Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Mystery Game X - Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, 20th Anniversary Edition
Why are gameplay and story suddenly out of the picture?
Because they are the same for the most part? I’ve seen nothing so far that would indicate the story or gameplay was altered considerably. Some comfort functions here, some few additional puzzles there.
They are two of the most important parts of an AG, so why should we suddenly ignore some of the most important parts of a game, just because it is a remake of an old classic?
“We” should do nothing. I was simply specifically talking about the graphics, which are one of the major points of this remake. Quite frankly I don’t know why they decided to add some additional puzzles, perhaps they thought it would make the remake a more interesting package for old fans or make it more “legit” as a remake.
In your previous post you said yourself that you wouldn’t do a “playtest”, in order to directly compare the old and new version, but now you are advocating that this is exactly how we should look at it. That it is all about making a direct comparison between the two and not about whether or not the new version is actually a good game.
You make no sense. I was saying that I see no point for myself to play the game simply in order to see what they changed. I’m simply not curious enough for that, nor interested in game mechanics for the sake of it.
I know the story, I know the gameplay, I dislike the presentation: I simply see no reason why I should play this game.
And OF COURSE there will inevitably be a comparison if someone knows both versions.
Was this remake absolutely necessary or is it significantly better than the original, perhaps not, but that is completely irrelevant and a moot point now that the game has actually been made. What matters is whether or not it is a good game, and if people both players who has never even heard of the original and fans of the original, will actually enjoy playing it.
How is this a moot point? It has been made, so we can’t say it doesn’t make sense to us? We should somehow eradicate the memory of the original from our brains and pretend it never existed? This is not how this works.
You are right, I simply don’t get that.
Why do people have the right to be pissed about a game that they have never played?
If you have spend your hard earned money on buying a game and it turns out to be a complete disaster, then I can understand that some might get pissed and write angry posts about it. But writing one angry post after another about a game that you have never played and have no intention on playing, nope, I simply don’t get it.
Well, the anger seems evenly distributed, but if you have a passion for something you get upset if people fuck it up. (In your opinion.)
Take the example with the upscaling filter for pixel art. Simon The Sorcerer 3,4 and 5. Monkey Island. Broken Sword. The Longest Journey.
And the fact that pretty much everybody with a few exceptions, that have actually played the game more or less all say the same thing, that it is actually a quite good game that has captured the spirit and feeling of the old game, that doesn’t count for anything?
It’s the same game! Just with worse graphics, as far as craftsmanship is considered. And several people and reviews say that, even those who give it a high rating. But no, even if it was like you painted it to be, it doesn’t count for anything, because I can judge for myself. Obviously there are people out there who enjoy the graphics, but my enjoyment isn’t decided by committee.
Lets be honest here, it is not like the picture by picture comparison that Colbett made is actually a fair comparison. In one case he is showing the screenshots in their actual resolution, and in the other he is showing a severely downsized version. It is fair enough for the points he is using them to illustrate, but it doesn’t give you a accurate “picture” of how they will actually look if you play both in full screen on a modern monitor.
Like you say yourself, this is not about resolution. This is about lighting, mood and color palette among other things. The scenes in the remake fall apart more often than not, have colors all over the place, obvious photos mixed with obvious 3D elements, poorly adjusted and standing out, hence the comparison to Hidden Object Games. The shadows of the characters often look wrong and the characters many times seem not to be lit by the same lights as the scene. Gabriel looks bland, bare of charm and character and the voice actor obviously is doing an imitation. If this doesn’t bother you that’s fine with me, but it surely does bother me.
And I and everybody else has the right to point out that he doesn’t know the full story, or for that matter that we simply disagree.
Sure, though in case of the graphics there is no full story needed.
What you perhaps should not do is trying to paint everyone who disagrees with you as a babbling idiot, mean spirited or suffering from some strange disease, or trying to shut them up under the guise of PC or because they supposedly know too little to have an opinion on something.
@Caliburn: Very interesting. Like I said, I personally would not bother with a point to point comparison, but this was very enlightening. Thanks for that.
@Iznogood:
I kind of agree with the statement that Trumgottist probably knew too little about the situation leading to Cesar’s posting, but then again, so might others who stumble across his quote. So he does have a point, even though I don’t completely agree with him on the matter. Cesar’s attempt to substitute negativity towards their game and studio with an attack on adventure games as a whole was ill advised at best, though.
But everything else you said were just attempts to ridicule him and shut him up about anything having to do with the game. All he said was that what he had seen so far didn’t excite him and that Richard Cobbett’s review was a good summary of the reasons why.
And look what you made out of this and look who was aggressive and insulting.
Richard Cobbett’s review is especially useful if you, like Richard Cobbett, love the sound of Richard Cobbett’s voice and reading lots and lots of Richard Cobbett’s words. 
But is he wrong?
http://www.adventuregamers.com/topreviewed
You sure you are posting on Adventuregamers 
That doesn’t change the point. They are hybrid adventures at best. Portal 2 made it to the top of the Best AGs of all times list. I don’t think anyone claims it’s a “pure” AG? These games have adventure elements - some more than others. That justifies them being on the site, and if it’s good it deserves a good grade.
But why am I talking about something like this? It’s pointless and by now besides the point, I’m sure
But is he wrong?
In my eyes, yes and no—depends on the topic. There are definitely some things I agree with him about, but a lot of others where I don’t. The problem is he’s just such a dick about it—it’s hard to take his reviews seriously. He’s a talented writer, to be sure, but he is terrible…TERRIBLE…at balancing the good with the bad in his reviews, even when there is an even amount of good and bad in the game, or arguably more good than bad. I’ve read reviews of his that were apparently supposed to be positive reviews—reviews that he sums up by saying essentially, “yeah, I enjoyed this—give it a go!” but then when you actually read the review, it’s paragraph after paragraph of him just unabashedly ranting about all of the negatives of the game, while occasionally giving passing mention to things he liked.
A great example of this can be seen in the GK20 review. He spends more than half of the review talking about things that he directly describes as nitpicks that most people won’t care about, and then when he finally does bring up some positive stuff, he boils it down quite literally to a few sentence fragments. I believe his exact words were, “Excellent. Worthy change, well implemented.” The guy just comes off as such a narcissistic twat—his pieces are a chore to read. If he spent as much time dissecting and explaining the positives as he does endlessly articulating the negatives, his reviews would read a lot differently and feel more balanced. As is, he often feels like the games journalism version of getting nagged by your bitchy mother. 
He’s not as bad as some RPS reviewers, like John Walker, who is basically the Jerry Springer Show of games reviewers, but he’s only better by a matter of degrees.
Hah! Nice summation of Cobbett and Walker. Unfortunate thing is, outside of Adventure Gamers, not sure there’s anyone out there who writes about/reviews adventure games as much as those two. A fact which is as irritating as one of their reviews.
I’ll say this about Cobbett: He is an excellent analyst. He absolutely is great at articulating WHY the things he dislikes bother him, which can be very useful feedback for developers who are trying to grow in their craft. It’s a double-edged sword though, because in going into so much detail explaining those dislikes, he tends to make those issues seem a lot more glaring and obnoxious than they actually are. Combine that with the aforementioned rant-y attitude, and it makes for problematic reviews, in my opinion.
He does come across as a bit cocky, and tends to concentrate more on the negative side of things, I have to admit that, but if I read e.g. Amazon reviews, I’m more interested in the problems than the good things, too, so that’s fine with me. After reading the review of GK20 again, and for some odd reason his review of Infamous Quest , I think both are pretty extensive and offer a lot of information for everyone to get a good idea about the game, even if you might disagree with his conclusions. I’d also so say that there is enough information so you can decide for yourself how much emphasize you personally put on the points mentioned.
He took the easy road by setting specific rules for this review of GK20 (specifically reviewing it as a remake and using spoilers) and perhaps he should have mentioned the animated portraits as well (unless I missed that) but other than that it’s a great, informative review in my book as long as you’re not offended by the tone. Also he doesn’t shy away from using big words to give praise to things he genuinely likes, either, like the comic cutscenes.
@Caliburn: Very interesting. Like I said, I personally would not bother with a point to point comparison, but this was very enlightening. Thanks for that.
Thanks, and you’re welcome.
On the streamlining of the remake’s structure
I’ll try to keep this vague and relatively spoiler-free for new players (no major plot points or puzzles are spoiled) but if you want to know literally nothing about GK1 before you play it, then you should not be reading this. (And may I ask, why are you reading this thread? )
For anyone wondering about the streamlining that’s been done to the remake’s structure, here’s basically what that means. GK1 takes place over 10 days. In the original game, Gabriel had tasks that he could do at any point over multiple days. So for example there might be a puzzle that you could solve early on Day 1, or you could wait until Day 2 before the puzzle had to be solved in order to continue. In the remake, each task can only be done on one particular day.
This streamlining was done so that each day would be self-contained, allowing GK1 to be broken into episodic chunks if needed when selling it on tablets. Jane Jensen discusses this more here (beware spoilers!)
One obvious consequence of this choice is that the remake is more linear than the original game. But that’s not the only consequence. Making structural changes like this has a fallout effect that leads to other changes to writing and puzzle flow. New justifications often needed to be invented in the remake for why you must or can’t do something on a given day. Earlier in this thread, it has already been discussed how the streamlining led to Sam, a retired jeweler, taking out a newspaper ad in the remake telling potential clients to meet him at a bar—because the remake needed to contrive a reason for the bar to become available that day.
Example: Visiting Gabriel’s grandmother
Let’s use Gabriel’s visit to his grandmother as another example. This is an interesting change which was mentioned once many pages upthread, but not in any detail.
In the original game, Gabriel could visit his grandmother at any point on Days 1-4. In the remake he cannot visit her until Day 4.
Now, you might think that the content hasn’t really changed, it’s just been moved. But actually, other content did need to change somewhat to accommodate the move. In this case, Gabriel needs some items that in the original game he got at his grandmother’s house on Day 1 or 2, but in the remake the items are now required on Day 1 and he can’t visit her on that day, so instead she ships him a box with items in it.
Grace’s dialogue is also rewritten because of this change, to explain that Gabriel is receiving a box. No attempt is made in the remake to justify why he can’t visit his grandmother even though she lives nearby. That’s probably not something a new player would consciously notice in the remake, but it’s an example of how the original game tried to create a believable open world, whereas the remake is content to contrive whatever obstructions are necessary for gameplay purposes.
In storytelling, sequence matters
Also, a story is a sequence of interconnected events, so moving content from one part of the sequence to another has consequences even if the content itself is unchanged. So it matters when Gabriel talks to his grandmother, even if the conversation is the same.
First, a caveat: As I mentioned, the original GK1 was more non-linear and let you choose the order you do things, so to some extent we don’t know when the player will talk to Gabriel’s grandmother. But it stands to reason that, if the player needs to get items from Gabriel’s grandmother’s house on Day 1 or 2, as in the original game, the player will also probably talk to Gabriel’s grandmother on Day 1 or 2 at least for a short time, even if the player doesn’t go through the whole dialogue tree until later in the game. So we can say with some degree of likelihood that most players will talk to Gabriel’s grandmother at least somewhat on Day 1 or 2 in the original game. Whereas in the remake they cannot until Day 4.
So what’s the consequence of this change in timing? Well, bear in mind that Gabriel as a character is snarky and a bit of a cad. In the early days we see lots of attitude in the way he speaks to other characters. As a contrast to this, we have the tenderness and politeness with which he treats his grandmother, and we learn some backstory about how she raised him. This helps humanize the character, making him more dimensional and likable. In the original game, players could and likely would see some of this aspect of Gabriel on Day 1 or 2. In the remake, they cannot see it until Day 4. So Gabriel is a bit less developed of a character for the first three days of the remake than he was in the original.
Will this change the reaction that some new players have toward Gabriel when playing the remake, in subtle ways that they may not be conscious of? It certainly seems possible, even plausible.
The upside
To be fair, there is one upside to not visiting Gabriel’s grandmother until Day 4. It can prevent the player from learning too much too fast. In the original game it was technically possible for the player to solve some puzzles and learn some things that, for optimal pacing, the player perhaps shouldn’t learn until a later day. This scenario wasn’t as likely to happen for players not using a walkthrough, but it was possible. The remake makes this impossible.
Potential new players can make up their own mind about whether they think these are good changes, neutral changes, or bad changes. But first they have to know that changes exist, so that’s why I take the time to describe this.
I very much agree here.
I haven’t played the orginal for quite a while, but it did have pacing problems. Things like doing research at a leisurely pace after weird scary stuff happens. That doesn’t work.
The grandma Knight is a great example of this. He can learn stuff there that is quite impactful and would dramatically change him as a person. He shouldn’t be doing exactly the same things afterwards anymore. In the orginal you could do all of that on Day 1 (if memory serves).
I liked it that the new edition has the first 3 days focus just on research, having Gabriel still think it’s all about him writing a book. Then the more dramatic stuff happens on day 4 and beyond.
I believe that in the original the Tulane university session was much later in story, potentially after scary stuff happens, like the Crash scene….and that really does not make sense.
I’m not that far into the new version yet (on day 4 currently), but it is seemingly better paced, moved some stuff more to the earlier days (like the Tulane university) and some stuff more to later days (like Grandma Knight) and it feels more natural.
I know games are not movies, but pacing cam be a real killer in both of them….and if this new edition manages to control the pacing of the story in a better way, than that’s for me already a crucial improvement.
I am wondering, in terms of next GK games (a remake of GK2 perhaps? Not to mention GK4) if it is possible to achieve streamlining without limiting the player’s freedom so much and allowing a more open world feeling at the same time.
New GK feels too much as if the game played me instead of the other way around,
new players could not notice but it is jarring for someone with a good memory of thefirst game.
Otherwise GK20 gets better and better with each passing day (I am already in Shloss Ritter ).
GK2 already was more linear than GK1 was, so it doesn’t need that much streamlining.
I very much agree here.
Well, for the record, I didn’t say if I thought it was a good change, a neutral change, or a bad change.
I merely described what I see as the downsides—
1) less believable, less open world
2) Gabriel’s character is less developed for the first three days
and the upside—
1) it is no longer possible for the player to learn a bit too much too fast for optimal pacing
The grandma Knight is a great example of this. He can learn stuff there that is quite impactful and would dramatically change him as a person. He shouldn’t be doing exactly the same things afterwards anymore. In the orginal you could do all of that on Day 1 (if memory serves).
What you say sounds mostly accurate, but just to make sure we’re talking about the same things, you might want to double-check your memory of how much Gabriel learns. (I don’t think he learns stuff that would dramatically change him as a person yet.) But, yes, you can learn some things on Day 1 in the original game.
However, a better way to streamline the remake might have been to:
1) have Grandma Knight ship the box and request a visit sometime OR have Grandma Knight request a visit from Gabriel to pick up some of his father’s things (sketchbook, etc.) instead of shipping a box
2) allow the player to visit Grandma Knight any time on Days 1-3 for conversation
3) BUT keep the attic closed until Day 4. Then on Day 4, have Grandma Knight call Gabriel to say she found some more things in the attic and wants him to come look at them. It’s plausible enough she wouldn’t ship them all since some are in a steamer trunk and she wouldn’t know what he wants or doesn’t want, anyway.
This would keep the world more open, develop Gabriel’s relationship with his grandmother sooner, and still keep the player from learning too much too fast.
* * *
As for the original game and whether it was poorly paced: potentially, yes, but for the average player not using a walkthrough, it was probably fine.
Just my opinion, but one of the consequences of telling a story in a more non-linear, open world environment should be that sometimes the player won’t encounter story points at an optimal pace. The “learning too much too fast” that was possible with the original was, I would argue, probably meant to be an edge case that not that many players would have encountered. For most players, Day 1 and even perhaps Day 2 or 3 might end without them solving the optional clock puzzle, since the day ends automatically when other, critical tasks for that day are achieved. More people probably now encounter the edge case of solving the clock puzzle right away because they are playing the game with a walkthrough in hand the entire time.
And even if players do encounter the edge case and learn more information on Day 1, it’s not actually story-breaking information. The game was designed so that it’s fine if the player learns this on Day 1. Most of the important revelations still cannot be learned until later days. All I’m saying is that if this were a book or a movie, it would be better to pace this information out a bit more. So that’s what I mean by optimal pacing, but I would argue that a more non-linear, open world game shouldn’t always have optimal pacing, if that means constraining the player too much—instead, it should just have a good enough spectrum of possible paces.
The remake, arguably, goes too far and accomplishes what it needs to by sledge-hammer methods. As a result, its pace isn’t optimal either. The player now learns “too little too slowly.” Optimal pacing would probably involve us learning about how Gabriel’s grandmother raised him fairly early in the story, and then learn more later.
Indeed, the GK1 novelization (which Jane Jensen herself wrote in the 1990s) has Gabriel visit his grandmother on Day 1, talk to her, and receive the sketchbook. He doesn’t solve the clock puzzle until a later day, when he returns to Grandma Knight’s house. I don’t remember exactly which day it is, but it’s probably more or less equivalent to Day 4.
So the novelization could have been a great guide for what the remake should do. But I would guess that the remake team and/or Activision just didn’t want to have another location (Grandma Knight’s house) available on Days 1-3 in order to keep the download sizes smaller for episodic delivery on tablet. This was a commercial decision as much as an artistic one.
I’m still not quite sure what clue Gabriel really uses to open the clock.
I’m playing now in Day 4, where you do have to open the clock and I know how to, but it still doesn’t make much real sense to me….and it was (I think) the same in the original game.
He has the clues from his father: the sketchbook and painting, but the clock is from his grandfather….so though there is a relation…it’s a pretty stretch to make that link and open the clock.
He has the Heinz Ritter poem, but he is not supposed to know that Heinz Ritter is related to him at that point, as it will be revealed once he opens the clock….
Now in the remake you can, if you want, call Wolfgang before opening the clock aswel..and also he will give you the hint on Heinz, so at this point that would clue you to the poem…but then you open the clock and learn little new, except for the schattenjager thing.
So it’s still a mystery to me what sequence of clues should have made things clear to you at the right order.
Again, it’s been a while since I played the original and I think it wasn’t much clearer then aswel, so I can’t really fault the remake on this, but the sequence of clues could be a bit more clear imo.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
