Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts
-
No new posts
Currently online
Lucasarts vs SIERRA: Who made the best Adventures?
I remembered later that Sierra actually had some experimentation and innovation that LucasArts never had. For instance, in The Colonel’s Bequest the game time keeps ticking and some events in the game happen based on that, and the player may witness or miss some events completely. That really didn’t work as well as they probably intended, but LucasArts never had anything like that.
One thing that very often gets overlooked and forgotten is how in Quest for Glory series you can import the character from one game to another, which is a feature that is rare even today, decades later.
LucasArts innovation was much more limited, like changing the action verbs from a grid of buttons into an action wheel.
Also, Sierra had some experimentations with FMV, some people maybe wish they didn’t, but I think those should count for something. If we go very deep into this, LucasArts actually did FMV, like in Star Wars: Rebel Assault, but they never did that in adventure games, only Star Wars games.
And that also brings up another discussion point altogether, most LucasArts games are Star Wars games, not adventures, so the percentage that adventures were of all games was much higher with Sierra.
Anyway, to answer the question (that no one in the thread has answered yet actually) who was better, I would say LucasArts. I simply have more fun playing their games, and I think The Secret of Monkey Island would be enough to make them the winner here.
Lucas art for me without any question
I hate dying in games and like to wander around and find my bearings without fear
Lucas art for me without any question
I hate dying in games and like to wander around and find my bearings without fear
One could say that’s your problem, not Sierra’s. No one is dying in Sierra games. All that’s happening is a bunch of pixels are being rearranged, with a pop-up declaring that something has happened to those pixels. A character that never existed, continues to not exist.
Which is not a whole lot different from real life, come to think of it
Here is a question to everyone. Did you all enjoy the deaths in the Sierra games? I hated the dead ends but I LOVED the deaths.
YouTube: Weird Gaming Adventure
IG: weird_gaming_adventure
I think it’s fair to assume a lot of people, if not most of them, hate dead ends, especially the kind of Sierra had, where you have no idea you have messed up and end up wasting a lot of time trying to figure out a puzzle you can’t win because you missed an item hours back.
But as far as deaths go, I like them if they are fair and come in as a punishment of doing something utterly stupid that should lead to dying. I really liked how deaths were implemented on the recent Larry game Wet Dreams Don’t Dry. You can die on a couple of spots there, you get a death screen and all, but you are then returned to a moment before you messed up.
It really depends on the death, so it’s case by case really.
There are some very unfair deaths in some Sierra games, you simply enter some place at the wrong time and you’re dead. That’s not so good.
Some others were OK, like if you see a potential danger, but choose not to save the game and go there anyway, you kind of got what you deserved. One of the best cases is in Space Quest 6 when “Arnold” says “you go now and I don’t rearrange your internal organs”, if that’s not your cue to exit, then I don’t know what would be.
I think the first Broken Sword got deaths right. There were very few, and there was always time to react, and they made mostly sense too. That’s not Sierra of course, but just saying that.
I loved them all, even the most random ones. Sometime in the 90s the Lucasarts fans came up with this idea that deaths are “arbitrary” or “unfair” in adventure games, despite every other genre having them and despite the ability to save your game right before the death. It was an extra challenge, it kept you on your toes, sometimes it was foreseeable sometimes not, but I didn’t care. It made you think anything could happen.
I loved them all, even the most random ones. Sometime in the 90s the Lucasarts fans came up with this idea that deaths are “arbitrary” or “unfair” in adventure games
There are unfair and stupid deaths in other genres too.
One of the worst cases is how in some FPS games the enemy assault is triggered by going over an invisible line. I once tested this (I forget the game), and moved forward almost pixel by pixel. And when going over a single spot, the enemies attacked no matter how you approached the situation.
Another thing is how NPC enemies know your position even if they shouldn’t. If you are standing behind a wall, and don’t make any noise, and then all of a sudden they come to get you anyway, it’s clear that it’s unfairly scripted.
So there are many cases where the computer is playing unfairly, it’s not a problem limited to Sierra adventures.
Don’t even get me started on how those other cars drive very unfairly on invisible tracks in Gran Turismo…
It sounds like you’ve decided on a rule that video game rules must be in accordance with the world’s (agreed upon) rules, and if they aren’t, they’re unfair.
If so, most puzzles in your beloved Monkey Island would be unfair, no? I’ve never heard of insults winning anybody a swordfight in real life…
It sounds like you’ve decided on a rule that video game rules must be in accordance with the world’s (agreed upon) rules, and if they aren’t, they’re unfair.
I would at least expect games to be playing on their own rules.
For instance, if some enemy wave is triggered by going over an invisible line, then by this world’s logic there should be enemies hiding behind some barrels or whatever?
But if you throw a grenade behind that barrel and no one dies, and no one even comes to check things out, but if you cross that invisible line and then enemies jump up from behind that same barrel, is that fair? At all?
It can work as a brainless shooting exercise, but it doesn’t work very well.
The same goes for stupid limitations in adventure games. If you need to break a window, and have a rock in the inventory, but for whatever reason can’t use that and must have a specific another item to break the window with, that’s just stupid.
If so, most puzzles in your beloved Monkey Island would be unfair, no? I’ve never heard of insults winning anybody a swordfight in real life…
The Secret of Monkey Island is a perfect example of how to create a challenging, but very fair game. In fact, the game is all the time telling you what to do, but never giving exact answers.
From the very first lines that Guybrush says, he tells who he is, and what the goal of the game is. Few lines later, he and the player get to know where to go, the Scumm Bar. In Scumm Bar, there are very clear instructions on what the next steps will be, and so on.
The insult fighting is very fair too. The player knows all the time, from the very first encounter, that insults are needed to win those fights. The challenge then becomes, how to learn those insults?
There are some stupid things in Monkey Island, like I could ditch the rowboat parts, but I have never felt that the game is doing something that the player couldn’t reasonably anticipate.
There are some stupid things in Monkey Island, like I could ditch the rowboat parts, but I have never felt that the game is doing something that the player couldn’t reasonably anticipate.
Which got criticism back then for being too easy.
(By others, not me )
Look, I get your point, and I agree with your stance on dead ends and deaths, as well as the use of inventory items. Dead ends are just unfair, deaths can be handled well (Broken Sword is an excellent example), and if a window needs breaking, then both the baseball bat, the rock and the crowbar in my inventory should work, not just the gold brick from the safe.
This of course also means that I have always been a massive lover of LucasArts games, while not necessarily being a big fan of Sierra (especially their earlier games).
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
It sounds like you’ve decided on a rule that video game rules must be in accordance with the world’s (agreed upon) rules, and if they aren’t, they’re unfair.
I would at least expect games to be playing on their own rules.
For instance, if some enemy wave is triggered by going over an invisible line, then by this world’s logic there should be enemies hiding behind some barrels or whatever?
But if you throw a grenade behind that barrel and no one dies, and no one even comes to check things out, but if you cross that invisible line and then enemies jump up from behind that same barrel, is that fair? At all?It can work as a brainless shooting exercise, but it doesn’t work very well.
The same goes for stupid limitations in adventure games. If you need to break a window, and have a rock in the inventory, but for whatever reason can’t use that and must have a specific another item to break the window with, that’s just stupid.
Well, okay. It’s hard for me to know because I don’t play FPS games. I would have thought in any game the computer cheats, in so far as it’s not going through the same reasoning process as the player.
These examples are all part of why I found FPS games frustrating. I wasn’t aware there are ones that don’t cheat.
Back to the original topic, I don’t think it’s even close. If I had to erase one company from existence, between the two it would be Lucasarts. Easy.
Sierra had a massive catalogue to choose from, a huge range from RPGs to some of the best edutainment titles ever made.
Lucasarts in comparison just had a couple of good games. AND they inspired a generation of lazy, unimaginative copycats, who thought making an adventure game was about throwing in as many bad jokes as possible.
Sierra’s deaths were a blend of arbitrary and non arbitrary commitments. I believe they wrote most of the deaths into the story, not to punish you but as a PART of the story.
To quote Robin Williams in Hook - ” death is the greatest adventure “. In my opinion, most of the games would not be as fun without enjoying the countless ways to die. All of them were oddly satisfying due to an clever joke. I personally sought after every opportunity to die. They never affected me as much because when I play games, I’m a habitual saver. If I’m playing a fps, you will never find me with without a loaded clip.
YouTube: Weird Gaming Adventure
IG: weird_gaming_adventure
Nice videos! Some valid points were made. And while Loom and Grim Fandango are indeed very unique, and Monkey Island is probably my favourite adventure, I’d still choose Sierra over LucasArts. Like you said, the number of their titles is incredible. I first encountered Sierra somewhere in the mid-1990s (it was either a Larry of a King’s Quest remake), and only this summer I discovered Shivers 2 which I loved. And while it’s also part of mini-series, it’s nothing like other Sierra titles.
Same goes for Gabriel Knight, Quest for Glory, Larry, Police Quest, Laura Bow, etc. All of them were developed by different people with different design philosophy and writing skills. Maybe they were made to follow some basic “Sierra template”, but I don’t think it’s fair to make generalizations like “all Sierra games had illogical puzzles/undeveloped characters”. Compare Conquests of the Longbow to King’s Quest: similar fantasy worlds, but completely different approaches to design and storytelling. Phantasmagoria and Gabriel 2. King’s Quest 7 and Larry 7. And so on.
Games by LucasArts might be more polished or better written (though I prefer Jane Jensen and the Coles over Tim Schafer), but Sierra had more depth due to open worlds, freedom of exploration/interaction, narration, even deaths and dead ends which are also part of choosing your adventure which I miss in modern games. LucasArts did a lot of things right, but also played a big part in simplifying the genre.
When fans praise The Fate of Atlantis for its multiple paths, I think Quest for Glory which did this earlier and much better imho as you were encouraged to follow the path you chose, not forced or limited to certain tasks. Same goes for deaths which were part of fun as already mentioned, hotspots vs. invisible hotspots and some other design choices. Already by 1994 Sierra was forced to go the LucasArts way by simplifying their games to appeal to masses. And this is also what makes Sierra unique. Despite all the imaginative worlds and characters, you can always say: “This is a LucasArts adventure”. Sierra games are far more varied, to better or worse.
PC means personal computer
Deaths I don’t care too much about - although I generally find them stupid; what do they achieve except a reload? Why waste my time on this? In other genres, death means I need to improve; aim better, use different tactics, whatever. But in p&c it’s just “this didn’t work, try something else” - but I know that just by something not working anyway.
I also really hate stuff like the chandelier in Colonel’s Bequest which is just there as a trap PERMANENTLY so even if you figure it out and are hours into the game ... you might just carelessly stroll there. It adds nothing.
It’d be different if there were actually meaningful game mechanics attached to them but I can’t say anything comes to mind. And the “jokes” around them generally aren’t my cup of tea. Basically, they are just there to make you compulsively save.
But while that’s just a bit of a nuisance dead ends, to me, are “throw the game in the corner and never play anything by that game designer again” game design sins.
That alone basically disqualifies Sierra for me; although of course not all of their games have dead ends. But too many to be forgivable ^^
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread