EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Snarky's post. Will get to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ninth
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) |
The score was a difficult thing. Or rather, the score wasn't, but managing to justify it in the review was.
There's a policy at AGs that a reviewer should only review types of games he likes. As you can see from my
review of The Colonel's Bequest, I like detective games a lot. So that's definitely not what my problem was with LB2.
I know that quite a few people seem to like it, and there are some very positive reviews of this game floating around. I've read them, and they really haven't managed to convince me. But I think I can see why people might like that game: it looks good, has a great atmosphere, has that special Sierra touch, etc. As I said in the conclusion, if you can just entirely forget about the plot, or take each element individually without seeing that it doesn't fit in with the others (though, without wishing to offend anyone, I'd say you'd have to be rather braindead for that), then, yes, it's nice. If there hadn't been the questions at the end, it
might have been possible not to notice the nonsensical plot. As it is, the game is just forcing you to look at its own flaws.
Now, regarding whether I might have chosen to focus more on some elements that others... Well, the plot
is the gameplay. The first two acts (out of six) are almost only about conversation --- and I said what I thought of conversations in that game. Then, it's a lot of listening at doors, hiding behind tapestries, etc. Sure, that's fun, but if what you discover that was is clichéd and nonsensical, it stops being fun soon enough. But don't get the score wrong: 2.5/5 doesn't mean that LB2 is an average/bad game. It's really more like a mouldy cake with lots of icing on it --- and, seemingly, many people were happy with just giving the icing a quick lick.
Jack hasn't played it, and neither have you. I'd really like to know if people who have disagree with my review, and why. For the moment, I'm convinced that LB2 is a bad game, but that it's very possible for some people to like it a lot. But I'm willing to discuss that --- and, possibly, even to change my mind.
