And the Broken Sword reviews begin...
 

PCZone have got a review of The Angel of Death in their latest issue (my subscription copy arrived this morning). It gets 78%, which sounds a bit disappointing until you realise that that's a higher score than they gave The Sleeping Dragon, and the highest score that they've given to an adventure game (besides Fahrenheit) for yonks.

Apparently it's a much harder game than its predecessor, and is much more styled towards being a classic adventure than many recent games. The crate puzzles and sneaking are there (albeit in trimmed down form), and the game some (hard) bits of code cracking and hacking.

All of which makes me coloured "quite pleased".

Sounds great :)

I can't wait to play it.

When does this game come out?

15th September. At least in the UK.

sounds meh. Was that in the UK PC magazine?

Yes. Aside from a Benelux version, PCZone is - to my knowledge - only published in the UK.

Actually that's a lot higher than I was expecting (based on whats been shown of the game so far). 78% for an adventure game in PCZone is actually a pretty good rating. After hearing that I'm actually sort of interested in the game for the first time.

The Benelux version was stopped Oct. 2005. What score did they gave The Sleeping Dragon? I'm hoping i can get it somewhere in the Netherlands. They must sell it somewhere.

Can we expect a demo soon perhaps?

78% is a good score. I might get this game. :)

It is indeed a pretty good score for an adventure game. And they are still putting the finishing touches on the game.

I'll definitely get it, that's for sure.

Ditto. Still not enough to get me interested, though, but we'll see.

Why do adventure games score so low?

If they say its hard that means its just right for us. ;)

Because most of them don't deserve the high scores.

Because scores are based not only on how much fun you have if you happen to like (or love) the genre, but also things like graphics, audio, control, and "immersion". Areas where adventure games have been quite stuck in the past for a long time. A game like Myst for example was on the forefront of interactive entertainment in all areas back in the day, but the franchise hasn't evolved much since.

True to an extent, but I can't help feel that if you put out a sloppy-ass unoriginal FPS like... say FarCry or Sin or Fear or something, you still get better reviews than an absolutely mint adventrure game, probably because there is more instant gratification on offer.

BTW, I'm not slagging those games, I enjoyed them. But FarCry was basically a tech demo and Sin Episodes a knock off Half-Life 2.

I was under the impression that Sin Episodes hadn't done spectacularly well at review...

Either way, I agree with your point in general, though I also agree with the suggestion that not many adventure games nowadays deserve amazingly high scores. I'd be surprised if PC Gamer UK, doesn't give The Angel of Death a better score, mind you, because they, unlike PC Zone, are openly fans of the series.

I remember a small review in either PC gamer or Zone with Myst: Revelations in which it started "The revelation is, we actually like Myst!"... and then gave the game 51%.

I think it's pretty much the interactive and puzzle elements. years before, the PC was awash with games in all genres that had you thinking more logically and relaxed. Nowadays, with FPS and RTS games it's 'every second of thought and movement counts!' to such an extent that most people are too on the edge of their seats half the time to get on with a relaxed, quiet game.

Anyway, with Angel of Death, the game looks like it was made 4 years ago, has the character issues debated in a another thread of mine at the moment, doesn't seem to have a plot that so much as scratches the original's, and none of the atmosphere.

I think I'll get Fable instead >.>

FarCry wasn't unoriginal and it wasn't just a tech demo. Its setting and level organization were very unique at the time, enemy AI highly advanced and it's probably the first FPS allowing for such freedom of choice and open-ended gameplay (Deus Ex is not really an FPS, it's more of an RPG with shooter elements).

F.E.A.R. is maybe a bit overrated, but it introduced some new combat mechanics, pushed AI and physics a bit further and blended action and horror in a rather novel way.

Both those games visibly advanced the FPS genre, not only on technological level, but also by expanding its gameplay potential. They don't play the same as games from 10 years ago, only with shinier graphics and streamlined (or dumbed down, depends on your point of view) interfaces.