Adventure Gamers - Forums

Part 1 of 2:

*Er…Spoiler Warning?*

I recently played Gabriel Knight 2—the second time I’ve played through the game, but the first time I actually finished it, and I came away with some very mixed feelings.  Fans of the game seem fully intent to willfully disregard its many shortcomings, and to inflate its genuine strengths (it does have a few, but best-adventure-game-of-all-time it surely is not.)  So after finishing it (and being royally pissed off by the absolutely terrible endgame sequence), I decided to look up some reviews of the game.  I watched several video reviews, read a few article reviews, and came to the conclusion that this game has rarely gotten a nostalgia-free review that takes into account whether or not the damn thing is just any fun at all to play in 2013.  I would argue that it ultimately is, but only with some MAJOR caveats.

Side note: The “Does it hold up?” question could be asked of pretty much any classic adventure game, so I thought maybe I’d write some more of these over time, focusing more on the games that are largely regarded as some of the best of the genre.  Consider this the first of an ongoing series.

Alright, so—we’ll start off with the game’s strengths.

First and foremost, the overarching story is pretty good—not amazing, but pretty good.  It’s marred by some really badly written character dialog that is often acted in such a way as to emphasize its weakness and undercut its strengths, and a number of plot points that aren’t adequately explained.  Jane Jensen has a knack for weaving together history and fiction—there’s no doubt about that, but when it comes to writing dialog that actually sounds like a real conversation two people would have, she doesn’t always hit the mark.  To be fair, I also found this to be a weakness in GK1, a game which I much prefer to this sequel.  About the only game Jane has written (that I’ve played) where I thought most of the dialog worked well was King’s Quest 6.  But that game was also significantly better acted than this one.

I think in terms of werewolf narratives, this is a very strong one.  The way the fictional pieces of the story fit with some of the actual mysteries and legends of Bavarian history is definitely the high-point of the game.  The parts of the game where you, as Grace, are tasked with delving into the history and mythology of the area is great, but ultimately those sections serve to highlight the weakness of Gabriel’s side of the narrative.  At times I felt like it wasn’t clear enough WHY Gabriel was doing some of the things he was doing—like getting involved with the Hunt Club, getting to know Von Glower.  In general, Gabriel’s side of the story is just less interesting.  The “case” he’s trying to solve is quickly forgotten as Gabriel gets more and more sidetracked with new characters and locations.  Later on in the story, when you find the zoo wolf tags—I remember distinctly thinking something along the lines of “Oh yeah, I was supposed to be solving a case!” 

The story also hits its peak well before the final act.  In fact, I think the final act in general is probably the weakest point of the entire game.  It’s never made clear why the opera itself apparently has the power to make the werewolves transform, or why exactly that’s useful to anyone.  And the gameplay as Grace, walking around the opera house picking up random bits of junk and setting up the “trap” (which is also never explained—why exactly did they need to lock Von Glower in and shine a spotlight on him?) is just boring.  This was the point where I stopped playing in my first run through the game, and it was out of boredom.  Anyway, I don’t want to spend too much more time picking apart the story—suffice it to say that it has its strengths and weaknesses, but is far from the perfect masterpiece many claim it to be.

I do really like that the main villain is sympathetic and multi-dimensional as a character, though.  So often in werewolf stories, the actual werewolf villain is portrayed as more of an animalistic killer, and that’s not at all the case here, which is a nice change of pace that helps set the story apart.  In fact, the villain is so sympathetic, that it seemed a little strange that he ends up getting violent and having to be killed at the end of the game.  I guess the opera did that?  Yeah…another thing that wasn’t very well explained.  Oh well.

Most of the game’s puzzles were pretty logical, which was a good thing, though far too many of them relied on revisiting locations to find new items that had magically “appeared” there after arbitrary points in the plot.  I also found some of the research-gathering “puzzles” to be pretty tedious.  While the historical mystery they unraveled was interesting, from a gameplay perspective, they were basically pixel hunts, where you needed to wander around a location and click on EVERYTHING in order to advance the plot.  And then there’s the endgame sequence as the wolf, which might actually be one of the worst things I’ve ever played in an adventure game.  It’s VERY trial and error based, timed, and with more or less no explanation as to what you’re supposed to do.  And to top it all off, it’s followed by a final nut-kick in the form of a hair-trigger timing “puzzle” (if clicking the exact right spot in the exact right split second can be considered a puzzle.)  In general, I thought the puzzles got weaker as the game went on.  My favorite was probably splicing the tapes together to get access to the zoo wolves near the beginning of the game.

I think part of the blame for some weak puzzles goes to the game’s FMV format—I think the use of “real-world” photographs for locations, as well as a limited number and type of props (ever notice how like 75% of the game’s inventory items are pieces of paper?), limited the scope of what they could do with creative set-pieces and puzzles.

Part 2 of 2:

And of course, we have to speak of the FMV format, which…I’m sorry, fans…just does not hold up by any stretch of the imagination.  The acting may have been better than some other FMV games of the day, but it’s still soap opera quality at best, and leans really heavily on melodrama (which is partly the fault of the lousy dialog writing.)  This was a HUGE turn-off for me, and constantly took me out of the story.  I did really like some of the supporting characters—the actor playing Von Glower deserves all the praise he gets; I’ll happily admit that.  I also liked the demonologist couple, Commissar Leber, and a few others.  Strangely, and unfortunately, Gabriel and Grace seemed like two of the weakest acted parts, and of course, we see them the most throughout the game.  Grace’s problem was overacting, especially in the parts where she’s supposed to be “bitchy,” and Gabriel’s was the exact opposite—a totally soulless and generic performance that was completely forgettable in almost every way.  It’s really ironic that Gabriel seemed so much more developed as a character in the first game, where he’s represented by a pile of pixels rather than a real human being.  This is partly due to the writing and the more active role Gabriel takes in the investigation in GK1, and partly a testament to the quality of Tim Curry’s voice acting, which despite being a little annoying at times, is leaps and bounds a more interesting portrayal than Dean Erickson’s version of the character.  Gabriel and Grace’s melodramatic moment together at the very end of the game here was so cringeworthy that it actually caused me to laugh out loud.

The FMV sequences themselves didn’t LOOK terrible (caveat: for mid-90s FMV sequences)—the actors were pretty well coordinated with their green-screen backgrounds, and they generally felt like they actually “fit” into the locations.  The video quality definitely takes some getting used to though—by today’s standards, it’s pretty terrible.  I found the transition between the sharper resolution of the playable sections and the grainier resolution of the FMV sequences to be distracting every single time.

My biggest problem with the visuals ultimately stems from the use of real world photographs for backgrounds and sprites.  In my opinion, it just is not possible to create the same kind of “magic” with photographs as you can with hand-painted scenes.  No matter how interesting the subject of the photograph is, it is going to lack the soul and drama added by an artist’s hand.  And using photos of the actors as sprites—ugh…it just looks terrible compared to a hand-drawn and animated character at the same resolution.  The movement was always awkward, the characters always felt too stiff (without any idle animations, except occasionally during dialog tree scenes.)  In general, the art direction just felt so cold and lifeless compared to any of Sierra’s hand-painted games.  Seriously, if it was hand-painted and animated, I could ignore most of the campy acting.

The game’s musical score is mostly great, if a little too melodramatic for my tastes at times.  Strangely, the music occasionally kicks in too loud, and drowns out the spoken dialog—this happens at several points throughout the game, and is a real problem, especially considering the lack of subtitles.  The music is generally great at keeping a mysterious mood throughout the whole game, as well as making it feel consistent with GK1.  It reminded me a little of the soundtracks of some of the older Resident Evil games, which were also all about setting a mysterious and slightly unsettling mood.

The sound quality of the FMV sequences, however, is pretty bad.  Every sound effect and vocal performance sounds noticeably like it was recorded indoors, which I personally found pretty distracting, especially in outdoor scenes.  It’s hard to describe, but there’s just a bit of echo and noise to every FMV sequence that reminds you that everything is being recorded through one or two boom mics held just over the heads of actors.  There’s a nice hiss of mic noise going on in the background during pretty much every FMV sequence.  Having done a fair amount of sound engineering and mixing myself, this really stood out to me, and is a big part of what makes the FMV sequences feel cheap and soap-opera-ish.

Overall, I have very mixed views of GK2.  Does it hold up?  Eh…yes and no. 

I can see why people like it, but I also never played it when it was new, so I can take a nice long nostalgia-free look at it, too.  The story has some great strengths, but some weak points as well.  While many of the documents you read throughout the game are well-written, the actual spoken dialog is very uneven, and made all the worse by campy acting.  The ugliness of the FMV makes the game very difficult to recommend to newcomers, as it’s really just something you have to hold your nose and ignore in order to get any enjoyment out of the game.  I’m not at all a fan of the game’s art style—it strikes me as a choice made at least partly in order to cut development costs (although I’m sure the FMV made the whole thing more expensive in the long run.)  In general, it’s a decent story marred by some very unfortunate presentation choices, as well as some really badly designed “puzzle” sequences that tarnish the whole experience.  It is far, FAR from the best adventure game ever, and I think most people who rave about it are wearing giant, novelty-sized rose-colored glasses with coke-bottle lenses. 

When all is said and done, if you liked GK1, you should probably give it a whirl—it’s dirt cheap on GOG.com, so why not?  Be advised though—liking GK1 is by no means a guarantor that you will like this game.  So much is different here that it really feels like a completely different style of game, despite the general similarities of tone.

tomimt - 23 October 2013 04:56 AM

You pretty much nail my sentiments from GK2 with this. It’s a hit and miss kind of a thing, where ultimately the clunky execution hurts the final product quite a bit.

I agree on that. The game had potential, but the mechanics were so terrible I gave up on it

tomimt - 23 October 2013 04:56 AM

I’ve seeen GK2 been stated as one of the best FMV games, but I’ve never felt that way. FMV was used much better on other titles, but Sierra’s adventure titles aren’t among them.

Really? I thought it was one of the worst to be honest. I thought the scenes and the FMV character rarely matched, and it just annoyed me to no end that it wasn’t like GK:Sins of the Fathers, which felt far more engaging and realistic than this.

I think it’s a very subjective thing. A lot of the parts there I agree to some extent, a lot of them I don’t. I personally liked the game more than GK1 (and the series altogether are amongst my favorite games).

It’s funny who you brought up as good actors - while Von Glover is of course fantastic, I thought the demonoligsts and Leber weren’t good at all. Though, being quite campy and over-the-top I didn’t mind too much, because it made them rather comical in a way I could live with.

As for the photography not being as good as hand-drawn… It’s purely a matter of personal preference. I’m not sure they could’ve achieved that good a level with hand-drawn graphics. I liked the life-like atmosphere and I think hand-drawn would’ve changed that too much.

Before I played GK2, I always thought I couldn’t stand FMV. But I actually found it quite pleasant in it, aside from a few acting moments. But the technical “difficulties” like the people standing still and the little shifts in parts (like when going from spoken dialogue to dialogue tree) is just what always happens in games. But in FMV you maybe think about that more (because you think of them more as “real people” and you expect life-like behaviour rather than video game character behaviour). But it felt just as clunky or unclunky in that sense as with traditional graphics when you… don’t expect it to be “more than a game” (I’m having a hard time expressing this thought, but I hope you get what I mean).

Anyway, the whole point is that it’s hard to give a very generally acceptable review of this one because it just has so much that depends on everyone’s personal preferences.

Nevertheless, it’s good to hear all kinds of opinions! And I’ll be interested to read more if you indeed intend to do more such “articles”.

I do agree with many points made, even Lambonius’ ones.

But I think that especially FMV games from the mid 90’s era are very hard to review almost 20 years later. Most positive remarks of the game stem from people who actually played the game when it came out. It was a lot more impressive then as it was still considered a novelty compared to now, using doxbox and playing the entire thing in a small window. The experience does not line up anymore with the earlier playthroughs….even though I still like it.

Secondly, why call this an “Honest” review? Does this imply that other reviews are less honest and have been influenced by other factors?
I don’t that’s a fair or objective thing to say.

I enjoyed this - you definitely covered a lot of the strengths and weaknesses I find in the game.  I think the story is very engaging and interesting, and despite a few stumbles (Yeah, why DOES the opera reveal a werewolf and why would Wagner even want to do that? He was too busy hating Jews to worry about werewolves….) it’s a cool mystery story.

I didn’t like FMV back in the 90’s, and I still don’t care for it here and now - but there were definitely games that used it better.  I did think the music was great and very appropriate for the setting.

I think this game gets as much derision as praise, and it’s definitely a divisive issue withing the adventure game community!

I think this is cool as a “Series” as well - “Does it Hold Up?”, I mean.

Bt

I agree with subbi on that: there is no way you can review a 15-20 year old game today with the value it deserves. For me, reviewing old games today is not fare and have no purpose. I remember well the first time I played GK2 in 1996: it was a blast! And I never had the same feelings with the today’s games. For this, pure and simple: GK2 is ONE of the (if not THE) best games I ever played. That is what CLASSIC means, by the way.

P.S. And I don’t know why the title of this topic have an HONEST in it. The other reviews were not? Do you think that this review is? I don’t agree so, far the opposite.

I think you can - there are certain games from the past that are definitely replayable, and some that relied too much on gimmicky conventions of the time.  I think GK2 suffers from this - the push for FMV technology was too gimmicky, and not a really natural evolution like AGI to SCI0 to the SCI-VGA games that came later.  I think now you can really look at GK2 and say “Yeah.  The FMV here was a gimmick, not really an enhancement to game play.”

Though, I said it before, I didn’t care for GK2’s look or mechanics in 1996, either.

As for the “honest” in the title, I think - as he stated - that many reviewers will look at it through totally rose-colored glasses.  A reviewer will always have a bias, but sometimes it can be a bit skewed to the point where you overlook massive flaws in the name of nostalgic love.

In the end, if you enjoyed the game and continue to love it, no review is going to change that for you!  It’s just one person’s opinion… and it leads to discussion.

Bt

tomimt - 23 October 2013 10:32 AM

I’d say most nostalgia infused reviews are pretty biased. For an example most of GOG.COM user reviews are pretty useless, as the reviews, if you can call em such, are mostly written by only the people who are creaming their pants because of the release of their childhood favourite game, and not really looking at them objectively. There’s some horrible games there with 4-5 star rating.

Haha…well said.  Yeah, that’s all I meant by “honest.”  I was just very surprised when looking at reviews not to be able to find any that really acknowledged some of what I felt were pretty glaring flaws with the game, and the few that did were openly apologetic about them.  And at least half of the reviews called it one of the best adventure games ever made (which I think is kind of a silly statement to make about ANY game, let alone one that is as polarizing as this one.)  Ultimately, I just don’t think it’s fair to ignore issues of presentation and gameplay and still label it “best adventure game ever.”  Certainly, I don’t claim this to be any more than one man’s opinion. 

*I decided to change the thread title from “Honest” to “Nostalgia-Free,” which is more what I was going for.  Hopefully you guys find that more acceptable. 

Also, in terms of the Gabriel parts being weaker, remember I’ve only played through the game twice (once to completion,) so the story isn’t as ingrained in my mind as someone who has played the thing many times over the years.  In general I felt like the story was harder to follow in some of the Gabriel sections, whereas the goals of each chapter as Grace felt more clearly defined.  You were always going to a specific place looking to gather specific information, and as you did it, you learned more and more of the interesting backstory of the characters and history. 

Gabriel’s sections felt more disjointed to me—they didn’t really capture the feeling of truly “investigating a case” for me.  If you compare it to GK1, where you were constantly asking questions and gathering info, Gabriel really felt like an intelligent investigator in that game.  It was always clearer to me what he was supposed to be doing at any given time, and at the end of the game, when Mosley says “You’re the expert!” in reference to Gabriel’s knowledge of voodoo—well, damned if you didn’t actually feel like an expert at that point! 

I think in GK2, Grace takes up the majority of the “information gathering,” which ultimately makes her sections feel more focused, whereas Gabriel’s sections felt a bit more like the character was just wandering around and stumbling into situations.  Also, the Gabriel sections definitely had the more adventure gamey moments, like the cuckoo clock in the bush, which felt a little weird given the “realism” of actual actors and FMV.  Though I guess Grace had her moments of absurdity, too—capturing a pigeon and sticking it in her coat is a pretty silly thing that no real person would ever do, for example. 

Well, Lambonius, now it’s better: a nostalgia-free review. Since I DO like nostalgia, I’ll pass by on commenting here anymore and let you guys go ahead on trying to understand what means a Classic, a “Best of”, etc, game made 18 years ago, when you probably where not born yet or were too young. As you all know, opinions are opinions, tastes are tastes, and I don’t discuss those. There’s no point.

Haha, most of us are much older than you think. All the Beatles were once alive in my lifetime.

Bt