The combat is definitely superior in HQ - they obviously spent a lot of time on the mechanics, whereas in QFI they just did enough to make it not suck so bad you'd stop playing.

While I generally don't play these games for the combat (at all), I do admit that in HQ I did start jacking up the difficulty and really got into the combat for some reason.

I actually liked the freezing/hunger mechanic of HQ - but unfortunately, like the combat, this mechanic becomes almost meaningless once your character is good enough (well combat can still be tough against boss creatures, but apart from that...).


What I really liked about QFI though was the immersive world and the characters. For one, the whole place seemed so much bigger, even though it probably isn't THAT much bigger in terms of game size. Examples are the market performance - so many people in that village! It makes you feel like you're actually in a larger world. And it did so just by having a few scenes like that, or having random villagers just walking around.

In contrast, while the village and town didn't look THAT small in HQ, it seemed like it was only populated by about 10 or so people in each one. This actually bugged me a little bit since it made the main town in HQ seem like it had a smaller population than the (supposedly) smaller town/village.

Also QFI has a talking camel.

Well, I worked on both games and I can tell you that the QFI team probably spent more time working on the combat system compared to the HQ team. The main thing was the actual design choice - and QFI was deliberately meant to be fairly simple in style. I know that when I got my friends to play HQ, they were baffled by the combat, and when they looked at the QFI trailer, they said they'd probably prefer that as it was more straightforward. Different preferences really :)

HQ didn't have more random NPCs because then it becomes harder to track the other moving NPCs. Plus, I do like the approach of making all the characters have some meaningful purpose in game. Again, different design choice with respect to world building, and people will have their own preference about this.

Like I said the combat didn't bother me in QFI because I tend to play these games for everything BUT the combat. Having said that, surely the combat on HQ becomes less baffling on the easiest setting? From my (vague) memory I'm sure you can just do what anyone who hates combat in games like this does - set it to easiest and just mash buttons to get through...

I also like the meaningful purpose of the characters, but it still COULD have been possible to have more NPCs randomly around. Yes it may have made things more difficult, but surely not by a huge amount?

Personally, although the fact that characters walking around makes them feel more real on the one hand, on the other hand it makes it more annoying (in some cases) to find a specific character (sometimes). On top of that, given a choice between 1) lots of random characters (with the main ones not really moving around), and 2) no randoms (but the main ones moving), personally I think 1) provides a greater feeling of being in a larger world which 2) doesn't really do.

Also they could do both - they could have option 2) but instead of actually moving from screen to screen, just have them "appear" at certain places at certain times - a bit more "fake" but easier to pull off, and then you could have randoms as well with less issues...

Yes, the combat was deliberately made to be super easy on the easiest setting so that those that didn't like the RPG aspects of the game could play it as an adventure - but I did note even a rather well known reviewer didn't seem to understand how to dodge (from his gameplay footage) and then criticized the combat as terrible. I'm simply responding to your comment that the combat in QFI was only worked on just enough to make it not suck - IQ did put in lots of effort into the combat engine too, just the design choice was different.

Anything is possible in a game, but it's a matter of design choice and what we wanted to spend time on. I don't think having random NPCs was ever considered because to us (and to many other players), the world seemed very immersible with the NPCs walking around as-is. Plus, it was cold so all the other villages/citizens are indoors ;). I understand your point, but don't agree that it was necessary for HQ. Maybe for some other game in the future.

Anyway, whatever design choice a game designer makes, there will be some people that like it, and others that dislike it. I don't think it's ever possible to please everyone with everything :)

It's probably because GOG SELLS games (meaning they charge money for them), but Heroine's Quest is a free game. It's pretty easy to find Heroine's Quest though. Googling it should give you the link to the company website, where you can get the game for free.

But GOG does have some free games on its catalog. Like Beneath a Steel Sky, Teenagent, Flight Of The Amazon Queen or Treasure Adventure Game. It could have easily hosted Heroine's Quest too for extra visibility, and maybe serve as an entry point for similar but not so free games like Quest for Glory or Quest for Infamy. Anyway. At the end of the day, as long old fans of Hero's Quest/Quest For Glory discover the existence of Quest For Infamy or Heroine's Quest or AGDI's remake of Quest For Glory II, it's all that matters really.

They certainly provide downloads to free games here. That said, between Steam and the main website, you can certainly find Heroine's Quest all over. I'm rather glad QfI and HQ exist, QfG was my favorite of the Sierra Golden Age games, and seeing not one, but two, attempts to bring that formula back to life has made me quite happy.

I don't know if any other games are trying to tackle this style of game, in one way or another, but much credit to QfI and HQ regardless.