Originally Posted By jalex (26 JUN 2008 3:38pm)
I havn't gotten this game yet but I will buy it.  It sounds like I will like the puzzles as I would rather have puzzles that I consider too easy than too hard. I don't like being stuck on puzzles for days or even hours.  I don't mind long conversations or running around in a game but of course any of these things can be taken to extremes.    

Originally Posted By Halcyon (28 JUN 2008 3:33pm)
Should reviewers perhaps find a new scale of measurement, or at least provide a key to define their grades?  I would like to suggest a number system:  1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, etc. up to 5. A sidebar would tells us the standardized qualities of each number up the scale, and all reviewers at JA should adhere to it. This would open the door for the reviewers' opinions and help us to know them much better. It's not the grades that matter, but their standard measurement.  AFter that, let the opinions of the reviewer fly.

Originally Posted By Halcyon (29 JUN 2008 4:08am)
Reviewers shouldn't care what we think.  If they are taking that into consideration, they are not doing their jobs. We should know what their grades mean, and it should be the same for every game.  Then we judge the game for ourselves, based on what we like or don't like.

Originally Posted By An_Inkling (24 JUN 2008 11:39pm)

Originally Posted By loobiloo (24 JUN 2008 8:29pm)

This is one of the few games I've played where the idea of non-linear gameplay has truly been pushed forward, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of anything else that I've played that has achieved this to the same extent.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on the game, but could you elaborate on this view? I found the non-linear aspects to be rather minimal.

I for the most part only play AGs & judge it within this context. I realised thare were some different orders in which you could approach the game, the number of days to advance could vary according to dialogues choices made & I also finished the game with a few tasks unrealised. I also understand that there are a few cut scenes that you can miss. I know on a later post that you mentioned in the context of non-linear games Discworld 1 amongst them. I love that game, it was a lot of fun,  but don't rate it as a great game!

.....unbearable and redundant friend chats and over the top reactions of Phoenix. The puzzles were decent in execution and in number.

The friend chats were there as a slight hint system, aside from that, I think it served to illustrate that Phoenix had other aspects to her life other than being an investigator.

I had thought the uninspiring investigation play would only be a small part of the game (something like TLJ), but it was not, the whole game pretty much consisted of the investigation.

The investigation was the point of the game - what else were you hoping for?

I love lots of dialogue, but a game where all you do is listen to dialogue with little player input, is not much of a game, it's a non-interactive story.

So to get through this game you had to do nothing at all except listen?

I just think it's a real shame when developers do try to advance the genre they get so much crap for it!

I find this comment disappointing. I do not see CI as advancing the genre, it's a pretty stock-standard kind of game. If you're referring to the non-linearity as an advancement, I'd agree that it would be good if more AGs had a good level of this, I disagree that CI has it, and disagree that it would be much of an advancement, as it has been done before (particularly in Blade Runner, a game which was obviously a strong influence on CI). Just because someone disagrees with you on a game does not mean they are short sighted, or blinded by prejudice.

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

The friend chats were there as a slight hint system, aside from that, I think it served to illustrate that Phoenix had other aspects to her life other than being an investigator.

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

I had thought the uninspiring investigation play would only be a small part of the game (something like TLJ), but it was not, the whole game pretty much consisted of the investigation.

The investigation was the point of the game - what else were you hoping for?

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

I love lots of dialogue, but a game where all you do is listen to dialogue with little player input, is not much of a game, it's a non-interactive story.

So to get through this game you had to do nothing at all except listen?

I love lots of dialogue, but a game where all you do is listen to dialogue with little player input, is not much of a game, it's a non-interactive story. This is not quite the case in CI, but it does approach it, the number of puzzles is fairly low, the degree of dialogue interactivity very small, and there is almost no exploration.

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

I don't think because you disagree with me that you are short sighted, or blinded by prejudice by any means. But I don't see what's so disppointing about me saying that CI has advanced the genre. You say it's a pretty stock-standard game - I've played just about every game that's been released over the last 5 years - I've loved most of them - but Culpa Innata stands out as something a little more interesting and different!

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

I just think it's a real shame when developers do try to advance the genre they get so much crap for it!

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2008 9:56pm)

As for it being an 'interactive story' - so it is! Who says that an AG has to have a zillion puzzles in it, inventory or otherwise, to make it a valid game? If that's what you want - go play Nancy Drew, Legend of the Crystal Skull!!!!  Or even better - sign up to a casual game site & download puzzles galore & forget about story altogether!!!