Adventure Gamers - Forums

I love qfg and just finished a mage playthru of the original heroquest. (476 out of 500. I think they are mostly conversation topics i missed, not sure.) 

so now im trying to decide which one to choose next. really enjoyed the typing interface on this playthru so original qfg2 sounds nice, but then again i totally love the remake as well and have only played thru it a few times.

what do you guys think? which is your qfg2 choice after a playthru of 1?  cheers

I prefer the VGA Remake as the combat system is better and it is much harder to get lost in the streets of Shapier.  I also prefer the VGA artwork.

Play the original.

The VGA artwork in the remake is nothing special—for the most part just direct paint-overs of the original EGA art.  And QFG2 is one of those games that loses something without the parser interface, especially in the conversations.  AGDI DID include the option to use parser for conversations, so if you DO play it, I’d highly recommend using that option instead of the oversimplified dialog tree system.

The combat in the remake is interesting—but I’d hardly say “better,” just harder and more complicated.  It’s worth experiencing in its own right though, so I’d suggest playing both eventually.  I personally prefer the simple elegance of the original’s combat, but the VGA remake does include some fun extras and rewards for really exploring the combat system.

And the streets of Shapier—while it is harder to get lost in the remake, it’s also slower to navigate overall because you have to go through multiple screens instead of scrolling.  The scrolling streets in the original are noticeably faster, if you know your way around.  And honestly, once you uncover all the map locations, it’s a moot point.

Anyway, it’s your call.  In my opinion, you’re not missing much by not playing the remake—and in some ways, I see the remake as an inferior version.  I always like to play these games the way they were originally meant to be experienced.  I think the EGA Hero’s Quest is one of the best Sierra games ever made, while Sierra’s VGA remake loses a lot of that charm.  I feel pretty much the same about the AGDI version of QFG2.

I have to say I kind of agree with Lambonius.  I was stuck figuring out which way I wanted to continue and ended up opting for the ega original this time through.

I also agree that the original herosquest is one of the best sierra games (possibly the best).  When adventure games switched to point and click icon-driven-interfaces they really lost something forever i think.  We were just so amazed by the incredibly detailed vga graphics that this didn’t matter lol.

I guess with the higher resolution and detail it wouldnt really be possible to walk around with the keyboard and type things like the interface of the ega-era games but i would love to see someone try to make a game like that.  When we actually had to move with the arrow keys it added a whole new dimension of precision and skill to the gaming experience. In my opinion adventure games weren’t supposed to just be this casual click-your-way through endless dialogue relaxing game experience… They used to be really hard! you could fall off cliffs or die anywhere and had to learn the game and get good enough at it to be able to pass on.

I miss all that. Maybe someday I’ll try to learn a bit of AGS and try to make a qfg-inspired game the way I think it should be.  (I would mostly want to model the gameplay dynamics to the original HQ but in a vga style. Possibly even svga style, I don’t understand why everyone is stuck in blocky 320x, if I made a new game I’d like to try a text parser engine with arrow key movement like the SCI but in full blown high res graphics like spaceventure.) 

anyway got kinda carried away there lol, much love for qfg.  I just blasted through 3 and 4… on to the simlaria… this series never gets old!!

If you think working in 320x240 is EASIER, then you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

It’s an aesthetic choice - much like why a director of a film would choose to shoot on black in white stock, in 4:3 aspect ratio - or on old VistaVision film.  In fact, there are many things it is harder to do with such limitations as only have 320x200 (240) pixels to work with - you become more creative in how you present things.  Your limitations make you more creative sometimes.

It’s easy for anyone to make a bad game at any resolution.  It’s difficult, in general, to make a good game, using the tools that you choose.

Bt

Stick with the originals. I don’t really like the graphics for the QFG2 remake, and the parser is fun in QFG. I always thought QFG lost something when they removed the parser, because it wasn’t frustrating like in many other games - the puzzles were simple and you always knew what to type. I was never stuck in a QFG game until IV.

@Blackthorne: 

While you are right from an artist’s point of view, insofar as good pixel art requires a skillset of its own, Timovieman has a point, too, in my opinion.
For nonprofessionals it’s much easier to get a decent outcome when working in such low resolutions. It simply takes much less time, skill and knowledge to make a decent animated pixelcharacter, for example.
The problems an experienced artist or animator faces when having only a few pixels to express himself normally won’t even occur to a beginner.

I agree that animations are easier the lower the resolution, but I would beg to differ when it comes to background paintings.  In some ways it is, and in some ways it isn’t.  I’ve seen artists with amazing high res stuff who struggle to make a 320x240 background look crisp and detailed.  It’s almost like apples and oranges—there’s really a wholly different set of skills that you have to hone to make good low res art (though of course, there is some crossover—you still need a solid understanding of the basic fundamentals of drawing and painting, and color and light theory, for example.)

I’d say we are pretty much on the same page here.