Gamespot reviews Dark Fall

[Homoludens]

 

A lot of traditional adventure games put you in settings that are oddly, even comically, devoid of characters. Train stations, docks, markets, and museums all seem unrealistically deserted, except for a few conveniently placed characters you're supposed to interact with. It's a bizarre convention that's very much tied to the design of old adventure games--a genre that tends to live in the past, for better or worse.

 

....the game puts too much emphasis on puzzle solving, and some of the puzzles, while quite interesting because of their intricate detail and diversity, can be too obscure and perplexing. It's also a shame that the game so often relies on the old adventure-game cliché of telling its story through clues offered by written materials--materials written by and about absent characters. Poring over note after note, journal entry after journal entry, and computer file after computer file can get tiresome in a hurry. Dark Fall is supposed to be a game, after all, not a book.

 

...Dark Fall is slow-paced and short, and it lacks the gripping story or exotic locales of the best adventure games. However, adventure-game fans who are patient and love ghost or detective stories will find a challenging mystery in Dark Fall--one that will really put their sleuthing skills to the test.

 

Full review

[MysterD]

JA's Review:

http://justadventure.com/reviews/DarkFall/DarkFall.shtm

[Skinny Minnie]

Er, DF's setting is a train station and hotel that have been closed down and abandoned since 1947 and have fallen into antiquated ruin. Um, just how many crowds are supposed to be milling about, anyway, not to mention that a murderous entity is still on the loose there... Lol. And personally, I enjoy a lot of exploring and puzzle solving within the setting of a unique story. Oh well, its looks and interface certainly aren't cutting edge, I can agree with that, but to each his or her own otherwise I guess.

 

I didn't realize JA had a new review of DF since TAC picked it up. Thanks for the link! Ray Ivey and I were born under the same star taste-wise in games, I swear it. Er, actually, I had thought JA reviewed DF back when it was released independently last year, though, no? I must be going crazy.

 

And Charles Herold of the NY Times, another reviewer I often agree with, just raved about this game last year in his gaming column after it was released independently...

[DustCropper]

Meh, over the years I'v learned to never take Gamespot's adventure game review scores too seriously. I hope a 6.4 doesn't scare too many people away from a decent game.

[Homoludens]

You know what? Gamespot sucks at reviewing adventure games.

[Kei]

Well, it's amazing the sorts of things that a budget and a team can do for a game, especially in terms of large market (GameSpot's audience) appeal.

[remixor]

It's unfortunate when we see reviews like this, because on the whole I think Gamespot does an excellent job with all aspects of their site. They don't do quite as great a job with adventures, but while I'm not justifying that, I can sort of understand given the current state of the genre (let's not get into a big discussion on that now though, eh?). Obviously, people like us are going to enjoy a game like DF a lot more than the general audience to which GameSpot is catering. I haven't played the game, so I honestly can't say how inaccurate I think their score is, but I'd be willing to bet it deserves a big higher than 6.4. Anyway, those are my randomly assorted two cents.

 

EDIT: Skinnie Minnie, the Gamespot reviewer explained the reason for why there are no people around, Trep's quote just didn't include that part. It was right after the quoted section.

[Skinny Minnie]

Hey mix,

 

I did see that, and it only made me wonder all the more, "Well, why the genre dig, then, when it makes sense within this context anyway?"

 

Every genre has its accepted devices that function within a game's given "suspension of reality."

 

Every time I watch my husband play a strategy game, I don't say, "Why all the harvesting and building up of resources and such? And why have strategy games been doing this for years and years now?" Every time I play a shooter or an action/adventure I don't say, "Why is there always an unending, unexplained source of bullets, medi packs and keys across every landscape? And how do all of these heroes manage to tick off 99% of the game's population before I even get there, as I usually have to kill an endless stream of enemies in those games? And why aren't there really any more NPCs wandering the landscapes in these types of games than there are in adventure games, but yet it's only a perceived problem in adventure games?" Every time I play an RPG I don't say, "Why do endless treasure chests, barrels, crates and vases full of goodies litter every level, and who puts them there? Why does every Joe on the street need *me* to run all his UPS errands for him while he paces back and forth in front of his farm/dungeon/town shop twiddling his thumbs? And who the heck lives in a world 50% blocked from view when mysterious interface bars and skill tree menus are open, yet has inventory storage room 100 times smaller than in adventure games, anyway?"

 

Aw look, I'm being somewhat facetious here, but you get my drift. It is odd, though, that one particular genre would be ctiticized for its idiosyncrasies more than the rest.

 

And I understand fully that adventures may not always have the cutting-edge graphics of shooters, but it's not as popular a genre so budgets just aren't going to be as high, period...

[curacao]

Originally posted by Skinny Minnie

facetious

I adore that word.

 

And in other news, I agree with you.

 

[SamandMax]

The only reason I like Gamespot is because Grim Fandango actually beat Half-Life for game of the year in 99. Not many sites did that.