Quest for Glory is not adventure. I know because I do not play nor like adventure games. (Haven't adventure games been dead for almost ten years now?)Radiant wrote:Well, QfG4.5 is not bad as adventure games go.
Anyway, I played adventure games back in the 1980s and early 1990s (e.g., Infocom text parser adventures, and then Sierra and LucasArts classics.) I played them because there were so few other choices back then; most other genres had not been invented yet. Honestly, I have never enjoyed playing adventure games too much.
Then began the waves of RPG revolutions in the early 1990s and then late 1990s (i.e., there was a short gap of about 3-4 years between the two periods of RPG revolutions.) RPGs have kept getting better, but adventure games have remained static and unchanged. Gradually, RPGs drew me away from adventures, and then I stopped buying adventure games completely. It was RPGs that ultimately killed adventure games (because the two genres shared so many core audience and had to compete for the same customers.)
While I despise pure adventure games, I love RPGs that have strong adventure elements (e.g., Final Fantasy, Ultima VII Part 2: Serpent Isle, Planescape: Torment, and Quest for Glory!) RPGs are just so much more open-ended than adventures. Every obstacle or puzzle in a RPG has multiple solutions. I absolutely hated the puzzles in adventure games. Those silly puzzles always have just ONE absolutely illogical and frustrating solution--even when there were so many other obvious, more logical ways to solve that puzzle. I just do not want to deal with that kind of linear gameplay of one-illogical-solution-per-puzzle and having-to-force-myself-to-think-the-way-the-game-designer-think.
I do not like hardcore RPGs either (i.e., Morrowind, Baldur's Gate.) However, I am more tolerant of hardcore RPGs over hardcore adventures.