Originally Posted by exo
I would guess the reason there wasn't much activity regarding Sierra on usenet is because the rest of us were still happily chugging away on local bulletin board systems.
And aside from that... the more I read about Ken Williams the less I like him. KQ8 was "1/2 Super Mario 64" in the same way that my bowel movement this morning was "1/2 chipotle burrito".
Let me fix that for you Ken:
"the design goal was to be 1/2 Superman 64 and 1/2 Kings Quest."
Much more accurate.
Another random snippet:
"The game is roughly the same length as the original, which Internet hackers may slam us for."
Yes... because all your critics are hackers... hah.
Just because it was disappointing to you as a KQ game, doesn't mean that it's a bad game in general, on it's own merits. To class it with Superman 64, regarded by most as one of the absolute worst games of all time, is hyperbolic. It may not be "KQ" to you, but that doesn't mean if you just view it as a game just set in the WORLD of KQ, that it's a bad game. And every KQ game had a different idea going into it: KQ6 was KQ + a darker, more verbose plot, less interest in fairy tales and more mythology; KQ7 was KQ meets Disney, etc.
Also, there were a lot of people who were trolling Sierra at the time, if you read through the boards, so him saying something about internet hackers was a justified response given the context. There is a LOT of Sierra related content on the usernet archives from 1990-1998, a ton of stuff that would take months to compile here--so yes a lot of people were talking a lot about Sierra.
I don't see what's to dislike about Ken. He made a bad business decision in selling Sierra, but that was 16 years ago. He made many many more good decisions than bad ones and if it wasn't for him, Sierra wouldn't have existed in the first place...