lol!

I really like the diversity of sources.

Pong is cool because it can be used in other media. It wasn't the first arcade game or home console, it's arguably not even the best of the early models. But it has a memorable name. PONG, all caps. Intuitive, accessible, immediate. Both as a game and as a metaphor or time-period prop.

I like the idea of Day of the Tentacle having a chance at that type of cultural significance. I'd love to see Hoagie, Bernard, Laverne and Purple on a poster in a movie scene.

Do you think it would've been better if the person compiling this would have used genre-specific publications?

lol!

I really like the diversity of sources.

Pong is cool because it can be used in other media. It wasn't the first arcade game or home console, it's arguably not even the best of the early models. But it has a memorable name. PONG, all caps. Intuitive, accessible, immediate. Both as a game and as a metaphor or time-period prop.

I like the idea of Day of the Tentacle having a chance at that type of cultural significance. I'd love to see Hoagie, Bernard, Laverne and Purple on a poster in a movie scene.

Do you think it would've been better if the person compiling this would have used genre-specific publications?

Dunno, but as it is I don't know what's the point of this list is , who compiled it and what purpose serves being in Wikipedia no less. I honestly would like a mixed list (and all lists for that matter, I love lists). But this is just a baffled mess.It doesn't know if it wants to be something historical, a showcase of various popular and prosperous franchises or something more underground and meaningful. I mean it starts with Asteroids and Zork, then you find 4 civilization and 3 halo games and all of a sudden you see games like Undertale or Limbo. As it is it seems kind of purposeless, maybe just a nice collection I could point someone to try a variety of games of various styles across time.

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.

If I'm not mistaken, apart from their obvious high-quality productions, part of the beauty of the free Sierra remakes was that they very purposely fixed the worst aspects of the original games -- the dead ends, the bugginess, the unfair deaths and punishing save systems, the mooniest of moon logic puzzles. Which is precisely what I meant by not holding up well.

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.

That is definitely true. There are great games in all genres missing, and certainly many fantastic adventures outside of even Sierra and LucasArts.

If I'm not mistaken, apart from their obvious high-quality productions, part of the beauty of the free Sierra remakes was that they very purposely fixed the ]worst aspects of the original games -- the dead ends, the bugginess, the unfair deaths and punishing save systems, the mooniest of moon logic puzzles. Which is precisely what I meant by not holding up well.

To your point: the faults of the Sierra games, even flagship titles, are derailing or obtuse more often than their LucasArts counterparts. Their remakes are legit remakes, not just remasters. Sierra's flaws are less excusable in this day age - and they were stubborn about it at the time. Ron Gilbert reflected on The Secret of Monkey Island, what he should have done better, while Sierra kept releasing King's Quest games with dead ends.

But in defense of the SIerra games and their remakes: most of them leave a lot more of the original games intact than you might think: deaths, manual saves and 90% of the moon logic puzzles. The second King's Quest gets te biggest make-over, the others vary in how close they stick the original. Some are actually quite close and when they update the interface, they opt for something from a later installment in the series. They replicate Sierra's approach to world building, to danger and it's more associative puzzle design. Even aspects of the gameplay and plot you could argue are somewhat naive or unrefined add space for the player to project themselves into the game and experience it dynamically. There is a particular kind of fun in wandering around a world created by Sierra: within minutes, you might end up in a desert, a body of water or a haunted forest with actual danger. I think RPGs took the mantle in regards to this kind of adventuring, while adventure games fixated on wedging puzzle-driven cartoons and novels into in a puzzle box.

And I think that is, in part, the LucasArts effect. After the Golden Age®, when fans and video game journalists were figuring out what "killed" the genre, a lot of attention went to moon logic and unintuitive, player unfriendly design. Sierra took the brunt of it.

The truth is the Golden Age® had to end because adventure games could not adapt well to the next generation of technological developments in gaming. Unlike the mouse, graphics and sound, 3D and quick rendering and physics engines didn't add as much as  it did for other genres (think of Mario in 3D versus Guybrush in 3D).

Adventure games were archaic. Other genres had taken on its qualities, while this didn't really seem to work the other way. Pretty much all adventure games had conformed to the LucasArts puzzle box. Other genres provided engagement on levels our genre just couldn't pull off. It was difficult to figure out where and how to fit in with modern interactive entertainment.

My outlook on the Golden Age®: all these games are of their time. The LucasArts formula and philosophy won - both for good reason and at the expense of some of the Sierra charm. On top of that, it made it hard to appreciate what Sierra did differently, because of a bias about good AG design. There are different lessons if you approach the games differently and I think Sierra's merits can be overlooked and their percieved flaws overgeneralized.

Are there any games we feel should have been on the list? Based on overal merit, being important in AG history or being an overlooked classic.

I don't want to get into the relative merits of Sierra vs LucasArts myself, not because it's not interesting; I just don't know enough about Sierra games. I've only only played Leisure Suit Larry 1, Space Quest (1 or 2, I can't remember which) and Gabriel Knight 1 & 2. What I do know is, is that Space Quest was tough back when I was 12!

as it is I don't know what's the point of this list is , who compiled it and what purpose serves being in Wikipedia no less. I honestly would like a mixed list (and all lists for that matter, I love lists). But this is just a baffled mess.

What I found interesting about the list (apart from the lack of Sierra titles) is that it shows to some extent the overall popularity of adventure games chronologically within the context of gaming in general. There aren't many lists that I've seen like that. We've all got our favourite adventures and the various lists on this site of course, but it's not often you see point-and-click adventure games listed alongside much more well-known AAA titles and the like.

Are there any games we feel should have been on the list? Based on overal merit, being important in AG history or being an overlooked classic.

Apart from the obvious ones like Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars, Gabriel Knight 1 and / or 2, I'd push for Foolish Mortals to be on there because it really got almost everything right and universally positive reviews.

i love it.

Alright, I'm adding the NES port of Shadowgate to honourable mentions of the (late) 80s. One of the great console adventure games of the 80s and 90s and a good way to include the MacVenture engine/school of design. I think they introduced/popularized the verb button interface. The other games are pretty good as well: Uninvited is fun, Déjà Vu is cool but a less forgiving and harder to navigate.

And one from the supposed wasteland of the 2000s, the post-Sierra and LucasArts era: Return to Mysterious Island. Kheops Studio did a lot of cool stuff that I feel was underappreciated at the time. This games incorporates their novel inventory system, where items can be used in a variety of combinations, like an early version of crafting mechanics. They often had educational elements that extended to the puzzles.

I think the Blackwell series deserves to be here as well, maybe as one big cultural phenomenon.