Here's a list of video games listed among the best (a great title for a list!) I found on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vi...g_the_best
These are all games which 'have appeared on various publications' lists of "best" or "greatest" video games of all time'. It contains 16 games catagorized as 'Adventure', of which 6 are classic LucasArts / Lucasfilm point-and-click titles.
I know it's just a silly list but I found it interesting that not only are LucasArts/film the only company represented with any point-and-click titles, but that there are no classic Sierra adventures listed (in the list) at all!
Why would this be? In my mind series such as Space Quest, Police Quest and Gabriel Knight are right up there with the Lucasfilm titles, at least in terms of influence and popularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vi...g_the_best
These are all games which 'have appeared on various publications' lists of "best" or "greatest" video games of all time'. It contains 16 games catagorized as 'Adventure', of which 6 are classic LucasArts / Lucasfilm point-and-click titles.
I know it's just a silly list but I found it interesting that not only are LucasArts/film the only company represented with any point-and-click titles, but that there are no classic Sierra adventures listed (in the list) at all!
Why would this be? In my mind series such as Space Quest, Police Quest and Gabriel Knight are right up there with the Lucasfilm titles, at least in terms of influence and popularity.
Attached Files
I agree!
This is just for fun, I'm not claiming any knowledge on this topic.
I think LucasArts was more invested in print media for advertising, getting reviews. As were the companies doing distribution, localization and marketing for LucasArts in Europe.
Here's the Sierra perspective:
"One of the major critiques of me, through the years, was that at Sierra developers were treated like gods, and everyone else as unnecessary overhead. This was a fair commentary. I felt we were in a product business, and that only product mattered. (...) You can’t turn crap into gold by spending millions on advertising. We ran almost no advertising, and spent almost no money on trade shows.
What we did spend was against existing customers, and really it was just “informational”, not hype. I’m anti-hype. I felt we were running a “club” where our job was to build cool product for people who had bought from us before (I did spend on direct mail, such as InterAction magazine)."
https://www.sierragamers.com/ken-williams/
They did try to get a power ballad on the radio at some point. i'm curious about the choices leading up to this strategy. Had they spent that money on a couple of magazines, maybe King's Quest VI would be on the list.
Sierra was often the pioneer in terms of technology, going for the most impressive release that year. The humour and cultural references were aimed at boomers and children. That does't mean bad! Some of it holds up. But LucasArts appeals more to the sensibilities of the people that would end up writing these articles.
Of all the Sierra games missing from this list, I think the first Gabriel Knight is the most surprising omission. It got a remake and it has clearly infuenced games released decades after the Golden Age®.
This is just for fun, I'm not claiming any knowledge on this topic.
I think LucasArts was more invested in print media for advertising, getting reviews. As were the companies doing distribution, localization and marketing for LucasArts in Europe.
Here's the Sierra perspective:
"One of the major critiques of me, through the years, was that at Sierra developers were treated like gods, and everyone else as unnecessary overhead. This was a fair commentary. I felt we were in a product business, and that only product mattered. (...) You can’t turn crap into gold by spending millions on advertising. We ran almost no advertising, and spent almost no money on trade shows.
What we did spend was against existing customers, and really it was just “informational”, not hype. I’m anti-hype. I felt we were running a “club” where our job was to build cool product for people who had bought from us before (I did spend on direct mail, such as InterAction magazine)."
https://www.sierragamers.com/ken-williams/
They did try to get a power ballad on the radio at some point. i'm curious about the choices leading up to this strategy. Had they spent that money on a couple of magazines, maybe King's Quest VI would be on the list.
Sierra was often the pioneer in terms of technology, going for the most impressive release that year. The humour and cultural references were aimed at boomers and children. That does't mean bad! Some of it holds up. But LucasArts appeals more to the sensibilities of the people that would end up writing these articles.
Of all the Sierra games missing from this list, I think the first Gabriel Knight is the most surprising omission. It got a remake and it has clearly infuenced games released decades after the Golden Age®.
This post was last modified: Yesterday, 08:19 PM by BobVP.
Good points, Bob. I wasn't aware of the differing advertising methods of the two companies but clearly LucasArts had a marketing advantage having evolved from a hugely successful film company. And yes, they certainly aimed for a far larger target market for the time: teenage and twenty-something males! Given the gap of time the marketing dust should have long since settled, though.
After thinking about it, maybe it's because a lot of LucasArts games were created with both adventure gamers and casual gamers in mind, while Sierra games were mostly meant for adventure gamers.
As a result, titles like Full Throttle and Grim Fandango were played by a much broader and diverse audiences than, say, Gabriel Knight and King's Quest series.
In the long run this paid off by bringing LucasArts games a much wider recognition among gamers, including people who make these "best of" lists.
Ken Williams' words cited by BobVP kind of support this point:
As a result, titles like Full Throttle and Grim Fandango were played by a much broader and diverse audiences than, say, Gabriel Knight and King's Quest series.
In the long run this paid off by bringing LucasArts games a much wider recognition among gamers, including people who make these "best of" lists.
Ken Williams' words cited by BobVP kind of support this point:
Quote:... I felt we were running a “club” where our job was to build cool product for people who had bought from us before...
I’m not convinced it has anything to do with advertising or demographics. The first GK is indeed a notable omission, and maybe KQ6, but really, a lot of Sierra games just didn’t hold up well, as important as they were at the time. Presumably this list was compiled well after Sierra’s adventure heyday.
Co-founder, Editor-in-Chief, Adventure Game Hotspot (perhaps you've heard of it?)
As I understand the article, the list is a compilation of lists by video game publications throughout the years. This is why I think advertising and being in contact with video game journalists matters for the outcome.
I get what you're saying Jackal, and I somewhat agree. Sierra made games that were impressive at the time, but they were often structurally weaker than the games LucasArts released after Sierra paved the way.
Sierra saw their audience as people who liked the talent of their developers. Their design philosophy resonated this old-fashioned AG trope of the developer as a dungeon master with a sadistic streak. Adventure gamers subjected themselves to the tricks and occassionally unreasonable challenges - and they took pride in this. Besting that devious bastard Douglas Adams meant you really knew your way around an adventure game.
LucasArts approach of the genre was different. Ron Gilbert's blog laid the groundwork for discussing adventure games critically. Their quality control was more consumer-oriented and player friendly. LucasArts developers involved themselves in the conversation about adventure games.
I think what has been considered good and bad about adventure games since the 2000s has been biased towards LucasArts in circles that write/vlog about adventure games. Sierra games had qualities their LucasArts counterparts lack. And in all honesty: to say the LucasArts catalog held up better than Sierra's is like saying the 90s Toyota Mega Cruisers were safer and more fuel efficient than Hummers. They were both surpassed by other types of cars and became economically unviable a decade later.
I get what you're saying Jackal, and I somewhat agree. Sierra made games that were impressive at the time, but they were often structurally weaker than the games LucasArts released after Sierra paved the way.
Sierra saw their audience as people who liked the talent of their developers. Their design philosophy resonated this old-fashioned AG trope of the developer as a dungeon master with a sadistic streak. Adventure gamers subjected themselves to the tricks and occassionally unreasonable challenges - and they took pride in this. Besting that devious bastard Douglas Adams meant you really knew your way around an adventure game.
LucasArts approach of the genre was different. Ron Gilbert's blog laid the groundwork for discussing adventure games critically. Their quality control was more consumer-oriented and player friendly. LucasArts developers involved themselves in the conversation about adventure games.
I think what has been considered good and bad about adventure games since the 2000s has been biased towards LucasArts in circles that write/vlog about adventure games. Sierra games had qualities their LucasArts counterparts lack. And in all honesty: to say the LucasArts catalog held up better than Sierra's is like saying the 90s Toyota Mega Cruisers were safer and more fuel efficient than Hummers. They were both surpassed by other types of cars and became economically unviable a decade later.
If you want to go down this rabbit hole, look at the references for each game on the list at the bottom of the page. The sources are very diverse. You get sites like Hardcore Gaming 101, Polygon, IGN, etc. Mixed in are a bunch of general interest websites and magazines, for all sorts of audiences. Then you get a couple of daily and Sunday newspapers. Books about video games. In different languages.
The oldest source is a book published in 1985, called The Greatest Games: The 93 Best Computer Games of All Time. (Dan Gutman & Shay Adams)
Initially it would have been called "From Archon to Zork, The World's All-Time Greatest Computer Games", so that accounts for Zork.
There's one more source from the 80s, which is (interestingly enough) Japanese. The most recent source: The Irish Times (2026)!
The oldest source is a book published in 1985, called The Greatest Games: The 93 Best Computer Games of All Time. (Dan Gutman & Shay Adams)
Initially it would have been called "From Archon to Zork, The World's All-Time Greatest Computer Games", so that accounts for Zork.
There's one more source from the 80s, which is (interestingly enough) Japanese. The most recent source: The Irish Times (2026)!
(Today, 09:15 AM)BobVP Wrote: I think what has been considered good and bad about adventure games since the 2000s has been biased towards LucasArts in circles that write/vlog about adventure games. Sierra games had qualities their LucasArts counterparts lack. And in all honesty: to say the LucasArts catalog held up better than Sierra's is like saying the 90s Toyota Mega Cruisers were safer and more fuel efficient than Hummers. They were both surpassed by other types of cars and became economically unviable a decade later.
Not really, to your last point. There's a reason that several LucasArts games got remastered and Sierra games didn't. (Except, unsurprisingly, GK1, and an updated Larry.) Because there's still a modern market for them. Not a huge market, but then, there was never a huge market for them. Not relative to modern industry numbers, anyway.
And surpassed? That's debatable. Crowded out, certainly.
This isn't a "who's better: LucasArts vs. Sierra" thing. Both were vital to the success of the genre in their own ways. I'm just saying, it's not that surprising that more publications' "best of" lists would skew to the former years after the fact.
Co-founder, Editor-in-Chief, Adventure Game Hotspot (perhaps you've heard of it?)
Don't mind if I keep being a little sassy with it.
I think the words "greatest" or "best" might be a bit misleading. As is the suggestion the market for those LucasArts remasters is there because they held up better.
These lists were not based on hours of comparative research, reviews, quality checks - or the atittudes about about adenture games within the scene.
This kind of undercuts my point about LucasArts supremacy among the writers and vloggers that considered themselves above average AG literate.
It definitely speaks to kamineko's point. But it also points out this is mostly about name recognition and reputation outside the dedicated fanbase. It means you can market a Day of the Tentacle remake to a reader of Slate Magazine, or a national newspaper.
Which brings me to the remasters. The LucasArts games checked enough boxes and the costs were worth it.
It's hard to say whether people would have paid for the unofficial free remakes - and how that would have changed the budget and outcome of these games. There were definitely popular remakes and tributes to King's Quest, Quest for Glory and at several Space Quest games.
Gold Rush got a remaster, for some reason. Probably because it had no complications regarding rights and licences and the production process was cheap.
I think there are a couple of really good, forward thinking and well-written adventure games from all decades missing, which only makes sense. These lists are often filler, or a fun exercise, a nostalgia trigger, a marketing strategy, an appeal to a particular segment of the audience.
And they're a way to have fun. Low stakes arguments about stuff we enjoy.
I think the words "greatest" or "best" might be a bit misleading. As is the suggestion the market for those LucasArts remasters is there because they held up better.
These lists were not based on hours of comparative research, reviews, quality checks - or the atittudes about about adenture games within the scene.
This kind of undercuts my point about LucasArts supremacy among the writers and vloggers that considered themselves above average AG literate.
It definitely speaks to kamineko's point. But it also points out this is mostly about name recognition and reputation outside the dedicated fanbase. It means you can market a Day of the Tentacle remake to a reader of Slate Magazine, or a national newspaper.
Which brings me to the remasters. The LucasArts games checked enough boxes and the costs were worth it.
It's hard to say whether people would have paid for the unofficial free remakes - and how that would have changed the budget and outcome of these games. There were definitely popular remakes and tributes to King's Quest, Quest for Glory and at several Space Quest games.
Gold Rush got a remaster, for some reason. Probably because it had no complications regarding rights and licences and the production process was cheap.
I think there are a couple of really good, forward thinking and well-written adventure games from all decades missing, which only makes sense. These lists are often filler, or a fun exercise, a nostalgia trigger, a marketing strategy, an appeal to a particular segment of the audience.
And they're a way to have fun. Low stakes arguments about stuff we enjoy.