Sierra Have Sierra games aged worse than LucasArts?

[Darth Slaughter]

I mentioned that similarity above, between KQ5/6 and GK to lucasarts adventures, but mainly for their visuals. KQ6 and GK 1 were for me the most "palatable" sierra adventures for me, mostly because they were very similar to lucasarts games, which were my kind of games. I didn't mention, but I think KQ6 is very much influenced by MI2. Not only the "island structure". There's even skeletons dancing. And the color palete is very much just like monkey island 2. Probably it's the entry point in sierra games for Lucasarts fans.

About Gabriel Knight, it is similar to an Indiana Jones adventure, with a more "serious" tone, the kind that would translate well into a movie, and used real life elements to enrich the setting and story, just as fate of atlantis did. Worth mention is that KQ6 really has no dead ends, in which you couldn't finish a game because you missed an unreacheble item early on. You only wouldn't get the best ending. Lucasarts made iit differently (and abandoned it later) by having 2 difficult modes in monkey 2 and 3, and three paths in indy 4.

Another thing, I mentioned LA music team, but when they started to add voice acting in their, they were years ahead of what sierra acomplished. The voice quality in sierra games is very much like listening to an audio book from a radio.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Pretty much what I was trying to get across. I do not feel there is any urgency or risk involved in LucasArts' games. As noted above, idiocy is rewarded in LucasArts games, and the player is a special snowflake who shouldn't be criticized for doing something dumb.

Ah yes, excusing shitty mechanics with "lol its such a challenge, you idiots just can't deal with it".

If saving a game is an intellectual challenge for you, I have bad news.

 

[Infinitron]

(like Indiana making multiple voyages to antartica/açores for example.

That was Iceland, not Antarctica.

 

[SCO]

That was Iceland, not Antarctica.

Well... since i already edited that post ten times, what's one more...

feels like a lucasarts puzzle (although to be honest, it actually feels like that GK code / GK2 mixtape puzzle where you could be making haikus all day long until you found the right message, insane puzzles).

 

[Decado]

I've always liked the Sierra games better than Lucas Arts. I have fond memories of sitting in a darkened living room, one fall evening, wrapped in a blanket and puzzling my way through Hero's Quest. HQ was my first RPG, and it got me into RPGs as a "thing," as prior to HQ I didn't really know what an RPG was. HQ got me into The Bard's Tale, Phantasie, etc.

In my family's case, we bought a Tandy 1000HX from Radio Shack, and we had it for years (we could never get my parents to upgrade). So I had an old computer for a long, long time until they finally caved in and bought a 486 at some point in the early 90s. But there was just something really fucking cool about typing away on the Tandy's massive keyboard while alternating between stabbing goblins in the face and cleaning out the stables. Also, I don't know if other people brought it up yet, but Conquests of Camelot was fucking boss, a phenomenal game with really great story telling. Again, fond memories of staying up way too late to work my way through that game.

The other thing is that it is very hard for me to like anything connected to George Lucas.

 

[MRY]

Brofisted and then unbrofisted for shitalking Gabriel Knight. You better put in a whole essay justifying why the whole series puzzles don't fit in with the narrative type if you want to be taken seriously in that assertion (besides cat mustache puzzle that obviously traumatized you).

KQVI (and I fucking love that game to death and will gladly get in an internet war with MRY or any other detractor)

The truth is, I've harbored a grudge against these games for so long that mostly what I remember is the grudge, not the reasons for it.

As an initial matter, I'll say that I quite like GK, which I think has great art, some fun characters, and a great tourist-level evocation of New Orleans (never having been more than a tourist there, I can't say if it holds up beyond a 48-hour visit, but I found it pretty uncanny when I went to the city years after playing the game). My recollection though, is that the researching aspect of the game -- which should be the heart of it -- always felt kind of superficial (compare the introduction of Anchorhead), and there was a lot of time doing silly stuff like putting on disguises, tag-teaming with mimes, etc. I also thought the culminating puzzle with DJ BRING THE SEKE MADULU or whatever didn't quite work, but I can't really be sure if that's because I was stupid or because the puzzle was missing something.

My dislike of GK stems mostly from GK2, which I think is horrendous, but which is beloved. To the extent the TellTale games have an antecedent, I think it's GK2,* but GK2 is horrible at the TellTale-style presentation. It's campy and horribly presented, even though it seemed to me that everyone involved thought that it was actually genuine cinematic drama that would endure through the ages. I never made it past five minutes in GK3, so I have no personal experience with the cat puzzle.

[EDIT: * I actually have a data point here. My cousin Jeffrey, when he as a would-be game writer rather than a renowned scribe of Far Cry 3 and so on, chatted me up about game stories, and GK2 was his favorite game. He repeatedly cited it as proof of how games should be more like movies and more interested in telling a story without letting gameplay and player interference mess things up.]

The problem with both games, in my opinion, is that they are concerned with telling sort of novelistic stories -- the kind that work well, to the extent they do, in potboiler thrillers like The Da Vinci Code. But adventure game interaction, with its fiddliness and hotspot-fixation and so on, I dunno, I don't think it lends itself to that kind of high drama. That's why GK2 has entire stretches of the game where you do nothing but long checklist dialogues (like the werewolf/S&M club sequence). There's some of that in GK1, too, but GK2 is worse. They're very dependent on info-dumping, and I don't think that works very well with adventure games' "verbs," especially when you're not using a parser.

I think Broken Sword could have run into the same problem, but it takes the story less seriously -- it's clearly laughing at itself -- which to me bridges the gap.

Finally, although this is a matter of taste, I just don't think that Jane Jensen is that great a writer. I'm sure I'm edge-lording here, but I dunno, I always found her stuff to be asking to be taken seriously without having the heft that merits it. I'm happy to sit through infodumping from Avellone, less happy to do so for Jensen.

Regarding KQ6, my recollections are even vaguer. I think it largely boils down to "a single tear" -- a scene that I think takes itself 100% seriously a poetry, but to my ear is more like B+ fan fiction writing. Overall, though, I think the game shifted (in parts, not entirely) toward a mythic/heroic fantasy mold, which I think works more poorly with KQ gameplay conventions. The fiddliness and arbitrariness and bumbling of KQ5 actually totally feels like a fairy tale to me. KQ6, less so.

But all of this is a matter of taste. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying these games, and I totally realize that you guys can tu quoqe me with Primordia being pretentious and self-important and B+ fan fiction and how it's silly to combine shoving a finger up a robot's nose with posturing like "Mercy is malware." I'm sure my dislike of these games is partly contrarian, partly irrational, but I still think they are overrated and unfairly overshadow better Sierra titles.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

One further point of discussion, which shows how LucasArts was imitating Sierra, "only better", is the mold that was created of the Adventure Game Protagonist - a mold that has yet to be broken in any meaningful way.

The A.G.P. mold is a set of characteristics that define a large majority of adventure game characters:

# Male
# White
# Handsome
# Likeable (non-abrasive) personality
# Sympathetic (both to other characters and to the player himself)
# Expert in a relevant field
# Socially inept in some manner (Beta/Losers)
# Still charismatic, despite the social ineptitude
# Has a sense of humour (breaks the 4th wall)
# Meets an awesome woman that falls for him

...I think that's most of them, there are probably a few other minor points I'm forgetting.

But anyway, the first characters to start establishing this mold were Roger Wilco (Space Quest) and Larry Laffer (Leisure Suit Larry), as they were the first video game characters to get sequels to their games. But the mold didn't start right off the bat with their first titles - they both evolved into it, and the character that ended up creating the mold and becoming the Poster Boy fort he AGP was Guybrush Threepwood from Monkey Island...but Wilco and Laffer were right behind him, needing only minor additions to make the mold a perfect fit.

This "mold" is what every adventure game protagonist has been striving towards since Monkey Island 1 was released, at best with only one minor change here and there. Laffer was pretty much good to go, Wilco only needed the female companion, which was introduced the year after MI1's release.

This raises two questions: Why these three, and why this mold?

The first answer is: Of all the adventure game protagonists you know of, these three have the most titles under their belts, ergo they are the most successful ones (video game logic). Threepwood has 5 games to his household-esque name, Laffer has 6 main games as well as a tie-in game and 2 spin-offs, while Wilco steals the crown with 6 main games and 4 (!) fan-made games. Only one other adventure game protagonist can even come close to these numbers - George Stobbart (not naming his series on purpose, see if you can name it without looking it up). Compare him to the template above and you'll see what I mean.

The second answer lies between the keyboard and the chair, sitting in front of the computer. Namely, the player himself. What was the largest demographic using computers in the late 1980s/early 1990s? How does that demographic compare to the mold described above? See a pattern?

It's a mixture of appeal and wish fulfilment, and part of the "I can't relate to this game because I can't play X type of character!"-thing. The developers hedged their bet by picking the largest demographic that was playing their game, and made the character as similar, relatable and sympathetic to the demographic as possible. The fact that these characters all feature in graphic adventures played a big part, as it was a big factor in establishing a relationship between the player and the character he controlled. Oddly enough, despite the arrival of the internet and various forms of online social justice, this mold still stands pretty much intact.

Now, let's shove some known video game characters into the mold and see how they fare:

- Brandon from Legend of Kyrandia 1 clocks up most of them, though he's not really an expert in any field, nor does he meet an awesome woman that falls for him. Then again, he only stars in one game.
- Ernie Eaglebeak from the Spellcasting x01 series is not handsome, but passes every other mark.
- Zanthia from Kyrandia 2 is the first character that reverses the gender aspects, but everything else fits her to a tee. Many subsequent female protagonists do seem to make an effort to distance themselves from the mold, though.
- Malcolm from Kyrandia 3 is the first one that really tries to defy the "likable" personality aspect, but that is somewhat ruined by his "mood adjustment" options.
- Bernard, Hoagie and Laverne from DoTT don't meet any awesome [opposite gender(?)] characters that fall for them, but otherwise can tick off most items on the list.
- Sonny Bonds from Police Quest fits in, though being socially inept and having a sense of humour isn't befitting a cop, so it's understandable that those got cut out.
- The Hero from Quest For Glory fits surprisingly well, but as he's considered to be a player creation/Tabula Rasa of sorts, he never could fit the mold perfectly.
- Horatio Nullbuilt is an interesting case. He's not white, nor does he have social issues, but it's easy to define him as a "male" robot. He's a bit dry on the humour front...but then again that's what Crispin's for.

(I left out some obvious choices, mostly to use as an exercise for the reader.)

But this case doesn't really get interesting until we look at the characters that really don't fit the mold, like April Ryan (The Longest Journey) and Rufus from the Deponia trilogy. Ryan manages to avoid many of the items on the list (and I would go deeper into that if I could remember more about the game and her character) but it's Rufus that stands out for me. I get the feeling that he was created on purpose not only to avoid this mold, but to try to break it. A lot of the items do apply to Rufus, sure, but it's the ones that don't that really make him such an interesting case. He's an asshole, plain and simple. When was the last time you played an adventure game where you HATED the protagonist, wanted to strangle him with his own guts? How many other times can you remember that happening? Rarely, if ever. Rufus is MADE to be hated.

This is something Sierra started doing unconsciously, then LucasArts did QUITE consciously, then Sierra and every other adventure game designer followed suit and have been playing along ever since. It's one of the staples of adventure games as a genre - and reveals just how formulaic they really are.

 

[SCO]

No one ever thought GK2 was well acted... except maybe some fujoshi smitten by gabriel/count whatever.

I don't remember too much of the game but i remember enjoying some technical innovations (maybe firsts) like being able to skip walking to screen transitions by double clicking. I didn't expect a 'cinematic' game to do that. I agree it's very easy to get stuck in Gabriel Knights because of hidden dialog flags (or in GK 3 for missing events).

As for the ambiance and superficiality objections... well. I think that superficiality is always going to be a given on a game, and GK2 went far and above beyond what could be expected of it with all the Neuschwanstein and King Ludwig lore. A bit too much actually. Jane Jansen could have handled the dialog better and have had better ideas and execution, especially in later games? Sure. Not everyone can turn out subtle storytelling out of a hat. And the source material is a bit naif ofc. Immortal werewolf counts, hidden bloodlines of christ and the saints, derp ultra powerful voodoo cult. But they're still one of the only attempts of a AAA company doing adventure games on more 'non-comical' (if lowbrow) settings so they've ensured their popularity and renown by standing alone (at the time anyway). If I think back to then, I can't deny how the Laura Bows and Gabriel Knight games were absolutely refreshing in the sea of comic adventures.

 

[MRY]

One further point of discussion, which shows how LucasArts was imitating Sierra, "only better", is the mold that was created of the Adventure Game Protagonist - a mold that has yet to be broken in any meaningful way.

Sigh, browser crashed and ate my response. In summary: I think most of the qualities you identify have to do with tailoring a protagonist to the needs of gameplay. A nebbish/autism-spectrum character is likely to fiddle around with crap, pick up random items, not linger too long in conversation, etc. A likable/funny character makes listening to him describe every object in the world tolerable. A sympathetic/helpful is necessary for launching "quests" where you do such and such for so and so.

That said, I never thought that, say, Bobbin, Guybrush, Indie, and Ben are all that similar. I mean, they share some superficial qualities, but they don't "formulaic."

I think it's interesting that as adventure games moved away from being primarily about puzzling to being primarily about dialogue, protagonists shift from being overwhelmingly men to being mostly women (Syberia, TLJ et seq, Blackwell, etc.). That suggests it's less about pandering to the player and more about suiting the character to the verbset. Although maybe the player base changed, too.

Re: Horatio, he was certainly meant to be socially inept, just not in a goofy way -- I had meant to put him on the autism spectrum, as demonstrated by his inability to understand other characters' unhappiness unless they specifically tell him about it (like the way he reacts to Clarity or Oswald). And he's non-white only by happenstance of who we cast as a voice actor. If I could've had Clint Eastwood, he would be "white."

 

[Infinitron]

MRY Dammit dude, fix your browser.

 

[Irenaeus II]

King's Quest VI still tops any LucasArts game.

So, no.

Deal with it.

 

[tuluse]

I think in terms of attracting new players Sierra has some disadvantages.

The first is really long running series. While this was probably great for sales at the time, I think it can be intimidating for modern players who haven't played any. When you're looking at 6 QfG games, where do you start? Do you have to play them in order? Are there games you should skip? If you start are you going to be locked into playing all 6 in a row lest you forget something from an earlier one?

Lucas Arts has one series with more than 2 games, Monkey Island. More than that, games like Indy are obvious you can play them in any order.

Lucas Arts as fewer games in general. It's just easier to figure out what to play

I think Lucas Arts maintained more consistent quality. Other than MI4, did they release a *bad* game? They may have, but it looks like all mediocre-to-great. So I think they earned some of that brand loyalty Telengard mentioned. Sierra, probably just because of releasing so many more games, has more clunkers.

The LucasArts series has more modern entires, Telltale doing Sam & Max games, the special editions of Monkey Island. Also those came out before the more recent adventure game craze, where now some Sierra games are getting in on the action, at least Gabriel Knight is.

Tim Shafer got a lot of new fans with his Double Fine work. I don't think anyone from Sierra did something as popular as Psychonauts since leaving.

 

[ghostdog]

Lucasarts games are much more accessible. The most complex lucasarts game is their first game, Maniac Mansion, which has 6 playable character from where you choose 2 to start a game that each time can play differently. Not surprisingly their second most complex game is DoTT where you play 3 different characters working in 3 different timelines. I'll also throw Indy4 in there since you can choose 3 different paths throughout the game. Apart from that all lucasarts games are very straightforward point and click adventures with almost no "game overs" and more or less a straight path.

On the contrary in Sierra games you could die in every turn. Also their games featured harder puzzles (I'm not saying better, because they weren't really), darker themes (occasionally), semi-realistic police work (PQ series) and sublime combination of RPG with Adventure in QfG series which IMO was the pinnacle of Sierra's offerings.

I'm not saying that Sierra was better than Lucasarts. In actual quality all around, I consider Lucasarts way better, because all their releases are top notch, while sierra has some very obvious duds and it declined hard in the end. It's just that some sierra games have certain aspirations that make them very interesting and appealing.

Anyway, this is why Lucasarts games are easier to play than sierra's.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

We have to remember one thing:

LucasArts was but one arm of a vast media empire. LucasArts didn't need to pump out ten games a year to live or die, because it had a pretty large stream of income and resources being pumped into it externally anyway as part of LucasFilm as a whole. Thus, they had the luxury of being able to concentrate just that much more on each game. As such, they didn't put out as many games, in total, as Sierra did. Fewer games = fewer clunkers.

Sierra on the other hand up to 1996 was an independent company who lived or died by each game, and needed to put out X amount of games per year both to appease shareholders and to break even, especially as the company expanded in size. Sierra had something like 60 games at various levels of production a year, and the games they put out even prior to 1996 number at least 100 or more. That was their entire focus as a company, releasing numerous games yearly is what helped keep them afloat. With more quantity comes more opportunities for failure. Also, as you mentioned, Sierra's series were longer-running than LucasArts....You figure, LA is most known (series wise) for Monkey Island, which had only 4 games...Half the number Sierra's flagship, KQ, had. It wasn't like the today where the market was content with just one on-going product (see World of Warcraft). There was consistent demand for more, and Sierra was driven by its shareholders to meet that demand - to have X game out by this or that Holiday season, which sometimes resulted in cut content or bugs.

KQ7's head animation guy once said, for example, he joined the project in February and was given the directive of "Disney quality animation" with an already-set Thanksgiving release date.

Even less selling series, like the Laura Bow or Conquest games, got a sequel. Whereas LucasArts games either had fewer sequels or were standalone games.

Sierra's problem is that their best remembered series (due to the level of marketing put into it and the number of fans it had) wasn't their best. The QfG games or Space Quest were IMO much better games but aren't as remembered even by adventure games. Scott Murphy (co-designer of the SQ series) once complained about this, saying how the KQ games always got much more advertising and marketing money than all the other series.

 

[Great Deceiver]

I've always liked the Sierra games better than Lucas Arts. I have fond memories of sitting in a darkened living room, one fall evening, wrapped in a blanket and puzzling my way through Hero's Quest. HQ was my first RPG, and it got me into RPGs as a "thing," as prior to HQ I didn't really know what an RPG was. HQ got me into The Bard's Tale, Phantasie, etc.

In my family's case, we bought a Tandy 1000HX from Radio Shack, and we had it for years (we could never get my parents to upgrade). So I had an old computer for a long, long time until they finally caved in and bought a 486 at some point in the early 90s. But there was just something really fucking cool about typing away on the Tandy's massive keyboard while alternating between stabbing goblins in the face and cleaning out the stables. Also, I don't know if other people brought it up yet, but Conquests of Camelot was fucking boss, a phenomenal game with really great story telling. Again, fond memories of staying up way too late to work my way through that game.

The other thing is that it is very hard for me to like anything connected to George Lucas.

This is very similar to my growing up, except I used to play old Sierra adventures on a 8086 XT with 2 5 1/4" floppy drives and no hard drive. There was a LOT of disk swapping involved. That was the only computer I had up until 1993.

 

[Redlands]

The other thing to remember, that I think gets lost on some people, is that Sierra (the company that was CUC'ed to death) started making adventure games five years before LucasArts did. So a lot of things are going to be either because

• the games themselves are simply older (how many people who think of Sierra even think of The Wizard and the Princess or Cranstone Manor?), or
• the design principles are older, because they came from people who had been in the business longer.

The death thing, for instance, is certainly a deliberate design choice on their part, as is having a score: but these are both features that were in a lot of adventure games at the time (and before, obviously). These conventions had already been established in a lot of their main adventure lines by the time Monkey Island came out, and so had already become a part of a King's Quest, or Space Quest, or Leisure Suit Larry game, and even if the designers didn't want to reuse familiar designs, if you make drastic changes to those lines, customers tend to get upset.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

Sierra's problem is that their best remembered series (due to the level of marketing put into it and the number of fans it had) wasn't their best. The QfG games... aren't as remembered

I disagree with this point. Aside from KQ, which was clearly always Sierra's "blockbuster", I would say the QfG games have had the greatest legacy out of any Sierra titles. The only real competitor is GK (and let's be real: when people talk about the GK series they're almost always referring to Sins of the Fathers).

Tonally and thematically QfG was a very easy series to sell to KQ fans (this is how I first discovered QfG). PQ or Laura Bow? Not so much.

 

[Decado]

Quest for Glory is a fucking awesome RPG series. It has aged wonderfully. The only weak link is 3, because they fucked with the formula. And 5, but that's a different story.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Quest for Glory is a fucking awesome RPG series. It has aged wonderfully. The only weak link is 3, because they fucked with the formula. And 5, but that's a different story.

3 was kind of a last minute addition to the series.
This is what the creators originally had in mind: A game of four based on the four classical elements and the four seasons, with each game's theme, purpose and setting based around that idea:

Quest for Glory: So You Want to Be a Hero: North/Earth/Spring/Germanic
Quest for Glory II: Trial by Fire South Fire/Summer/Middle Eastern
Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness East/Air/Fall/Slavic
Quest for Glory V: Dragon Fire West/Water/Winter

However, when Shadows of Darkness was designed, it was thought that it would be too difficult for the hero to go straight from Shapeir to Mordavia and defeat the Dark One. To solve the problem, a new game, Wages of War, was inserted into the canon, and caused a renumbering of the series. Evidence for this can be found in the end of Trial by Fire: the player is told that the next game will be Shadows of Darkness and a fanged vampiric moon is shown, to hint at the next game's theme.

They talked about it in the Fall 1992 issue of Sierra's InterAction magazine:

"When we developed the concept for the series," explained Corey, "we wanted some unifying themes for the story. We worked with the four seasons, the four basic elements – Earth, Air, Fire, and Water – and the four cardinal points of the compass. We planned to create four games to follow these elements.
"The first game – So You Want to be a Hero – is springtime and Earth and set in medieval Germany in the North. The second game – Trial by Fire – was the element of Fire, in the summer, and set in the South, in Arabia."
"The original third chapter," added Lori, "was to be Shadows of Darkness, set in Transylvania – the East – and in the Fall, using Air as the central element."
Somewhere between finishing Trial by Fire and cranking up the design process for Shadows of Darkness, the husband-and-wife team realized a fifth chapter would have to be added to bridge the games. That chapter became Wages of War.
The concept of seasons in the games represents the maturation of the Hero as he moves from story to story. It's a critical component in a series that – from the very beginning – was designed to be a defined quartet of stories, representing an overall saga with a distinct beginning, middle, and end.
"One of the unifying themes," explained Corey, "is the growth of your character, going from being an adolescent Hero in the first game to being a young man in the second. You're strong and confident..."
"The third game," continued Lori, "was to show you as a master of your profession, with the fourth depicting you at the mature peek of your powers."
In the first episode, the player is a new graduate of the Famous Adventurer's Correspondence School, ready to venture out into the springtime of his career and build a rep. It's a light-hearted, exhilarating journey into the unknown that can be replayed three times with three distinct outlooks at puzzle-solving.
In the second chapter – Trial by Fire – the Hero enters the summer of his experience, facing more difficult challenges with more highly-developed skills. While the episode is more serious and dangerous than its predecessor, it retains the enchanting mixture of fantasy, challenge, and humor that made the first game a hit with so many fans.
Of all the reasons Lori and Corey found for creating a bridge between Trial by Fire and Shadows of Darkenss, the most compelling was the feeling that the Hero character simply hadn't matured enough to face the very grim challenges awaiting him in Transylvania.
"In terms of role-playing aspects," said Corey, "Shadows of Darkness is going to be a very difficult game. You'll have very tough opposition from the very beginning of the game."
"Also," said Lori, "you'll be very much alone. In Trial by Fire you had a lot of friends to help you. You always had a place to go back to rest. You always had a place of safety until the very end of the game. Once you get into Shadows of Darkness, you're not going to have any sanctuary. You won't be able to trust anyone, because nobody will trust you.
"Wages of War is the bridge," she continues. "You start with people you know to help you along in the beginning. But when push comes to shove, you're the one who's on his own, who has to solve the ultimate mystery. As you go along, just when you think you're all alone, your allies come back to you, but you have to face the final challenge by yourself."
— Lori and Corey Cole

 

[Decado]

Also, if you watch the ending credits of Trial By Fire, they mention that the next game in the series is Shadows of Darkness.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Evidence for this can be found in the end of Trial by Fire: the player is told that the next game will be Shadows of Darkness and a fanged vampiric moon is shown, to hint at the next game's theme.

Also, if you watch the ending credits of Trial By Fire, they mention that the next game in the series is Shadows of Darkness.

Don't know if was mentioned, but in the end credits of QFG 2, it has a screen showing the next chapter would be shadows of darkness...

Spoiler

In any case, has anyone finished QFG2 VGA remake? What's their end credits screen shows if there is a similar screen in the remake?

 

[Sceptic]

In any case, has anyone finished QFG2 VGA remake? What's their end credits screen shows if there is a similar screen in the remake?

It says "Wages of War", which makes sense if you think about it.

Also,

Since it was mentioned, let me just say that the QFG2 remake is absolutely fantastic.

 

[ghostdog]

Since it was mentioned, let me just say that the QFG2 remake is absolutely fantastic.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Since it was mentioned, let me just say that the QFG2 remake is absolutely fantastic.

 

[catfood]

Real men play the original EGA version with text parser.