Hacker News Reader

Comment by shdon | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't that also depend on how and why you play them? Back in the day, I couldn't finish any Sierra (or LucasArts) adventures without a walkthrough. I did finish them with a walkthrough, because for me the fun was in seeing how the story would go. They were interactive stories.

If being able to finish the games would be all that important, I would personally have to consider pretty much any arcade game badly designed. I've never been able to finish Super Mario Bros, DOOM, Quake, any of the Ultimas. But I think all of those games are well-designed and, more importantly: fun to play.

And ultimately, I had lots of fun playing Sierra's and LucasArts' adventures. They may not be the pinnacle of game design, but that enjoyment alone makes then good games in my book.

View on HN

I think the difference between Sierra games and the others you mentioned is that it's possible to finish them without a walkthrough. And really, there's nothing in those games that entirely defies logic. They might be very hard, but they're fair within the rules they lay down, and you can't end up in a situation where the game is unfinishable.

Sierra games have a lot of "dead man walking" scenarios where you end up in a situation where an action you took hours earlier locks you out from finishing the game. They also have lots of instant death scenarios that you can only find by trial and error. Is your last save several hours old? Too bad, you get to play that part again.

Their games also feature a lot of "dream logic" puzzles where you really have no way of figuring out the intended solution short of clicking on everything. The "cat hair mustache puzzle" is a great example of this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_hair_mustache_puzzle. To be fair, that one wasn't created by Roberta Williams, but I think it typifies much of the Sierra design approach.

Again, Jimmy Maher at The Digital Antiquarian has gone into a lot more depth on these issues in Sierra games (and plenty from other companies), comparing them to better designed games from companies like Infocom and others.

Pretty sure all the comments above you are intimating is that there's no such thing as "better designed" without a "to what (specific) goal?". If the goal was enjoyment, then Sierra games were well-loved by lots of people, and like the guy says, that's proof by itself that the design goal was met. You can (and Maher does) argue that there are ways to take frustration out of the experience, or highlight other parts of the experience more (parts that people generally find enjoyable), but that still doesn't allow an authoritative, non-subjective, statement about "better" without some sort of qualifier.

I agree. My comment that the games were poorly designed is clearly very subjective, as are nearly all opinions are better/worse anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com