[sillycanadian]

I personally felt that the words written in the GK review didn't quite match the 5-star score (with which I agree wholeheartedly, I can't say enough great things about playing this game). There seemed to be too many negative statements to all of a sudden five it a 5-star score. But I'm glad you did.
And that snake scale comment is fairly nitpicky. There's gotta be a certain suspension of disbelief involved in these games. I'm surprised you play a lot of adventure games, Bastich, if some small detail like that stops you from completing a game.

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Yes, in retrospect, the five star rating system makes for some unbalanced "ranking" of the quality of games. But that isn't what the system is designed for, and NO system, no matter how fine the gradations, could completely compensate for the individual tastes, moods, prejudices and pleasure of the many individual reviewers on the staff to provide a perfect ranking of the "objective" quality of every game.

You make an important point here, there are no completely objective way to measure the quality of a game. That's why it is always better to read the actual review, than to just look at some score that has been rather arbitrarily put beside the game. This has been shown very well with the Runaway and BS3 reviews lately and has now popped up with the GK1 review.

I opt for no rating system. That invites people to read the actual review and not get biased by some score put next to it. It is also a time-proof system and is not prone to differ anything between reviewers.

[BacardiJim]

Thanks, ragnar. I was really starting to wonder if that post had fallen into a vacuum and nobody had really read it or grasped the point.


It's refreshing to agree with you on something. Hrmmm... and yesterday I agreed with remixor.

Have I slipped into some bizarre alternate dimension? hehehe

[Snatcher42]

Re: The snake thing... I think the designers knew that snakes don't loose scales. It was meant as a joke/nod to the film Blade Runner, in which Harrison Ford tracks down a replicant by finding a scale from their snake...

I've actually seen a few games that include a snake scale clue (usually a red herring) as an in-joke to this movie (and the criticism from the time of the film that such evidence is ridiculous).

BTW, thanks for mentioning my site for getting GK1 running on XP!

Originally Posted by sillycanadian

I personally felt that the words written in the GK review didn't quite match the 5-star score (with which I agree wholeheartedly, I can't say enough great things about playing this game). There seemed to be too many negative statements to all of a sudden five it a 5-star score. But I'm glad you did.
And that snake scale comment is fairly nitpicky. There's gotta be a certain suspension of disbelief involved in these games. I'm surprised you play a lot of adventure games, Bastich, if some small detail like that stops you from completing a game.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by ragnar

I opt for no rating system. That invites people to read the actual review and not get biased by some score put next to it. It is also a time-proof system and is not prone to differ anything between reviewers.

Well, generally I would say nothing is impossible, but I can absolutely promise you that you will NEVER see "no rating system" here...nor will you on any respectable gaming site. There's a reason every single publication scores games, albeit on different scales.

- Evan

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by sillycanadian

I personally felt that the words written in the GK review didn't quite match the 5-star score (with which I agree wholeheartedly, I can't say enough great things about playing this game). There seemed to be too many negative statements to all of a sudden five it a 5-star score. But I'm glad you did.

Well, at least someone agrees with me on the tone, even if they disagree with my opinion of the score. LOL!

Originally Posted by sillycanadian

And that snake scale comment is fairly nitpicky. There's gotta be a certain suspension of disbelief involved in these games. I'm surprised you play a lot of adventure games, Bastich, if some small detail like that stops you from completing a game.

You obviously didn't read my posts thoroughly. I said the following:

Originally Posted by Bastich

combined with other problems

Originally Posted by Bastich

I am not saying I dislike the game for such a specific reason

The snake issue is just one of MANY reasons why I wouldn't give the game more than 4 stars.

Some of them would be:

1) Somewhat un-original and cliche story. GK is the result of the tail end of a Voodoo fad that arose in the late 80s due to the publishing of the work of Wade Davis, an ethnobotanist who went to Haiti to research the properties of the ingredients used to create Voodoo "zombies." His book, The Serpent and the Rainbow and its follow-up, Passage of Darkness: The Ethnobiology of the Haitian Zombie greatly raised interest in the topic of Voodoo and rushed in a bunch of horror films, the most notable of which are The Serpent & the Rainbow and The Believers. There are other adventure games that have far better stories, and were far more original and unique for their time period. I wont even get into critiquing individual story elements. If you disagree, I just have to point out that one of the movies involves showing Gabriel being put into a coffin with a cross on it, a straight rip from the SatR film. It was more than just coincidence...

Spoiler:

I could be mistaken, but when I played and examined the drummer at the police station the game told me it was one of Gedde's drummers. I think this was a continuity error, because it happens before it is completely revealed to you that Malia is part of it, although anyone with a brain guessed it long before this point.

2) Interface design. If I recall correctly there are 9 icons to toggle through including the item icon. It was actually far easier to just go up to the menu and select the icon than to bother right clicking through all the excessive icons, negating the whole point of being able to do so in the first place. Many of them are redundant and unnecessary. I don't think I ever needed to use the move icon in the entire game. It was interchangeable with operate in the few occasions I could use it on something. In fact, I think the only reason it was there was so that you could click on Grace and get the witty line about moving that wall of ice... It was, again, rather stupid to have two icons for dialogue when there is such little reason for it. It was also annoying to have to use different icons to leave a screen, based purely on something so inane as whether the door is open or not. The mummy scene wasn't a big deal to me, but considering I wasn't using anything to slow down my 2.8Ghz processor during that scene, Gabriel traveled by quantum leaps, while the poor mummies had to trudge along. It sort of made that scene rather easy for me. I'm sure I would have something to say if I had to play it the right way though.

3) Dialogue System. The game went out of its way to provide you with tape backups of all the conversations, yet they didn't bother to remove all the dialogue dead ends from the choices screen. Considering how dependent the game was on dialogue triggers, this was just annoying to wade through. I also found myself just clicking on all of them now and then just to make sure I didn't miss one. What a waste of time. There was sometimes little reason to know who was going to be the one to give you the dialogue trigger either, resulting in just talking to everyone until it happened. This took me out of the story and slowed the game pacing down. It also bored me because of having to revisit the same locations over and over and over again every time I got one more dialogue question. Am I playing a game, or reading a book in a really annoying fashion?

4) Puzzles. I have already mentioned the fallacy of the snake puzzles. The puzzles overall, were rather easy and un-challenging. Some were just plain lame and rather forced.

Spoiler:

It was utterly laughable to me that Gabriel just so happened to have a rare book in his bookstore, that just so happened to be written by an unknown family member, which he just so happened to like enough to pick out of the bunch on the shelf even though he can't even understand it, which just so happened to hold the key to opening a clock in his grandmother's house. Talk about forced. It would have made far more sense to have the book of poetry at his grandmother's house, where it would have a logical reason to be, and then have to take it to the bookstore to translate it. Another example would be the chess player, who you were never told was a jeweler. There was no reason to go to him other than that he was obviously hanging around to do something for you, whatever that was. And on a somewhat unrelated note, pixel-hunting. Apparently pixel hunting wasn't devious enough, so they had to make a necessary item essentially be invisible by making it part of a large portion of the background. The clay. Silly me for not thinking of picking it up until much later in the game when I got stuck. I should have known that I could pick up items that aren't distinctly visible. Granted, compared to the dark hallway in Necronomicon the clay had neon signs pointing at it saying "pick me up", but it still is rather lame to not give visual clues like having lumps of clay be visible. While exploring and finding items is a fun part of adventure gaming for some, it shouldn't be at the expense of the puzzles themselves as is almost always the case. Once you have the clay, it takes the intellect of a child to use it at the proper place. The effort is in the wrong area. It is far better to stare at a puzzle and struggle with it, than to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what you missed so you can even start the puzzle. I don't play games to watch my character walk around. Do I need to continue?

5) Movies. Do I really have to watch the same movie over and over and over again every single day with a few extra seconds added each time? I didn't find a way to bypass them either.On a semi-related note, the comic book included with the game gives the whole story away. I advise those that haven't played the game to NOT read it. It ruined it for me.

6) The female narrator was totally out of place and ruined the immersion for me. Why the hell is someone other than my character describing my surroundings??? It was just stupid. There seemed to be little rhyme or reason between when the narrator spoke and when Gabriel did also. This was just a bad choice IMO.

I could go on with the voice acting and others but I think I have made my point... The snake fallacies were NOT my main issue. Just one of many I chose to make light of at the time because of my personal agenda on the issue.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Thanks, ragnar. I was really starting to wonder if that post had fallen into a vacuum and nobody had really read it or grasped the point.

I wasn't ignoring your point. It is just that my comment wasn't something that I stand very strongly on. I don't see the point in arguing it. As far as purchasing games are concerned, a 3 star system with no partials is adequate. You either recommend it or you don't and the middle choice is for the borderline games.

Anything more is for ranking purposes. When it comes to ranking, I think more gradations are better. As for bias, the system doesn't matter as you say. But it is more meaningful when comparing reviews from the same person. I happen to think a 5 point spread is significant.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

Re: The snake thing... I think the designers knew that snakes don't loose scales. It was meant as a joke/nod to the film Blade Runner, in which Harrison Ford tracks down a replicant by finding a scale from their snake...

I've actually seen a few games that include a snake scale clue (usually a red herring) as an in-joke to this movie (and the criticism from the time of the film that such evidence is ridiculous).

Nice try! I have to give you credit for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the other errors which can't be linked to Blade Runner.

Spoiler:

In Blade Runner, the lady used the snake in her act in a noisy club. Why didn't it run away scared from all the vibrations like in GK1? In fact, GK contradicts its own junk science in that the book says that they use vibrations to find prey, yet the snake runs away from the noise of the fan. Wouldn't the snake then attack the fan if that were true? They failed on so many levels on that one. In addition, the snake (used as a prop) was also a real snake in Blade Runner. A Burmese python, if my memory serves me well. It wasn't a fictional green and purple snake.

Your point also fails in that GK takes itself pretty seriously. I wouldn't bat an eye if the game had a different style.

[Snatcher42]

Hmm, nice try? My point? I'm not trying to prove that GK1 has perfect snake science or isn't flawless or anything - I'm just saying that the scale thing was meant partially as an in-joke. And it's not the only one. GK may be serious, but it has plenty of such in-jokes, like the Roger Wilco reference when you look at a mop and bucket... or all the hilarious easter eggs in GK3.

I know I laughed when I first found the scale - and not cause it was bad science, but because it made me think of Blade Runner... regarding the other science issues and stuff, I was not trying to prove anything... and I don't have an opinion on this whole rating debate anyway. Just wanted to point out that one thing.

Originally Posted by Bastich

Nice try! I have to give you credit for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the other errors which can't be linked to Blade Runner.

Spoiler:

In Blade Runner, the lady used the snake in her act in a noisy club. Why didn't it run away scared from all the vibrations like in GK1? In fact, GK contradicts its own junk science in that the book says that they use vibrations to find prey, yet the snake runs away from the noise of the fan. Wouldn't the snake then attack the fan if that were true? They failed on so many levels on that one. In addition, the snake (used as a prop) was also a real snake in Blade Runner. A Burmese python, if my memory serves me well. It wasn't a fictional green and purple snake.

Your point also fails in that GK takes itself pretty seriously. I wouldn't bat an eye if the game had a different style.

[AFGNCAAP]

Bastich, I don’t find the game perfect, but still in my private ranking it’s one of the few that deserves the full score. You may disagree with the final rating, but I think you’re being too nitpicky here.

Originally Posted by Bastich

1) Somewhat un-original and cliche story.

I know nothing about the books you refer to, so I can’t comment on that.

Spoiler:

I could be mistaken, but when I played and examined the drummer at the police station the game told me it was one of Gedde's drummers. I think this was a continuity error, because it happens before it is completely revealed to you that Malia is part of it, although anyone with a brain guessed it long before this point.

I think you are correct: I vaguely remember it, too. However, I don’t really recall ANY OTHER continuity error in the whole game, which more or less makes this one forgiveable.

2) Interface design. If I recall correctly there are 9 icons to toggle through including the item icon. It was actually far easier to just go up to the menu and select the icon than to bother right clicking through all the excessive icons, negating the whole point of being able to do so in the first place. Many of them are redundant and unnecessary. (…) It was, again, rather stupid to have two icons for dialogue when there is such little reason for it. It was also annoying to have to use different icons to leave a screen, based purely on something so inane as whether the door is open or not.

All this apply to many grphical AGs, esp. ones from the early 1990’s. It may seem weird, even comical to the player, but I can’t fathom what kind of problem that is. If there are redundant verbs, I’ll stop using them. If the right-click toggling is too tiresome, I’ll select the action from the menu.

I also found myself just clicking on all of them now and then just to make sure I didn't miss one. What a waste of time. There was sometimes little reason to know who was going to be the one to give you the dialogue trigger either, resulting in just talking to everyone until it happened. This took me out of the story and slowed the game pacing down. It also bored me because of having to revisit the same locations over and over and over again every time I got one more dialogue question. Am I playing a game, or reading a book in a really annoying fashion?
(…)
5) Movies. Do I really have to watch the same movie over and over and over again every single day with a few extra seconds added each time? I didn't find a way to bypass them either.

Those are rather tedious indeed (although I personally loved the game’s world so much I didn’t care backtracking), but there’s one thing I want to stress. IMHO, the game was slow-pacing deliberately. I’d rather say that the quick-acting sequences served as intermediums between more steady parts, which created compelling sense of mystery. (Think of The Sixth Sense movie: it’s perhaps the greatest horror I’ve seen, even though for the most of it nothing really happens).This structure is even more clear in the sequels, where visiting the museum plays important part in the story. Now, what setting is less likely to appear in an action-packed thriller than a museum?

Spoiler:

It was utterly laughable to me that Gabriel just so happened to have a rare book in his bookstore, that just so happened to be written by an unknown family member, which he just so happened to like enough to pick out of the bunch on the shelf even though he can't even understand it,

Well, that seemed pretty nice “mystical” touch for me.

Spoiler:

which just so happened to hold the key to opening a clock in his grandmother's house.

Spoiler:

No, the actual clue was in grandpa’s diary that you were supposed to find exactly in Granny Knight’s attic.

I won’t go into the snake issue, as it is fairly unimportant as you said yourself . As for the rest I either agree with you, or think they are too subjective too discuss here (for instance, I adored the idea with narrator’s voice).

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by Stinger

Well, generally I would say nothing is impossible, but I can absolutely promise you that you will NEVER see "no rating system" here...nor will you on any respectable gaming site. There's a reason every single publication scores games, albeit on different scales.

- Evan

Can we hear that reason, or is that a secret?

The biggest morning paper in Sweden (Dagens Nyheter) never has any rating for anything they review, books, movies, theatre, music and computer games. And they have really good reviews almost all of the time. There should be more publications following their example.

But if you don't want to take the ratings away completely, I would suggest having them in the end of the review or some other place not as protruding as it currently is. It is impossible to avoid looking at the score of the review before reading the review and that makes me more biased towards review when I read it and thus I appreciate the review less.

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Thanks, ragnar. I was really starting to wonder if that post had fallen into a vacuum and nobody had really read it or grasped the point.


It's refreshing to agree with you on something. Hrmmm... and yesterday I agreed with remixor.

Have I slipped into some bizarre alternate dimension? hehehe

I seem to remember that you agreed with me in another topic, can't remember which one at the moment. Some things you agree on, some you don't. It's as simple as that.

[Nellie]

1) Somewhat un-original and cliche story.

Well I'm just going to have to outright disagree with this one. There may have been some voodoo books/films about at the time, but that doesn't mean GK1 wasn't original. You might as well argue that "Independance Day" and "Mars Attacks" are the same because they're both about invading aliens, or the Christopher Lee vampire films are the same as "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It's the details of the story that make things original, not one generic plot element.

2) Interface design.

I think it's a great interface, one of the best I've seen. It allows a great depth on interaction in the game - you can choose very specifically just how you want to interact with various items in the game, which allows for much greater opportunity to reveal the nature of Gabriel's character (by the various reactions/comments he has to items), plus a greater variety of puzzles. I also found right-clicking fairly redundant, but in what way is that a problem? If they'd have taken right-clicking out would that have made the interface better? The two dialogue icons distinguish between interrogation mode and a general chatting mode, which I think is an important reason to include both.

(to Ragnar)
As for the mummy scene, that was simply a badly designed action sequence, but that has nothing to do with the interface. Interface-wise, all you have to do to bypass the mummies is click where you want Gabriel to walk. What could be simpler than that? The real problem with the mummy scene is where they required the player to click - completely illogical and frustrating.

3) Dialogue System.

They didn't bother to remove the dialogue dead-ends because when there was something new to say on a subject, the dialogue topic would change colour to inform you. I found there were a lot of redundant lines of inquiry, but as I see it, working out which inquiries were redundant and which were useful was an important part of the game - a part of the detective work. Similarly, not knowing which character could give you the next clue, and having to revisit the same characters several times to follow up leads, is a realistic implementation of detective work, and considering how quick and easy it was to travel between the locations, I fail to see how you found this tiresome to do.

4) Puzzles. I have already mentioned the fallacy of the snake puzzles.

In real life they were fallacious, but within the gameworld, with the information the player was given, the snake puzzles were perfectly logical. So this is a complaint against factual inaccuracy rather than bad puzzle design.

The puzzles overall, were rather easy and un-challenging. Some were just plain lame and rather forced.

This is where we get all subjective. I've heard others describe the puzzles as too difficult, and I personally found they provided an excellent balance of challenge. As for them being forced, I find GK1 to be one of the best examples of integrating puzzles into plot I have ever come across. In the entire game, I only found 1(!) puzzle that I felt was forced, an incredible achievement for a non-comedy game.

Spoiler:

It was utterly laughable to me that Gabriel just so happened to have a rare book in his bookstore, that just so happened to be written by an unknown family member, which he just so happened to like enough to pick out of the bunch on the shelf even though he can't even understand it, which just so happened to hold the key to opening a clock in his grandmother's house.

and

Spoiler:

The clay.

Yes, these were the two puzzles in the game that I thought were badly done (the first one being the puzzle that felt forced).

Spoiler:

Another example would be the chess player, who you were never told was a jeweler.

Are you sure? I seem to recall a Eureka moment

Spoiler:

where what I thought was a passing bit of background information about the chess player's career turned out to be a vital bit of knowledge.

And on a somewhat unrelated note, pixel-hunting.

I've heard this one before, but I don't see it myself. There were loads of small items in the gameworld, but I could clearly see every single one of them, except for

Spoiler:

the clay, of course.

Even the

Spoiler:

knot hole in the confession booth

leaped out at me when I visited that location.

5) Movies. Do I really have to watch the same movie over and over and over again every single day with a few extra seconds added each time? I didn't find a way to bypass them either.On a semi-related note, the comic book included with the game gives the whole story away. I advise those that haven't played the game to NOT read it. It ruined it for me.

Why would you want to skip something that adds something new onto the end? It's not like they were particularly long cutscenes either. As far as the comic book goes, that was the prologue to Gabriel's story, but didn't give away a single thing that was going to happen to Gabriel. In fact, knowledge of what had happened to Gabriel's ancestor was essential to understand the significance of what was happening to Gabriel, and I feel the impact of the story would be much weaker without it.

6) The female narrator was totally out of place and ruined the immersion for me.

Yeah, I turned that off. Hated that narrator voice. I turned off the narrator voice in KQ6 too.


Gabriel Knight 1 has its flaws, but in my opinion, the brilliance of everything else it does makes it the greatest adventure game I have played to date. A very small amount of changes would be enough to make this game near-perfect for me. I believe it deserves its 5-star rating, and was also very glad to see it appear in Evan's top 20 (I had feared that the inferior GK2 might be chosen as the representative for the series). Being a AGS user, I think a lot about the nitty gritty of adventure game design, and it seems every time I try to think of a good example of how design element X should be done, something from GK1 pops into my head. It's that good!


Oh, and Stinger:

I can absolutely promise you that you will NEVER see "no rating system" here...nor will you on any respectable gaming site.

Except for Quandary, of course:

The Problem with Ratings

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I think you are correct: I vaguely remember it, too. However, I don?t really recall ANY OTHER continuity error in the whole game, which more or less makes this one forgiveable.

It was minor, but you would think that after patching it, and then re-releasing it, and then patching it again, someone might of decided to edit out a single word of text to prevent the plot from being ruined.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

All this apply to many graphical AGs, esp. ones from the early 1990?s. It may seem weird, even comical to the player, but I can?t fathom what kind of problem that is. If there are redundant verbs, I?ll stop using them. If the right-click toggling is too tiresome, I?ll select the action from the menu.

Just because something exists in large numbers doesn't make something good. There was no technological hurdle preventing any of those games from having good interfaces. The developers just weren't smart enough to implement them. The problem with just adapting to the problem as you say, is that you should never have to. It always amazes me that the one thing that should be the easiest to do, the interface, is the one thing that is almost universally screwed up by all developers in the adventure genre. A good interface is invisible. You shouldn't even really notice it is there.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Spoiler:

No, the actual clue was in grandpa?s diary that you were supposed to find exactly in Granny Knight?s attic.

Spoiler:

The primary clue was the book in the shop. You didn't need to even look at the diary to open the clock. The diary was for those who missed the first clue. One of the two is redundant, and since the book is rather forced, perhaps it shouldn't have even been included. OTOH, figuring out from the book was probably a little more clever and obtuse... Hmm. I don't know on this one. It could go either way really

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Nellie

Well I'm just going to have to outright disagree with this one. There may have been some voodoo books/films about at the time...

It is called hopping on the bandwagon. It takes little creative effort to think of something that is commonplace at the time. Kind of like all the games about Templars, Atlantis, Egypt, and other redundant and un-creative ideas. You may dwell in the details, but I am far more appreciate of creativity on the whole.

I think it's a great interface, one of the best I've seen. It allows a great depth on interaction in the game - you can choose very specifically just how you want to interact with various items in the game, which allows for much greater opportunity to reveal the nature of Gabriel's character (by the various reactions/comments he has to items), plus a greater variety of puzzles.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. You don't get to interact at all. All you get is negative responses for NOT being able to interact that are based on the icon. Revealing aspects of the character could have been done just by having more items to examine or operate. Cluttering up the interface with redundancy wasn't the answer. More creative dialogue was.

The two dialogue icons distinguish between interrogation mode and a general chatting mode, which I think is an important reason to include both.

We will just have to disagree. There is no difference to me. Portions of the interrogations were just chatting. How did complimenting your grandmother or insulting Mosely count as interrogation for instance? And both modes were necessary to advance the game. It was redundant.

They didn't bother to remove the dialogue dead-ends because when there was something new to say on a subject, the dialogue topic would change colour to inform you.

Most of the time they did NOT do that. Maybe I got a broken copy of the game though. More importantly, if they went to the effort to highlight them, they could have just as easily not listed them at all.

a part of the detective work. Similarly, not knowing which character could give you the next clue, and having to revisit the same characters several times to follow up leads, is a realistic implementation of detective work, and considering how quick and easy it was to travel between the locations, I fail to see how you found this tiresome to do.

There are certain aspects of realism that shouldn't be implemented in a game. You know, the annoying parts of life that you play games to get away from? Like the time it takes to travel, the time wasted talking to people who are annoying... Personally, I would like the several years of my life back that I have spent just watching my character walk around in adventure games and others. If characters actually teleported around the screen in most adventure games rather than watching them walk so slowly around the screen, the playing times would be cut in half. I can almost see the developers having a meeting as follows:

Project Lead: "Were in deep trouble guys, our game is only 10 hours. Marketing says gamers expect at least 15."

Animator: "We could slow down the character animations and the character walking speed. That would add a few hours of gameplay..."

Project Lead: "We don't even have to create more content! Brilliant! Implement it!

In real life they were fallacious, but within the gameworld, with the information the player was given, the snake puzzles were perfectly logical. So this is a complaint against factual inaccuracy rather than bad puzzle design.

You are absolutely correct.

[spoiler]Are you sure? I seem to recall a Eureka moment

Spoiler:

where what I thought was a passing bit of background information about the chess player's career turned out to be a vital bit of knowledge.

It is always possible I may have missed it, but I am pretty certain I never got such a hint when I played.

I've heard this one before, but I don't see it myself. There were loads of small items in the gameworld, but I could clearly see every single one of them...

The only item that was hard to find is the one I mentioned. I didn't mean to imply that it went beyond that. It was, however, worse than if there were many other lesser pixel hunts.

Why would you want to skip something that adds something new onto the end? It's not like they were particularly long cut-scenes either.

Because I have better things to do with my time than watch the same thing over and over again. Even my favorite movie of all time, I couldn't stand to watch by rewinding it to the beginning every few minutes and starting again.

As far as the comic book goes, that was the prologue to Gabriel's story, but didn't give away a single thing that was going to happen to Gabriel. In fact, knowledge of what had happened to Gabriel's ancestor was essential to understand the significance of what was happening to Gabriel, and I feel the impact of the story would be much weaker without it.

And I have to disagree again.

Spoiler:

If you read the comic book, you instantly know in the very first day when Malia pulls up that she is the Tetelo character in the comic book and Gabriel is the witch hunter. The story is a modern day parallel of the events in the comic book. You KNOW Gabriel is going to fall for Malia. You KNOW that the story is going to be about redemption for past misdeeds. In other words, Gabriel won't betray Malia like his ancestor did Tetelo. Since you have made the Tetelo connection, you also know Malia's involvement in the entire affair from the very beginning. The game is just a matter of figuring out how to make the events you already know are going to happen to occur. There were no surprises in the plot for me because I read the damn comic book.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Bastich

Just because something exists in large numbers doesn't make something good.

You know I didn't say that.

The problem with just adapting to the problem as you say, is that you should never have to.

Agreed. It's just that in this particular case, all you need to do is ignore a specific feature, which is not that hard.

Spoiler:

The primary clue was the book in the shop. You didn't need to even look at the diary to open the clock. The diary was for those who missed the first clue. One of the two is redundant, and since the book is rather forced, perhaps it shouldn't have even been included. OTOH, figuring out from the book was probably a little more clever and obtuse... Hmm. I don't know on this one. It could go either way really

Spoiler:

Look, I knew German enough to understand what "Drei Drachen" mean instantly, but (maybe I'm stupid) didn't grasp the connection until after I solved the clock puzzle and found out that Ritter is the author's name (which, unless I'm wrong, was revealed much later). And there wasn't any way to translate the poem INSIDE the game, was it? Therefore, I think the book was supposed to be a reference, a sort of Easter Egg, rather than straight clue.

All in all, we have rather similar thoughts on the game's drawbacks but will have to agree to disagree about overall impression My rating is *****

[mrdunn]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

And there wasn't any way to translate the poem INSIDE the game, was it?

There is a German to English dictionary directly to the left of the door. Gabe will only read one word at a time, and I think you can only translate "Drei Drachen", but it is there. However, I agree with you that this was one of the poorer puzzles of the game.