Rant: Wages of War

[jayjech]

Personally, I feel that Wages of War was a huge disaster, and I blame any shortcomings from QFG2 or later completely on Wages of War.  Right from the start of development, the series was designed to be of four parts, and I think that this is apparent during gameplay.

The reasoning for adding in "Wages of War" at the last minute was allegedly concern that the leap from Trial By Fire to the gothic Shadows of Darkness was too drastic a change (Shadows of Darkness IS a lot "darker" and a little more serious than the previous titles, especially "So You Want to Be a Hero?"); however, I feel that QFG2 perfectly leads the player to Shadows of Darkness.

(Some minor QFG2 spoilers in the next section of my argument.)

[spoiler]The game leads the player from Shapeir, the city of beauty, to Raseir, the city of shadows; proceeds to abduct the player by the will of Ad Avis; and finishes with the slaughter of Ad Avis at the player's hands - this sets a wonderful transition to Shadows of Darkness.  And come on, didn't anyone else doubt that Ad Avis was really destroyed at the end of Trial by Fire?  After all, he's quite a powerful Wizard (although certainly thinks he's more powerful than he actually is.)[/spoiler]

(End of spoilers.)

As we know, however, Wages of War was added to the line.  Is it just me, or does this game feel far more linear than the previous titles?  I think the "transition" sought by adding this title was actually to flesh out the Paladin class for the player (not the claim that "Shadows of Darkness" is too abruptly "dark".)  Wages of War really explains to the player how to be a Paladin, what being a Paladin is about, and what Honor is.  What we got was a Paladin game, not a Quest for Glory game.  Come on, there's almost nothing special to be done as a Thief in this game, and Magic-Users/Wizards only have a couple of extra tasks.  If anything, Wages of War should be an optional chapter exclusively for Paladins, with no increased skill cap from QFG2 (or at best, a cap of 250.)

Anyone who has played what we know as QFG4 knows how terribly buggy it is.  The game was hacked out for rushed deadlines... deadlines that could have been met if the team hadn't wasted their time on Wages of War.

Does anyone else feel that Dragon Fire is a misfit, too?  I blame its social anxiety, along with the bugginess of Shadows of Darkness, on Wages of War.  If the team would have stuck to the orignal plan and kept Quest for Glory a four-part series, then Dragon Fire would have been consistent with the rest of the series.  It may well have been VGA instead of the abhorrent 3D monster that it ended up as; more importantly, it might have been more an adventure game, instead of the choppy RPG-with-a-hint-of-adventure mess that it is.  


Wages of War doesn't belong in the QFG storyline.  It's rough, out-of-place, and overall a pretty ugly game.  If the Coles would have stuck to the original plan, they could have released a much less buggy Shadows of Darkness and a more consistent Dragon Fire.  Shame on Wages of War.

(End rant.)

[jayjech]

No offense to any fans of QFG3, by the way.  I just personally don't think this game belongs in the series.

[Erpy]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on several points. Let me first point out that WoW was not my favourite QFG game, but I enjoyed it in its own right nevertheless.

Personally, I feel that Wages of War was a huge disaster, and I blame any shortcomings from QFG2 or later completely on Wages of War.

It seems like you're scrapegoating QFG3 a bit more than is justified or reasonable. More on that later.

The reasoning for adding in "Wages of War" at the last minute was allegedly concern that the leap from Trial By Fire to the gothic Shadows of Darkness was too drastic a change (Shadows of Darkness IS a lot "darker" and a little more serious than the previous titles, especially "So You Want to Be a Hero?"); however, I feel that QFG2 perfectly leads the player to Shadows of Darkness.

As we know, however, Wages of War was added to the line.  Is it just me, or does this game feel far more linear than the previous titles?  I think the "transition" sought by adding this title was actually to flesh out the Paladin class for the player (not the claim that "Shadows of Darkness" is too abruptly "dark".)  Wages of War really explains to the player how to be a Paladin, what being a Paladin is about, and what Honor is.  What we got was a Paladin game, not a Quest for Glory game.  Come on, there's almost nothing special to be done as a Thief in this game, and Magic-Users/Wizards only have a couple of extra tasks.  If anything, Wages of War should be an optional chapter exclusively for Paladins, with no increased skill cap from QFG2 (or at best, a cap of 250.)

First of all, I think you made a good point with the paladin being developed. A very good point, in fact. Which is, at the same time, indicates that an intermezzo WAS in order between QFG2 and QFG4. The hero did indeed have a bit to grow between those games. Not just because QFG4 was more "gothic" and darker, but also because Mordavia was a very inhospitable place with virtually nobody to rely on for guidance or assistence in "growing". Rakeesh teaches the paladin about the skills, lifestyle and spirit of paladinhood (as well as functioning as a mentor to the hero in general), Kreesha teaches the wizard how to create and wield a magical staff and Rashid (the ropemaker) teaches the thief the acrobatics skill. I don't see anyone in Mordavia taking the place of these people. The place is so hostile, the hero is pretty much forced to be completely self-reliant throughout the game. I acknowledge the fact the thief got the shaft. At the same time, because of the setting, including typical thief jobs in the QFG3 world would have felt rather forced. Finally, it would have been corny to have a main baddy jump in again right in the next sequel. As was the case with KQ (Manannan) and SQ (Vohaul), the main baddy is always supposed to skip at least one sequel.

Anyone who has played what we know as QFG4 knows how terribly buggy it is.  The game was hacked out for rushed deadlines... deadlines that could have been met if the team hadn't wasted their time on Wages of War.

Sorry, but that argument makes very little sense. First off, the QFG3 team and QFG4 team are two different entities. Second, QFG4 would not have received a single day more on development time had QFG3 been omitted. Sierra simply set deadlines as each project was started (and never even bothered to allocate more time for QFG-games than other games, despite the more complicated structure) and those deadlines were allocated independant of other projects.

Does anyone else feel that Dragon Fire is a misfit, too?  I blame its social anxiety, along with the bugginess of Shadows of Darkness, on Wages of War.  If the team would have stuck to the orignal plan and kept Quest for Glory a four-part series, then Dragon Fire would have been consistent with the rest of the series.  It may well have been VGA instead of the abhorrent 3D monster that it ended up as; more importantly, it might have been more an adventure game, instead of the choppy RPG-with-a-hint-of-adventure mess that it is.

As all other QFG-games, I liked certain aspects of QFG5 and cared less for other aspects. Your argument that without WoW, Dragonfire would have been in classic style, has a serious flaw. It might have had SOME merit if production on QFG5 had been started right after QFG4, but that wasn't the case. It took Sierra several years (and lots of nagging from the fans) to start up the QFG5 project. Methinks that without WoW, there would STILL have been several years between SoD and DF. If anything is to blame for the format of QFG5, it was Sierra for not feeling to continue the series right after SoD's release.

Wages of War doesn't belong in the QFG storyline.  It's rough, out-of-place, and overall a pretty ugly game.  If the Coles would have stuck to the original plan, they could have released a much less buggy Shadows of Darkness and a more consistent Dragon Fire.

I already adressed why WoW was not responsible for the flaws in QFG4 and QFG5, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. You're entitled to your opinion about the game. I agree, it's more linear...games where the hero is guided by outside events beyond his control (such as the war situation) are often more linear than games where the hero's actions directly determine the future events. (as was the case in QFG1) As a QFG-game and an intermezzo, it does do its job. It lets the player visit a new unique world with its own inhabitants and culture (and QFG3's attention to detail of the Tarna's cultural aspect is vastly superior to any other game in the series) and lets him be a hero once again while stimulating a bit of individual growth and providing background information on two of the more interesting characters from QFG2. I had no problem with its graphics either. It had plenty of cool easter eggs too.

[phats]

I agree completely with jayjech.  I find that non fanatics of the series generally have the same opinion as well.  I grew up in the adventure gaming era, so my friends and family are familiar with the series.  None of them had any interest in Qfg5 when it came out (at all), and were pretty critical of qfg3.

Though I will say that qfg3 was made during the time when sierra was reinventing itself with new graphics and interface, so it features some excellent art.  But I think the qfg3 storyline is too "hippyish", with the strong "honor" tone, magical fruit, chest-hair-bearing hero, etc.  Those who like qfg3 the most tend to be women

qfg5 was definately worse though.  Thats where you and I differ

EDIT:  Just saw erpy's post.  In reply:   I agree with jayjech's reasoning that without qfg3, qfg4 would be less buggy.  QFG4 was Sierra's first (and only?) 32 bit adventure game (DOS4GW enhanced engine).  The new engine introduced new bugs.  If qfg4 came out in qfg3's place, it would have been less buggy.  No question.  Would it be as cool?  debateable (Corey Cole was not available during the time qfg3 was being developed.  I think Corey's humor was missing in qfg3).  

Also, the qfg series was SHUT DOWN due to the tremendous costs of support needed from qfg4's buggy code.  Sierra thought people abandoned the series in frustration after qfg4's near unplayable release (and without the commonplace of the internet, hard to release a patch to the masses). I think it is very reasonable to claim that QFG5 would not have had such a hard time coming into existance if qfg4 was not as buggy as it was.  And, QFg5 coming out sooner would have saved us from the horrible interface requirements as well (the new sierra CEO mandated 3D in compliance with the new industry).  You of all people, erpy, ought to know adventure gamers do not favour a mix of 3d with 2d.

[jayjech]

Many thanks, Erpy.  You did a good job at picking apart my arguments and revealing the flaws.  I'll admit, I'm biased against WoW and not everything that I said was logical.  I'd like to offer my response, now, because I do think this is an interesting discussion.

First of all, I think you made a good point with the paladin being developed. A very good point, in fact. Which is, at the same time, indicates that an intermezzo WAS in order between QFG2 and QFG4. The hero did indeed have a bit to grow between those games. Not just because QFG4 was more "gothic" and darker, but also because Mordavia was a very inhospitable place with virtually nobody to rely on for guidance or assistence in "growing".

I think your argument that the extra development is necessary is a very good one.  You're right, Mordavia is very hostile, and there is potentially a feeling of isolation without the training that QFG3 offers.  To further support your argument, the Thief (who "gets the shaft" in QFG3 has more of a guide/mentor in QFG4 than the other classes.)

Because WoW focuses so heavily on Honor and Paladin-like aspects, I overlooked the development of the other classes (which, as you pointed out, DOES occur.)  I STILL think this title is primarily designed specifically for the Paladin, but I'll accept that it does ease the transition from Trial by Fire to Shadows of Darkness developmentally for all classes.

Finally, it would have been corny to have a main baddy jump in again right in the next sequel. As was the case with KQ (Manannan) and SQ (Vohaul), the main baddy is always supposed to skip at least one sequel.

While you make a good point in the conventional sense of adhering to standards, I challenge the idea you're posing.  The Quest for Glory series was very good at ignoring the tried-and-true "standards" and instead seeking its own unique way to present situations.  While the immediate return of Ad Avis would be corny in the conventional sense, the way that he is slowly phased into the plot of Shadows of Darkness is subtle enough, I think, that it wouldn't be inappropriate to jump right into QFG4 based on plot alone.

I also disagree on your claim that Ad Avis is the "main baddy."  He wasn't even introduced until near the end of Trial by Fire (earlier if you count his presence in the WIT,) and I certainly wouldn't say that you can simplify the "main" problem of Shadows of Darkness to Ad Avis alone.  I think that each Quest for Glory game does a good job at presenting a variety of problems, some recurring, some unique to the title (including the "main" problem present in each game.)  I'll still agree, though, that it's generally good to have your villains "take breaks" - but I disagree with your implication that QFG couldn't pull it off without being corny.

QFG4 would not have received a single day more on development time had QFG3 been omitted. Sierra simply set deadlines as each project was started (and never even bothered to allocate more time for QFG-games than other games, despite the more complicated structure) and those deadlines were allocated independant of other projects.

Not only are you clearly more informed on the history behind Sierra's development process, but you're also a developer yourself (which, I would say, automatically grants your claim here the status of "expert opinion.")  You get full points here.  Well done.

Your argument that without WoW, Dragonfire would have been in classic style... might have had SOME merit if production on QFG5 had been started right after QFG4, but that wasn't the case.

I didn't make my argument very clear.  What I'm really proposing here is that had WoW not been developed, Shadows of Darkness would have developed in its place, in the same time frame (so QFG3 would BE Shadows of Darkness, as originally planned.)  The result would probably be that Shadows of Darkness would use the less buggy engine used by Wages of War, which MAY have encouraged Sierra to continue with Dragon Fire in a more timely fashion.  (Since they wouldn't have yet been dealing with the huge support costs that the DOS4GW system would introduce.)

In my opinion, the plot of Shadows of Darkness is far more enjoyable/exciting than that of Wages of War, so I'm proposing that the less buggy, action-packed Shadows of Darkness would have been a greater success than Wages of War as the third volume in the series.  If that were true, then Sierra would have had incentive to develop Dragon Fire sooner (such as in the time frame of when QFG4 was actually developed.)

We probably would have ended up with a really buggy VGA QFG4 (which is what we have right now.)  The difference is that it would be Dragon Fire, instead of Shadows of Darkness.

...you're scrapegoating QFG3 a bit more than is justified or reasonable

I can respect QFG3, but I still think it should have been an optional chapter (rather than a serious title,) developed after the four chapter series was completed.  That's ultimately the point that I was trying to make.  I believe that the "downfall" (read: Sierra's gradually increasing disinterest; obviously its still well-loved by some ) of the Quest for Glory series was the result of a poorly timed release/straying from the original plan that the developers had in mind.

[jayjech]

qfg5 was definately worse though.  Thats where you and I differ

Actually I agree with you that QFG5 is a worse game; I just dislike QFG3 more because I feel that it's the reason that QF5 is a bummer  :lol

[Erpy]

While I will acknowledge the fact that a new engine may have played a role, I don't believe it was the primary factor for QFG4's bugginess. (its most infamous errors were still scripting errors, rather than engine errors)

As I said before, Sierra did not discriminate between projects when allocating deadlines. A reasonably simple adventure such as a KQ or SQ game was given the same amount of time as a complex game such as QFG. This meant the QFG teams were given more work to do in the same amount of time. The other games released by Sierra which debuted a new engine (such as KQ4 and KQ5) weren't nearly as buggy as QFG4.

This already happened during QFG3's production. Sierra attempted to push QFG3 out of the door while the Coles were away and Lori returned just in time to prevent the game from being shipped with a bug in place that would make the game impossible to complete. QFG4, which was more complex and less linear than QFG3 only had one week of QA before it was shipped. I believe that had QFG4 been produced during QFG3's timeframe (which was already too short for the more simple-structured WoW), old engine or not, it would have been as buggy as it has been now and the QFG series would still have been put into the freezer. The only thing that would have prevented the instability of QFG4 would have been if Sierra would have given QFG4 a production schedule that did its design structure justice.

I don't like the idea of QFG3 being an optional chapter. It was meant as an intermezzo of some sorts, elaborating on the background of some of the NPC's of QFG and doing its part in the maturing process of the hero. By the time of QFG5, the hero has fully matured and the player identifying himself with the hero has matured in his mind as well. Returning to the QFG3 setting afterwards would have made very little sense. Despite its flaws, I still see QFG3 as a serious QFG title.

[jayjech]

Fair enough.

[phats]

While I will acknowledge the fact that a new engine may have played a role, I don't believe it was the primary factor for QFG4's bugginess. (its most infamous errors were still scripting errors, rather than engine errors)

Not to be argumentative (I obviously was not involved in the development), but in an interview with the Coles regarding the disasterous bugs in QG4, the blame was put squarely on the new engine, and the rush to release the game before christmas (they even had to leave out certain art such as the flaming paladin sword).  I wish I had a link to the article.  But I know that the major crash-to-prompt bugs were NOT scripting bugs, because they could be resolved by turning down the speed (such as the bug when sliding down the goo path), or turning off the sound temporarily (such as the gypsy screen when the wolfs howl), or turning off the detail (when attacking the creature guarding one of the rites).  These are functions of the engine.

Also, certainly no project is treated equal.  Lori Cole said that QG5 got more support, more time, and more resources than any of the other qfg games.  Despite that, the art director had a nervous breakdown, and the multiplayer functionality was scrapped.  I think deadlines are a must to prevent projects from dragging on too long.  Deadlines shouldn't be an excuse for bugginess.  

Still, I think that if QG4 came out in QG3's place, it would not have been buggy.  Obviously pure speculation

I think QG3 was a fair game, but I would glady sacrifice it if it meant QG5 was made in the traditional style with a better story.  I can see how QG3 refined the character, but I actually don't like that.  The story is much more interesting when the hero is inexperienced and has to face things he's not ready for.  Jumping from Qg2 to QG4 would have been awesome.

In regards to KQ:  KQ is Sierra's flagship game.  I am certain it got much more attention than the other games.   Also, the VGA remakes (SQ1, QG1, PQ1) were all given a VERY short time for development.  I don't remember the specifics anymore, but Sierra felt they would not make much money, and were only given a very conservative time expenditure.

[jayjech]

Still an interesting concept, I think.  Since we're all agreed that the effects of Wages of Wars (non)existence is nothing more than speculatory, we can't really go any further with this discussion.

That said, if there was a way to sacrifice QFG3 for a better QFG5 that fits with the series, I'd gladly do it.  I have to agree with phats: I don't really LIKE the refinement, either.  Yes, it does make more SENSE for getting around in Mordavia, but I think phats made a really good point - one of the best elements of QFG is the anonymity and inexperience of the hero.  He has to really figure things out on the fly - regardless of whether he "figures things out" with his fist, his wit, or his cunning.

[Kurdt]

I just re-read the interview with Lori Cole in the 1st (and only) issue of EGO magazine, and she specifically said in that article that QFG4's main issues were scripting problems. Just because something turns up or turns down speed or detail or sound doesn't mean it's an engine problem. If you've ever dabbled with AGS, you'll know that it can just as easily (and much more commonly) be a scripting problem.

As for the real reason it took so long between 4 and 5, it was actually Lori and Corey's fault. They'd been treated so unfairly by Ken Williams and Sierra that they actually refused to work with them ever again. It was only the fans' outcry that brought Lori Cole back, and probably contributed to her much better treatment that time around. I mean, she even said that Ken Williams was going to completely scrap Hero's Quest before it even went out the gate because he didn't understand the concept, but then his son played and loved it so he let it get released. The only reason we're here today is because of Ken Williams' son.

And this isn't exactly a unique thing, Ken mistreating developers who'd done him good. Check out Scott Murphy's recent interview with Adventure Classic Gaming and he'll tell you exactly the same thing. He was bitched out hardcore for taking too long to complete SQ2 despite the fact that he'd only taken two days off during the entire fourteen-month production. That's pretty harsh. No, I sincerely doubt that QFG4 would be less buggy had it been in QFG3's place. The only thing that stopped QFG3 from being just as buggy was the one programmer who found a serious bug that made the game literally unplayable the day before release. They named Khaveen and Ad Avis after two of their bosses who made their lives next to impossible. Raseir, the evil totalitarian city itself, is actually an anagram of Sierra. No, I'm positive QFG4 would have been just as buggy had it been QFG3.

And I greatly disagree that the Hero (and the player) was ready for QFG4 right after 2. In QFG3 everyone was so nice. They built up your confidence and made you feel good. You definitely felt like you could do anything with the support of all your wondrous friends. Everyone was banking on you to succeed and they had complete faith that you would. You were helped by everyone every step of the way. Kreesha was there for Wizards, Rakeesh was there for Paladins, the Rope Seller was there for Thieves, and Uhura and the entire Simbani were there for the Warrior. I mean, it's very true that the Thief (and the Wizard to a lesser extent) get the short end of the stick in that game, but there was a complete support system there for every hero to pump him up and make him feel like he was on top of the world.

In fact, QFG3 worked so well for me that I was literally AFRAID of QFG4. I couldn't play it at first. I was yelled at and attacked right off the bat. Nobody wanted me near them, and I was out-and-out hated and mistrusted. On top of that, dark monsters roamed everywhere and I just wasn't safe anywhere. QFG4 was downright SCARY, and I sincerely think it wouldn't have been anywhere NEAR as good had it been right after QFG2. You're built up so much in QFG3 that QFG4 is just a plummet.

As for the "skipping a sequel" rule: I'm a storyteller. I'm trying to even get paid for telling stories. I can 100% agree that having Ad Avis as the main bad guy twice in a row, with the way in which he died the first time, would be choppy storytelling. You don't always have to give a main villain a rest, but in this case, with the way he died, you did. It was too soon to bring him back from the dead. We needed tome time to think he was out of the way, to believe we'd killed him and that the world was safe from his tyranny. To have him miraculously return a month later would've lessened the impact of his original death and cheapened the ending of QFG2, making it anticlimatic.

On to my final argument. QFG5 was a great game. I'm quite sick of people decrying it because it was 3D. If you REALLY wanted all the games to be in the "traditional" style, every game should've been EGA, maybe even using the AGI engine, with a parser interface. Sure, QFG5's 3D wasn't that good. I would've liked to have seen something a little more advanced than what was there. However, to say that an adventure game is not an adventure game when it's in 3D is ludicrous. Have you played The Longest Journey? That's one of the best adventure games I've ever played, and it nearly changed my life on a fundamental level. Even newer games like And Then There Were None and The Black Mirror are great. Hell, what about Grim Fandango? Broken Sword? These were all amazing games that were even more amazing in 3D.

I don't think it would've been possible to have QFG5 be as great as it was in VGA. Perhaps SVGA would've been able to do it, but not VGA. Think of the final battle with the Dragon of Doom. While it would've been great, the whole majesty that the 3D allowed it to become was just brilliant. In fact, I'll wholeheartedly say they didn't take full advantage of the technology that was at their fingertips. The dance with the Dryads could've been an amazing cutscene. Every battle could've been more immersive, more dynamic. The Flying sequences could've just been stunning. Just look at the cutscenes that were there. The intro was chilling. Plus, the larger amount of memory available meant they were able to add a ton of new spells, weapons, and armor that would've been impossible with the engines VGA was set to run on.

All in all, QFG5 just couldn't have been nearly as expansive had it been a VGA release, and I think that expansiveness is what added to the culmination of the series. The only real way to bring an epic series to a close is with an epic finale, and QFG5 could not have been as epic or titanic had it been in VGA.

Looking back at all the old Sierra game series, the one I'm most satisfied with is QFG. It accomplished exactly what it set out to do. It wasn't cut down with miles left to go and no game was really entirely lacking. Even though QFG3 was thrown in at the last minute and had a feeling of such, with a patchy at best coverage of the classes, it served a purpose and had great moments and some decent storytelling. The QFG series, in my mind, is as close to perfect as any series could get. While there's some stuff that could've been better, there was nothing that out-and-out derailed it, and for a series like that with all the developmental problems it had, that's saying a great deal. That's it, Amen, I'm out!

[Ekinatial]

I personally liked qfg5 and found nothing wrong with qfg3 (except for the horrible game-ending bugs in each of them...). I've read complaints about each one, but never really got a real reason, other than qfg5 being in 3d (which I never understood anyway). Could someone *objectively* list the problems with qfg5's storyline and why they are problems? Qfg3 has already been done and answered to above so don't worry about that.

[Pidgeot]

Not to be argumentative (I obviously was not involved in the development), but in an interview with the Coles regarding the disasterous bugs in QG4, the blame was put squarely on the new engine, and the rush to release the game before christmas (they even had to leave out certain art such as the flaming paladin sword).  I wish I had a link to the article.  But I know that the major crash-to-prompt bugs were NOT scripting bugs, because they could be resolved by turning down the speed (such as the bug when sliding down the goo path), or turning off the sound temporarily (such as the gypsy screen when the wolfs howl), or turning off the detail (when attacking the creature guarding one of the rites).  These are functions of the engine.

The goo bug may still be a scripting bug - in fact, I'd say it most likely is, since the engine would crash more often when running at that speed if it was a problem with SCI itself.
If there was a bug in sound playback, you likely wouldn't get any sound effects at all (unless emulated through MIDI), but I'll admit that particular one probably is a problem with the engine (I'd imagine there was an issue with a sample being longer than the engine could handle properly in the release build).
AFAIK, detail is handled by the game script (since only the game can know what is and is not detail), so that would ALSO not be an engine bug.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Coles are lying - the engine could easily have posed a problem during development since the engine development team likely worked on it while QfG4 was being made - but it's not the main reason for problems; that would be time.

Also, certainly no project is treated equal.  Lori Cole said that QG5 got more support, more time, and more resources than any of the other qfg games.

Recall that there were a lot of changes at Sierra between 1993 (when QfG4 came out) and 1998 (when QfG5 came out) - Sierra were bought out in 1996 and Ken stepped down as CEO. Therefore, it's very likely that the new management would have introduced a different way of assigning deadlines, since it's arguably more needed for games like this.

Additionally, development time in general took longer in 1998 than in 1993.

Also, the VGA remakes (SQ1, QG1, PQ1) were all given a VERY short time for development.  I don't remember the specifics anymore, but Sierra felt they would not make much money, and were only given a very conservative time expenditure.

Then again, most of the code was already there, so it makes sense that they don't have quite that much time - the "only" thing that needed to be done was port the exisiting code and redo the graphics (not implying that's just something you do overnight, just that certain aspects have already been done for you - puzzles, storyline, etc.)

[Gronagor]

Yeah. We all know that Shadows of Darkness should have followed Trial by Fire, but I truelly believe they made the right decision in adding QfG3. They needed to 'lighten' the mood, because QfG was becoming too 'Dark'.

Setting: perfect idea... although a better option at that time would have been an ice-area. But QfG needed the more colorful setting before the dark time began.

In fact. I completely disagree. All the games up to four was a major success. No.3 was obviously well thought out.

I think that if QfG2 didn't end with "Next: Shadows of Darkness" we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

(Yes, QfG3 focused on the Paladin/Fighter more... but each of the other games also focused more on the mage and thief.)

[Brainiac]

Is the third game the best?  No.

Is it still a good game?  Yes.  Though I will admit the point glitches early in Tarna and later on during the Initiation trial can be very annoying.

Still, the one thing I think annoys people about QfG3 is that it was an unintended volume and it disrupted the "four element" theme the Coles were going for.  However, after looking into Chinese elements (of which there are five), it's fair to just say QfG3 is a fifth element, of which there actually is one in Classical Greek - the Aether or Quintessence.

Of course, you could always just call it the Pizza Element.

[Jontas]

I agree with the some of the critiques against qfg 3+5, but to suggest that any of them should be dropped from the series or should never have been created in the first place is insane. I enjoyed playing each one of these games, and didn't consider any one of them a waste of time. I still don't.

Being from Africa, it was nice to see an adventure game give African customs and mythology a little attention, even if the themes were underdeveloped and somewhat misrepresented. They could have done a lot more homework, but at the end of the day there was an adventure game with African themes.

Here's a list of some adventure games that really disappointed me:
unofficial:
QFG 4 1/2 - an abomination
official:
Monkey Island 3 - no story
Kings Quest MOE (8) - no adventure, no story, no humor, still gives me nightmares!

[Brainiac]

Here's a list of some adventure games that really disappointed me...Monkey Island 3 - no story

I don't think The Curse of Monkey Island was that bad (even though it lacked the distinctive touch of Ron Gilbert).  Escape from Monkey Island, on the other hand...

[gamecreator]

Monkey Island 3 - no story

Guybrush Threepwood once again takes up dull blade and rapier wit against the nefarious demon-pirate LeChuck. In Curse, Guybrush must save his one true love, Elaine Marley, from being turned into the evil pirate's zombie bride. But, hoping to marry Elaine himself, Guybrush unknowingly slips a cursed ring onto her finger that transforms her into a gold statue. He must then find a way to change Elaine back to her beautiful self and stop LeChuck from carrying out his sinister plans.

Meh, that's plenty for me.  And really, it's the various smaller stories that I found more fun.  The Goodsoup drama, the events on the various islands, the ship stuff... really, who else has done an "interactive" song like MI3?

I loved MI3.  I found it far more stylish, well-presented and easy to get into than any of the other MI games.

[BrianR]

IHere's a list of some adventure games that really disappointed me:
unofficial:
QFG 4 1/2 - an abomination

WHAT?!   I loved that game!  It was fun and funny.  Why did you not like it?  Was it just because it was something you were not expecting?

[Brainiac]

...really, who else has done an "interactive" song like MI3?

If you start singing "A Pirate I Was Meant to Be," I'm going to have to hurt you.

That, or I'll just end a sentence with the word "orange."

[Jontas]

WHAT?!   I loved that game!  It was fun and funny.  Why did you not like it?  Was it just because it was something you were not expecting?

I don't even know where to begin, it was a big pile of steamy crap. I just hated it, lets just call it a matter of personal taste I guess.

I don't think The Curse of Monkey Island was that bad (even though it lacked the distinctive touch of Ron Gilbert).  Escape from Monkey Island, on the other hand...

Escape from Monkey Island was my fav one of all, lol. I guess it's a matter of personal taste again

Meh, that's plenty for me.  And really, it's the various smaller stories that I found more fun.  The Goodsoup drama, the events on the various islands, the ship stuff... really, who else has done an "interactive" song like MI3?

I loved MI3.  I found it far more stylish, well-presented and easy to get into than any of the other MI games.

Of course Lucasarts would paint a lovely picture, that doesn't mean anything. Seriously, compared to the others MI3 is crap; the story line is underdeveloped and unorigional, the characters are bland and also underdeveloped, way too many puzzles and not enough adventue, in fact the gameplay was incredibly short. Am I really alone on this? Maybe I should play it again... after finals of course.

[rich_eter]

I'll add my two cents. I didn't mind that story-wise QFG3 was added in. The main reason I didn't like QFG3 (besides the loss of the wonderful text parser), was the use of a more overhead map with a character who was a couple pixels tall. QFG1 and 2 had already established that everywhere you go, you are the normal approximately 50 pixels tall character, and you actually have to walk from scene to scene to get somewhere. QFG3 has these scenes of a huge building even in the village where you're only a couple pixels tall. Then it has a world map where occasionally it takes you to a scene where you're in the normal sized screens established by 1 and 2. For me, that loses a sense of exploration and adventure. In the earlier games, it was possible for almost anything to happen.

QFG4 brilliantly returned to that original style set-up by the first game of a land where you could go anywhere and you'd always be represented in roughly the same size. It was a damn brilliant game.

QFG5 not only returned to the map style of QFG3 but it made it much worse in fact. There were no close up scenes at all. The landscape was just too damn big. The "3-D" graphics didn't help either. When I played QFG5 I had no real sense of adventure. I felt like I was looking at horrible scrolling backgrounds with a character I could barely see. And, at night, it was even more difficult to see him. Egads... I wish it had been made with the traditional Sierra map system like QFG1 and 4.

[Kurdt]

The map style of QFG3 is a little jarring, but I understand it. The savannah and the jungle are huge places. The Simbani Village is supposed to be a day and a half's journey from Tarna and the jungle is supposed to be even further removed. If you had to travel that far skareen-to-skareen, that would just be ridiculous.

I somewhat agree on the QFG5 map, mostly because the time passes so quickly on it and it's hard to navigate it. While I like the fact that Marete is big, I don't think it was as big as the savannah and so I wouldn't have minded taking the skareen lengths around the island, or at least having a map that was easier to travel on and didn't take so much time to cross.

[MusicallyInspired]

Man, I've really gotta play these QFG games someday. Beat the first one, but haven't really started the second yet (beyond just starting it).

[Erpy]

I somewhat agree on the QFG5 map, mostly because the time passes so quickly on it and it's hard to navigate it. While I like the fact that Marete is big, I don't think it was as big as the savannah and so I wouldn't have minded taking the skareen lengths around the island, or at least having a map that was easier to travel on and didn't take so much time to cross.

I think I would have minded the skareen approach. I disliked walking large distances (such as the distance from Nob Hill to the Science Academy and that was just "across town") in QFG5, as it went really slowly unless you ran all the time (which I always did) in which case it went a little faster at the expense of repeated stamina drain. I don't think I would have enjoyed travelling vast amounts of skareens in order to reach the far reaches of the island. I could cross the distance between too extremes (gypsy camp/swamp or brigand fortress/Erana's Peace) in Spielburg and Mordavia fairly quickly. If the skareen approach would have taken longer in QFG5, I'd rather have a map. An improvement would perhaps be to primarily base the time on the distance walked instead of the time spent on the map.