Police Quest chatter (was The Mysterious King's Quest IV Cover.)

[Tawmis]

I agree. PQ2 is the most approachable for this reason IMO. It really does have the most out of this world cop TV show vibe, lightly peppered with real police procedure.

Lytton PD Blue, perhaps? or maybe Lytton Vice?

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh dear. That's so 80s, I'm looking for the leg-warmers and big hair.

And whoops - I forgot NYPD Blue wasn't around in the 80s. But "Hill Street Blues" and "21 Jump Street" were. I can't think of any way to make them into PQ-knockoffs, though. Lytton Street Blues, maybe? *shrug* I'm sure you'll all have better ideas.

[Tawmis]

I agree. PQ2 is the most approachable for this reason IMO. It really does have the most out of this world cop TV show vibe, lightly peppered with real police procedure. PQ1 certainly has a bit of that as well to the story itself, but it's far more gritty and is a lot more down to earth in terms of procedures. PQ3 takes procedural gameplay to extremes if you ask me.

Having recently replayed them all, PQ3 had been my favorite prior to that, based on memory.
Because it did remind me of your typical 80's cop movie, with the "Satanic" vibe (especially during the "End of Days" type movies, I believe it was called with Arnold).
But having replayed them all, I forgot how weak the ending felt. That Bain's brother, just gives himself up. (Man, that link is such a great playthrough!)
After all he did? He just goes out by surrendering? Seemed weak.
I might still be saucy about the daily rose bug, too.
PQ2 I really enjoyed, but the terrorist portion on the plane, seemed ... unneccessary? It didn't do anything to advance the story. And shooting guns while the plane is in the air adds a lot of risk. (Man, did you click that link too? Such a great playthrough!)

[notbobsmith]

I agree. PQ2 is the most approachable for this reason IMO. It really does have the most out of this world cop TV show vibe, lightly peppered with real police procedure. PQ1 certainly has a bit of that as well to the story itself, but it's far more gritty and is a lot more down to earth in terms of procedures. PQ3 takes procedural gameplay to extremes if you ask me.

I thought PQ1 was the biggest stickler for police procedure. You lose if you don't handcuff the drunk behind the back. You have to search suspects and read their rights. PQ3 actually trims most of this out which was probably to simplify things.

Having recently replayed them all, PQ3 had been my favorite prior to that, based on memory.
Because it did remind me of your typical 80's cop movie, with the "Satanic" vibe (especially during the "End of Days" type movies, I believe it was called with Arnold).
But having replayed them all, I forgot how weak the ending felt. That Bain's brother, just gives himself up. (Man, that link is such a great playthrough!)
After all he did? He just goes out by surrendering? Seemed weak.
I might still be saucy about the daily rose bug, too.
PQ2 I really enjoyed, but the terrorist portion on the plane, seemed ... unneccessary? It didn't do anything to advance the story. And shooting guns while the plane is in the air adds a lot of risk. (Man, did you click that link too? Such a great playthrough!)

I was never a fan of the Satanic drug cult thing. PQ2 dealt with realism pretty well, but I agree. The terrorist hijacking came out of nowhere. PQ1 remains my favorite.

[Tawmis]

PQ1 remains my favorite.

I like PQ1 - more so, after the remake.
I had played old school PQ1 - and just like all of Sierra's first games (KQ1, SQ1, PQ1) - there wasn't too much "depth" to any of the characters.
The remakes helped fix that.
However, I do like PQ1 because of how good they made you want to kill Bains.
But this is why I think PQ2 wins out (for me) over PQ1 - is that Bains escapes, and does more - and you really begin to feel the "terror" that this murderer is capable of.
(But again, like ... when ye call to try and warn the guy who lives in... wanna say Steeltown?... and you're a cop ... telling him Bains got away and has your info... and he ignores you... Seemed unrealistic)

[Rath Darkblade]

I thought PQ1 was the biggest stickler for police procedure. You lose if you don't handcuff the drunk behind the back. You have to search suspects and read their rights.

Is that so bad? That's how cops work in real life, and the game also shows you why. *shrug* As far as basic policing procedure and logic goes, I thought it was the best of all three.

PQ3 actually trims most of this out which was probably to simplify things.

Fair enough. I don't miss walking around the car to make sure no-one let my tyres down.

The terrorist hijacking came out of nowhere.

I agree with you and Tawm. That terrorist hijacking definitely seemed tacked on. Sonny's on the plane, so give him something to do!

I can see that, too. If Sonny just flew from one city to another, and nothing happened, it would be boring.

I had played old school PQ1 - and just like all of Sierra's first games (KQ1, SQ1, PQ1) - there wasn't too much "depth" to any of the characters.

Of course not. Most of the characters were only in one scene. They didn't need to have too much depth. They were spear-carriers.

Then again, it wouldn't hurt to give more depth to Sgt Dooley, Detective What's-his-name, and Marie. They're the most important supporting characters.

The remakes helped fix that.

They did? I only saw the PQ1 VGA remake, and it seemed like a pretty faithful remake of the EGA version. What other remakes do you mean, Tawm?

(But again, like ... when ye call to try and warn the guy who lives in... wanna say Steeltown?... and you're a cop ... telling him Bains got away and has your info... and he ignores you... Seemed unrealistic)

Agreed. In any logically-run universe, when you learn about Bains -- at the airport -- this would happen:

1. You call your PD;
2. They call the Steelton PD and fill them in;
3. The Steelton PD rushes the Steelton witness into the WPP (Witness Protection Program);
4. You talk to him under the auspices of the WPP.

It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what happens in PQ2, right?

[goatmeal]

The remakes helped fix that.

They did? I only saw the PQ1 VGA remake, and it seemed like a pretty faithful remake of the EGA version. What other remakes do you mean, Tawm?

He was referring to ALL of the Quest 1 VGA remakes in the sentence before that...

I had played old school PQ1 - and just like all of Sierra's first games (KQ1, SQ1, PQ1) - there wasn't too much "depth" to any of the characters.
The remakes helped fix that.

[Rath Darkblade]

Ah, OK. Hmm ... I haven't played old-school KQ1, so I can't compare it to the KQ1 (by AGD Interactive) - except that I enjoyed the KQ1 and KQ2 remakes immensely.

As for depth of characters ... hmm, I don't know if I could really apply that phrase to the LSL remake. Most characters in LSL don't have that much depth! (Sorry, Tawm).

I can't remember much about the SQ1 remake, but IIRC, it was fairly faithful to the original, wasn't it? I mean, it didn't change much.

[Tawmis]

Ah, OK. Hmm ... I haven't played old-school KQ1, so I can't compare it to the KQ1 (by AGD Interactive) - except that I enjoyed the KQ1 and KQ2 remakes immensely.
As for depth of characters ... hmm, I don't know if I could really apply that phrase to the LSL remake. Most characters in LSL don't have that much depth! (Sorry, Tawm).
I can't remember much about the SQ1 remake, but IIRC, it was fairly faithful to the original, wasn't it? I mean, it didn't change much.

But with LSL1, you definitely get a personality from Larry - unlike in KQ1, where he just goes around collecting things.

[notbobsmith]

I thought PQ1 was the biggest stickler for police procedure. You lose if you don't handcuff the drunk behind the back. You have to search suspects and read their rights.

Is that so bad? That's how cops work in real life, and the game also shows you why. *shrug* As far as basic policing procedure and logic goes, I thought it was the best of all three.

Actually, that is part of PQ1 that I enjoy. I just brought this up because MusicallyInspired said that PQ3 was taking "procedural gameplay to extremes" when I think PQ1 is much more procedure driven.

[Tawmis]

I thought PQ1 was the biggest stickler for police procedure. You lose if you don't handcuff the drunk behind the back. You have to search suspects and read their rights.

Is that so bad? That's how cops work in real life, and the game also shows you why. *shrug* As far as basic policing procedure and logic goes, I thought it was the best of all three.

Actually, that is part of PQ1 that I enjoy. I just brought this up because MusicallyInspired said that PQ3 was taking "procedural gameplay to extremes" when I think PQ1 is much more procedure driven.

I'd agree - PQ1 seems to focus way more on procedures, where as PQ3 seems more lax (and even allows you to make your own judgement calls, such as your partner's behavior).

[DeadPoolX]

Actually, you don't have to read anyone the Miranda Warning when arresting them. The only time you "need" to read someone their Miranda Warning is before interrogation.

I put "need" in quotes because you don't technically need to do it there either, but you'll lose out on a lot of potentially important information that would otherwise be admissible in court had you read the suspect the Miranda Warning. For this reason alone it's always in the police's best interest to read suspects their Miranda Warning when questioning them, and sometimes officers do it during an arrest just to cover their bases.

Regardless, even if you never read anyone their Miranda Warning, the suspect does NOT go free, which is something a lot of people believe due to TV shows, movies, and games.

Yes, PQ1 pulled this stunt and Jim Walls would've known better, so it's puzzling that it was included.

I guess it was left in as a way to make the player lose or perhaps because some of the game was written by Al Lowe, and he wouldn't have been familiar with police procedure and law.

[Tawmis]

Actually, you don't have to read anyone the Miranda Warning when arresting them. The only time you "need" to read someone their Miranda Warning is before interrogation.
I put "need" in quotes because you don't technically need to do it there either, but you'll lose out on a lot of potentially important information that would otherwise be admissible in court had you read the suspect the Miranda Warning. For this reason alone it's always in the police's best interest to read suspects their Miranda Warning when questioning them, and sometimes officers do it during an arrest just to cover their bases.
Regardless, even if you never read anyone their Miranda Warning, the suspect does NOT go free, which is something a lot of people believe due to TV shows, movies, and games.
Yes, PQ1 pulled this stunt and Jim Walls would've known better, so it's puzzling that it was included.
I guess it was left in as a way to make the player lose or perhaps because some of the game was written by Al Lowe, and he wouldn't have been familiar with police procedure and law.

Quite correct, and this linky goes into detail should anyone wanna read it.

[DeadPoolX]

Actually, you don't have to read anyone the Miranda Warning when arresting them. The only time you "need" to read someone their Miranda Warning is before interrogation.
I put "need" in quotes because you don't technically need to do it there either, but you'll lose out on a lot of potentially important information that would otherwise be admissible in court had you read the suspect the Miranda Warning. For this reason alone it's always in the police's best interest to read suspects their Miranda Warning when questioning them, and sometimes officers do it during an arrest just to cover their bases.
Regardless, even if you never read anyone their Miranda Warning, the suspect does NOT go free, which is something a lot of people believe due to TV shows, movies, and games.
Yes, PQ1 pulled this stunt and Jim Walls would've known better, so it's puzzling that it was included.
I guess it was left in as a way to make the player lose or perhaps because some of the game was written by Al Lowe, and he wouldn't have been familiar with police procedure and law.

Quite correct, and this linky goes into detail should anyone wanna read it.

Sometimes I think the police actually promote these tropes and misunderstandings (aka "Hollywood Law") because it benefits them.

For instance... up until the last decade or so, it was widely believed that if someone asked an undercover police officer "Are you a cop?" that they had to answer honestly, which is insane when you stop and think about it. But in movies and TV shows, they usually play this straight and have the undercover cop do something like asking, "Do I look like a cop?" and attempt to brush it off or change the subject instead of doing what a real cop would and simply answer "No, I'm not."

Undercover operations simply wouldn't work if cops had to answer this truthfully. Even the dumbest criminal could remember to ask, "Are you a cop?" Fortunately, this has been toyed with a lot in recent years where it's been shown to be completely false and TV/film cops use it to their advantage.

I think this trope (and perhaps some others) come from a complete misunderstanding of entrapment. A lot of people think entrapment occurs whenever a police officer lies, and that's not true at all. Entrapment is only an issue if police coerce someone into doing something they wouldn't normally otherwise do.

In other words, if an undercover cop pretends to be a prostitute's client and then arrests her, that's not entrapment. Conversely, if the police pushed someone who wasn't a prostitute into playing one and then arrests her, that would be entrapment.

[Rath Darkblade]

"Are you a cop?" That's like asking someone you suspect of being a spy "Are you a spy?", or asking a ninja who's infiltrated your castle "Are you a ninja?"

(I'm not comparing cops to spies or ninjas, of course. But I'm currently reading a book about what ninjas actually did - usually spying, reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering, rather than assassination - so that's fresh in my mind).

Seriously ... why would anyone think that's true? Asking someone that you suspect of being an undercover cop if he is a cop is dumb. If he says yes, he's just blown his assignment, and will be lucky if he 'just' gets busted down to pounding the pavement. If he says no, then he could be 'just a civilian', or he could be a cop that's smarter than a mushroom.

As for entrapment ... hmm. Does that mean that if the cops arrest someone and force him to play the part of a drug dealer, in order to attract other dealers and arrest them ... is that entrapment? *wonders* Or is it 'only' unprofessionalism?