[insane_cobra]

I never thought of Broken Sword games as anything that special. I mean, they're pretty good, but it's all been done before and in a better way (I'm talking about the first two games here as I'm yet to play the last one). I often hear how the first game is the best in the series, but I don't think Broken Sword 2 is much worse. Actually, it would probably be my favorite were it not for two things.

The first is that puzzle on the film set in the jungle. It's one of the worst puzzles I ever encountered.

Spoiler:

I kept throwing those buns into the bush, but never did it twice in a row as NOTHING suggested I should. I did throw more of them in, but it appears I always did something else in between throws so I just kept getting the same response over and over again. That got me stuck for a LONG time and I eventually had to take a peek at the walkthrough. You can imagine my fury when I read the solution.

The other one is the bug in the location at the base of the pyramid that kept me from finishing the game. Once I finally succumbed to reading the walkthrough, I realised I've done everything I was supposed to, but in a different order. It resulted in Nico

Spoiler:

refusing to take the torch.

Apart from that, it was fun. Now for the third one... You know, I should be studying, but I think I'll install it this very moment

Oh, and I love how games are becoming shorter and more condensed, I don't really have time to play something for weeks anymore. Short, but sweet (and preferably with a reasonable replayability, just in case) is how I like it.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

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.

Ah, yes, I forgot MOS, my bad. So, BS3 is the second worse recent game I've played, techincally.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

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

I'm curious...

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

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

I can't remember. I just know it felt tedious and unclear.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

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.

Well, apparently it did. I know it happend to me a few times anyway, but the worst was the acutal "moving around" business in some parts (like in the templar's place).

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

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.

Damn, you got me, Wanted was quite bad too.
Also, I haven't played Sherlock or Midnight Nowhere.
But The Black Mirror, Ni-Bi-Ru, Syberia 2, Myst 4, and Still Life, which are n my opinion the most worthy games of the past two years, are all much better techincally speaking than BS3 (albeit less ambitious).
The reason why I pick on BS3 rather than on Mystery of the Mummy of Jack the Ripper is that it was supposed to be a high class game.

[Dwyloc]

Originally Posted by Ninth

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?

That technical flaws exactly?

The control is no worse than Grim Fandango or any of the other 3D adventures I have played.

The story and dialog is what the Broken Sword games are all about and BS3 has a good story like the first two games.

The graphics are good and I really liked the transition to 3D in this case.

As for game length many of the original graphics adventures such as loom and full throttle are shorter.

And unlike a number of other games I can think of it works fine with WinXP SP2 and did not crash once while I was playing it.

[squarejawhero]

Damn, you got me, Wanted was quite bad too.
Also, I haven't played Sherlock or Midnight Nowhere.
But The Black Mirror, Ni-Bi-Ru, Syberia 2, Myst 4, and Still Life, which are n my opinion the most worthy games of the past two years, are all much better techincally speaking than BS3 (albeit less ambitious).
The reason why I pick on BS3 rather than on Mystery of the Mummy of Jack the Ripper is that it was supposed to be a high class game.

See, this is what I can't understand. ALL games should have a level of quality, if they don't - what is the developer trying to achieve? They just want to "make games"? Are they not interested in making money? Why is the level of quality so low in MOTM and JTR, and who allowed it?

As for technical terms, I'd agree on Myst IV being on the same level as it took FMV to a whole new degree. It was still limited by its medium, but technically very clever, despite its inconsistencies in its effects, compression issues and faulted level of resolution.

The other games don't even near the technical requirements needed to pull off a game like BS3. If you're going to argue on a design front, that's more to do with taste. Black Mirror had tragic voiceovers and script and a very basic, if refined, level of graphical prowess. Still Life's ending doesn't exist and has drawn as many complaints for certain aspects as BS3, despite being a technically less impressive game. Syberia 2 is not even on the same level, from what I've read... even hardcore Syberia-ites were depressed by it. Ni-ni-ru I've no idea, but again - it's old tech.

Please, Ninth, I can understand you have trouble with English, but back up your arguments. I can understand through personal taste you have issues but there's no arguing that BS3 is one of the best adventures, on a technical level, of the past few years.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

See, this is what I can't understand. ALL games should have a level of quality, if they don't - what is the developer trying to achieve? They just want to "make games"? Are they not interested in making money? Why is the level of quality so low in MOTM and JTR, and who allowed it?

It's simple. Not every game wants to compete with the AAA (or just A in case of adventures ) titles. Some developers are inexperienced and some just don't have the money to pull it off. You need to know your limitations and your target audience, that's all. There are obviously people who will buy EVERY adventure that gets made, so if the game costs less to produce, smaller sales figures will still be enough for making profit. Frankly, I'm surprised you of all people should ask that question.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

It's simple. Not every game wants to compete with the AAA (or just A in case of adventures ) titles. Some developers are inexperienced and some just don't have the money to pull it off. You need to know your limitations and your target audience, that's all. There are obviously people who will buy EVERY adventure that gets made, so if the game costs less to produce, smaller sales figures will still be enough for making profit. Frankly, I'm surprised you of all people should ask that question.

Budget limits how impressive the technology is, but it doesn't limit how effectively the technology is used. Even a cheap game can be well designed, and the games squarejaw mentioned singularly failed in this regard.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Budget limits how impressive the technology is, but it doesn't limit how effectively the technology is used. Even a cheap game can be well designed, and the games squarejaw mentioned singularly failed in this regard.

Wow, that really is a strong statement! Ninth and SJH have been discussing some of the most beloved of recent AGs. If all of them failed to use technology properly, then no recent AGs have. I am very well aware of dissatisfaction among some AG fans regarding the recent AGs but the depth of dissatisfaction and the disregard for them astounds me. Wow!

I of course disagree. Games like Syberia, Still Life and Black Mirror used the technology very effectively and presented a wonderful (adventure) gaming experience. That's my opinion.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

See, this is what I can't understand. ALL games should have a level of quality, if they don't - what is the developer trying to achieve? They just want to "make games"? Are they not interested in making money? Why is the level of quality so low in MOTM and JTR, and who allowed it?

That's true for many games, of all genres. It's sad, but that's the way it is. Even a crappy game can make some money.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

As for technical terms, I'd agree on Myst IV being on the same level as it took FMV to a whole new degree. It was still limited by its medium, but technically very clever, despite its inconsistencies in its effects, compression issues and faulted level of resolution.

The other games don't even near the technical requirements needed to pull off a game like BS3. If you're going to argue on a design front, that's more to do with taste. Black Mirror had tragic voiceovers and script and a very basic, if refined, level of graphical prowess. Still Life's ending doesn't exist and has drawn as many complaints for certain aspects as BS3, despite being a technically less impressive game. Syberia 2 is not even on the same level, from what I've read... even hardcore Syberia-ites were depressed by it. Ni-ni-ru I've no idea, but again - it's old tech.

I'm talking about technical aspect, and I don't see how Still Life's ending of Syberia 2's story have to do with that.
All these games are perfect in regard to what they're trying to achieve (techically). As you said, for example, Black Mirror has refined, if basic, graphics. You can say that they're not as ambitious as BS3, or that they're technically outdated, but flawed? I don't include voice-overs in this because I didn't play them in the same language as you did, and all the games I cited had good french voice-overs.

My point is : BS3 is flawed. I could have been more, it was supposed to be more, but in the end it's highly annoying to play (I cited many examples : controls, puzzles, unskippable cut-scenes), just because of its technical defects, which cannot be said for most of the other games.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Please, Ninth, I can understand you have trouble with English, but back up your arguments. I can understand through personal taste you have issues but there's no arguing that BS3 is one of the best adventures, on a technical level, of the past few years.

Please. This "you're not backing up your arguments" argument isn't getting us or anyone anywhere. I could answer the exact same things to you, and then we'll go round in circles trying to see who's the best arguer (which would be you... one more reason why I' don't care for this) instead of trying to really discuss the game.
As for there being no arguing that BS3 is one of the best recent adventures (and unless by "one of the" you mean "one of the ten 10"), see above. Or in other words : The bigger (more ambitious) they are, the harder they fall (the more disappointing they are).

[samIamsad]

Unfortunately, Black Mirror suffered from moronic backtracking and try-to-read-the-designers-mind-puzzl.....challenges. In other words: Very, very mediocre game design. The backdrops were pretty nice, the character animation.. well.. not that good for a narrative driven game Then again, Darwinia is said to be an impressive low-budget game. I'm an idealistic person (sort of ), so I think that's what indie or low budget products (like in the music industry eg) can be about: Creativity. Unfortunately, even "cheap" games are expensive to make. Maybe that'll change in the future. More funding possibilities would help. The gaming industry needs to grow the f$%k up.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Unfortunately, Black Mirror suffered from moronic backtracking and try-to-read-the-designers-mind-puzzl.....challenges. In other words: Very, very mediocre game design. The backdrops were pretty nice, the character animation.. well.. not that good for a narrative driven game Then again, Darwinia is said to be an impressive low-budget game. I'm an idealistic person (sort of ), so I think that's what indie or low budget products (like in the music industry eg) can be about: Creativity. Unfortunately, even "cheap" games are expensive to make. Maybe that'll change in the future. More funding possibilities would help. The gaming industry needs to grow the f$%k up.

Agreed on the flaws you mentioned on the Black Mirror, sam. I don't think the extent of the flaws is as great as others like you may think, otherwise, I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much as I did. Despite its flaws, it was one of the games that I was enjoying so much that I did not want it to end. Ditto Still Life and Syberia. I never got that sense from playing BS 3. Different taste, different expectations,I guess.

Damn you, sam. Will you stop making so much sense? You are supposed to be one of my sworn enemies? How are we supposed to have a fierce debate if I start agreeing with you on certain things?

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Budget limits how impressive the technology is, but it doesn't limit how effectively the technology is used. Even a cheap game can be well designed, and the games squarejaw mentioned singularly failed in this regard.

That's something I can't press hard enough on. That's not to say these titles are without their strengths - to say they haven't would be both unprofessional and objectionable - but overall they do have issues which makes me wonder how the production process works and where things are going awry. Even, of course, in BS3. But I think it's in the main to do with a lot of issues within game development as a whole as a maturing medium.

@Gilly - I don't like using the words "beloved" as if these products are some treasure to be praised for their rarity and the bravery of the developers working within that arena. That deflates any kind of critical discussion, as does not taking a distance and admitting that there is a lot of areas, one being that of quality, of concern in the recent past concerning AG development.

There's a reason why so many of us within the community haven't been happy with a lot of these titles, which is more a question worth asking... why? Why do you feel a lot of people feel this way? Then there's the proposed question of public apathy towards the genre. Why do you think this is?

Personally speaking, I can't imagine why I'd take on a project that I cannot finish or retain a strict level of quality over. I feel that's why a lot of commercial developers are either seeking other means to create product, changing the nature of the beast or simply questioning their own viability in an increasingly competetive arena. I, as an artist, have a level I want to retain and improve on in everything I do, and if I don't succeed, I'm extremely dissappointed with myself.

Some developers strive for quality, but are at the whim of inexperience in developing visual ideas. It's worth remembering that games development is still in its infancy, which is why, for me, the sheer balls of the lack of quality permitted by some of the publishers and their haphazard approach to product management and budgeting really shocks me. Games want to be, and CAN be and have been, a competetive media - even and especially adventure games which could have a wider spread of audience if permitted.

In allowing, over the past five years, the general quality and breadth of adventures to sink so low, the genre has suffered to the extent where its not seen as viable when it so patently is. Let's not kid ourselves over the comparable nature of games - adventures are losing out in many battles, and even (shockingly) in narrative terms, to other genres.

That's why I became frustrated, until recently, by some of the output in the commercial sector. I still believe that even within the AAA titles in other areas that there's an incredible amount of apathy, for a visual medium, towards visual art and design. It's getting better, but the level of maturity, if not the level of technical expertise, is still more teenage than anything else - be it game concepts, visual concepts, visual narrative and attitudes to already respected and established mediums which rely on the same presentational values.

Unfortunately, due to the overall state of the industry and trends, adventures ended up at the bottom of the pile. Which I don't believe is fair - and I hope you understand I'm not pinpointing the developers for being at fault. There is a LOT of naivety and trumpet-blowing in the games industry which always stuns me.

Hope that clears things up.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Ninth

That's true for many games, of all genres. It's sad, but that's the way it is. Even a crappy game can make some money.

Unfortunately not the case. It has been a majority problem in adventures, and no - crap never makes enough money. Even forward-thinking developers like Detalion, who admittedly clung onto a very obscure mode of adventuring, close because other people don't like what they make. You can't make games to make money, you have to make GOOD GAMES to make money, and have the publisher backing you up. It's true of all genres, as you say.

I'm talking about technical aspect, and I don't see how Still Life's ending of Syberia 2's story have to do with that.
All these games are perfect in regard to what they're trying to achieve (techically). As you said, for example, Black Mirror has refined, if basic, graphics. You can say that they're not as ambitious as BS3, or that they're technically outdated, but flawed? I don't include voice-overs in this because I didn't play them in the same language as you did, and all the games I cited had good french voice-overs.

I'll admit BS3 didn't go far enough in its remit, but it was a stable title with very few bugs, coupled with sensible puzzles that anyone could do, great voiceovers and a witty script. I'm sorry! That's how it is. It won awards and copious critical acclaim.

The other games, in many ways, had a lot of flaws already listed in this thread. You're evidently willing to pick and choose these flaws for the sake of argument... and this is the problem I have.

My point is : BS3 is flawed. I could have been more, it was supposed to be more, but in the end it's highly annoying to play (I cited many examples : controls, puzzles, unskippable cut-scenes), just because of its technical defects, which cannot be said for most of the other games.

And how many 2D adventure games of recent years had the same problems? Controls? Impossible puzzles? Tons, even the one's you've cited as liking. My next point it...

Please. This "you're not backing up your arguments" argument isn't getting us or anyone anywhere. I could answer the exact same things to you, and then we'll go round in circles trying to see who's the best arguer (which would be you... one more reason why I' don't care for this) instead of trying to really discuss the game.
As for there being no arguing that BS3 is one of the best recent adventures (and unless by "one of the" you mean "one of the ten 10"), see above. Or in other words : The bigger (more ambitious) they are, the harder they fall (the more disappointing they are).

Fair do's. But you judge the game by the final product, and BS3 was one of the more technically ambitious titles there's been recently - and remained stable and consistent throughout despite that. If you're talking content, then by all means, criticise on a personal level. But despite not fulfilling the developers original remit to the extent promised, as a game it worked enough beyond your own criticisms to have won awards, acclaim within the industry and respect of many on this thread.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

Damn you, sam. Will you stop making so much sense. You are supposed to be one of my sworn enemies. How are we supposed to have a fierce debate if I start agreeing with you on certain things.

Give up, buddy!

Originally Posted by samIamsad

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

[Aj_]

I can understand through personal taste you have issues but there's no arguing that BS3 is one of the best adventures, on a technical level, of the past few years.

Depends, as a technical person, although I found the graphics system more advanced in some areas to other adventures, the flaws just didn't make any sense to me, having to run your desktop on 1024x780, 32bit colour, and more importantly, 60hz was bizarre. Other aspects that aren't related to graphics could be argued to be a large step backwards, the puzzle mechanics, the inventory, dialog systems all simplified for consoles. The camera system being a lot less than desired, so as the movement system, while other 3D adventures have had some problems, and most 3rd person games, there had been some games that showed how it should be done.

As for the game itself, I thought it was very similar to Broken Sword 2 as in the story was boring, there were few interesting characters, the humour wasn't as intelligent and generally it the game was on a lower level. Compared to other genres at the time the graphics weren't impressive, and I don't like shiny graphics. The puzzles were simple and were not as well integrated into the setting as BS1. George didn't seem to be the loveable quirky foreigner that his was.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by Aj_

The camera system being a lot less than desired, so as the movement system, while other 3D adventures have had some problems, and most 3rd person games, there had been some games that showed how it should be done.

I still think that GK3 probably was the best AG that features 3D graphics. The game had problems with budget overruns and delayed release and by the time it was released, graphics wise, it wasn't overwhelming but the control, the interface, and the gameplay mechanics were all top notch. I for one think that in that sense, BS3 pales in comparison to GK3. Some of the things Aj mentioned that were put in to attract console gamers actually made the gaming experience a lot worse for me. In all terms (with the exception of the graphics quality, which I frankly don't care that much about anyway), GK3 is by far the superior game.

[Orange Brat]

Budget limits how impressive the technology is,

Not really. The "off the shelf" 3D engine I use costs very little(ranges from $50 to $900 depending on the edition...it's 3D Gamestudio) and it has just about every technological feature you can find in top of the line AAA games. If it isn't there, you can add it yourself. We have one user creating a commercial DLL(for a whopping $15) that adds Doom 3 and Unreal 3 style lights/shadowmapping, normalmapping, and parallax mapping to the mix.

This engine is constructed from the same "ingredients" as its famous, 6-figure big brothers and sisters, so the only thing they really have on it is brand name recognition(Powered by Unreal 3 Engine....oooohhhhhh). Over the course of the next major update or two, the engine's built in power/feature set is going to increase dramatically, and the only reason why few "big name" houses wouldn't consider using it is because you don't get the source code. For someone like me, though that wouldn't matter one way or the other.

I suppose, in this situation, budget will become an issue if you have a team getting paid and any post-game costs like hosting and any marketing.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I still think that GK3 probably was the best AG that features 3D graphics. The game had problems with budget overruns and delayed release and by the time it was released, graphics wise, it wasn't overwhelming but the control, the interface, and the gameplay mechanics were all top notch. I for one think that in that sense, BS3 pales in comparison to GK3. Some of the things Aj mentioned that were put in to attract console gamers actually made the gaming experience a lot worse for me. In all terms (with the exception of the graphics quality, which I frankly don't care that much about anyway), GK3 is by far the superior game.

This shows how much is due to personal opinion. There are lots of people that hate the GK3 interface, and I myself will happily complain about the gameplay mechanics in the ridiculously flawed final area of the game...

Spoiler:

...particularly that stupid bit where you have to drop off a pendulum. Because THAT was fun.

Incidentally, I too would consider GK3 to have been the superior game. But maybe not for the reasons you do.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I still think that GK3 probably was the best AG that features 3D graphics. The game had problems with budget overruns and delayed release and by the time it was released, graphics wise, it wasn't overwhelming but the control, the interface, and the gameplay mechanics were all top notch. I for one think that in that sense, BS3 pales in comparison to GK3. Some of the things Aj mentioned that were put in to attract console gamers actually made the gaming experience a lot worse for me. In all terms (with the exception of the graphics quality, which I frankly don't care that much about anyway), GK3 is by far the superior game.

I couldn't disagree more. GK3 shot itself in the foot purely by having an arrogant, dislikable asshat as the main character. He went beyond being a lovable rogue to being someone I couldn't care for.

I'd agree GK3 pushed the boat out a lot more for its time, and to that extent outdoes BS3, but it's highly arguable that the interface was smooth or helpful to the gameplay and presentation.

edit - don't get me wrong, I can see what's good in GK3 too. But being sympathetic to the main man is highly desirable. Plus the whole intro was a confusing mess and let's not touch the ending.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Someone said, the many crate puzzles (err, challenges ) were there because Rev ran out of budget? That's really sad, if it's true.

I can't speak with absolute certainty, but this is almost definitely untrue. Steve Ince has publicly admitted that the idea simply worked better on paper than in practice. It really doesn't make sense, anyway. I can't imagine that the central puzzles are the places where you'd find yourself able to cut corners for budget considerations at the last minute.

As for the game itself, I agree it had plenty of weaknesses, but I enjoyed it far more than most other adventures in the past umpteen years. Its failings struck me mainly as issues of inexperience in the changes they were trying to implement. Growing pains.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by RLacey

This shows how much is due to personal opinion. There are lots of people that hate the GK3 interface, and I myself will happily complain about the gameplay mechanics in the ridiculously flawed final area of the game...

Spoiler:

...particularly that stupid bit where you have to drop off a pendulum. Because THAT was fun.

Incidentally, I too would consider GK3 to have been the superior game. But maybe not for the reasons you do.

Agreed. All three GK games had an annoying arcade sequence near the end of the games. They could have left them out and would not have made any of the games any less enjoyable.

As far as the interface/control in GK3 is concerned, it took some getting used to. At first, I thought the way you can fly around the scenes and leave your avatar behind was weird. But once, I got used to it, I actually enjoyed it a lot. And being a big time perv, I enjoyed slowing panning over every inch of Grace all very very much. The interface didn't make or break the game for me. IT was just a small part of overall presentation but I thought it worked.