Mini review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
Murray Peterson
Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
Introduction:
I have a confession to make; we never actually completed this
game. After almost three hours of continuous attempts, my
wife and I decided that the final arcade sequence in this
game was impossible to complete. Instead, we found a web
page that showed us how to play the final cutscene, watched
it, and went to bed. I will try hard to not let this
miserable ending colour my review too much.
GK2 is a full-motion video game (FMV), and is a mix of
mystery and supernatural thriller. Jensen's use of real
world settings and historical fact help make the game very
interesting, especially when you can go visit web sites for
the "real" history and pictures of the places you see in the
game. I don't describe much about a game's plot in my
reviews, but I will mention that King Ludwig II and Wagner
figure prominently in the game.
Graphics (quality, animations, cut scenes):
GK2 is a FMV game, running at a resolution of 640 x 480, with
256 colours. The technology used tended to create washed out
areas on the screen, but they were easily ignored after a few
minutes playing time.
When moving around outside of explicit cutscenes, the
character's feet tended to move faster than the ground.
Almost all other motions or actions were displayed as a
miniature cutscene or movie, so the sense of realism was/* */
never compromised.
All cutscenes were easily interruptable by clicking on the
mouse; this was an extremely nice (and used) feature,
especially when revisiting known areas.
Conversation items were eliminated from the dialog
selections, which made for easy gameplay (you talk a *lot* in
this game).
Sound (music, voices, special effects)
The music and spcial effects were excellent throughout. The
only problem with sound was the obvious lack of correct
recording/mixing of spoken dialogue; voices would change in
volume and "presence", sometimes even within the same
conversation.
Story (plot, theme, depth):
The game is a mystery, and as a mystery, it succeeded
admirably. We were continually wanting to see what was going
to happen next, and it wasn't always obvious or predictable.
Personally, I am not a fan of supernatural thrillers, nor am
I a great fan of mysteries. GK3 gets even higher marks for
managing to make both of these elements interesting for me.
Characters (depth, development, interaction):
Without exception, the acting was superb. They even hired
real opera singers and acters for part of the game, which
impressed me greatly. This was not a low budget game.
Personally, I didn't like Gabriel's character, especially his
mannerisms and boorishness, but the acting itself was great.
I suppose my only complaint about the characters is that they
weren't much "fun"; definitely a sour, miserable group of
people. I really wanted more humour in this game, but there
wasn't much to be found.
Puzzles (difficulty, uniqueness, suitability, ugliness, linearity):
Most puzzles were quite easy -- merely a matter of finding things,
talking to people, and then doing the obvious. On the other hand,
the game had a few really nasty surprises in store for us.
In one .chapter, we were completely stuck and couldn't make
any progress whatsover. We were required to explore one of
King Ludwig's castles, and weren't allowed to continue until
we had looked at *everything*. After a long hunt and
continual revisiting of every area, we found one !@#$^&%$#
pillar in the castle that we hadn't clicked. This is taking
linearity in a game just a bit too far.
The final "puzzle" in the game is an arcade sequence from
hell. As I indicated in the introduction, we never completed
this sequence at all. It's items like these that make my
memories of Sierra games a bit less than fond.
There were timed sequences other than the final one, but all
the other ones were easily handled. A "Try Again" feature
helped you solve the puzzles that killed you, so there wasn't
even a great need to save early, save often.
Controls (user interface, save/restore, sound/video adjustments):
The controls were all mouse-based and easy to use, and there
was minimal CD swapping, even with a six CD game.
About the only quibble I have is the lack of a pause button
for movies. The end of every chapter was marked by a lengthy
movie, immediately followed by an introductory movie for the
beginning of the next chapter. If the phone rings (and it
did), you are helpless. However, you could go back and
replay previous movies, so even this wasn't as big a problem
as it could have been.
Bugs or problems:
None
Install/Uninstall:
Clean
Pros:
Good story
Very good acting
CD swaps handled well
Excellent controls
Easy Inventory management
Cons:
Timed/arcade sequences
Must see "everything" to continue
Poor sound recording/mixing
No pause for long movies
Not enough humour
Conclusion:
With the exception of the final timed sequence, Gabriel
Knight 3 is an excellent game.
I suppose I should give a warning about the game -- GK3
contains a bit of bad language, and some seriously violent
and bloody scenes. You may want to think twice (or more)
before playing it with your children.
Because of that final sequence, it doesn't make it into my
"top ten" list, but it is definitely a game that you should
try to obtain and play.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
Andrew Plotkin
> Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
> [...]
> With the exception of the final timed sequence, Gabriel
> Knight 3 is an excellent game.
Er, 2? 3? Pi?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Murray Peterson
news:ajpsl5$ff2$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> Here, Murray Peterson <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
>> [...]
>> With the exception of the final timed sequence, Gabriel
>> Knight 3 is an excellent game.
>
> Er, 2? 3? Pi?
I like Pi, but... "Gabriel Knight 2"...
Oops -- too many drinks this evening and not enough proof reading. That's
my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
gita lal
.g
<!--
gita lal
justG at gitagrrl dot com
-->
* take off your pants to reply via e-mail ;)
JJ Mikkolainen
> Bugs or problems:
>
> None
The original version was impossible to complete because of a bug that
was fixed in the 1.11 patch. Is that included in more recent releases or
something? A mighty strange thing to say if it isn't.
Great review though.
-JJM
--
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...
Mad
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns926EDD5D...@24.71.223.159...
>
> Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
Hi Murray.
Thanks for the GK2" review - I enjoyed it - fully comprehensive :-)
My own two moans about the game were :
a) After such a huge build up, the actual "werewolf" was a BIG let down !!
Talk about woolly sheep ?? Hehehe !!
b) The "arcade sequence from hell" you so rightly mention. Typical of a
Sierra ending but even more maddening than most ;-)
Thanks again.
Cheers.
Mad.
Murray Peterson
> Murray Peterson wrote:
>> Bugs or problems:
>>
>> None
>
> The original version was impossible to complete because of a bug that
> was fixed in the 1.11 patch. Is that included in more recent releases or
> something? A mighty strange thing to say if it isn't.
I always install all available patches before playing a game, so I assumed
that the sequence was just miserable in its own right, but not necessarily
a bug.
> Great review though.
Thanks
Murray Peterson
news:ajqtvh$u5f$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
> My own two moans about the game were :
>
> a) After such a huge build up, the actual "werewolf" was a BIG let
> down !! Talk about woolly sheep ?? Hehehe !!
It's even funnier when the wolves in the Zoo were a perfect model for the
artists. I guess the budget was spent on the actor's salaries :-)
> b) The "arcade sequence from hell" you so rightly mention. Typical of
> a Sierra ending but even more maddening than most ;-)
That it was. Sierra games are rarely my favourites because of their love
of those miserable sequences.
> Thanks again.
You are welcome.
D.A.
> After almost three hours of continuous attempts, my
> wife and I decided that the final arcade sequence in this
> game was impossible to complete
>
> With the exception of the final timed sequence, Gabriel
> Knight 3 is an excellent game.
>
> Because of that final sequence, it doesn't make it into my
> "top ten" list, but it is definitely a game that you should
> try to obtain and play.
(Grr. It appears my news server has something against me posting, so
Google it is.)
I should point out that the final scene in the basement grid is not an
"arcade" sequence, nor is it timed. As long as you close the doors to
the southwest room before doing anything else, you have as long as you
need to puzzle out the solution, which is actually *very* easy to
figure out once you learn how the black wolf moves.
That scene doesn't require reflexes of any kind to solve.
MaryJ Martin
news:8fd8690d.02081...@posting.google.com...
My two cents =
It was a very tedious and boring way to end a great game though.
MaryJ
Murray Peterson
news:8fd8690d.02081...@posting.google.com:
> I should point out that the final scene in the basement grid is not an
> "arcade" sequence, nor is it timed. As long as you close the doors to
> the southwest room before doing anything else, you have as long as you
> need to puzzle out the solution, which is actually *very* easy to
> figure out once you learn how the black wolf moves.
Over two hours of attempts seems to prove you wrong, at least from my point
of view.
> That scene doesn't require reflexes of any kind to solve.
Really? I can go for a coffee and then hit the mouse button after five
minutes? Sorry, but reflexes of some sort seemed to be necessary.
D.A.
> Over two hours of attempts seems to prove you wrong, at least from my point
> of view.
Not really. Your inability to complete a relatively simple sequence
doesn't suddenly make that sequence inherently difficult to complete.
The fact is that it is entirely possible to finish that scene in under
two minutes, and off-hand I can think of at least two (and there are
certainly more) different solutions that I have used that work
consistently.
"Impossible" would be better used to describe a puzzle like the
microscope game in The Seventh Guest, even if that still isn't really
accurate.
> Really? I can go for a coffee and then hit the mouse button after five
> minutes? Sorry, but reflexes of some sort seemed to be necessary.
Now you're being unnecessarily obtuse. Yes, once you have closed off
the southwest exit, you can go for a coffee and hit the mouse button
at intervals of *ten* minutes and still finish the scene without
incident, so keep your mockery to yourself.
You weren't trying to solve the puzzle without closing any of the
doors, were you?
D.A.
> My two cents =
> It was a very tedious and boring way to end a great game though.
Yeah, I can see how it could get that way, especially if it was taking
a lot of retries to pass the scene. I didn't find it too bad, but I
was slightly turned off by the fact that it was so contrived.
Murray Peterson
news:8fd8690d.02082...@posting.google.com:
> Murray Peterson <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<Xns926FE234...@24.71.223.159>...
>
>> Over two hours of attempts seems to prove you wrong, at least from my
>> point of view.
>
> Not really. Your inability to complete a relatively simple sequence
> doesn't suddenly make that sequence inherently difficult to complete.
> The fact is that it is entirely possible to finish that scene in under
> two minutes, and off-hand I can think of at least two (and there are
> certainly more) different solutions that I have used that work
> consistently.
Please name a second solution to the "wolf into the furnace" problem, which
is the one I am talking about. You seem to be talking about the sequence
of basement doors, which *was* easy.
> "Impossible" would be better used to describe a puzzle like the
> microscope game in The Seventh Guest, even if that still isn't really
> accurate.
>
>> Really? I can go for a coffee and then hit the mouse button after
>> five minutes? Sorry, but reflexes of some sort seemed to be
>> necessary.
>
> Now you're being unnecessarily obtuse. Yes, once you have closed off
> the southwest exit, you can go for a coffee and hit the mouse button
> at intervals of *ten* minutes and still finish the scene without
> incident, so keep your mockery to yourself.
What mockery? I am being quite serious here, and certainly not being
obtuse. I spent bloody ages trying to hit that damn button at exactly the
right instant to push the wolf into the furnace. All I got, every time,
was a "misfire" and my death scene. If that puzzle isn't an arcade
sequence, then I don't know what is. And yes, it certainly required
seriously good reflexes.
> You weren't trying to solve the puzzle without closing any of the
> doors, were you?
No, I wasn't doing any such thing, and AFAIK, you couldn't possibly solve
the problem until the doors were all closed in a proper sequence.
The doors were closed, and I was carefully timing the mouse button on the
wolf's jump "arc" every time. Do this, die, restore, do it again, restore,
do it again... A
Jenny100
> ... I spent bloody ages trying to hit that damn button at exactly the
> right instant to push the wolf into the furnace. All I got, every time,
> was a "misfire" and my death scene. If that puzzle isn't an arcade
> sequence, then I don't know what is. And yes, it certainly required
> seriously good reflexes.
>
Is this one of those puzzles that can be made impossible by
playing on a fast computer?
Christine Marie
> "Murray Peterson" wrote:
> > ... I spent bloody ages trying to hit that damn button at exactly the
> > right instant to push the wolf into the furnace. All I got, every time,
> > was a "misfire" and my death scene. If that puzzle isn't an arcade
> > sequence, then I don't know what is. And yes, it certainly required
> > seriously good reflexes.
>
> Is this one of those puzzles that can be made impossible by
> playing on a fast computer?
>
I knew the correct decision chain to get the wolf into the furnace, I had
several seconds to click, and the hotspot was fairly good-sized. I haven't
tried it on my new one, but I bet CPU killer would help.
Chris
L. Ross Raszewski
It would surprise me. Having a fast computer only screws up a game if
the game relies on clock speed rather than the timer, but GK2 is an
interactive movie -- interactive movies have to use the timer by
design.
D.A.
> Please name a second solution to the "wolf into the furnace" problem, which
> is the one I am talking about. You seem to be talking about the sequence
> of basement doors, which *was* easy.
Right you are; I was absolutely mistaken on this count. Personally, I
found the very last scene to be even more straightforward than the
preceding one, which is why I made the incorrect assumption that I
did. ^_^
> What mockery? I am being quite serious here, and certainly not being
> obtuse. I spent bloody ages trying to hit that damn button at exactly the
> right instant to push the wolf into the furnace. All I got, every time,
> was a "misfire" and my death scene. If that puzzle isn't an arcade
> sequence, then I don't know what is. And yes, it certainly required
> seriously good reflexes.
Ah, right. Well, the solution to that particular scene is to make sure
you've first opened the furnace as Grace, then when the black wolf
jumps, click on it after it leaves the ground but *before* it passes
in front of the opening, otherwise you'll miss it entirely (the wolf
moves quite slowly and you have a pretty good-sized window, but if you
click on it when it is in *front* of the furnace door, you're too
late).
If you *did* try every possible timing situation along the arc, then
I'd think it may possibly be one of those annoying
computer-speed-related bugs that occasionally afflict earlier games.
Sorry about the misunderstanding, although I still wouldn't classify
the ending as an "arcade sequence". ^_-
David Adrien Tanguay
> Ah, right. Well, the solution to that particular scene is to make sure
> you've first opened the furnace as Grace, then when the black wolf
> jumps, click on it after it leaves the ground but *before* it passes
> in front of the opening, otherwise you'll miss it entirely (the wolf
> moves quite slowly and you have a pretty good-sized window, but if you
> click on it when it is in *front* of the furnace door, you're too
> late).
>
> If you *did* try every possible timing situation along the arc, then
> I'd think it may possibly be one of those annoying
> computer-speed-related bugs that occasionally afflict earlier games.
I played it on a Pentium-Pro 200 and had a hellacious time doing it, even
*after* reading the walkthrough. I think you underestimate just how
uncoordinated some of us can be. :-)
--
David Tanguay d...@thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Murray Peterson
> Ah, right. Well, the solution to that particular scene is to make sure
> you've first opened the furnace as Grace,
Did that
> then when the black wolf
> jumps, click on it after it leaves the ground but *before* it passes
> in front of the opening, otherwise you'll miss it entirely (the wolf
> moves quite slowly and you have a pretty good-sized window, but if you
> click on it when it is in *front* of the furnace door, you're too
> late).
Did that -- I tried every walkthrough I could find, and followed those
instructions. When that didn't work, I tried hitting the miserable animal
over the entire range of his "arc". As I said, after 2 hours of trying, I
gave up.
> If you *did* try every possible timing situation along the arc, then
> I'd think it may possibly be one of those annoying
> computer-speed-related bugs that occasionally afflict earlier games.
Perhaps, but the patch "theoretically" fixed those problems.
> Sorry about the misunderstanding, although I still wouldn't classify
> the ending as an "arcade sequence". ^_-
Hit an object moving across your field of view at the right time -- sounds
like an arcade sequence to me. If you replaced the wolf with a duck, and
your mouse fired a gun, then it would be right at home in a midway arcade.
erimess
>
>"Impossible" would be better used to describe a puzzle like the
>microscope game in The Seventh Guest, even if that still isn't really
>accurate.
Impossible? You're right -- that isn't quite accurate. I won it the
first time I played it. There was some definite luck involved there,
and I never won it again. However, I started learning the strategy
behind it and had several games that I probably would've won had the
mouse been more cooperative. (I don't recall anymore what the problem
was, but I seem to remember trying to pull on blobs in just the right
manner and then slipping or something, having the mouse slip off the
edge of the square, and then basically losing my turn.) So with some
practice and following the computer as an example, it was certainly
possible to figure it out and probably win half the time.
And unlike an arcade sequence there isn't the same type of doing this
"over and over" again kind of frustration involved in learning the
strategy. (Or at least IMO.) It requires brains instead of
reflexes, which is usually the general idea of an adventure.
erimess
I know God isn't supposed to give me
more than I can handle, but does he
have to trust me so much?
D.A.
> Did that -- I tried every walkthrough I could find, and followed those
> instructions. When that didn't work, I tried hitting the miserable animal
> over the entire range of his "arc". As I said, after 2 hours of trying, I
> gave up.
Just to clarify, what happened when you clicked on the wolf? Anything?
Or did the wolf just pass in front of the furnace, triggering the
"escape" cutscene?
> Perhaps, but the patch "theoretically" fixed those problems.
Well, you're still having problems, so I'll let you be the judge of
that. Which version are you playing, incidentally, Windows or DOS?
> Hit an object moving across your field of view at the right time -- sounds
> like an arcade sequence to me. If you replaced the wolf with a duck, and
> your mouse fired a gun, then it would be right at home in a midway arcade.
Perhaps, except for the fact that you're supposed to perform a single
click on a large hotspot moving slowly through a very small area, and
you're given ample time to do so.
There are more than a few adventure games that require you to click on
a person or object within a limited time frame in order to achieve
whatever goal, but I wouldn't consider them to be arcade sequences
either. It's just a time-based puzzle, of which there are more than
one in GK2 itself.
I would consider an arcade sequence to be just that, a mini-game like
Astrochicken, firing the cannon in CMI, or the side-scrolling
shoot-em-up segments from Rise of the Dragon.
D.A.
> I played it on a Pentium-Pro 200 and had a hellacious time doing it, even
> *after* reading the walkthrough. I think you underestimate just how
> uncoordinated some of us can be. :-)
I retried that end scene earlier several times on a P2 233 in order to
gauge how much leeway you get, and didn't have any problem at all. The
wolf is a fair-sized hotspot, and you do get quite a bit of time to
click on it. Which version were you using, Windows or DOS?
I'm now leaning towards the idea that the serious trouble some people
have with this part is possibly bug-related, because it just shouldn't
be that hard to complete, possible lack of coordination not
withstanding. Even if you miss the wolf once, you should be prepared
on the next try. ^_-
D.A.
> Impossible? You're right -- that isn't quite accurate. I won it the
> first time I played it.
Good for you, and I mean that without sarcasm. However, the infamy of
- and amount of fuss over - that particular puzzle make it pretty
clear that most people seem to have an incredibly hard time trying to
pass it without resorting to the hint book.
> And unlike an arcade sequence there isn't the same type of doing this
> "over and over" again kind of frustration involved in learning the
> strategy. (Or at least IMO.)
But it *is* repetitive and tedious, even more so than an "arcade
sequence" like the wolf scene at the end of GK2. There are people who
have reported attempting the microscope puzzle twenty times in a row
and not winning once, and I imagine that would be far more irritating
to them than playing a mini-game like the cannon game from CMI.
Not to mention that if something like the microscope game turned up in
a real adventure (as opposed to a puzzle game like The Seventh Guest)
as a *mandatory* part of the plot, the players would raise hell (a
comparatively small hell, granted). Sliding block puzzles also require
some thought, but you don't hear people clamouring for those to be put
back into adventure games.
Jenny100
> > "over and over" again kind of frustration involved in learning the
> > strategy. (Or at least IMO.)
>
> But it *is* repetitive and tedious, even more so than an "arcade
> sequence" like the wolf scene at the end of GK2. There are people who
> have reported attempting the microscope puzzle twenty times in a row
> and not winning once, and I imagine that would be far more irritating
> to them than playing a mini-game like the cannon game from CMI.
The cannon game from CMI was skippable.
The wolf scene was not.
IMO every arcade or timed sequence should be skippable.
Also games like the one at the end of 11th Hour should be
skippable.
Murray Peterson
news:8fd8690d.0208...@posting.google.com:
> Just to clarify, what happened when you clicked on the wolf? Anything?
> Or did the wolf just pass in front of the furnace, triggering the
> "escape" cutscene?
Or he got pushed too soon and hit the furnace door frame, which then
triggered the scene. I never could get the exact "hit point" to get him
into the door.
> Well, you're still having problems, so I'll let you be the judge of
> that. Which version are you playing, incidentally, Windows or DOS?
Windows
>> Hit an object moving across your field of view at the right time --
>> sounds like an arcade sequence to me. If you replaced the wolf with
>> a duck, and your mouse fired a gun, then it would be right at home in
>> a midway arcade.
>
> Perhaps, except for the fact that you're supposed to perform a single
> click on a large hotspot moving slowly through a very small area, and
> you're given ample time to do so.
Except the the "ample time" isn't any such thing -- the "hit" had to happen
at some exact instant in time. It was small enough that I was completely
unable to find it, and I even tried a different mouse and mouse settings.
MaryJ
I would not say that it was a bug with so many people not getting past this
part very easily.
I remember having to do it quite a few times before being successful, and
you are the only person who I have read about who found it so easy. It was a
matter of clicking at the right time on the wolf when he was jumping. Its
common in many games to have such a sequence.
MaryJ
JJ Mikkolainen
> I always install all available patches before playing a game, so I assumed
> that the sequence was just miserable in its own right, but not necessarily
> a bug.
The bug wasn't near the ending IIRC. The end sequence was bad but
unfortunately not a bug. In fact I didn't get through it the first time
I "completed" the game even though I tried and tried it for hours. On my
second time through the entire game I actually beat the arcade sequence
but it was by pure luck.
Robert Norton
> Impossible? You're right -- that isn't quite accurate. I won it the
> first time I played it. There was some definite luck involved there,
> and I never won it again. However, I started learning the strategy
I won also, although it took me several tries. It has some elements of
Chinese Checkers, Go, and Reversi in it. It was a nice game, I think
somebody released an ala carte version of it.
D.A.
> Or he got pushed too soon and hit the furnace door frame, which then
> triggered the scene. I never could get the exact "hit point" to get him
> into the door.
Furnace door frame? The only time I've seen the black wolf hit the
furnace door at all is if you jump at him while it is still closed. I
tested that scene again in the DOS version just now, and found that it
is *impossible* to hit the wolf too early. I'm tentatively assuming
this is an issue related to the Windows version.
> Except the the "ample time" isn't any such thing -- the "hit" had to happen
> at some exact instant in time. It was small enough that I was completely
> unable to find it, and I even tried a different mouse and mouse settings.
Would you (or anybody who has had that same problem) be able to
provide a saved game from the end of the Windows version of GK2, so
that I can see if the problem is related to that particular version?
Conversely, if anybody wants to test a saved game from the end of the
DOS version, let me know. ^_^
D.A.
> I would not say that it was a bug with so many people not getting past this
> part very easily.
> I remember having to do it quite a few times before being successful, and
> you are the only person who I have read about who found it so easy. It was a
> matter of clicking at the right time on the wolf when he was jumping. Its
> common in many games to have such a sequence.
Which version were you playing? I've been using the DOS version, and
have *never* had a problem with that scene. I'm wondering if there is
something different about the way it works in the Windows version.
To clarify, in the DOS version, once the black wolf jumps you can
click on it *any* time before it escapes and you'll knock it into the
furnace. If the Windows version relies on exact timing, then yes, I
agree with you.
D.A.
> The cannon game from CMI was skippable.
> The wolf scene was not.
> IMO every arcade or timed sequence should be skippable.
> Also games like the one at the end of 11th Hour should be
> skippable.
I agree with regards to true "arcade sequences", but not to timed
sequences. There are a lot of different puzzles that can come under
the heading "timed sequences", and I don't see the need to have them
*all* skippable.
I don't consider the wolf scene to be an arcade sequence, and I can
see why the creators of the game didn't either. If all the people who
played had the same experience I did with the final scene, I don't
think there would be any complaints, but I can sympathise with what
I'm hearing now. ^_-
MaryJ
I played the game when it first came out in 1995 (had to find the box to get
that info) and it was made for DOS and Win 3.1 and win95. If a game is made
to play in DOS, I usually play it in DOS because I find it usually runs
better. DOS was all they had when I first played computer games 12 years ago
so I started with it. Some games made for DOS work OK in Windows too though
not all. I have played GK2 quite a few times since 1995, as it is one of my
favorite games, and probably played it in both DOS and Windows from what I
recall.
Why would playing the game in Windows be any different timing than played in
DOS as far as the wolf jumping into the furnace part.?
Actually, I had more trouble finding exactly where the door was which had to
be closed than I did clicking on the wolf. -:)
MaryJ
MaryJ
> Murray Peterson <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:<Xns92716818...@24.71.223.159>...
>
> > Or he got pushed too soon and hit the furnace door frame, which then
> > triggered the scene. I never could get the exact "hit point" to get him
> > into the door.
>
> Furnace door frame? The only time I've seen the black wolf hit the
> furnace door at all is if you jump at him while it is still closed. I
> tested that scene again in the DOS version just now, and found that it
> is *impossible* to hit the wolf too early. I'm tentatively assuming
> this is an issue related to the Windows version.
I've played the game in both DOS and Windows, and didn't seem to make any
difference. I had to do it a few times to get it right. I was clicking on
the wolf either too late or too early. Its a matter of mouse
clicking/correct timing.
MaryJ
D.A.
> Why would playing the game in Windows be any different timing than played in
> DOS as far as the wolf jumping into the furnace part.?
Because they use two different engines, hence the saved games not
being transferable. It wouldn't be the first time a game with both
Windows and DOS versions had issues with one or the other. Broken
Sword, for example, and as I recall QfG4 had a few problems as well.
D.A.
> I've played the game in both DOS and Windows, and didn't seem to make any
> difference. I had to do it a few times to get it right. I was clicking on
> the wolf either too late or too early. Its a matter of mouse
> clicking/correct timing.
Having repeatedly played that scene again this morning I can state
that there was *definitely* no way to be "too early", end of story. If
I clicked on the black wolf the instant he left the ground, he still
ended up in the furnace.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just stating that what *I* am
experiencing is not a subjective thing at all. ^_-
I've been playing the DOS version of GK2 from the GK Mysteries
collection, but other than that, I can't see any reason I'd be having
such a different experience from everyone else. Maybe that problem
existed in the original DOS version and has been fixed since then, I
couldn't say.
I could try playing through the Windows version from the very
beginning in order to test, but I don't feel up to that just yet. ^_^
MaryJ
What are the two different engines?
MaryJ
MaryJ
> "MaryJ" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:<u1X89.9007$H67....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
>
> > I've played the game in both DOS and Windows, and didn't seem to make
any
> > difference. I had to do it a few times to get it right. I was clicking
on
> > the wolf either too late or too early. Its a matter of mouse
> > clicking/correct timing.
>
> Having repeatedly played that scene again this morning I can state
> that there was *definitely* no way to be "too early", end of story. If
> I clicked on the black wolf the instant he left the ground, he still
> ended up in the furnace.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just stating that what *I* am
> experiencing is not a subjective thing at all. ^_-
Well, I haven't heard of too many people who didn't have some problems with
the wolf/furnace scene, but if you didn't , then I guess you didn't.
> I've been playing the DOS version of GK2 from the GK Mysteries
> collection, but other than that, I can't see any reason I'd be having
> such a different experience from everyone else. Maybe that problem
> existed in the original DOS version and has been fixed since then, I
> couldn't say.
>
> I could try playing through the Windows version from the very
> beginning in order to test, but I don't feel up to that just yet. ^_^
I don't blame you. Normally, I like to wait a while between re-plays.
MaryJ
erimess
>erimess wrote in news:3d632135...@news.newsguy.com:
>
>> Impossible? You're right -- that isn't quite accurate. I won it the
>> first time I played it. There was some definite luck involved there,
>> and I never won it again. However, I started learning the strategy
>
>I won also, although it took me several tries. It has some elements of
>Chinese Checkers, Go, and Reversi in it.
Yeah, I kind of thought the same thing. I thought of it kind of like
a "board game."
erimess
>erimess wrote in message news:<3d632135...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Impossible? You're right -- that isn't quite accurate. I won it the
>> first time I played it.
>
>Good for you, and I mean that without sarcasm. However, the infamy of
>- and amount of fuss over - that particular puzzle make it pretty
>clear that most people seem to have an incredibly hard time trying to
>pass it without resorting to the hint book.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find it that difficult to understand
the concept of what you were supposed to be doing -- I kind of watched
what the computer moves did and learned strategy from that -- and
learned what *not* to do from my own mistakes. I'm not even quite
sure that anything in a hint book would've helped me. (Unless there's
some kind of outright solve, which would involve the computer making
the precise same moves each time.)
>
>> And unlike an arcade sequence there isn't the same type of doing this
>> "over and over" again kind of frustration involved in learning the
>> strategy. (Or at least IMO.)
>
>But it *is* repetitive and tedious, even more so than an "arcade
>sequence" like the wolf scene at the end of GK2. There are people who
>have reported attempting the microscope puzzle twenty times in a row
>and not winning once, and I imagine that would be far more irritating
>to them than playing a mini-game like the cannon game from CMI.
Would you find it tedious to play checkers over and over again in
order to learn it better and learn the strategy? I consider the "glob
puzzle" (as I've always called it) to be that type of game. Arcade
usually implies some kind of timed reflex sort of thing whereas this
was more a brain puzzle type thing. Obviously there are people who
love those arcade games and don't find it tedious at all to play them
over and over. (And actually, I don't mind *some* arcade games.) I
just find the general concensus around here is that people don't like
the timed and arcade sequences, especially the people who are "pure
adventurists."
>
>Not to mention that if something like the microscope game turned up in
>a real adventure (as opposed to a puzzle game like The Seventh Guest)
>as a *mandatory* part of the plot, the players would raise hell (a
>comparatively small hell, granted). Sliding block puzzles also require
>some thought, but you don't hear people clamouring for those to be put
>back into adventure games.
I agree with you wholehearted there. I remember some space fight
thing in a Space Quest (1?) that I got really, really frustrated over,
cause I simply couldn't do it and couldn't move on with the game until
I finished it. I think I finally got through the game, but I never
played another Space Quest.
Since 7th Guest was like it was, I also wasn't really taking that into
consideration, just the puzzle. (i.e. take the puzzle out of context
and look at the puzzle for the sake of itself)
L. Ross Raszewski
Basically, Sierra never bothered to make the DOS and Windows versions
of SCIV (The engine, a derivative of which is used by GK2) compatible
-- they certainly could have, and then save games would be
transferrable -- it probably would have been cheaper in the long run,
since subsequent games could have both a DOS and Windows version "for
free", instead of Sierra having to futz around with compatability
issues to port the game to both platforms. But at the time, it wasn't
quite clear whether Windows would be a adequate platform for Gaming
(This was literally years before DirectX, so the sort of
hardware-intensive things that games tended to do were *slow*)
D.A.
> Well, I haven't heard of too many people who didn't have some problems with
> the wolf/furnace scene, but if you didn't , then I guess you didn't.
This is the kind of situation where you *really* wish you could show
other people what you have been experiencing, just so they don't think
you're crazy/lying/argumentative/other. ^_-
D.A.
> What are the two different engines?
Windows and DOS. That's about as straightforward as it gets; there is
different code involved in running the game through Windows as opposed
to DOS, and as ever there is the potential for issues to arise
regarding any number of aspects, from graphics to sound to gameplay.
^_^
I apologise if you wanted a revelation. ^_-
D.A.
> Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find it that difficult to understand
> the concept of what you were supposed to be doing -- I kind of watched
> what the computer moves did and learned strategy from that -- and
> learned what *not* to do from my own mistakes.
I agree with you, to an extent. While the AI in the microscope puzzle
*did* have recognisable and repeatable patterns, it could still take a
lot of trial and error to complete. As I recall, that particular
puzzle in T7G was the only "game" type puzzle that had you playing
against an active AI, instead of just clicking on a sequence of
cards/coins/numbers/letters/symbols.
> I'm not even quite sure that anything in a hint book would've
> helped me. (Unless there's some kind of outright solve, which would
> involve the computer making the precise same moves each time.)
Regarding the "hint book", I was referring to the book in the lounge
in The Seventh Guest that solves the puzzle automatically when you
check it for the third time. ^_^
> Would you find it tedious to play checkers over and over again in
> order to learn it better and learn the strategy?
Assuming I had no prior knowledge of checkers, I probably would find
it tedious if a game insisted that I A) learn how to play the game,
and then B) win the game in order to get any further.
I've never really had a problem with checkers, though. ^_-
> I just find the general concensus around here is that people don't like
> the timed and arcade sequences, especially the people who are "pure
> adventurists."
I think you'd have to define "timed sequences" more clearly. Broken
Sword, for example, had quite a number of moments that required either
clicking in a particular spot at a particular time, or performing an
action within a set time limit (where failure usually resulted in
death). Personally, I think that the game benefited from having them
present.
> Since 7th Guest was like it was, I also wasn't really taking that into
> consideration, just the puzzle. (i.e. take the puzzle out of context
> and look at the puzzle for the sake of itself)
I understand that, but my initial reference to "impossibility" was
more or less a comparison to the difficulty level of the final wolf
scene from GK2. I simply found clicking on the jumping wolf vastly
easier than playing the microscope game. ^_^
MaryJ
Its interesting to know. I did not know that.
> I apologise if you wanted a revelation. ^_-
What kind of revelation? Do you mean did I want a detailed explanation? What
you told me above and what Ross said, gives me enough of an idea. Thanks for
the info.
MaryJ
I can imagine -;)
MaryJ
erimess
>erimess wrote in message news:<3d650b66...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find it that difficult to understand
>> the concept of what you were supposed to be doing -- I kind of watched
>> what the computer moves did and learned strategy from that -- and
>> learned what *not* to do from my own mistakes.
>
>I agree with you, to an extent. While the AI in the microscope puzzle
>*did* have recognisable and repeatable patterns, it could still take a
>lot of trial and error to complete. As I recall, that particular
>puzzle in T7G was the only "game" type puzzle that had you playing
>against an active AI, instead of just clicking on a sequence of
>cards/coins/numbers/letters/symbols.
Yeah, IIRC I think you're right.
>
>> I'm not even quite sure that anything in a hint book would've
>> helped me. (Unless there's some kind of outright solve, which would
>> involve the computer making the precise same moves each time.)
>
>Regarding the "hint book", I was referring to the book in the lounge
>in The Seventh Guest that solves the puzzle automatically when you
>check it for the third time. ^_^
Oh, *that* book.
>
>> Would you find it tedious to play checkers over and over again in
>> order to learn it better and learn the strategy?
>
>Assuming I had no prior knowledge of checkers, I probably would find
>it tedious if a game insisted that I A) learn how to play the game,
>and then
i.e. if the game within the game insisted that you had to learn, say
Chess, in order to play the game, when you don't already know how to
play Chess, and perhaps don't care to learn.
> B) win the game in order to get any further.
As I said before, I agree with you on that part -- things that don't
let you get any further and are difficult to learn are extremely
annoying.
>
>I've never really had a problem with checkers, though. ^_-
Actually, I hate the game. :-)
>
>> I just find the general concensus around here is that people don't like
>> the timed and arcade sequences, especially the people who are "pure
>> adventurists."
>
>I think you'd have to define "timed sequences" more clearly. Broken
>Sword, for example, had quite a number of moments that required either
>clicking in a particular spot at a particular time, or performing an
>action within a set time limit (where failure usually resulted in
>death). Personally, I think that the game benefited from having them
>present.
Define timed sequences. Hmm. Well, pretty much what you said above.
But the *bad* kind are what I was referring to. (I haven't played
Broken Sword so I can't relate to what you're talking about.) "Bad"
meaning that your average player would not be able to accomplish the
task, either without numerous tedious attempts, or perhaps never. For
me, the worse case senario was the last puzzle in Shivers 2. <Shiver
over bad memory> I could have learned it if it weren't timed. (And
by time I changed CD's, watched the 5 minute cut scene yet one more
time and got back to the puzzle, I had no clue what I learned the last
time through.)
>
>> Since 7th Guest was like it was, I also wasn't really taking that into
>> consideration, just the puzzle. (i.e. take the puzzle out of context
>> and look at the puzzle for the sake of itself)
>
>I understand that, but my initial reference to "impossibility" was
>more or less a comparison to the difficulty level of the final wolf
>scene from GK2.
Yeah, I knew you were going to say that, cause the game did require
you to complete the task, whereas 7th Guest let you cheat.
> I simply found clicking on the jumping wolf vastly
>easier than playing the microscope game. ^_^
Actually, I don't know anything about this wolf thing anyway -- I'm
just going by what people are saying. I see your point. I guess the
crux is that it's far more fun to get to do something on a continuing
basis and have time to learn from it than it is to try to click on one
spot, missed, reload, try again to hit one spot, missed, reload, try
again. Rinse and repeat. That's where I have the issue. Think of it
this way: if you were playing pool, you'd want to play the whole game,
learn, get to play another game. You wouldn't want to get only one
shot, pay another quarter, set up again, get only one shot. What's
the fun of that?
BTW, the microscope is actually a very interesting strategic game --
you just don't have any taste. :-) My brother said the one in 11th
Hour is easier to control (mouse-wise) and I'm very much looking
forward to it.
L. Ross Raszewski
>Define timed sequences. Hmm. Well, pretty much what you said above.
>But the *bad* kind are what I was referring to. (I haven't played
>Broken Sword so I can't relate to what you're talking about.) "Bad"
>meaning that your average player would not be able to accomplish the
>task, either without numerous tedious attempts, or perhaps never. For
>me, the worse case senario was the last puzzle in Shivers 2. <Shiver
>over bad memory> I could have learned it if it weren't timed. (And
>by time I changed CD's, watched the 5 minute cut scene yet one more
>time and got back to the puzzle, I had no clue what I learned the last
>time through.)
Heh. Strangely, I found the final puzzle from Shivers 2 to be
ridiculously easy. But I can see why people would be troubled.
Jenny100
news:jmk99.39$Uh3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >
> Heh. Strangely, I found the final puzzle from Shivers 2 to be
> ridiculously easy. But I can see why people would be troubled.
I thought it was easy too and got it on the first try. But if you
missed getting it, it meant 2 CD changes and sitting through
a bunch of cut scenes before you could try again. That was
terrible design.
D.A.
> i.e. if the game within the game insisted that you had to learn, say
> Chess, in order to play the game, when you don't already know how to
> play Chess, and perhaps don't care to learn.
Pretty much, and the thought of chess crossed my mind last night
actually, following onto just how steamed some people would be if the
designers just happened to slip a world-class AI into a mandatory part
of the game. >:)
> "Bad" meaning that your average player would not be able to accomplish
> the task, either without numerous tedious attempts, or perhaps never.
Which actual puzzles would you put into that category then, from your
experience?
> For me, the worse case senario was the last puzzle in Shivers 2.
I've never played either of the Shivers games, as they weren't really
my thing.
> > I simply found clicking on the jumping wolf vastly
> >easier than playing the microscope game. ^_^
>
> Think of it this way: if you were playing pool, you'd want to play
> the whole game, learn, get to play another game. You wouldn't want
> to get only one shot, pay another quarter, set up again, get only
> one shot. What's the fun of that?
Actually, in this situation a more appropriate version of that analogy
would be that you have one final shot to make in order to win a game
of pool, and before you make the shot, a pool master appears and
offers to take it for you. You agree, he picks up the cue, and here's
where the experiences differ.
That final scene for others had the guy moving his cue back and forth
behind the ball, then turning to them and saying "Tell me when to
shoot." In my case, the guy has the cue positioned directly behind the
ball and is holding it steady, and basically no matter *when* I tell
him to shoot, he won't miss. ^_^
> BTW, the microscope is actually a very interesting strategic game --
> you just don't have any taste. :-)
Bah! That was uncalled for. I don't have any problem with the puzzle
itself, just in the context of appearing within a game as a mandatory
segment. It is really just a variation of Othello. ^_^
D.A.
> What kind of revelation? Do you mean did I want a detailed explanation? What
> you told me above and what Ross said, gives me enough of an idea. Thanks for
> the info.
Sorry; I didn't mean that to sound as sarcastic and/or patronising as
it may have done. ^_^
erimess
wrote:
That's exactly what I had the problem with. The puzzle wasn't all
that hard to *figure out.* The trouble was having time to look at the
thing to see what was going on, then kind of get an idea of how to
solve it, then actually go through and solve it. There was never
enough time to do any of this before I had this huge break of CD
changing and cut scenes and then couldn't remember anything. I tried
different approaches -- got real close once. I'm an extremely visual
person and I kind of have to sit back and *look* at something for a
bit.
By the way, Jenny, the mouse scroller is working. I think it helped
to start from scratch, have IE and the mouse stuff installed first,
and then install Worldnet and let it deal with the software that was
already on there, instead of changing mid-stream. Let's just see how
long it keeps up without giving me problems.
erimess
>erimess wrote in message news:<3d65b0f6...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> i.e. if the game within the game insisted that you had to learn, say
>> Chess, in order to play the game, when you don't already know how to
>> play Chess, and perhaps don't care to learn.
>
>Pretty much, and the thought of chess crossed my mind last night
>actually, following onto just how steamed some people would be if the
>designers just happened to slip a world-class AI into a mandatory part
>of the game. >:)
For me, that would be like playing the computer on "Novice" level.
:-) Fortunately I know the *rules* of chess or I wouldn't have solved
all those puzzles in 7th Guest, but I forget all the strategy as it's
been years. But seriously, yeah, what you suggest wouldn't exactly
please people.
>
>> "Bad" meaning that your average player would not be able to accomplish
>> the task, either without numerous tedious attempts, or perhaps never.
>
>Which actual puzzles would you put into that category then, from your
>experience?
Boy, I'd have to really think about that one. On a personal basis, my
two worst, which I've already mentioned, are that last puzzle in
Shivers 2 (I don't care what Jenny & Ross say -- and I've heard lots
of other complaints about it), and some space fight thing in one of
the Space Quests, which I don't really remember anymore, other than
that I was really ticked off and almost didn't continue the game.
I think when I said that I was thinking in terms of complaints I've
heard on here, and sometimes they were about puzzles I've never done.
One example I can think of that I remember hearing the complaints is
the combination puzzle at the end of RAMA. It was very difficult to
get within the alloted time and your average person most certainly
would have to do it several times. It didn't really bother me
personally that much, but I could see why it would bother others. I
don't mind timed things much until it gets ridiculously difficult and
then I start to get pretty annoyed and bored with the thing. The
trouble I've heard described here about this wolf thing is the kind of
thing that would annoy me. (About three years from now, when I get
around to playing this huge pile of games surrounding me, I'll let you
know how I do. :-))
>
>> For me, the worse case senario was the last puzzle in Shivers 2.
>
>I've never played either of the Shivers games, as they weren't really
>my thing.
You definitely have to be into puzzles for the sake of puzzles.
Shivers 2 wasn't much of a game, even if you like those kind of
puzzles. (Definitely not on my top ten!)
>
>> > I simply found clicking on the jumping wolf vastly
>> >easier than playing the microscope game. ^_^
>>
>> Think of it this way: if you were playing pool, you'd want to play
>> the whole game, learn, get to play another game. You wouldn't want
>> to get only one shot, pay another quarter, set up again, get only
>> one shot. What's the fun of that?
>
>Actually, in this situation a more appropriate version of that analogy
>would be that you have one final shot to make in order to win a game
>of pool, and before you make the shot, a pool master appears and
>offers to take it for you. You agree, he picks up the cue, and here's
>where the experiences differ.
>
>That final scene for others had the guy moving his cue back and forth
>behind the ball, then turning to them and saying "Tell me when to
>shoot." In my case, the guy has the cue positioned directly behind the
>ball and is holding it steady, and basically no matter *when* I tell
>him to shoot, he won't miss. ^_^
I think I get the analogy. I think we're also getting ridiculous now.
:-) There was this wolf who went to play pool, and this pool shark
came swimming in and just ate him.... Er, it's late.
>
>> BTW, the microscope is actually a very interesting strategic game --
>> you just don't have any taste. :-)
>
>Bah! That was uncalled for. I don't have any problem with the puzzle
>itself, just in the context of appearing within a game as a mandatory
>segment.
Ah, but there was that hint book...
> It is really just a variation of Othello. ^_^
Is Othello a game, or do you mean the Shakespeare character (in which
case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I read
it).
Robert Norton
>> It is really just a variation of Othello. ^_^
>
> Is Othello a game, or do you mean the Shakespeare character (in which
> case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I read
> it).
Othello and Reversi are basically the same game.
D.A.
> You definitely have to be into puzzles for the sake of puzzles.
> Shivers 2 wasn't much of a game, even if you like those kind of
> puzzles. (Definitely not on my top ten!)
I *am* particularly fond of Black Dahlia, but I still consider that
more of an adventure game than a "puzzle game".
> >Bah! That was uncalled for. I don't have any problem with the puzzle
> >itself, just in the context of appearing within a game as a mandatory
> >segment.
>
> Ah, but there was that hint book...
True, but I think you'd agree that a design philosophy that states
"we'll put whatever puzzles we like in the game as long as we provide
the option to skip/cheat your way past them" isn't really the best way
of going about things. At what point do you decide which of the
puzzles would be considered too hard? Should they *all* be skippable?
I believe that would have an unattractive tendency to encourage lazy
design.
> Is Othello a game, or do you mean the Shakespeare character (in which
> case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I read
> it).
While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding around a
microscope plate could be considered an interpretation of a
Shakespearean character, I was indeed referring to a board game. I
find it odd that you haven't heard of it, unless you know it by its
other name, Reversi. ^_^
erimess
>erimess wrote in message news:<3d67307a...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> You definitely have to be into puzzles for the sake of puzzles.
>> Shivers 2 wasn't much of a game, even if you like those kind of
>> puzzles. (Definitely not on my top ten!)
>
>I *am* particularly fond of Black Dahlia, but I still consider that
>more of an adventure game than a "puzzle game".
Traded for it recently, but haven't played it yet.
>
>> >Bah! That was uncalled for. I don't have any problem with the puzzle
>> >itself, just in the context of appearing within a game as a mandatory
>> >segment.
>>
>> Ah, but there was that hint book...
>
>True, but I think you'd agree that a design philosophy that states
>"we'll put whatever puzzles we like in the game as long as we provide
>the option to skip/cheat your way past them" isn't really the best way
>of going about things. At what point do you decide which of the
>puzzles would be considered too hard? Should they *all* be skippable?
Well, in a way that's part of my point. Some of us solved the thing,
obviously some of you didn't. I didn't really think it was an
impossible puzzle. There is a good point about a game with puzzles
that are way too difficult and everyone having to go around using the
built-in cheat system. If any are skippable, I guess they should all
be skippable, cause different people are going to find different
things difficult. Probably the ideal would be to have a good mix of
easy and difficult -- so, no, they shouldn't just put whatever they
feel like in the game. I thought that game had a good mixture, though
it was a little heavy on the Chess stuff, which a lot of people could
not be good at. I think the game is "fair" because it is a puzzle
game after all and it's the type of thing I would expect.
>
>I believe that would have an unattractive tendency to encourage lazy
>design.
>
>> Is Othello a game, or do you mean the Shakespeare character (in which
>> case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I read
>> it).
>
>While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding around a
>microscope plate could be considered an interpretation of a
>Shakespearean character,
That's why I was a bit confused cause I didn't get the connection.
> I was indeed referring to a board game. I
>find it odd that you haven't heard of it, unless you know it by its
>other name, Reversi. ^_^
I don't know that name either. I wonder if it's on my cheapo MS 1000
games CD. I'm curious now.
Jenny100
> On 24 Aug 2002 17:40:32 -0700, retu...@hotmail.com (D.A.) wrote:
>
> >erimess wrote in message news:<3d67307a...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I read
> >> it).
> >
> >While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding around a
> >microscope plate could be considered an interpretation of a
> >Shakespearean character,
>
> That's why I was a bit confused cause I didn't get the connection.
>
> > I was indeed referring to a board game. I
> >find it odd that you haven't heard of it, unless you know it by its
> >other name, Reversi. ^_^
>
> I don't know that name either. I wonder if it's on my cheapo MS 1000
> games CD. I'm curious now.
I thought the 7th Guest Microscope Puzzle was called Ataxx and
that Reversi and Othello were slightly different. This site
http://www.pressibus.org/
has different links for Ataxx and Reversi and this site
http://g.oswego.edu/dl/applets/micro.html
says the Microscope Puzzle is called Ataxx (and also Splat!)
D.A.
> I thought the 7th Guest Microscope Puzzle was called Ataxx and
> that Reversi and Othello were slightly different. This site
> http://www.pressibus.org/
This would be why I described the puzzle as being a *variation* of
Othello, as opposed to actually *being* Othello under a different
name. ^_^
Robert Norton
news:8fd8690d.02082...@posting.google.com:
Here is the quote from 4 levels up:
> While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding
> around a microscope plate could be considered an
> interpretation of a Shakespearean character, I was indeed
> referring to a board game. I find it odd that you haven't
> heard of it, unless you know it by its other name, Reversi. ^_^
Sound familiar?
D.A.
> Here is the quote from 4 levels up:
> > While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding
> > around a microscope plate could be considered an
> > interpretation of a Shakespearean character, I was indeed
> > referring to a board game. I find it odd that you haven't
> > heard of it, unless you know it by its other name, Reversi. ^_^
>
> Sound familiar?
No, but it *looks* familiar, and that's because I wrote it. However,
as I wrote some time before that:
>Bah! That was uncalled for. I don't have any problem with the puzzle
>itself, just in the context of appearing within a game as a mandatory
>segment. It is really just a variation of Othello. ^_^
Does *that* look familiar, Robert? I'm guessing it doesn't, as
otherwise you probably wouldn't have been in such a rush to make a
fool of yourself.
The text you quoted was myself clearing up a matter for Erimess, who
hadn't even *heard* of the game Othello; at no point have I ever
stated that the puzzle in T7G *is* Othello. Context is a wonderful
thing, Robert, if you'd only give it a chance.
Robert Norton
> The text you quoted was myself clearing up a matter for Erimess, who
> hadn't even *heard* of the game Othello; at no point have I ever
> stated that the puzzle in T7G *is* Othello. Context is a wonderful
> thing, Robert, if you'd only give it a chance.
If you say something that's right, and then say something that's wrong, it
doesn't make the wrong thing right. In one message you claim Reversi is a
variant, which is arguably true, although it does have elements of Go and
Chinese Checkers as well. In another message, you say it is another name
for the same game, and that is certainly false. Context is wonderful, but
not that wonderful. :-)
You could say Reversi and Othello are alternate names for the same game,
but I think they have a different initial condition.
You also could have said the puzzle in T7G had alternate names of Attax, or
Spot, or Infection, I guess, and still be right.
<http://www.pressibus.org/ataxx/gen/gborigines.html>
D.A.
>In one message you claim Reversi is a variant, which is arguably
>true, although it does have elements of Go and Chinese Checkers
>as well.
Yes, the microscope puzzle is a variation of Othello, and I don't
think anybody would have a problem seeing the similarities between the
two games, regardless of what other elements it may also include.
>In another message, you say it is another name for the same game,
>and that is certainly false. Context is wonderful, but not that
>wonderful. :-)
Incorrect; read the message again. In the part you quoted, I was
stating that Reversi was another name for *Othello*, not that it was
another name for the microscope puzzle, hence my comment about
context.
For your convenience:
==
>>Is Othello a game, or do you mean the Shakespeare character (in
>>which case I still wouldn't get it since it's been 25 years since I
read
>>it).
>While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding around a
>microscope plate could be considered an interpretation of a
>Shakespearean character, I was indeed referring to a board game.
>I find it odd that you haven't heard of it, unless you know it by its
>other name, Reversi. ^_^
==
>You could say Reversi and Othello are alternate names for the
>same game, but I think they have a different initial condition.
Reversi and Othello are frequently considered to be the same game, as
the differences between the two are so minor as to be almost
non-existent. Neither of them are the same as the microscope puzzle,
and I never claimed they were.
>You also could have said the puzzle in T7G had alternate names
>of Attax, or Spot, or Infection, I guess, and still be right.
I didn't mention the other names because I was pointing out that the
microscope puzzle was a variation of Othello/Reversi, a much older and
better-known game. I could have stated that the microscope puzzle was
also known as Ataxx, and that Ataxx was a variation of
Othello/Reversi, but that would have been complicating matters
unnecessarily.
Robert Norton
> Yes, the microscope puzzle is a variation of Othello, and I don't
> think anybody would have a problem seeing the similarities between the
> two games, regardless of what other elements it may also include.
I would accept that Attax is similar in ways to Othello. (Pieces flip to
reveal the other color in certain situations. Winning is accomplished by
having the most pieces. The game is over when the board is full, or
there are no legal moves.) But it has so many differences that I could
not call it a variation of Othello. In both Othello and Go the pieces,
once played, cannot be moved. Piece movement is central to Attax, and in
that it resembles Chinese Checkers more closely than any other game that
I know. In any case, you clarify my confusion in the next chunk.
> Incorrect; read the message again. In the part you quoted, I was
> stating that Reversi was another name for *Othello*, not that it was
> another name for the microscope puzzle, hence my comment about
> context.
>>While it *would* be amusing if little balls of goo sliding around a
>>microscope plate could be considered an interpretation of a
>>Shakespearean character, I was indeed referring to a board game.
>>I find it odd that you haven't heard of it, unless you know it by its
>>other name, Reversi. ^_^
I see now. You intended "it" to refer to the game Othello (not mentioned
in that paragraph), and not Attax (referenced in the prior sentence).
Ok, I see your intended meaning now, and in that case, "nevermind", and I
apologise for the fuss.
I hope you can see that it (:-) was an understandable mistake, and
perhaps the same one that Jenny100 made.
D.A.
>But it has so many differences that I could not call it a
>variation of Othello.
I could, not least because the creators of Infection/Ataxx themselves
describe their game as being heavily derived from Othello. Regardless,
the only reason I originally mentioned Othello was to point out that I
didn't have a problem with the microscope puzzle as a game in itself,
just that I didn't like it appearing in T7G.
>I see now. You intended "it" to refer to the game Othello (not
>mentioned in that paragraph), and not Attax (referenced in the
>prior sentence).
Not that this needs to be dragged out any longer, but...
The word "it" refers to the board game mentioned in the previous
sentence, that being Othello; I stated that I was not referring to a
Shakespearean character (named Othello), but a board game (also named
Othello).
Erimess stated that he hadn't heard of the game, which makes my reply
pretty straightforward *if* you had been following the thread, instead
of taking my post on its own (and not taking into account what I was
replying to doesn't actually make a great deal of sense).
Because I never mentioned the microscope puzzle as a game separate
from T7G prior to that point, it wouldn't have made any sense for me
to be replying with "I'm surprised you haven't heard of Ataxx," when
the post immediately prior was from Erimess, stating that he hadn't
heard of *Othello*.
However, looking at Jenny's post again, I'm starting to think she
meant that Reversi and Othello were different from *each other*, as
opposed to being different from Ataxx, which wasn't clear. ^_^
Jenny100
>
>
> However, looking at Jenny's post again, I'm starting to think she
> meant that Reversi and Othello were different from *each other*, as
> opposed to being different from Ataxx, which wasn't clear. ^_^
No I meant that Ataxx/7th Guest were different from Reversi/Othello.
erimess
>
>I didn't mention the other names because I was pointing out that the
>microscope puzzle was a variation of Othello/Reversi, a much older and
>better-known game. I could have stated that the microscope puzzle was
>also known as Ataxx, and that Ataxx was a variation of
>Othello/Reversi, but that would have been complicating matters
>unnecessarily.
It's already too complicated. I will see if these games are on my
1000 Games CD and play them, and we'll get to the truth of the matter
yet. :-)
BTW, I'm a she. :-)
erimess
I know God won't give me more
than I can handle. I just wish
he wouldn't trust me so much.
D.A.
> No I meant that Ataxx/7th Guest were different from Reversi/Othello.
Ah, so I was correct to begin with; all this talk of context started
me thinking that perhaps I had misinterpreted your post. ^_-
D.A.
> It's already too complicated. I will see if these games are on my
> 1000 Games CD and play them, and we'll get to the truth of the matter
> yet. :-)
Probably the best way of going about things, yes. ^_^
> BTW, I'm a she. :-)
Well, peel my tangerines! You learn something new every day. ^_^
erimess
>erimess wrote in message news:<3d6ede19...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> It's already too complicated. I will see if these games are on my
>> 1000 Games CD and play them, and we'll get to the truth of the matter
>> yet. :-)
>
>Probably the best way of going about things, yes. ^_^
I'll report back. Got some vacation time coming... guess what I'm
gong to be doing with it?
>
>> BTW, I'm a she. :-)
>
>Well, peel my tangerines! You learn something new every day. ^_^
Peel my tangerines? Well, there's a new one.
JeffC
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns926EDD5D...@24.71.223.159...
>
> Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
Question: why are you reviewing this game, like, 5 years after it came out?
erimess
Because some people actually haven't played every game that came out 5
(or so) years ago.
And because he likes to promote discussion and some of us happen to
like his reviews.
Erimess Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
d++e-N-T++Om UK!1!2!3!A!L!
U+uCuFuG++uLB+uA+ nC+nH+nP+nPTnS++nTx
--------
Murray Peterson
news:iQzc9.50950$iX4.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com:
I review games when I play them (and when I feel like doing so), regardless
of when it was released. I am not a commercial web site, so there is no
pressure for me to review and/or preview the "latest and greatest" games.
For that matter, even some commercial sites are starting to issue reviews
of older games; not everyone has played all games issued in the past.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
JeffC
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Mini-review of Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within
> >
> > Question: why are you reviewing this game, like, 5 years after it came
> > out?
>
> I review games when I play them (and when I feel like doing so),
regardless
> of when it was released. I am not a commercial web site, so there is no
> pressure for me to review and/or preview the "latest and greatest" games.
> For that matter, even some commercial sites are starting to issue reviews
> of older games; not everyone has played all games issued in the past.
I usually prefer to play games that have been out a year or more for 3
reasons:
1) they can be bought much more cheaply (especially if used)
2) you can get the best version of the game (patches, new downloads, "gold"
versions)
3) I don't have much time, so this allows me to play games that have "stood
the test of time" and I can play only the cream of the crop, rather than
listening to the latest hype.
I haven't played a whole lot of adventure games, but GN 2 and Curse of
Monkey Island are my 2 favorites (and the only 2 I've bothered to complete!)
gita lal
<jcon...@nc.rr.take.out.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I haven't played a whole lot of adventure games, but GN 2 and Curse of
>Monkey Island are my 2 favorites (and the only 2 I've bothered to complete!)
omg, you only completed those two? <shudder> i'm waaay too anal for
that, i couldn't *stand* not completing a game i've begun! in fact,
the 11th hour is currently shelved temporarily because it frustrated
me, and that it's there, already-begun but not yet completed, is
driving me up the wall :P
.g
<!--
gita lal
justG at gitagrrl dot com
-->
* take off your pants to reply via e-mail ;)
Matthew Gagan
Grim Fandango; it's good all the way through... :-)
"JeffC" <jcon...@nc.rr.take.out.com> wrote in message
news:I1Oc9.69146$Xa.35...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
JeffC
"Matthew Gagan" <mga...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tlUc9.113767$_91.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> I'm the same way in terms of when I buy a game. You should buy and
complete
> Grim Fandango; it's good all the way through... :-)
I've made it about half way through. Something started boring me and I
stopped. Maybe I'll finish it....