King's Quest - In-depth Written Amiga Review With Pics/Gifs

 

King's Quest

Amiga, Late 1986/Early 1987 (Original PC-JR 1984)

Sierra On-line

$49.95

*My video review for King's Quest

*Previous article

*Alphabetical list of all writings

*Discord for updates

*Shown/played as designed, 60hz NTSC, 4:3 aspect ratio

*If pics show artifacting, zoom in/out (CRT effect)

*Some pics slightly altered to show text on top of screens

Winners write the history books, so it's said, and just as in the larger scale of world politics, there's been no shortage of revisionist history through the lens of computers as well. When I say "PC", you're not thinking "personal computer", as in separate from mainframes. A micro computer that fits on your desk in the comfort of your home, which would be what a PC actually is. Whatever hardware or software you run matters not, an Atari or Commodore computer had just as much right as an IBM to be called a PC, yet I'd wager you're thinking "IBM PC", even though they never did quite end up conquering the home. Rather it was Microsoft anointed to rule the market via their copycat operating systems. They ran on "IBM Compatible" computers, cheaper clones of an IBM which were easily copied by other manufactures, as IBM was merely marking up off-the-shelf parts. Prior to this market having been created through IBM's price gouging, you could either pay $5,000 (over $16,000 with inflation) for an IBM, or buy one of the numerous 8-bit machines for under a thousand dollars. May I be so bold as to suggest that those were not only cheaper, but better.

IBM would actually prove that their expensive and arguably less capable machine had a market, as by 1983 they were second only to Commodore in market share. In an attempt to strangle the market and become a monopoly (my opinion), IBM announced its own "inexpensive" home computer. Missing its intended release date of December of 1983, the PC-JR came out in the spring of '84 and quickly became a legend of colossal failure. While much cheaper than a standard IBM, its launch price of $1,300 (sans monitor or software) would only have competed with the Apple II's price range, while being double the price of an Atari or Commodore. With a myriad of issues such as a cheap keyboard, hardware that deliberately limited its capabilities, incompatibilities with software, and graphics that didn't distinguish itself from its competition, the JR would be discontinued a little over a year after its initial release.

Even its failure has been somewhat misreported, as the JR would end up selling slightly more than Apple II's of the era, which would have been a genuine success for any company excepting Commodore, and of course IBM. And that's where the failure lies, an analogy being the summer blockbuster that "only" made 80 million, except it cost 150 million to make. Few companies, period, had more money than IBM, let alone computer companies. They made all the moves needed to take over an industry, pouring money into advertising, press, and software, and they still failed to achieve what they and others thought they would. Among the many companies being funneled large amounts of dollar signs by IBM in order to support the PC-JR, Sierra On-Line were commissioned to make a game which might take advantage of the JR's upgraded graphics (compared to CGA). Rising from the ashes of the PC-JR would be the birth of a legendary game, series, engine, as well as an evolution of a genre; King's Quest.        ^Your introductory deaths

The requiem for personal computer games couldn't get far into the first pages before discussing adventures. 1976's "Adventure", AKA Colossal Cave Adventure for the PDP-10 mainframe is generally considered the first of what would become computer adventures (in the console world adventures are a subset of many genres). All text with descriptive rooms, actions are taken by typing in words such as move, look, and get. The setting was what many would describe as adventurous; a nearby cave holds reported treasures, and monsters. Many have gone in, some failed to return, how will you fare? Given the largely knowledgeable user base of computers, it's not surprising these fantastical narratives with puzzles blew up. They likely also benefited from being the only game in town, given many computers could only display text. With the rise of graphics capable computers such as the Atari 800, Apple II, and the Commodore PET (via character graphics in the PETs case), graphical games became more prevalent in the late 70's. 

In 1979 a number of RPGs, which had been a popular offshoot of text adventures, made the leap to graphics. Without diving into their exact release dates to definitively say which came first, the most noteworthy of the graphical RPGs from 1979 would have to be the Temple of Apshai, and Akalabeth. In terms of RPGs, there was really no looking back, they were pretty much all graphical after this. In 1980 Roberta Williams, inspired by Colossal Cave Adventure and others, largely designed the first graphical adventure Mystery House by herself, though much of the programming was done by her husband, Ken (perhaps his only "genuine" creative credit, since his previous works were clones, and his later credits were as an "executive producer"). Sierra On-Line was formed, and quickly they grew to love a good engine, making numerous games (around 10) which would have been best described as "text with graphics", all with the underlying engine of Mystery House. Simple lined graphics to go along with the text, which was now in a small box at the bottom of the screen. Color was added with Wizard and the Princess, and by 1984 Sierra along with many others were making some beautiful pictures to go along with the text. Unlike with RPGs however, plenty of demand remained for text only adventures.

Upon receiving a one million dollar windfall from IBM to take some new steps with the JR, Roberta began work on King's Quest in 1982. Despite claims to the contrary, my research (physical magazines which would have had quite the incentive to review this game earlier than they ended up doing) suggests a fall of 1984 release, meaning it did not ship in time to launch with the JR. It seems to have come out for the Apple II around the same time, suggesting to me simultaneous development for both systems. The major difference with King's Quest over previous adventures was that you now controlled an animated character within the graphical world. Using the number pad you can move your character from one screen to another, through doors, over bridges, into water, behind or in front of objects. By no means was this the first game to do any of these things, rather the first adventure to do them. Hilariously, Sierra would continually claim that these features made their games 3D, into the 90's! On an objective artistic level, 2D objects going behind of and in front of other objects in a two dimensional drawing has never been considered even quasi 3D! In another area of questionable business ethics, your ability to use a joystick was also touted by Sierra. Since the underlying system still relies utterly around text input, I'd say you'd be smart to just stick with the keyboard!    ^Exploring the world       

In some cases the graphical interface can cause frustration, an example being the large field directly to the north of the castle where you start the game. You might type in "Look field" - Only to learn that the game doesn't actually understand "field". Nor does it understand "crop", or "farm", despite it being pretty clear to me that we're looking at a crop field for a farm. What it wants from you is to look for "plants", and doing so will tell you of the tempting and plump carrots, your clue that they're of interest. In a normal adventure of the time, simply typing "look room" would tell you of any objects of interest. Being so heavily dependent on the graphics means that this trick doesn't always work with King's Quest, though it wouldn't hurt to try that first. Much of the time you'll have to deduce through the picture what the game wants from you. Once you figure out that this graphical screen, which doesn't happen to contain any graphical representation of a carrot, in-fact wants you to be interested in a carrot, upon typing "get carrot" it's possible to get told you're not close enough! So you move your character closer, just to type in "get carrot" again. Aren't graphics supposed to make things easier?

As the graphical interface is what set King's Quest apart from its contemporaries, any looks into this game would need to shine a spotlight on that aspect. Speaking with a lens toward what was available in 1984, I'd say King's Quest is an above average looking game for its time. I found a number of graphic adventures from '84 which I would personally say have greater artistic merit over King's Quest, so it's not personally getting top marks from me. In my video review I show a couple of those games off, along with my attempt to actually recreate a screen from King's Quest via a paint program on my Amiga. Despite my deficiencies at drawing, I think I managed quite well, which is to say that if I can do it, perhaps Sierra could have hired better artists. Actually, that's more of a complaint against Sierra's Amiga conversion of this game (most of their ports really), given that system's capabilities as well as King's Quest's late 1986/early 1987 release there. And we will certainly discuss the Amiga's conversion more later on.

But I actually find the graphics quite charming, overall. There's a number of whimsical vistas, and I'd call that a good word for it, as we're dealing with far away landscape compositions. It has a bit of a childish, maybe coloring book kind of feel to the screens, but everything fits well with the fairy-tale motif. I especially enjoyed screens featuring water, which gave some great contrast to the general greens of many of the other screens. If we're to assume that the basic code which went into this game was designed on the Apple II, which is kind of what I lean toward since that's where Sierra's experience was, than King's Quest is a graphical marvel for the Apple II system in particular. It was among the first games to take advantage of the Apple II C and E's "double hi-res" graphics, which had nothing to do with resolution. Rather, it allowed the game to utilize 16 colors when most Apple II games only had 8. On the PC-JR the game uses a 160x200 graphic mode with 16 colors, basically equivalent to what would become EGA later on. I wouldn't say it was completely designed on the Apple II, as that version is obviously cropping out some of the screen, since the Apple II used a 140x192 resolution. Even on the PC-JR though, we're still talking what is in essence an "Apple II kind of feel", given the low resolution. The Commodore 64 was capable of better looking screens, though in 1984 few games would have utilized it. Strictly talking 1984, King's Quest's graphics are all decent, some screens I liked more than others, but I wouldn't call them great for the time either.

 ^Defeating the dragon, we find a lost treasure

We play as "Sir Graham", the first appearance of what would become one of gaming's most memorable protagonists. The manual features a generally well told story, if a bit cliche, though that's difficult to avoid with fairy tales. King Edward and the Queen (she is not named) of Daventry are having difficulties conceiving an heir to the throne. Various people or creatures proceed to dupe the royal couple into giving away valuable magical treasures as payment for their promise to help them conceive, specifically a son, then later to save the Queen's life. Surprise! - They do not deliver on said promises, the Queen dies childless, and when the King tries to remarry, he is of course duped again. Daventry is swept into despair over the lost treasures, which happened to be essential to the kingdoms survival. Nearing death, King Edward sends for his favorite knight, Graham, and offers the throne to him, should he succeed in bringing these stolen treasures back.

I feel the story, told in a fairy tale style, was a fun read, though I must confess that the underlying premise is utterly abhorrent. Please, the people of Daventry, rise up and dispense of your moronic leaders! A magical chest providing endless gold, a mirror which was used to tell the future for planting and harvest, and a shield which made all attacking armies fall in battle; Any king which would give such treasures away for any reason, even if they actually got what they requested out of the deal, is fit for a hanging! And the motivations for such despicable behavior; to extend your rein with a son specifically (women can rule as a queen, ya know), kind of makes me want to throw up! Saving the Queen's life would lean toward being more understandable, at least from the perspective of love (though not worth destroying your kingdom over), if only the aging king didn't try to remarry with the hope that this new woman might be the one to bear him a son! Now I want to throw up even more! All I can say is that I hope Graham turns out to be a better king than Edward, should he succeed in this quest. But since the bar has been set rather low, it shouldn't prove difficult!

I've been attempting to inject a little humor to go along with my points, as it feels appropriate given that the defining characteristic of Sierra games going forward would be their humor.  No game which looks this primitive should be allowed to make me laugh as hard as King's Quest did! Becoming a meal to the alligators after falling off a bridge, falling down a hole in a run down house, the dragon burning me to a crisp, and Graham's body instantly going from upright to sprawling on the floor, twisted and mangled. King's Quest is either going to make you love or hate it through its humor. The process of figuring out what not to do, and thus what might be a better idea is learned through death. Even when it was obvious I was about to step into a trap, I just had to see what chucklesome text might come my way. I found death to be a needed break while mapping the game, another essential ingredient to playing King's Quest as it was designed to be played. When jotting down room notes, it's nice to look up and witness a death, for me anyway. Plenty of people can't stand Sierra games for the exact reason that there's so many deaths. For them it might feel like they're constantly being slapped in the face, being told they're stupid. While it's not the feeling I get while playing, it's essential to note that humor is subjective, and if you don't like dying you're probably not going to like King's Quest.   ^Helping a family in need

It's not merely the deaths which showcase King's Quest's humor, actually it was falling out of a tree and "living" which was among the funniest moments for me personally, and the encompassing story featuring many characters direct from popular fairy tales all brought smiles to my face. While I enjoy the humor, I can't help but wish Sierra would have taken themselves seriously on occasion. Even the Colonel's Bequest, among their more serious titles, had no shortage of humor spread throughout. It wasn't just Sierra either, the vast majority of other companies who made adventure games would adopt King's Quest's basic graphical interface, and feature stories which either had humor at the forefront, or at least always knocking from behind to remind you it's there. Most adventure games prior to King's Quest were serious, most after were not, and while I consider it essential to not take yourself "too" seriously, to never take yourself seriously is just as sad. That, however, is more of a comment on what would become because of this game. For King's Quest itself, the humor was a highlight.

Another area to call attention to would be the world itself. Going forward many adventures would become puzzles of inventory, slap together items which probably shouldn't even go together until you get a new item out of them. That's not King's Quest, the puzzle you need to figure out is the world and its people. The items you find have direct uses to you or others, you must figure out the puzzle which is the world. That's my kind of adventure game! Again, note taking and mapping is essential for this, if you're wishing to piece it together yourself. Others have criticized some important people or creatures spawn rates being low, but that's probably because they didn't map the game and go into those areas multiple times. For a game like this I tend to explore first, pick up what I can, and circle back. My favorite part of King's Quest involved finding a decrepit looking house belonging to a wood cutter, and his sickly wife. Caring for her, he's unable to work. I journeyed onward, and later found a wooden bowl. Seeing the word "fill" written on the bottom, I thought to myself; "hmmm... Let's take this to some water and fill it up." It became an endless supply of stew, instantaneously I thought of the wood cutter and checked my map to go straight there! To me items are but a piece of the puzzle which is the world, and in general I loved solving King's Quest.

I mean it has its moments of pure frustration, to be sure! There's a witch, her problem is not that she doesn't spawn enough, but rather too much! Go inside the gingerbread house and time and again, she will be there to capture and eat you! What am I doing wrong? That's the kind of stuff which rips you out of the game and forces you to look it up, and the answer was that I simply had to keep trying and sooner or later (later) she'd be gone and you could explore. Perhaps I could have used an item to get past her, I'm thinking the ring which makes you invisible for a time. Funny thing about that ring; I put it on, attempted to "use" it, but nothing happened! Having looked it up after my playthrough, the ring needed to be "rubbed" to turn you invisible. Because putting on a ring doesn't automatically rub it?! That's the kind of questionable bullshit which is all too common in many adventures, sadly. The only clues given to you in the manual are to map everything, and to re-read your fairy tales. While I needed to look up how to get into the gingerbread house, once I was in there it was clear to me that I needed to push the witch into the stove, for I had read Hansel and Gretel. A gnome like creature wanted me to guess his name, could it possibly be Rumpelstiltskin? Sort of... If Roberta had looked up the spelling it might have been. See, she spelled it "Rumple...", I actually looked up the correct spelling before I even tried, and if only she had done the same thing I might have gotten it right. Well, if it wasn't not only spelled wrong, but also in reverse alphabetical order! Then I might have gotten it right!          ^Kill that witch!

There's a special kind of anger associated with getting a puzzle like that wrong, because you didn't actually get it wrong. You got it right, but the game wants to cheat you out of your well deserved victory! Something like that can turn an enjoyable game into one that you outright hate. I gotta say that it was these little things which started to drag down my opinion of King's Quest, at least in the moment while I was still playing. The good thing about most of the game's more frustrating moments is that they're not required to win. There are multiple ways to solve many of the game's puzzles, and from the beginning I realized this quickly. Killing the dragon with a dagger, I witnessed my score decrease. I thought perhaps I could use some water on this fire breathing dragon, since there was a bucket nearby. Doing that saved the dragon's life, got me what I came there for, and increased my score. But I didn't have to do it that way. In the case of Rumpelstiltskin, your score doesn't even go down if you get his name wrong, he just ends up giving you a key instead of beans. It's simply an alternative way to access the exact same area. While it's great to have multiple ways to solve puzzles, it's still difficult to forgive being told you're wrong, when you were right.

This caused a general cloud of annoyance while I played, which sparked into bemusement during the game's ending. Upon completing our quest to find the three lost treasures, we present them to King Edward. Frail, weak, and "alone" with Graham, he trips over himself and dies. Graham reaches for the crown and sits on the throne, Edward lying dead at his feet. Are we sure Graham is a reliable narrator? Maybe he just stabbed the king himself, or put his foot out so he'd trip. This is a terrible ending! It would be fixed in the remake, to where witnesses saw the death and they were the ones to give Graham the King's crown. That doesn't help me playing the original though, and it felt like the final act in me having an overall bad impression for this game, at least at the time. Intriguingly, the moment I turned off the computer upon winning, I found myself filled with a sense of accomplishment. King's Quest IS gaming history, and I figured out the vast majority of it by myself. That's no easy task with a text parser, but sooner than you realize you'll start to figure out what the game wants from you in terms of your text input, and you might even start preferring these over mouse driven adventures. Beating games like this make you feel better about yourself, and in immediate retrospect I can't help but love King's Quest despite any of its faults.

Full disclosure, while I've never disliked Sierra games (I grew up with them too, I've always liked them, just not unconditionally), there is forever a sour taste in my mouth when I think of their games, as I grew up with an Amiga. I said these graphics were above average for 1984, though not great, but on the Amiga they are outright putrid, having been released either for Christmas of 1986, or perhaps delayed until early 1987. Sierra's porting practices were demonstrably shameful! Even the apparent original on the PC-JR looks about the same to the 8-bit Apple II! They were paid by IBM to take advantage of the PC, and it would be difficult for me to say they did particularly good job of that, since it's looking just as good in 8-bits! It wouldn't just be this game, this is the first of 16 games built off this engine, the last of which (Man Hunter 2) was released on the Amiga in 1990! The Amiga's lowest resolution is 320x200, meaning the 160x200 PC-JR graphics were blown up to fit on this machine. Any 16, 32, or even 64 of the 4096 colors could have been chosen for any individual screen, and we got EGA DOS throughout! Oddly, King's Quest on the Amiga actually does feature slight alterations to the PC, with brighter and more realistic colors. Trees and water are an example, with brighter browns and blues on this version. In the future they wouldn't even be that kind to a machine which was far more capable than this engine. There had actually been rumors of King's Quest II being a launch title on the Amiga in 1985. I'm imagining that unlike most of the companies Sierra dealt with, Commodore wouldn't pay for that to happen. It would end up being Disney who actually paid Sierra to release their first Amiga game, Winnie the Pooh in the Hundred Acre Wood.   ^Top 2; King's Quest remake, middle 2; King's Quest V, bottom 2; King's Quest VI, all Amiga screens, also falling out a tree

A licensing agreement with Disney would be the excuse for Sierra to make games on the Amiga, as Disney wanted their games on as many machines as possible. Somehow, Ken Williams convinced them that Sierra shouldn't pay for the rights of Winnie the Pooh or Donald Duck, Disney should pay Sierra! Ken had to have been one of the few men in history to fleece Disney! I guess it explains why Sierra didn't have too many licenses after that, despite being among the few companies who could have afforded it. I must confess that there's a seriousness to my humor, as it's my opinion that Sierra tends to receive a bit too much credit for "vision", or innovation, much of it having been put forth by themselves, as they actively shaped their legacy. Around 10 games were built off Mystery House, 16 games off of King's Quest, 17 came from King's Quest IV (EGA 16 colors, but now 320x200, with great music but paid for by Roland, late 1988), and more than I can count were built off King's Quest V (their first VGA game in late 1990, a bit late to the party, but you'd never know from the way others talk). The mere fact that there are SEVEN King's Quest's (8 if you count a newer one without Sierra's involvement) stands in stark contrast to other's claims that Sierra were innovative. They could have made King's Quest V in 1985 on the Amiga, they could have made King's Quest VI! In a way the sixth installment of King's Quest on the Amiga was the ultimate slap in the face to Sierra as programmers, being done by a 3rd party (who of course paid Sierra) in a way which proved Sierra hired incompetent porters in-house. And that's just on the Amiga, as Mac and Atari people felt the same way. These machines were objectively better than this engine, they were better than the later 320x200 EGA engine, and at least on the Amiga and later the color Mac, good enough for their VGA engine. 

There actually is a better version of King's Quest on the Amiga, as in 1990 it was remade through their 320x200 EGA engine. It looks a lot better than this, for sure, but it's still 16 color EGA graphics in 1990! The music, however, was fantastic in that version. Sierra had agreements with Roland and Adlib to sell sound cards direct to consumers for DOS (where's the vision if you're getting paid?), and the Amiga's musical capabilities shined through the porting from MT-32. The King's Quest theme song actually brought tears to my eyes, that's how moving it was! Of course all sound and music in this original are god awful, being based off the PC Speaker (though sound and music is listed on the box as being fantastic). Later there was even a fan remake of King's Quest, which is built off the VGA engine, but features terrible conflicts between the music and voices, and I can't recommend it. There is no text parser in that one, however, so if that's a road block for you, it might be worth checking out (I thought the mouse made it worse). Despite my harsh remarks on Sierra as a publisher of Amiga games, you might still call this the definitive edition of the "original" AGI game. The colors, while also the same for the Atari ST and Apple II GS, are slightly better here than on DOS. The music and sound effects, while terrible overall, can't help but be better on the Amiga over the PC Speaker. And there's actually a mouse driven menu system on the Amiga, and it's always easier to access menus with a mouse over trying to memorize a keyboard command. There's even a nice transition effect between screens here, where on DOS each screen is "built" in front of you.

The other version of note would be for the Master System, where again a company paid Sierra for the rights to port it, not the other way around. While it takes a little bit of getting used to via the gamepad controls, I would say it's a must play for fans of this game! The graphics are quite good, though I suppose it's a matter of personal taste which you'll find better. Certainly they're not as good as the later remake, which was released around the same time, but in terms of computer game ports to console, it's fantastic. It really goes to show you what could have been possible if Sierra had only put the right people in charge, if they had spent money to make money. Some of their last games in the late 90's, while upgraded to SVGA 640x480 graphics, were reportedly STILL using the underlying SCI game engine, which had originally been built for King's Quest IV. Even that engine was clearly using left overs from their AGI engine, which dates back to this game, and somehow I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere lingering in the code for King's Quest, are remnants of Mystery House. Pure, undying, and unconditional love from their audience is what I imagine made Sierra survive for as long as they did.

 ^Top 2 EGA DOS, middle 2 Apple II, bottom 2 Master System, and leprechauns

Reviewing the original PC-JR release, Family Computing introduced King's Quest as an epic; "1st there was...Then there was...And now..." But their thoughts turned out to be rather mixed, "The system isn't perfected yet, but where else can a character on screen go behind an object to hide?" "Not for every taste", "...but Roberta Williams is to be applauded for making such a giant leap forward..." They would name King's Quest among the best programs of 1984, and a readers pole placed it as their 4th favorite game (combined with King's Quest 2). Computer Entertainer called King's Quest "...the most visually dazzling adventure we've ever seen on an Apple computer." "While the outline... may sound ordinary for such a game, there is nothing ordinary about King's Quest." "...truly outstanding piece of work..." Two separate editors would give the game 4 stars, and it was listed as the 9th best selling game. Electronic Games called it "...a major breakthrough..." "Again, as a pure adventure it would hardly be worth a second glance. But in simplifying the puzzle solving... and, instead, overwhelming the player with lush graphics..., the vistas of adventure gaming suddenly open to a whole new audience."

On the Amiga King's Quest was released with its two sequels in a kind of release trilogy, though sold separately. It might have come out in time for Christmas of 1986, but based on the dates of the reviews, it could have also been delayed into early 1987. Amazing Computing called the graphics "...very blocky. The program uses graphics that were designed on other machines and ported to the Amiga." The magazine considered the many ways you could solve puzzles to be its strength, "Once you've solved most adventure games, you'll never play them again... In King's Quest adventures, you can go back... and see if there's a different way to solve a puzzle." "The parsers in these games are not the most sophisticated..." "... they will still offer enjoyment to novice adventurers." Computer Gaming World never reviewed the PC-JR or Apple II originals, but reviewed the first three together on the Amiga. "The game has some very nice animation. For an IBM PC, the graphics are visually aesthetic, but for an Amiga they are very poor, and only 16 colors are used." "...it is certainly at a much lower level than you have come to expect on an Amiga." Computer Gaming World would later put both Ken and Roberta Williams on their list of most influential "industry players" in 1996, and in 2002 Roberta was inducted among the first individuals (as opposed to games) into their hall of fame. In a rare occurrence for any Sierra game, Ahoy's Amiga User listed King's Quest among its list of "24 outstanding Amiga games".

There was less coverage of the 1990 remake, with most magazines only noting that it was available. I believe Sierra's intent was to re-release all of their AGI adventure games using the SCI engine, but due to lack of interest ended up with only the first game of every series. Info covered the Amiga remake, writing that "Sierra redid the game with their newer graphics... which still aren't very good, even if they are better than the old ones." It received 3 out of 5 stars. Mac User noted that Sierra's programmers "...asked not what they could do for the Mac, but simply what the Mac could do for them." "Muddied...miscolored, awkward, and totally laughable..." Quest Busters said that King's Quest "...looks like a whole new game...intricately scored music, and a full range of sound effects." In Europe Amiga Force said it was "A vast adventure with more than its fair share of surprises.", and gave the game a score of 81%. "...what a crock of pooh it is.", and a score of 45% from CU Amiga. I think Amiga World summed up Sierra's Amiga presence the best upon learning that King's Quest VI would not be ported by Sierra themselves, but rather Revolution. "Hurrah! Yippee! Yahoo!"     ^Nearing the end

It's a bit eye opening to note just how perceptions change, with what comes down to the exact same game, simply moved to a different system. It's not that they were obviously better or worse than the other, as is sometimes the case with ports. Sierra ports were just about as pixel perfect as you can get for a port originating on DOS to another machine, they're the exact same game no matter where you play it. But that was the issue, because DOS was thought of as less than an 8-bit machine to those who knew what an Amiga could do. Sierra is not universally loved by fans of DOS computers, you'll quickly run into plenty of Lucas-Arts fans who detest every facet of Sierra. However, those who love Sierra do so unabashedly, seemingly with little knowledge on how the games were perceived elsewhere. Winners write the history books, so it's said, but much like the PC-JR, Sierra would eventually fall (though much later).  Actually, at least in terms of computers, it turns out losers kind of write the history books. EA is too busy making the millionth Madden (which is probably running off an engine from 2008, so I'm not exactly praising them) to be writing the history on computers. Ken Williams however, has plenty of time to do so. He seemed to have plenty of time while he was actively the president of Sierra. The magazine Compute had a "contact" from Sierra who told them about "secrets" on upcoming projects. The name of this contact? "Deep Ego"... I'm willing to bet "Deep Ego" was Ken himself. Sierra published their own magazine, which was on a level only Nintendo Power could compare to in terms of pure propaganda. Ken would blatantly discuss topics which he had vested interests in, such as Roland sound cards, because you could buy them direct from Sierra. Before that Sierra published the magazine Softline, an "independent" magazine, which reviewed both Sierra and other companies games. Perhaps Ken just missed his course on "business ethics", though as it was the 1980's, he wouldn't have been the only one to skip class that day.

I feel like I understand the feelings from all sides. I basically liked all the Sierra games I was ever exposed to growing up, I wasn't thinking critically on how this game compared to some other game, as if one game is inferior simply because it looks or sounds worse than another. I only cared about if the game was fun, and I usually found Sierra games to be fun. Knowing more about the systems as an adult, I can't even say that Sierra took advantage of DOS, let alone the Amiga or other systems. But every time I play and beat a Sierra game as an adult, I genuinely end up loving them more each time. At the same time I can't condone the decisions being made at the top of Sierra by its leader, Ken Williams. He paid bonuses the faster you ported a game, meaning there was an incentive to do trash work. To call them innovative when there's seven King's Quest's, all borrowing heavily from actual fairy tales. Six Space Quest's (couldn't possibly be borrowing from any franchises there, could they?), seven Police Quest's, five Hero's Quest's/Quest for Glory games, and six original Leisure Suit Larry games. They get credit for music while selling sound cards, as if the Amiga, Commodore 64, and NES weren't killing it with soundtracks long before them. Their later FMV works such as Phantasmagoria were so bad they turned out to be good, in a humorous way. With games like Wing Commander III and Under A Killing Moon doing it much better, and also before Sierra. 

Sierra should receive tons of credit for the things that they indeed did first, such as making the first "graphical adventure game", just remember not to lump in RPGs while you're doing that, because they went to graphics before Mystery House. If that was all Sierra ever did (the Mystery House engine games), it would be enough to dine on for a lifetime! They didn't just make adventure games either, along with EA, Broaderbund, and Epyx, they're among the most prolific publishers of 8 and 16 bit machines. Fan of Frogger? They ported one of the versions for the Commodore 64, they also did BC's Quest for Tires. They brought over games made for the Japanese computer market, such as Silpheed and Sorcerian, translating them for western audiences. In the 90's they exploded into just about every genre imaginable. Chances are high that if you love computer games, there's a Sierra game that you love. They even published a popular screen saver that I loved, Johnny Castaway. Caesar II, Front Page Sports Baseball '98, Quest for Glory, The Colonel's Bequest, Hoyle Card Games, Frogger, Space Quest, Willy Beamish, all Sierra games I love despite any faults. Now you can add King's Quest to the list as well. ^Sir Graham has become King Graham  

They also published Ultima and released some of their own RPGs using that engine, which angered Richard Garriot enough to form his own company. What I'm trying to say is that there's levels of complexity when it comes to Sierra. You can and should love these games, while recognizing that maybe they could have upgraded the engine a little faster than they did, and maybe they could have made better use of other machines. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that companies such as Electronic Arts, Bethesida, and DMA/Rockstar are still around, the types of companies which made the best use of ALL the hardware available to them at the time. While being among the first "DOS" companies to make some kick ass music for their games, they probably wouldn't have done it without the financial incentive to do so from both Roland and Adlib. If the Amiga also benefited in any way from Sierra's questionable ethics, it was in the music department as well. We had it built in, we didn't need to pay Sierra $500 for a Roland MT-32 (although we could, because Sierra tried selling that thing to Amiga owners too), and they made some killer soundtracks for the Amiga. 

It must be said that they made some fantastic games for the Amiga (over 50 if you include Dynamix), even if those games could have been better. It was long ago, we can't change the past, so there's no reason not to enjoy these games for what they are; enjoyable if a bit simplistic in certain areas. I think Electronic Games sumed up King's Quest the best when it noted that as a pure adventure "...it would hardly be worth a second glance. But in simplifying the puzzle solving... and, instead, overwhelming the player with lush graphics..., the vistas of adventure gaming suddenly open to a whole new audience." That's what King's Quest did, it opened the vistas of adventure gaming to a whole new audience! It also has its issues with gameplay, and we should note that text adventures remained popular after this, and probably for a reason. The weakest area of King's Quest and most Sierra adventures were not the graphics, but rather the text. King's Quest marked a much simpler form of adventure, not with the gameplay (which probably got more difficult), but in the actual writing. While King's Quest can certainly be enjoyed by an adult, and due to the text input, probably only by an adult, it's unlikely to satisfy lovers of prose. Perhaps DejaVu (1985) might have done the better job of marrying text and graphics to the adventure, but the King's Quest style would live on.

While the PC-JR was a failure, it paved the way for the Tandy 1000 from Radio Shack, a clone of the JR which was actually affordable, and that machine would sell millions. Tons of other clone companies arrived soon after, and King's Quest as well as Sierra found new life there. IBM never gained a majority share of the home market, but the "PC clone" market would explode. IBM actually owned King's Quest for the JR, but they let Sierra retain the rights to sell it elsewhere (probably thinking it wouldn't matter because those markets would fall). Sierra was paid to make a game for IBM, and it didn't actually sell. Even if it had sold for the JR, IBM would have been entitled to those profits, not Sierra. It's like selling your soul to the devil, but somehow coming out stronger because of a fluke loop hole (it was the same for Microsoft)! The history of Sierra is actually so much more interesting when it's not thought of as a simple fairy-tale. When we think about the bad along with the good, as well as the fluke luck. I'm a better gamer for having beaten King's Quest, you'd be a better gamer for beating anything with a text parser. Give these games a try, they're well worth playing, they are, simply put, gaming history. I hope you'll check out my video review, where I show the game off, read from and respond to the reviews of the time period, as well as other things of historical relevance. Readers of this article may also enjoy my looks at Hero's Quest/Quest for Glory (Amiga), Uninvited (Amiga), Starflight (Amiga), or The Secret of Monkey Island (Amiga). 

A special thanks to my friend's who participated in reading through some of the King's Quest manual in my video review, which marks my 10th year of making reviews and other videos on YouTube. In order of appearance; Intric8/Amiga Love, Stygian Phoenix, Songstryss, PacBilly, Fernleaf Flynn, Esper Dreams, and Kilr Television. 

*My video review for King's Quest

*Previous article

*Alphabetical list of all writings

*Discord for updates