View Full Version : Fate of Atlantis review
remixor
10-16-2003, 07:15 PM
Hooray! (http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=298)
Excellent review, Claire :) This being, in my opinion, easily one of the greatest adventures ever, I am quite satisfied. I have to wonder what happened to that last half a star, though... And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not complaining ;) It's just that I couldn't find any negative points listed in the review except that it should be played with ScummVM on normal systems, which isn't a flaw in the game itself.
Ariel Type
10-16-2003, 08:46 PM
Can't agree more. Exellent and objective review to the exellent game. Though I guess half star goes to the fighting sequences which are not very good integrated (but well, you can skip them, all right).
Erwin_Br
10-16-2003, 09:22 PM
I have to wonder what happened to that last half a star, though... And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not complaining ;) It's just that I couldn't find any negative points listed in the review except that it should be played with ScummVM on normal systems, which isn't a flaw in the game itself.
Well, all stars would mean the game's perfect and that nothing could make it better. I think it's very difficult to give a game a score of 100% because somehow things can always be improved.
--Erwin
remixor
10-16-2003, 09:29 PM
I know, but I have to admit that on the whole I don't put much stock in AG's star ratings. Looking at their reviews index always confuses me.
Yah! Top notch (and highly accurate) review to a top notch game. *D
Arguably, my favorite game of all time, adventure and non-adventure and I've YET to finish it! :o :D
Kingzjester
10-17-2003, 05:07 AM
When you compare Grim Fandango to the Fate of Atlantis, one will stand out as an overall better game. And yet they got the same score. I will repeat the need for a better Grim Fandango review (five full stars) until Stinger throws me off this forum.
Erwin_Br
10-17-2003, 05:18 AM
When you compare Grim Fandango to the Fate of Atlantis, one will stand out as an overall better game. And yet they got the same score. I will repeat the need for a better Grim Fandango review (five full stars) until Stinger throws me off this forum.
Hmmm, I disagree. I think both games are more or less equal, if you don't count technical issues such as old graphics, midi music and such.
I'd say Grim deserves 4 1/4 stars and Indy 4. :D
--Erwin
When you compare Grim Fandango to the Fate of Atlantis, one will stand out as an overall better game. And yet they got the same score. I will repeat the need for a better Grim Fandango review (five full stars) until Stinger throws me off this forum.
I remember once it being mentioned by one of the AG staff members how their scores aren't meant to compare games, as much as they are meant to rate a game.
Just because two games have the same score doesn't mean they're of the same quality. There are a variety of other factors to consider. For example, FoA was made a good half a decade before Grim Fandango.
Erwin_Br
10-17-2003, 06:05 AM
I remember once it being mentioned by one of the AG staff members how their scores aren't meant to compare games, as much as they are meant to rate a game.
Just because two games have the same score doesn't mean they're of the same quality. There are a variety of other factors to consider. For example, FoA was made a good half a decade before Grim Fandango.
Plus it's impossible to compare scores, because the reviews are written by different persons.
--Erwin
Someone (possibly me) needs to track down the PC talkie version of this. I've only ever played the Amiga version, and it was let down badly by a fairly ropy conversion. As a result, it's always seemed a bit inferior to me, although I played it to the end "happily" enough...
Ignoring the Amiga-specific problems, though, four-and-a-half stars seems about right - the multiple-paths aspect alone was a great innovation.
bpfinsa
10-17-2003, 07:04 AM
Good review. You deserve a fine leather jacket for that one....
--BPF
Henke
10-17-2003, 07:46 AM
Great review on one of the best games ever made (the beavis and butthead review was also intresting, I got to play that game).
DustCropper
10-17-2003, 09:09 AM
Indiana Jones was my first LucasArts adventure game. It is a really good game. But having said that, I think Grim Fandango is waaaaaaaay better. But that's just me. :D
Though I am surprised that GF didn't get 5 stars because it really is one of the best adventure game ever made....
(edit): Oh, and nice review! :)
Someone (possibly me) needs to track down the PC talkie version of this. I've only ever played the Amiga version, and it was let down badly by a fairly ropy conversion. As a result, it's always seemed a bit inferior to me, although I played it to the end "happily" enough...
Ignoring the Amiga-specific problems, though, four-and-a-half stars seems about right - the multiple-paths aspect alone was a great innovation.
You can buy the PC Talkie version from the Lucas Arts store, here (http://lucasarts.com/companystore/adventure/). But it does come with two other games and hence costs more than you might be willing to pay...
You can buy the PC Talkie version from the Lucas Arts store, here (http://lucasarts.com/companystore/adventure/). But it does come with two other games and hence costs more than you might be willing to pay...
Yeah, and they only ship the US... nice try though, thanks. :)
Since my money isn't good enough for 'em, I'll probably obtain it via certain other channels...
Yeah, and they only ship the US... nice try though, thanks. :)
Since my money isn't good enough for 'em, I'll probably obtain it via certain other channels...
Aaah, didn't know E-Space wasn't in the US :P
Royal Fool
10-17-2003, 11:15 AM
Oh yeah, Fate of Atlantis is one of the best adventure games (One of the best gaming experiences, period) that I've played. I remember my dad getting it for me back when we had the Amiga (It came on 11 floppies) and I just got totally sucked in. And I loved the boxart...
Later on, I obtained the talkie version for PC, republished by Kixx. The voiceacting adds a whole lot of character to the game, and is done brilliantly in my opinion. I found the voiceacting in The Infernal Machine not as good, and the voiceacting in the horrid (My opinion) Emperor's Tomb equally lacking.
remixor
10-17-2003, 11:23 AM
Oh yeah, Fate of Atlantis is one of the best adventure games (One of the best gaming experiences, period) that I've played. I remember my dad getting it for me back when we had the Amiga (It came on 11 floppies) and I just got totally sucked in. And I loved the boxart...
The box art is indeed great. I have a "movie" poster of Fate of Atlantis hanging on my room. It makes me happy.
Later on, I obtained the talkie version for PC, republished by Kixx. The voiceacting adds a whole lot of character to the game, and is done brilliantly in my opinion.
Particularly when one considers how new talkie games were to the PC scene, this really was quite excellent. Doug Lee (IIRC) did a great job as Indy, and the whole voice pack was very professional and really did enhance the game a great deal.
Kingzjester
10-17-2003, 02:52 PM
I remember once it being mentioned by one of the AG staff members how their scores aren't meant to compare games, as much as they are meant to rate a game.
Just because two games have the same score doesn't mean they're of the same quality. There are a variety of other factors to consider. For example, FoA was made a good half a decade before Grim Fandango.The latter part of your argument regardless (though I had taken into consideration the times two games were made when I posted) - what the faak is the benefit of giving games stars if you can't look up a game you liked and see how it compares to a game you are planning to buy?!?
The latter part of your argument regardless (though I had taken into consideration the times two games were made when I posted) - what the faak is the benefit of giving games stars if you can't look up a game you liked and see how it compares to a game you are planning to buy?!?
That's what they said...I think.
A thousand apologies if that isn't the AG policy and I have blundered.
Faak...cool work :D
EDIT:
This is the description for the 4.5 - 5 star
An instant, Hall of Fame classic. Every true adventure fan must have this game in their library. Well worth any price!
Consequently, they're both instant, Hall of Fame classics. Except their own minor flaws, in certain ways detract from that perfect 5.
While one game may certainly be a little bit better than another (which is probably reflected in the review itself) they're both, at the end of the day, instant classics. :D That's how I see ratings, and how I believe they should be seen. They're not the only thing to consider when buying a game. What's the 1000 word essay there for? ;)
Or something like that...
Kingzjester
10-17-2003, 04:59 PM
Oh, why, yes! From the 1000-word essay, I learn that Heidi is 'not crazy for the soundtrack!' Yay!
YAY!
Faak... :shifty:
Marek
10-17-2003, 08:24 PM
Although we really try hard to match up all the ratings, we don't have an office where we all play games and debate scores among the staff. We make a real effort to match the score with the tone of the review, but we can't absolutely guarantee perfect consistency accross the whole site (although we try).
We currently have 137 reviews on the site, which is not always easy to manage :) So please allow a little margin for debate (0.5 stars).
Henke
10-18-2003, 12:17 AM
When you compare Grim Fandango to the Fate of Atlantis, one will stand out as an overall better game. And yet they got the same score. I will repeat the need for a better Grim Fandango review (five full stars) until Stinger throws me off this forum.
Fate Of Atlantis is distinctivly better then Grim Fandango. But they are both classics so who cares in the end.
Tom_K
10-18-2003, 01:11 AM
I like Claire, Claire is good.
Henke
10-18-2003, 01:16 AM
I like Claire, Claire is good.
Good point Tom.
remixor
10-18-2003, 01:16 AM
Fate Of Atlantis is distinctivly better then Grim Fandango. But they are both classics so who cares in the end.
Well, that's obviously objective. I wouldn't call it "distinct."
Stinger
10-18-2003, 04:20 AM
I know, but I have to admit that on the whole I don't put much stock in AG's star ratings. Looking at their reviews index always confuses me.
I'd really like you to elaborate on this.
We're always talking about how to make our review scoring system a little better. It's not easy, but I think that we do a pretty good job.
Over the years, I've tried to orient review scores for new games to "value for your money." This is, for one thing, the reason we don't give star reviews to amateur games. This has become a more important criteria as we see more quasi-amateur games released commercially. Fatman, for example, is $15, and got two stars, a very fair review. Had it been released for $40, a lower rating would have been justified.
Now, of course, value for your money is a pitifully worthless concept when reviewing Flashback Friday games. So, I ask our reviewers to try to review these games with the same mindset as if it was new, and generally I think they do a good job. I wrote our review guidelines (http://www.adventuregamers.com/about/editorial.php) and I think they're pretty good, but I'm opening this up for discussion and suggestions: how could our review scores be more useful to the readers? Your input is always appreciated.
- Evan
p.s. And I'm going to say this again...there will NOT be a five-star re-review of Grim Fandango. I simply won't approve it. The interface is too big a flaw. And I'm not about to engage in a silly debate about that in this topic, that's just the reality. If you want a five-star review of Grim Fandango, you'll have to start your own adventure website.
DomStLeger
10-18-2003, 05:36 AM
i think the guidelines are pretty good but I think occasionaly the reviewers own preferences can push games into the wrong catagory.
For example games that got 2 stars include:
Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill, Broken Sword 2, Jazz and Faust, The Forgotten,
Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of the Monster, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Post Mortem, Redjack, RHEM, Starship Titanic.
Thats quite a strange bunch to be honest. Some of those games don't diserve to be in the same catagory as the others, also other worse games have gotten higher scores and some better games have gotton worse scores. For example I would argue that games like CSI, BS2 and Post Mortem should all be up into the next catagory. (flawed but still enjoyable; and worth trying after a price cut as opposed to having a few good points but being a negative experience)
It just seems a little inconsistent overall. Perhaps the system needs some alterations? For example, how many people play a game? Perhaps 2 people should play the game, one for reviewing purposes and the other just for pleasure. That way you have two opinions on the score from two independant sources? Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?
I generally agree with AGs reviews but the scores themselves seem to be a little more off than they used to be.
Erwin_Br
10-18-2003, 05:51 AM
Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?
A reader scoring system would be KICKASS! But... only forum members should be able to vote (once) or something. To prevent abuse. It's fairly easy to connect vBulletin user accounts with your PHP database, I'm sure. We at AdventureDevelopers.com are doing a similar thing.
--Erwin
Nellie
10-18-2003, 06:11 AM
We currently have 137 reviews on the site
Are you sure they're not 1337 reviews?
*ba-dum ching!*
Anyway, I know why FoA didn't get that last half-star - that bloody 'spend five times as much time travelling between locations than actually doing anything interesting' top-down map near the end.
Anyway, I know why FoA didn't get that last half-star - that bloody 'spend five times as much time travelling between locations than actually doing anything interesting' top-down map near the end.
Yeah, there were many more places with annoyingly long walk scenes. Like Crete. I walked so much in that locations, I was literally bored :P
Yeah, there were many more places with annoyingly long walk scenes. Like Crete. I walked so much in that locations, I was literally bored :P
You're lucky you weren't playing the Amiga version!
(Assuming you weren't, of course :))
twifkak
10-18-2003, 08:19 AM
It just seems a little inconsistent overall. Perhaps the system needs some alterations? For example, how many people play a game? Perhaps 2 people should play the game, one for reviewing purposes and the other just for pleasure. That way you have two opinions on the score from two independant sources? Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?
I generally agree with AGs reviews but the scores themselves seem to be a little more off than they used to be.
I don't think a reviewer should post a score without justification, so if you wanted to do the second opinion thing, I'd recommend just having a second review altogether, a la GameCritics. I do like the Amazon-style reader reviews/ratings-vote idea.
Kingzjester
10-18-2003, 09:07 AM
p.s. And I'm going to say this again...there will NOT be a five-star re-review of Grim Fandango. I simply won't approve it. The interface is too big a flaw. And I'm not about to engage in a silly debate about that in this topic, that's just the reality. If you want a five-star review of Grim Fandango, you'll have to start your own adventure website.Hmm... an adventure website of my own! Wow! Yes, yes, I think I see the light now!
You suffer from muscular dystrophy - in which case you are more than welcome to dislike the interface - you're überwelcome.
Oh, mister vice editor in managing Dickens, please don't approve the five star rating, please; please sir don't approve it...
I would be aghast if you did otherwise.
Claire
10-18-2003, 09:18 AM
I like Claire, Claire is good.
Good point Tom. :P
Good point Tom. :P
Catch-22 :o
remixor
10-18-2003, 01:06 PM
I'd really like you to elaborate on this.
Well, I think that your REVIEWS are generally very well-written and informative. This is, in fact, the only adventure gaming website I visit with any regularity. However, and this may be due to the benefit of hindsight (who knows), it seems like your star ratings dont' really set up a very good comparison between games. For example (and this is just off the top of my head), I think you'd find very few gamers who would consider EMI a better game than CMI, but a MI newcomer may see that and be left with a certain impression. Now, again, it's always important to read the actual review. Both reviews are well-written, but when you read them both and then look at their star ratings next to each toher, I'm not sure it really stacks up. But since you have, as Marek said, 137 reviews, it's much easier to simply look at the highest rated games and read THEIR reviews. I also totally see the merit in using a "value" system, but I don't know if this is the best idea for an adventure games site. The vast majority of games you review are already at least a couple years old when they're reviewed, and many of the games listed on your reviews page must be bought secondhand.
The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards the conclusion that hindsight is one of the biggets problems with a system like this for an adventure game site. There are games reviewed which are pretty recent, and games reviewed which are over a decade old, and games reviewed that came out a few years ago. For older games, it is easier to give them a more accurate rating since we have seen how they stand the test of time, even if it's been a relatively short test. Now, many non-Flashback Friday games have still been out for a few years and gain this advantage (even if the reviewer has only just played it for the first time, it is clear from many reviews that they are well-aware of how the game has been received since its release), and it goes without saying that FF games clearly do.
The only two sites I read for gaming are AG and GameSpot, and though they are many GameSpot reviews with which I disagree, I think their percent ratings tend to be much more objective than AG's star ratings, which tend to be often much more influenced by personal reviewer opinion. Now, before anyone jumps on me, I know that it is impossible for a reviewer to put themself in an entirely subjective mode; this is true for AG or GS or anyone else. However, I think that, on the whole, GS (and I don't want to set this up as purely a comparison between the two, it's just that I've read more GS and AG reviews than anything else) tends to leave me more with an impression of the reviewer filtering out their own game-playing preferences (that's where their "Tilt" factor comes in) and instead concentrating on how the game as a whole stacks up against other games.
Now, please don't take any of this as some sort of negative judgment on your reviews or reviewers, because that's not how it's intended. My issues are probably more semantic than anything else, and I still see you guys as easily the most professional and well-written adventure game site around. I only say these things because I love you :D
Kingzjester
10-19-2003, 09:18 AM
Remixor, I can't... believe... you... just... said... that!
If I were you, Stinger, I would expiate him this very instant! I would not approve this sort of thing on a public forum!
RumRogerz
10-19-2003, 10:07 AM
w0w, couldent agree more.
This is definatley one of my all time favorite adventrure games ever made. Pure action, pure adventure, pure indy.
Do you guys remember the sequel of this game that was being developed by a bunch of people?
its still around and kickin might i add.
http://amberfisharts.com/
show your support! this should be an amazing game
remixor
10-19-2003, 01:44 PM
Speaking of Indy fan projects, Screen 7 Entertainment is also working on a game called Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth. It's not a sequel to FOA but it's in the spirit of that game it looks amazing. Everyone involved in the project is a proven member of the amateur adventure community, and what they've released so far seriously looks and sounds like it came out of LEC circa 1992. To me, it's looking a little better than FOA2, but they both seem to be shaping up well. I'll see if I can find the link to FOY's teaser trailer.
I too have followed Screen 7's Fountain of Youth very closely. And like he said, it's shaping up to be quite a magnificent piece of work.
Here (http://www.xs4all.nl/~omnia/foy/Rollinfoy.zip) is the awesome teaser trailer that Remixor mentioned. I remember it having music, though. Oh well.
And Here is the website (http://screen7.adventuredevelopers.com/foy/) - it's under construction, though, and so they've temporarily removed all the screenshots and animations and stuff, but there's a whole slew of extra stuff on their forum. :)
remixor
10-19-2003, 02:09 PM
Yo link be down!
Fixed link :D
I remember it used to have music, but the place where that was hosted seems to be down :sad:
But it's still groovy as ever :7
remixor
10-19-2003, 02:20 PM
It used to have a bunch of stuff, like screenshots, that movie, music, etc. Background artist Miez still has his FOA-style background tutorial up, though. It's very informative, and his art is absolutely gorgeous.
ragnar
10-20-2003, 12:18 AM
For example (and this is just off the top of my head), I think you'd find very few gamers who would consider EMI a better game than CMI, but a MI newcomer may see that and be left with a certain impression.
I think EMI is better than CMI. CMI has some great parts, but overall it isn't as good as EMI.
Kingzjester
10-20-2003, 11:29 AM
I think EMI is better than CMI. CMI has some great parts, but overall it isn't as good as EMI.Now I am certain that you're on some hard drugs and mixing them with hard alcohol.
remixor
10-20-2003, 12:41 PM
I think EMI is better than CMI. CMI has some great parts, but overall it isn't as good as EMI.
Well, as I said, I think you'd still find that MOST gamers would say otherwise.
ragnar
10-20-2003, 09:43 PM
Now I am certain that you're on some hard drugs and mixing them with hard alcohol.
No, I don't need drugs or alcohol to be like this. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.