I liked reading this review, even though I haven't played the game.
Something struck me, though. I've heard Dagger of Amon Ra cited many times as one of the great AGs of yore, and reading the review gives the impression that's it's relatively worthless (as a game, in any case).
I appreciate that a review is by nature the expression of an opinion, but in this case, wasn't it a bit too... er... extreme? I had the feeling that all the good points were deemed unworthy of attention in regard of the shortcomings (even though you cited both good and bad aspects of the game), and that you (that'll be kurufinwe) focused a lot on what felt wrong to you.
So in the end what I'm wondering is: do people praise the game out of blind devotion to an good-looking Sierra game of the good old days (which wouldn't surprise me one bit
), or did you not like it the way you don't like, say, Goblins? (meaning that it's not your type of game, but could really please someone else)
