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?
Yeah, Sierra games do have a lot of utterly pointless deaths, like was the case with the many narrow passageways you had to navigate at times in pixel-perfect manner or die by falling off a ledge or something. They often feel like they were added in just to have deaths for death’s sake. Especially the random deaths, like in King’s Quest 1 with the monsters you can run into, the deaths feel more than a bit unfair padding.
But deaths do have their place as well. One of the best examples is the battle against Arnoid in Space Quest 3, where it adds some genuine tension. Imagine the same scene but Arnoid only standing in front of Roger, waiting for him to finally toss the hook to its head. Dying was also a nice touch in Police Quest series, a deserved reward for bungling up an arrest or from a wrong approach on a situation.
Then again, you could die on PQ 1 only because you didn’t check your squad cars tires or by taking your clothes off, so it isn’t all roses either. For all the good deaths, Sierra games do have the tendency to go overboard.
Before I had access to the internet, I had played 11 LucasArts adventures. I had completed all but one of them (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). And 6 of them are in my all-time top 10 of adventure games.
In that same time, I had played 12 Sierra adventures, and passed up the opportunity to play about 12 more. I had completed only 2 of those. None of them wound up in my all-time top 20 (Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers was the first Sierra game to do so, and I played that only a couple of years ago). Heck, Freddy Pharkas was the only game that even got to 4/5 in my scoring back then.
I don’t deny the importance of Sierra for the genre, but if you ask *me* to pick between Sierra and LucasArts, then Sierra doesn’t stand a chance. LucasArts all the way for me.
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
we all know this is the oldest question in the book of adventure gaming, and it doesn’t result nothing, is it like the chicken or the egg, is Tom Cruise with all his big hits was better than Al Pacino with his endless kinda movies that many of sucked. ‘i might not be getting anywhere with that last example, but it was there on the top end my tongue, so dont give much attention’.
Let us accept that Sierra was tackling with a genre that excited but not established, that they came on an established computer gaming ruled by the Arcade genre, whether, from the Atari 2600, or the Arcade Machines.
But two things were mostly the focus of that generation of players, is the High Score and Avoiding Deaths, thus, of course, beating the game, and it is not strange that Sierra when was establishing the genre, the Graphic Adventure genre thought about the 70s generation and all of those of consoles players.
Also, we have to understand that playing a game from the early 80s is like watching a movie from that time, anyone can hardly appreciate the quality of the picture, the lame stories, and slow pace, but tho we the generation of this time well also tell anyone that there are GEMS that came outta the 80s which were absolute masterpieces; the point is that you cant be a generation of ttg, and fall in love with KQ1, simple as that, no matter how open-minded you were.
And if early Sierra games are unplayable today that doesn’t mean anything, bc you would not also go near Pacman or Pong either today, so stop criticizing Sierra for being SO successful.
But to say the Truth as much as Sierra was tackling with Everything that is in gaming and not just Adventure games, they had their many low points but that is easy to understand when we’re talking about around 70 adventure games, it is a big number, no other gaming company came close to that, not to count the other genres games and their educational program, and apps..etc
LucasArts was more about the quality, really but also what LucasArts gave in their lifetime Sierra could have given in one year, but anyways this all comes down to the story Tim Schafer once told that when he met Roberta Williams they joked about how Sierra sold better or more, but LucasArts had more fans and recognition.
I can go on (really) telling about Sierra Failures and Their masterpiece one by one and however the quality of LucasArts games had we will find some of the Sierra 70 adventures are on par with them, but really the only thing that LucasArts has surpassed Sierra at IMHO is LOOM, you go about to play an adventure point and click game to find you were only making Music, and everything is solved by music and how the game always made you think backward, it is something that stands alone in the history not just the adventure Gaming’s but the History Gaming in the most genral way.
we all know this is the oldest question in the book of adventure gaming, and it doesn’t result nothing, is it like the chicken or the egg, is Tom Cruise with all his big hits was better than Al Pacino with his endless kinda movies that many of sucked. ‘i might not be getting anywhere with that last example, but it was there on the top end my tongue, so dont give much attention’.
Let us accept that Sierra was tackling with a genre that excited but not established, that they came on an established computer gaming ruled by the Arcade genre, whether, from the Atari 2600, or the Arcade Machines.
But two things were mostly the focus of that generation of players, is the High Score and Avoiding Deaths, thus, of course, beating the game, and it is not strange that Sierra when was establishing the genre, the Graphic Adventure genre thought about the 70s generation and all of those of consoles players.
Also, we have to understand that playing a game from the early 80s is like watching a movie from that time, anyone can hardly appreciate the quality of the picture, the lame stories, and slow pace, but tho we the generation of this time well also tell anyone that there are GEMS that came outta the 80s which were absolute masterpieces; the point is that you cant be a generation of ttg, and fall in love with KQ1, simple as that, no matter how open-minded you were.
And if early Sierra games are unplayable today that doesn’t mean anything, bc you would not also go near Pacman or Pong either today, so stop criticizing Sierra for being SO successful.But to say the Truth as much as Sierra was tackling with Everything that is in gaming and not just Adventure games, they had their many low points but that is easy to understand when we’re talking about around 70 adventure games, it is a big number, no other gaming company came close to that, not to count the other genres games and their educational program, and apps..etc
LucasArts was more about the quality, really but also what LucasArts gave in their lifetime Sierra could have given in one year, but anyways this all comes down to the story Tim Schafer once told that when he met Roberta Williams they joked about how Sierra sold better or more, but LucasArts had more fans and recognition.
I can go on (really) telling about Sierra Failures and Their masterpiece one by one and however the quality of LucasArts games had we will find some of the Sierra 70 adventures are on par with them, but really the only thing that LucasArts has surpassed Sierra at IMHO is LOOM, you go about to play an adventure point and click game to find you were only making Music, and everything is solved by music and how the game always made you think backward, it is something that stands alone in the history not just the adventure Gaming’s but the History Gaming in the most genral way.
This was a great post. However, I disagree with your opening paragraphs. You clearly are an analytical mind. Why would you suggest that we stop discussing a topic that we are interested in, passionate about subsequently analyzable? The result isn’t a negative outcome. Heck, I learned a great deal of things in this thread and my respect of some of the individuals in this thread increased.
I say let’s ramp it up to 10. That’s my theory on this and any other topic. š.
I appreciate the dialogue my friend. You made some really interesting observations.
YouTube: Weird Gaming Adventure
IG: weird_gaming_adventure
No problems Captain Blondebeard, it just an opinion, and i can also say i had seen this comparison literally 100 of times, and i know how it ends and what is the score, it is like an old match that i had seen many times before, but nevermind, it is a good match anyhow
Also, we have to understand that playing a game from the early 80s is like watching a movie from that time, anyone can hardly appreciate the quality of the picture, the lame stories, and slow pace, but tho we the generation of this time well also tell anyone that there are GEMS that came outta the 80s which were absolute masterpieces;
Movies from the 1980’s, especially 1970’s, and even 1960’s are generally speaking much better than the garbage that they are releasing today.
It’s all about superficial tricks these days, like too fast cuts, unrealistic CGI effects, and unnecessary computer generated lens flares. Just watch any crap that J.J. Abrams has ever done.
Stories used to be much better too, and nowadays the industry just keeps pushing out reboot after reboot because they seriously lack any creativity at all.
There’s no way any studio could release something like Back to the Future these days. A movie which had a story that combined science fiction and comedy, with good actor performances and special effects that beat everything released in the last 10 years.
I don’t know how comparing 80’s games quite relates to it, because by 1980’s gaming industry was nowhere near as established an industry as motion pictures were, although some analogies do fit: these days visual effects in games seem to be much more important than actual story-telling in most cases.
From the adventure point of view the situation is kind of paradoxical: there are more games coming out than ever before, but almost all of them are indie productions which try to recapture the magic that was in games created before.
Gatekeeper, you know you only care to catch a slip in my posts;
why didn’t you complete the paragraph “the point is that you cant be a generation of ttg, and fall in love with KQ1, simple as that, no matter how open-minded you were.”
listen forget about me please, i am nothing, alright!
Advie, you’re our resident Sierra expert, you’re always right no matter what anyone says about it and we appreciate all your words
There’s no way any studio could release something like Back to the Future these days. A movie which had a story that combined science fiction and comedy, with good actor performances and special effects that beat everything released in the last 10 years.
Could you PLEASE send this to the studios responsible for churning out so many terrible Star Trek and Star Wars movies and shows screening currently!
Gatekeeper, you know you only care to catch a slip in my posts;
why didn’t you complete the paragraph “the point is that you cant be a generation of ttg, and fall in love with KQ1, simple as that, no matter how open-minded you were.”
listen forget about me please, i am nothing, alright!
I am confused: you ask me a question, but then tell me to forget you, so are you expecting an answer or not?
But because you asked for it, I think you are on the right track there, even though not entirely correct. Those who first start with TTG adventures can find the original King’s Quest a bit “too much”, but then again that can be said of almost any popular culture.
There are people who only follow what happens to be trendy and popular at the time. Understandable, as that’s basically the dictionary meaning of popular culture.
But to say that new games/movies are better just because they are newer is completely wrong. They may be more familiar to people of that time, and at the time more popular, but not necessarily better.
Personally I think some of the best movies and tv-series were made before I was even born, and I am not at all ashamed to admit that, although especially as a kid I got ridiculed for liking that old stuff. I didn’t care. I liked it, and I still do.
I think if games like King’s Quest were given a fair choice, where new players could approach them completely free of any popularity concerns, they could even today attract new players. Not necessarily the first King’s Quest, as that wasn’t even the best Sierra, but games like Leisure Suit Larry III should still be very playable to those who
1) don’t care about what’s trendy
2) don’t care about HD graphics and visuals
3) don’t mind using parser interface.
I think the last part could be the biggest challenge, because sadly the entire communication paradigm has changed to favour touchscreen style, which has in many cases rendered previously good websites almost unusable.
Let me put it this way then, if someone “open-minded” likes puzzles, would that person be more satisfied going through those nearly 100 Sierra adventures, or playing through the Telltale catalogue where puzzles became fewer and fewer as time went on?
But to say that new games/movies are better just because they are newer is completely wrong. They may be more familiar to people of that time, and at the time more popular, but not necessarily better.
Personally I think some of the best movies and tv-series were made before I was even born, and I am not at all ashamed to admit that, although especially as a kid I got ridiculed for liking that old stuff. I didn’t care. I liked it, and I still do.
you are confused with what i meant when i brought the subject of the 80s movie into the discussion.
Add: THANKS, Luhr for those kind words
Sierra was also a publishing giant, unlike Lucas Arts. And let’s not forget that some adventure companies, like Dynamix flourished only when Ken Williams bought them. Sierra was also, not only much more prolific than Lucas Arts but also much more diverse - you have things like sci-fi Rama, Myst-clones Shivers/Lighthouse, horror games like Phantasmagoria etc. I’m not making a case for Sierra, just saying that it’s not all black&white; about these 2 companies, as strategically they played completely different on the market. While “number to quality” ratio is very much on Lucas Arts side, and while I have more favorite games in the Lucas Arts portfolio, I’d put Gabriel Knight 2 any day, any year… on the top of the list. Leisure Suit Larry 7 is also brutally underrated, while I’m yet to see more ballsy and “cinematic” horror than Phantasmagoria.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwrightās Tale
just saying that it’s not all black&white;
Which is probably why the Sierra vs. LucasArts discussion has been raging for over 25 years, with people on both sides making excellent points.
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
I’m yet to see more ballsy and “cinematic” horror than Phantasmagoria.
Harvester?
Sierra was, in many ways good and bad, one of the first, if not the first, modern game company. Had they survived, I think they could have turned into something like what EA and Ubisoft are now.
Especially during the 80s, Sierra is perhaps the most important western game studio. They pushed forward the technology with their games as well as new approaches, which most devs, Lucasfilm included, followed. But somewhere during the 90s, Sierra became a follower instead of being the leader. Smaller devs managed to surpass them with games like Lara Croft and Doom, which were a paradigm shift the same way Sierra’s Mystery House and King’s Quest had been before.
That’s really why Sierra fell so hard. Other companies managed to utilize the new, emerging technologies faster whereas Sierra couldn’t make them properly work with their games. They simply lacked their own property techs like the Quake or Unreal engine that would have placed them again on the top.
Advie, you’re our resident Sierra expert, you’re always right no matter what anyone says about it and we appreciate all your words
Are you serious? I hope not. He loves their games, he is a big Sierra fan, but he is by no means an expert on Sierra when it comes to FACTS. Let alone our expert. Speak for yourself, not for me, not for AG.
Yes, he’s always right, no matter what anyone says about it, when it comes to OPINIONS. But I certainly don’t appreciate all his words, speak for yourself, not for others.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread