Originally Posted By jamarchand (29 SEP 2005 8:21pm)
D1 is extremelly easy and short.  
D2 is more difficult...but have lower graphical concept.

D1
Graphics - 10
Sounds and music - 8
Difficult level - 2
Story - 5

Originally Posted By SirDave (29 SEP 2005 8:35pm)


Anyone who starts this game thinking it to be extremely easy and short will be in for a surprise. A difficulty level of 2 out of 10? I think not! It's starts off relatively easy but ends up being more difficult. If you underrate its difficulty you'll be tripped up at the end. On the other hand, it's easy enough that you shouldn't be driven to a walkthrough at any point. It was the combination of being difficult enough to keep me interested and easy enough that I felt relaxed playing it that was especially attractive to me.

As far as it being extremely short goes- I think not (again

). It's not a long game, but it's only extremely short if you're using a walkthrough. How do I know this? Because the very nature of the game requires that you do a fair amount of searching around and sometimes retracing of steps. There is some pixel-hunting and if you go too quickly you'll miss required objects and will have to go back and find them.

Originally Posted By nytimesguy (29 SEP 2005 10:20pm)


I did describe the game as one of the shortest and easiest every produced, but I imagine if you've played less adventure games than I have it would probably be harder.  

Originally Posted By SirDave (30 SEP 2005 12:43am)


Sorry (speaking, ever so humbly, as someone who may well have played as many adventure games as you), but your own review conflicts with your comments above. If DR was one of the 'shortest and easiest games ever produced', how come you say in your review: Which is not to say that no one will get stuck in this game, there were points when I was frustrated and came upon what I needed pretty much by accident. There are places where things are awkwardly placed or obscured, and there were even a few moments where I felt like I should go on the internet and find a cheat for the game. But with a little extra burst of effort I made it through every time. Sounds like conflicting statements from such an old hand at these games. So, which is it? Since one of the alleged 'easiest games ever produced' almost drove you to a cheat, does that mean that after all the games you've played, you're still pushed to a cheat by the easiest game out there, or perhaps is it that the game is not necessarily one of the easiest games ever produced?

Originally Posted By nytimesguy (30 SEP 2005 3:58pm)


Well, if you never get stuck for even a moment in any part of a game then it's not an adventure game, it's an interactive novel.  I did not say DR offered no challenge whatsoever, after all.  But compared with the other adventure games I have played, DR is pretty much the easiest.

 Zork Nemesis, on the other hand, which you inexplicably have in your list as a Mensa-level game, was very logical and only of moderate difficulty, IMO.  Even your list can't agree with itself; it lists 7th Guest and 11th Hour in both the moderate and extreme challenge categories......By the way, compiling a list doesn't really make one an expert on a subject.... And if I polled a different gorund of gamers and got different results in terms of the relative difficulty of games, my list would be no better or worse than yours, nor would doing so make me a better judge of what's difficult and what isn't.

You're not an expert, I'm not an expert.  I write about videogames for a living, so I could go around saying, I'm an expert on videogames, but in reality I'm just an expert on describing my personal reaction to videogames.

Originally Posted By SirDave (30 SEP 2005 10:07pm)
No matter how you want to spin it, there is a conflict between making DR look like it's child's play and yet, in your own review, saying you almost had to go to the internet for a cheat.

Ever considered that what you are saying might drive people away from this game because it's allegedly too easy to bother with?

So Nemesis was 'only of moderate difficulty'? Well, good for you, but just for your own information as regards 'my difficulty list' and 'my list can't agree with itself' etc. etc., that list was compiled by me (which is why I was 'behind it')  over 7 weeks using input from dozens of people who were the ones who gave the difficulty scores for each game. The reason the list helped me to know a thing or two about the relative difficulty of these games, is that the very act of seeing how different people score various adventure games gives one a fairly good idea what people consider easy or difficult. So 'Nemesis' was given the place it was based on several people's opinion.

Yeah, well, I wasn't the one who said, 'I did describe the game as one of the shortest and easiest every produced, but I imagine if you've played less adventure games than I have it would probably be harder.'

Originally Posted By nytimesguy (1 OCT 2005 12:31am)

 If I get thorugh a game without a walkthrough then it's a pretty easy game by definition.  .

Originally Posted By nytimesguy (1 OCT 2005 12:31am)


I get stuck on almost every adventure game I play.  If I get thorugh a game without a walkthrough then it's a pretty easy game by definition.  If I got stuck in Riven 20 times and got stuck in DR three times, then it's reasonable for me to say DR was a lot easier than Riven.  It's as though I said a first person shooter was the easiest shooter I'd ever played but I died a couple of times and you said, how can you call it easy when you didn't make it through the whole game without dying once.  Easy is a relative term.  If I were to list all the adventure games I have played by difficulty, DR would be one of the five easiest.  That doesn't imply that there was zero challenge, just less than the challenge of other games.  It's as simple as that.

You are familiar with sampling of opinions, but one can't really say what is difficult or easy anymore than one can say what is ugly and beautiful.  Well, you can, and we all do, but it's purely subjective.  If 20 people think Britney Spears is beautiful and 10 thinks she's ugly, that doesn't make her either.  It might have been more accurate for me to say, "for me personally, DR is one of the easiest gmaes I have ever played," but reviews in which one constantly qualifies each statement with IMHO are not good reading.

Originally Posted By SirDave (1 OCT 2005 1:43am)

Well, no it's not. It's encumbent on anyone who reviews games or who is describing a game characteristic that may disuade someone from playing the game to use a reasonable frame of reference that most people can relate to. In calling DR one of the easiest games ever produced you are stating an alleged fact when the truth is that that statement is based on your own very narrow parameters such as things like whether you had to use a walkthrough or not.

You are right in saying it's not your job to make sure no one is disuaded from playing a game, but if you're reviewing a game, it is your job to not let a very subjective viewpoint give a false impression of what the player can expect if they play the game.

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If 20 people think Britney Spears is beautiful and 10 thinks she's ugly, then 40 eyes vs. 20 eyes think she's beautiful and in this world that's all that matters. The same statistical set of rules applies to viewpoints on games. If 66 people think a game is difficult and 33 think it isn't, then a perspective player is going to tend to think it's more likely difficult.

Originally Posted By nytimesguy (1 OCT 2005 10:47am)

It's annoying when a reviewer disagrees with your opinion, but it's actually not their job to create a review tailor made for you.

You don't seem to understand that your opinion of the game is just as subjective as mine.  You are not an objective observer clinically describing a game, you are a fan of the game describing your personal reaction to it.

So all reviews should be written for the majority?  People should write things like, if you're typical, you will find Titanic a moving film, will think The Nanny is a very funny sitcom and will adore Madonna songs?  It is simply not acceptable to say, Titanic was boring, The Nanny is annoying and Madonna makes forgetable formulaic songs, because you would be going against majority rule?  You and I have very different concepts of the nature of writing critiques.