🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 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.

	I enjoyed playing King's Quest VI.  It's not my favorite adventure
game, but it was entertaining.  I was able to finish the game without a
walkthrough.  I did use a walkthrough later, but that was just to see
the different endings.
	It's been a while since I've played it, but I never had a problem with
the logic involved in solving the puzzles.  If I remember correctly, the
lamp choice is not random.  Before you choose a lamp, there is a
cutscene in which you see the lamp that the genie uses.  So I just
picked it's duplicate.  I thought it might come in handy later.  I don't
think you need the lamp to win the game.  I think one of the endings
accounts for this, but I could be wrong about that.
	KQ V was a totally different story.  I thought that game was bad.  The
worst being the damn throw the pie in the face of the yeti puzzle.

> 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)

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.
> 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.


>>>>>>>> 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 haven't played Overseer
yet, but Mrs. Williams could learn a lot about game designing from Under a
Killing Moon and Pandora Directive. You say I'd be happy if Sierra didn't
exist... wrong. I'd be happy if Sierra published better games. I play games,
for God's sake, and if they were making fantastic software, I'd gladly make
the Williams a bit richer. I didn't say what I did because I thought it was
funny. 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.

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

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Ed Polanco 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. 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.

1.  Jane Jensen designed KQ6, with Roberta as a consultant.  Blame HEr on
the game.
2.  That's why the puzzle explicitly says aftwerwards that it was by
random chance that you have the right lamp.  It made sense to me.  IT's
not the designer's fault if you somehow feel irked by that particular
puzzle.  No one else seem bothered by it.  I'm more bothered with some
obscure puzzles in Monkey Island II than in KQ6 (like giving monocle to
dread as a replacement for the eye that sees the world....geez!  That is S
obtuse!)

3. You don't need the lamp to finish the game.  So what was it about
needing something in order to finish the game?  Huh?  Did you even PLAY
KQ6? (sorry, Ed, not addressed to you!) :>

> 
> 	I enjoyed playing King's Quest VI.  It's not my favorite adventure
> game, but it was entertaining.  I was able to finish the game without a
> walkthrough.  I did use a walkthrough later, but that was just to see
> the different endings.

Same with me.

> 	It's been a while since I've played it, but I never had a problem with
> the logic involved in solving the puzzles.  If I remember correctly, the
> lamp choice is not random.  Before you choose a lamp, there is a
> cutscene in which you see the lamp that the genie uses.  So I just
> picked it's duplicate.  I thought it might come in handy later.  I don't
> think you need the lamp to win the game.  I think one of the endings
> accounts for this, but I could be wrong about that.

You don't need the lamp to win.  He just thinks so.  That's why he's
WRONG.

> 	KQ V was a totally different story.  I thought that game was bad.  The
> worst being the damn throw the pie in the face of the yeti puzzle.

Agreed.  KQ5 may have been a technological breaktrhough but game-wise it
was a dud.

> > And I found the whole game very sub-par, starting with the childish
> > save-the-princess story.

Yes.

> 	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?

Well, I thought KQ3 was very good, 'cause I didn't know Gwydion was the
Prince until very end...at least SOme brain went into that.

> -- 
> Ed Polanco (esp...@psu.edu)
> 
> 

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Raymond  Phathanavirangoon wrote:

> 2.  That's why the puzzle explicitly says aftwerwards that it was by
> random chance that you have the right lamp.  It made sense to me.  IT's
> not the designer's fault if you somehow feel irked by that particular
> puzzle.  No one else seem bothered by it.  I'm more bothered with some
> obscure puzzles in Monkey Island II than in KQ6 (like giving monocle to
> dread as a replacement for the eye that sees the world....geez!  That is S
> obtuse!)

	Oh please!  You have GOT to be kidding me!  The lamp puzzle was
unfair and pathetic.  ALEXANDER COULD NEVER SOLVE THAT PUZZLE!!!
Alexander could >never< have more than a 20% chance of getting the lamp
right.  The only way the puzzle can be correctly solved beyond random
chance is the omniscence of the game player, and puzzles that rely on
tricks like that have >always< rubbed me the wrong way.  The player SHOULD
NOT EXIST.  Only the character should exist.  If the only way the PLAYER
can solve a puzzle is to have the CHARACTER perform an action that
requires information only the PLAYER possesses, there is a big, huge
problem with the design of the puzzle.

> 3. You don't need the lamp to finish the game.  So what was it about
> needing something in order to finish the game?  Huh?  Did you even PLAY
> KQ6? (sorry, Ed, not addressed to you!) :>

	That's not the point.  Whether or not you need it to finish the
game, the puzzle itself is unfair.

> > 	KQ V was a totally different story.  I thought that game was bad.  The
> > worst being the damn throw the pie in the face of the yeti puzzle.
> 
> Agreed.  KQ5 may have been a technological breaktrhough but game-wise it
> was a dud.

	You're deriding King's Quest V for having a bad story in the same
message you are talking about King's Quest VI?!?  Pray tell, have you ever
played King's Quest II?  If not, I would really recommend it.  The story
in King's Quest V was more thoughtful.  Better executed?  Open to debate.
But it's the package of King's Quest VI that makes it so unpalatable--the
puzzles are inane and the "characters" (such as they are) silly.  At least
in King's Quest V, there was something >at stake<.  Let's face it--the
stakes in King's Quest VI just weren't that high.  Why the authors really
expected us to care so much about Cassima based on the very small
amount of time spent with her near the end of King's Quest V is beyond me.
Why they decided to have Alexander behave in the manner he did--which is
tremendously uncharacteristic of Alexander, if you ask me--is merely one
more problem.  No, King's Quest V wasn't perfect, but it was much better
than King's Quest VI.

> > > And I found the whole game very sub-par, starting with the childish
> > > save-the-princess story.
> 
> Yes.

	You just described King's Quest VI.  Yes, it was very sub-par.
What I can't figure out is where you switched topics--you WERE talking
about King's Quest V, but there really isn't a "save-the-princess" story
in King's Quest V.

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

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Raymond Pat wrote:

> 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!!!!

	Would you PLEASE explain to me where that is even SUGGESTED in the
above message?

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

I agree, there were moments in kq6 wich were absolutely beautiful, like the
time we are leaded by the winged man, or when we are escorted by the dog
guards, or even qhen we send messages to the princess using a dove.
This game was the first adventure game i tried and I loved it.

Daniel
Elizabeth Yang wrote in message <34FB01...@eiy.com>...
<snip>

>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.


<snip>

>- Liz

Raymond Phathanavirangoon wrote in message ...
>
>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.

>Raymond

Please watch your damn clips, I didn't write what you attributed to me.

CJD

Carlos DaSilva wrote:

> Raymond Phathanavirangoon wrote in message ...
> >
> >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.
>
> >Raymond
>
> Please watch your damn clips, I didn't write what you attributed to me.

Sorry!  My bad :)

> CJD

> >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.

Thank you for agreeing with me! :)

> 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.

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  I think Gold Rush!, The Colonel's Bequest, Conquest
of the Longbow, Space Quest 3, Hero's Quest, etc.  are btter integrated, but I
still like KQ6 a lot.  It had a certain cliched charm :)

> 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..

Well, when I first played KQ5, it WAS disturbing...but that's because I didn't like
the game much, however.  I think GK1 and Conquest of Longbow proved that the icons
COULD work, though.  I didn't like the GK2 interface as well, but it was miles
better than Phantasmagoria.

No one ever mentions Rama, which is surprising.  I found that game to be very
enjoyable.


> 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..

Ron Gilbert was a saint.  Too bad he's doing RTS stuff like Total Annihilation.

I can't wait for Douglas Adams to prove that text games aren't dead with Starship
Titanic! :)

> --
> Noman