I've bought and installed the game. While I agree with Marian about production values vis a vis the BBC, if I compare Peril in Pemberley to vaguely similar casual games (Remember the one that got you married off to the odious vicar if you were too polite?) and even to some of the less engaging Nancy Drews, then Peril in Pemberley is acceptable; if I compare to casual games in general and even to adventure games in general, then Peril in Pemberley looks and feels surprisingly good. Tugging on the tasseled bell rope for the maid--not my maid alone apparently, Pemberley is seriously understaffed--was amusing. Also I chuckled at mysterious and effete Cousin Clement's doggerel. A groom so discrete as to be unseen brought round my horse, whose tack was authentic, so well done I could almost smell the leather.
On the downside, the problems with narrative and immersion go deeper than voice acting although it's true that if the voice acting were better I might not notice other issues. For example, Jane says she is going to Lambton to look at the shops, which she does not do, instead she talks to her friend Kitty. I am willing to accept this unlikely but not entirely impossible for the times friendship for the sake of the story. For the same reason, I will also go along with the young detective's obvious fib about her intentions while out. What rankles as a player entering into a contractual relation of willing suspension of disbelief with the developers is not getting to see the promised shops unless I am let in on Jane's unspoken intentions beforehand and maybe not even then. I am playing because I am an Austen fan. If a modern detective skipped the mall in favor of a bento box shop, I would not care, indeed I would be grateful. Don't promise me the writer Jane Austen's version of shops in Regency England and blithely ignore the promise.
Sidesaddles: I just checked. The sidesaddle seems to be from 50 or 60 years after the costumes. That's okay by me. I don't mind anachronisms that look great. Detective Jane's flat model is probably much safer than the higher cantled, slipper stirruped version of the period at least according to what I've read so I will credit her parents with being forward thinking on the subject of riding safety. Here is a paragraph on the safety of sidesaddles from the Regency Redingote:
After the changes introduced by Catherine de Medici, it was to be another two centuries before any further changes were made to the design of the side-saddle, improving both its safety and its comfort. The ladies of the Regency were not to benefit from any of those design improvements, as they were all introduced after the death of King George IV, the erstwhile Prince Regent. Regency ladies would ride side-saddle much as Catherine had done, by placing their right thigh between the two horns or crutches of the saddle. They would bend the right knee so that their right foot was in front of their left leg, about twelve inches above their left foot, which rested in the single slipper stirrup. By the end of the eighteenth century the seat of the side-saddle was designed to be wider and to slope at an angle down from the front to the back, to accommodate the supposed greater fleshiness of the feminine derriere. The higher cantle at the back helped to keep the lady from slipping off the saddle when riding a rough-gaited horse or when going over a jump. But only a horsewoman with superb balance would be able to maintain her seat and keep control of her horse while riding on such a saddle at any speed, over rough ground or taking a jump. For that reason, many women did not choose to hunt or even routinely gallop their horses, at least while riding aside, that is, on a side-saddle.
Edited by 8dognight (09/19/16 10:11 AM)