which kinda nullify the first's part goodness. At least this time, there had a map.

As for KQ5, as Radiant pointed, it's considered as one of the game with the highest number of walking deads ever made, to a point where it merely consist of walking deads.

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

But back on the topic of accepting or denying games, all of this being said about KQ, I don't think the KQ series only consist of 3 games because only 3 of them were actually good, because the 6 first KQ games, careless of how good or bad you may find them, consist as the basis of what KQ is actually. There's no precise formula to determine which games should be accepted or denied, it's simply an individual case by case process. But usually, if the game has one of the condition listed below:

The game isn't made by someone close to the original creating process or the original creator
The game retcon some events
The game doesn't has the same feel and atmosphere
The game try to change the formula too much (New genre, aim for a completly different public)
The game's quality is ways too much subpar to the series' overall quality

Then there are big chances that it will be denied by some. And with at least the 6 first King's Quest, it's more or less the same team behind it, there's no retcon, the same atmosphere is preserved and even improved, the formula remains the same, and the game's quality is somehow consistant: you either love all games, or hate the series except KQ6. MOE however changed the formula and atmosphere, thus the door is open regarding accepting or denying its place in the series. It's the same for QFG5, CMI and EMI, the past and recent Indiana Jones action games, Star Trek Enterprise or the second Zelda game.

Regarding QFG3, while it's was mostly an initiation for the paladin and it was rather empty for the other classes, particuliary for the thief, I do think all of the classes can learn a lesson about honor and peace, and the game, while subpar to the series, was still above the average of most adventure games.

[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. 

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.

I was just trying to say that the creators of MI4 are decent game creators in their own right, but I mostly don't like the way MI4 was handled. My comment was not a jab at any other developer. I could barely name another developer outside of LucasArts when it comes to adventure games.

[cosmicr]

I wasn't even born when that game was released

say no more! people will hate me for this but - I dont deem people worthy of judging these games if they werent around at the time of the original release, as their views are tainted but what passes as a decent game these days. Its like me judging pac-man or space invaders. I was in nappies(diapers for americans) when they came out so who am I to judge them for their original value?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Well, I can still appreciate Casablanca and the original King Kong, and on top of my to-see list is Lang's Metropolis.

Similarly, I had a lot of fun with Sierra's AGI games, and Gateway was perfect for me.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But then, if you go around deeming people worthy of this and not worthy of that, you understand someone is bound to ask: "And who are you, exactly, to deem people worthy of it or anything else? And why shouldn't someone be able to appreciate "oldies"?"

Basically, if people couldn't appreciate the oldie games, then there would be no classics, yes? However, this entire community appreciates oldies. And the community keeps on growing, there are always new members coming.

[voh]

And one Gabriel Knight game. ¬¬

*cough*

I would say there were 2 and a half, because 3 was mildly enjoyable while the first two were awesome in their own respective rights.

[Ozzie]

I wasn't even born when that game was released

say no more! people will hate me for this but - I dont deem people worthy of judging these games if they werent around at the time of the original release, as their views are tainted but what passes as a decent game these days. Its like me judging pac-man or space invaders. I was in nappies(diapers for americans) when they came out so who am I to judge them for their original value?

LOL!
Actually, I think Pacman is still enjoyable to this day. And I also like the old Infocom classics while most of them were released before I was born.
But the first KQ1 didn't age very well in my opinion.
I could say myself that you are just victim of nostalgia and that's the reason why you can't have a neutral view of these games. That might be the reason.

[cosmicr]

I could say myself that you are just victim of nostalgia and that's the reason why you can't have a neutral view of these games. That might be the reason.

quite possibly. dont get me wrong - I still enjoy those other games before my time too. But my point was I feel that people can often rate games badly because they have seen many better games since.  I'm sure that some games are timeless, just like movies though. I hope I didnt offend anyone!

[Afflict]

And one Gabriel Knight game. ¬¬

*cough*

I would say there were 2 and a half, because 3 was mildly enjoyable while the first two were awesome in their own respective rights.

There were definitely 2 Gabriel Knights, I bought the third one and couldn't even get myself past the 15 minute point I might fire it up again.