[Hendroz]

I respect everyone's opinion of course, but giving two stars to this wonderful and bestseller game doesn't look fair at all to me. It should be taken into account that it was one of the early adventure games, with huge limitation in technology, and also that it was probably the first game to mix adventure and action together.
In your editorial policies you state "we match the game's style or sub-genre with the reviewers personal preferences, i.e. a Myst style game will not be reviewed by someone with a bias against such games." but obviously your staff writer Claire Woods that reviewed the Last Crusade is not accustomed to action/adventure games, as she admits she had trouble and frustration to pass through the boxing sequences of the game.

[Kolzig]

That is actually the only review on the AG site that I don't really like.
Last Crusade is classic game in my opinion. 3,5 - 4 stars is more suitable.


EDIT: Oh lookie, I've got 1000 posts. Yay!

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

I respect everyone's opinion of course, but giving two stars to this wonderful and bestseller game doesn't look fair at all to me. It should be taken into account that it was one of the early adventure games, with huge limitation in technology, and also that it was probably the first game to mix adventure and action together.
In your editorial policies you state "we match the game's style or sub-genre with the reviewers personal preferences, i.e. a Myst style game will not be reviewed by someone with a bias against such games." but obviously your staff writer Claire Woods that reviewed the Last Crusade is not accustomed to action/adventure games, as he admits he had trouble and frustration to pass through the boxing sequences of the game.

I should point out hastily that I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, and that none of my comments should be construed in any way as having anything to do with AG policy .

Whilst I can see your point, good sales have nothing to do with review scores, and the term 'wonderful' is a subjective one. Arguably, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has not stood the test of time well.

As for the editorial policies quotation, I'd hardly define Indy as an action/adventure, but rather as an adventure with action elements, and thus they shouldn't necessarily determine the choice of reviewer. In the interests of a certain amount of balance, however, I will point out that all of these boxing sequences are completely avoidable through puzzle solving (part of the reason I dislike the term action/adventure), and that the other action sequence, in the biplane can be failed without affecting the game, so it's arguably unfair to mark a game down for featuring the sequences. Mind you, this doesn't make the action good...

[Hendroz]

Well, I never defined Last Crusade an Action/adventure.
I just said that action sequences in LC are far easier than action sequences in an action/adventure game. Therefore they can look like "hard" and "frustrating" only to a person who doesn't like action in games at all (which is a personal opinion, but the problem is that it's even stated in the Cons section of this review "Mazes, pixel-hunts and tricky arcade sequences. A virtual catalogue of adventure game no-no’s!": I like mazes, action and sometimes even pixelhunting. Now what? ).
I enjoyed the action sequences in LC and I'm confident that lots of other players did. Most of the guards (which should be considered the hardest action part of the game) are easy to fight, since they show you where they're going to punch Indy by first moving their "guard" (their defending hands) in that direction and waiting a sec before punching. I don't think any action game of the time was that easy.
One could still argue that he/she doesn't like action at all. Well, then this is not the game for you. Because Indiana Jones IS an action guy, and his stories are heavily based on action.

To sum up, maybe I exagerated with the "wonderful" thing, but IMHO LC should get at least 3 stars. Whenever you like it or not it IS an adventure game with action elements. And it should be reviewed for what it is supposed to be, and not for what the reviewer would have liked it to be.

[Jackal]

First of all, you're focusing far too much on a single point. The review does not excessively dwell on the action sequences. It was one criticism among others, and collectively they made the game less enjoyable to Claire.

If an action sequence is both difficult and done poorly (as they often are), it's a reviewer's job to say so, as many gamers will have a similar experience with the game. It may not be shared by experienced action gamers, but that's not the intended audience of the review. The same can be said for pixel hunt and maze lovers. They undoubtedly exist, but these gameplay issues are generally disliked, and any review must speak to that reality.

Of course there's subjectivity inherent in any review, but I see nothing in this one to make me think Claire was being unfair to the game based on an existing bias.

[chapter11studios]

I see nothing in this one to make me think Claire was being unfair to the game based on an existing bias.

I have to agree. Personally, I have very fond memories of Last Crusade, but I don't think Claire's review was in any way unfair.

[Hendroz]

Originally Posted by Jackal

If an action sequence is both difficult and done poorly (as they often are), it's a reviewer's job to say so, as many gamers will have a similar experience with the game. It may not be shared by experienced action gamers, but that's not the intended audience of the review.

Well, I don't consider myself an "experienced action gamer" at all. Last time I played an action game was Doom and I was twelve years old. I generally dislike action-only games, but I tend to like action/adventure. Last Crusade is obviously an adventure/action game, if you don't like action, you shouldn't be playing it, right? But neither you can say that it is a failure, a bad game, just because you don't like, particurarly in this case where there are lots of peoples who liked it instead.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Of course there's subjectivity inherent in any review, but I see nothing in this one to make me think Claire was being unfair to the game based on an existing bias.

I suppose there IS a bias. She clearly stated in her Full Throttle review that she hates action sequences so, why should she like a game like LC?
Of course I like her reviews and everything, it is excellent, but I'm afraid she was not the right person to review LC (IMHO).

[Hendroz]

Originally Posted by chapter11studios

I have to agree. Personally, I have very fond memories of Last Crusade, but I don't think Claire's review was in any way unfair.

Josh, thanks for being and good luck with your wonderful game. 8-)

The review is not that bad, but the rating is too low if you ask me.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

Last Crusade is obviously an adventure/action game, if you don't like action, you shouldn't be playing it, right? But neither you can say that it is a failure, a bad game, just because you don't like, particurarly in this case where there are lots of peoples who liked it instead.

You keep focusing on this as if it's the only criticism of the game. She did NOT say the game was bad or a failure because it had action elements. She said one of the reasons the game failed was including difficult action segments. That is a "fair" assessment, whether you agree with it or not. That was her experience as an veteran adventure gamer, and you can be sure many other people thinking of buying the game would benefit from exactly that perspective.

I suppose there IS a bias. She clearly stated in her Full Throttle review that she hates action sequences so, why should she like a game like LC?

This is all the proof I need to discount your argument. She dislikes action sequences, and yet gave Full Throttle a better grade. She also gave Indy and the Fate of Atlantis 4.5 stars, so this "bias" doesn't seem to reflect itself in other games with action sequences. So clearly there is far more to her grading of Last Crusade than the presence of action, as you're trying to claim.

[Draco2.5]

I dunno, 4 1/2 stars for Fate Of Atlantis seems pretty low.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Draco2.5

I dunno, 4 1/2 stars for Fate Of Atlantis seems pretty low.

It does.
And I would have given Last Crusade a much higher grade, seeing how it was quite innovative, non linear, beautiful for its time and very funny and well-written.

[Hendroz]

Originally Posted by Jackal

That was her experience as an veteran adventure gamer, and you can be sure many other people thinking of buying the game would benefit from exactly that perspective.

That's a good point. But something like "This is a good game, but it is higly unrecomended to those who don't like action" would make the same result without downgrading the game too much.
It is said that action is poorly implemented in the game. Well it is evident that, I and others liked the action sequences.
As for the mazes, they were not difficult at all. I.e. there's an impossible maze in "Legend of Kyrandia", the Serpent's Grotto. It is an huge maze (the area of the maze is big like the whole forest in Quest for Glory I) and you had to carry some strange "fireberries" during the exploration or you would end up eaten by beasts. That was extremely boring because the character died too often. But mazes in LC are more like "find the object, find the exit", they do not involve any action, apart from the nazi fighting. One bad thing about these, was that you weren't able to escape like in FoA, and it was extremely difficult to find the right answer to avoid fighting, so I used to save often and try again. But it has to be taken into account that FoA learned from its predecessor's flaws.

Originally Posted by Jackal

She dislikes action sequences, and yet gave Full Throttle a better grade.

There's not much action in FT, and the Mine Road combat is rather easy, as it only involves mouse clicking.

Originally Posted by Draco2.5

I dunno, 4 1/2 stars for Fate Of Atlantis seems pretty low.

...and if you read the review there's no clear reason for this. So I guess it has to be those action sequences.

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

Tat's a good point. But something like "This is a good game, but it is higly unrecomended to those who don't like action" would make the same result without downgrading the game too much.

Actually, I've read that complaint several times now. And it's not true - at least not in the Amiga version. You can chart the whole maze without ever having to step into the darkness without knowing that there's another bush (because it's the only room you didn't explore yet - all other paths did lead to dead ends). You did notice that once a Fireberry is dropped, it doesn't detoriate any further, right? So while this means you can move... I think three steps away from a Fireberry Bush before you have to return to it, it doesn't make the maze unfair in any way. A bit bothersome, sure, but not exactly unfair.

[AGA]

The fireberry "maze" was great. It wasn't really a maze, since there was an element of puzzling to solving it.

LC wasn't really very actiony at all. As far as I know, all the fighting sequences could be avoided by talking/puzzling your way out of it. You could avoid the whole flying-the-plane (was it a plane? I can't remember...) bit and another path taken.

So while there are aspects of action, they can be mostly avoided. I much prefered the action bits of LC than those of Full Throttle. I hated the whole cavefish section of FT.

But, at the end of the day, reviews are all about the reviewer's own opinion, and there's no real point in us debating the issue, whether we agree or not.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Hendroz

But something like "This is a good game, but it is higly unrecomended to those who don't like action" would make the same result without downgrading the game too much.

This is the last time I'll address this particular issue, because I'm just being forced to say the same thing over and over. Claire obviously did NOT find the game good, with or without action, for the reasons she clearly outlined. Since she gives other games with action better grades than this one, she plainly is not making her dislike of action an unfair prejudice toward ANY game. Arguing which game's action was better has no bearing on the bias you're accusing Claire of having.

Well it is evident that, I and others liked...

This line (regardless of what follows) can, has, and will be said for any game ever made, and always will. There is no way for any one reviewer to reflect the range of preferences and abilities of individual gamers. I understand that you liked the game more than the reviewer. That happens to me sometimes, too. It sucks, but that's the way it is. But that is precisely why there's more to reviews than a score and a list of pros and cons, which is all you seem to be talking about.

The purpose of a review is not to tell you if a game is good or bad. It's to tell you what a reviewer found good, bad, and ugly, and support that in detail, so if you have different tastes, you can decide for yourself if the weaknesses mentioned will affect you personally. I haven't played Last Crusade myself, so have no opinion about the criticisms either way. But I do understand reviewer objectivity, so I take exception to the suggestion that a reviewer is too biased or unqualified to review a game. IF Claire pounded on this game for the lone reason you keep wrongly suggesting, then I would question whether her tastes were clouding her judgement. But since all I see is a very balanced, reasonable discussion of the game's merits - albeit more negative than positive - than I simply have to respect it as a game she didn't like and others did.

Anyway, if you'd like to write a review for the game and post it in the Reader Review forum, that'd be great!

[AFGNCAAP]

Yeah, but you know, you still shouldn't have given a game that many people liked to a reviewer who - apparently - does not like it, therefore being biased against it. It's against site's policy.







Sorry.

Actually, I didn't like Last Crusade at all, as far as my opinion is concerned. And I had enjoyed all six LucasArts games I played before that, so it came as quite a shock to me.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Anyway, if you'd like to write a review for the game and post it in the Reader Review forum, that'd be great!

Yes it would. I'm not questioning Claire's merits as a reviewer here, but it would be good, considering how opinions about this game seem to be pretty polarised, to have the other version.
By the way, don't you think it could be interesting to have links to user reviews in the official reviews?

[chapter11studios]

By the way, don't you think it could be interesting to have links to user reviews in the official reviews?

That's a pretty good idea. I wonder how easy it would be to automate that so they get tagged to the appropriate game?

[AGA]

Automate, rather impossibly difficult. The forum mods could do it easily enough though, if the system existed.

[fov]

Originally Posted by AGA

Automate, rather impossibly difficult. The forum mods could do it easily enough though, if the system existed.

No we couldn't. Having mod capabilities doesn't give you the ability to edit someone else's article.

It's also a lot of work to backtrack and add links if reader reviews go up after a review does... it means the author has to keep an eye on the reader review forum for all eternity. This is especially true of a new release which we (hopefully) will be reviewing before readers have played it. But with a flashback review, it wouldn't be *too* hard for the author to include a link to any existing reader reviews, if they wanted to.

-emily