A couple questions for people who have played through the first game in this series. I enjoyed it quite a bit, though the difficulty level seemed quite low, and the inclusion of player death seemed a little lame (either have the player die enough to make him constantly save a la Sierra, or don't kill him, a la Lucas Arts). The story was pretty sharp, but seemed to have two enormous holes, and I wanted to check and see if I just missed something that would patch them up.
1) Do we ever have any idea why the Assassin wears costumes to kill people?
2) How is it that the Templars and the Assassin are always one step ahead? I gather that the Assassin may have followed Nico and George, but the Templars don't FOLLOW them, they get there FIRST. I thought maybe they had Nico's apartment bugged or maybe the historian was in with the Templars (implausible, why not give them the stand?), but neither solution made too much sense.
I've heard the second game is significantly worse. True?
Those kinds of story bugs don't bother me. They're both great games.
Quote from: Mark_Yohalem on Mon 10/01/2005 16:46:38
I've heard the second game is significantly worse.Ã, True?
I'd take Broken Sword 2 (and 3) above MI4 every time. Talk about plot holes.
Woo! Plot holes! >> Time to patch this one up, methinks.
1) The Assassin wears these costumes so he can't be identified. If a clown killed someone, then a.. I think it was a pixie or something, killed another, most average people would think it was two different people. Besides, he got a much more effective disguise A LOT later in the game.
2) The Templars and the Assassin are always one step ahead, because, I guess Nico and George are following them. The assassin hunt, the Templar meeting, Nico and George are behind because Kahn and the Neo Templars -already- know everything. N and G have to research on the fly.
This is just my opinion, though. Not official fact. >>
@ Scavenger:
1) The last costume makes the most sense (though it's rather weird that he opts to go as an old lady rather than, say, an old man or something easier to pull off), but is the one that most undermines the game-logic. Obviously a clown, penguin, etc., would be fairly easy to identify and fairly easy to track (note how easy it was for George to track down Khan), easier, probably than any number of simpler masks (a ski mask or stocking, etc.). It makes it slightly easier to approach the target (maybe), but that's only an issue if one (bafflingly) wants to plant bombs rather than shoot the victim (or poison him, or whatever).
The only rationale that seemed viable was some ritual explanation (which seemed to be where the game was going). But the old lady breaks that game-logic and turns it into just a disguise, which makes the whole thing seem silly. . .
2) The Templars are several steps ahead when the game begins (having already located Marib), but they clearly don't know where the Sword is (watch the meeting cinematic) and the fact they are hunting for things they don't need (e.g., the gem and tripod, given that they apparently already knew about Marib; the scroll, given that they already seem to know they're looking for "four elements" and what those elements are; etc.) indicates they're pretty lost. It seems like the game ought to've at least taken SOME stab at explaining how they got back on the right track.
@ Jet -- I've never played MI4, not b/c of plot holes but because the mere mention of the monkey-fu sequence was enough to make me realize I'd lost patience for the series.
QuoteI've heard the second game is significantly worse. True?
Hell no.. the 2nd game is the best in the series, I didn't see any major plot holes.
I'd say the general gameplay (puzzles, locations, dialogue etc) of BS2 is as good as the original, if not better, but the overall storyline didn't strike me as anywhere near as memorable or well thought out as the whole Templars thing in BS1. Haven't played III as yet.
Just beat BS2. I thought the plot was weaker, and I found the gameplay less exciting with the linear rather than "chose where to go next" locations particularly disappointing. The characters seemed less . . . not realistic, since they were never realistic, but "setting consistent." The general was no Rosso, Karzac no templars, and the native thug no Khan. C'est la sequelle, I suppose.
The puzzles seemed good enough, though I felt they veered somewhat away from the real-world logic of the first game. And there were still way too may "distract the guard" type puzzles. I did appreciate some of the speed-up shortcuts.
The tile puzzle with Nico at the end was inspired, but making you do it four times was a little lame.
BS2 wasn't as good, but it still was a solid game...up until you enter the pyramid, where it merely became ludicrous, especially consdiering the last puzzle...well...wasn't a puzzle
The writing made a dreadful error by creating a personality villain [as opposed to a shadowy organisation as a villain], but then featuring him for all of 90 seconds in the entire game.
I've played the first two Broken Swords games, The Smoking Mirror (my favourite) and The Shadow of the Templars. I didn't know there was a third? What's it called?
The Sleeping Dragon. IMHO, it's the best one, but then, I really didn't like either of the first two.
Some good points above.
When I play through BS2, I'm always surprised at how just many of my favourite Broken Sword bits crop in that game. But when I think back to it afterwards it just doesn't 'stick' somehow. It's like a lot of entertaining stand alone episodes tied together, but without anything solid to tie everything together into a satisfying whole.
Oh, and if there's one thing Revolution definately can't handle (in either game), it's romance. For BS1 I get the feeling they were going for 'subtle sexual tension' and repressed desires and so on. But if they were aiming for that, they blew it, and instead their falling in love just seemed to come completely out of the blue. And in BS2 I just didn't buy the idea they were really lovers for a second.
I didn't understand Stobbart was in love with, uh, "that french chick I've forgotten the name of, even though I played it yesterday", until he said it out loud. So romance was a bad idea, I agree with that. As for BS2, it was seriously VERY buggy into the end. Like sometimes, I couldn't pick up the torch, even though I've done everything I should to be able to do it. And on the boat where *SPOILER* the proffesor was shot *SPOILER*, Both the broom and the french chick disapeared and reapeared in weird locations.
And they really seemed to rush the ending alot. Didn't really like that.
I never got any bugs during either game, and I enjoyed them both.
Im waiting on some cash to buy the third now.
There is seriously a screenshot with a bug on the back of my cd case. They printed a pic of Oubier *SPOILER* when he was not yet synced with the table after he was shot. It looked so weird, like the sprite is floating a bit above where it should be. Never saw that in the game though. I did experience a bug in BS1, when George went down the well it continuesly crashed. After a long trek on the net I found a patch, cause all the patches on the cd were shit.
I did get the whole romance thing. I guess you have to be a bit more sensitive to notice. ::)
They never really worked it out though. It's funny how 1 and 3 tie in so great and 2 just kinda hangs inbetween. BS2 went more with the fantastic locations and stuff, not really with a great story like BS1. And Tezcatlipoca...well. He sounded like some awesome god guy, but when he came out of the mirror I was like wtf is this??
Still, great games. It's an whole experience. I've never played a game that influenced me so much (well, apart from Mafia maybe). I keep reinstalling just to visit the cafe again, and hear that beautiful music...
Can't wait for BS 2.5. The engine demo looked so awesome.
@ Hillbilly - Nico(le Collard) ;)
hah, I just noticed that screenshot, its on the back of my sold Out edition aswell :P