Re: "Sierra made the games of my childhood. Are they still fun to play?"

On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:12:17 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2025 18:53:58 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
>

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/05/sierra-made-the-games-of-my-childhood-are-they-still-fun-to-play/

>
For some, yes, as they have youtube channels dedicated to the genre.
That includes playing these old Sierra games and it is obvious to me
that they are enjoying them.
>
As for me, my teen years were spent mostly playing Sierra titles. I
loved them. I own almost all of their games. And all of their hint
books as well as there is no way I could finish them without help.
>
But at some point, I lost interest in adventure games. It was likely
due to my growing interest in strategy games and RPGs. I go back to
playing those old Sierra adventure games once in awhile but they will
never hold the same fascination for me as they once did.

I enjoy them for different reasons now than I did back then.

The thing is, even when Sierra's games were the New Hottness, there
was a lot that was annoying about them too. Mostly it was the 'take
one step and die from something not predictable' gameplay. (There's a
reason LucasArts adventures and the "Myst" series took off the way
they did; people liked playing games that weren't actively
antagonistic towards the players!). The moon-logic puzzles didn't help
either.

We enjoyed Sierra titles /despite/ their problems, largely because
they were some of the most technologically advanced, visually
impressive and deep games available at the time. The amount of detail
and number of interactions in a Sierra game were amazing; the worlds
felt more alive than in almost any other game.

These days, though, what was innovative and exciting for a Sierra game
is de rigueur for any modern game. There's nothing SPECIAL about the
old Sierra titles, which means its flaws are all the more obvious.
This is a problem Sierra was already facing in the mid 90s (when its
competitors were rapidly catching up --or surpassing-- Sierra in
production values); their games had lost the 'magic' that made them so
appealing. You could get just as good --or better!-- an experience
from other games. It didn't help that Sierra /really/ struggled with
3D, both in terms of technology and design. They were a firm which had
excelled at 2D sprite-work but their 3D modeling was always a year or
two behind their competitors. Plus, they'd over-invested in
live-action video games, which was a fad which never quite caught on
the way they'd hoped it would.

That's not to say Sierra's old games are without value, but it's much
harder for them to find an audience. The dated visuals and sound
--especially with the games of the 80s-- are a huge barrier for some,
although I think their games of the early- to mid-90s hold up pretty
well. There's some joy to be taken in the sheer malevolence of the
game design too; even games like "Dark Souls" /want/ you to get to the
end eventually, if you work at it. Sierra games put every obstacle in
your path to prevent that from happening, and to some that feels fresh
and innovative. Plus, never discount the power of nostalgia to smooth
over a lot of the issues.

But the simple fact is that Sierra games of that era are just not as
good as most games you can play today. They are of primitive design
and even more primitive visuals and sound. They've got some good bones
to them, but modern games expect more meat on those bones than games
from the 80s can offer. You CAN enjoy those games, but you have to
really work for it. There's just a lot better games to spend your time
on.


IMHO, YMMV and other acronyms apply, as usual.