[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Use crowbar on crates. Use crowbar on him.

I can't do that. It only works in Half Life.

Yeah, the logical answer didnt work in BS3, its not gonna work now so you better push and pull those crates like a real man.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

eBroken Sword 3 is the worst of the series for me. It was a good game but it just did not have the charm that the earlier games had. Playing the two BS games felt like being able to walk thought a animated film. I loved that feeling.

It is arguably the worst in the series, but still a really good game. See, that's the problem with established styles and established series. Maybe they should've switched to 3D/direct controls/whatever with a completely new game? At first, I was disappointed by Day Of The Tentacle, because it was nothing like its predecessor. Lots of people complained about the look and feel of Zelda-Windwaker, even though it's an amazing game. So, BS3 is different from the first two games, because it is a (slightly) different game! But at least it can stand on its own feet, err... don't know what more to say.

[fov]

You guys are not going to be satisfied with my answer... but I just thought BS1 was kind of dumb.

I was led to believe that the game would be comparable to a Gabriel Knight game, and for me, it wasn't. The story didn't feel as detailed and I didn't care about the characters as much. And I'm sick of Knights Templar.

Sorry, I don't remember the game well enough to give specifics, but it just didn't feel as great to me as everyone said it was.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

It is arguably the worst in the series, but still a really good game. See, that's the problem with established styles and established series. Maybe they should've switched to 3D/direct controls/whatever with a completely new game? At first, I was disappointed by Day Of The Tentacle, because it was nothing like its predecessor. Lots of people complained about the look and feel of Zelda-Windwaker, even though it's an amazing game. So, BS3 is different from the first two games, because it is a (slightly) different game! But at least it can stand on its own feet, err... don't know what more to say.

The thing is this did not happen with me on the Gk series. In the GK series, we get three very distinctively different style of games. I loved them all. I don't think it's just a matter of BS3 being different from BS1 and BS 2 that bothered me. In the end, it just wasn't as good as the other two. I do not give games credit for trying to be different. A game does not get a leg up from me for just trying to be different and provide a new gaming experience. It it works and the game is good then it is good. If it fails and the game is bad then the game is bad. I would not enjoy the game more just because it was trying to be different.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by fov

Sorry, I don't remember the game well enough to give specifics, but it just didn't feel as great to me as everyone said it was.

Ditto. But then again, it is beautiful, has nice puzzles, plenty of hotspots, a midly entertaining story, etc... In other words, it's a good game.
Whereas BS3 leave a huge lot to be desired (length, puzzles, controls, you name it). It's not that it's bad, rather that it's mediocre.

[Pappapisshu]

Broken Sword is obviously the best adventure game ever created.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Ditto. But then again, it is beautiful, has nice puzzles, plenty of hotspots, a midly entertaining story, etc... In other words, it's a good game.
Whereas BS3 leave a huge lot to be desired (length, puzzles, controls, you name it). It's not that it's bad, rather that it's mediocre.

... in your opinion. I thought it had a lot going for it... worth the asking price for Glastonbury alone!

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

A game does not get a leg up from me for just trying to be different and provide a new gaming experience. It it works and the game is good then it is good.

Period. (We're not that different from each other, are we?)

[squarejawhero]

One thing that I've noticed, and I'm not pointing any fingers specifically here, is that a lot of people are quite ready to pick on BS3 for technical faults... but talk about technical faults on certain other titles and they're willing to put up with them. I'm talking BIG faults. For all the poor camerawork/control interface issues and crate pushing, BS3's puzzles made sense, my ex never had to use a walkthrough to finish it, the voiceovers and acting were very well done, the textures were all hand painted and even the action sequences were easy. It beggars belief that people had problems with the stealth section in this game but can turn around and talk about Sherlock's dog (even if that was a coding issue) and bypass that! The stealth sequence was INCREDIBLY easy... a puzzle in itself more than actual stealth, and incredibly obvious to boot. Not only that, the film sequences solved themselves if you had trouble the first time, and got easier - restarting the sequence from the beginning straight off if you had problems.

Sure, I had problems with the end, but so many games have that same issue. But the journey was quality, and that's what counts.

[Bruno_Malta]

I don´t actually agree that BS 1 is one of the best adventures ever made. Sure it is fun but there are a lot of better ones, GK 1 just to name one.
BS 3 is fun, altought it surely is the weakest in the series. Those crates puzzles are crap indeed.

[RumRogerz]

I thought bs3 was really short

[Vel]

In my opinion, BS3 was very overrated. The puzzles were boring, and annoying at times(sokoban, anyone?). The graphics were great, the sound was ok, but the plot was nowhere near the first two ones. Moreover, I fiished it in 7 hours.
At the end of the day, I think that BS3 is nothing more than an average adventure game.

[Dwyloc]

Originally Posted by t_manelius

The story, the characters, almost everything is good about bs3, except the gameplay..The camera can drive you crazy sometimes, and those crate puzzles aren´t to nice..

I really liked the crate puzzles, but I found the action sequences frustrating and they just felt like padding to make the game play longer to me.

As for the length of the game I feel that it would have been just fine without the action sequences.

On more than one occasion I had to resort to looking at a walkthrough just to confirm that I was trying to do the right thing after attempting the same action sequences for the tenth time.

Even with that small flaw BS3 is one of my favourite adventure games and I hope we will seem more like it in the future.

But I agree about the camera angels (but only on the action sequences) they were one of the main problems with the and in more that one occasions resulted in me dieing repeatedly as I kemp running in to walls.

[Dwyloc]

Originally Posted by Bruno_Malta

I don´t actually agree that BS 1 is one of the best adventures ever made. Sure it is fun but there are a lot of better ones, GK 1 just to name one.
BS 3 is fun, altought it surely is the weakest in the series. Those crates puzzles are crap indeed.

I guess on this one we will have to disagree I really enjoyed all the broken sword games and for me Broken Sword one was a much better game than GK1.

GK1 had far too many parts that were only possible through trial and error and I still don’t know how you were supposed to know what message to send.

Were as all the puzzles in the broken sword games were logical and the only time I needed a walkthrough was to confirm that I was trying to do the right thing in the action sequences.

As for game length it took me about 3 weekends to complete broken sword 3 which is about average of course I did speak to everyone and listen to the entire dialog, I guess if you don’t care about the story and skipped most the dialog you could complete it much quicker.

I just don’t get why people are so keen on GK1 at least I did not think it was that great and much prefer the second one.

[Lucien21]

I really enjoyed it.

I played it on the Xbox where the control system was perfect-ish.

The loading times were a bit shocking though.

I am going through a retro gaming phase at the moment since I set up my old PC with WIN 98SE I have been replaying BS1 and it's still a classic.


Tried to play BS3 on XP the other day but it doesn't work on SP2 computers

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

... in your opinion. I thought it had a lot going for it... worth the asking price for Glastonbury alone!

I don't think it's only my opinion to say that BS3 had heavy flaws when BS1 had none. Of course, I'm leaving the "fun" factor out of this equation, because it's highly subjective.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

One thing that I've noticed, and I'm not pointing any fingers specifically here, is that a lot of people are quite ready to pick on BS3 for technical faults... but talk about technical faults on certain other titles and they're willing to put up with them. I'm talking BIG faults. For all the poor camerawork/control interface issues and crate pushing, BS3's puzzles made sense, my ex never had to use a walkthrough to finish it, the voiceovers and acting were very well done, the textures were all hand painted and even the action sequences were easy. It beggars belief that people had problems with the stealth section in this game but can turn around and talk about Sherlock's dog (even if that was a coding issue) and bypass that! The stealth sequence was INCREDIBLY easy... a puzzle in itself more than actual stealth, and incredibly obvious to boot. Not only that, the film sequences solved themselves if you had trouble the first time, and got easier - restarting the sequence from the beginning straight off if you had problems.

Sure, I had problems with the end, but so many games have that same issue. But the journey was quality, and that's what counts.

I haven't played Sherlock, but BS3 is the most technically flawed of all the recent games I've played.
The puzzles were either damn easy or perplexing because you didn't know what to do (ie:stealth sequence), it was over in 11 hours, counting the endless repetition of unskippable cut-scenes which took almost half of the gaming time, the crate puzzle were completely uninteresting after a while, the stealth part were nothing unforgettable, the climbing parts were dumb (I've tried to get some people to play it, but after seeing the rock climbing at the beginning, they all laughed it off), and the controls were hazardous, even if they were tolerable. I could go on for a while.
So even if the game did have some positive aspects (relative freedom at some points, nice acting as you said, a punchy story), I don't understand how they could possibly overweight the flaws.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I haven't played Sherlock, but BS3 is the most technically flawed of all the recent games I've played.
The puzzles were either damn easy or perplexing because you didn't know what to do (ie:stealth sequence), it was over in 11 hours, counting the endless repetition of unskippable cut-scenes which took almost half of the gaming time, the crate puzzle were completely uninteresting after a while, the stealth part were nothing unforgettable, the climbing parts were dumb (I've tried to get some people to play it, but after seeing the rock climbing at the beginning, they all laughed it off), and the controls were hazardous, even if they were tolerable. I could go on for a while.
So even if the game did have some positive aspects (relative freedom at some points, nice acting as you said, a punchy story), I don't understand how they could possibly overweight the flaws.

Some of the problems you faced in BS3 are tripled in a good few recent modern adventures (length is an entirely moot point in gaming, I'm afraid). As for your BS1 comments, as you can see, some people disagree with you, and as you can tell from my stealth comment if someone who doesn't play games figures it out as soon as they arrive at it, then it's not really the puzzle that's at fault. As for "hazardous controls"? I mean, they weren't configured well at all in relation to the camera but they were at least responsive. There was never any real point where "hazard" comes into it either.

I can't understand how some people can sit there and defend undeniably flawed adventure games but turn their gaze to BS3, and all of a sudden it's the bottom line as if the flaws are impassable in their magnitude.

If we're talking BS1, it was great for its time. It's got faults of its own too... except I don't want to go there. It's been a long time since playing it, it is undeniably a classic (looking generally, not at personal views) but it's unwise to say it's perfect. I don't want to voice my own particular problem with it, as I'd feel it's unfair.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Some of the problems you faced in BS3 are tripled in a good few recent modern adventures (length is an entirely moot point in gaming, I'm afraid).

What are you talking about, specifically, apart from the length?

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

As for your BS1 comments, as you can see, some people disagree with you, (...) If we're talking BS1, it was great for its time. It's got faults of its own too... except I don't want to go there. It's been a long time since playing it, it is undeniably a classic (looking generally, not at personal views) but it's unwise to say it's perfect. I don't want to voice my own particular problem with it, as I'd feel it's unfair.

Perhaps I need to repeat myself... I didn't like Broken Sword 1. But I still think that it's a good game, at least techically.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

and as you can tell from my stealth comment if someone who doesn't play games figures it out as soon as they arrive at it, then it's not really the puzzle that's at fault.

I think it is. I had no problem with the stealth itself, I just spend some time figuring out where I needed to go.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

As for "hazardous controls"? I mean, they weren't configured well at all in relation to the camera but they were at least responsive. There was never any real point where "hazard" comes into it either.

Look, I'm not english, so more often thn not I pick the first word I can find, without thinking too much about precision. So no, they're not hasardous, they're unpractical.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I can't understand how some people can sit there and defend undeniably flawed adventure games but turn their gaze to BS3, and all of a sudden it's the bottom line as if the flaws are impassable in their magnitude.

I can't think of a recent commercial game I've played that has a many techincal flaws as BS3. It's mostly because it tried to innovate, but the flaws are here nevertheless.
Again, what specific game are you talking about?

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Ninth

What are you talking about, specifically, apart from the length?

Aside from length? Control over avatars. Sherlock and Tmos had equal issues due to bugs (running into scenery) and lack of control due to the way the mouse system works (unresponsive, not always clear where an avatar will run when clicking on certain parts of the screen). Presentation (audio, visual), lack of interaction... basically, tons of things. I'd write a list, but don't pretend you don't understand.

Perhaps I need to repeat myself... I didn't like Broken Sword 1. But I still think that it's a good game, at least techically.

I refrain from comment, as it'd be unfair on its achievement.

I think it is. I had no problem with the stealth itself, I just spend some time figuring out where I needed to go.

Which is the puzzle? Is that the only problem? The route is quite clearly delineated by darkness, the guards and ability.

Look, I'm not english, so more often thn not I pick the first word I can find, without thinking too much about precision. So no, they're not hasardous, they're unpractical.

I agree, and I understand your problem. But I'm going to take it as read first time anyway, because I AM English and yours is actually very good. Sorry for the misunderstanding... and yes, the controls are impractical, but not to the extent that it causes unwarranted deaths.

I can't think of a recent commercial game I've played that has a many techincal flaws as BS3. It's mostly because it tried to innovate, but the flaws are here nevertheless.
Again, what specific game are you talking about?

I can think of thousands of commercial games with technical issues. Even good ones. I can't understand why people can triumph Black Mirror, Sherlock, TMOS and that horrid Russian game Midnight Nowhere over it. They're a wide spectrum of AG's, but none of them were polished nor perfect. BS3 was consistent, and as much as I enjoyed Sherlock and Tmos in particular, they had far worse presentation with comparable and far more major problems - but not necessarily through their own fault. Another 3D adventure released about the same time was Wanted, which had technical issues which meant people couldn't even PLAY it.

My problem with people kvetching on BS3 is that often, compared with some of the stuff the people who dislike it comment on and enthuse about, it feels like mountains out of molehills. Hope you understand.