- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Don’t get me wrong, I love the old Sierra games as much as anyone else on this site, but there is one thing about them that I really don’t like. Perhaps you’ve guessed it already 🙂
The thing I don’t like is that in lots of old Sierra games, there are plenty of dead ends. Perhaps you’ve forgotten something early on in the game (like the slime in the beginning of SQ4) which makes the game impossible to complete. The result of this is that when you don’t know what to do, you immediately start thinking about the possibility that you’ve forgotten something or that there’s something you should have done earlier on in the game. It’s really annoying not to know whether you’ve encountered a really difficult puzzle or if you’ve forgotten something making any further advancement in the game impossible.
I cannot understand why Sierra decided to do it this way.. was it simply because it’s easier, or did they think it was more realistic? If the latter is the case, I find it quite silly as adventure games in general aren’t realistic. -
(re: One bad aspect about old Sierra games)
>was it simply because it’s easier, or did they think it was more realistic? If the latter is the case, I find it quite silly as adventure games in general aren’t realistic.
I think it was a design error.
As for realism, games should not fly away with the fairies, that is, should not include too much fantasy, like fantasy for fantasy’s sake, but rather try to teach you something. I think that old Sierra games were ok in this regard, but of course, improvement is possible. 🙂
-
