Broken Swords - Original or DC?
 

So, after having just finished Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars (Director's Cut - man, these titles can be long), I realized that in fact the DC version varies more than just with new graphics and a bit more in the beginning (haven't played the original). Now, many people, I noticed, are saying that the original was in fact better with more hotspots and unedited puzzles and death scenes and stuff.

Now, first of all, I'm just wondering what the general opinion on this is - do most people really think that as a whole the DC actually takes away from the experience?

What about the DC version of the Smoking Mirror? I didn't really find any talk about that. Was it redone in a similar vein, or is it closer to the original experience now (or more generally accepted as "better")?

Many said that they suggest playing BS1 so that you first play the original and only then the DC. Well, I played the DC, do you think there's something in it for me to play the original version now? Personally, I'm quite happy there's not much of a chance for death scenes, but I guess if the story is different somehow (notably), I'd be interested in finding out...

Also, now that I'm moving on to #2, do people still find that the original is worth playing first, and only then the new version to see what's different, or is the DC at least on par?

I'm one of those people who thinks the originals are far superior to the DCs. But if people grew up and played the originals first, then that's to be expected I guess. Here's my mini review in the 'Last Finished Game' thread:

Clicky

The second DC wasn't too bad in comparison, but there was still the occasional missing dialogue and tweaks that I wasn't keen on.

Again - clicky

The death scenes don't add anything or make the story different, they just add a layer of suspense and urgency; it helps the games become a bit more exciting in my opinion. They (Revolution) only removed them because they were trying to appeal to the casual market.

If you do decide to get the originals to see for yourself, then at least you won't be breaking your account - they're a pittance to get now.

It's a pity you didn't buy them from GOG recently as they have both the DCs bundled with the originals for free!

Well, actually I did :) I got the first for free and then 2 and 3 in a sale. That's why I'm asking, I'm wondering whether to first play the original BS2 or continue with the remake (or maybe first replay the original version of the first - though I just finished the DC yesterday. And also I'm just generally interested as this is a bit of a strange turn of events - I expected this to be just a graphical update with only added content (so that the only thing one might complain about had been that the graphics don't fit with the original idea etc. which would've been fine by me)). You know, if it really is, as many said, an inferior experience (in total) to the original game.

Then, like you said, whether it really is a matter of if you played it "back in the day" vs. it being a new experience. I suppose it isn't so bad if this is one's first playthrough?

Overall I liked the DC better. I thought the scenes where you play as Nico were actually pretty cool, so that added a lot of new content to the first game. The only thing I didn't really like are those faces they put in for the conversations now... I think a lot of em look pretty dumb lol.

But if you played the DC first I don't think there's really any reason to go back and play the original. The only difference you'll notice is some missing content.

The second BS (the 2011 one) it's not a DC it's just remastered, so it's the same as the '97 one: same lines, scenes, nothing added (except for character portraits and graphics update)

I've played the first DC and the second remastered versions, I liked the Nico part from the beginning of the DC and I eventually got used to the character portraits, witch I didn't liked at first (I thought George looked to much like an obedient kid...:P) and I didn't like the missing mouth movements when character talk (not on the portraits, but on the character itself, because I'm too used to that, I guess..:crazy:.)

In the DC you have the scenes with Nico, and maybe some close-ups of 2 or 3 items as I recall, a few new puzzles (like the stained glass one) ,and a very few other thing like....I dunno if I recall this right but U can give Nico the toilet chain from Syria as a necklace to Nico ? If I were Nico, I would've use the frying pan from BS3 (U know, the one that Nico used on Petra...) to :pan: George! :D

Anyways, if I'm going to replay BS again (hmmm...if I'm going to....that's not right! I AM GOING TO! that's better! :crazy:) , I'll go with the '96 and '97 release, not with the DC or the remastered, because I already have very fond memories of it as it is...

I think that you get very attached to the old games you liked playing in the past, but since you already played the first DC first and brought the second remastered and if U like the character portraits and the graphics...then you can play the remastered too...

Oh. Well, in that case, if you have the originals too (and if they were free then even better!), then I say PLAY 'EM!! :D If you'd have just bought the DC/Remastered, without any prior knowledge/experience of the originals, and you had no incentive to get the originals, then yes, I'd say the DC/Remastered would be just fine. The DC/Remastered would probably appeal to newcomers anyway thanks to the slightly cleaner graphics/artwork, the hint system, and the easier gameplay - no deaths, hardly any red herrings etc.

But if you, as you say, got the originals for free, then what have you got to lose? You might as well see where it all began and 'spot the differences'. However, if you merely liked/enjoyed the game(s), it might be best to just wait until you decide to give the game(s) another playthrough in the future. If you loved them: dive straight back in as soon as possible! :P

As for BS2: it doesn't matter which version you play first. As kateme correctly pointed out - it's a Remaster not a Director's Cut. There isn't much change to be honest.

I've played the DC version and I liked the Nico part in the beginning quite a bit. It added allot to the game to me. The rest of the game was quite similar to the original - and I was OK with that.

I say play the DC version - to me its a better game. You can always play the original afterwards and compare the 2. I've played the original and much prefer the DC version.

I agree with you, Mikekelly. They tightened up the game, IMO, removing some dialogue with NPCs that wasn't that great anyway (though I did miss one comment by the receptionist in the clinic about Nurse Grendal) and made it unnecessary to trudge up and down those steps to the Club Alamut. I'll admit the goat and chess puzzles were a snap in the DC but I hated them anyway so I'm not complaining. :P And I really liked the new part focusing on Nico.

I'm not sure what Gazzoid means about death scenes being cut. They cleaned them up a little,

Spoiler:

Marquet wasn't in so many pieces,

for instance, but honestly the graphics in the original didn't leave me gasping at how horrible that was and everyone who was supposed to die died. So...?

My only gripe about the DC is the ending. Three different graphic styles? Nah.

Oh, shoot, you're talking about George, Gazzoid! Sorry about that. Those scenes were amusing but I don't really think making it impossible for him/you to die made much of a difference to enjoyment of the game.

If you've played the DC version, then storywise and puzzlewise you won't find anything more in the original. The DC of "The Smoking Mirror" is virtually untouched; the gameplay is identical to the original version with only cosmetic novelties added: scenery-obstructing mini-portraits during conversations and horrible drag-and-drop menu.

Personally, I would recommend the people who never played "Broken Sword" games to go for the original versions as the DC ones doesn't bring anything more and better.