When will QFG II Trial by Fire VGA + final be done?

Message

jpnuar1 · #126 Post by **jpnuar1** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:13 pm

Basically for the options that couldn't be done with a point and click interface. When you only have 3 icons to interact with the environment, there arent nearly as many jokes you can include in a game....

gamecreator · #127 Post by **gamecreator** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:03 am

Meh, there are exceptions. I don't think you could do the equivalent of clicking the hand on yourself in text parsers. Plus in at least one Space Quest (4 was one, I think) they put in the smell icon. I doubt it did anything for puzzle solving but the extra effort put in for humor was there.

As to why some of us loved text parsers, really, it boils down to two things:

1. Sentimental value. The same reason AGDI is doing the game in 320x200 (even though they opt to do the music in a non-MIDI format). Games you grow up with tend to stick with you and you get attached to their flaws as well as their virtues.

2. Illusion. When you can type anything, it seems like the game is responding to everything, even when you keep getting cleverly worded errors. Instead of 404 or blue screens of death, you got a joke. This made it seem like the game was working with you. With mouse cursors the barrier, the limitation, is clear, even if you'll never actually discover all of the game's interactive possibilites.

Kurdt · #128 Post by **Kurdt** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:13 am

There's actually a long and drawn-out discussion about this over on AdventureGamers with Josh Mandel holding up the side of the parser that's relevant here. I think that Brian does bring up a good point, though. A lot of people really only like parser because they grew up with it. My first computer was a 286 with DOS only and I loved it. It was just about the coolest computer ever to me. It didn't even have a mouse or speakers (even though there were inputs for both), but it was mine and I loved it. When I upgraded to a 386 it was even better because it had Windows 3.1 (my favorite Windows OS; I wish I had a 486 with a working copy of this) which still let you exit to DOS if you needed to.

However, I agree that parsers only "seem" infinite. I mean, you can say that only having 4 icons to interact with your world limits you all you want, but in the end you're doing all the things the parser would've let you done. I mean, sure, if you type in "f*** tree" or "kill chair" or something like that in a Space Quest or Quest for Glory game you MIGHT get a joke if the programmer thought to add that in there. Most of the time all you'll get is "I don't understand the word "f***" or "Please find a different way of saying that" or "Speak English, Nazi!!" That's not infinite freedom, that's limitations the same as before.

Gronagor · #129 Post by **Gronagor** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:47 am

However it is, I miss it. I still feel this tingling when I get to work in DOS mode (even if it's a very bad 'clone' of the original)

Oh well. I miss those days... programming in simle Basic (even before Pascal arrived)

Man, I've created some fantastic little games in those days. I even created my own drawing application. *sigh* The good old days...

lodgey · #130 Post by **lodgey** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:29 am

However, I agree that parsers only "seem" infinite. I mean, you can say that only having 4 icons to interact with your world limits you all you want, but in the end you're doing all the things the parser would've let you done. I mean, sure, if you type in "f*** tree" or "kill chair" or something like that in a Space Quest or Quest for Glory game you MIGHT get a joke if the programmer thought to add that in there. Most of the time all you'll get is "I don't understand the word "f***" or "Please find a different way of saying that" or "Speak English, Nazi!!" That's not infinite freedom, that's limitations the same as before.

While I accept that parsers only seem infinite, that illusion can be valuble when trying to keep someone's attention while they try to work out a puzzle. For me, the appeal of the text parser was the diversity of options. Not every option will do anyting ("Nothing happens."), but the options were there all the same. Point and Click greatly reduces the options ("push", "pull", "get" and "wave at" would all be represented by the same cursor). And, of course, not all options with a point and click game do anything either.

I found the engines Sierra was using when they made "Quest for Glory 2" had the best balance. The mouse to move and to look at the environment, and the keyboard to interact with the environment. Had they upgraded their parser to the standard used by text adventures such as those written by Infocom, then I expect I would consider the interface ideal.

Of course, I still intend to enjoy playing the remake as well.

Angelus3K · #131 Post by **Angelus3K** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:10 am

I believe you can also exit to DOS on Win95 and Win 98/Me I would imagine.

Kurdt, just emulate Win 3.1 via VMWare like I do! Brings back the memories!!

jpnuar1 · #132 Post by **jpnuar1** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:28 pm

Kurdt wrote:I mean, sure, if you type in "f*** tree" or "kill chair" or something like that in a Space Quest or Quest for Glory game you MIGHT get a joke if the programmer thought to add that in there. Most of the time all you'll get is "I don't understand the word "f***" or "Please find a different way of saying that" or "Speak English, Nazi!!" That's not infinite freedom, that's limitations the same as before.

Just thought I'd mention, the old Sierra games tended to do a pretty fair job at recognizing expletives... even if the response was was a paraphrasing of the game's standard "say that anoher way", it still seemed pretty cool at te time.

TribeHasSpoken · #133 Post by **TribeHasSpoken** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:59 pm

One thing I'm concerned about with the QFGII remake is that, in the original game, the theme from "Lawrence of Arabia" was used during the caravan scenes. Though AGDI has legal permission from Vivendi for this remake, and the blessing of the Coles, I think the copyright for that piece of music is a whole other story. Has it been replaced with an original composition?

#134 Post by **Erpy** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:02 pm

No, but since the same composition is used in the original QFG2, VU would be obliged to take any lawsuit regarding that matter off our hands. It's very unlikely to happen anyway.

DKORNBLET · #135 Post by **DKORNBLET** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:07 pm

It might not be out until december 25,2007 ;)

which I can wait because I have Kings Quest 3 Vga.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Kurdt · #136 Post by **Kurdt** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:11 am

I just want to make it clear that, although I recognize the true limitations of the parser, I in no way mean that the parser was lesser than the point-n-click. Personally, I view them equally. While it's true that you can say more specific things in a parser, a point-n-click system allows for a different style of puzzles that can be terribly complex in their own right. I mean, why would people spend the time remaking games with the point-n-click system if it wasn't worth doing in that style? Similarly, the parser system has its own set of qualities that allow for uber-complex puzzles.

The only time I ever seriously bashed my head over a parser was in SQ:TLC when Vonster forgot to put the American spelling of the word "mold" into the system. I was red in the face until I went onto the Subspace Channel for the solution. There were times in parser games where I was like, "If I just had a hand cursor, this would all be done by now!!!" or times in point-n-click games where I was like, "If I could just type in what I wanted, this would all be over!!!" Most of the time, though, I was pretty sure of what I needed to do or what wouldn't work.

In my mind, I think an interface is only as good as the person designing it. In a good game, the interface and the game meld as one and you're never inconvenienced because if it. A parser can be a brilliant interface in the hands of a group like Infocom. Similarly, point-n-click can be brilliant in the hands of someone who knows what they can do with it. A good carpenter never blames his tools. A good game designer should be able to make a brilliant game out of any interface.

And I agree, Gron. The old DOS days were good. I was never a computer genius -- I never learned ASCII or Basic or Pascal -- but every time I needed to do something or had a problem, I was able to fix it with minimal fuss because the tools were right there in front of me. Now I end up having to sift through dozens and dozens of Windows and I usually can't for the life of me figure out what's wrong, or I end up only being able to fix the problem half-way. When you can't trust your own OS to tell you when things aren't working right and how to fix them, that's a pretty crappy way to live your life.

Jontas · #137 Post by **Jontas** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:22 am

I must admit I'm all about the point and click, but I agree that sometimes I wish I could just type what I want and be done with it.

I just remembered one of my greatest frustrations with DOS, "Bad command or file name!" LOL. It took me a long time to figure out that this usually refered to a spelling mistake on my part. Good times, good times...
Oh DOS, you make my heart all warm and fuzzy!

haradan · #138 Post by **haradan** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:34 am

Gronagor wrote:

Those days the computer did what you wanted it do... now Windows make YOU do what IT wants.

Ah, yes, I agree completely. Not only that, Windows was able to eat all of your memory away! Everything was slow and painful in Windows. Come to think about it, it still is. >: Oh well...

Kurdt is right, every parser has its good and bad points, it all depends on the game. I remember the first time I played Maniac Mansion I hated the interface (I was already a hardcore Sierra fan by then). It seemed too easy to have all the actions right in front of you. But of course, as I advanced through the game and later, when I knew other Lucasarts games, I ended liking it.

Now, in the case of remakes.... it's difficult to say. I honestly think most of the times the game loses something with the point and click. Take PQ1 for example. One of the main points of the game was to exactly follow real police procedures. You couldn't guess, you had to do it the proper way and say exactly what you had to say. This was lost with the point and click, you just needed to guess where to click the hand icon or the talk icon, without any idea of what you were doing. The AGI version was intense, you had to take the right decisions in seconds, while the point and click was pretty straightforward.

Finally, while it's true that the "freedom" of the text parser is just illusionary, I still think that many easter eggs where perfectly implemented this way, things that are irremediably lost in a point and click interface. Yes, it's just easter eggs, but they made the game funny even if the game wasn't supposed to be funny (it's funnier to order Rosella to "undress" and get the game's response than to click the hand on her and getting a "You straighten your dress" kind of thing). What I'm saying is that each game and each parser has its charm. I have all original AGI versions and SCI remakes of KQ1, PQ1, QFG1, SQ1 and Larry 1, and I can say that I like to play the AGI versions some times and the VGA remakes some others. Depends on my mood, my nostalgic feelings or whether I want to see some easter egg or not.

Uff, long post, that's it. Cheers.

BrianR · #139 Post by **BrianR** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:05 pm

"Gronagor wrote:
Quote:
Those days the computer did what you wanted it do... now Windows make YOU do what IT wants. "

That is just an illusion, is it not? I believe it only seems that way. However, with modern version of windows there is usually 2 or 3 ways of doing the same thing....usually easily, good mass appeal.

antonyo · #140 Post by **antonyo** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:49 pm

I was fiddling with QFG2 for about 30 minutes yesterday when I suddently became sick. I would have thought 7 years without playing QFG2 would have solved the problem, but it apparently did not. It first happened after I finished the game for the first time, I wanted to replay it with a different class, but upon realizing I would have to constantly type "ASK ABOUT something" to navigate thru all the conversation subjects again, I kind of choked for the insane amount of typing required and became sick of the game and simply moved on to QFG3.

Yesterday I wanted to check if my fighter/mage/thief hybrid character, that I got ready for QFG2VGA, would be able to do all the thief jobs since he did not have any climbing skills, at some point I went to the blacksmith, and, wanting to remember what he was selling, I talked with him. And after ASKing ABOUT weapons, armor, shield, shop, buying, sale, PAY, GIVE MONEY, BUY, BUY SOMETHING, without receiving a single useful information, I choked again just like I did 7 years ago, telling myself everything would be so much easier if I could just use the talk icon on him and be done with it. Now that I think of it, 24 hours later I think I should have asked about prices.

Both interface have their strength and weakness, one offer possibilities at the expense of simplicity, one offer simplicity at the expense of possibilities. Personally I don't mind going back to the keyboard if I must to, but I prefer point and click.

However, I can understand perfectly why some people like text parser more. Not only because of the possibilities and because there's no rather flawed Sierra's "Solve it all!" hand icon, but I liked the VGA remakes of KQ1-2-3 and Maniac Mansion because not only it was good, but it reminded me of the good old era, something that wouldn't have happened if they were remade in a different look than the 320x200x256colors one. And if I liked this retro feel, it wouldn't be too far fetched that some people that loved the AGI/SCI era would love a game a lot more if it had a good old AGI/SCI era retro feel.

And it wouldn't surprise me if MusicallyInspired's KQ2SCI game could inspire a new wave of people to remake VGA games like SQ4, QFG3 or Gabriel Knight in AGI or SCI, just like the VGA remake of KQ1-2 inspired a wave of VGA remake projects.

However, I don't think the stuff lost in translation or dumbed down is only a P&C problem. Text parser games were designed with the text parser's possibilities in mind, so it's normal that some of the possibilities are lost in the VGA conversion. But P&C games were designed with the point and click interface's simplicity in mind, if there ever had a VGA to AGI/SCI remake, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the simplicity would be lost in the conversion.

Conversations for example, SQ5's, GK's and the LucasArts games' complex dialogue tree could hardly be replicated in an AGI or SCI game with only the ASK ABOUT system as we know it. The conversation would be too complex, it would be hard to navigate in, hard to remember all the topics, impossible to tell when you can ask about the same topic and receive a different answer and some of the talking possibilities would probably also be dumbed down. And games heavily relying on weird interraction with the objects, like Mist and all the games inspired by it, would become total nightmare or unthinkable with just a text parser.

As for DOS, it's better remembered as the good old days where typing commands like CD, DIR, MD, copy or delete made you feel all 1337 inside. I wouldn't go back to DOS nowaday, not after being spoiled with windows for 10 years.

haradan · #141 Post by **haradan** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:25 pm

Good point! It's true, with parser games you can skip important information without ever knowing. Part of the challenge, I suppose. ;)
And yeah, TOO MUCH typing can wear you down faster than a terrorsaurus, although there are only a couple of games that need a lot of typing (QFG2 is one of them, Colonel's Bequest and Iceman also come to mind). IIRC, the three of them have quick-commands to help you type Ask about or Tell about, which means the designers were conscious of what they were doing.

I like Point and Click, I just defend the parser because it's unfair to compare them. With a good designer behind, it really doesn't matter. For example, a lot of people don't like QFG3, but I never heard anyone ranting about the point and click in that game, they focus on the other aspects of the game, so the P&C is actually so very well integrated that nobody noticed, so to speak.

BrianR wrote

That is just an illusion, is it not? I believe it only seems that way. However, with modern version of windows there is usually 2 or 3 ways of doing the same thing....usually easily, good mass appeal.

Mmmh, not sure about that. For example, there are not 2 or 3 ways for creating a network, only 1 AFAIK, and it doesn't work very well (Windows doesn't conceive that the other computer could be a Mac instead of a PC, so you have to go around to solve it). The problem with Windows is that it has a very rigid structure. True, for most people is easier to use, and that is the whole idea, but as soon as you need something out of that structure you will find yourself in trouble. Hell, even without doing anything out of the "normal" things, how many blues screens have you seen lately?

antonyo wrote:

I wouldn't go back to DOS nowaday, not after being spoiled with windows for 10 years.

Well, neither do I. But that's not because Windows is better, it's because DOS development stopped years ago and there's no software for DOS now. If both would have continue to grow together, I can assure you there would be programs better run in DOS and programs which are better for Windows, just like it used to be. I would like to have the OPTION of choosing which OS works better for me for a certain application, but sadly I don't. Maybe I also blame Windows for this, and that's the reason I hate it so much.

Hey, for people complaining about parser games and too much typing, we actually TYPE A LOT, don't you think? :lol

jpnuar1 · #142 Post by **jpnuar1** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:45 pm

haradan wrote:Hey, for people complaining about parser games and too much typing, we actually TYPE A LOT, don't you think? :lol

Try another way of saying that.

adeyke · #143 Post by **adeyke** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:06 am

QfG2 had many useful shortcuts to reduce the amount of typing necessary. One of these is that ctrl-A gives you "ask about." So that complaint doesn't seem that valid.

antonyo · #144 Post by **antonyo** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:19 am

But even with the shortcut, if you exclude that it is a QFG game, which already require a lot more commands than your average adventure game, QFG2 has so many characters, dialogues, topics and a story so complex that it is hard to remember every little details without talking with anyone. Something await you every single day, an elemental, the poets, a puzzle, someone that want to talk to you, meet you, a plot twist, all this require you to revisit several characters to ask or tell them about the new events that even the shortcut don't remove much of all the typing required. Add to this the good old game of guess the word, not to accomplish an action or solve a puzzle, which the text parser is open enough already for those, but to figure out how to ask about a particuliar subject like I experienced 2 days ago.

I'm not saying QFG2 is a bad game or anything, in fact it's among some of the best adventure game I ever played, the finale was simply awesome, but I just don't replay it because it's too much trouble. I'm just glad AGDI decided to drop the idea of text parser for dialogue like it was announced several years ago, and glad there will finally have a remake that will finally allow me to replay it again everytime I want, to finish it with all characters classes, not just the thief like I originally played it.

Who know, maybe after playing QFG2VGA 3 or 4 times, the story and the important conversation topics will be carved in my mind like QFG1 is, and I may replay the EGA version again, this time spending more time on the optionnal conversation topics, and not on the important ones.

Fribbi · #145 Post by **Fribbi** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:56 am

Noooo!

I can't beleave this. Once again there is no Quest for glory 2 VGA in Christmass package again for us.

And we kids are getting so old for this shit..woops I meant of course the game. Oh well. :rolleyes Get ready then for the next young generation then in next year who has never heard of Sierra and the Quest for glory and other Sierra games.

We the older adult people who kept waiting and waiting and waiting for the game.. will soon die because of the high ages of ours.

...just kidding you there.

BrianR · #146 Post by **BrianR** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:28 pm

Do not lose hope. There is always tomarrow!

BrianR · #147 Post by **BrianR** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:04 am

Well it is the 2nd day of Christmas....if I do not see qfg2 by Jan 7th (12th day of Christmas) I will give up hope for a long time.

Well Kwanza started today too. Maybe the overlaping of 3 holidays will put the beta version in my hand. Yes no?

Blackthorne519 · #148 Post by **Blackthorne519** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:15 pm

I'm gonna go with "No", Brian R.

Just a hunch.

Bt

ChaosBurnFlame · #149 Post by **ChaosBurnFlame** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:32 pm

BrianR wrote:Well it is the 2nd day of Christmas....if I do not see qfg2 by Jan 7th (12th day of Christmas) I will give up hope for a long time.

Well Kwanza started today too. Maybe the overlaping of 3 holidays will put the beta version in my hand. Yes no?

What the heck is Kwanza?

BrianR · #150 Post by **BrianR** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:14 pm

ChaosBurnFlame wrote:
BrianR wrote:Well it is the 2nd day of Christmas....if I do not see qfg2 by Jan 7th (12th day of Christmas) I will give up hope for a long time.

Well Kwanza started today too. Maybe the overlaping of 3 holidays will put the beta version in my hand. Yes no?
What the heck is Kwanza?

You're on the internet....google will always give you the best answer. It's an African Holiday.

BTW how many people are actually working on this game? And or Who?

When will QFG II Trial by Fire VGA + final be done?

maybe next christmas.