Ninth

I liked reading this review, even though I haven't played the game.

Something struck me, though. I've heard Dagger of Amon Ra cited many times as one of the great AGs of yore, and reading the review gives the impression that's it's relatively worthless (as a game, in any case).

I appreciate that a review is by nature the expression of an opinion, but in this case, wasn't it a bit too... er... extreme? I had the feeling that all the good points were deemed unworthy of attention in regard of the shortcomings (even though you cited both good and bad aspects of the game), and that you (that'll be kurufinwe) focused a lot on what felt wrong to you.

So in the end what I'm wondering is: do people praise the game out of blind devotion to an good-looking Sierra game of the good old days (which wouldn't surprise me one bit ), or did you not like it the way you don't like, say, Goblins? (meaning that it's not your type of game, but could really please someone else)

__________________
...It's down there somewhere. Let me have another look.

After a brisk nap

Ah, Johann Walter = Kurufinwe. I see. (I can't keep up with all these secret identities.)

I like the game a lot, myself. It was one of my defining adventure game experiences, so I'm a bit biased, but even when acknowledging its problems, I think it's better than JW gives it credit for.

Yes, the plot fails to coalesce as a whole, but each thread of the mystery is quite coherent, and allows you to engage in some actual sleuthing. As I recall, deducing that:

Spoiler:

The new museum director was a fraud who'd murdered the real man

... was quite satisfying.

I also found the conversation system very much to my taste, allowing me to interrogate everyone about every subject. Sure, it demands a few clicks, but given the list of topics you can ask about, that seems unavoidable.

The problem with the location of the other characters being inconsistent was something we discussed in regards to 5DAS, too. I think in Dagger of Amon Ra it quickly becomes clear that it's not something the game keeps track of. You just have to get over it and accept that the game doesn't model reality perfectly (just like in many adventure games you can have exactly the same conversation over and over again).

Likewise, the two-dimensional characters and the strange fact that no one gets out of the museum are deliberate stylizations, like Clue! or those murder mystery theme party-games. You listen to the dialogue for clues to secrets, not to experience high-class Merchant-Ivory drama.

Admittedly, the Inquest at the end, where you have to explain each murder, is a horrible task that even a perceptive player can only get right by trial and error, but with the help of a walkthrough this should only be a minor annoyance.

Dagger of Amon Ra is a flawed game in many respects, but its strengths make it an enjoyable experience nevertheless: atmosphere out the wazoo, fun gameplay, a likeable heroine, and a dynamic (if nonsensical) story.

__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.

Kurufinwe

EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Snarky's post. Will get to it.

The score was a difficult thing. Or rather, the score wasn't, but managing to justify it in the review was.

There's a policy at AGs that a reviewer should only review types of games he likes. As you can see from my review of The Colonel's Bequest, I like detective games a lot. So that's definitely not what my problem was with LB2.

I know that quite a few people seem to like it, and there are some very positive reviews of this game floating around. I've read them, and they really haven't managed to convince me. But I think I can see why people might like that game: it looks good, has a great atmosphere, has that special Sierra touch, etc. As I said in the conclusion, if you can just entirely forget about the plot, or take each element individually without seeing that it doesn't fit in with the others (though, without wishing to offend anyone, I'd say you'd have to be rather braindead for that), then, yes, it's nice. If there hadn't been the questions at the end, it might have been possible not to notice the nonsensical plot. As it is, the game is just forcing you to look at its own flaws.

Now, regarding whether I might have chosen to focus more on some elements that others... Well, the plot is the gameplay. The first two acts (out of six) are almost only about conversation --- and I said what I thought of conversations in that game. Then, it's a lot of listening at doors, hiding behind tapestries, etc. Sure, that's fun, but if what you discover that was is clichéd and nonsensical, it stops being fun soon enough. But don't get the score wrong: 2.5/5 doesn't mean that LB2 is an average/bad game. It's really more like a mouldy cake with lots of icing on it --- and, seemingly, many people were happy with just giving the icing a quick lick.

Jack hasn't played it, and neither have you. I'd really like to know if people who have disagree with my review, and why. For the moment, I'm convinced that LB2 is a bad game, but that it's very possible for some people to like it a lot. But I'm willing to discuss that --- and, possibly, even to change my mind.

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

Kurufinwe

Yeah, it was. As I said, the intro is great.

Oh, wait... You mean the not-at-all subtle hints in the intro were not enough and you only discovered it later? Boy, you're slow.

More seriously, that particular subplot didn't work too bad, and even more or less managed to fit within the main plot. And so do quite a few other elements. But it's all done quite inconsistently: some things fit together and others don't. Just like some things are painfully obvious (including the identity of the murderer), while others are really impossible to get by yourself. And many very important things are never explained by the game and, to this day, still make no sense to me. This includes:

Spoiler:

Why did O'Riley (sp?) kill Carter?
What was Yvette's involvement in Ziggy's murder?
What was the dagger still doing in the museum, when Little had every chance to hand it over to O'Riley much earlier? Why was it in the gift shop? Why did it then end up in that alcohol vat?
Why did O'Riley behead Ziggy? Why did he move Ernie's body from that vat of alcohol in the basement to the tusks of that mamooth? How could he do that without getting seen? How could he do that full stop?

I think that you'll agree that those are not exactly minor questions. Maybe you thought that it didn't really matter. Well, it bugged me. A lot. It still does. I can accept any inconsistency in Monkey Island or Space Quest, I can accept minor inconsistencies in LB1, GK3, etc., I can even accept the time distorsions in GK2, but that was too much for me.

I liked long conversations in TLJ, the BS games, the Tex Murphy games, GK, etc. But, frankly, those in LB2 were mostly bad, for reasons I gave in the review. As to the interface, I'll disagree with you. Just look at what BS, Tex Murphy, GK1, etc. did: you have a list of topics, you click on one, you get an answer, you click on the next one, etc. That's much better than that ridiculous notebook system.

As I said above, there's a certain level of inconsistencies I can stomach. LB2 went much beyond that for me. Obviously, you have a higher tolerance level.

I'm sorry, but that's not something I can accept. I wasn't fond of those questions at the end in Mortville Manor and Maupiti Island, but at least those games played fair and square, the plot was rock-solid, and, provided you were willing to spend months investigating everything, you had your chance to solve the mystery. In LB2, the more you try, the more you stop seeing the plot because of all the holes in it.

I'm not saying that having one puzzle that requires you to cheat is an unforgivable flaw (although, for a game released long before the Internet became widespread, it's certainly not a great idea). But when it is this one, this big 'puzzle' that the whole game is all about, then, yes, it is unforgivable. But know that, even without that feature, I wouldn't have given LB2 a positive review (though the score would probably have been a 3).

I think it's mostly a matter of priorities. I think I judged the game for what it itself decided to set as its priorities, namely the mystery. And I hope I managed to give a fair view of the rest, so that people who decide to fix other priorities can decide whether they may like it. At the end of the day, I just asked myself whether I enjoyed playing that game. And found that I sometimes did, more than I enjoyed playing many other games, but also found that the conversations were painful, the characters so bad they really made me feel I was wasting my time with them, the plot so nonsensical that I felt insulted. And I felt sad, very sad, as it could certainly have been an absolutely great game if it had gone through a tighter design process.

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

eriq

I've always thought "The Dagger of Amon Ra" was a pretty darn good game so I'm not really in the same space as the reviewer. Dagger has so many cool things going for it. And, damn, if it doesn't have the hottest Sierra box art ever. The stylized painting and embossing on the cover scream fierce.

I also really enjoyed the original Lara Bow game quite a bit if not moreso.

__________________
eriqchangstudio.com
Facebook Connect

Ninth

You did. I thought the review was very informative in the details (and it actually made me want to try it out ); what made me curious was the overall tone, and your above posts answer whatever questions I had. Thanks!

__________________
...It's down there somewhere. Let me have another look.

Kurufinwe

Well, we'll at least agree about that. (Well, I like GK3's box even better, but LB2's is great nonetheless).

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

RLacey

This is almost off topic, but I actually hate the GK3 art. It says nothing about the game and just looks, well, naff.

Anyway, carry on . I haven't played either Laura Bow game (I know, feel free to pan me), but I really ought to.

__________________
RLacey | Killer of the Thread™

I do not change to be perfect. Perfect changes to be me.

samIamsad

I think that, for all its flaws (early Sierra game and all.. ), the "The Colonel's Bequest" is the superior game, overall. And apparently the kind of game "And Then There Were None" tried to be (except that it didn't try and opted for every sad adventure gaming clichè possible instead).

__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...!

avatar_58

I've never played LB2, and as a Sierra fan I need to. Unfortunately I will probably end up loving it due to my very biased views towards older sierra games ( ) but then again who knows?

After a brisk nap

Now now, don't be mean. There's no way to know just from the intro exactly who's getting throttled in that cabin. Sure, you can pretty much figure out that Carrington's dead in Chapter 1 (what with Steve lugging that heavy chest and all), but many of the other pieces don't come until later.

Sure, the plot doesn't ultimately come together as one whole, but the individual pieces are big enough and good enough that I don't think it really matters that much. I'd rather have a story that's a bit incoherent but told with energy and enthusiasm, than a more pedestrian affair that takes care for everything to make sense.

For instance, I prefer the over-the-top carnage (and real suspense) of Dagger of Amon Ra to the pretentious nonsense of Gabriel Knight.

Well, in The Big Sleep, none of the writers nor the director had any idea who committed one of the murders. And that's still a detective classic. It's been too long since I played the game for me to tell whether your questions have answers, but there are two things to keep in mind:

1. The murderer was obviously batshit insane. He/she kills, what? a dozen people in one night.
2. If slasher movies have taught us anything, it's that serial killers are capable of superhuman feats of strength, speed and hiding.

Even disregarding that Monkey Island doesn't have any major inconsistencies (or any at all, as far as I'm aware), this double standard is a bit unfair, don't you think? Yes, I do think it matters; it's definitely one of Dagger's flaws. I just don't think it's critical.

You criticized the conversations from a characterization perspective, but didn't really consider how they worked in terms of revealing information, which is their gameplay function. As I recall, they're pretty well designed in that respect.

And the conversation systems in those other games aren't really comparable, as they don't allow you nearly the same amount of freedom in interrogating people.

It's not really a question of inconsistency, though. It's a matter of stylization. Like chess fails to realistically model battle, Dagger of Amon Ra fails to realistically model people walking around in a museum. The convention of the game is that people only appear for set-piece scenes, or very occasionally wandering around for you to interview.

Of course, the reason for this is that LB2 doesn't primarily attempt to mimic reality, but rather whodunits in books, plays and films. When you try to look at it as if it was real, some details are a bit odd, but no more so than when a trireme defeats a gunboat in Civilization.

It's such a small part of the whole game, and the overall experience, that I don't think no matter how flawed it is it could be "unforgivable." It strikes me as very much an afterthought, not what "the whole game is all about."

I think if you were to judge it on what's clearly its number one priority, that would have to be the atmosphere. And I think it pulls that part off with flair.

__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.

Kurufinwe

I was mostly teasing you, yes. But you could really figure out the whole 'steamer trunk' thing just from the intro. But, anyway, I actually really liked the fact that, by the end of act 1, you've already discovered much about the characters before having even met them, and I'm not going to complain about that. I wanted to mention it in the review, but it got left out at some point in the writing process; and, anyway, I thought it best to mostly leave act 1 (as well as 5) as surprises to the player.

You know, Jack had to make me go through quite a lot of soul-searching before I found what really bugged me about LB2. And it was exactly that: that the designers threw in every element that looked nice, even if they did not fit together (and even if most of them were just tired clichés). You seem to agree with the factual assessement, even if it was not a problem for you. Well, if the mechanics of the game are accurately laid out and my subjective appreciation of them clearly labelled as such, then the review does its job and, as a reviewer, I am content.

Of course, as a forum poster, I reserve the right to defend my opinions to the end of my days. I don't really hope to make you change your mind, though --- only your replaying the game might have a chance of achieving that. You should try to do that at some point, if you have the time; you might have surprises. Or maybe not.

We'll never manage to agree here. I've replayed LB2 recently (obviously) and am currently replaying GK, and I certainly prefer the intelligence and emotional relevance of the latter over the soulless, shallow farce that is the former.

Spoiler:

That's something that really bugged me. The game never manages to decide whether the murderer is crazy or if he's just a cold bastard who's just tying up some loose ends. The game points in both directions, and the questions at the end clearly ask you to choose the lattter. It never made sense to me.

*cough* ... H.T. Marley ... *cough*
And no, I don't think it's unfair. The MI and SQ games promise to be comedies, to make me have fun. If they do that, then I'm glad and can easily consider whatever inconsistencies they have as minor flaws. LB2 promises to be a detective game, something that will stimulate my intelligence; if it insults it instead, then, yes, I feel I have every right to feel cheated.

As I said in the review, they lack subtlety. That includes lacking subtlety in delivering information. Frankly, when you ask the Countess W-C (What a great pun that name was, BTW. Even better than a stevedore named Steve Dorian. But I digress.) if 1926 had been a good year for her, and she starts answering 'yes', before correcting herself and mentioning that her rich husband died, it just screams 'black widow'; it's vaguely funny, and not necessarily bad, but I would have wished for a little more subtlety. That's a purely personal and subjective wish, though.

In GK, the Tex Murphy games, Cruise for a corpse, they do. You have the same list of topics for all people, just like in LB2. The difference is that, in those games, you initiate the conversation and are brought to a conversation screen where you just have to pick the topic you want to discuss. In LB2, you have to click on the character, get the notebook screen, turn the pages of the notebook to the topic you want to discuss, select the exit cursor, click with that, to then be returned to the main screen and get your answer. And then, you have to click again on the character and repeat the whole process to ask the next question. That's a terrible interface. And with all the conversations being lumpted together in the first two acts, it is painful. At least, it felt so for me, every time I've played the game.

If only the inconsistencies were limited to that. As I said in the review, it's the location of the characters, the main plot, and everything in between.

I wouldn't be entirely sure about that (though I think it is mostly successful in that respect, and I said so in the review), but, well, the atmosphere never struck me as the game's main promise. As I said, I think it promised to be an intelligent, original, and fun to play murder mystery --- not least because it was a sequel to The Colonel's Bequest, which was exactly that. But I'm starting to repeat myself.

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

eriq

Everyone is entitled to an opinion! From what I've read, however, most reviewers loved Lara Bow 2.

From my archive:

__________________
eriqchangstudio.com
Facebook Connect

Jackal

It's not really fair to compare 14 year old reviews to current reviews of a 14 year old game. Reviewing an older game is always a balancing act, since on the one hand we try to acknowledge a game's historical context, while on the other still being obliged to critique how it has stood the test of time.

Now, this is NOT to say that the criticisms here are nothing but the product of hindsight. They definitely aren't. But it's hard to say how things like the character clichés would have fared BEFORE they became so dreadfully overused, or how the clunky dialogue system would have seemed BEFORE more streamlined approaches became the norm. These are just random examples to make a general point, of course.

In preparation for running this review, I went seeking out other reviews, since I knew that our score was significantly lower than most. What I found were a lot of high scores, and very little to support them. They largely had the same kind of feel as the ones in Eriq's link: "It's Laura! It's Sierra! It's fun!" Like Johann has asked for here, I looked for any that even addressed the valid criticisms he's made, and came away empty handed. And that made me comfortable in thinking a lot of slack had been cut this game, and that a little closer scrutiny was not unwarranted.

eriq

I am sure I might have a different opinion if I were to go back and play it again today. A friend of mine is doing so as we speak and he doesn't seem to be having all that much fun! LOL. Of course, I am biased (I was a Sierra FANATIC!) because I thought Lara Bow was the shit back in the day. What a fun character.

I, too, was hoping "And Then There Were None" would be a modern-day "Dagger of Amon Ra" type game but unfortunately it didn't quite grab me the same way.

__________________
eriqchangstudio.com
Facebook Connect

Kurufinwe

The problem with reviews written at the time of the game's release is that they usually did not actually finish the game, or rather that they reached the end and failed on the questions (or had to cheat there). I remember the review in the French magazine Tilt, and it was exactly the same thing: 'ooh, looks great, sounds great, great protagonist, multiple endings possible to fail at the end (oops, that's what happened to us), yeah, it's fun'. It was especially true in France, where everybody was busy getting stumped by Maupiti Island at the time, and reviewers thought that this was the same type of game and that they just had to replay it while being more careful and taking notes to solve it. Of course, if they had done that, they'd have started noticing that the plot had more holes in it than actual plot...

It's always a problem when reviewing a game. I think a reviewer should always have played the game at least twice before writing a review, but he has to keep in mind that his readers probably only care about how it'll play for them on their first (and sometimes only) playthrough. This is espcially hard for me when reviewing old games, as I have usually played them several times, and may not play them with the same eye as the first time (this is also a problem I'm encountering with the review I'm currently working on...). For LB2, it is indeed possible for someone who plays it for the first time not to notice many of the flaws (though some are really impossible to miss); should I just have ignored the fact that they were there and say 'go on, play it, you'll have fun if you don't look too hard'? I decided against that, but it's never easy to answer that question appropriately.

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

Kurufinwe

It's funny that you see things like that. My perception was that the characters didn't appear wrong at the time precisely because clichés were the only thing we got. Characterisation is something that was only starting to enter graphic adventures (esp. with Conquests of the Longbow) and would only become a full component of game design the following year with Gabriel Knight.

Of course, when writing a review now, you're writing for people who've been spoiled playing GK, TLJ, TLE, etc. But blaming LB2 for bad characters is certainly a bit anachronistic (except that it really contributes in bringing the plot down, and already did at the time).

And the dialogue interface is not something you can excuse, 14-year-old game or not. Bad UI design is bad UI design, and if people at Access, Lankhor, Delphine had been able to come up with something better before, there's no reason the people at Sierra couldn't. Their awful system really is something that has to experienced to be believed.

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

Jackal

Okay, but you're making the same point as I am: that once an element gets improved and expanded upon and polished, you can no longer look back on what came before with the same innocent appreciation or acceptance you (might have) had for those things originally. As I said, the two specifics I mentioned were just arbitrary choices to illustrate the point.

Kurufinwe

Of course I was. Is there a rule against making non-confrontational posts?

__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]

Jackal

No, but it sounded like you were trying to disagree with me while saying more or less the same thing. I just figured I didn't make my point clear enough.