Which were better... LucasArts or Sierra adventure games?

LucasArts

What is more fun, walking a straight line or climbing a vertical wall?

History will remember Lucasarts as being about quality, whereas Sierra was about Quantity.

I grew up with both, games like Dark Forces, Sam & Max: Hit the Road, and Space Quest.

Sierra failed due to poor management, Lucasarts got the short end of the stick on a tedious deal at best.

File: 1455468829295.jpg (20KB, 480x451px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x451px

>Sierra game
>Make an unnoticeable mistake
>Don't realize the mistake until literal hours and a save overwrite or two later
>Now the game is literally unbeatable

To be perfectly honest, both of them had their moon-logic moments, and both of them milked that hint-line for all it was worth. I'd say that LucasArts games put more emphasis on the characters, dialogue and the relationship formed between the characters and the player, where Sierra was more about world-building and the player's experience through a grand adventure.
I can tell you exactly where you go and what sorts of things you go through in King's Quest 6 and Police Quest 2, and I can quote all sorts of memorable lines from Grim Fandango and Sam and Max Hit the Road.
They each have their own draw, and there's usually a lot of overlap, but these days the dialogue-tree no-death LucasArts style seems to still be popular because it's so damn easy to look up solutions on the internet to incredibly obtuse puzzles.

File: gabriel-knight-sins-of-the-fathers_3.gif (45KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x400px

You look back on LucasArts, you look at some of the best point and click adventure games ever made, games that defined the genre. But Sierra reached some great heights as well and was not afraid to take risks. Though overall LucasArrts was the one developer to remain consistent in quality, Sierra was the one that all but invented the medium and was more elemental in evolving it with varying result of success. I think you couldn't really have one without the other, so they are both "better" in my book.

File: larry1.jpg (123KB, 849x1080px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 849x1080px

I always liked LucasArts better because their adventure games were like god tier cartoons with gorgeous graphics and just superb character design. I enjoyed Sierra games as well but for completely different reasons; they were dark, naughty, difficult, hilariously unfair, and made me feel like I was doing something forbidden because they were usually very adult themed.
I also liked the text parser because it felt like I was given more freedom than in LucasArts games.

What's that anon who said he was going to play Police Quest and we told him it was extremely detail-oriented and he got all excited about playing game where you have to follow the book 100%?

You out there anon? Was it everything you wanted?

>>3013830
PQ had some idiotic solutions, like when you first get the cruiser, you have to inspect it. Fair enough, but no matter what I would type he just wouldn't inspect it. I then figured out I had to physically walk around the car to inspect it. What the shit was that?

>>3013851
>What the shit was that?

100% police textbook accuracy.

Police Quest 2 had a lot more by-the-book sequences, except as a detective tracking down a fugitive. It had a more 80's cop-show vibe to it too, and generally had more going on. There's a bunch of optional evidence you can collect which makes for some replayability too.

One really annoying thing that Sierra likes to do is put filler casino sequences into the game, where you need to beat a card game or slot machine by saving and restoring repeatedly. There's a game called Codename ICEMAN which directly detects if you try to save and restore. Never really understood the point behind this.

>>3013814
Sierra games weren't very 'adult themed' in my mind, it was mostly just the Leisure Suit Larry games.

Try playing them, or the remake, today. They're really just ... odd, more than anything. Not very funny or entertaining, it's mostly just cheap stereotype humor, and not even the good type, it's just ... awkward.