🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 billand...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> 
> >	Of >course< the earlier Sierra games are worth playing.  They were
> >much better in terms of gameplay and writing (you know, the IMPORTANT
> >things) than the crap that passes for computer games today.  Start at the
> >beginning with the original King's Quest, and move on forward from there.
> 
> If I had to choose a Sierra game to start with, it would be either of
> the Gabriel Knight games - really great.
	
	I would never advise anyone to start with them, but they are both
pretty good games.

> If you like hybrid
> rpg/adventure games, try Betrayal at Krondor (free download from
> Sierra), and the Quest for Glory series.

	The first two Quest for Glory games yes (only if QFG1 is played in
its original and correct incarnation, not the bastardization with the
no-typing interface), Betrayal at Krondor NO.  Awful, pointless game.
Avoid avoid avoid!

> Both the Kings Quest and the Space Quest games can be picked up in a
> collection quite inexpensively.  Sierra advertises them as "digital
> antiques", and they are - the earlier ones don't have sound (except
> from the speaker).  Personally, I liked the later Kings Quest games -
> 5, 6, and 7, rather than the earlier.  Possibly because I played them
> before playing the earlier games, so there was no nostalgia factor.

	I feel very sorry for you for two reasons.  First of all, that you
actually consider that King's Quests V, VI, and VII (ESPECIALLY VII) are
better than the earlier games in the series, and second that you didn't
get the opportunity to play them the first time around.  When those games
first came out, they had a very special magic to them that games today
just don't have.  Sierra has forgotten how to put magic and love into
their computer games, and it really shows.  Maybe it's hard for you to
see because you didn't play them the first time around, but the
collections serve to show more than anything else what Sierra once did
right but is now doing wrong.

> The early ones have CGA graphics - quite blocky.

	So?

> The story line is
> OK, but there are some annoyances.

	Some annoyances?  Sorry, the plots of the first two King's Quest
games aren't great, but the games as a whole are more fun than King's
Quest VI or King's Quest VII.  As for the writing of KQ3 and KQ4, don't
even say there are some annoyances.  Maybe, but at least their annoyances
aren't the entire stories!  King's Quest VII is exceptionally bad in this
regard.  Can you HONESTLY compare the story of King's Quest VII with the
story of King's Quest III and tell me that the former is better written?

> Some of the puzzles are based on
> the difficulty you have maneovering with the keyboard.  

	Like...?
	Once again, I feel very sorry for you.  There is more to life than
moving a mouse.  At least with the original Sierra games, you didn't have
a group of icons that you had to click on to perform actions or (even
worse) merely ONE icon that does everything.  Even if I did have trouble
maneuvering with the keyboard (which I can never recall), I still much
preferred that method of movement and puzzle interaction to the way it is
now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray	    | The script calls for fusing and using our smarts,
			    | And greatness can come from the sum of our parts,
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu	    | From now on I'm with you--
			    | And with you is where I belong!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray |		-David Zippel, City of Angels
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------