[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Christ.

No, Christ is featured in that *other* Da Vinci game.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

C'mon people, drop the protectionism already, the game was obviously inspired by Da Vinci Code's success, just as it's obvious Sony nabbed the controller idea from Nintendo. Just admit it. Or better yet, leave it alone. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I don't think it's a bad thing. Its a smart business move and it doesn't make the game any less worthy. All I've been saying is that there's nothing wrong with the first paragraph of Eurogamer's review, Christ.

There's a difference between being inspired by the success of something and doing something just to "ride the wave" of its success. The former seems a no-brainer, as our news items properly acknowledged. The latter suggests being a cheap rip-off, and that's what's being argued.

I do agree with Kurufinwe that the marketing of the game is trying to capitalize on the current DVC wave. But hey, that's what marketing does. Yet like him, I also agree that it's NOT a smart business move.

In any case, say what you will, the first paragraph of Eurogamer's review is ridiculous. I would never let a writer here piss away the entire crucial first paragraph on something totally irrelevant. My opinion has nothing to do with the games being discussed.

[samIamsad]

Irrelevant? How so? The paragraph boils down to:

So, Dan Brown.
This title is not based on any of his works. Got that?
Alright, now on to the game.

Since that confusion seems to exist (and it does), hey. I'm more surprised that nobody has complained about the damn score yet (what? Only six out of ten? Bloody murder!), since the reviewer describes the game as a "pleasurable stroll". Anyway, Keops seem to continue making their kinda cute little games. The morality meter sounds kinda neat.

Aren't they currently developing a safe cracker game, too?

[fov]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

So, Dan Brown.
This title is not based on any of his works. Got that?
Alright, now on to the game.

If they'd said it like that, it would have been one line instead of one paragraph.

Aren't they currently developing a safe cracker game, too?

Yes.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by fov

If they'd said it like that, it would have been one line instead of one paragraph.

Heh. Yeah, I very well see where you're all coming from, but saying that it's "totally irrelevant" (yay, semantics!) is taking it way too far. It's nothing but a short introduction (like what, a couple of lines) to the actual review. I've seen much, much, MUCH worse. Totally subjective, totally my very own opinion, of course. Still, nice to see people discussing the actual review body instead of the verdict or score only.

[Jackal]

The thing is, though, many people don't read, they skim. So sure, if you're the sort that patiently reads every word, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get to a point. But lots of people don't. That's why you lead with the point you want to emphasize. Or at least lead with something you're going to BUILD on. Not lead with something, elaborate for a while, and finally then say "now forget all that, because this is something else." By then you've already lost people who assume they know the gist of your point and have moved on. In this case, assuming the game to be somehow similar to or related to The Da Vinci Code.

We writers and editors may like to think people read our every word, but I know quite a few people who only skim the first and last paragraphs of a review, and maybe the score and bottom line, if any. So it's not exactly a meaningless issue.

Eurogamer can do what it wants, of course. But I still say it's a lame way to open. And one that ends up doing the game a disservice in the process.

[insane_cobra]

So are you saying a lot of people might just ignore the game because they'll think it's based on Da Vinci Code? Cause I'd say your average Joe gamer would be way more interested in a Da Vinci game based on Da Vinci Code than the one not based on it. So in that regard it's actually doing the game service.

Besides, one would think Kheops guys might've thought of that, what with making a game about Da Vinci right after the huge success of Da Vinci Code and putting his name in the title (as preposterous as it sounds, they didn't have to do that, there are games involving famous people that don't mention them in the title! look it up, it's a fact!). Hm, could it be they've done it on purpose? Naaaaah...

[Melanie68]

Honestly, there's been DaVinci overload here in America (and very likely elsewhere too). The past week or so has seen umpteen specials about Dan Brown's book and DaVinci and the Templars and yada, yada, yada as well as every book related to said subject prominently displayed in the bookstores. With any overkill campaign like that, people may start to shut out any more related material (no matter in what medium it's presented).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by cobsie

So are you saying a lot of people might just ignore the game because they'll think it's based on Da Vinci Code? Cause I'd say your average Joe gamer would be way more interested in a Da Vinci game based on Da Vinci Code than the one not based on it. So in that regard it's actually doing the game service.

Besides, one would think Kheops guys might've thought of that, what with making a game about Da Vinci right after the huge success of Da Vinci Code and putting his name in the title (as preposterous as it sounds, they didn't have to do that, there are games involving famous people that don't mention them in the title! look it up, it's a fact!). Hm, could it be they've done it on purpose? Naaaaah...

Yeah. I mean, isn't it a little more than a coincidence that Secrets of DaVinci came out during this whole hot trend of Dan Brown's novel and the movie?

[insane_cobra]

And when did journalists become responsible for people skimming through their articles?

[phankiejankie]

Come on guys its obvious the game by Kheops rides the Da Vinci wave. Right now my dog, my duck and my unborn child are reading The Da Vinci Code, even my long lost piggy GB Jr. raised from the grave and kindly requested to take him to see the Da Vinci movie because he thinks Amelie, sorry, Audrey Tautou is a cutie. This month alone I've heard of three new exhibitions about Da Vinci, suddenly the world realised what a genius Da Vinci was. Hypocrisious maximous!!

Anyway, in a more serious note, using a trend to your benefit isn't something bad as long as the game isn't a rip-off and since I haven't played it yet, I assume it is not. The "official" game on the contrary isn't bad but it’s not a masterpiece either. Lets hope the impostor does better

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

So are you saying a lot of people might just ignore the game because they'll think it's based on Da Vinci Code?

No, he is saying that a lot of people may, for example, fail to realise it's a separate game. Joe Average starts reading the review, sees "Dan Brown. Love him or hate him, blah blah blah" and realises he had already played the Da Vinci Code game, so he moves on.

Besides, one would think Kheops guys might've thought of that, what with making a game about Da Vinci right after the huge success of Da Vinci Code

I repeat my question: how long should have they waited to not make it "right after"? The book was published in 2003, for chrissake.

and putting his name in the title (as preposterous as it sounds, they didn't have to do that, there are games involving famous people that don't mention them in the title! look it up, it's a fact!). Hm, could it be they've done it on purpose? Naaaaah...

Certainly, they didn't have to put him in the title. But why shouldn't they? Because someone wrote a popular novel? No matter that, as far as the content is concerned, their game is about ten times more about Leonardo da Vinci than the Code franchise? What about those almost extinct kind of people like Panthera and me who are actually interested in Master Leonardo himself? Should Kheops/Nobilis have neglected game's most attractive feature to this audience? I would have called it a bad marketing.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

And when did journalists become responsible for people skimming through their articles?

The same moment when the marketing became responsible for people culturally illiterate enough to think mainly of Brown's novel upon hearing "Da Vinci".

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

Anyway, in a more serious note, using a trend to your benefit isn't something bad as long as the game isn't a rip-off

Of course. Using terms like "misleading" implies there are some malevolent, or at least cheap, marketing practices at play, though, and that suggestion I have a gripe with.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Joe Average starts reading the review, sees "Dan Brown. Love him or hate him, blah blah blah" and realises he had already played the Da Vinci Code game, so he moves on.

Joe Average doesn't even click on a review of Da Vinci game, cause he thinks he's already played it. If he does, it's because he realizes it's a different game.

I repeat my question: how long should have they waited to not make it "right after"? The book was published in 2003, for chrissake.

It's not the question of making or not making the game, it's the question of being aware the game would be confused with Da Vinci code if entitled similarly. Only someone living under a rock for the past three years wouldn't have seen it coming. Therefore, it was deliberate.

Certainly, they didn't have to put him in the title. But why shouldn't they?...

Again, I'm not arguing against the name, I'm arguing against blaming Eurogamer for drawing the obvious parallels.

The same moment when the marketing became responsible for people culturally illiterate enough to think mainly of Brown's novel upon hearing "Da Vinci".

Which Kheops gladly took advantage of.

(Btw, you're pulling the wrong conclusion. Marketing isn't responsible for that, cultural illiteracy is. Marketing is just taking advantage of it, as proven with this example. And serious journalism has nothing to do with any of those things.)

Of course. Using terms like "misleading" implies there are some malevolent, or at least cheap, marketing practices at play, though, and that suggestion I have a gripe with.

Malevolent, no. Cheap, definitely. In fact, it's more than cheap, it's a perfect example of free publicity.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

It's not the question of making or not making the game, it's the question of being aware the game would be confused with Da Vinci code if entitled similarly. Only someone living under a rock for the past three years wouldn't have seen it coming. Therefore, it was deliberate.

That they were aware of a possible confusion, doesn't mean that it was deliberate (ie. that they wanted the confusion to happen). And before you ask: no, I don't know why they wouldn't have picked a different name if that had been the case. (But it could be a publisher's "proposition", as Emily said. For instance.)

Again, I'm not arguing against the name, I'm arguing against blaming Eurogamer for drawing the obvious parallels.

Firstly, note that I haven't blamed Eurogamer reviewer for anything throughout this discussion. The opening paragraph didn't bother me - but I am arguing for the sake of arguing see why it bothers others. Secondly, it was not a parallel. He voiced his opinion on Dan Brown, only to acknowledge that the game has nothing to do with him. The only time he gets back to the Da Vinci Code is in the (funny) last sentence.

(Btw, you're pulling the wrong conclusion. Marketing isn't responsible for that, cultural illiteracy is. Marketing is just taking advantage of it, as proven with this example. And serious journalism has nothing to do with any of those things.)

Yeah, I was being kinda sarcastic. I meant that marketing has no responsibility for that, just as you implied that journalists hold no resposibility for people skimming their articles.

Malevolent, no. Cheap, definitely. In fact, it's more than cheap, it's a perfect example of free publicity.

You know that's not what I meant by "cheap". Anyway, nobody is denying that they got a bit of free publicity that way, but I don't agree with the popular view that each publicity is good. I'm partial to the opinion that the whole confusion may have negative impact on Kheops' game sales. But I hope I'm wrong.

[phankiejankie]

I believe this debate concludes to the following question. Would Kheops have developed a Da Vinci based game if Dan Brown's book wasn't such a hit?

Personally I think no.

[fov]

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

Personally I think no.

Why not? They made a game about cave paintings even though there wasn't a famous book about cave paintings.

This is hardly the first historically-based game that Kheops, Mzone, and Totem studios (the three developers behind Secrets of Da Vinci) have made.

[RLacey]

I'd be happy to answer probably not to the question "Would Kheops (et al) have developed a Da Vinci based game at this moment in time if Dan Brown's book wasn't such a hit?", mind you. It's not a comment on the game at all, but the timing of this all seems a little too convenient, and it's my - completely uneducated - guess that this particular title was developed at this particular time to take advantage of the book and film situation. Whether that's a bad thing is a completely different question, of course.

[wilco]

So... The game? How is it?

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

So are you saying a lot of people might just ignore the game because they'll think it's based on Da Vinci Code? Cause I'd say your average Joe gamer would be way more interested in a Da Vinci game based on Da Vinci Code than the one not based on it. So in that regard it's actually doing the game service.

AFGNCAAP answered this, but I'll add to it. No, not "based on". Is the same game. You may think that sounds like a stretch. But I've already seen the confusion in numerous people, including those who have actually BOUGHT DVC by mistake. Hell, Just Adventure's product page for Secrets of Da Vinci gives game info for Da Vinci Code. (If they've fixed it, it's extremely recent.) So yes, the publishers risk having people confuse the two. And if people think there's only one Da Vinci game out there, which actual name do you think they'll remember when they're standing in a game store or browsing online? Probably the one they're hearing day in and day out.

For those who think they're simply related, it could work the way you say. Or it could still work against them. Not everyone can afford both, so if you've got a choice of the original source or what you believe to be a knock-off inspired by it, I'm pretty sure I'd go for the former. Anyway, that's all guesswork.

Hm, could it be they've done it on purpose? Naaaaah...

You're talking about marketing now. I already agreed that the game's marketing IS clearly trying to tie into the DVC popularity.

And when did journalists become responsible for people skimming through their articles?

You're kidding, right? Any decent journalist should know all about getting their message across in the most effective manner possible, and that means taking reader tendencies into consideration. Anyway, speaking of needless protectionism, if you like the opening, great. But it wouldn't have survived a single writing course I've ever taken.

Again, I'm not arguing against the name, I'm arguing against blaming Eurogamer for drawing the obvious parallels.

Is there actually anyone in this thread who has blamed Eurogamer for drawing parallels? Anyone at all? The only criticism is that they spent the entire first paragraph doing so, which is lousy journalistic writing no matter how you slice it. That would have been a small and already-forgotten criticism if you didn't keep defending it against phantom attacks. All this other "does it do the game good or not" has nothing to do with the quality of EG's opening.

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

Would Kheops have developed a Da Vinci based game if Dan Brown's book wasn't such a hit?

I don't think that is the question actually. Because yes, I think they would have made a Da Vinci game without Brown's book. But I also believe that it was Brown's book that influenced the decision to make one. Just not in the cynical, "let's hurry up and throw together a Da Vinci game so we can ride Brown's coattails" kind of way.

Bear in mind that it's not actually Brown's BOOK that's causing all this current hype. It's the movie (and to a lesser extent, the game). So the real question is whether its development was planned to coincide with the movie. It's the timing of that that makes it seem like a cash-in. And that I don't know. How long has the movie's release date been known? And how long has the game been in development (including pre-production). Answers to those would be more telling.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by wilco

So... The game? How is it?

What? You want to talk about the actual GAME? That's no fun. But anyway, here's our preview.

[SirDave]

The whole issue over the naming of this game points to a dilemma the developers must have faced: Either use Da Vinci in the title and perhaps get a bump-up in sales because of it while getting accused of some of the things mentioned above or don't use 'Da Vinci' and possibly lose some sales while not appearing to 'sell out'.

Tough question- given the fact that it's in the interest of an adventure game publisher to squeeze out every possible sale.

I don't have an answer, but I do have an alternative title that might have been used:

Mona Lisa's Smile

(Yes, I know there's a movie by that name.)