POStudios Forum

The Royal Archives => Gaming Archives => Topic started by: ATMachine on February 21, 2011, 11:09:44 AM

Title: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: ATMachine on February 21, 2011, 11:09:44 AM
Quick question. How many 3.5 and 5.25 inch floppy disks did the respective AGI and SCI versions of King's Quest IV:  The Perils of Rosella originally come on? Stupid, I know, but I'd like to find out.
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: KatieHal on February 21, 2011, 11:11:23 AM
I had the floppy disk version--5.25"--and I know there were 8 of them. I believe my copy was also the older AGI version.
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: Enchantermon on February 21, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
The SCI version had 6 5.25" disks and 4 3.5" disks.
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: Baggins on February 26, 2011, 01:40:23 AM
There was a 9 disk version of KQ4 SCI as well as I recall. It had separate artwork for day and night.
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: MusicallyInspired on February 26, 2011, 12:09:52 PM
Yes. The older version of KQ4SCI was 1.000.111 and it contained alternate backgrounds for night time, rather than the more popular collection version which pastes a night sky over the daytime backgrounds (which remain bright as day, unlike the older version).
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: ATMachine on March 05, 2011, 04:52:35 PM
OK, so as far as I can tell, the disk count goes something like this:

KQ4 AGI: three 3.5'' disks, six 5.25'' disks
KQ4 SCI original version (with green menu buttons): four 3.5'' disks, nine 5.25'' disks
KQ4 SCI later versions (with white menu buttons): four 3.5'' disks, eight 5.25'' disks

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've ascertained from looking at various copies on eBay.
Title: Re: KQ4 AGI/SCI diskette question
Post by: MusicallyInspired on March 08, 2011, 08:17:33 AM
Sounds about right. The night sky paste-over graphics would take less disk space than straight secondary copies for alternate night scenes. Not to mention the code is probably a bit more optimised. The newer version would make sense to take one less disk.