Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (
More info?)
Paul Drallos <pdrallos@tir.com> wrote in message news:<noKdnd7Ya__KsTbcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>...
> David Doty wrote:
>
> > It's hard for me to say. They are not only all good, they work so well as
> > a trilogy it's hard for me to view them separately. They're definitely my
> > top three games in the Zork series. Sorceror leans a little too much to
> > the Zork GUE humor style for my taste. Spellbreaker has the best story,
> > but it's just so durned hard, and I'm a weak gamer. I used cheats on well
> > over half the puzzles, I think. So I guess I'd go with Enchanter for best
> > all-around combination of qualities.
> >
>
>
> I agree that Spellbreaker was too durned hard. It was my least favorite because I had to refer to a walkthrough too many times. Sorceror, however, was my personal favorite perhaps because of the humor style, but also because it was the only one I completed without hints. Enchanter might have been easier, but it gave me a running start for Sorceror.
Sorcerer is my favorite of the trilogy as well. It's not so much
because of the humor as because of the originality of the atmosphere:
of the three games, Sorcerer feels the least derivative of Terry
Brooks--esque high fantasy. The time travel sequence, the bat
transformation, the amusement park, and the sending for the vilstu
potion all seem fresher to me than most of the elements of the other
two games. Sorcerer also has a lot of funny Easter eggs, and the
in-game Encyclopedia Frobozzica helps put the story in context.
Spellbreaker is also fairly original, but I find the writing rather
bland compared with that of Sorcerer. Enchanter feels like a Dungeons
& Dragons dungeon crawl.
--
MSC