I loved Quest for Glory (or Heroes Quest, as it was when my sister and I purchased the first one) when I was younger. We totally mini-maxed it, spamming "pick nose" and sneaking everywhere to max out our skills (and of course we were a thief, because they could do fight and do magic as well.)
What sticks with me, however, is how the story gave the player freedom while still remaining engaging (exactly the points the article makes). So-called computer RPGs focused on the most boring parts of role-playing---combat---and completely ignored the thing that makes RPGs what they are, the player's role in creating the story! Bards Tale and Wizardry games that are contemporaneous to Quest for Glory are decidedly weaker sauce. Games like Ultima that tried to create an open world mostly ended up filling that world with bland variations on the same theme, and lost any narrative drive through endless side quests. Although we ground like only kids with nothing better to do can, there was no need for excessive grinding in Quest for Glory. You could push the story forward fairly quickly, and every puzzle had multiple solutions.
Totally agreed with 32bitkid that Deus Ex is the closest contemporary game to Quest for Glory, combining strong narrative with player freedom.
Whoa, I never knew about the "pick nose" trick, I've played thru the game a number of times as thief, both the original EGA and the VGA remake.
IMHO, the thief was the best class, the only one where you could get all the skills. And that's only if you started on QfG I. Starting as any other class, or a thief in later versions, and at least one of your skills was a zero, which meant you could never use or improve it (as far as I've ever found out).
That's indeed what I remember as well, but in at least one of the sequels it made sense to transition to a fighter to gain the paladin powers on top of the rest. Playing for maximum freedom was actually incredibly constraining in certain ways; I vaguely recall that you get forced by class into a specific endgame for Trial By Fire.
I have to mention to anyone who stumbles across this comment that there have been remakes. The QfG1 remake in 1992 was okayish, but I personally preferred the 16-color version in all its limited glory. But the QfG2 remake in 2011 was worthy of multiple replays just like the original was:
QfG3 is still playable via DOSBox if you can get a copy of the software. I want to play QfG4 again and I unfortunately have never played QfG5 as it landed when I was broke... but I did get a copy of the soundtrack via some filesharing network at the time, and Chance Thomas's work on that soundtrack was absolutely gorgeous.
Only if your lock picking skill was low. Over a certain level you could mine your nose for skill points indefinitely.
I just remembered we used to throw rocks everywhere to increase that skill. Even used to use rocks to chip (and sometimes kill) enemies while running from screen to screen to prevent them getting into close combat. I can't imagine having so much free time anymore :)
I know what you're saying, but if I do get free time again it will be to play the QFG series again! I'm very letdown with contemporary gaming and felt the best titles came out in the late 80s till the 90s came to a close.
The arcade focused stuff that came before was good and impressive (who as a child was NOT impressed standing in awe in front of Rampage circa 1986) but wasn't exactly deep. And the stuff today is almost entirely rehashes of formulas created in the late 80s or 90s.
It's why I've given up on "high end" gaming rigs and now use a Skull Canyon NUC (and a Wii U, Nintendo still has the touch).
The first quote by Corey Cole on that page is brilliant, and is something so many game designers shoud probably keep in mind:
> Rule #1 is “The Player Must have Fun.” It’s trivially easy for a game designer to “defeat” players. We have all the tools and all the power. The trick is to play on the same side as the players, to tell the story together, and to make them the stars.
So many game designers (especially amateur ones) seem to think game design is about screwing over the player at every opportunity. That it's a battle between the designer and the player, with the aim to make things as difficult as possible.
And the point about a lot of Sirerra's designers not actually having much experience playing video games kind of says a lot, doesn't it? Certainly explains how brutal most of their adventure games were.
I played a lot of Sierra games but Quest for Glory was by far my favourite series. I think it's totally valid to take different views on game design, and no doubt there is an audience for may different approaches (e.g. there is a certain type of person who enjoys bullet hell games, which I find totally tedious.)
What irked me about most Sierra games is that each puzzle had only a single solution, and most of those solutions were totally arbitrary. The added "fun" in the earlier Sierra games was you had to figure out the arbitrary text to enter to activate the arbitrary solution as well. This is also very apparent in the Fighting Fantasy books, if you've every played them. The only way this makes sense to me is to consider dying part of the game and the meta-game, over many restarts, is the real game. I don't find this very satisfying.
Totally agree here too. HQ/QFG was the crown jewel of Sierra, and also their most underrated title. Space Quest deserves honorable mention. I really enjoyed getting away from the green grass and castles theme and it didn't take itself too seriously.
I loved Space Quest, but when I saw Hero's Quest sitting on the shelf in the shop, I picked it up, examined it, and then put it back. I didn't know it, and if it wasn't good it was a waste of around $80. So it sat there for months, nobody bought it, until eventually the shop discounted it.
My father came home one night, paper bag in hand. Handing it to me, he said "I've got something for you, it was cheap." I took a look, thought "MEH!" but put it in the Amiga just to please him.
Six hours later, I realised I should head to bed, but just one more monster! One more puzzle! I couldn't stop, I think I finally got to bed around 2am. Woke up the next morning, it was the weekend so no school, computer on, and away I went for the whole day. Finished it the next day, and then restarted it as a different class.
Even now, I still get asked about that game from time-to-time. I don't have it anymore, but YouTube does - he loves the cleaning montage at the castle, particularly the music.
I never managed to get into the sequel, but since someone's done a remake (linked to further down the forum) think I might load it up on my iMac and give it a play.
You could probably use the gog.com version of the game on your Mac if you don't mind configuring Dosbox on your own. On a Windows machine they work flawlessly off gog and for $10 for the whole pack.. well, I have a copy. And I have a shrine to HQ/QFG in my computer room with all the originals on a shelf.
I followed all 5 games from 89 to 98. Sierra's Interaction magazine is what kept me in the loop. HQ was the most charming by far and an amazing effort for a preliminary title. QFG2 was the best overall in the series. The combat, story and settings were more epic than the rest. 3 wasn't bad, I appreciated the setting and the large overmap continued on the epic feeling from 2. Lots of people like 4 the best, but I think it's the combination of green grass/castles theme that certain people seem to love and it was definitely Lori Cole at her best with the storytelling. While the peak of story for all the games, the dreary atmosphere wasn't my favorite. 5 was a little wonky compared to the rest. While I'm biased and do I prefer EGA>VGA>3D, it basically served to finish up the story. I just don't think VGA aged well at all and 3D doesn't either unless it's cartoon-style (think Zelda Wind Waker[1]).
Keep a lookout for Lori & Corey's new game, Hero-U[2]. I don't know what's wrong with major publishers who won't hire those two and give them free reign.
This attitude is always a bit strange within the context of game design. "Hand holding" just makes it sound /bad/, like something is wrong with the person playing. While, in reality, people have very different preferences to their games, how difficult they are, or where the difficulty lies.
> So many game designers (especially amateur ones) seem to think game design is about screwing over the player at every opportunity
Yes. For me, those style games are the most fun, but only when well executed. Dwarf Fortress and "losing is fun!" is my favorite example. I like it when games give you all the tools, then lull you into forgetting about them. Not so much an obscure reference early on, but more like the original Zelda. Zelda forced you to really explore the whole map. You could skip something, but then you'd miss the raft and couldn't get to level 6 (maybe 7).
Anyway, there's a punishing annoying way to do it, and there's an "aha! that's how that works!" kind of way to do it. I prefer the latter.
The quest for glory I VGA remake was the first game I ever purchased with my own money as a teen; and it made a huge impact on me. (although I honestly think that qfg2 was the best game in the series). Though the mechanics have been explored in other games since, I still like to go back and play through 1-5 every now and then. They still hold up surprisingly well, through the glossy lens of nostalgia.
In fact, just this morning, my little brother asked me if the new dues ex is worth picking up and I described it as "scratching my itch for the old quest for glory series"
It's great to read insights into some of these games, though I sometimes worry about the history of a lot of the influential works in this medium. I'm afraid it'll get lost and unappreciated, and be unplayable. Can there be a "criterion collection" for early video games and interactive fiction. Is something that even matters? Maybe I'm just getting old.
They are a super talented bunch and its a worthy remake/homage/labor-of-love to finalize the series. I kind of wish I had the talent and dedication to tackle making qfg 5 into the vga style of the rest, and implement some of the other features that got cut from the final chapter. Cest la vie
> Can there be a "criterion collection" for early video games and interactive fiction
It's not exactly the same thing, but the closest analogue I can think of is the old "Hall of Fame" list that Computer Gaming World magazine used to curate, back when that magazine was still a thing:
It'd be an interesting exercise to put together an annotated version of that list showing the current status of each title, including availability via GOG/Steam/Archive.org/etc.
> Our first (and Sierra’s first) Producer, Guruka Singh Khalsa, taught us the “Ken Williams Rule” based on something Robert Heinlein wrote: “That which he tells you three times is true.”
Originally written by Lewis Carroll:
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
(See also Appendix ל of the Illuminatus! Trilogy.)
Aw. For a second I thought, "Wow, an actual good Kickstarter?" and went to check it out. I found another 3-ring circus of "reward tiers", empty promises, and DukeNukemForeverWare.
I played through quest for infamy as the thief character (of course) and I'd say it was at least as good as QFG3. Not without faults but worthwhile for any fans of the Coles' games.
People can't see your sarcasm on the Internet. For those who are not following the self-mugging service that is kickstarter it's one of those projects that promises the moon and doesn't even deliver the photo of it. It's many years past the deadline with no end in sight. Most of these just peter out, some get to Steam Eearly Access and stay in Beta forever. Some just take the money and run. The percentage of projects that get to release is so tiny it's actually measure in permilles.
Quest for Glory and Sierra fans who enjoyed this article may also really enjoy "Why We Loved Sierra Games". The Coles and some other Sierra designers said some nice things about this too.
Loved all the Sierra games, especially Hero's Quest.
Any recommendations for PG (kids) for something similar today? Deus Ex seems good but not for under 10... I really loved the fantasy world, the interactive story telling, and the challenges of the Quest for Glory series.
Would pay good money for a hand painted, well crafted, modern point and click with an immersive story like this. The 8bit EGA/VGA stuff brings back warm memories but I don't think that's the thing that made it magical for me.
What sticks with me, however, is how the story gave the player freedom while still remaining engaging (exactly the points the article makes). So-called computer RPGs focused on the most boring parts of role-playing---combat---and completely ignored the thing that makes RPGs what they are, the player's role in creating the story! Bards Tale and Wizardry games that are contemporaneous to Quest for Glory are decidedly weaker sauce. Games like Ultima that tried to create an open world mostly ended up filling that world with bland variations on the same theme, and lost any narrative drive through endless side quests. Although we ground like only kids with nothing better to do can, there was no need for excessive grinding in Quest for Glory. You could push the story forward fairly quickly, and every puzzle had multiple solutions.
Totally agreed with 32bitkid that Deus Ex is the closest contemporary game to Quest for Glory, combining strong narrative with player freedom.