sethsez: QfG5 has more in common with its series than KQ8 has with its series. The main issue was a rather severe lack of polish, not a complete change of genre.

sethsez: The series got eight games, the last of which was awful, and then Roberta Williams moved on. That's where the series should have ended, and thankfully it did.

StingingVelvet: Until Telltale's game comes out anyway.

Honestly KQ6 is the only great one. KQ5 is okay, KQ7 is tolerable if you like that sort of thing. The early games were all pretty bland and annoying, from what I have played and from the opinions I have read. I am sure many people here will disagree but I bet that is at least partially nostalgia goggles.

In any case, we shall see what Telltale do with it. And I am still sitting here wondering whether to get KQ8 in this weekend's sale.

Red_Avatar: If people claim to enjoy the first KQ games, either they secretly love being tortured or it's indeed nostalgia goggles. These games may have been ground breaking in many areas, the puzzles were unfair, sadistic and plain CRAP. Countless ways to die because of some weird reason - not my idea of fun. The Space Quest series, while unfair sometimes, it far superior.

emonious: It would be like buying all of Picaso's paintings, then since you own them, claiming you painted them. IP transfer, fine, but credit needs to go to origins as well. To use a mechanic from the great QFG games, to present it as your own work, well that's just "dishonorable."

ChaunceyK: Regardless of everything said since this post, this quote above is what I relate to best. I was born & raised in New Jersey, and the Meadowlands Arena will always be the Meadowlands Arena to me...NOT the Continental Airlines Arena. Other than being the parent company who purchased the physical arena, what the HELL does an airline have to do with a sports/music venue?? Nothing. How is that attracting business? It isn't. Its just a massive strokefest for Continental Airlines to have their name plastered onto a famous arena.

Same goes with the PNC Bank Arts Center. It used to be the Garden State Arts Center, until...well, you get it by now.

If these 2 egomaniacal, billion-dollar companies had an ounce of sense, they'd realize that terms like Meadowlands & Garden State say something about the locale & heritage of these fine arenas. Why change the name on something from what its associated with to something completely unrelated?

Same thing (again) with the New York Giants & New York Jets. Can anyone guess where they play their home games? Here in New Jersey! Seriously, who cares where the team owners reside or where they used to play? They've been in NJ for 35 years, so why the hell continue to call them the New YORK Giants?! Same for the Jets, they've been here 25 years!

Even the Statue of Liberty is not safe...its on the New Jersey side of the border between NJ & NY, but guess who gets to claim it for their own? New York!

Its all ego-stroking bullsh*t.

Arteveld: For a more leveled view of the SIERRA adventure games, see here: http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28115
Someone who doesnt brag about all those ways to die, and actually sees that this is a different cup of tea, refreshing.

Also, i wonder what would the outrage be if SomeSchmuck bought out LA games, and GOG would release "SomeSchmuck's Star Wars". Cannot imagine the nerdrage coming.

GameRager: I think people might be ok with it, considering how some view Lucas for the new trilogy of films. :\

GameRager: But yeah, some of the deaths were actually a nice part of the game, watching how the hero died was often tragic/funny/etc all at once.

Arteveld: SomeSchmuck's Secret Of The Monkey Island, then?:)

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

At first deaths were a conscious design decision, later on they became more and more a joke. Still, i'm saddened adventure games see it as a bad thing, as if there was only One Right Way to play games. Sierra had it's way, LA presented an alternative. Both showed totally different sides of adventure gaming. And at least played had something to choose from. Let's diss, RPGs, You can die in them, then make RPGs where You can't die, cause it's fun. Etc [sorry for the rant, Rager:)]

Yea, they were funny, i actually loved to explore all the possibilities, ways to die, ways to solve a puzzle, etc.

GameRager: It makes me laugh how some can hate the many deaths in adventure games yet also hate regenerating health in the newer games like some FPSs. Game makers can't win it seems.

GameRager: It makes me laugh how some can hate the many deaths in adventure games yet also hate regenerating health in the newer games like some FPSs. Game makers can't win it seems.

Red_Avatar: 1. You're comparing a genre which is loved for its puzzles, laid back approach and story to one which is loved for its explosions, guns, quick responses and deaths? Really? That's not even apples and oranges, that's cars and animals. They're two MASSIVELY different genres which are possibly the two genres furthest apart of all genres because there's almost zero overlap. Adventure gaming was never supposed to be about reflexes, action, deaths - unless the deaths contributed to the story - and any adventure game that tried to introduce such elements has generally been disliked with only a few exceptions like Blade Runner, which kept the combat fair and easy.

2. The reason why deaths are almost universally disliked in adventure games is:
a) because they're often unfair and unforgiving
b) adventure games rarely have autosave nor do you save that often
c) it makes no sense

3. Accidentally falling in a river shouldn't force you to replay half an hour of the game. Forgetting some item in a store shouldn't watch you die without a decent explanation an hour later. They didn't contribute ANYTHING to the game except for frustration.

4. Sure, later the deaths were more refined and less haphazard but to defend the deaths in the early KQ and LSL games? That's just bad taste. Sierra made that mistake in many of its games - even the Space Quest series had some atrocious puzzles where you'd die for some weird reason. You pick up an item that later gets you killed - why?

5. How does this improve a game when the designer thought "oh, let's put a sausage on the table and then have a rabid dog attack and kill the player a few screens later! That will teach the player to pick up items in an adventure game!". I invented this one but there's plenty of real examples (like LSL2 where you could die several times on the boat because you forgot an item back in town). Only a fool would defend such practices that are not tied to the story nor skill nor the game itself, but rather trial and error based on nothing but the sadistic imagination of the designers.