Sierra vs. LucasArts
 

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?

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?

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.

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.

Only SWAT 4 wasn't Sierra, it was Irrational (a.k.a. developers of BioShock). SWAT 3 was developed by Sierra, and it too was really awesome.

I didn't even play any Sierra adventures in my childhood. I found out about them about 2-3 years ago and I love all of them.

Since you have this in a list of innovations, I'd like to note that Infocom combined RPG elements(including a rudimentary morality system) with Adventure games in Beyond Zork, released in 1987. That game was designed by Brian Moriarty, who LucasArts and graphic adventure fans may better know as the guy behind Loom.

This is a no-win topic. These guys aren't really a lot alike, and the only reason they get compared so often is because there has barely ever been anyone else to compare them to.

Ah yes, I always get publishers and developers mixed up... I never actually played SWAT 3 though, but I did play SWAT 2, which was in fact made by Sierra, if I'm not much mistaken. A completely different game, but still quite fun. I loved assembling teams in that game... not that it helped in winning missions though.

I was the opposite. Sierra was far more interested in distribution here than LA. While LA games were very hard to come by, Sierra was everywhere. I played a whole lot of those games back in the day. I've had to import almost all the LA games I own, which meant waiting til the internet evolved into what it is today.

I honestly can't answer this poll because I don't know. I grew up playing both quite a bit. The first 3 games I ever played was Red Baron, Space Quest 1 and Police Quest 2. Not to mention the hours spent on just about every game they released after that including the Kings Quest series up to 7th Guest. So I have a lot of love for Sierra. But I also grew up loving Maniac Manson, Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island Series, Full Throttle and of course Grimm Fandago...

I really can't choose one.

Gihk! Don't make me choose!!!!!

LucasArts.

I have long said that being able to die in an adventure game is a massive no-no, and LucasArts understood that (after Maniac Mansion, anyway). Hell, they even poke fun of it in MI. I can't get to grips with any of the Sierra games because they require a very different play style - one that punishes you for taking too long to explore a screen or overlooking basic things. I've never liked that, and it's why I've never really liked Sierra games.