[Cellardoor]

I'd like to comment on the review of Gabriel Knight 3. While I understand that a score of 4 stars out of 5 is excellent, I think it's unfair in comparison to the scores the other GK games.

I understand that GK has some flaws which disqualifies the game for a perfect score, the other two games suffered from flaws as well. GK1 - which did receive a perfect score - is much more flawed in my opinion. Let's take a look at the cons listed in the review.

Contains some illogical/outright silly puzzles.

The review is a bit unclear on this. The motorcycle puzzle is mentioned as being 'absurd'. I personally think this was a great puzzle. The goal seemed obvious enough to me, and certainly not illogical.

The back-story is so huge, the game takes a "tell don't show" cast by the end.

I don't see how this could be a negative point. The backstory is huge indeed, which is what makes the game so great.

The linear "time block" design can be frustrating due to the posibility of missing story elements and uncued actions required to complete them.

The possibility of missing story elements is what gives GK3 great replayability. Besides, missing the optinional story element doesn't screw up the plot in any way, it's just an interesting bonus.

I agree that it's sometimes not entirely clear what needs to be done in order to finish a time block, but it wasn't hard to figure it out. Besides that, the timeblocks make an excellent addition to the game.

The endgame contains action sequences and puzzle elements that can be frustrating.

There's actually only one action sequence, the one with the pendulum. The other sequences weren't time-based and required logical reasoning in order to advance. I also didn't think they were frustrating at all.

Blocky 3-D character models.

Oh, so you're doing a flashback friday review and you're criticizing the graphics? What happened to the idea of judging a game based on the time it was released in?

Long story short; This is probably the first time I disagree with content on AGers. If GK3 doesn't deserve a five star rating, none do. 8-)

[Vel]

If GK3 doesn't deserve a five star rating, none do.

I absolutely agree. I think I liked the previous review more. Bring it back!

[Wajus]

Originally Posted by Cellardoor

The review is a bit unclear on this. The motorcycle puzzle is mentioned as being 'absurd'. I personally think this was a great puzzle. The goal seemed obvious enough to me, and certainly not illogical.

The goal is clear but I admit that the solution MAY seem obscure for a quasi-realistic game. Nonetheless in an adventure kind of way the puzzle (or set of 2-3 puzzles) actually IS logical. I think that this puzzle has been demonized - especially when it's actually the only argument to back up the "illogical puzzles" con and to influence the score.

I agree that it's sometimes not entirely clear what needs to be done in order to finish a time block, but it wasn't hard to figure it out. Besides that, the timeblocks make an excellent addition to the game.

I agree. That type of "confusion" was also present in GK1:SotF.

There's actually only one action sequence, the one with the pendulum. The other sequences weren't time-based and required logical reasoning in order to advance. I also didn't think they were frustrating at all.

Agree. The pendulum is definitly the only sequence that requires precise (exact to the second) timing.

Oh, so you're doing a flashback friday review and you're criticizing the graphics? What happened to the idea of judging a game based on the time it was released in?

The charge of blocky characters is actually well founded. I've read somwhere that the models that appear in the game weren't completely finished. Some of them really look clunky, some even comical - like "Mostley's" short, t-rex like arms

[Garyos]

Just to add to the general nitpickery, the zombie sequence in GK1 was a lot more frustrating, and so was the cellar scene at the end of GK2.

I rate the games GK2>GK3>GK1.

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by Garyos

Just to add to the general nitpickery, the zombie sequence in GK1 was a lot more frustrating, and so was the cellar scene at the end of GK2.

Yes, the _mummy_ (at least I remember them as mummies) sequence in GK1 was most horribly implemented. The only thing problematic in GK2 was the absolutely last thing, involving a wolf and a furnace, otherwise there were no such difficulties.[/quote]

=Garyos]
I rate the games GK2>GK3>GK1.

GK1>GK3>>GK2

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by ragnar

GK1>GK3>>GK2

I agree.

[D.C.]

Originally Posted by Cellardoor

If GK3 doesn't deserve a five star rating, none do. 8-)

Agreed.

1. Gabriel Knight III: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned
2. The Beast Within: A Gabriel Knight Mystery
3. Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers

I don't think it's neccessary to bring back the old review though...

[Cellardoor]

I don't think it's neccessary to bring back the old review though...

True, but I would be satisfied if the game's rating would be promoted to a five star score.

It's hard to say which GK is my favorite. I like GK2 the least, (still a great game though) but for me it's a bit of a tie between GK1 and GK3... But if I had to make a choice, I'd say GK3. The story is much grander after all, and having visited RLC really makes playing the game extra special. 8-)

I stole a candle from the church in RLC, by the way. Ain't that cool?

[D.C.]

You went to RLC? Awesome.

[Ariel Type]

Garyos
Before comparing chapters, I think you should look at the years the games appeared at. GK1, when appeared, succeeded in bringing a lot to adventure genre: long, deep, "adult" story, great work on characters, puzzles, graphics. In almost all these aspects GK1 was a revolution. And again, 1st chapter appeared in 93, 7 years before 3rd chapter. But even after 7 years there was little new to the game, and at some points it even didn't manage to reach its predecessor. And while the graphics was 3D, it didn't bring something new or unique to gameplay.
But then again I consider 3rd chapter to be the 2nd best GK game after GK1. Mostly for great story and the famous puzzle.

[Garyos]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

Garyos
Before comparing chapters, I think you should look at the years the games appeared at. GK1, when appeared, succeeded in bringing a lot to adventure genre: long, deep, "adult" story, great work on characters, puzzles, graphics. In almost all these aspects GK1 was a revolution. And again, 1st chapter appeared in 93, 7 years before 3rd chapter. But even after 7 years there was little new to the game, and at some points it even didn't manage to reach its predecessor. And while the graphics was 3D, it didn't bring something new or unique to gameplay.
But then again I consider 3rd chapter to be the 2nd best GK game after GK1. Mostly for great story and the famous puzzle.

This doesn't really apply to me, since I played GK3 first, and GK1 and 2 in quick succession half a year later. Seen from my standpoint at the time I played them, I would rate them like I did. The historical importance of a game doesn't really affect my enjoyment of it. I love all three games anyway, but I don't think GK1 has aged as well as the others.

[DomStLeger]

Originally Posted by Cellardoor

I stole a candle from the church in RLC, by the way. Ain't that cool?

lol Strangely you seem very proud about stealing from a church

Anyway I thought it was a very well written Review and very fair, and a fitting end to a very high quality series of reviews.

On the specifics I thought it was very fair, thought I do personally disagree on one or two points. One is the criticism of the Time Blocks, though I can see this is a matter of taste. I never had any problems with the layout of time blocks or being stuck in one because I'd missed an uncued event? If I recall correctly there wasn't a huge amount you were forced to do in a time block, andalot of it was optional; though you tended to do it all anyway thanks to the excellent structure of the game. Others are minor.

All in all another great review from Dan.

[D.C.]

But it's not an actual church anymore is it? Atleast that's what they said in the game.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Vel

I absolutely agree. I think I liked the previous review more. Bring it back!

You could always just go read it on the site that published it without our permission.

[syntheticgerbil]

Well I thought it was a bit gratuitous because I have a big problem with games that have hard timed sequences.

Since I have a completist attitude, I get very frustrated when I can't get every point and miss certain plot sections. But it was a neat game I guess, not like the first two though. Graphics ruined the atmosphere I think. But then I know they had all of these milestone problems. Still graphics ruined it the engagement either way for me.

[Vel]

You could always just go read it on the site that published it without our permission.

Maybe I still like AG more?

[ragnar]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

lol Strangely you seem very proud about stealing from a church

See what adventure gaming does! It makes the youth into thieves!

[Cellardoor]

lol Strangely you seem very proud about stealing from a church

Well, I didn't really know I was stealing the candle at the time. Being protestant myself, I'm not really familiar with catholic customs. I did pay for the candle, but I was supposed to lit the candle and leave it there, it's for people who want to say prayers or something.

Anyway; It's a great souvenir. It has a sketch of the Magdalen-with-skull image on it. 8-)

[Ariel Type]

Garyos
I guess you're right, I also played GK1-GK3-GK2 and would rate them in the same order (though I really don't like the idea of FMV and simplified gameplay in GK2). But it's just personal opinion, personal slant. In review you have to be objective and not just to judge games by your personal emotions or the order you played them, but also to watch out for such aspects as the time period the game was made at, innovations in it and so on. From this point I think the reviews of GK games and their ratings on AG are quite objective and fair.

[Garyos]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

Garyos
I guess you're right, I also played GK1-GK3-GK2 and would rate them in the same order (though I really don't like the idea of FMV and simplified gameplay in GK2). But it's just personal opinion, personal slant. In review you have to be objective and not just to judge games by your personal emotions or the order you played them, but also to watch out for such aspects as the time period the game was made at, innovations in it and so on. From this point I think the reviews of GK games and their ratings on AG are quite objective and fair.

I totally agree. Except that GK2 is the bestest.