Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
AG Community Playthrough #78: The Case of the Golden Idol
I’ve finished all three parts of The Cursed Inheritance chapter. The game is getting increasingly complex, although it took longer for me to figure out part 2 than part 3. I’m enjoying the game a lot, but so far it’s not quite as cleverly put together as I had hoped and maybe expected. The game does provide the player with clues that can be used reach definite conclusions in most cases, but sometimes I feel we’re supposed to “safely assume” some stuff too. I think especially putting together what actually happens/has happened in the scenes involves a bit of guesswork.
So far I haven’t had to deliberately force-solve anything though.
I liked how things connected (clues-wise) with the previous chapter. Clever! But there are some less good stuff in the writing too. Who would (Willard Wright in this case) in real life in a letter write about when he plans to post the letter (in part 1 of the second chapter)? What use is that information to the recipient? Not sure why we needed to know what date it was either. And was the plan really to steal the idol from Wright by entering and leaving his room through the hatch in the ceiling without waking him up? A bit far-fetched I think. Obviously Wright wasn’t that heavy a sleeper.
But these are minor things. Really looking forward to continuing.
I’m at a stopping point. I also found fifth case to be the most difficult out of them all so far. The sixth one was very easy in comparison. I spent the longest time looking at
“_____ ______ wanted _____ ______ dead”
and trying multitude of combinations that I thought could fit the bill. I ended up walking away, then solving the next case and then realizing that grey keys are supposed to be copies of other keys which did give me a new direction to proceed and solve it. This was clever, but I feel like the solutions come across as a bit jarring, which could be a result of working backwards - specifically creating clues after developers already chose/written the killer. Walking into this situation head first - not all things make sense, and in some cases - motivation can come across as rather abrupt.
For example, in the fourth case - I didn’t see why the killer was the killer besides some VERY VAGUE hints - the “do not take no for an answer” in the note? That he was to get “the product” asap, and that the inn seemed to be the place to facilitate some illegal dealings? Maybe, the note on Redruth? (unless I’m missing something here), and the only reason I even tried the name is because of the proximity of his room and running out of other options. I still didn’t see a strong motive for the killer, or anyone else for that matter.
Only later, as we move through cases and people start making repeated appearances (LOVE that feature, by the way. Really cool that we have to take in the whole picture and look back on older cases to solve the current one) it’s becoming clear what could be a motivation for such actions. I couldn’t see it at case 4 yet, though. It all falls apart, of course, if people were able to recognize him from previous case under a different name right away AND put together their nefarious plans on the spot which very well may be. I can be extremely observant or miss something obvious at the same time. 
Comparisons between this game and Obra Dinn are unavoidable, so I’d say it’s a slightly choppier take on OD game mechanics, where you range thinking “this is very easy” to “this seems extremely far-fetched, but I’m going to try it anyway. Wait, it worked?” with difficulty spikes instead of slow increase, while OD was smooth and challenging the entire way (that’s why it’s a masterpiece, I suppose).
I’m really enjoying this game though (and my difficulty question has been answered - not too easy, no), because I really like this process of piecing stuff together, and along with developers surprised that more games didn’t expand on this after OD.
I found the solution to the fifth case only after finally connecting the note in Ada Baker’s room with the text she had on her. Then it became clear who wanted Edmund dead, but we still have no idea about the motive as far as I can tell. Possibly connected to Ada’s husband having been wrongfully accused of commiting some crime (as per the text on her), but that remains only a qualified guess so far, right?
As for the fourth case, I think there was never a motive to kill Wright, only to by any means get the idol from him. Wright had probably refused to sell it, leading Ash/Gorran to try to steal it instead. When Wright woke up Gorran had to kill him and then arranged the scene so that the blame would be put on the escaped murder convict (he had obviously seen the poster in the bar).
One thing I wondered about is what happened to the idol after the theft. It’s missing from the scene and all we know is that Edmund has it in the next case. My guess is that Ash/Gorran dropped it from his window, probably to Edmund himself. There were tracks leading off from under the window.
By the way, I’m not sure what I think about the way we gather some of the “clues” in the game, especially in the fifth part. The “name” of the person that for some reason wanted Edmund dead consists of two words found on Little Pip’s books IIRC. Completely unrelated to the actual person we are supposed to point out.
I found the solution to the fifth case only after finally connecting the note in Ada Baker’s room with the text she had on her. Then it became clear who wanted Edmund dead, but we still have no idea about the motive as far as I can tell. Possibly connected to Ada’s husband having been wrongfully accused of commiting some crime (as per the text on her), but that remains only a qualified guess so far, right?
I never connected Ada’s note or her book to anything… I only went with her because she had access to the copies of the keys, and, by extension, to the tonic water.That was clever of you! I was surprised that she was a part of that secretive group at all. I’m assuming the motive is that Willard Wright was a part of that Brotherhood that was after the idol, and Edmund swiped the idol for his own experiments, so they sent him a threatening letter (he threw away). Essentially - give up the idol or your life. He never complied. Ada was the person to carry out the task. Poor Rose was just extremely unlucky.
As for the fourth case, I think there was never a motive to kill Wright, only to by any means get the idol from him. Wright had probably refused to sell it, leading Ash/Gorran to try to steal it instead. When Wright woke up Gorran had to kill him and then arranged the scene so that the blame would be put on the escaped murder convict (he had obviously seen the poster in the bar).
Agreed, which is what makes it a lot more difficult (not the “pleasant” kind of difficulty) to solve these. The motives are quite often either really abrupt (Ada is suddenly part of the Brotherhood and a ruthless killer) or unclear and could be understood way later in the game. After case 6 and the whole Gorran/Edmund team in hot pursuit of acquiring and keeping the idol, case 4 becomes a lot clearer)
One thing I wondered about is what happened to the idol after the theft. It’s missing from the scene and all we know is that Edmund has it in the next case. My guess is that Ash/Gorran dropped it from his window, probably to Edmund himself. There were tracks leading off from under the window.
I thought Edmund died after disfigurement and trauma in the explosion, as per video upon finishing case 6. He didn’t?
By the way, I’m not sure what I think about the way we gather some of the “clues” in the game, especially in the fifth part. The “name” of the person that for some reason wanted Edmund dead consists of two words found on Little Pip’s books IIRC. Completely unrelated to the actual person we are supposed to point out.
I was clueless about that too (just knew after connecting Ada to the crime that it has to include one of the words Steward/Vanguard/Final and went with Darkhand just because these 3 words didn’t work as needed combination, and it needed to be something other than a regular name…However, after your way of solving the case - by connecting Ada’s message to note in her room - I went and read that note, and you can read “sincerely, Dark Hard” in the end of the message. So it’s your answer that helped me explain this to myself.
I never connected Ada’s note or her book to anything… I only went with her because she had access to the copies of the keys, and, by extension, to the tonic water.That was clever of you!
It helps if you find a certain book in a bookshelf that is pretty hard to spot and that is not among the “mandatory” things to find (like the syringe in the bowl the statue holds). The book is about coding stuff in a similar way that is done in the text about Ada’s husband. Finding that book is what made me look for the connection. Did you find it?
I thought Edmund died after disfigurement and trauma in the explosion, as per video upon finishing case 6. He didn’t?
Yes, the video after case six more than suggests that Edmund has died, but he was still alive when the murder occured/the idol was stolen in case four right? By the way, I got the feeling David Gorran has killed Edmund. Edmund lied protected in the chest when the explosion occured and the explosion itself seems to have been an act of self-defense by him. My hunch is that Gorran did a bad thing to his employer after the happenings in case six to get the idol for himself, but I guess we’ll see in the following chapter(s).
Interesting comments! I thought it would be best to give the other participants the chance to respond, but nobody has. So I will post my own thoughts tomorrow.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
I’m enjoying the game a lot, but so far it’s not quite as cleverly put together as I had hoped and maybe expected. The game does provide the player with clues that can be used reach definite conclusions in most cases, but sometimes I feel we’re supposed to “safely assume” some stuff too. I think especially putting together what actually happens/has happened in the scenes involves a bit of guesswork.
Can you give an example of guesswork? IMO everything in the *thinking panel* can be figured out by deduction and paying attention to details, without resorting to guessing. But (and this is also in response to DCast) people’s motives are not spelled out. Seeing the connections between different deaths and/or chapters, and reading between the lines is a must to understand the whole story. It’s one reason I love this game. 
I liked how things connected (clues-wise) with the previous chapter. Clever! But there are some less good stuff in the writing too. Who would (Willard Wright in this case) in real life in a letter write about when he plans to post the letter (in part 1 of the second chapter)? What use is that information to the recipient? Not sure why we needed to know what date it was either.
Most people start a letter with the date, even though that may not be important to the recipient. What’s more, postal services were not very good in the 1780s. Mr Wright probably had to find someone to deliver the letter for him and it would take days to arrive. The date is a clue to the killer, so I guess the devs wanted to emphasize the connection to the same date mentioned in David Gorran’s letter. But again, there’s a degree of redundancy in all cases. It’s entirely possible to identify the killer by eliminating people. Or, like DCast said, by recognizing David and his tobacco brand.
My own problem is the letter to David. He is clearly following his employer’s orders to steal the idol. Why make it look like some “trading company” and a “client” are involved. In case he got caught? Seems a bit contrived.
One tiny, trivial detail I found jarring: Williard Wright bought Annie a drink but it’s not on the tab.
And was the plan really to steal the idol from Wright by entering and leaving his room through the hatch in the ceiling without waking him up? A bit far-fetched I think. Obviously Wright wasn’t that heavy a sleeper.
I don’t think there was a plan, David just had to do everything he could to get his hands on the idol. He was probably desperate and the hatch was his only option.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
I found the solution to the fifth case only after finally connecting the note in Ada Baker’s room with the text she had on her. Then it became clear who wanted Edmund dead, but we still have no idea about the motive as far as I can tell.
Hm, that’s not entirely correct.
One thing I wondered about is what happened to the idol after the theft. It’s missing from the scene and all we know is that Edmund has it in the next case. My guess is that Ash/Gorran dropped it from his window, probably to Edmund himself. There were tracks leading off from under the window.
Very observant of you. I had thought of doing a little quiz at the end of the playthrough, just 4 or 5 questions. One of the questions would have been who made those footsteps. (Not Edmund.)
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Comparisons between this game and Obra Dinn are unavoidable [...]
Speaking of Obra Dinn, the demonic mermaid in III must be a tribute. And of course Monkey Paw Island in the very first case.
Hey, chrissie, Nico, Timovieman, Doom, diego, where are you? No time to play or post? Come on, it’s such a fun game!
Unless someone objects, let’s move on and solve the next three cases: VII, VIII, and IX.
Quote of the Day
How to overcome fear:
Feeling scared is a weakness. Be strong instead. (Sebastian Cloudsley)
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Can you give an example of guesswork? IMO everything in the *thinking panel* can be figured out by deduction and paying attention to details, without resorting to guessing. But (and this is also in response to DCast) people’s motives are not spelled out. Seeing the connections between different deaths and/or chapters, and reading between the lines is a must to understand the whole story. It’s one reason I love this game.
You’re right. I too like how we’re supposed to fill in the blanks between cases and when it comes to peoples motivations. It’s part of what makes the game so interesting and why one wants to continue playing.
You may be right about the thinking panel being possible to solve by “absolute deduction” but there were parts where I thought “can we really be sure?” about some facts. The ones I remember now involved deducing where people were placed around the table in case five (and by identifiyng them ultimately deducing who was meant to be murdered). I guessed that it was the young girl (forgot her name) who drank orange juice. I found nothing that for sure told us she didn’t drink stronger stuff (of course I may have missed the clue). And yes, there’s a note from the doctor advising Edmund not to drink alcohol, but are we certain he didn’t anyway, esepecially at his own dinner parties? Does the fact that the forged keys hung from the wall outside Ada’s window with certainty tell us that she was actually the one putting them there? I mean, the butler for example surely had access to her room, locked or not. Little things like that.
That letter to Gorran/Ash in part four didn’t make sense to me. Still doesn’t.
Will be great to move on! Hope others chime in soon.
I finished part 6 today and i m loving this game. It makes you spot little details and try to connect the dots. It reminds me a little ace attorney gameplay but this feels very challenging. It takes me more than an hour to solve a case and i m using all the hints usually to progress. Hints are very well implemented in this game. They dont give too much, just an idea what to check next.
Anyway, ready for the next chapter.
Hey, chrissie, Nico, Timovieman, Doom, diego, where are you? No time to play or post? Come on, it’s such a fun game!
Present, and finished Chapter II last night. Just didn’t have time to post about it yet.
And I had initially missed the go-ahead past parts II and III of Chapter I, so I didn’t exactly play with the necessary urgency until this weekend. 
Thoughts so far:
- It’s clearly inspired by Return of the Obra Dinn, which is a good thing. Unfortunately that also means it constantly sets itself up for comparison, and I’m not sure it can compete.
- I’m not too fond of the graphics. I wasn’t in any of the screenshots beforehand, and I’m not when playing the game. Too much colour dithering which is something that has no business in a modern game, imo. Some parts of “retro” should stay in the past. Obra Dinn completely nailed the retro graphics. This is just… blah.
- Gameplay is rougher than it was with Obra Dinn. That game flowed. This is just a sequence of scenes of varying difficulty, with less incentive to keep playing “just a little bit”. Obra Dinn had me completely hooked after the tutorial chapter, Golden Idol still hasn’t…
Having said that, I’m still enjoying the game. The solving mechanics definitely mean that we’re solving things. And you can’t really go wrong with an attempt at capturing the essence of Return of the Obra Dinn.
The “two or less slots are incorrect” are an invitation to brute-force, yes, but they’re also pretty helpful in the couple of instances where you’re just off about what unfolded because you haven’t quite figured out the motive yet.
Curious to see what else will unfold with this Golden Idol.
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
Hey, chrissie, Nico, Timovieman, Doom, diego, where are you? No time to play or post? Come on, it’s such a fun game!
I’m a bit short on time lately to play through the chapter, and I don’t remember all those details regarding the cases like who killed whom to contribute to the discussion, but I’ll catch up soon, I promise!
PC means personal computer
Hey, chrissie, Nico, Timovieman, Doom, diego, where are you? No time to play or post? Come on, it’s such a fun game!
Hi Karlok, I got to the stopping point but sorry, I have been busy & will be until next week so no time to post my thoughts on the chapters I’ve completed except to say I’ve found the game so far very addictive, if tough, & I love it!
@Doom and chrissie (and diego?): Looking forward to your comments. I hope you will catch up soon.
Here’s my planning:
This week we play Chapter 3 (= VII, VIII, and IX).
Next week Chapter 4 (= X and XI) + the Epilogue
Followed by another week for the DLC, which consists of 3 cases.
If anybody objects, please let me know.
@Timovieman: I agree with most of your comments. But unlike you, I got hooked straightaway and when that happens you stop comparing the game to other games.
You may be right about the thinking panel being possible to solve by “absolute deduction” but there were parts where I thought “can we really be sure?” about some facts.
Generally speaking, there’s a kind of tacit agreement that games don’t lie to the player. I’m sure we can come up with exceptions, but it would be very bad for a game like the Golden Idol, which is based on deduction and reasoning, to pull the rug out from under the player. So yes, you can trust the facts presented to you. Of course that doesn’t mean characters won’t lie or distort the truth. But in that case the game does provide clues that not everything is as it seems.
The ones I remember now involved deducing where people were placed around the table in case five (and by identifiyng them ultimately deducing who was meant to be murdered).
Here’s how I did it: 1. Peter is holding a fork and one plate is missing a fork -> that must be his plate. 2. The butler has a shilling -> he put Mary next to Peter. 3. Women don’t smoke cigars (a reasonable assumption, expecially in those days) -> Mary sits on Peter’s left. 4. Everybody except Mary and one other person drinks wine -> that person has to be Edward. So Lothar smokes cigars and the last plate must be Rose’s.
And yes, there’s a note from the doctor advising Edmund not to drink alcohol, but are we certain he didn’t anyway, esepecially at his own dinner parties? Does the fact that the forged keys hung from the wall outside Ada’s window with certainty tell us that she was actually the one putting them there? I mean, the butler for example surely had access to her room, locked or not. Little things like that.
If Edmund sometimes ignores his doctor’s advice the game should provide that info. Same goes for the butler. There’s no indication he has access to Ada’s room.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
