An embarassing confession...

[Ponch]

I've never fully played a game by Technocrat.

You should. They're not just good, they're the technocratiest! 

[Secret Fawful]

My mind blanks when I see people bashing Sierra. No, I don't hate anybody, and my anger is not personal, as once I see the bashing everyone gets clumped together in an "evil Sierra hater" collective, but I bet anything that the things that you people consider flaws I consider great strengths in gameplay, because I have thought it out. I really don't care how much the game frustrates the player or rips the player apart as long as it's winnable in the long run. I consider Gold Rush and Leisure Suit Larry III masterpieces of adventure game design. And to be fair, when I said Sierra games shouldn't be called mediocre, I forgot about Phantasmagoria 2, which I will definitely be the first to call mediocre. I hate Leisure Suit Larry 6 and I don't care to play 7 and on. 5 isn't mediocre but it's the least of the best of the series. People who say the parser games or the QFG games are bad will find themselves in a fight with me. And the parser games are the worst of them all by the popular opinion. So when I see the bashing, the first thing I think of is the parser games. I'll apologize for my rashness, but never for my "blind Sierra fanboyism".

I don't like it when people say a game is bad just because they couldn't handle it. From an objective standpoint, this is the idiot's opinion to me. I remember a time when Sierra games were revered for their death sequences and people played them 50% because they wanted to see all the random and hilarious ways you could die. I don't see any of those people anywhere anymore, and apparently having the opinion that these deaths were bad poorly-thought-out game design is cool now or something.

But truthfully, 75% of the reason I'm backing down is because I greatly respect Mark. Even if Kinky Island doesn't have a random plant that finds you and kills you within 15 minutes, with no possible way to escape.

[m0ds]

Hopefully it's not all attributed to design and such, I mean - it's not for me. Yes I dislike text parser, but personally with Sierra it's more about the directions of the stories. Strangely when I was younger I had no interest in playing the role of a "king" or as a "spaceman" or as a sex addict with a head five times larger than his body. It was just all too "off the wall" for me as a younger player.

And I'd already had misconceptions about movies with 5 sequels, so when I saw LEC games were standalone titles and Sierra had 5 games under each title, I didn't consider this was because it was popular, moreso that Sierra were failing to create a decent, one-off standalone game. There was no fun being 12 and thinking, "Well, I can either play one full length original title, or I can play one Sierra game, and then have to fork out another £100 for the 5 sequels to find out what happens". I don't deny they brought a lot of joy to people. And some of these AGS remakes are really tempting... There are so many old adventures I still really want to play (cos I never have) but still for some reason I just don't feel bothered if I die without ever having played a Sierra adventure..

It's natural to have a Sierra/other brand argument at least once a year, at least to just remind you that you are an age-d adventure gamer of some sort

Ponch: I will try and have a technotastic time soon!

[Secret Fawful]

It's not all about design, but to an extent, most of my respect for the games comes from their uncompromising design. In the case of games like Gold Rush, uncompromising is an understatement. I'm nowhere near an aged adventurer...not like most here probably are. I love Sierra and Lucasarts equally, with some other companies thrown in as equals, but I never played an adventure game until the year 2000. Of course I was nine then, so starting from an early age helped give me a similar amount of nostalgia and love for the genre. But my arguments for Sierra themselves stem from a recent place. I'm one of these weird guys that thinks that adventure games got dumbed down more and more and more and more as the years went on because people believed the genre needed simplification. Oh well, back to playing Moonmist for me, I guess.

You won't find me saying Sierra is better than Lucasarts or some AGS games I've played, but I will never agree to say they're worse either.

[Babar]

It makes me sad when I occasionally see the obsessive hatred against Sierra (or King's Quest specifically), but I figure they're hated so much because they were so popular back then.

I guess the two complaints most often levelled against them is that the stories are generic and bland, and that the puzzle design is horrendous.

The original King's Quest games WERE perhaps a bit bland. But this was the beginnings of the genre, when admittedly, they probably focused more on the idea of them having graphics than creating a detailed and involving world and story. I'd say King's Quest 5 and 6 (and even 4, I guess) had some greatly enjoyable and involving worlds. Sure, they picked up and used generic fairy-tale tropes (wicked witch in the woods, Ice Queen in her fortress, etc.), but that was their shtick!

The other issue people have with the games is their horrible puzzle design, which, if you play those games now, is pretty hard to deny. But while I disagree mostly with what he considers a good game, he may be absolutely correct in that that may be intentionally how they designed it, and it definitely is what many people expected, hence the "Save early, save often". Again, I myself admit that some of the Sierra games had sub-par puzzle design, but for quite a bit of their stuff (for example KQ5, which people here seem to hate for that reason), the other things made up for it, sometimes even within the puzzle design. For example, I absolutely loved the final battle in King's Quest V!

I suppose, again, since they were so popular, they get extra flak for that, but quite a few adventure games (KGB, Starship Titanic, Kyrandia 1 and maybe 2, Dark Seed, etc.), had it even worse, and are still understood to be great (outside of the puzzle design, obviously, or sometimes because of it).

[miguel]

I get a bit upset when critics (GameSpot, etc...) rate GK3 with no more than 6 stars out of 10. Even Tim Curry gets a bash with the voice over Gabriel. The reviews criticise all the things that I loved about the game. And I'm still waiting for THAT feeling of being on a village, in France, solving templar myth riddles and puzzles. Was it me that played the game at the right time to play it? I remember that getting away from the common fantasy element of MI and the likes felt really refreshing to me.

As for the topic issue, I guess I've played most of the games out there, from classics till Gray Matter more or less, and I do agree that adventure game players don't have to try that hard to finish a modern game. And that's bad, IMO.

Sierra's KQ belong to a era where things were pretty different and when looking at them we must distance ourselves.

[Ali]

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.

[Khris]

All valid points, but I don't dislike Sierra games for their stories or puzzles, I dislike them because of what they probably considered providing a challenge and realism simply ends up as frustration in the long run.

I don't think that killing off the player is bad in general, but doing so casually, and arbitrarily, is another story. KQ3 required you to walk down and back up the mountain path multiple times, under a time constraint. But if you walked a single pixel too close to the edge, you die, instantly. I don't think I need to explain why this is obnoxious.

Another obvious flaw is walking-deads. I like a challenge, and I'm not one who refers to a walkthrough after being stuck for five minutes. But knowing that basically at any time, it might not even be possible any longer to find the one missing interaction that will advance the game instantly kills any fun I might have.

To me, this isn't a question of era or personal taste, it's simply a dealbreaker. And it already was one back in 1980, in my opinion. It just took Sierra way too long to realize that, so it became sort of a charming feature in the minds of the fan(boy)s.

[Anian]

All valid points, but I don't dislike Sierra games for their stories or puzzles, I dislike them because of what they probably considered providing a challenge and realism simply ends up as frustration in the long run.

I don't think that killing off the player is bad in general, but doing so casually, and arbitrarily, is another story. KQ3 required you to walk down and back up the mountain path multiple times, under a time constraint. But if you walked a single pixel too close to the edge, you die, instantly. I don't think I need to explain why this is obnoxious.

Another obvious flaw is walking-deads. I like a challenge, and I'm not one who refers to a walkthrough after being stuck for five minutes. But knowing that basically at any time, it might not even be possible any longer to find the one missing interaction that will advance the game instantly kills any fun I might have.

To me, this isn't a question of era or personal taste, it's simply a dealbreaker. And it already was one back in 1980, in my opinion. It just took Sierra way too long to realize that, so it became sort of a charming feature in the minds of the fan(boy)s.

+1

[Secret Fawful]

I like how if you disagree with the complaints against Sierra, you're a Sierra fanboy. It's like, you can only like one (Sierra) or the other(Lucasarts), but you can't like both. That's complete bullshit.

[Eric]

I like how if you disagree with the complaints against Sierra, you're a Sierra fanboy. It's like, you can only like one (Sierra) or the other(Lucasarts), but you can't like both. That's complete bullshit.

I don't think anyone has ostracized you for liking Sierra games. Much the opposite, you seem to take umbrage at anyone questioning the quality of Sierra games at all, lumping them into a collective faceless class of "you people" that you don't hate individually, but as a whole. These are game designers questioning the design decisions that led to, in their opinion, sub-par games. They're not attacking your religion (unless your religion is Sierra, which would make Leisure Suit Larry the Pope?).

as once I see the bashing everyone gets clumped together in an "evil Sierra hater" collective, but I bet anything that the things that you people consider flaws I consider great strengths in gameplay

[Secret Fawful]

Yep. I take umbrage. Lots and lots of umbrage. Don't know what umbrage is but I take plenty of it. Too much talent went into these games to call them bad or even sub-par, and it's taken people like AGDI years to remake even one of them, so complex are they. I'm not so much on the offensive here, as I'm on the defensive. And I don't see why I should back down at all. These people made games the way they wanted, and they thought out every aspect. You guys call it bad because it frustrated you or you didn't have fun, or because you were generally inept at the games. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how the game should be engineered to suit you. I think games should be engineered just as much to give you a finish point you can get to as it should be engineered to defeat or best you. Exploration is dangerous, and good adventure games should have good exploration. Deaths don't have to be there, but I prefer it when they are. I prefer adventuring in a hazardous environment. I prefer it when things don't always go according to plan. I prefer games that require trial and error to solve. I can't count how many times I've had to start text adventures over, figuring out each step until the finish. And what's wrong with that? Gamers have gotten far too cushy for me. They feel they're entitled to quick solutions. I respect Sierra games and earlier adventures because they spit in the face of this idea. I'm not saying this pointing fingers at anyone here. To be fair, this is a pretentious idea, but I'm a pretentious bastard.

Honestly, this topic scares and frustrates me. I came here to make games under such design philosophies, but this leaves me wondering, as a designer, who exactly I'm making games for. Because I don't think anyone here would play any game I would make if they wouldn't play a game like Gold Rush or Kings Quest III. And what about the remakes by AGDI and Infamous? These are nowhere near mediocre. These games are some of the best to come out of AGS and deserve every bit of respect they can get. I agree that walking deads are bad...but I've never played a Sierra game that had more than one...I'm probably forgetting one, and I honestly can not say that one bad puzzle makes an entire game bad. Full Throttle had an incredibly obscure puzzle...and so did Monkey Island 1 and 2....those aren't considered bad games.

[Eric]

Well, it just strikes me that if you're not willing to approach the situation with civility yourself, it doesn't make sense for you to pretend like it's everyone else who's being uncivil.

Games are part of the great cluster of media for which judgments of quality are subjective. If people didn't enjoy Sierra games, you can't force them to like them. I haven't played many myself, a few Leisure Suit Larries, and a Police Quest. But those didn't provide me with the enthralling experiences that other games did, so I didn't feel the need to return to Sierra myself.

I don't hate you for liking Sierra games, and if anyone is identifying you as a Sierra fanboy, it's because of your frankly over-the-top responses to what is, in the end, subjective criticism. To you, Sierra is the pinnacle. To others, they were lesser games. That doesn't mean you're a horrible person for liking them, any more than it means that others are horrible people for not liking them. It just means we're human beings with different tastes, goals and ideologies when it comes to games.

Maybe you should join forces with the guy who's attempting a King's Quest multiplayer game. Your love of Sierra seems to be matched by him.

[Anian]

Really, Fawful, nobody here's it "attacking" Sierra games, but a lot of people don't like some aspects of gameplay they offered. Yes, it does give weight to a game when you can fail. But there are a lot of cases in Sierra games where you failed without it being obvious you are about to fail or you don't even know when you failed until some time later. Plus there is a bit to the fact that if you get frustrated it really tints the experience.Also, what is the opinion that not liking Sierra games, makes me somebody who can't handle a difficult puzzle?

Adventuring should be dangerous, but in an adventure game that offers exploration, it's not really fair if that exploration causes death. What if every time you examined something, your computer crashes, would that still be fun? What if you just played for 3 hours only to find out you cannot progress because 3h ago you didn't do something or, even worse, you weren't at a certain location. Yes, that maybe makes it realistic, but it doesn't really make it fun nor does it offer immersion for me.

It's not bashing if you don't like something.

[Secret Fawful]

@Eric: Ew. I hate how you say a love of Sierra like it's a bad thing. Sierra isn't the pinnacle to me. It's simply equal to Lucasarts and Infocom and Infogrames and such- and it strikes me since I backtracked on my first statement I've been very civil. My responses are well reasoned. Are they over-the-top because they're long and defensive? I have a lot to say on the matter and I have a perfect right to be defensive on the matter.  

It just means we're human beings with different tastes, goals and ideologies when it comes to games.

Wait a minute. This idea hasn't been applied even once so far in this topic. People have done nothing but call Sierra subpar and mediocre and bad, and I've been doing nothing but argue for the idea that Sierra isn't bad because it runs under a different ideaology and philosophy of game design. It seems like all of the most important things I've said have been brushed over and ignored in an attempt to make this about me. That irritates the shit out of me. I mean, I started it, but apparently the fact I backtracked on my statement regarding respect doesn't really matter?

Really, Fawful, nobody here's it "attacking" Sierra games, but a lot of people don't like some aspects of gameplay they offered. Yes, it does give weight to a game when you can fail. But there are a lot of cases in Sierra games where you failed without it being obvious you are about to fail or you don't even know when you failed until some time later.

I can't think of a Sierra game that does this more than once. KQ5 with the cat. LSL3 with the locker. I know I'm forgetting instances, but my memory is poor, so feel free to list ones I've forgotten.

Also, what is the opinion that not liking Sierra games, makes me somebody who can't handle a difficult puzzle?

I really hate how I went out of my way to say that I wasn't saying this in my post and it was entirely ignored.

Adventuring should be dangerous, but in an adventure game that offers exploration, it's not really fair if that exploration causes death. What if every time you examined something, your computer crashes, would that still be fun?

That's not really....a good comparison, but okay. I have played a game to the finish that crashed on me every time I moved from room to room. I still enjoyed the game, and I consider it a near masterpiece, even if my computer hated it. It just wasn't the game's fault.

What if you just played for 3 hours only to find out you cannot progress because 3h ago you didn't do something or, even worse, you weren't at a certain location. Yes, that maybe makes it realistic, but it doesn't really make it fun nor does it offer immersion for me.

This is a valid point, but it's a level of difficulty I enjoy. I admit in this case, this is just my personal taste. However...calling a game bad because you didn't have fun....doesn't work? I can't get myself to finish Grim Fandango, but I still LOVE everything about the game.

It's not bashing if you don't like something.

No, but not liking something often leads to bashing. I don't like Citizen Kane but I acknowledge it as a great piece of filmmaking.

[Khris]

I agree that walking deads are bad...

See, we are in agreement.
The only difference between us is that you still love the games and have great respect for the designers, while I turned to LucasArts and Revolution games because they specifically chose to follow the "fun > realism" philosophy I happen to share.

I could have been more diplomatic in my first post but I simply assumed that Technocrat would much rather find out about the gameplay "features" before getting hopelessly stuck.

Also, I already can't stand having to replay the 15 seconds since the last checkpoint over and over again, and replaying long portions of a slow paced game like an adventure is simply out of the question.

(And just to clarify, when I said fanboy, I was talking about people who are so in love that they can't even admit the existence of a single flaw. By that definition, you clearly aren't one.)

Edit: You did mention "inept", and when you raved about Sierra, what we hear is that other companies put less work/creativity/innovation/whatever in their games, which isn't true.
And since Goldrush was mentioned, if you don't pick up an item at the very beginning, the game is unwinnable at the very end.
Sierra games have plenty of walking deads, one per game is definitely an understatement.

[Secret Fawful]

I still say the pros outweigh the cons. Well, I've said my peace, but I could have said it better. Chock it up to my terrible debating skills and my thoughtless rashness. I'm not out to make anything personal, I just jump to the gun too quick when I have a disagreement. I actually greatly respect this community. I wouldn't be here if I didn't, and there is a lot of talent here. I'd just as quickly jump to defend this place as I would to defend Sierra. I apologize for my uncivility.

[LimpingFish]

Oh, just to clarify my stance on Sierra:

A number of LucasArt's titles are just as undeserving of universal praise. Revolution made two good games, and a whole bunch of mediocre ones. And, in general, 75% of all the adventure games I've ever played range from terrible to average.

Hooray for opinions!

[blueskirt]

I can't think of a Sierra game that does this more than once. KQ5 with the cat. LSL3 with the locker. I know I'm forgetting instances, but my memory is poor, so feel free to list ones I've forgotten.

Let's take Space Quest I as an example because I'm familiar with it. You can get screwed up if you:

Spoiler

Forget to get the cartridge and/or translator before leaving the Arcada,
Forget to get the glass shard before entering the cave,
Cross the stone bridge twice without killing the Orat,
Forget to read the cartridge,
Forget to pick it up again,
Get your skimmer stolen,
Leave Ulence Flats without the jetpack and/or the coordinates to the Deltaur,
Miss your chance to pick up a grenade.

[close]

That's ten just in the same game.
Space Quest II? Which I replayed last month...

Spoiler

Forget to rescue the Pinkunz,
Don't get the Labion Terror Beast mating whistle,
Don't get the spore,
Don't find up the gem,
Tie the rope to the stump instead of the log,
Forget to pick up the gem when it falls from your hand,
Don't pick up the glass cutter,
Don't stop the clone invasion.

[close]

Eight.
King's Quest V? Oh, that one is a bit fuzzier...

Spoiler

Don't rescue the mouse,
Forget the gold coin and/or the lamp in Ali Baba's cavern,
Get stuck in the forest without the honeycomb,
Eat the pie,
Tie the rope to the stump instead of the rock,
Forget to get a piece of crystal in the Yeti's cave,
Forget to get the necklace in the nest,
Forget the hook on the harpies' island,
Go in Mordack's castle without saving Cedric, (I'm not sure about this one)
Don't pick up the cheese on your first visit in Mordack's dungeon.

[close]

Eleven. I probably missed or got one wrong. I'm much less familiar with this one, and I know there's a bunch of hidden flags before you can get past the snake.

And to clarify my post, a whole lot of Sierra games are flawed. Sometimes the pros outshine the flaws, other times, it's the other way around. Sierra made plenty of awesome games but they also made some mediocre and bad games. Like you, I find the notion that all Sierra games are mediocre/bad to be ludicrous, but I also find the notion that all their games are brilliant to be just as ludicrous. Sometimes you just need to compare them with other games in the same series to notice a disparity in term of quality.

And on the Sierra versus LucasArts rivalry, I think, and it's just my opinion, that most LucasArts adventure games are superior than most Sierra adventure games, but I have a little bit more respect for Sierra because it was a company with employees to pay and ends to meet, they had to diversify their activities and push hardware, LucasArts was much more like a fun project for LucasFilm, and they could afford to spend more time designing and polishing their games. And yet, I don't have as much fun discussing LucasArts adventure games as I do with Sierra. I love Monkey Island, but I never registered on a forum to talk about it. Sierra however I love to discuss. Probably because I have more fun talking about flaws.

Oh, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is easily LucasArts' most flawed, most player unfriendly, most badly implemented game LucasArts ever made. It's objectively a mediocre even bad game which I love dearly. Even more than Fate of Atlantis. Which is no doubt superior to The Last Crusade. Yet, The Last Crusade had this awesome multi linearity aspect which they completely butchered in the sequel. And I love to talk about it all the time on m0ds' forum because I hope Fountain of Youth will steal some elements from it, and better implement them.

Oh, and Leisure Suit Larry VII is awesome, and you should give it a try, because that crazy Al Lowe implemented a text parser in addition to the point and click interface. And you can try and type all kind of verbs in addition to the context sensitive verbs the point and click interface gives you, for extra jokes, although it's no IF game.

Oh, and m0ds, if you want, I'm pretty sure we could write you a list of Sierra games that are player friendly, worth playing and have stand alone plots.

[Secret Fawful]

I did get some of those dead ends, like the crystal in the yeti cave, but I entirely forgot about them.