sygtnok

I have mixed feelings about this "game".

I had really high hopes (being a massive horror fan) and I do definitely like parts of the "game" and did in several chapters of it feel exited about the characters and their developments and wanting to know what happens next. The graphics are also really good most of the time, even to the point that you can clearly see who the actors of the characters are, since they have modeled the characters on the actors playing them. The actors and voice-lining is also really good, far better than in almost any other game I've seen. But the main problem is that this is not really a game. When it is best, it's more of a semi-interactive movie. The game parts are only a very small part of the "game" and they have severe problems. At times, especially in the prologue, the interactive elements really made me feel more a part of the story and made it a lot scarier, but at other times they feel more like an interruption of the story and quite lazy made. For example, a lot of the "choices" you have to make are not really choices at all, since the same thing will happen either way. That is one of the worst things about this "game". Also, most of the time, you lack the ability to make real choices when it really matters and could divert the story in genuine different directions.

While choices do at times have effects, even severe effects, it seems like that the creators only really bothered to make one plot line and are therefore forcing you to follow the same narrow road with small differences, no matter what you do. That is just lazy, bad storytelling and kinds of ruins the whole idea of the game. More real choices with more real different effects would have made it so much more exiting and drastically increased the replay value, if decisions would branch into entirely different plot lines. A lot of games not focusing as much on "choices" as this one officially do, actually ends up giving the player more possibilities of choosing different of the story that this "game". Also, there are some glaring plot holes and a lot of places where the characters acts really stupid and irrational, more than can possible be believable in any way. Even when all goes to hell, they often still makes some really illogical choices beyond anything people could reasonably be expected to make. Unfortunately, the story is dependent on these irrational stupid actions of the characters for the plot to hang together. This is a sign of bad writing. If your story is dependent on people acting like idiots, it's because the plot is idiotic. There are no excuses. Good horror plots are not dependent on constantly glaringly idiotic decisions by the characters. I don't mind that the story is set off by stupid decisions before they know something is wrong, but it gets annoying and breaks the engagement with the story when it continues to the degree it does here.

The walking scenes where you control the characters are on the one hand nice, in that it is there that you have actually gameplay control, but they do at the same time suffer a lot. In a way, this is saying a lot about how little of an actual game (in the traditional sense at least) this really is. The controls are clunky and reminds me of the worst controlled adventure games of the 90s and the camera angles are at times really bad. A lot of the time they are working fine, but at times (for example playing Emma at the campfire) they make the sections infuriating and almost unplayable. Also, the characters walks way to slow and these sections can at time take up a lot of time, not justified by what is actually going on, just dragging out the story.

A problem is also the darkness/brightness settings. Even if you follow the guide in the game helping with setting it right, or even if you don't, it ends up being very dark. And quit clearly darker than meant to as there are several instances where the camera is trying to show something that is not possible to see because it is to dark. At the same time the brightness shifts when scenes cuts, so it can become a lot brighter suddenly.

Despite the many drawbacks, I did find quite a lot to like, enough to finish and enjoy the game. But it could have been so much better and I can't help feeling disappointed and questioning why the reviews are not more critical of the many glaring problems. The main reason, for now, to recommend this game is that there aren't to many similar games, but I do hope that better similar games will be made in the future.

The story is quite nice, although not (yet, in the first episode at least) up to the level of the other games. The gameplay is also nice, although the smaller scope of weapons, equipment and so on makes it feel a bit like a demo. Unfortunately it does have a fair share of glitches, some even require you to restart back at a checkpoint and the autosave doesn't save that often... It also has a few graphic problems and other shortcomings, especially compared to the great original games. Also, Elizabeth keeps getting in the way and just standing so I can't move, that is especially annoying when I'm trying to sneak up on someone and have to reveal myself to jump out of the place where Elizabeth has locked me in. Great smaller game, but too many problems compared with the original. Could have used a bit extra work.

It's hard for me to review this film. As a film, devoided of it's historical connection, I would rate it as 7, but in the context of it as a historical film I would give it a 5. The animations are fresh and beautiful and the two main characters, the boy Maki and the Bedouin Hassan, are interesting and cute in their relationship to the animals. The other characters are not really explored much and parts of them, like the Greek pirates, could easily have been done without with no significant significance for the film. Either that, or they should have had more character exploration. The story is cute and together with the animation makes it worth seeing even if it isn't a real masterpiece.

BUT it is a historical film. It is based, or at least it claims to be, on a real story and some of the characters are based closely upon the real people involved in the story. But the main part of the story could hardly have been more wrong unless they made it about moving a giraffe from France to Egypt or Nubian. The film claims that the giraffe is gifted to the french king in order to attain support for Egypt's war against Turkey. BUT the real story is the other way around. Egypt was not at war with Turkey, it was a part of the Ottoman Empire which were based in Turkey! Egypt, was a vassal state and as such was at war the Greek revolutionaries (like the pirates in the film) that fought for independence from the Ottomans. The gift to France was not to gain their alliance against Turkey, but to get them to stop their support for the Greeks! France and Egypt was at war as they were on different sides in this Greek War of Independence! How could you get the story so opposite? They might have it confused with another story about a giraffe in Florence which might have been gifted by the Sultan of Egypt in order to attain support in his war against the Turks from the Medici family who ruled Florence. But this happened more than 300 years before! I don't demand that a historical film should be 100% precise, but could it please just not turn the main story 180 degrees around? There are lots of other historical mistakes in the film that I don't complain about, but did they even use 1 minute on checking up on the story before they maid it? There should be limits to what can be accepted of a historical film before it influence the review and this film has crossed that line in the extreme by showing off an embarrassing level of ignorance and stupidity.