AGI vs. SCI

[Tim Gallagher]

Greetings...long time fan of vintage Sierra just now beginning to explore the possibilities of making my own adventure.

I have noticed, by comparing the number of fan released games for both, that AGI seems to have a stronger following than SCI.  Is this a valid statement?  Is AGI simply easier to work with or is it because SCI Studio is still fairly new?

Tim Gallagher

[Xqzzy Rcxmcq]

If you want to make your own adventure, I strongly suggest you use AGI. When I first found about about these engines, I started to use SCI (originally), but then realized that AGI is just a bit easier to use.

Nothing bad toward Brian or SCI, I just think that AGI is more straightforward. One of these days, I probably oughta learn SCI.

[Joey]

AGI was also made earlier than SCI back in the days, so people may like to make games in honor of the earlier classics. I find AGI easier than SCI though. I also just enjoy AGI better. I dont know why, I just do, but yes, there are plenty more AGI fan made games than of SCI. Maybe SCI is too hard for people? It is for me. I dont know, but I prefer AGI better, and reccommend you start with AGI.

[Chris Cromer]

The only reason AGI has more released games than SCI is because SCI Studio was recently finished, while AGI Studio has been around for years.

[06dude]

The only reason AGI has more released games than SCI is because SCI Studio was recently finished, while AGI Studio has been around for years.

I wouldn't say that's the only reason there's more AGI fanmade games. I think that a lot of it has to do with the complexity of SCI in general. I mean, it's hard enough to create a working AGI game without having to work with more pixels and mouse controls.

Maybe another reason is that there are (I think) more Sierra AGI games than Sierra SCI games. I've always liked games like SQ1 and 2 and King's Quest 3 better then, say, SQ3. I don't know why though.

[Chris Cromer]

AGI is a tiny bit easier, but I think alot more people prefer SCI because of the many great things about it such as changeable fonts, cursors, higher res graphics, plus the fact that the engine could make a game look like any type of game(scumm games for instance).

[Joey]

I still prefer AGI, and I think its MUCH easier than SCI. gosh, was trying to do a print statement and stuff and I got an error in SCI, and I copied it from the text right above it! Maybe i just suck at programming  . i dont know. i like agi better, and i would reccommend newbies to agi/sci programming to start with agi.

[Brian Provinciano]

Yeah Joey, you "just suck at programming", lol j/k. SCI's print is no harder than AGI. You just need to stick it in a function block. There are no function blocks in AGI.

You've got to remember that these were professional in-house languages used by a huge company with professional high-pay programmers. Game programming was simpler when AGI came out, but by the time SCI was done, things had become a lot more advanced. If SCI was so easy, they wouldn't have been paying them the big bucks. At the time, SCI was a complex game development system which took skill to operate. Since games have become yet more advanced, it seems simple to most people, but think about it as if you were running XTs or those fancy top of the line 286es back then.

Compared to the tools Sierra used in the 80s, SCI Studio makes SCI game creation a piece of cake--provided you are willing to learn and go through the ENTIRE tutorial from beginning to end. I went through the tutorial and added more indepth descriptions, clarified things and such based on users questions. Yet, I still get emails asking them. The majority of people find SCI difficult because they just don't read, or just skim, the tutorial.

[PhilN]

I prefer AGI to SCI.

First of all, I like to work on these adventure games as more of nostalgic reasons. Let's face it, AGI and SCI are not cutting edge in graphics and sound and, this being the only criteria, people would not choose them over the newer games. However, people are playing them and I think this is due in part to the fact that they remind people of that first computer they got -- people like to reminisce and this archaic-style of big pixels, limited colors, and internal speaker-quality blips & beeps brings people back to those early innocent years. AGI marks the beginning of this era and many of us enjoyed watching Sierra get better at producing games in this same format -- from KQ1 & SQ1 to KQ4(yes, there is an AGI version),SQ2, and Goldrush. Although Sierra went on to produce great games using SCI, in my mind nothing compares to those originals.

Secondly, I've already spent some time learning how to make games in AGI and have even started some. I don't want to have to abandon the work already done and re-learn another tool. Some say it's slightly tougher. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Some people have a naturally easier time working with code while other struggle all the way. Personally, I haven't looked at SCI enough to make any definite opinion, however, I'm sure there are differences and I really don't want to confuse myself until I finish some of these AGI games. I have a hard enough time with code as it is.

Lastly, one of the most time consuming parts of developing an AGI game is the artwork. I know of several projects that went undone simply because drawing realistic background scenes became too burdensome. As tough as it is, AGI is quite forgiving on the detail so that many who do not consider themselves artists can produce impressive scenes. The reason is that a few pixels in AGI can represent an entire control panel and anyone playing the game will believe it. However, in SCI, there is a greater detail level which requires more experienced skill in drawing in order to produce the background scenes. While it is true that SCI has the ability to display even more impressive scenes because of this greater detail level, it also adds a greater burden to an already burdensome task.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[Tim Gallagher]

Thank you, everyone for the feedback. My main reason was to gauge which format I should to begin creating adventures.

I have a iMac running OS X 10.2 and can play AGI games using Sarien.  I also have a Pentium II laptop running Windows 98 which I use for SCI games (I'm close to getting FreeSCI to run in OS X though).  I'm also close to running AGI Studio in OS X.

Although I think EGA/Parser SCI is the pinnacle of Sierra's adventures, I think I'll begin in AGI just because of being able to use my iMac with it.  AGI will give me a chance to cut my teeth on programming and drawing graphics.

My level of programming knowledge is zero and if SCI is as tough as people say, I'd be floundering.  I will try and go through Brian's SCI Tutorial first to see if I can grasp the programming.

[Tux]

What would Maniac Mansion be? SCI?

[Chris Cromer]

Maniac Mansion wasn't made by Sierra. It uses an engine called SCUMM though.

[Tux]

Hehe. Project is almost done. I am not saying what it is though.  
Here is a few hints: It's a redo of an engine in 3D.
Setting is  a  school with meteor.. I think I said enough. hehe.

[Pikachu14]

Maniac Mansion wasn't made by Sierra. It uses an engine called SCUMM though.

I wonder why the portrait of Dead Cousin What's-His-Name's in AGI doublepixel style though. Very out-of-place.

[OmerMor]

There is one more reason people prefer AGI:
AGI Studio is capable of opening the source code of every AGI game out there including Sierra's.
SCI Studio will only implement a similiar function on it's next release.
I think it helped a lot of people to open a sierra game, and see how stuff were done. SCI developers can only learn from their own experience and Brian's template. at least until more people publish the source of their SCI games, or SCI Studio will let us decompile Sierra's SCI games.
BTW - It's much more trivial to decompile AGI scripts and it's amazing that Brian is actually able to do something like that with SCI scripts.