[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

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

No problem. Though I've got another review to finish today, so I'll have to make my replies short.

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.

I've already said why I liked the graphics in LB2 so much in my review, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Who isn't (thinking of Kyrandia games)?

I'd have said the same thing about Kyrandia if I had been reviewing it, be sure of that (actually, I think Kyrandia is kinda worse when it comes to plot).

I don't think so Goblins series are among the most popular and recognized adventure series, and there is a reason for it.

They are? (that's a genuine question; I don't often see them appear in top-10 lists or anything, but maybe I'm missing something here)

Why there were no clones for Loom or Neverhood? Uniqueness.

You may have point there, though the lack of clones for the Neverhood is more probably due to a lack of technical competence / money.

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.

That's not how I see things. I never feel like I'm writing for people who've already played the game, but rather for people who haven't, but might be interested, which often means people who discovered adventure games in recent years. At the end of the day, a good game is a good game, and many classics have stood the test of time, though their graphics may have aged from a technical point of view (though, artistically speaking, KQ5 is still miles ahead of, say, Oblivion). I'd recommend GK1, Indy 4, The Lost Files of Sherlock Holmes 1 or Conquests of the Longbow without any hesitation to anyone interested in adventure games. Not Ween -- and even inventory puzzle lovers would have to be warned that the puzzles are not all that fun, and that they'd probably be better off playing, say, the vastly superior Lost in Time.

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?

It's because it was fun. Because it made me want to go back to it whenever I had to stop playing. What's the incentive for going on in Ween? The plot? Who cares about it. Progressing in the game to discover more beautiful locations and music? I'm not convinced about that. The humour? Don't think it's worth all the hassle. The challenge of solving the puzzles? As I said, I thought they got tedious after a while. So, what's left? I honestly don't know.

(Incidentally, I disagree with your assessment of SdV. I thought the graphics looked great (and not only technically), the music was memorable, the interface actually worked (which is more than Ween can say for itself). And while the plot was not mindblowing, or even memorable, it was fun to follow, with lots of twists, and getting it to unfold was definitely an incentive for playing the game. The puzzles were good, they made sense (an absolute must in my book, obviously) while being reasonably challenging, they had a reason for being there (another absolute must), and served the plot and characterization by giving insights into Leonardo's mind. And, finally, it never got tedious or unenjoyable (apart from the painting puzzle, which is definitely mentioned in my review).