Originally Posted By chris156 (29 SEP 2005 9:27am)

Yes I'm beta-testing Scratches, but I don't have much time for it now I'm back at college

Originally Posted By Ksandra (29 SEP 2005 12:33pm)
To me it seems not so much an AG as an interactive movie with a lot of reflex-based challenges (yes, I've played the demo, and yes, I'm sticking to my own definition of 'adventure game'.) And that's really not my kind of thing, unfortunately. I'm sure many people will love it, but I can't see something as an 'adventure' when it doesn't really have any actual puzzles.

I can't say I was as impressed by the demo as most people here, to be honest. Sure, it had a very 'cinematic' feel to it, and trying all the different actions was fun for about five minutes - until you realise that only a very limited number of them are actually necessary. All the rest is really just window dressing; you can finish the demo in about thirty seconds if you simply follow the obvious course.

Apart from that, it really didn't seem to offer much that The Last Express didn't do back in 1997. The graphics are certainly nothing special, and the interface is the worst ever (I spent far more time battling the controls than doing anything else in the game). I know people are desperate for something original, but I must confess that I don't entirely see what everyone's raving about.

Originally Posted By Ksandra (29 SEP 2005 12:33pm)
To me it seems not so much an AG as an interactive movie with a lot of reflex-based challenges (yes, I've played the demo, and yes, I'm sticking to my own definition of 'adventure game'.) And that's really not my kind of thing, unfortunately. I'm sure many people will love it, but I can't see something as an 'adventure' when it doesn't really have any actual puzzles.

Originally Posted By Ksandra (29 SEP 2005 12:33pm)
...
The graphics are certainly nothing special, and the interface is the worst ever (I spent far more time battling the controls than doing anything else in the game).

Originally Posted By Ksandra (29 SEP 2005 5:49pm)
I can't really comment on the story just from the demo, but I did roll my eyes a bit at seeing the 'evil cultist ritual murders' theme yet again - at least Discworld Noir managed to inject a bit of humour into it. Perhaps it gets a bit more original later on, but as I'm extremely unlikely ever to play the game, I guess I'll never find out.

Originally Posted By Ksandra (29 SEP 2005 5:49pm)
I can't really comment on the story just from the demo, but I did roll my eyes a bit at seeing the 'evil cultist ritual murders' theme yet again - at least Discworld Noir managed to inject a bit of humour into it. Perhaps it gets a bit more original later on, but as I'm extremely unlikely ever to play the game, I guess I'll never find out.

Originally Posted By BazzaLB (29 SEP 2005 11:24pm)
hehe, I see your turning into a graphics junkie

Originally Posted By jedicri (30 SEP 2005 3:46am)
All I can say is that, in order to form a better opinon of the game, you must play the full game for what it is.  The demo simply does not do the game due justice.

Originally Posted By chris156 (30 SEP 2005 2:20pm)
I've posted my review.

Originally Posted By mysterymonkey (30 SEP 2005 2:52pm)
OK, have to chime in.

1) This game does have puzzles, only its approach is different.

Originally Posted By mysterymonkey (30 SEP 2005 2:52pm)
OK, have to chime in.

1) This game does have puzzles, only its approach is different.

2) I say, and many, many others agree, it's one of the most refreshing games I've played ever.

3) I personally see it as an adventure game. Only because historically, adventure games aren't easily categorised. Only until, it would appear, 1999 did people start boxing them in and that proved bad for the genre in later years.

And that's all I've got to say about that, and I couldn't care less if people disagree.

Originally Posted By chris156 (30 SEP 2005 2:20pm)
I've posted my review.

Originally Posted By Ksandra (30 SEP 2005 5:14pm)

Adventure games didn't have to be categorized in the past because everyone knew what an adventure game was. They had exploration, characters to interact with, and strongly puzzle-based gameplay with a strictly limited amount of action. Games that emphasised action and quick reflexes over puzzling were (and still are) a seperate genre known as 'action-adventures'. That is my definition of an 'adventure', and I don't care any more than you do if people disagree with me.

As far as I can see, Farenheit does not even come close to being an adventure by that definition. It can be regarded as having puzzles only if you consider something like this a puzzle: "I just committed a brutal murder and am covered in blood. Hmm, should I wash myself, or walk straight out into a busy restaurant?" (And even if you choose the second option, you can still progress in the game!) The only real challenge presented by the demo was in getting to grips with the godawful control system.

I can certainly see the elements in the game that will appeal to other people, even if not to me. But after reading five pages of this thread and several reviews of the game, not to mention playing through the demo several times, I still don't understand what everyone finds so amazing about it. Just about all the comments I've seen go along these lines: 'Story: good at first, but deteriorates sharply later on. Graphics: mediocre.  Controls: crap. Puzzles: virtually none. Gameplay: OK, but spoiled by poor controls and far too many pointless action sequences. Overall: BEST ADVENTURE EVER!!!' Even considering the good voice-acting, soundtrack etc., that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted By mysterymonkey (30 SEP 2005 6:36pm)
The categorization introduced in general in 1999 didn't make sense as it betrayed a lot of good adventure that happened to have action in them. And if you get into percentages, the whole thing gets complicated and a lot of games fall into some dumb uncategorisable area. I just don't like people shouting "this isn't an adventure!", particularly when it's the closest we've had to an actual classic since the, well, classics and feels more like an adventure than many recent "pure" games I've played.

A dual analog sorts that out, and I've read many people loving the mouse and keys OVER that (go figure). Still, diff'r'nt strokes and all.

The key is you make life harder or easier for yourself later based on your actions. I wasn't thorough and struggled later with my stress levels, for example.

I'm stating, categorically, the graphics do there job fine. You know how much of a graphics Gina I am! They're not hideous. They're not top-of-the-range. They do their job and evoke a sense of place, atmosphere and character far better than Syberia, TMOS, Sherlock... practically every 3rd person AG in the last 5 years. It's STILL better than them to look at. Undeniably.

The action sequences are never pointless, and are actually very forgiveable and are used in a way to add to the game - not always in ACTION sequences, for example. The stealth sections are very, very easy and just propel the game along using the same interface it uses everywhere else. They just add flavour to the story.

It's all about propelling a narrative, and it works. It allows for more flexibility than any other adventure I've played. It is a true sequel to The Last Express, IMO, and actually trumps that game by providing far more interest through different sections, requirements, locations and intensity - intensity even when there's nothing happening, just through atmos.

Even if you hate it, and I know you will, its worth finding out what the fuss is about, surely?

Originally Posted By mysterymonkey (30 SEP 2005 9:07pm)
Whatever, it's a damn brilliant adventure game and improves on TLE far further that you give it credit for.

And yes, the genre label is useless. Well, it is if it only fits a very narrow subset of games which haven't set any great standard in over five years.

I played and finished Fahrenheit.
I was hoping to have some adventure parts when playing (puzzles, exploration, long dialogs...) but nothing happened.

Yep, great interactive drama. Made my heart beat faster, sucked me right into the story, made me emphasize with the characters, felt like I was watching a really cool movie in which I could make decisions in the characters' stead.
Nope, not a great adventure game. Frustrated me with the mindless "simon" games (tough, but do-able, in normal mode... but tough ), with the idiotic left-right-left-right thingies (damn things hurt my fingers), with the lack of real puzzles and the lack of challenges other than testing the reflexes, and with the unskippable cutscenes, and impossibility to really think your way through.

I have NOT yet finished this game but I'll comment anyhow. This game is more action than adventure. However, there's alot of elements in the game, which I, as adventure gamer love. I think it's wrong that they sell this as adventure, when it actually isn't.

Fahrenheit is not an adventure game.Its a movie with scenario choices,minigames and quicktime events.Its fun.The only adventure element the way we know it is when Spoiler Alert.The game is a mixture of Shenmue(the SUPER game) and a little bit of Matrix(the movie) with a lot of "antigravity martial arts" sections.

Originally Posted By Ksandra (30 SEP 2005 12:20pm)

I'm not a 'graphics junkie';