User Avatar Image

Sierra vs. LucasArts

posted by Anakin Skywalker on - last edited - Viewed by 890 users

Who do you feel was the better adventure game company, and the better game company overall in their respective heydays (80s-90s)?

Which made better games?

46 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Considering the vast majority of regulars who frequent the General Chat showed up here for either Sam and Max or Monkey Island, and the King's Quest game has had NOTHING in terms of new information since the bare-bones announcement that they're doing one, the skew here is going to be pretty bad. This will be somewhat exacerbated by the one-sided rivalry LucasArts fans seem to have with Sierra as a whole, and the misguided historical revisionism that some LucasArts fans(rather than Adventure Game fans who also like LucasArts games) use to treat Sierra like some anachronistic dinosaur that never knew what it was doing, that "earned" its demise through practices that extended throughout its history.

  • LucasArts, hands down. Sorry, Sierra. I adore Sierra (and Quest for Glory is, like, one of my favourite game series of all time), but in terms of overall quality, LucasArts wins. Sierra spewed a lot of adventure games (much more than LA did), but not all of them were that good.

  • Sierra did have Police Quest though... and those were full of awesome. What other game made you search a man's underwear?

  • User Avatar Image
    Vainamoinen Moderator

    @Johro said: Sierra did have Police Quest though... and those were full of awesome. What other game made you search a man's underwear?

    Monkey Island 2.

  • eh wasn't the same though. I still loved that game(PQ3).

  • Given Telltale's roots, I think you'll find very few people on Sierra's side here. :p

    I do love Sierra's games, though, even if they haven't aged too well.

  • Sierra On-Line was pretty good IMO.

  • User Avatar Image
    Jennifer Moderator

    I was a LucasArts fan when I was younger simply because I couldn't complete many Sierra games (although I always got Sierra games too because I really liked Sierra's art style), but that's changed as I've gotten older and have been able to finally play through Sierra's games. I voted Sierra as the better adventure company because they always pushed the envelope for what an adventure game was. They were the first to have static graphics in 1979, then they had parserless control from a drop down menu (which LucasArts used later for Labyrinth) before they brought in a controllable character with King's Quest making the first parser/controllable character hybrid, an RPG/adventure hybrid with Hero's Quest/Quest for Glory, etc. They did bring in stuff their competitors were doing to stay up with the competition (pure point-and-click interface, then 3D before stopping adventures), but for the most part, they were pretty innovative.

    LucasArts games were great, but after Maniac Mansion (which was definitely innovative), they just took a formula and stuck with it (although they improved it slightly over time, removing extra verbs, adding inventory icons, etc.) (with the exception of Grim Fandango which was innovative). Not that formulaic is bad (I really enjoyed the LucasArts games), but I applaud Sierra for trying new things (and having those things work out well for the most part).

  • LucasArts made Grim Fandango. That alone is worth my vote. And in terms of player-centred design, LucasArts win again.

    I do give props to Sierra for innovation in the graphic adventure genre, but I was introduced to the genre through LucasArts, and I never looked back.

    On the other hand, Sierra is probably the better overall game company. LucasArts will always be the Star Wars company, while Sierra actually made some pretty good stuff outside of adventure games. SWAT 4 for instance. I love(d) that game.

  • I love both so dearly.. but if I had to choose .. I would go with the LA games.

Add Comment