[mrdunn]

Good review, just wanted to post something about getting it to run on XP. Here's a link on how to get it to run perfectly with voices. The only real gripe is that it can't really run the VESA (High Resolution) graphics, so things are more pixelated and big. But it's still very playable, and not all that bad. Here's the link: http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~bfrazer1/gk/

P.S. Might you consider posting that on the article? It's probably the best current solution for playing GK1 on an XP machine...

[Bastich]

There is one thing that bugs the hell out of me from GK1 that I have to get off my chest. It is part of the reason why I always get annoyed every time I start playing it and combined with the other problems, causes me to quit half way through the game. Although a few days ago I finally finished the game after 5-6 tries over the years.

Snakes. They do NOT lose scales. The likelihood of a snake losing a scale is the same as a human being losing a mole. Only through an avulsion injury (or disease perhaps) could it happen, and it would be accompanied by bleeding and eventual scarring. Considering all the research into Voodoo for the title, you would think they would have at least bothered to get a basic knowledge of snake anatomy considering it plays a large part in the first half of the game.

Also, while snakes can sense vibrations, it is fallacious to imply that they use them as a primary method for finding prey when it is used just as much to avoid becoming prey. All it does is give them a hazy sort of knowledge of their surroundings. It is through other senses that something is determined to be a proper food item or not. And anyone who thinks a large snake would care in the slightest about vibrations when it is constricting you, is in for a big surprise. I got the impression that the research for snakes consisted of going to the local pet store and tapping on the glass. There are other herpetological faux pas in the game, but I think I have already made my point.

The game definitely shouldn't deserve a perfect score when a large part of the plot hinges around such fallacies. There are other issues with the game as well, but I have already exhausted my willingness to rant further...

[mrdunn]

Yeah, I always kinda wondered about that. Anyways, if that bugs you, don't watch Blade Runner, they do the same thing in that. (Though I suppose you could argue that it might have fallen off, as it wasn't a "real" snake, it was a replicant snake. Maybe it was just poorly manufactured.)

[Garyos]

Thanks for that info, Bastich, now it'll annoy me too... It's fun that they repeated that in GK2 with the wolf fur... Why wasn't gabrial collecting fangs in GK3????

[eriq]

Originally Posted by Bastich

Snakes. They do NOT lose scales. The likelihood of a snake losing a scale is the same as a human being losing a mole.

LOL. I found this post so funny. That's hilarious that this bigs you. And you're right about snakes! They don't lose scales!! They shed their skin but not their scales!

[fov]

but a whole skin would have been too easy to spot amongst the pixels...

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by mrdunn

Yeah, I always kinda wondered about that. Anyways, if that bugs you, don't watch Blade Runner, they do the same thing in that. (Though I suppose you could argue that it might have fallen off, as it wasn't a "real" snake, it was a replicant snake. Maybe it was just poorly manufactured.)

LOL!. I can't make any claims on the qualities of manufactured snakes, only the real ones...

Originally Posted by Garyos

Thanks for that info, Bastich, now it'll annoy me too... It's fun that they repeated that in GK2 with the wolf fur... Why wasn't gabrial collecting fangs in GK3????

Good question.

Originally Posted by eriq

LOL. I found this post so funny. That's hilarious that this bugs you. And you're right about snakes! They don't lose scales!! They shed their skin but not their scales!

It is a pet peeve of mine because at one point in my life I was very close to choosing to become a herpetologist as a career. No other creature is regarded with as much ignorance and misguided hatred as snakes so I like to clear up the misconceptions when I can.

The error in the game is akin to making a movie about Bach and putting Mozart or Beethoven in the soundtrack. Bach died before either of them was even born. It is just sloppy research. To further my point, there are no large constrictors in the world that are green and purple. LOL!!!

I am not saying I dislike the game for such a specific reason. I would probably give the game 3.5 or 4 out of 5 stars overall. It had problems with the interface, and an excessive amount of going back and forth to the same locations and talking to the same people over and over and over again. It got tedious. How many times do I have to go to the darn police station for instance? I prefer games that keep changing locations, and GK1 took too long to go to Germany. The game got significantly better from that point on though and overall it was good despite the cliche nature of the story.

I just can't see justifying that the game get a perfect score. Grim Fandango got less, and that game had a far better and more original story, a far better and more unique artistic style, better characters, better voice acting, better music, better pacing, etc. GF was just a better game all around. There are no games that deserve a perfect score as a perfect game has never been made. GF got the exact score it deserved. GK should have gotten 4 stars at most.

The best thing about GK, is that you can see how massively Broken Sword ripped it off.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Bastich

There are no games that deserve a perfect score as a perfect game has never been made. GF got the exact score it deserved. GK should have gotten 4 stars at most.

I'm just so tired of hearing that argument. How silly is a maximum rating to have if you can't ever use it? We have never used the term "perfect" to describe a five-star game, but rather "virtually flawless" and off the top of my head I can think of five or six games that easily fit that description, GK1 definitely among them. Although I did not write or decide the scores for either of the two reviews, I think that GK1 fits the description of "virtually flawless" quite well, while Grim's interface still remains a tragic flaw to me. I wholeheartedly agree with our scores for both.

- Evan

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Stinger

I'm just so tired of hearing that argument. How silly is a maximum rating to have if you can't ever use it? We have never used the term "perfect" to describe a five-star game, but rather "virtually flawless" and off the top of my head I can think of five or six games that easily fit that description, GK1 definitely among them. Although I did not write or decide the scores for either of the two reviews, I think that GK1 fits the description of "virtually flawless" quite well, while Grim's interface still remains a tragic flaw to me. I wholeheartedly agree with our scores for both.

- Evan

The problem with the review system on this site is that it lacks enough gradations. There is only 90% and 100% because of the half-star increment. That is a whole lot of space to not count. That is the difference between a B+ and an A+ in many schools. It is just my opinion, but a percentage based scale is far better. The star system makes it seem like Broken Sword and GK1 are equal games when they are not.

And GK1 is not "virtually flawless" and neither is Broken Sword. There are plenty of things to find wrong with them.

[BacardiJim]

Bastich:

You are, of course, completely correct that a five star system does not allow enough gradation to adequately "peg" the quality of a game. Or a movie. Or an album.

However........
Look at those sites that use a percentage system. (Or a 1-10 scale with tenths of a point included.) Since they generally start their base rating at 4/40, do they offer much greater delineation? For that matter, can you give me a strict editorial guideline to follow that precisely defines the difference between a 92 and a 94 rating?

Then you must take into account the fact that the reviewer brings his own past, his own bias, his own tastes, and even his own mood into a review. For instance, Gamespot's Scott Osbourne hates the traditional adventure game element of having the flow of the story interrupted by a time-consuming puzzle. Given that fact, does his 64% rating actually mean any more to the reader than Heidi's 3 1/2 stars? Or maybe I'm grumpy today because I didn't get laid and I knock half a star off of my final rating as a result. Does that negate the actual textual part of the review where I describe the game's strengths and weaknesses? The important part of the review over which I sweat and slave?

Finally, you have to take into account the actual audience for whom a review is written. Do I write a review to somehow achieve validation from those people who have already bought and played a game? No. I write it as a general guideline for those who are considering the purchase. To them, a percentile rating is meaningless... they merely want to know if the game is worth their hard-earned cash or not and what to expect from it. The five star system adequately meets that need.

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.

But as a guideline for the potential buyer, I think it works ok. And that is all a review is supposed to do.

[eriq]

Originally Posted by Stinger

I'm just so tired of hearing that argument. How silly is a maximum rating to have if you can't ever use it?

silly is right. YOU SAID IT BOY! TELL IT LIKE IT IS!

(that means I agree!)

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by Stinger

I'm just so tired of hearing that argument. How silly is a maximum rating to have if you can't ever use it? We have never used the term "perfect" to describe a five-star game, but rather "virtually flawless" and off the top of my head I can think of five or six games that easily fit that description, GK1 definitely among them. Although I did not write or decide the scores for either of the two reviews, I think that GK1 fits the description of "virtually flawless" quite well, while Grim's interface still remains a tragic flaw to me. I wholeheartedly agree with our scores for both.

- Evan

I agree that it is silly with not being able to give a certain score. It is. But with the GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim not due to it's interface I just want to point out that there is one point (involoving mummies, I assume you know what I talk about) in GK1 that the interface is horrible. Extremely horrible. Grim's interface is pure joy in comparison. So how does that make GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim's not?

[Moosferatu]

Originally Posted by ragnar

I agree that it is silly with not being able to give a certain score. It is. But with the GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim not due to it's interface I just want to point out that there is one point (involoving mummies, I assume you know what I talk about) in GK1 that the interface is horrible. Extremely horrible. Grim's interface is pure joy in comparison. So how does that make GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim's not?

I was wondering that myself. I have not played GK1 but from the reviews that I have read I get the impression that the interface is somewhat less than perfect. Though, that is just a matter of opinion as is that Grim's interface is terrible. If I remember correctly, I made a poll on Grim's interface around this time last year. It turns out that the majority had no issue what so ever with the interface.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by ragnar

I agree that it is silly with not being able to give a certain score. It is. But with the GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim not due to it's interface I just want to point out that there is one point (involoving mummies, I assume you know what I talk about) in GK1 that the interface is horrible. Extremely horrible. Grim's interface is pure joy in comparison. So how does that make GK1 being "virtually flawless", but Grim's not?

Well, to be fair, GF got a 4.5 and GK got a 5, so both fall into the "virtually flawless" category as listed on this site.

[BacardiJim]

I might as well be talking to my monitor...

[Moosferatu]

Originally Posted by Bastich

Well, to be fair, GF got a 4.5 and GK got a 5, so both fall into the "virtually flawless" category as listed on this site.

I think Stinger might have been refering to his Top 20. He said that the top 6 were "virtually flawless" and Grim was 7. So, in Stinger's book Grim Fandango doesn't cut it.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Finally, you have to take into account the actual audience for whom a review is written. Do I write a review to somehow achieve validation from those people who have already bought and played a game? No. I write it as a general guideline for those who are considering the purchase. To them, a percentile rating is meaningless... they merely want to know if the game is worth their hard-earned cash or not and what to expect from it. The five star system adequately meets that need.

This might be true for YOUR reviews, but not necessarily everyone else's. Can you honestly tell me that the GK review was NOT to get validation from others who have played the game? It definitely wasn't a buying recommendation, at least not in the way I see them. If that was true, he basically wound up saying that GK is a great game to buy IF you don't mind outdated graphics, outdated sound, poor voice acting for the main character, some potentially out of place puzzles, and most importantly, if you are lucky enough to even get it running at all on a modern computer using a variety of tricks which took a paragraph to list. (BTW, I ran it in WinME without a hitch and used CPU Killer for the timed sequences). Does that sound like a 5 star buying recommendation? The last issue alone is a reason to be hesitant to recommend it to the average gamer. Or is the review NOT geared for the average gamer and actually for a subset of knowledgeable adventure game fanboys who he is trying to appease by lauding it as a classic? Not everyone is so computer savvy or interested in such outdated games, no matter how good they are. He also failed to mention that it can't be purchased at retail and that means bidding for it on e-bay or finding a specialty dealer on the internet.

You know as well as I do that this was just an excuse to rank the game. Their wasn't much consideration for the average purchaser and you know it. At least if someone buys the 4.5 star Syberia, it will look good, sound good, be found at any store, and play without any hassle. Maybe it is just me, but those happen to be some qualities that shouldn't be ignored when recommending a purchase to people.

There are an awful lot of catches to that 5 stars that I don't see in other reviews that have smaller scores. Your Neverhood review for instance matches the score. You only complained a little about graphics and game length. It SOUNDED like a 4.5 star review. GK OTOH, doesn't read like a 5 star review at all.

NOT that I could review any better of course, but I still think the review is exceptionally biased.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Moosferatu

I think Stinger might have been refering to his Top 20. He said that the top 6 were "virtually flawless" and Grim was 7. So, in Stinger's book Grim Fandango doesn't cut it.

Aaaahhh... My mistake then...

[BacardiJim]

I wasn't discussing the individual review. I was discussing the 5 star rating system, which is a separate matter and a specific matter you were complaining about. If you think the review was biased and unfair, what is to prevent it from being equally biased and unfair using a 10 or 100 point system? Would you actually feel better about GK being given a 96/100 instead of a 5/5? Somehow I don't think so.


Was the review fair and impartial? I don't want to get into it. Is the rating system to blame? I don't think so. Was Dan writing his review for what should be the audience uppermost in his mind as a reviewer? I have to agree with you that it doesn't appear so.

And thank you for the compliment on my Neverhood review.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Bastich

And GK1 is not "virtually flawless" and neither is Broken Sword. There are plenty of things to find wrong with them.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that, then.

- Evan