Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrimsonBlue
I give up. There's obviously people more enlightened than me on Sierra, so I'll step back and just let the nostalgia of all these great games run through my head instead. Sierra and LucasArts, both are great companies, although I think LucasArts have influenced the genre a bit more than Sierra has. Problem was, while they have a fair share of excellent games, there was just overproductive. And while some people might enjoy that, I'd have preferred if they put some more energy to make every title unique. Because, a lot of the time, they just picked up the bow and shot, hoping for a hit. Most of the time they failed, but sometimes they got a lucky bullseye.
As for the games I've played from both companies, they share about the same amount of games on my top ten lists.
So I lost the discussion, I'm defeated. But I still think the LucasArts titles are a lot more diverse than given credit for, as I can't really compare them.
|
I've read the discussing and I just had to add my 2 cents
I also severly disagree with, well about any statement CrimsonBlue made (execpt for the "I lost discussion" part
).
I think Gonchi pointed out most statements and I have to say I agree. What I can't understand is that you still think that Sierra was overproductive. Yes they produced a lot of adventure games in a short period of time (
http://www.vintage-sierra.com/gameList.html) but not all adventure games were done by Sierra itself. Some games came from Dynamix, Cocktel Vision or another partner/daughter company from Sierra. Yes they were all released under the name Sierra but that's it. Also Sierra produced games that the market or the fans wanted. Almost every adventure game was a best seller so if you can keep up the quality, which imho they did, why not produce that amount of adventure games? Mind you that Sierra was a whole lot bigger that LA at that time and that LA was part of George Lucas' companies. So that takes away a bit of the stress related to publishing a best selling game. I read an article somewhere that verified this statement but I can't find the source. I'll edit it when I do.
Also, I severly disagree with your statement that LA influenced the market more that Sierra did. I believe that Sierra started the whole adventure gaming scene with KQ. Also Sierra adapted the newest technology at the time available and implemented it in their games. A few examples;
- KQ started the adventure gaming genre (1984).
- KQ IV - mouse implementation + fully orchestrated midi soundtrack +
support for a wide range of soundcards (1988)
- KQ V - 256 color VGA support (1990). A year later LA came with their first
adventure game (MI2) in 256 colors.
- KQ VI - full cdrom support + professional actors to do voice overs +
Microsoft Windows support (1993).
- KQ VII - High resolution SVGA support for adventure games + cdrom
only (1994).
- Phantasmagoria - One of the first adventure games supporting FMV. Came
on a mind boggeling amount of 7 cd's! (1995).
LA didn't have that big an impact on the hardware behind the adventure games, but I also don't think LA had as big an impact as you would like to think with their adventure games. They produced adventure game gems (except for GF
) but I believe Sierra made a bigger impact on the adventure gaming scene with their succesful franchises and diversity.
I hope a got my point across on this dominantly LA fanboy forum!
