Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
As for combat, it is "real time" although you enter a separate combat screen for QfG 1 through 4. In QfG 5 there's no separate screen, you just fight.
And you have reminded me I need to finish up that QfG 5 playthrough I was working on when Hero-U was released.
One is relatively short and confined but elegant and nostalgic.
Two is extremely massive and shares the 'timed' style of Hero U, but likewise it doesn't move fast enough for you to feel under any pressure. There's a ton to do.
Three is a medium sized game with an african theme and some cool features, but kind of sucks for thief playthroughs. People are very divided on this one. Some think of it as the best game and others think of it as the worst.
Four is the most story rich, atmospheric game in the franchise. It is generally regarded as the best in the series by a lot of people.
Five is quite huge, and works a lot like Hero U in that you have a variety of events separated by days once you start the rites of rulership. This game absolutely has it all, but it is regarded as the most behind the times on technology for when it was released. The battle system is also generally disliked. Best soundtrack in the series - seriously, full orchestral score.
The combat is real time in this series but incredibly easy and mostly based on stats instead of strategy. It isn't really as important as the other elements of the game. Still, it's fun enough.
However it's one continuous story that you transfer your character and decisions onto the next game, so you wanna play them all in order
Unlike II or III which is more divided some consider one of those two the best, others consider one of those two the worst. But I also think worst doesn't even mean bad, if you gotta rank them, then there's some kind of ordering there.
Personally I really like 2 because of the setting. But probably also because of Nostalgia. Some of the mechanics such as the maze of streets may feel dated nowadays (although there is a map in the manual.) But I enjoyed it at the time.
If you're a fan of other Sierra games, I'm sure you'd like the Quest for Glory series too.
Playing them sequentially is probably the way to go. I'd at least recommend playing 1 first and then you can probably play any other one of your choosing after that. (But if you play them in order you can import your character which is great!)
I have personally not played 5 for any length of time. Unfortunately the early 3D graphics means it's not aged as well as the others. However I have heard the story is rather good, it's another one where the opinions are a lot more divided on, but it's probably the hardest to engage with without intentionally overlooking some technical limitations at the time.
Five is worth playing just for the mechanics (outside of the combat) in my view. It has a ton of minigames and side quests, romance options, multiple endings and tons of places a thief can bust into. Also an arena, a dagger throwing gambling game, a chief thief contest, interesting rites to compete in... just a very deep game in terms of varied content. That's my favorite thing about it.
Its graphics are definitely a little hard to get used to at first, though I like the pre-rendered static backgrounds and how they pan and zoom with the 3D motion. I think that looks pretty.
Guess I'd put the first one as my second favorite due to raw nostalgia and personal history with it.
I actually have a thread in the Qfg forums about this very topic.
The fifth game only has time limits once you start a certain event, before that you can take your time and do whatever.
I agree 4 was defnitely the most atmospheric. And while I may say I liked 2 the least it doesn't mean I don't like it at all. I like all of the games and I agree that you should probably play them sequentially.
My favorite aspect of these games is that you can take one character through the entire series.
1st: Quest for Glory II
2nd: Quest for Glory III
3rd: Quest for Glory IV
4th: Quest for Glory
I can't stand Quest for Glory V. I don't even want to include it in the same list as the other games. It has typically great writing, as is to be expected from the Coles, but other than that? It's utter tosh. Lousy backgrounds and character models, bland music, awful combat, unnecessary extra RPG mechanics that drag the classic gameplay systems down rather than enhance and support them.
Sadly, I think it was probably a victim of Sierra's altered focus.
But, but, but... You know what would have been utterly wonderful?
A QfG game with a Chinese setting; lush, painterly "oriental" background art, a melodic Chinese-influenced score, and a mythology and sense of place and time that takes inspiration from the ancient superstitions, customs and culture of the area.
Ah, what could and should have been...
I disliked most of the art in 5, but I loved the background art when you're in hades. It felt a lot more like the old style of dark art from 4
I don't think ive ever heard anyone complain about chance thomas' score for that game. Personally I think the other games don't even approach on soundtrack. The night time music for silmaria in particular is something I've listened to outside of play many times.
The first four Quest for Glory games each had a huge number of memorable tracks. They may have been limited by being performed by lower quality MIDI synths but they were superior compositions and had a distinct character and vibrancy that Chance Thomas' work lacked.
I was ok with the critique of QGV until you got to "bland music." That soundtrack won the game Music of the Year 1998 award. It was composed by Emmy and Oscar award-winning composer Chance Thomas. Three years just working on the music for the game. Quest for Glory had some great music, and QGV was the pinnacle.
Awful combat and "unnecessary extra RPG mechanics" are matters of opinion, fine. I haven't played enough of the game to have an opinion on those. QGIV was my favorite combat system in the series. But the music is right up there with the writing IMHO. (BTW, credit Lori for the writing, not "the Coles." I don't think I penned a line of it; I just did some programming on the game.)
- Corey Cole
Sorry, Corey - credit where it's due: Lori's writing for QfG V was as wonderful as always. I admire the way she invokes a sense of place, the way that she develops and expresses character and personality, and... the puns! The. Puns! Oh, how I love puns.
I also liked the QfG IV combat system, but my favourite is probably the version found in either QfG II or III. There's something nice about its simplicity, which complements rather than dominates the other gameplay systems.
Regarding the music of Chance Thomas. All art is subjective. Regardless of his awards and accolades, I stand by my critique of his QfG V score for the aforementioned reasons. It's bland. In my opinion, of course. If others enjoy it, that's fantastic!