Without the guessing it made so much sense, fitted Holmes, and was very satisfying to end the case like that. After getting all evidence possible you can and will get the one and only right conclusion, but before you could go for wrong ones because you have not gotten all evidence yet. And once you sniffed around everyhwere, and found all evidence, you get to see the temple and will inevitably get the right conclusion right after. Once you found out about Bernards Machines you can say it was him, but well, spear throwing by machine OK, but running away after and jumping over a wall? Definitely no. Then you get to know about Sir Charles debts and you can say that he is the culprit, but the money cannot really be the reason because he still keeps on his massive gold part of the treasure. First you hear about the moving statue and can simply say "Oh it is a mayan curse the ghost of that mayan guy killed him by possessing the statue". Heavy Spoilers for case 2 ahead (in spoiler format this time):Ĭase 2 is working with the conduction board just perfect. But i get your point and will try to look at those tiny details further in the game. He could've killed the pauper because he stole his son's spot in the pogram. Well maxpat, since that one conclusion literally is like "Hurst is a psychopath seeking for Revenge" everything seemed possible. Your opinion on that guys, and maybe any idea how logical thinking could've led to the right conclusion in case 1? They could've done it in a way that you get a wrong conclusion if you do not collect EVERY clues, and only once you collected them all you get the idea of the one and only true conclusion.īut the way it is know it is senseless guessing, and that small thing of the game bugs me big times. He would look for more and more evidence until only one truth remains. I generally liked how Frogwares was working with the character of Holmes, especially in dialogues, but seriously, Sherlock Holmes would not take a look at the given evidence and then just guess one of two equally possible outcomes of the case. But in the end all we do in the conclusion is guessing.įirst of all that guessing feels super unrewarding, and second it does not fit to the character of "Sherlock Holmes" at all.
Seriously, how should we know in the end who was shooting us, and who of the 2 was the culprit? I have no idea! The evidence given could lead to both conclusions, yet only 1 of them is right, and the game let's you painfully know when you were wrong with a bad ending. Things get weird, when that interpreting choice is a thing the player just cannot know. And for both conclusion ALL clues are needed, and what conclusion you get on your board is decided by how you "interpret" the clues. The 2 big conclusions you can go for here are "The Lord is the bad" or "Hurst is the bad". And in my opinion the worst is, that those conclusions are equally possible. I mean, that makes a lot of sense in a detective game, right?īut for some reason, we need to have multiple conclusions. I generally do like the idea of collecting clues, and connecting these to eventually get a conclusion. Only finished the first case, but already the big thing that bugged me in C&P reappears.
0 kommentar(er)
