Sierra Vs. LucasArts
 

I know, this is a pretty pointless thread, but before both companies went to hell which was your favourite when they were still making adventure games. Sierra always use to be my favourite adventure company with LucasArts as a pretty close second. Even though the majority of LucasArts adventures were high quality, Sierra had it's fair share of high quality games as well as lots of others. These games that aren't instant classics were pretty good as well. I think Stinger said in his wrap up article in the Top 20 Adventure Games of All-Time that this forum had a LucasArts bias. Is this true? :) I've voted for Sierra.

I think LucasArts games have proven to be more replayable though. Pretty much the only Sierra games that I replay now are the Gabriel Knight trilogy which is sort of different in comparison to the other Sierra adventures. :) These games are pretty damn cool. :)

:pan: :pan: LUCASARTS :pan: :pan:

Yeah I sorta like Lucasarts more.

In my opinion there's no comparison...

I'm unable to enjoy any of sierra's adventures because of all the dying and saving and restoring which can ruin any great adventure IMO.
...and the adventures from lucas arts much higher quality (not always better though) than any other company...

Didn't we do this of these not long ago?

Anyway, gotta go with LucasArts. Sierra cannot be ignored, though, mostly because its games were the inspiration for many future adventures.

Crap. Did we? If you can find the other thread and link it here, the moderators have permission to delete this thread. :)

You can't compare the two. I love both companies, but they did make very different games after all.

It's kind of hard to compare because Sierra released a much higher quantity of adventure games than Lucasarts... I think that if you assess each companies best games it comes out pretty even.

It doesn't have to be based in reality though. It could just be some sort of weird preference based on nostalgia or something. :)

I like both companies old adventuregames, but as AGA said, the games are very different, they can't be compared

I'm a Sierra junkie.

Never even heard of LucasArts back in the day. Dunno why.

-emily

it depends what you want out of a game before you decide which one you like more. lucasarts is more likely to make you laugh your ass off, whereas sierra will make you think more, and probably has a better storyline. there is very little in the way of the best out of the 2, but IMO i prefer sierra.

Except for the occasional Space Quest and King's Quest game I really dislike most Sierra games, so LEC it is.

LucasArts, without a doubt. Very few can measure up to the awesomeness of DOTT, GF, FT, MI and IJATFOA (hehe...).

Mind you, I've ony played the occasional Sierra game. But I didn't really like 'em. Though, I'd love to try the Gabriel Knight games.

The quality of the old LEC games always seemed higher than Sierra's.

But the eyes.... fight the eyes.

While I like games from both, I'm way more of a Sierra addict. But, like i said, I like 'em both.

First LucasArts game played: Afterlife
First Sierra game played: King's Quest 1

I prefer LucasArts. Sierra is good too, but I've found some of their games to be a bit too frustrating. Actually, I think Gabriel Knight, Police Quest, and a few of the Leisure Suit Larrys are the only Sierra games that I really enjoyed, but for LucasArts it's a perfect record.

Spoiler:

I think everybody within the Proverbial Adventuregamers Staff should scream at the top of their lungs that the rest of the staff totally has a Sierra bias - just like the Republicans are doing with the Media they run. If it works for the Republicans it should work here...

Shame on you AGS with your crass impartiality and Sierra bias! Shame on you!

Besides Police Quest 1-3 and the Leisure Suit Larry series, Sierra didn't really have that much to offer me. I was totally addicted to those games, but in the end I liked LucasArts more because of the "impossible to die" feature in most of their adventuregames.

Gabriel Knight came a lot later too, I didn't have a PC at it's time of arrival. And it was only just now I got to play the game through, all three of them.

And the Dynamix games really impressed me, although Willy Beamish was my favourite among them. But not sure if that SHOULD be counted as Sierra, although they are PART of the Sierra family.

I liked Lucasarts better, for a number of reasons...

1: Lucasarts had a better understanding of computer mechanics than Sierra ever did. Sierra started out w/ a few text adventures, and then used a program made by IBM to make their early adventure games. They later had better engines built for them, but it was nothing like Lucasarts, which upgraded its Scumm engine w/ each game.

2: Sierra had too much of a cookie cutter aspect. The games, from the earlier engines all looked practically the same, and had the same sense of humor. Later on, Sierra much improved, and did a fine job at making the games seem far more dissimilar from one another.

3: To many Quest games. Frankly, I wish Sierra would've tried to have been a bit more creative with its series titles.

Sky Warrior Bob

Well, I guess Sierra, even though LucasArts is pretty close. Sierra made the GKs and the King's Quests and I prefer a really mysterious and deep story more than the more humoristic and maybe a little less deeper ones that L.A. makes... I'm not saying that I don't like the L.A.'s stories, I love them, but I just prefer a real, real, real enigma...

OK, Leisure Suit Larry might not be such a mysterious one, but that doesn't count... :P