🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bd4549$1ab153c0$dfa060d1@landofoz>,
  "lorel" <land...@techcom.net> wrote:
>
> I'm with you!  I have had similar experiences.  One where I didn't throw a
> shoe at some cat so later I couldn't escape because the mouse the cat was
> chasing couldn't help me because it was dead (?)!!  Now who would have
> thought to do such inane actions?????  Secondly, with Sierra games they
> have limited save games so you normally end up writing over the game you
> needed so you could recover.  Your point is valid and well made!!


 Maybe Sierra should send William's home and give Jane Jensen some extra
budget... :)  oh, and they could kiss Al Lowe goodbye too. Has anyone found a
good joke in LSL7? And the puns...

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

On Sun, 1 Mar 1998 thya...@sol.com.br wrote:

>  Maybe Sierra should send William's home and give Jane Jensen some extra
> budget... :)  oh, and they could kiss Al Lowe goodbye too. Has anyone found a
> good joke in LSL7? And the puns...

	Leisure Suit Larry has been worthless since LSL3.  Jane Jensen
should be given more to do--she >writes< her games, and that's a lost art
these days.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thya...@sol.com.br schreef in artikel <6db79d$gks$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
> 
> 
>   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
>   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her
curriculum!

Then why is everybody playing them? I think that you are right though. I
played 2 KQ gamest (4 and 5 i believe) and the two Phantasmagoria games. I
didn't like the K.Q-games, but that had more to do with the fact i din't
like the genre. But Phantasmagoria 1 and 2 are at least "not good value for
money". Phantas 1 is awfull in every way: thin characters, an even thinner
plotline, a lot of area's and very little people to talk with... The main
character is a joke. She has no past, no family, no friends... Williams
improved on that in Phantasmagoria 2, a shame that she needed a bunch of
aliens to wrap up the story. 
The puzzels aren't always up to standards. Apart from the fact that their
not very original, is the way she squeezes them into the story. In
Phantasmagoria 1 and 2 the quests are not always blended into the story
like they should have. Day one in phantasmagoria 2 is awfull. All those
little stupid tasks you have to do untill you can finish at work... 

But Roberta Williams is no fraud and certainly not an imbecile. Sierra is
one of the oldest softwarehouses that still exists and Roberta Williams has
played an important role in it's history. I like her philosophy about games
and her currage to create games that appeals women or children. She also
very good in recognizing talented people like Jane Jensen. 
In her own games she always fails to convert good ideas into good products.
Maybe she should use her ideas to inspire others and let them create the
games.

Just my two cents,

Dolf

>   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating
gaming
> experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by
not
> entering the right screen at the right time !! I remember getting very
close
> to the ending and not being able to finish the thing because I had not
talked
> to this guy in the very begining of the game. And I only discovered that
> because I got a walkthrough - if it depended on William's awful design,
I'd be
> wondering what to do forever !! If I had gotten my hands on the woman
when I
> found out I'd have to restart, we'd have been spared from Phantasmagoria.
>   Phantasmagoria was mildly entertaining, but not a game at all. Besides
being
> ridiculously easy, the woman robbed all puzzles from previous games -
like the
> get-key-with-nail-and-newspaper... it was an original puzzle... IN ALONE
IN
> THE DARK 2 !!!
>   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her
games
> are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful combination
of
> laziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
>   I'm sure I'm not alone here. What do you guys think?
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> 

Remember that "Phantasmagoria 2" was NOT written by Roberta Williams, but by
Lorelei Shannon (sp?) who co-wrote King's Quest 7 with her.  Also, remember
that everybody's favorite Jane Jensen co-wrote King's Quest 6.

I think I remember reading somewhere that Roberta Williams admitted that the
horror genre was not for her- and that she was going to "pull all the stops"
to bring the King's Quest series back on track.  For her sake and the sake
of the company, I hope Mask of Eternity will be a great game.  However, the
one year delay worries me- their 3D engine looks horribly dated.  It seems
to suffer from low polygon counts that leave the characters AND environments
looking blocky and less detailed than even the first Tomb Raider.  However,
if they can get the story, puzzles, and interaction right, then it shouldn't
matter.

Francis

>Then why is everybody playing them? I think that you are right though. I
>played 2 KQ gamest (4 and 5 i believe) and the two Phantasmagoria games. I
>didn't like the K.Q-games, but that had more to do with the fact i din't
>like the genre. But Phantasmagoria 1 and 2 are at least "not good value for
>money". Phantas 1 is awfull in every way: thin characters, an even thinner
>plotline, a lot of area's and very little people to talk with... The main
>character is a joke. She has no past, no family, no friends... Williams
>improved on that in Phantasmagoria 2, a shame that she needed a bunch of
>aliens to wrap up the story.
>The puzzels aren't always up to standards. Apart from the fact that their
>not very original, is the way she squeezes them into the story. In
>Phantasmagoria 1 and 2 the quests are not always blended into the story
>like they should have. Day one in phantasmagoria 2 is awfull. All those
>little stupid tasks you have to do untill you can finish at work...
>
>But Roberta Williams is no fraud and certainly not an imbecile. Sierra is
>one of the oldest softwarehouses that still exists and Roberta Williams has
>played an important role in it's history. I like her philosophy about games
>and her currage to create games that appeals women or children. She also
>very good in recognizing talented people like Jane Jensen.
>In her own games she always fails to convert good ideas into good products.
>Maybe she should use her ideas to inspire others and let them create the
>games.
>
>Just my two cents,
>
>Dolf

Roberta Williams had nothing to do with Phantasmagoria 2.

Kevin Grey

... Williams
>improved on that in Phantasmagoria 2, a shame that she needed a bunch of
>aliens to wrap up the story.
>

thya...@sol.com.br wrote:

>   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
>   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her curriculum!

That's YOUR opinion.  The Colonel's Bequest is own of the best games ever, in fact
I daresay it's better than ANY of the Monkey Island series.  I was never so
frightened and so enthralled at the little nuances in the game...from stublimg
into bodies, finding crime scenes, spying on people, finding new secret passages.
It was SO thrilling.  The only gripe is that it's too hard.King's Quest III was
also only of my favorite.  In fact, any KQ with Alexader as the main character is
very good. (there were only 2).

>   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating gaming
> experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by not
> entering the right screen at the right time !! I remember getting very close
> to the ending and not being able to finish the thing because I had not talked
> to this guy in the very begining of the game. And I only discovered that
> because I got a walkthrough - if it depended on William's awful design, I'd be
> wondering what to do forever !! If I had gotten my hands on the woman when I

Isn't that more of your own incompetency?  I finished KQ6 without any problems,
without even looking at a walkthrough.  I personally really liked the game.  Of
course, it isn't very original, but it played great, has a good sense of humor,
good NPC, derivative but enjoyable story, and TRULY EXCELLENT music (except for
the cheesy duet at the end).  I had no problems with it, and I wouldnt fault
Roberta on THAT.

> found out I'd have to restart, we'd have been spared from Phantasmagoria.
>   Phantasmagoria was mildly entertaining, but not a game at all. Besides being
> ridiculously easy, the woman robbed all puzzles from previous games - like the
> get-key-with-nail-and-newspaper... it was an original puzzle... IN ALONE IN
> THE DARK 2 !!!

>   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her games
> are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful combination of
> laziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
>   I'm sure I'm not alone here. What do you guys think\?

This is stupid.  I'm SURE you haven't playedeven HALf os Roberta Williams' games,
and here you are dissing her as if she was your whore.  WTF?You described only 2
games of hers you had gripes with.  Sure, Phantasmagoria was a big step down (so
was KQ7), but not everyone does something great all the time....ahem, Lord British
(UO and U8 are complete disasters). Have you played ANY of her earlier works?
Have you tried Time Zone?  It came out in 1981, and it was TOUGH.  Very
challenging IMHO.  She really did a good job there, and I think that game is on
par with any of Infocom's best.You might not be alone, but the opinion you arrive
with is so uninformed and unresearched that it does not give weight to your
argument.  Sure I think her works are getting worse, but dismissing her like this
is very insulting, to her AND to readers who enjoyed her past works.

Raymond


> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based ne

Raymond Pat wrote:
> 
> thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
> 
> >   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
> >   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her curriculum!
> 
> That's YOUR opinion.  The Colonel's Bequest is own of the best games ever, in fact
> I daresay it's better than ANY of the Monkey Island series.  I was never so
> frightened and so enthralled at the little nuances in the game...from stublimg
> into bodies, finding crime scenes, spying on people, finding new secret passages.
> It was SO thrilling.  The only gripe is that it's too hard.

Hard ? I won't say that it was even, 'Easy'.... There were no
puzzles in that game. You were just scrambling around the
mansion, and you had to find one body after another. Kind of
like "The Last Express" but not in real time, and with no 
puzzles.

Hated that game (if it was a game)

Btw, Roberta Williams and most of the game designers of that
time had a big problem with designing puzzles that could 
result in you getting stuck at a dead end, *much* later in the game
from the point you made that mistake. (and in most cases
that mistake involved a pretty moronic puzzle) 

It was a good thing that Ron Gilbert came up with a game
in which you could not get stuck at a dead end, even
if you tried your darn best. Sierra picked that design
mentality finally. Kings Quest 6 was its first game
with a change. Gabriel Knight 1 followed soon.
--
Noman

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Raymond Pat wrote:

> thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
> 
> >   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
> >   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her curriculum!
> 
> That's YOUR opinion.  The Colonel's Bequest is own of the best games ever, in fact
> I daresay it's better than ANY of the Monkey Island series.  I was never so
> frightened and so enthralled at the little nuances in the game...from stublimg
> into bodies, finding crime scenes, spying on people, finding new secret passages.
> It was SO thrilling.  The only gripe is that it's too hard.

	The Colonel's Bequest?!?  Too hard?  You've GOT to be kidding!

> King's Quest III was
> also only of my favorite.  In fact, any KQ with Alexader as the main character is
> very good. (there were only 2).

	Um...  Okay...  If you think King's Quest VI was very good, that's
your problem, not anyone else's...

> >   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating gaming
> > experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by not
> > entering the right screen at the right time !! I remember getting very close
> > to the ending and not being able to finish the thing because I had not talked
> > to this guy in the very begining of the game. And I only discovered that
> > because I got a walkthrough - if it depended on William's awful design, I'd be
> > wondering what to do forever !! If I had gotten my hands on the woman when I
> 
> Isn't that more of your own incompetency?  I finished KQ6 without any problems,
> without even looking at a walkthrough.

	Then you have a much less analytical mind than most people.  Most
of the people I know who played the game were frustrated because most of
the puzzles didn't actually make very much sense.  If you were able to
make it past the fact that logic wasn't required for too many of the
puzzles, more power to you.  (The original poster is right, though--the
lamp puzzle was >very< unfair.)

> I personally really liked the game.  Of
> course, it isn't very original, but it played great, has a good sense of humor,
> good NPC, derivative but enjoyable story, and TRULY EXCELLENT music (except for
> the cheesy duet at the end).  I had no problems with it, and I wouldnt fault
> Roberta on THAT.

	Of course not.  Everyone knows Roberta hasn't really had anything
to do with the King's Quest series for years.

> > found out I'd have to restart, we'd have been spared from Phantasmagoria.
> >   Phantasmagoria was mildly entertaining, but not a game at all. Besides being
> > ridiculously easy, the woman robbed all puzzles from previous games - like the
> > get-key-with-nail-and-newspaper... it was an original puzzle... IN ALONE IN
> > THE DARK 2 !!!
> 
> >   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her games
> > are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful combination of
> > laziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
> >   I'm sure I'm not alone here. What do you guys think\?
> 
> This is stupid.  I'm SURE you haven't playedeven HALf os Roberta Williams' games,
> and here you are dissing her as if she was your whore.  WTF?You described only 2
> games of hers you had gripes with.  Sure, Phantasmagoria was a big step down (so
> was KQ7), but not everyone does something great all the time....

	Believe us, we >know< that!  Mrs. Williams is an excellent example
of someone like that!

> ahem, Lord British
> (UO and U8 are complete disasters). Have you played ANY of her earlier works?

	Yes.

> Have you tried Time Zone?

	Yes.

> It came out in 1981, and it was TOUGH.  Very
> challenging IMHO.  She really did a good job there, and I think that game is on
> par with any of Infocom's best.

	Compared to most of On-Line Systems' games of the period, there is
more to it (it's certainly a lot bigger, and at the time, it cost a lot
more--$99.95!), but harder?  No, not really.  Because it was bigger, there
was necessarily more to do.  But the game wasn't really >harder<.  The
puzzles were typical On-Line Systems fare for the time.  They might have
seemed harder to you >then<, but they weren't really that much different
from most of their other games around then.
	As for being on par with Infocom's best...  Um, last time I
checked, Infocom never had a line in a game that read:  You are in a
field.  There is a time machine here.  ;)  Say what you will about
Infocom's games, but they were mature from the very beginning, and having
to be restricted to two word commands is something that Infocom was never
saddled with.  As for Time Zone, it certainly didn't have too much of a
story, and it really wasn't that hard.  Have you ever played Suspended?
Now >that< is a hard game.

> You might not be alone, but the opinion you arrive
> with is so uninformed and unresearched that it does not give weight to your
> argument.

	The problem is that right now, the burden of proof is on you, and
you're not even trying!  You aren't able to defend anything about the
games.  That says more about you than it does about the original poster.

> Sure I think her works are getting worse, but dismissing her like this
> is very insulting, to her AND to readers who enjoyed her past works.

	He's not dismissing her at all.  Come on, at least try to >read<
the message you're responding to.  (Although, if you're a fan of more
recent Sierra games, I can see how your reading skill might have fallen
off a little bit.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Murray wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Raymond Pat wrote

Oh, so you were able to answer ALL the questions at the end of the game?  Bravo!
Genius!!  Gee, you must be a true visionary.

>         The Colonel's Bequest?!?  Too hard?  You've GOT to be kidding!
>
>
>         Um...  Okay...  If you think King's Quest VI was very good, that's
> your problem, not anyone else's...

And who are YOU to say that KQ6 isn't good?  I liked it.  Are you going to fault me on
this?

>
>
> > Isn't that more of your own incompetency?  I finished KQ6 without any problems,
> > without even looking at a walkthrough.
>
>         Then you have a much less analytical mind than most people.  Most
> of the people I know who played the game were frustrated because most of
> the puzzles didn't actually make very much sense.  If you were able to
> make it past the fact that logic wasn't required for too many of the
> puzzles, more power to you.  (The original poster is right, though--the
> lamp puzzle was >very< unfair.)

I though the game was actually too easy.  I finished it without needing any help.  My
friends also did not have much problems with it.  What was so illogical about the
puzzles?  The lamp puzzle, as in when you had to pick up the right lamp?  c'mon!  If
anyone was even playing attention to all the scenes with Alhazred and the genie, one
should remember hhow it looked like!  I didn't pay much attention to it, and I got it
right w/o problems.  Or do you mean Rollo the clown?  You can finish it w/o ever talking
to him, if you disguise yourself in Beauty's costume.  So I don't see the problem.

>         Of course not.  Everyone knows Roberta hasn't really had anything
> to do with the King's Quest series for years.

OK, admittedly on eof the reasions why I liked KQ6 so much is because Jane Jensen
co-wrote it.  So there.  If you hated KQ6, blame half it  on her too!

> > This is stupid.  I'm SURE you haven't playedeven HALf os Roberta Williams' games,
> > and here you are dissing her as if she was your whore.  WTF?You described only 2
> > games of hers you had gripes with.  Sure, Phantasmagoria was a big step down (so
> > was KQ7), but not everyone does something great all the time....
>
>         Believe us, we >know< that!  Mrs. Williams is an excellent example
> of someone like that!

Yes.  But to say that she is an imbecile, has no talent, etc,etc, etc is VERY
demeaning.  Surely you have enjoyed at least ONe of her games?  I mean, what has Roberta
done to that guy to accept all this slamming?

> > ahem, Lord British
> > (UO and U8 are complete disasters). Have you played ANY of her earlier works?
>
>         Yes.
>
> > Have you tried Time Zone?
>
>         Yes.
>
> > It came out in 1981, and it was TOUGH.  Very
> > challenging IMHO.  She really did a good job there, and I think that game is on
> > par with any of Infocom's best.
>
>         Compared to most of On-Line Systems' games of the period, there is
> more to it (it's certainly a lot bigger, and at the time, it cost a lot
> more--$99.95!), but harder?  No, not really.  Because it was bigger, there
> was necessarily more to do.  But the game wasn't really >harder<.  The
> puzzles were typical On-Line Systems fare for the time.  They might have
> seemed harder to you >then<, but they weren't really that much different
> from most of their other games around then.

Yes, Suspended WAS hard, and so was Bureaucracy.  They were probably the hardest games
on thge Adventure market.  I found Time Zone to very very hard, but not completelyy
impossible like the two aforementioned games.  Never was able to finish Suspended.
Passsedd Bureacracy with hint guide.  Geez.  I think that when games are THAT
difficult, it becomes tedious rather than enjoyable (although I actually liked both
games a lot because of their originality).

>         As for being on par with Infocom's best...  Um, last time I
> checked, Infocom never had a line in a game that read:  You are in a
> field.  There is a time machine here.  ;)  Say what you will about
> Infocom's games, but they were mature from the very beginning, and having
> to be restricted to two word commands is something that Infocom was never
> saddled with.  As for Time Zone, it certainly didn't have too much of a
> story, and it really wasn't that hard.  Have you ever played Suspended?
> Now >that< is a hard game.

Ugh.  Zork....  The white house?  Gee.  That sounds pretty simple too.  Or how about
Hitchiker's Guide to the galaxy?  Everything is pitch black.  Dang.  But both games were
excellent.  So what Is your point?  That the game has to have more than two sentences
with flowery description beyond words?  That isn't great writing to me.

> > You might not be alone, but the opinion you arrive
> > with is so uninformed and unresearched that it does not give weight to your
> > argument.
>
>         The problem is that right now, the burden of proof is on you, and
> you're not even trying!  You aren't able to defend anything about the
> games.  That says more about you than it does about the original poster.

Huh?  I'm trying to defend Roberta Williams' position by sayying that she DOES have
games worth playing.  I'm sure YOU have to agree with that.  You'll REALLY be in the
minority if you said you have NEVER enjoyed any of her games.  So what does that say
about me?  I'm not the one being hypocritical, trying to protect a guy who obviously
just wants to bad-mouth a person when the defendant has done nothing to him.  I find
THAT despicable.  He may not like her games, but millions have played them, and enjoyed
them.

> > Sure I think her works are getting worse, but dismissing her like this
> > is very insulting, to her AND to readers who enjoyed her past works.
>
>         He's not dismissing her at all.  Come on, at least try to >read<
> the message you're responding to.  (Although, if you're a fan of more
> recent Sierra games, I can see how your reading skill might have fallen
> off a little bit.)

I DID read it.  To quote him, he said, "get rid of the imbecile - the design in her
games> > are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful combination of
> > laziness and complete lack of any visible talents. the woman hasn't got one single
good game in her curriculum!"

1.  calling her an imbecile.  Oh.  He REALLY isn't dismissing her at all!  WTF?  Did you
READ his post?  And you think I read it wrong.  Get a head check.
2.  The woman hasn't got one single good game in her curriculum
Millions have played and liked her games.  Saying that her games suck implies that we
all have no taste in gaming.  What an insult.

These are just TWO of the original post's quotations.  Now refute me that he ISN'T
bashing her.

Raymond


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <34FA7F09...@polymail.calpoly.edu>,
  Raymond Pat <rpha...@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote:

> That's YOUR opinion.  The Colonel's Bequest is own of the best games ever,
in fact
> I daresay it's better than ANY of the Monkey Island series.  I was never so
> frightened and so enthralled at the little nuances in the game...from
stublimg
> into bodies, finding crime scenes, spying on people, finding new secret
passages.
> It was SO thrilling.  The only gripe is that it's too hard.King's Quest III
was
> also only of my favorite.  In fact, any KQ with Alexader as the main
character is
> very good. (there were only 2).


>>>>>>>> Of course it's my opinion, never said it was yours!! :) I didn't play
The Colone's Bequest but was rather bored by Dagger of Amon Ra. And I'm not
complaining about the very early KQ games, even though I can't say I like
them, and the series ARE getting worse every time. And it's not pretty for her
to rest on her laurels...

> >   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating
gaming
> > experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by not
> > entering the right screen at the right time !! I remember getting very
close
> > to the ending and not being able to finish the thing because I had not
talked
> > to this guy in the very begining of the game. And I only discovered that
> > because I got a walkthrough - if it depended on William's awful design,
I'd be
> > wondering what to do forever !! If I had gotten my hands on the woman when
I
>
> Isn't that more of your own incompetency?  I finished KQ6 without any
problems,
> without even looking at a walkthrough.  I personally really liked the game.
 Of
> course, it isn't very original, but it played great, has a good sense of
humor,
> good NPC, derivative but enjoyable story, and TRULY EXCELLENT music (except
for
> the cheesy duet at the end).  I had no problems with it, and I wouldnt fault
> Roberta on THAT.

>>>>> My incompetence? I think not. If I failed to choose the right lamp in a
totally random puzzle, than it means I wasn't very lucky. If you got the right
one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that happening
are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should be
needing by the end of the game. RW's lousy game design denotes her
incompetence, not mine. When you get stuck in a Lucas Arts or Jane Jensen
game, it's because you can't figure out what to do, not because the game let
you screw things up by, say, letting you procceed without a required item.
And I found the whole game very sub-par, starting with the childish
save-the-princess story.



  For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her
games are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful
combination oflaziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
  I'm sure I'm not alone here. What do you guys think?

> This is stupid.  I'm SURE you haven't playedeven HALf os Roberta Williams'
games,
> and here you are dissing her as if she was your whore.  WTF?You described
only 2
> games of hers you had gripes with.  Sure, Phantasmagoria was a big step down
(so
> was KQ7), but not everyone does something great all the time....ahem, Lord
British
> (UO and U8 are complete disasters). Have you played ANY of her earlier
works?
> Have you tried Time Zone?  It came out in 1981, and it was TOUGH.  Very
> challenging IMHO.  She really did a good job there, and I think that game is
on
> par with any of Infocom's best.You might not be alone, but the opinion you
arrive
> with is so uninformed and unresearched that it does not give weight to your
> argument.  Sure I think her works are getting worse, but dismissing her like
this
> is very insulting, to her AND to readers who enjoyed her past works.
>
> Raymond


>>>>>>> I don't care if Time Zone was a good game - no, I never played it, but
it's 17 years old, and, as I said before, it's not right to overlook the
crap KQ6 is because of her early work. I'm discussing the crap she's been
doing lately. KQ6, KQ7, Phantasmagoria and the such. And it's a lot more
insulting to spend weeks trying to solve a puzzle that can't be solved because
she was too lazy to design something that won't randomly punish the guy who
spent 50 bucks on her game. And I enjoyed Ultima 8 a lot, even though it's far
from being UIV and UVII.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

I guess I'm also one of the minority here.  I like
the KQ series.  I don't like KQ7 as much, but I
like the others.

I think one thing people need to realize is: KQ
is a fairy tale.  It is based on fairy tales.  Many
of the puzzles are from German folktales and some
Middle East and Eastern Europe stories.  For example, 
in KQ6, where the lady needed to be given the white 
rose, that was based on the original Beauty and the 
Beast, where Beauty asked her fathr to bring her 
the very first flower he saw on his way home, and 
the white rose was it.  

While the logic of the puzzles are not very 'down
to earth,' they are, nontheless, logical.  You just
need to know your childhood stories.  

Personally, I've been able to finish all KQ series
so far w/o any walkthrus.

- Liz

thya...@sol.com.br wrote in article <6db79d$gks$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
>   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her
curriculum!
>   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating
gaming
> experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by
not
> entering the right screen at the right time !! I remember getting very
close
> to the ending and not being able to finish the thing because I had not
talked
> to this guy in the very begining of the game. And I only discovered that
> because I got a walkthrough - if it depended on William's awful design,
I'd be
> wondering what to do forever !! If I had gotten my hands on the woman
when I
> found out I'd have to restart, we'd have been spared from Phantasmagoria.
Don't be utterly ridiculous. Roberta Williams has been around since the
early days of computer games and has programmed many games in this time,
many of which were ground breaking in there own way. Sure she has made many
games that were not top notch, but then you expect that when someone is as
prolific as her.
 
>   Phantasmagoria was mildly entertaining, but not a game at all. Besides
being
> ridiculously easy, I agree with all you say about Phantasmagoria, and
like you found it great fun, but hardly what you call a game. Yes it was
amazingly easy, but then is this not true about so many games these days,
especially ones involving real life action and actors. When games like
Gabriel Knight 2( which I really enjoyed) are described by a magazine like
CGW as the hardest adventure ever, you know something is not quite right.

> the woman robbed all puzzles from previous games - like the
get-key-with-nail-and-> newspaper... it was an original puzzle... IN ALONE
IN THE DARK 2 !!!
This is a silly statement. What game hasn't borrowed ideas and puzzles from
other games. With the finite number of things to do, it is hardly
surprising that the same puzzles crop up, particurlaly if you are a
experienced adventurer. No doubt al the puzzles from Alone in the Dark
appeared first in one Spectrum game or other. Anyway this game is hardly an
adventure, more a hybrid like those so Arcade Adventures.

>   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her
games
> are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful combination
of
> laziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
>   I'm sure I'm not alone here. What do you guys think?
Well this imbecile as you call her is a sucessful businesswoman who with
her husband Ken, have built Sierra up into one of the biggest software
companies today. Without her there probably wouldn't be a Sierra, though
that would probably be good news to people like you.
To sum up. I have played and owned many Sierra games over the years, which
have been good, bad and indifferent, but on the whole have worked fairly
well and the software support has been good, though some would disagree.
Compare this to some of the bugridden products released such as the recent
Overseer game by Access which to all intents and purposes has been a
shambles(not my opinion), but from the many people writing to this
newsgroup writing about their difficulties with this game. I am not talking
about the game itself, which everyone playing it has described as very
good, but the setup and visual effects in the game. So next time you make a
wild statement at least get your facts right first.

steve...@eclipse.co.uk

thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
> Maybe Sierra should send William's home and give Jane Jensen some extra
>budget... :)  oh, and they could kiss Al Lowe goodbye too. Has anyone found a
>good joke in LSL7? And the puns...


I really enjoyed LSL7. Its my favorite LSL game under the first one.
The puns made the game.

Rob Merritt
My Might and Magic page:http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm/homm.html
My Toy page starring Micronauts and LegoBlocks:http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm/micro.html

> >But Roberta Williams is no fraud and certainly not an imbecile. Sierra is
> >one of the oldest softwarehouses that still exists and Roberta Williams has
> >played an important role in it's history. I like her philosophy about games
> >and her currage to create games that appeals women or children. She also
> >very good in recognizing talented people like Jane Jensen.
> >In her own games she always fails to convert good ideas into good products.
> >Maybe she should use her ideas to inspire others and let them create the
> >games.
> >
> >Just my two cents,
> >
> >Dolf

  Hmmm... good point. We do have a lot to thank Williams and Sierra for, but
surely not for things like Outpost or KQ6. If, in any way, she's responsible
for Jensen's work, then God bless her. But please, no more Phantasmagoria.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Francis Li <f...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> schreef in artikel
<6df8i4$l94$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> Remember that "Phantasmagoria 2" was NOT written by Roberta Williams, but
by
> Lorelei Shannon (sp?) who co-wrote King's Quest 7 with her.  Also,
remember
> that everybody's favorite Jane Jensen co-wrote King's Quest 6.

Sorry about that. Today i have read an interview with R.W. Phantasmagoria 2
was also mentioned. She sayed that the game was "pretty good" and "rather
enjoyed" playing it. I never played KQ 6, so i can't comment on that.

OK, admittedly on eof the reasions why I liked KQ6 so much is because Jane
Jensen  co-wrote it.  So there.  If you hated KQ6, blame half it  on her too!

>>>>>>>> Hmmm... ok. Jensen, lousy job you did there. Gabriel Knight, though,
heh? Nice way to make up for that.


Yes.  But to say that she is an imbecile, has no talent, etc,etc, etc is
VERY demeaning.  Surely you have enjoyed at least ONe of her games?  I mean,
what has Roberta done to that guy to accept all this slamming?

>>>>>>>> Yup, you're half-right there. I'm sorry I used the word I did, but
that doesn't invalidate my point. What did she do? You mean, apart from making
me waste money? After Phantasmagoria, I learned to buy from stores with return
policy - and I should thank her for that, or I'd be stuck with Battle Cruiser
3000AD until today.


Huh?  I'm trying to defend Roberta Williams' position by sayying that she
DOES have games worth playing.  I'm sure YOU have to agree with that.


>>>>>>>>> No, I don't have to, and nobody else has to. As much as not everyone
has to agree with my original post. If you like the woman's work, fine, just
say so. I won't agree, but I'll respect that.



-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
 
> OK, admittedly on eof the reasions why I liked KQ6 so much is because Jane
> Jensen  co-wrote it.  So there.  If you hated KQ6, blame half it  on her too!

Well, if you didn't like it, that's fine by me.

> >>>>>>>> Hmmm... ok. Jensen, lousy job you did there. Gabriel Knight, though,
> heh? Nice way to make up for that.
> 
> 
> Yes.  But to say that she is an imbecile, has no talent, etc,etc, etc is
> VERY demeaning.  Surely you have enjoyed at least ONe of her games?  I mean,
> what has Roberta done to that guy to accept all this slamming?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Yup, you're half-right there. I'm sorry I used the word I did, but
> that doesn't invalidate my point. What did she do? You mean, apart from making
> me waste money? After Phantasmagoria, I learned to buy from stores with return
> policy - and I should thank her for that, or I'd be stuck with Battle Cruiser
> 3000AD until today.

No, I didn't disagree with your point, but I found the TONE of it very
offending.  I started getting into adventue games right after finishing
KQ1 in 1986.  I was so trilled I wanted to get more KQs.  She invariably
had a huge impact on my life, otherwise I wouldn't be trying to work in
the computer gaming industry now! :)  Of course, I've played text games
before KQ, but the graphics blew me away.  

If you didn't like Phantas, you could always return it.  Sierra's had a
30-day money-back gaurantee for a long time.  If you didn't use that
option, it's your loss.  

> 
> Huh?  I'm trying to defend Roberta Williams' position by sayying that she
> DOES have games worth playing.  I'm sure YOU have to agree with that.

> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't have to, and nobody else has to. As much as not everyone
> has to agree with my original post. If you like the woman's work, fine, just
> say so. I won't agree, but I'll respect that.

No, I meant Matthew Murray, not you.  It's obvious you don't like ANY of
her works :).  I guess everyone has different tastes.  But I personally
did not like KQ7, KQ5 now Phantas either.  
 
> 
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> 
> 

  So what does that say about me?  I'm not the one being hypocritical, trying
to protect a guy who obviously just wants to bad-mouth a person when the
defendant has done nothing to him. I find THAT despicable.  He may not like
her games, but millions have played them, and enjoyed them.

>>>>>>> Bad-mouth? Ok, I've never played any of those games, I just didn't
like her face and thought I could have fun by making up things about
Phantasmagoria and KQ. And, guess what, the design faults I made up for KQ6
actually exist! Gee, what a coincidence.

  Saying that her games suck implies that we all have no taste in gaming.
What an insult.

>>>>>>>> It doesn't imply anything. It clearly says I don't like her work.
Period. "We all" surely doesn't fit - I'm not alone here. And if you come out
and say that Civilzation or Le Chuck's Revenge were lousy games, I won't be
insulted at all. I'll just have to disagree.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 thya...@sol.com.br wrote:

> 
> 
>   So what does that say about me?  I'm not the one being hypocritical, trying
> to protect a guy who obviously just wants to bad-mouth a person when the
> defendant has done nothing to him. I find THAT despicable.  He may not like
> her games, but millions have played them, and enjoyed them.
> 
> >>>>>>> Bad-mouth? Ok, I've never played any of those games, I just didn't
> like her face and thought I could have fun by making up things about
> Phantasmagoria and KQ. And, guess what, the design faults I made up for KQ6
> actually exist! Gee, what a coincidence.

What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.  

Well, the tone of your post seemed like what you just mentioned above.
Also, you dismissed her, yet you say you haven't played all her games.
Now, if you played ALL of them and hated all, then it's different.  But
NOT playing all her games and then saying she is talentless, I'm sorry.
You just DON'T qualify to make that judgement.  what happened if you
played some game of hers later and liked it?  Well, that defeats
everything you've said, doesn't it?
 
>   Saying that her games suck implies that we all have no taste in gaming.
> What an insult.
> 
> >>>>>>>> It doesn't imply anything. It clearly says I don't like her work.
> Period. "We all" surely doesn't fit - I'm not alone here. And if you come out
> and say that Civilzation or Le Chuck's Revenge were lousy games, I won't be
> insulted at all. I'll just have to disagree.

I wouldn't say either were lousy...although I think Monkey Island II was
nowhere near as good as the original.  That damn
monocle-asd-replacement-for-eye-that-sees-the-world puzzle STILLL
infuriates me.  Now THAT was an example of an obscure puzzle.

Raymond
 
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
> 
> 

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:

> What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
> stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
> if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
> DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.  

	Yes, it DOES.  Whether you need the lamp or not is irrelevant.
You are using information obtained as the player to solve a puzzle as
>Alexander<.  Whether or not you need the lamp to finish the game, that is
>poor< puzzle design.

> I wouldn't say either were lousy...although I think Monkey Island II was
> nowhere near as good as the original.  That damn
> monocle-asd-replacement-for-eye-that-sees-the-world puzzle STILLL
> infuriates me.  Now THAT was an example of an obscure puzzle.

	<shakes head>
	To think that people like >this< are playing computer games today.
<sigh>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > And I found the whole game very sub-par, starting with the childish
> > save-the-princess story.
>
> 	It's a King's Quest game.  What did you expect?  It's based on fairy
> tales, and the save the princess story is pretty much a standard.  Why
> did you even buy the game if you knew before you played it that you were
> not going to like the story?
> --
> Ed Polanco (esp...@psu.edu)
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't know I wouldn't like the story, Ed. Just because it's
based on fairy tales, it doesn't mean it must be so clich�-riddled. And you
can have a great story even when you start with a concept that isn't new or
original - ultimately, it depends on how you develop it.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

thya...@sol.com.br wrote:

> My incompetence? I think not. If I failed to choose the right lamp in a
>totally random puzzle, than it means I wasn't very lucky. If you got the right
>one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that happening
>are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should be
>needing by the end of the game. 

ROFL!

You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
attention.....

FWIW, I have enjoyed the more recent KQs even though they have flaws.
What game doesn't? But if you MUST denigrate the game, at least choose
a valid excuse!

Mark

Mark Taylor     Ma...@samadhi.demon.co.uk
Gamesplayer, idler & apprentice couch-potato

>   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - 
> 
They can't she and her husband own the company. To do that he would have
to divorce her and even then she still owns 1/2 the company.

> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Mark Taylor wrote:

> thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
> 
> > My incompetence? I think not. If I failed to choose the right lamp in a
> >totally random puzzle, than it means I wasn't very lucky. If you got the right
> >one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that happening
> >are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should be
> >needing by the end of the game. 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
> There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
> the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
> attention.....

	Now, you see, that is one of the big problems I had with the game.
Yes, it is possible to see the lamp there and thus know which one you are
supposed to pick, but there is >no< way for ALEXANDER to know which lamp
to pick.  It is only because the player sees the cut scene that they are
able to instruct Alexander which lamp is the correct one.  From
Alexander's point of view, he does not >see< the cut scene, so >any< lamp
he picks is just a guess.  That really >does< bug me, so it still makes
the puzzle a poor one in my opinion.  Is there a way to figure out the
correct lamp?  Yes.  Is there a way for >Alexander< to figure out the
correct lamp?  No.

> FWIW, I have enjoyed the more recent KQs even though they have flaws.
> What game doesn't? But if you MUST denigrate the game, at least choose
> a valid excuse!

	I think it >is< valid, just not the way he explained it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raymond Pat <rpha...@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote in article
<34FA7F09...@polymail.calpoly.edu>...
> thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
> 
> >   How could such a bad game designer become famous?
> >   Let's face it: the woman hasn't got one single good game in her
curriculum!
> 
> That's YOUR opinion.  The Colonel's Bequest is own of the best games
ever, in fact
> I daresay it's better than ANY of the Monkey Island series.  I was never
so
> frightened and so enthralled at the little nuances in the game...from
stublimg
> into bodies, finding crime scenes, spying on people, finding new secret
passages.
> It was SO thrilling.  The only gripe is that it's too hard.
This sounds good, I will have to look for this one.
 
> >   First, the dreadful King's Quest game: KQ6 was the most infuriating
gaming
> > experience ever. In that stupid game you could screw things up just by
not
> > entering the right screen at the right time !!  
> Isn't that more of your own incompetency?  
> >   For God's sake, Sierra, get rid of the imbecile - the design in her
games
> > are the ultimate proof of what you can achieve with a careful
combination of
> > laziness and complete lack of any visible talents.
> 
> This is stupid.  I'm SURE you haven't playedeven HALf os Roberta
Williams' games,
> and here you are dissing her as if she was your whore.  WTF?You described
only 2
> games of hers you had gripes with.  Sure, Phantasmagoria was a big step
down (so
> was KQ7), but not everyone does something great all the time....ahem,
Lord British
> (UO and U8 are complete disasters). Have you played ANY of her earlier
works?
> Have you tried Time Zone?  It came out in 1981, and it was TOUGH.  Very
> challenging IMHO.  She really did a good job there, and I think that game
is on
> par with any of Infocom's best.You might not be alone, but the opinion
you arrive
> with is so uninformed and unresearched that it does not give weight to
your
> argument.  Sure I think her works are getting worse, but dismissing her
like this
> is very insulting, to her AND to readers who enjoyed her past works.

I agree with you totally. Sierra and Roberta Williams games may have gone
downhill in recent years, but she/they have given much enjoyment  over the
years and have advanced adventures in general. I have heard all about Time
Zone when it came, and it is supposed to be huge. Do you know what it was
released (was it just Apple2) on and where you might be able to get a copy.
Sorry about cutting out parts of your message.

steve...@eclipse.co.uk

As both an avid RPGer and adventurer, I'll definitely back you up on this
one.  BAK is one of my favorite games of all time.  I replayed it this past
summer and it still addicted me like few have.  The world graphics suck
pretty bad, but everything else is done with care and exceptional detail.
And for fans of "non-linear" games, in my opinion, BAK has an almost perfect
balance of "free-to-do-what-you-wish" gaming while still telling a great
story.  The only other game I've seen with this good of a balance is
Fallout.

Kevin Grey

>HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
>
>And this is the guy who said that there people like me playing games
nowadays (a
>put down).  And here he is, Mr. Matthew Murray, dissing one of the greatest
RPGs of
>all time!!!!  My god!!!!!
>And I thought you lost it before!!!!
>
>Betrayal at Krondor is one of THE best games EVER.  There's a LEGION of
people who
>will back me up on this (if I have to, I'll bring in the whole wrath of
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg!).  Not liking this game gives you NO right to
critique
>other people's tastes, as you have done with mine.  I'm just giving you
back some
>of your own medicine, which you richly deserves.
>
>

> Sorry about that. Today i have read an interview with R.W. Phantasmagoria 2
> was also mentioned. She sayed that the game was "pretty good" and "rather
> enjoyed" playing it. I never played KQ 6, so i can't comment on that.


>>>>>>> Well, I suppose it would have been fairly amusing (and decent) if
Roberta Williams admitted Phantasmagoria 2 sucks. In fact, that thing smells
worse than a wet dog in a hot day, and I'd be very nice if i called it a game
at all.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Matthew Murray wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:
>
> > What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
> > stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
> > if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
> > DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.
>
>         Yes, it DOES.  Whether you need the lamp or not is irrelevant.
> You are using information obtained as the player to solve a puzzle as
> >Alexander<.  Whether or not you need the lamp to finish the game, that is
> >poor< puzzle design.

Great.  Now he goes and offers NO proof as to why one DOES need the lamp.  Since,
the oh-so-mighty Matthew can't seem to get it, I'll tell you how.  You DON'T NEED
THE LAMP because there are two other ways to finish the game.  You can either give
the mint to the Genie at the end (instead of using the lamp on him) to conquer him,
them follow the same procedures.  Or you can disguise yourself in Beauty's costume
and go inside.

See, I at least can provide EVIDENCE of the game.  But you can't.  You just say
"YES IT DOES".  Gee.  Maybe you're not half as smart as you think you are.  And you
even reduced ME to personal criticism, which is very below me, but seems right up
your alley.


> > I wouldn't say either were lousy...although I think Monkey Island II was
> > nowhere near as good as the original.  That damn
> > monocle-asd-replacement-for-eye-that-sees-the-world puzzle STILLL
> > infuriates me.  Now THAT was an example of an obscure puzzle.
>
>         <shakes head>
>         To think that people like >this< are playing computer games today.
> <sigh

With THIS inane comment.  I feel sorry for you, mister, for being so deluded in
your own grandeur of self-led importance and supposed intelligence.  You have posed
NO logic to your conclusions, have not EVEN provided satisfactory debate against my
claims, and is definitely OBSESSED with one particular puzzle which very few other
people have had problems with.  I believe the problem is, you , and not me.  No
wonder you could solve those illogical puzzles so well.

Raymond

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >Great.  Now he goes and offers NO proof as to why one DOES need the lamp.
Since,
> >the oh-so-mighty Matthew can't seem to get it, I'll tell you how.  You
DON'T NEED
> >THE LAMP because there are two other ways to finish the game.  You can
either give
> >the mint to the Genie at the end (instead of using the lamp on him) to
conquer him,
> >them follow the same procedures.  Or you can disguise yourself in Beauty's
costume
> >and go inside.



> >With THIS inane comment.  I feel sorry for you, mister, for being so
deluded in
> >your own grandeur of self-led importance and supposed intelligence.  You
have posed
> >NO logic to your conclusions, have not EVEN provided satisfactory debate
against my
> >claims, and is definitely OBSESSED with one particular puzzle which very
few other
> >people have had problems with.  I believe the problem is, you , and not me.
 No
> >wonder you could solve those illogical puzzles so well.

. You're the one who can't explain the logic on the damn lamp puzzle - and if
you can, tell me how could Alexander know about the fucking lamp if he were
not present at the stupid scene. Matthew is totally right there, and no one
can dispute that the cutscene was one extremely incompetent and lazy way to
wrap up the puzzle.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Raymond Pat <rpha...@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote:

>Matthew Murray wrote:

>> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:

>> > What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
>> > stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
>> > if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
>> > DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.

>>         Yes, it DOES.  Whether you need the lamp or not is irrelevant.
>> You are using information obtained as the player to solve a puzzle as
>> >Alexander<.  Whether or not you need the lamp to finish the game, that is
>> >poor< puzzle design.

>Great.  Now he goes and offers NO proof as to why one DOES need the lamp.  Since,
>the oh-so-mighty Matthew can't seem to get it, I'll tell you how.  You DON'T NEED
>THE LAMP because there are two other ways to finish the game.  You can either give
>the mint to the Genie at the end (instead of using the lamp on him) to conquer him,
>them follow the same procedures.  Or you can disguise yourself in Beauty's costume
>and go inside.

Ah... The peril of the ellipsis... I interpreted Matthew's sentence to
mean: "Yes, it [the design flaw] DOES [exist]." If you read the very
next sentence, you see that Matthew does not care whether or not you
need the lamp. His beef is with the game designer's (IMO poor) decision
to base a puzzle on what the player knows as opposed to what the
player's character knows. (It strikes one as silly or unrealistic, and
weakens one's suspension of disbelief.)

>> > I wouldn't say either were lousy...although I think Monkey Island II was
>> > nowhere near as good as the original.  That damn
>> > monocle-asd-replacement-for-eye-that-sees-the-world puzzle STILLL
>> > infuriates me.  Now THAT was an example of an obscure puzzle.

>>         <shakes head>
>>         To think that people like >this< are playing computer games today.
>> <sigh

>With THIS inane comment.  I feel sorry for you, mister, for being so deluded in
>your own grandeur of self-led importance and supposed intelligence.  You have posed
>NO logic to your conclusions, have not EVEN provided satisfactory debate against my
>claims, and is definitely OBSESSED with one particular puzzle which very few other
>people have had problems with.  I believe the problem is, you , and not me.  No
>wonder you could solve those illogical puzzles so well.

Personally, I interpreted Matthew's comment as facetious, though it is
ambiguous enough.... Though for the record I didn't much like that
puzzle either.


--
"It's a magical world, Hobbes, 'ol buddy... Let's go exploring!"
     -Calvin, "Calvin and Hobbes"

Nick Jong wrote:

> >> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:
>
> >> > What deisgn fault?  You DON'T need the lamp to finish the game!!!! I have
> >> > stated that MANY times before!  There are 4 ways to finish the game, and
> >> > if you missed something, you could always use another route to pass.  So I
> >> > DON'T think the "design" flaw you mention DOES exist.
>
> >>         Yes, it DOES.  Whether you need the lamp or not is irrelevant.
> >> You are using information obtained as the player to solve a puzzle as
> >> >Alexander<.  Whether or not you need the lamp to finish the game, that is
> >> >poor< puzzle design.
>
> >Great.  Now he goes and offers NO proof as to why one DOES need the lamp.  Since,
> >the oh-so-mighty Matthew can't seem to get it, I'll tell you how.  You DON'T NEED
> >THE LAMP because there are two other ways to finish the game.  You can either give
> >the mint to the Genie at the end (instead of using the lamp on him) to conquer him,
> >them follow the same procedures.  Or you can disguise yourself in Beauty's costume
> >and go inside.
>
> Ah... The peril of the ellipsis... I interpreted Matthew's sentence to
> mean: "Yes, it [the design flaw] DOES [exist]." If you read the very
> next sentence, you see that Matthew does not care whether or not you
> need the lamp. His beef is with the game designer's (IMO poor) decision
> to base a puzzle on what the player knows as opposed to what the
> player's character knows. (It strikes one as silly or unrealistic, and
> weakens one's suspension of disbelief.)

I know.  And I do know the Matthew only cared about how much he hated that lamp puzzle.
But that WASN'T the original argument!  The original post was about how KQ6 CAN'T be
finished without the lamp, which is absurd.  That's why I said that he was off-topic.

> Personally, I interpreted Matthew's comment as facetious, though it is
> ambiguous enough.... Though for the record I didn't much like that
> puzzle either.

> --
> "It's a magical world, Hobbes, 'ol buddy... Let's go exploring!"
>      -Calvin, "Calvin and Hobbes"

> Well, the tone of your post seemed like what you just mentioned above.
> Also, you dismissed her, yet you say you haven't played all her games.
> Now, if you played ALL of them and hated all, then it's different.  But
> NOT playing all her games and then saying she is talentless, I'm sorry.
> You just DON'T qualify to make that judgement.  what happened if you
> played some game of hers later and liked it?  Well, that defeats
> everything you've said, doesn't it?

Oh, not at all. First, I was very unimpressed by the early KQ games. And I did
fail to play a few of her games, but, when you're not the boss, you can't
expect one good going among several lousy others to sabe your job.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 thya...@sol.com.br wrote:

> > >You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
> > >There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
> > >the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
> > >attention.....
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Quite frankly, if Mrs. Williams had put an enormous arrow pointing
> to the right lamp or got a song called "Get the one on the left" to play
> during that part of the game, I'd still have to say KQ6 is a badly designed
> game. Why? Because, as Lucas Arts well know, you DON'T allow the player into a
> dead end. Never. How do you avoid that kind of situation? With tight, clever
> designing. Period. And no one is supposed to pay attention to every single
> detail in cutscenes. I wasn't paying attention? Could it be because I was
> bored to death?

	I agree, but I >do< feel that some of LucasArts' games would be
improved if there was a greater possibility of failure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
> >There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
> >the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
> >attention.....



>>>>>>>>> Quite frankly, if Mrs. Williams had put an enormous arrow pointing
to the right lamp or got a song called "Get the one on the left" to play
during that part of the game, I'd still have to say KQ6 is a badly designed
game. Why? Because, as Lucas Arts well know, you DON'T allow the player into a
dead end. Never. How do you avoid that kind of situation? With tight, clever
designing. Period. And no one is supposed to pay attention to every single
detail in cutscenes. I wasn't paying attention? Could it be because I was
bored to death?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Matthew Murray wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Quite frankly, if Mrs. Williams had put an enormous arrow pointing
> > to the right lamp or got a song called "Get the one on the left" to play
> > during that part of the game, I'd still have to say KQ6 is a badly designed
> > game. Why? Because, as Lucas Arts well know, you DON'T allow the player into a
> > dead end. Never. How do you avoid that kind of situation? With tight, clever
> > designing. Period. And no one is supposed to pay attention to every single
> > detail in cutscenes. I wasn't paying attention? Could it be because I was
> > bored to death?

HOw many times do I have to repeat this?  YOU DON'T NEED THE LAMP TO WIN!!!!!!!!
I am SO tired of explaining this.  GIVE THE DAMN MINT TO THE GENIE!!!  There IS no
DEAd-END!!!!!  ARRRRGHHHH!!!!

"Whew, for a minute there, I lost myself" - Radiohead
Raymond

>         I agree, but I >do< feel that some of LucasArts' games would be
> improved if there was a greater possibility of failure.

I agree also.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Taylor wrote in message <34fd1e3e...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>thya...@sol.com.br wrote:
>
>> My incompetence? I think not. If I failed to choose the right lamp in a
>>totally random puzzle, than it means I wasn't very lucky. If you got the
right
>>one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that
happening
>>are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should be
>>needing by the end of the game.
>
>ROFL!
>
>You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
>There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
>the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
>attention.....


The point is that Alexander wasn't there to actually see that lamp. Only the
omniscient player to give Alexander an Obi-Wan like suggestion.

>FWIW, I have enjoyed the more recent KQs even though they have flaws.
>What game doesn't? But if you MUST denigrate the game, at least choose
>a valid excuse!


It was a valid excuse.

CJD

>Mark
>
>Mark Taylor     Ma...@samadhi.demon.co.uk
>Gamesplayer, idler & apprentice couch-potato

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Carlos DaSilva wrote:

> Mark Taylor wrote in message <34fd1e3e...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >ROFL!
> >
> >You have picked one of the MOST LOGICAL puzzles in the game to knock!
> >There is at least one cut scene between the vizier and the genie where
> >the lamp is in foreground on the desk. 'Course, if you weren't paying
> >attention.....
> 
> The point is that Alexander wasn't there to actually see that lamp. Only the
> omniscient player to give Alexander an Obi-Wan like suggestion.

	He doesn't seem to understand that, and I think I've explained it
to him about three times now.  I appreciate the support, but I just don't
think he's going to figure it out!

> >FWIW, I have enjoyed the more recent KQs even though they have flaws.
> >What game doesn't? But if you MUST denigrate the game, at least choose
> >a valid excuse!
> 
> It was a valid excuse.

	Yes, it was, but if he's not willing to see it, there's only so
much that intelligent, thinking people can do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980304...@titan.cc.wwu.edu>,
Matthew Murray  <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Raymond Pat wrote:
>
>> That's fine.  I respect your opinion.  I only have problems with people who go around
>> insulting the designer of games, calling her talentless, and an imbecile.  I also have
>
>	I also don't think that should be going on.  Calling someone an
>imbecile is ridiculous--calling Roberta Williams talentless, however, is
>fair, I feel.
>

That's right..... The topic of this debate can be, Roberta Willams
is incompetent, talentless, lousy game designer or even a bad
hockey player, (not that, I am agreeing or rejecting any of these)
but to say that 'she is a fraud' doesn't make sense..

I never recall buying any game designed by RW, for which, on
opening the box, I found only a sticker saying 'Fooled ya...
You won't find any CDs inside this box.. Now go and stick
it on your posterior'

--
Noman

Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:


>	I also don't think that should be going on.  Calling someone an
>imbecile is ridiculous--calling Roberta Williams talentless, however, is
>fair, I feel.
>
Listen, I'm not a big Roberta Williams fan or anything. I personally
think Jane Jensen holds the future of Sierra in her hands. But calling
RW "talentless." What's the last adventure game you put together huh?
Can you provide us with a downloadable demo, so we can all see how
it's done? Do you have any idea the amount of scripting, coding, and
design work that goes into an adventure game, and, YES, talent! It is
fine to criticize someone's work or even state that it is subpar in
comparison to the works of others. But, I think you'd offend every
creative mind in the computer gaming industry by saying that Roberta
Williams has no talent.

Alex

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Alex wrote:

> Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> 
> >	I also don't think that should be going on.  Calling someone an
> >imbecile is ridiculous--calling Roberta Williams talentless, however, is
> >fair, I feel.
> >
> Listen, I'm not a big Roberta Williams fan or anything. I personally
> think Jane Jensen holds the future of Sierra in her hands. But calling
> RW "talentless." What's the last adventure game you put together huh?
> Can you provide us with a downloadable demo, so we can all see how
> it's done? Do you have any idea the amount of scripting, coding, and
> design work that goes into an adventure game, and, YES, talent! It is
> fine to criticize someone's work or even state that it is subpar in
> comparison to the works of others. But, I think you'd offend every
> creative mind in the computer gaming industry by saying that Roberta
> Williams has no talent.

	I guess we use the word talent differently.  I have never thought
that talent is an acquired attribute.  To me, talent is something you
either have or you don't.  I don't have many, but one of my few talents is
my ability to very easily pick up languages.  No one taught me this,
I've just always been able to do it.  I do >not< believe that Roberta
Williams has this kind of "talent."  Skill, yes--she knows how to put the
games together technically.  That is not in debate.  But for me, that's
all there is.  Her games have, from the beginning, seemed very mechanical
in many ways, and limiting in their structure and emotional content.  This
is not Mrs. Williams' fault--she is not to >blame<, but she is not
"talented."  Talent suggests to me something extra, something special.  I
would say that Steve Meretzky--author of many Infocom classics, the
Spellcasting series, and others--is >talented<.  Technically capable, yes, 
but with that little something extra that seems to imbue his games with a
different kind of energy. Jane Jensen is likewise >talented<--she took
very obvious and overdone stories, and managed to turn and twist them and 
create the characters necessary to make them interesting, but there is
>more< in these games.  Something extra, something that can't be taught. 
Roberta Williams has a long history with the adventure game industry, and 
her games may have sold well.  However, skillful as she might be,
Roberta Williams is >not< talented.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thya...@sol.com.br wrote in article <6dfhhf$ia5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd45b9$180e5260$LocalHost@default>,
> > Well this imbecile as you call her is a sucessful businesswoman who
with
> > her husband Ken, have built Sierra up into one of the biggest software
> > companies today. Without her there probably wouldn't be a Sierra,
though
> > that would probably be good news to people like you.
(snip)
 
> >>>>>>>> Which facts? People complaining about Overseer? I can't see why
that
> would make KQ6 a better game and I clearly said why I don't approve her
work.
> And I don't care how much money Sierra makes - if selling big meant
talent,
> the Spice Girls would only find jobs as janitors.
I didn't say that making money was dependant on talent(though it certainly
helps), but that Roberta Williams didn't get where she was today by being
an imbecile. As for the Spice Girls that is your opinion. I personally
can't stand them and think they are overrated, but millions of other people
around the world will probably disgree with this view, and who's to say
their views are anyway inferior to our own.

> I haven't played Overseer yet, but Mrs. Williams could learn a lot about
game        > designing from Under a Killing Moon and Pandora Directive. 
Well again that's your opinion? I can't comment having never played these
games.

> In a recent issue of the British PC Gamer, I read Sierra had "wisely
> chosen" not to emphasise the fact that Mask of Eternity was a King's
Quest
> sequel. Why? "Best avoid prejudices, as this comes from the mind of
Roberta
> 'Phantasmagoria' Williams." Now, if Sierra itself is afraid of gamers
> connecting their new release to King's Quest, something must be wrong.
> 
I agree with you, but not for the reason you give. I think Sierra is trying
to distance the Mask of Eternity from the other KQ's games, mainly because
it thinks everyone now only wants to play 3d action/adventure/real time
games, and thinks old adventure games are old hat(not just old Sierra
games, but most of what is played by this newsgroup), and as such is
misguided in thinking unless they join in they will be finished. Remember
Sierra made it's name as an adventure orientated company, with a few other
game from other genres, but now there is hardly a real adventure game on
the horizon from the company, except GK3, and we are not sure yet what
direction that is going to be.
So if you are really interested in adventures, you should be trying to
support people/companies who have made groundbreaking adventures in the
past, and convince them that it is real adventures you are interested in,
not action feasts or other genres masquarading as them. That is what has
depressed me about the Overseer shambles. Many people who might have bought
this game and can't play this game properly might now decide not to buy
software off Access again or even be put of playing adventures in general.
Remember only a few of us have access to newsgroups or have much knowledge
about computers, and their only support is usually from the shop that sold
them it(which is usually not much at all)

steve...@eclipse.co.uk

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Matthew Murray wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Carlos DaSilva wrote:
> 
> 	He doesn't seem to understand that, and I think I've explained it
> to him about three times now.  I appreciate the support, but I just don't
> think he's going to figure it out!

Oh, poor deluded soul!  To be fooled in such revelry by his own
self-gratification!  Such a mind gone to waste, replacd by an insufferable
void.  A true tragedy.

Perhaps if you learn to stick to the subject you'll realise that I never
mentioned that stupid choosing the lamp puzzle.  I was just answering a
person who said KQ6 could not be played without a lamp.  Methinks a new
brain would serve you well.  Then maybe you'll remember the sequence
better.  I have said millions of times that it's your opinion whether the
choosing the lmap puzzle is "well-designed" or not. I could care less.
What I DO care about was the original post, saying that KQ6 has dead-ends.  
 
> > >FWIW, I have enjoyed the more recent KQs even though they have flaws.
> > >What game doesn't? But if you MUST denigrate the game, at least choose
> > >a valid excuse!
> > 
> > It was a valid excuse.
> 
> 	Yes, it was, but if he's not willing to see it, there's only so
> much that intelligent, thinking people can do.

Oh.  All you've shown me is that you don't have much of it to speak of,
otherwise you'd realise your own mistakes by now.  Next time, pleae use
your gray matter to intelligently READ others post before making your own
dumb comments.  

There is no redemption for people who are not capable of guiding
themselves.

Raymond

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 

In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.98030...@monet.artisan.calpoly.edu>,
Raymond  Phathanavirangoon  <rpha...@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote:
>
>
>What I DO care about was the original post, saying that KQ6 has dead-ends.  
> 

I agree with Raymond here....... KQ6 has no dead ends, and was perhaps
the first Sierra game to do that. I don't think there is anything more
frustrating than to find yourself at a dead end, because of what you did
a long time ago in the game.

That's why I liked Kings Quest 6. It had better puzzles and more
integrated gameplay than any other Sierra title I can think of
(except Gabriel Knight 1)... , IMHO.

Btw, I was playing Sierra titles for a long time, before they
converted to icon based design... I didn't find the change
too disturbing, (until GK2, when the interface was totally ruined)
but the gameplay in pre-KQ6,SQ5 days was extremely frustrating.
Dead ends, dying by falling off edges, 'you are too far to do this'
syndrome... They were all major nuisances..

We should be thankful for people like Ron Gilbert, Aric Wilmunder
for streamlining the no-nonsense adventure game design, that
every game company (including Sierra) uses now..
--
Noman

Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:

<snip>

No one taught me this,
>I've just always been able to do it.  I do >not< believe that Roberta
>Williams has this kind of "talent."  Skill, yes--she knows how to put the
>games together technically.  

<snip>
 However, skillful as she might be,
>Roberta Williams is >not< talented.

Your points are well-taken, but like many of the comments on the
usenet gaming boards, so much of this is personal preference and what
we all proclaim as good taste. As I have said before, I am not a great
fan of RW's work. I think I was just trying to defend someone who has
done a lot for this industry. I feel she <is> talented. You do not.
So, let's agree to disagree and not, like some others on this board,
resort to calling her an "imbecile" who should "go off and die
somewhere." That stuff is just not called for.

Alex

Matthew, I know this is off subject. You can pick up languages up very
quickly. What languages do you speak? That is so cool.

I don't have many, but one of my few talents is
my ability to very easily pick up languages.

Robert
tip9...@pacbell.net

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Thomas Perrett or Robert Perrett wrote:

> Matthew, I know this is off subject. You can pick up languages up very
> quickly. What languages do you speak? That is so cool.

	English (obviously) and German fluently...  To other lesser
degrees (due to the amount of time I've been working on them) French and
Italian.  I would love to study more languages, it's just a question of
time (as usual).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Carlos DaSilva" <cdas...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> If you got the right
>>>one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that happening
>>>are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should be
>>>needing by the end of the game.

[my original reply snipped]

>The point is that Alexander wasn't there to actually see that lamp. Only the
>omniscient player to give Alexander an Obi-Wan like suggestion.

[my bit snipped again]

>It was a valid excuse.
>
>CJD

OK, I'll go along with that.
My reply referring to the cut-scene was in response to your first
statement (above). Had you written "...Alexander has ABSOLUTELY....."
I would've agreed in the first place.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Taylor     Ma...@samadhi.demon.co.uk
Gamesplayer, idler & apprentice couch-potato

Mark Taylor wrote in message <3501a55e...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>"Carlos DaSilva" <cdas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> If you got the right
>>>>one the first time you played, than congratulations, chances of that
happening
>>>>are of 20%, since there are ABSOLUTELY NO CLUES to what lamp you should
be
>>>>needing by the end of the game.


I did not write the previous paragraph...

>[my original reply snipped]
>
>>The point is that Alexander wasn't there to actually see that lamp. Only
the
>>omniscient player to give Alexander an Obi-Wan like suggestion.


I wrote this...

>[my bit snipped again]
>
>>It was a valid excuse.


And this...

>>CJD
>
>OK, I'll go along with that.
>My reply referring to the cut-scene was in response to your first
>statement (above). Had you written "...Alexander has ABSOLUTELY....."
>I would've agreed in the first place.


CJD

>Regards,
>Mark
>
>Mark Taylor     Ma...@samadhi.demon.co.uk
>Gamesplayer, idler & apprentice couch-potato

hi,
many of u in this thread have missed something. who Roberta is in history of 
adventure game buz.
although some Sierra's stories have flaws, some of their games isn't so long etc.
i think Sierra overall has more feeling in their game than many other companies,
have more talents (and style witch makes able to), who can make game
feel that Sierra's more of that world than you actually see in game than Luca Arts does.
there were times, that all adventure game began to seem LucasArts clone and 
part of their big insider joke beside few ones and most of them few were by Sierra.
Sierra was (yes, today it isn't) able to but out games so quick u always had something
to play, still so good that defining adventure game had lot to do with Sierra .

K

My dad claimed he originally made the program for King's Quest and Roberta Williams stole his code. I don't know how accurate that is but it makes sense judging from her shitty games.