Favorite Sierra adventure?

[manossg]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Are you aware of any instances of this evil design trope in Sierra's games? I'm aiming to finally play many of those I've never had, and wouldn't mind being forewarned.

Oh, mate, you're in for a treat in the 'dead man walking' trope in Sierra's games, especially the earliest ones. From memory, Larry 1-3 all had these, as well as KQ 1-6 and IIRC some of the SQ and PQ too.

[dreadnought]

Really? I actually finished first Larry/Space Quest on my own, don't recall any such instances (though might've gotten lucky or have fuzzy memory).

[manossg]

From the top of my head, LSL 1 if you don't get the ribbon in the hotel room, LSL 2 if you don't get a pamphlet before getting in the plane, LSL 3 if you don't get all the clothes before you enter the maze.

[grelbfarlk]

LSL6 if you don't steal the tools from the plumber when your sink needs fixing which can happen within the first 15 minutes of the game.

[mailman]

My favourite Sierra adventures: Larry 3, SQ3 and Colonel's Bequest.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by manossg

Oh, mate, you're in for a treat in the 'dead man walking' trope in Sierra's games, especially the earliest ones. From memory, Larry 1-3 all had these, as well as KQ 1-6 and IIRC some of the SQ and PQ too.

Police Quest 2 if you forget to adjust your gun sights before getting on the plane... I didn't use multiple saves the first time so I was screwed...

So I replayed again only to realize I was already so close to the end at that point... and then the game guru'd every time I went into the sewers so not only did I have to replay the entire game because the game softlocked, but I then realized I replayed for no good reason at all because I couldn't finish it with my copy anyway. I was kind of mildly perturbed

[Pyromania]

Originally Posted by nivam

What’s the problem being PC ports those days. Their stories were unique and good fun.

At the time I thought the ports were made too quick and did not take advantage of any Amiga hardware features. Thus the sound and graphics looked a little sh*t.

[dreadnought]

Thanks for the heads up on the dead ends. Disappointing. But, don't they at least give you some clue messages when you fail? That'd help to offset the damage a little bit.

Sewers/mazes...ugh. Yet another trope which I'm not too keen on. Currently stuck in one in Manhunter. Even the mighty Lucasfilm couldn't resist it in the first Indy.

[manossg]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Thanks for the heads up on the dead ends. Disappointing. But, don't they at least give you some clue messages when you fail? That'd help to offset the damage a little bit.

Sometimes they do, subtly. Other times, you're on your own. :S

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Sewers/mazes...ugh. Yet another trope which I'm not too keen on. Currently stuck in one in Manhunter. Even the mighty Lucasfilm couldn't resist it in the first Indy.

I feel you, mate, I hate these too, as much as the 'dead man walking', the arcade sequences and the pixel hunting tropes. Indy's maze is a breeze compared to the hateful Zak McKracken's mazes.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Even the mighty Lucasfilm couldn't resist it in the first Indy.

And in the sequel they went wild Half the game is a damned maze-like design. I used to think Fate was really good for its very indy-esque story and voice acting (in the talky PC version), but upon replaying it I see just how much of it is pretty unfun runtime padding.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Got to disagree with Fate of Atlantis. I am guessing you are talking about the part in Atlantis? Least there is an overhead map here, so you can see the dead-ends, etc.

Last Crusade in the mansion was terrible with the fighting sequences. I know you could avoid them, but was very hard to do so. Least with FOA it was much easier to run away.

Agree about maze's in games though. Thinking Larry 3 in the jungle (think you needed the manual to help you here - I had a crack, so my fault)

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by Fiery Phoenix

Got to disagree with Fate of Atlantis. I am guessing you are talking about the part in Atlantis? Least there is an overhead map here, so you can see the dead-ends, etc.

Yes but a bit of nuance: Fate advertises to play through it multiple times since it has multiple paths which are indeed different from each other (except for the start). Since I also count the "follow the fez" and the desert sequences as maze-like sequences, it started to annoy the heck out of me to have to do all that stuff again even if they switch it up a little here and there.

Granted, more easier maze-like sections is not actually worse than a terrible maze; the library section in Crusade is pretty off-putting just for a single playthrough.

I did discover that Fate actually has a bad (or should I say lonely) ending, I was completely unaware of that. You don't expect that in a Lucasarts adventure game

[jizmo]

If anything, Sierra games truly were a children of their time – and I don't mean this in a good way at all. They've been completely unvisitable from the early 2000s, and that feeling has grown stronger each time I've tested them out later, especially the early AGI games.

Sierra line of games really peaked with SCI and games like Space Quest 3, Larry 3 and Colonel's Bequest remain the most solid games that I used to play through every few years just to relive the good time I spend with them. I can only assume the only actual quality going for them in 2021 is nostalgia, and I would not dream of recommending any of them to anyone looking for adventure games (rather, direct them to the LucasArts games).

As far as I'm considered, Sierra mastered the EGA graphics and had a great pixel style going for it and totally butchered the look and feel of the games when moving onto VGA. The graphic interpreter was a step in the right direction, but other wise the Sierra games from 1990 onwards were a huge disappointment, especially compared to the likes of SQ3 and LSL3, released just year earlier.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by jizmo

I can only assume the only actual quality going for them in 2021 is nostalgia, and I would not dream of recommending any of them to anyone looking for adventure games (rather, direct them to the LucasArts games).

Couldn't disagree more. They have flaws, (not unlike like modern games) but also some fantastic plots, jokes, puzzles, etc. And, as you say, some of the early gfx is simply fabulous, pixel art at its best. Anybody serious about adventure games should check out at least some of them. These days solution/maps are often even bundled with the downloads, so it's not like you need to suffer like we did back in the day

[jizmo]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Couldn't disagree more. They have flaws, (not unlike like modern games) but also some fantastic plots, jokes, puzzles, etc. And, as you say, some of the early gfx is simply fabulous, pixel art at its best. Anybody serious about adventure games should check out at least some of them. These days solution/maps are often even bundled with the downloads, so it's not like you need to suffer like we did back in the day

This could be accounted to me having pretty pragmatic view on the whole retro gaming; I understand the importance that some games have for me, but I also can see how they might not translate that well to someone who wasn't there and lack the frame of reference on gaming of the era to understand the often harsh design choices.

Here's where Sierra games score extremely low to be recommended for anyone by me. They were super frustrating, incoherent mess of trial and error ever by the harsh standards back then, and all the numerous shortcomings feel more and more amplified and accented as the time passes. On top of having multiple usability issues and dead ends Sierra games are extremely discouraging as they try to make you fail as much as possible by killing you for every chance given, and then celebrate it by rubbing it all on your face.

While the LucasArts games haven't aged without problems (endless pixel hunting & highly illogical puzzles), they've still fared the test of time much, much better.

[manossg]

Originally Posted by jizmo

This could be accounted to me having pretty pragmatic view on the whole retro gaming; I understand the importance that some games have for me, but I also can see how they might not translate that well to someone who wasn't there and lack the frame of reference on gaming of the era to understand the often harsh design choices.

Here's where Sierra games score extremely low to be recommended for anyone by me. They were super frustrating, incoherent mess of trial and error ever by the harsh standards back then, and all the numerous shortcomings feel more and more amplified and accented as the time passes. On top of having multiple usability issues and dead ends Sierra games are extremely discouraging as they try to make you fail as much as possible by killing you for every chance given, and then celebrate it by rubbing it all on your face.

While the LucasArts games haven't aged without problems (endless pixel hunting & highly illogical puzzles), they've still fared the test of time much, much better.

Although I understand your point, I think you are being quite unfair here. There have been some very well-crafted Sierra adventure titles, with great puzzles, fantastic humour and amazing storylines that are very fun to play even today. (I am not talking about historical significance)

There have also been some brilliant modern remakes which try to alleviate some of these problems (such as the dead ends), which I highly recommend.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by jizmo

They were super frustrating, incoherent mess of trial and error ever by the harsh standards back then, and all the numerous shortcomings feel more and more amplified and accented as the time passes.

Sorry mate, but that's simply not true. LSL and SQ were my first ever gfx adventures, I was just learning English, and behind Iron Curtain had zero access to mags and other resources. Despite that I managed to finish both of them without any major frustrations.

Originally Posted by jizmo

On top of having multiple usability issues and dead ends Sierra games are extremely discouraging as they try to make you fail as much as possible by killing you for every chance given, and then celebrate it by rubbing it all on your face.

Sure, they had some problems, but this is pure hyperbole. The deaths did not really matter because of saves, and were often quite funny. Not sure what "usability issues" really mean, since the interfaces were rather straightforward. The mazes were annoying, but not a big deal for RPG/IF mappers. The dead ends, at least the clue-less ones, are the one serious charge, but a) that's what mags help sections/toll numbers were for b) it's not like they were alone in using them (looking at you, Dark Seed, etc)

The bottom line is they were nowhere near as bad as you paint them, because if that was the case they wouldn't be so wildly popular. They were the AAA games of its time for a reason, lest we forget. I'm not really a big fan of the whole "passage of time" thing, because it suggests that people back then were simpletons who would accept, and have fun with any old crap. And, it's not like modern gaming is problem free, or that dumbing down games by pushing them into the failstate free "interactive cutscene" end of spectrum is a good thing, therefore the whole pragmatism angle doesn't really work here. If anything, it could be used to build a case against the so-called "modern sensibilities", where everything has to be handed to you on a plate.

[manossg]

Modern adventure games manage to do lots of things right, though.

Examples:
No dead ends.
Revealing hotspots (which eliminates pixel hunting)
Fast travel (which reduces backtracking)
Automatic notes (helps to keep track of objectives)
etc.

[dreadnought]

Dead ends could be amusing too, if done properly - with a clue, and not much backtracking.
There is no need for pixel hunting if the objects are well defined. Having a good look at the the scene was a vital part of the experience, now if you have highlights that ruins it somewhat, because you will just rush through locations.
Fast travel is good for open world games, but walking through few screens never bothered me that much. You do soak the atmosphere and fx along the way too, and have time to think on why you are stuck

Anyway, I was referring to modern games in more meta sense, not saying that adventures are generally bad nowadays. The ones I played could be plenty frustrating too, because of the puzzles, but it's not actually a bad thing. This is not a genre where you will progress from A-Z smoothly, sometimes you just have to walk away and leave it be for a day or two (months).

[manossg]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Dead ends could be amusing too, if done properly - with a clue, and not much backtracking.
There is no need for pixel hunting if the objects are well defined. Having a good look at the the scene was a vital part of the experience, now if you have highlights that ruins it somewhat, because you will just rush through locations.
Fast travel is good for open world games, but walking through few screens never bothered me that much. You do soak the atmosphere and fx along the way too, and have time to think on why you are stuck

Anyway, I was referring to modern games in more meta sense, not saying that adventures are generally bad nowadays. The ones I played could be plenty frustrating too, because of the puzzles, but it's not actually a bad thing. This is not a genre where you will progress from A-Z smoothly, sometimes you just have to walk away and leave it be for a day or two (months).

I could forgive dead ends only on separate parts of the game that make it clear that there is no turning back, a nice example is the maze in KQVI. An awful example is the bridge in KQII.

Highlights are great exactly because you can luxuriate in the graphics, without playing the game of scanning each whole picture line by line. Getting stuck means revisiting each screen, hoping that a hotspot has appeared. Entering a new screen means "oh, great, another screen I have to scan for 10 minutes". This is not my idea of fun (YMMV) and it sucks the beauty out of even the best pixel art, because then you focus on finding the hotspot, not enjoying the art as a gestalt.

About fast travel: Yes, Simon the Sorcerer was a great experience in soaking the atmosphere while endlessly backtracking and trying not to throw the Amiga out of the window. At least, when the hero moves so slowly for so many screens (and the map is almost useless) there is less frequency between disk swaps. :P

Modern adventure games have mostly overcome these problems and that is only a good thing in my book, because they can focus more on story, dialogue and puzzles, instead of relying on these awful tropes to increase the gameplay.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I find these older adventures bad, not at all. I enjoy them as much (if not more) as modern titles. And some Sierra games are true gems, even today.