[Ariel Type]

Interesting review, though I have to complitely disagree with it. IMO, FP was one of the worst of the adventures produced by Sierra, despite it was made by two exellent designers, Al Lowe and Josh Mandel.
First of all, the game wasn't the first one that went beyong the bounderies of the "Quest" series, as it was stated in the review. There were such great titles before, such as Manhunter, Gold Rush (also featured Wild West theme), Laura Bow games, Conquest games and maybe some others. Though, it's just comment on review, not on the game.
The main problem with the game is its plot. IMO, it is higly undervelopped. I didn't get involved into it, as it was, well, just uninteresting. I didn't care about anything that happened, as most of the subplots have nothing to do with the main plot (which is also uninteresting and undeveloped, started only at the end). The whole 2nd chapter was just about nothing.
The copy protection/puzzle was an interesting idea, but what kills it is that you have to deal with it almoust 1/2 of the game. If it was used once, it would be nice. But after the fifth time it became just irritating.
The characters are also very undeveloped. As the game begins, Freddy goes around the town, talking to characters. He knows just everybody he meets, and he talks to them just like he continues the previous dialog. But I DON'T know them, and there's almoust nothing told about them in the game. They became just uninteresting, and I didn't care about them or what happened to them (and the ending, that was supposed to be non-expected, didn't get me exited, as I wasn't cared for that one character that considered to be a surprise, as it almoust didn't appear in the game at all).
Plus, the dialogs in the game ment absolutely nothing to the game process. Absolutely. Plus, what you hear is turned out to be only 2-3 phrases in a form of a joke. And after the 1st part of the game, you'll have little chances to talk to characters or to read the funny descriptions of the locations, as there'll almoust no time to do this, as there'll go those timed puzzles.
I also didn't enjoy many of the puzzles, and not because many of them were on the hard side (which is not the problem), but bacause they were just absurd and illogical, and also timed. Only a few puzzles were memorable.
The graphics of the game wasn't good even at the time it was released - blurred backgrounds and very pixellised characters. Even such games, that were made by Sierra earlier - like Longbow and Larry 5 (two years earlier) had better graphics.
The only two positive moments in the game are nice music and, of course, awfully great humor. The humor is really awsome, and it's the only thing that keeps you playing.

All in all, my guess that humor and music are not enough to save poor plot, characters and the whole gameplay. I'd give it 2 out of 5 stars.

[Mattsius]

I'm actually playing Freddy Pharkas right now (it's my second time) and I agree with Bard about almost everything he said, but you've got some good points also, Ariel Type. I don't agree about the characters though. In many adventure games the main character talks to the other characters like he or she doesn't know them, but according to the game he or she should know them. That happens very often in AGs and it somewhat shatters the credibility of the game. You're right, AT, that it's hard to get interested in the non-playing characters if the game doesn't tell you much about them, but I feel that that doesn't happen in FP as much as it could. And FP isn't supposed to be a game with a deep story, but more of a light-hearted satire and it fills that description very well IMHO.
The music is shear brilliance and the manual, well it's perhaps the best manual ever made.

It was a very good review, Bard, especially considering that it's your first at AG. Keep up the good work.

[Bard09]

Thanks for the comments, Arial Type. Your notes on the puzzles are valid; the lack of the final star was due to, as you said, the outrageousness of the puzzles. I hesitated to write "illogical" because, more often than not, if you've read through the manual and know what's going on in terms of the game, the puzzle solutions are mostly logical. It's just the framework for the logic that some gamers are probably put off by, not the puzzles themselves (which is an issue I completely understand).

As for the non-player controlled characters in the game, they were more than likely written that way for both the humor of the game and the story behind it. Regardless of their dimensionality in terms of character interaction, I found that most of them were entertaining and served the game's purpose well. Most western films aren't known for deep character development in second-tier characters, and for a game that is an homage to the genre, I don't think it should be expected, either. On the other hand, I do think that Srini is underused, but it wasn't a significant enough criticism to post in the review.

On the subplots....

Spoiler:

Almost all of the events in Act II are the result of the Sheriff and the Banker trying to run people out of town. Willy does a decent job at explaining that "something sinister is happening in the town of Coarsegold," which eventually leads to the revelation in the game finale.

I'm glad we all agree on the excellent humor, though

[Ariel Type]

Yes, I quite agree on the characters that they have no need to have deep personalities here. They were quite fun (and I enjoyed the moments when Larry himself appeared during the game), and their deepness didn't bothered me really much, just the fact that I know little about their past or present from the game.
Well, I agree that some puzzles were logical (and even creative, like the one where you have to put off the fire), but, say, the one near the final (were you have to use your lab again) was just, well, very outrageous. Or the puzzle in act 2 where you have to cure the cows..
As for the subplots... Well, yes, but it was so little told about any relations between these two events, and the whole intrigue wasn't really interesting to watch at (the ending, again, was just too silly ).