GameSpot rates Evil Under The Sun with a 5.0!

I wasn't expecting more coming from GameSpot, i never take into consideration what they say but as i was signed for updates for the game i received an email that a review was done for it and thought to check it out. You can find the review HERE.

No spoilers are mentioned (other than the difference in the ending from the book which we already knew about) so for those still playing it it's safe to read. I finished the game last night and i must admit it was the best of the 3 so far. The GS reviewer doesn't agree with me though.

I agree with you Butcher. Gamespot had nothing good to say about any of the three games. I have my copy and just finished Act 1.

Love the game so far.

-Adam

The review score might be unfair, but I do think that the reviewer has a point when he complains that in most point & click adventures your character, e.g. Poirot here, somehow is psychic. He knows that further down the road he will say a binocular or something else, then he picks these items up, just because he knows that at a certain time in the game, he will need to use them, in this game, apparantly a spatula to clean of some mud.

I've always wondered about this. Why does point & click adventure game makers insist that your character knows that he or she will need to have just this items e.g. a spatula on him later. He shouldn't know this - at least not beforehand. Poirot should in this instance ve allowed to look at the mud and find a way to scrape the mud of the wall.

However, I don't think it is fair to complain about lengthy conversations since this is basically what the gameplay etc. in an adventure game is all about just as the 'endless backtracking' is consistent and a feature in adventure games. Of course, backtracking too much can be annoying at a point.

It seems to me that Gamespot's reviewer don't understand that Captain Hasting? is the one meant to solve the crime - this time around. (I might confuse this with another game, if so please inform me about this ). It seems that the reviwer maybe was expecting some along the likes of Post Morten or Still Life or
maybe even the CSI games. Alas, it is not so. He seems to have forgotten that Christie wrote in the 1930's and the 1940's where the tempo wasn't as fast as it is today. Most of Christie's books also dwell with the psychology behind the crime, not the crime itself. That's not to say that a murder won't be solves, oh no, but it is the psychology behind the murder, that's of interest to both Poirot and Agatha, not the solving of the murder itself pr. se.

Gamespot reviewers are typically pretty hard on adventure games. I think it's because most of them are fans of the adrenaline type games. That automatically puts most adventure games at a disadvantage.
I have to say I agree with the reviewer on 'Evil Under the Sun' though. It's not that it's a bad game. Graphics are great. Voices are great. The mystery is great also. I have never read an Agatha Christie novel, so this was a brand new story for me going into the game. Honestly the only thing keeping me playing is wanting to figure out who did it.
It's the actual gameplay that's starting to become a task in itself. While exploring and discovering new things and objects are my favorite part of adventure games, when I have to repeat the same actions over and over throughout the game it starts to turn me off of it. With 'Evil Under the Sun' I feel like I've spent 3/4 of the game knocking on doors and/or going back and forth through the same 5 places to try and trip something to advance me.
I try very hard to NOT resort to walkthroughs. I have much more fun when I figure things out for myself. I have finally printed off MAG's awesome walkthrough so I can skip the useless tasks and finish the game. When this happens, it usually means that I'm not really enjoying the game, and I just want to finish it already.
Of course this is just me. I'm sure plenty of boomers love the game! Anyhoo.. my 2 cents.

I'm writing the review for GB now, I must say that some of what this reviewer has stated I have noticed as well. However in reading this review it makes little sense to me to award a 5.0 for what the content of the review gives --- I would say that a 7.5 would have been more correct (for the review itself). One must also remember that this is GS that we are referring to. I don't believe that they have the true view of the adventure gamers' mindset. So, I wouyld take the review with a grain of salt. --- maybe a little pepper as well.

inferno

I have to say that when it comes to Adv Games i haven't seen many good reviews if any coming from Gamespot. I agreed with some of the of the points in the review but disagree with the score. I noticed that the reviewers there are biased against Adv Games. For example Splinter Cell:Double Agent had many stability problems, parts of the game were missing (in comparison to the X360 versions which made parts of the game not being in line with the storyline) and it was too short, but still they gave it a very high score simply because it was a Tom Clancy game and the previous games were successful or because the reviewer liked it (which didn't reflect the opinion of the players i know and the people posting on Ubi forums). However they always bury the Adventure Games despite how good the players find them. I kind of sense that they feel that Adv Games are inferior and show a lot of bias in their reviews. Just my humble opinion.

If you have the feeling that big review sites like IGN or Gamespot etc. do review adventure games unfairly, you're actually correct Last year, in a thread over at adventuregamers.com a poster actually posted statistical evidence
that Gamespot, IGN etc. did give adventure games a lower score than say shooters, rpgs, or games like Tom Clancy's games. I think, he found they scores about 25% less for adventure games when compared to other games.

If an adventure game have gotten 5.0/10 (or 50/100) at say Gamespot, you can easily add 25% to the score, meaning that the real score would be 7.5/10 (or 75/100), at least if it was to be reviewed by people who play and like adventure games --- which means - people like us

Even 25% wouldn't fix the garbage score they gave Barrow Hill.

I am sure that if Poirot pulled out a submachine gun and
shot down about ten people,Gamespot would give it a great review.

This saddens me greatly, as Gamespot consistently put down good quality adventure games, simply because they do not appreciate the genre.

If you criticize the game, then do so ONLY for the game, and NOT muddy the criticism with a hate for the genre. Otherwise, no adventure games will be fairly reviewed.

Very sad.

'I am sure that if Poirot pulled out a submachine gun and
shot down about ten people,Gamespot would give it a great review.'

Hahahahaha! So true. I've played certain games on the 360 solely because the game got a great score from Gamespot, IGN, etc. Most of the time I just get ticked off for wasting time on it.

I have no idea about what goes into making video games, but I am sure it's blood, sweat and tears for months or even years to do this for all genres. It makes me angry for the creators that they get little or no respect from the 'mainstream' critics for what they've put their heart into. In my opinion it takes ALOT more creativity and intelligence to create storylines, puzzles and put souls into the characters that they are bringing to life. I would think that they would at least get praised for that alone, but I don't see it very often from anyone outside of the adventure game community.

I also notice that many of the gaming magazines barely even mention adventure games in them. My latest Game Informer mag has a multiple page story on an upcoming game about a roadie wreaking havoc but I saw nothing about 'Evil Under the Sun' or 'Culpa Innata'.

They should realize that there is more to gaming than Master Chief's struggles. ( Although Halo 3 rocked. )