Ween review
 

I liked Ween, I really did, but still I mostly agree with your review.

Yes, Ween is kitch, the inventory navigation is awkward at best, the music and sounds are non-existant, some puzzles are tedious, the side-kicks are mostly useless, the story is completely uninteresting, and the puzzles are mostly very clever and hard as hell, but in a fair way.

I'm not so sure about the graphics, though. I liked them a lot, and found them colourful rather than "gaudy" or "jarring".

I think is worth noting that you also don't like Goblins 3 very much (perhaps there's a review incoming?), while I love it. This may account for the fact that despite all its flaws I still enjoyed playing Ween quite a bit, when you obviously didn't. To me it's a neat and pretty puzzle-fest, the same way that Goblins 3 is, even if Goblins 3 is clearly the superior game by a fair margin.

Ween: The Prophecy review
 

Well, it's just my opinion, but I completely disagree with the review and the final score. Ween, being my second favourite Coktel game after Goblins series, is in need of defence, I see.
First of all, the review doesn't mention that this is a sequel of sort to an earlier attempt in adventure making. It was called "Legend of Djel" and share the same universe and characters.
Secondly, the graphics. I was very surprised to see "the graphics are also often unimpressive" in the context. C'mon, it was one of the most impressive adventure games for its time (1992!). The pictures are beautiful and highly detailed, the drawn characters are memorable, and as for FMV - it was new at that time, and the attempt made in Ween was rather good.
"The lack of even a single joke" was also a surprise. The game never takes itself seriosly, as a matter of fact. It is all about funny characters and situations. Just remember that little stupid insect, or dragon turned into fly, or wonderful Urn ("I feel merry when I hear word strawberry"). You have a cold heart if these moments didn't touch you (joking) :)
There was no mention of alternative paths. There are two moments in the game when you can choose your path, which adds replayability. There is also a maze of sort with different rooms and paths, full of puzzles, and they also can be solved randomly.
The puzzles themselfs are very inventive and fun to solve. As a matter of fact, the whole game is played more like first-person Goblins. There are many unique opportunities which were introduced in the game - making of different potions, use of sacred objects (there were actually only three of them, and they were easy to recognise, as they were all made of iron), the help of friends.. The game gets harder near the end, and the puzzles become more obscure. But for the most time they are very fun to solve and, again, surves as a nostalgie for Goblins nicely.
I think the conclusions made in the review are unfair. There are very few games of such type and style (and almost all of them belong to Coktel), and it is sad to see that people try to kill them with their sharp word.. But well, everyone has his own opinion.
P.S. I just wish Coktel Vision will return somedays to adventure gaming..

Edit: Sorry for the second thread, didn't see the first coming)

Oh yes, there was also that. I found Ween pleasantly funny.

That's untrue. He does mention the alternative paths. Not that have noticed them myself, though. :crazy:

Ninth
Ah yes, I missed that. My fault. :pan: Then again, those paths are not just alternative little puzzles, but solid levels, and I don't understand the complain "but remains quite a minor feature". How many games offer you an opportunity to progress in a different way?..

Woo, feedback! Great.

Actually, there's a reference to it (the first sentence of the review!). ;) Then again, I don't think it really matters, since the world feels like such a big, tired cliché.

I completely disagree. :) 1992 was the year of LB2, KQ6, Indy 4, Dune, QfG3, Kyrandia, etc. Those had great graphics. Frankly, when I look at this, this, or that, I can't help but find the drawings dull and the choice of colours, indeed, "gaudy and jarring". But you're free to think otherwise, obviously.

I said that I liked Urm. For the rest, I'm still completely unsure whether the game takes itself seriously or not. It doesn't feel like a parody, or even comedy. The Gobl*ns games, or Woodruff, are definitely comedy, but Ween feels like it's trying to be an epic KQ5-clone (but utterly fails), with just a few jokes here and there (Uki and Orbi, possibly the mosquitoes etc.), which just managed to make me cringe (once again, apart from Urm, whom I really loved).

Once again, I think I've made my thoughts clear in the review. I did find the puzzles good and inventive at first, but thought they got too repetitive, tedious and illogical after a while (after the end of the three trials, basically). The whole of Volcano Island was horrendous in that regard.

Then again, maybe the reason why there are so few of them is that they're bad? :P Since you're constantly making reference to the Gobl*ns games, I'll add that if I had to review them (which hopefully won't be the case), I'd probably rate them higher than Ween. Because they're funnier. Because the graphics look better, with a real style of their own. Because they don't pretend to have a plot and characterization (esp. the first two), instead of trying and failing there. And yet I tend to like Ween better, because the puzzles are mostly much more logical and inventive. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't recommend either to today's gamers (as I already said before, I consider the historical or nostalgic value of games utterly irrelevant to a review written here and now).

To name just a few from the same year, KQ6 and Indy 4. The alternative levels in Ween are just two levels out of twenty-something, and I don't think anyone should replay the whole game just for them (contrary to what happens in KQ6 and Indy 4).

(the two threads will probably get merged at some point, so I'm answering that too)
I didn't dislike Ween, though I found it pretty forgettable (and tedious at times). But whether I personally liked it or not is irrelevant; what matters is whether I'd recommend it. And I wouldn't, except to people with very specific tastes, and who would be able to forget some of the game's flaws. The only question is whether those people would be able to realize that it might be a game for them based on the review. Maybe I presume too much, but I think they would.

Kurufinwe
You sure have some good points there, but I'll argue anyway :)
Oh, I even didn't take it for a reference :) Djel was horrible, and has a weak storyline, yes, but then again, it had its own universe which unfolds in Ween. I don't want to defend the storyline - it sure isn't very imaginative, but it had the same touch as, say, Goblins or Kings Quest series.
Of all these the only games I can think of having "clear, detailed" look are Dune and Kyrandia. I'm not saing that Laura or Indi were badly drawn - they just didn't have that "polished" look. Blurry pictures and characters were the course of early technologies. Coktel tried to improve this side all the time through. For example, the same year it published Inca, which mixed the same quality of 2D pictures with real-time 3D and FMV. And the 2D-games it produced were always some of the most graphically impressive adventures on the market.
Who isn't (thinking of Kyrandia games)? :) Serously, all the way through I never thought of it as a "serious fantasy game". Not only characters, but situations (getting rid of the green beast, helping an old man, curing an ant) were on the fun side. Not necessary funny to the laugh, but nowhere near "epic".
Ok, that's how you feel then..
I don't think so :) Goblins series are among the most popular and recognized adventure series, and there is a reason for it. It's just hard to repeat the style I guess. Why there were no clones for Loom or Neverhood? Uniqueness.
But they have plot and characterization (especially the 3rd one :)), and they didn't fail for me. Goblins 3, Woodruff, Inca - they all have very interesting plots, which proves Coktel is not aiming at "pure puzzle lovers".
So, you mark the games from this point of view then? That's strange. I can't recommend ANY classical adventure to most of today's gamers, simply because they won't understand it. Why this should influence my mark, even if the game has historical value? After all, this is an adventure site, not some kind of gamespot or other trash that demands adventures to follow modern standarts. This IS a nostalgic site, that's why it still gives reviews of oldies.
That's a few :) Those are two of SEVERAL games with multiple paths, and that is a coincidence they appeared at the same year. Most of adventures are linear or have puzzles without alternative solutions. There are some games like Blade Runner, or Malcolms Revenge, but they are very few.
The fact that developers of Ween gave us an opportunity to choose paths (even on two occasions) is a big "plus", rather then "nothing important".

I see that this is not your type of games. OK. But then can you explain what was so special about "The Secrets of Da Vinci" game wich you rated 4 stars? The game also had a very simple and cliche plot, the gameplay was strongly focused on inventory puzzles (which were far less imaginative then in Ween), there were very few characters with badly written personalities, the graphics was of no importance.. Is it because the game is suitable for today's gamers?

No problem. Though I've got another review to finish today, so I'll have to make my replies short. :)

I've already said why I liked the graphics in LB2 so much in my review, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

I'd have said the same thing about Kyrandia if I had been reviewing it, be sure of that (actually, I think Kyrandia is kinda worse when it comes to plot).

They are? (that's a genuine question; I don't often see them appear in top-10 lists or anything, but maybe I'm missing something here)

You may have point there, though the lack of clones for the Neverhood is more probably due to a lack of technical competence / money.

That's not how I see things. I never feel like I'm writing for people who've already played the game, but rather for people who haven't, but might be interested, which often means people who discovered adventure games in recent years. At the end of the day, a good game is a good game, and many classics have stood the test of time, though their graphics may have aged from a technical point of view (though, artistically speaking, KQ5 is still miles ahead of, say, Oblivion). I'd recommend GK1, Indy 4, The Lost Files of Sherlock Holmes 1 or Conquests of the Longbow without any hesitation to anyone interested in adventure games. Not Ween -- and even inventory puzzle lovers would have to be warned that the puzzles are not all that fun, and that they'd probably be better off playing, say, the vastly superior Lost in Time.

It's because it was fun. Because it made me want to go back to it whenever I had to stop playing. What's the incentive for going on in Ween? The plot? Who cares about it. Progressing in the game to discover more beautiful locations and music? I'm not convinced about that. The humour? Don't think it's worth all the hassle. The challenge of solving the puzzles? As I said, I thought they got tedious after a while. So, what's left? I honestly don't know.

(Incidentally, I disagree with your assessment of SdV. I thought the graphics looked great (and not only technically), the music was memorable, the interface actually worked (which is more than Ween can say for itself). And while the plot was not mindblowing, or even memorable, it was fun to follow, with lots of twists, and getting it to unfold was definitely an incentive for playing the game. The puzzles were good, they made sense (an absolute must in my book, obviously) while being reasonably challenging, they had a reason for being there (another absolute must), and served the plot and characterization by giving insights into Leonardo's mind. And, finally, it never got tedious or unenjoyable (apart from the painting puzzle, which is definitely mentioned in my review).

Modern standards? As many people frequently point out, not a whole lot has changed since 1992. :D

Judging older games is always a balancing act. All AG writers take a game's historical context into consideration, and obviously technical limitations are largely excused (no voices, low resolution, etc.). But a game's defining criteria (gameplay, story, characters, etc.) must stand the test of time to be of any value to gamers today.

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to Ween, though. Is there something in the review that suggests the game is being discriminated against because of its age? :confused:

I can't discuss the merits or lack thereof of Ween, as I have it but haven't played it yet.

But what I did want to say is that I love, love, LOVE seeing these old games revisited in these reviews! So, thank you, AG, for putting them out there. :) In the last few years I've managed to accumulate just about every old adventure game known to man, and it's great to see them being given new consideration and attention in these reviews. It gives me an extra impetus, too, to actually play them rather than just allowing them to languish on the shelf.

Kurufinwe
I don't agree a bit. It always surprises me when people start talking about how other games (Kyrandia, Dragon Sphere, Ween) tried to copy plot and settings of KQ series. KQ1, as much as other parts (exept for the 6th) had one of the most simplified and cliche plots in gaming history.
The series don't need to be in everyone's TOP to be popular and recognized. The reason for that, again, is it's own style and uniqueness.
There is a new game from Russia, Tanita: Plasticine Dream (AG talked about it). It was made by the team of 13 people and it hardly has a high budget (I saw the conditions it was made in). Nevertheless, it looks and plays wonderfully. People tried - and they succeeded.
Then, again, I don't see a point. Ween wasn't popular at its time, and it is one game that is almost impossible to find nowdays (legally). So what's the point in writing such a review for modern gamers, if they even have no chance to experience it?
And about the test of time.. I saw plenty of people that started to play adventures with Syberia or smth like that, and they can't play older games because of "bad graphics", "impossible controls", "crazy puzzles" and so on.
Surprisingly, the same thing can be said about Da Vinci. Of course, that's a matter of personal opinion again, but..
..graphics? Techincally? 360° point of view is ten years old (or more). Beautiful? Gray tones and simple models/animation. It looks worse then, say, Voyage or RtMI.
..music? Most of the game happened in silence or accompanied by simple repatative compositions.
..interface? That's a matter of time. In early 90th it was hard fot designers to find an approriate interface for the game, as the games lost "parser".
..plot? It looks like it was written in five minutes rush. What twists? The plot has no development, and the characters were baddly written and predictable.
..puzzles? They were mostly unimaganitive and cliche. All mechanicle puzzles (and that's not just Mona Liza) were out of place. And "slider door puzzle" in 2006.. I even don't want to talk about that one :)
It sure looks good for today standarts, but compared to early games it has no chance.

Jackal
Syberia can be easly called "modern standart". Games, that try to attract people with beautiful graphics and simplified puzzles. And the auditory it aims also differs from the hardcore gamers.
All the games are different. Myst has no story nor characters. Is it usually judged today by those standarts? It is always discussed in the context of "what it turned out in 1994".
It wasn't in the review. It was some points in Kurufinwe's comment that I answered to.

That's not what I meant. Aside from a few refinements, adventures are fundamentally the same as they were fifteen years ago. Same control schemes, same challenges, same basic structure. I don't say that as a bad thing (as some certainly do), just as a fact. But it does mean that older games can still compare favourably to current ones without too much compromise.

As I said, production values are one area where we obviously do take a game's historical context into consideration. We won't hold a game's technical limitations against it, for obvious reasons. Any old game will, by necessity, require a gamer to overlook those things. So no one reading a new review of an old game will be using modern production values as a criterion, so nor do we. They will, on the other hand, want to know what DOES stand the test of time. The great games will have a lot, the not-great games won't.

Incidentally, there's a key difference between technical and artistic graphic quality. I'm sure Syberia will still be highly regarded visually ten years down the road, long after other nice looking games have been forgotten. The same is true for the graphics of older games. Sure, they're all pixelated messes now, but the better ones have retained their artistic value even after the technical merits have become outdated. The gaudy, jarring ones haven't. :D

I was just giving examples (hence the "etc."). Not every game must have all the same qualities. Replace story and characters with exploration and imaginative worlds for Myst, then. They still stand the test of time. And of course, gameplay remains king for any game. Any new review of Myst now would certainly note its historical relevance, but it would only be rated highly (assuming it would be) on the basis of what was still good about it.

I know how it came up in conversation. I just wanted to know if you considered it an issue in this particular review. :) Okay, then, back to Ween!

Jackal
That I agree. But nevertheless there are new standarts for judging the games today, because a)they are simplier - both in story, puzzles, characters and interface, and b)there are fewer of them.
That I also understand :) Other case I wouldn't be commenting this thread)
I played Ween something about 3-4 years ago for the first time. And highly enjoyed the graphical style. It is not gaudy nor jarring for sure :)
I don't think it stands the test of time then. There were plenty of original puzzlers with much better graphics and sound after Myst. And there is nothing else to admire in it IMO..
Ah, no. Only the "graphical" issue seemed to my out of place..

That why I kept playing, in any case.

I haven't played this game in years but I bought it the DAY it came out and finished it shortly thereafter. I loved it. I'm not sure how it would fare today, however. But, that said, I do remember loving it quite a bit. The Coktel games had a very quirky thing about them.