[Ariel Type]

Kurufinwe
You sure have some good points there, but I'll argue anyway

Actually, there's a reference to it (the first sentence of the review!).

Oh, I even didn't take it for a reference Djel was horrible, and has a weak storyline, yes, but then again, it had its own universe which unfolds in Ween. I don't want to defend the storyline - it sure isn't very imaginative, but it had the same touch as, say, Goblins or Kings Quest series.

1992 was the year of LB2, KQ6, Indy 4, Dune, QfG3, Kyrandia, etc. Those had great graphics.

Of all these the only games I can think of having "clear, detailed" look are Dune and Kyrandia. I'm not saing that Laura or Indi were badly drawn - they just didn't have that "polished" look. Blurry pictures and characters were the course of early technologies. Coktel tried to improve this side all the time through. For example, the same year it published Inca, which mixed the same quality of 2D pictures with real-time 3D and FMV. And the 2D-games it produced were always some of the most graphically impressive adventures on the market.

Ween feels like it's trying to be an epic KQ5-clone (but utterly fails), with just a few jokes here and there

Who isn't (thinking of Kyrandia games)? Serously, all the way through I never thought of it as a "serious fantasy game". Not only characters, but situations (getting rid of the green beast, helping an old man, curing an ant) were on the fun side. Not necessary funny to the laugh, but nowhere near "epic".

thought they got too repetitive, tedious and illogical after a while

Ok, that's how you feel then..

Then again, maybe the reason why there are so few of them is that they're bad?

I don't think so Goblins series are among the most popular and recognized adventure series, and there is a reason for it. It's just hard to repeat the style I guess. Why there were no clones for Loom or Neverhood? Uniqueness.

Because they don't pretend to have a plot and characterization (esp. the first two)

But they have plot and characterization (especially the 3rd one ), and they didn't fail for me. Goblins 3, Woodruff, Inca - they all have very interesting plots, which proves Coktel is not aiming at "pure puzzle lovers".

I wouldn't recommend either to today's gamers (as I already said before, I consider the historical or nostalgic value of games utterly irrelevant to a review written here and now).

So, you mark the games from this point of view then? That's strange. I can't recommend ANY classical adventure to most of today's gamers, simply because they won't understand it. Why this should influence my mark, even if the game has historical value? After all, this is an adventure site, not some kind of gamespot or other trash that demands adventures to follow modern standarts. This IS a nostalgic site, that's why it still gives reviews of oldies.

To name just a few from the same year, KQ6 and Indy 4.

That's a few Those are two of SEVERAL games with multiple paths, and that is a coincidence they appeared at the same year. Most of adventures are linear or have puzzles without alternative solutions. There are some games like Blade Runner, or Malcolms Revenge, but they are very few.
The fact that developers of Ween gave us an opportunity to choose paths (even on two occasions) is a big "plus", rather then "nothing important".

I see that this is not your type of games. OK. But then can you explain what was so special about "The Secrets of Da Vinci" game wich you rated 4 stars? The game also had a very simple and cliche plot, the gameplay was strongly focused on inventory puzzles (which were far less imaginative then in Ween), there were very few characters with badly written personalities, the graphics was of no importance.. Is it because the game is suitable for today's gamers?