[Terramax]

**This is taken from my review of the game on Amazon.co.uk**

I suspect the developers had a foot each in two doors during the making of 'Art of Murder: FBI Confidential'. On the one hand the game attempts a light hearted approach to the murder mystery genre by the likes of 'Broken Sword: Knights Templar', with its low graphic violent content, little to no swearing, friendly heroine and more adventurous locations, yet at the same time, the visuals and the subject matter give the feeling they were after a more mature route to that of 'Still Life' and 'Gabriel Knight' also.

What we get is a game that on many cases works adequately enough for fans of both parties, but loses any chance of having a distinct identity that could have made this game stand out of the long list of current mediocre adventures of recent years.

Worse still is AoM could have even been a memorable classic. A great example is the opening FMV where our newbie agent Nicole Bonnet, meeting her partner at an abandoned building, is sent on her first `assignment' to fetch his coffee only to return to a gun-shot and finding her partner breathing his last breathe.

Whilst the dialog tries do deliver suspense and an edge, the abruptness of the editing, and little animation to our main protagonist meant what could have easily have been a memorable opening instead ends dully back at the office with little emotion or sympathy for the victim or Nicole.

Speaking of which, one of the saving graces is the exceptional dialog. It's terrific to note there are some memorable sarcastic yet innocent lines from the loveable Nicole but this is a cause for concern also. Her voice actress clearly isn't as enthusiastic or grateful with her material and lines often aren't as powerful or engaging as they should be.

This is a real disappointment. To make matters worse, she seems far too innocent to be an FBI agent. Whilst there's no doubting she's clever, she certainly doesn't stand out as the head strong person you'd expect in such a job, neither do we learn that much about her.

Characters around her are the same. No one appears defined or memorable enough. Memorable characters are crucial to games such as these where the player can often feel lonely, and many games such as Syberia have benefit heavily for having characters with depth and unique quirks.

The story itself is nothing out of the ordinary either, drawing upon the usual clichés. Despite this, I feel, had the points made above have been addressed and with a little more elaboration; this game could have delivered something outstanding. Graphically and artistically, the locations are sharp, clear and interesting.

The game play itself consists pretty much entirely of highly drawn-out item based puzzles. Unfortunately many seem more a chore and whilst certainly all make sense, they've clearly been added to pad out the game longer than necessary. `Puzzles' include adding paper to a printer, charging a mobile phone amongst other things. Whilst this is far from the first adventure to do this (Still Life being a prime example), never have I come across a game to do it so excessively.

To counteract this there is, for the first time I've seen, an option to highlight all interactable items on screen with a click of a button. At no point will you need to pixel hunt for items in the most obscure of places. I highly welcome this, as I don't play games to backtrack in search of an elusive items I don't even know I'm looking for.

Also worth mentioning, for better or for worse, is you won't be doing any backtracking either. Adding to the ultra-linearity of AoM, you may only play at one location at a time. You can only leave once all tasks at hand have been achieved. Unfortunately Nicole is very vague in explaining why, often commenting lines by the likes of "there are still things I need to do here before I leave", etc.

Of all the average adventures I've played, this, along with Post Mortem, has had the most potential. The dialog is certainly there, and the latter half of the game boasts more exotic locations than seen in many other recent offerings (especially murder mysteries) but it falls short due to the developer's inexperience in the adventure game field and [presumably] low budget.

3/5

[Ascovel]

Professional, fair review.

Well, Art of Murder's developer (at least the lead designers) has had considerable experience with adventure games, but with a quite different kind of them (Reah, Schizm, Sentinel). I don't know if you've heard, but they'll soon be releasing another adventure game (similiar to this one) called "Testament of Faith".

[LimpingFish]

Interesting read.

It again raises my oft posted opinion that adventure fans are far more forgiving towards sub-standard product than the mainstream gaming media. PC Zone (UK edition) recently reviewed AoM and awarded it 11%. It's a damning review, read in it's entirety (I have it open here in front of me) and they even awarded it a little symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump, indicating...well, you get the idea.

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100 3.5/5, and Just Adventure gave it 58/100 a C+.

I know different people will find different pros and cons within a game, and my point isn't absolute (eg. PC Gamer awarded AoM 57%, despite a fairly negative review: "Art of Murder gets most of the fundamentals right, but after spending an hour or so with its grating characters, banal dialogue, and inept plot, you probably won't care"), but it always strikes me as odd.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100, and Just Adventure gave it 58/100.

Those are not the scores they gave AoM, just some flawed interpretations of them from sites like metacritic and gamerankings.

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

It again raises my oft posted opinion that adventure fans are far more forgiving towards sub-standard product than the mainstream gaming media. PC Zone (UK edition) recently reviewed AoM and awarded it 11 out of 100. It's a damning review, read in it's entirety (I have it open here in front of me) and they even awarded it a little symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump, indicating...well, you get the idea.

11 out of 100 is way below rating something as just sub-standard. I would only rate a game like that if it was practicly unplayable or sickening for some reason. Similarly, the mentioned usage of a symbol with a stick-figure taking a dump creates in me an inclination to view PC Zone (mainstream media or not) as a crappy magazine.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Adventure Gamers, on the other hand, gave it 70 out of 100..

As Ascovel already said, the reviews here aren't percentage based. It was 3.5 stars out of 5.

I would be interested in the sort of reasons given for the 11 out of 100 score. Scores are all very well but the reasoning is often the most telling as to whether a game is being judged on its merits or whether personal preferences are skewing a score (either positively or negatively).

This is not to say that any reviewer is being dishonest. I'll always assume a reviewer is calling it exactly as they see it. Just that the reasons why they think a game is good or bad are more informative depending on whether you agree with their views on particular aspects.

[LimpingFish]

It was Terramax's original review and my own reading of the PC Zone magazine review that led me to look up Metacritic, just to cross-reference the other AoM reviews. In all honesty, I take all reviews of adventure games by adventure-gaming sites with a pinch of salt, which is the crux of my point. But apologies if my original post seemed misleading. I've corrected the errors.

As to the quality of PC Zone magazine, I'm not here to defend their integrity; it's arguably one of UK's two premier PC gaming magazines (the other being PC Gamer), and, since I first started reading it, I've not had much reason to dismiss their opinions before. Having said that, I'm also not claiming their opinion is infallible.

But they have generally given positive reviews to, for instance, the Sam and Max series, and rank Grim Fandango as one of the best PC games ever made. Even games such as Sherlock Holmes: Nemesis (66%), and Dracula 3 (65%) receive favorable, if not glowingly positive, reviews. So the age old adventure fan lament of "They just don't get adventure games!" isn't the issue here.

The review of AoM basically describes the game as lazily amateurish in design and execution, in all areas. Maybe 11% is a little harsh. Or maybe 3.5 out of 5 is a little generous. Who can say? It's the fact that, in my experience, there is something inherently skewed in how adventure fans perceive commercial adventure games, as opposed to how the "mainstream" gaming media do. I'm not claiming one is more or less valid than the other, but I think it's interesting to investigate the anomalies between the two.

Of course, the bigger question may be: Is this behavior contributing to the lack of innovation (by and large) in the commercial adventure game?

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Maybe 11% is a little harsh. Or maybe 3.5 out of 5 is a little generous. Who can say? It's the fact that, in my experience, there is something inherently skewed in how adventure fans perceive commercial adventure games, as opposed to how the "mainstream" gaming media do.

Cold you talk more in detail about your experiences? It's difficult to comment otherwise. And maybe it's better to start a separate thread about it, because this one doesn't seem to fit the topic very well.

Originally Posted by LimpingFish

Of course, the bigger question may be: Is this behavior contributing to the lack of innovation (by and large) in the commercial adventure game?

Let me answer you with another question.

Psychonauts was lauded by mainstream media as a very innovative game and got spectacular reviews. In reality, as far as gameplay goes, it's just a typical platformer. It also didn't sell well. Now the question: Did those reviews of Psychonauts contribute in some extent to the lack of innovation in the gaming industry in general?

Maybe one more question: Is an unusual story and wacky art design synonymous with game innovation in mainstream media?

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Cold you talk more in detail about your experiences? It's difficult to comment otherwise. And maybe it's better to start a separate thread about it, because this one doesn't seem to fit the topic very well.

Agreed. If we're going to cover adventure reviews in general (rather than Art of Murder in particular) then this really needs to go into a separate thread in the Adventure forum. It's a topic that could provoke interesting discussion, especially with some evidence backing up LimpingFish's views.

I've copied the relevant posts to a new thread (with a link back to this one to explain LimpingFish's "Interesting read" comment)

[Terramax]

Thanks for your views on my review. I did read somewhere that some of the Reah programmers took part in this production, but it slipped my mind when writting this review.

I will certainly be waiting for "Testament of Faith". Art of Murder could have really been something if some basic flaws were corrected ie the voice actress for Bonnett was given some prozac before voicing her lines

It's great to see they're working on another adventure game. I understand the same company was working on other genres ie FPS games also (or at least their parent company) so I was quite worried this would be their last adventure.

And as for the 11/100. That is indeed too harsh. But if I'm correct, that's the same magazine that rated Myst IV something like 47%, so they're obviously biased.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Terramax

Thanks for your views on my review. I did read somewhere that some of the Reah programmers took part in this production, but it slipped my mind when writting this review.

What remained of the original Reah team was bought by City-Interactive. They function as lead designers and graphic artists and not programmers. The old team was only a few people, so I even doubt if anyone there was just a programmer without creative input.

Originally Posted by Terramax

Art of Murder could have really been something if some basic flaws were corrected ie the voice actress for Bonnett was given some prozac before voicing her lines

Interisitingly, this was the second actress that was hired for the job. The first recordings were scrapped as not fitting the character. Personally, I didn't think her voiceover was bad, it just could show a little bit more unique traits of character.

If you'd like to know more about Art of Murder and its design team, I've conducted an interview with the lead designer at ACG.

[Terramax]

excellent. I don't suppose you wrote the review of the game for that site also?

[Ascovel]

Yes, actually I did. That's a big part of my interest how others view the game.

[Terramax]

Well done then. I loved the review of Art of Murder on ACG. It was spot on and exceptionally written.

[Ascovel]

Thanks a lot. I highly value all positive feedback about my articles.

The Art of Murder review may have been a bit too long. I think I'll try to keep my future reviews shorter (with possible exceptions).

[LouiseK]

Yeh it is a bit long - i did skip the last half in all honesty

I wish i'd seen the 11% review in PC Zone... i just bought it and it is really dire.

The voice acting is awful... i mean really bad, its just up and down all the time.

The movement and animation is annoying and awkward.

I have never bought a game where i play the first hour or so and just stop playing and really don't feel like going back to it.

I'm finding that the published reviews on here are really unreliable - scoring from 0 to 5 in half star increments just doesn't cut it and there seems to be a bias toward hyped US games.

[Ascovel]

Do you think the reviews of Art of Murder have been misleading, LouiseK? The game did receive rather average scores all around, but quite a few players actually liked it much more than the critics. It's far from being a game which hasn't got any merit.