# Frogwares comment on game industry abuse damn near broke my heart



## notimp (Jul 15, 2019)

I'm fairly certain, that I saw this on the Jimquisition before, but then forgot all about it. So it hit me a like a truck full of bricks, when I just played through both games recently.

'Sherlock Holmes - Crimes and Punishments' is one of the best adventure games ever made. Its ambitious in that it developed the adventure (puzzle solving) formula further, made it approachable for a much wider, and younger audience, made you feel intelligent, when solving riddles, without the nudging in the game, that at the same time ensures, that less attentive players get tunneled forward in the story progression. It solved the issue of "did I get all clues" in adventure games elegantly - and without it feeling that the game has dumbed down. It has an intelligent, cynical main protagonist, clever writing, and a proper supporting cast. It cuts out unneeded filler, like traversing - it knows, what its doing.

Then they changed publishers - and along came the successor - "Sherlock Holmes - The Devil's Daughter", and pretty much ruined everything that the predecessor got credit for getting right. Within the first one and a half hours, you have a token black character (who is also a baddy - maybe), in Victorian London, who also acts as a love interest for Watson - and you just know that the new publisher had insisted on putting in for diversity's sake. Sherlock (now of course completely redesigned to be a Guy Richie movie trope) all but berades a little boy, just so he can be depicted as "edgy" and "a rough bachelor" - then lets the player decide with their first on screen action, if the boy - who turns out to be Tiny Tim from the Dickens novel, just with a lame arm - not leg, and also missing his parents, has a sickness, or just has cried, based on his swollen eyes - with completely no context whatsoever, and Watson (a medical doctor) standing by silently in the background - while the player makes his "choice" which also has absolutely no impact on the game at all. Then all of a sudden starts acting super sweet to the child, because someone told the dialogue writer, that would be PC. Then Sherlock gets to meet his daughter, on vacation from her boarding school, and greets here with a denigrating - 'no you cant know what case I'm working on, its not age appropriate'. Shortly before the game moves you into a Assassins Creed like chase sequence also moving through houses and onto roofs, where one of Sherlocks street urchins, has to literally "sweep a chimney" (gov'na) in a quick time event, to get onto the roof, while the game architecture clearly isnt build for such sequences. And then Watson tells Holmes and the player that Holmes' Daughter isn't his real daughter, but Holmes then tells him, that she never can know this, and Watson must not tell her, because Holmes would loose her - at a random doorstep, shortly before entering a new - unrelated location.

To reiterate. The first game was clever, with an intelligent plot treatment and a very well developed supporting cast.


Now you basically 'got' what happened from the players point of view. But why - why?

Well, in a game about clues - the developers left one in the game. In the "open world section" that pretty much the game didn't need, no less. And its fucking heart breaking.

If you need a little help:

The clues revolve around Holmes, being an intelligent, cynical - and often a tiny bit inappropriate character in the first game - with an interactable telescope in his flat in Crimes and Punishments - pointing at a scene that kind of alluded to this character design winkingly.

To the second game (the eighth one in the series), having the telescope there. But not interactable. So the first thought that comes into mind (especially after watching the intro sequence of the newer game), is - that of course they took it out because of political correctness reasons. It doesnt help, that the first line of Watson standing in front of the telescope - after the player gains character control is - "Quick Holmes, we've got to help that poor boy 'Tiny Tim' (from the intro)".

So that lingers in your mind - with you after a while not thinking about it anymore - until you stumble upon a scene in game - where people are kind of acting strange for no in world reason at all (why hasnt got the painter a painting animation, in a game thats all about detail?), and all of a sudden you see a telescope, that suddenly can be interacted with. And it sports the character you saw through it in the first game. Hidden in the open world portion of the game - in plain sight.

I swallowed. Then recorded the video.

The video shows you basically the intro sequences of "Crimes and Punishments" and "The Devils Daughter" one after the other. Lets you get a sense of atmosphere and plot quality in both games, shows you the interactable telescope in one, but not the other. And then jumps you to the scene, that was put in by the game's developers as the resolve of what the frack happened to the game under a new publisher.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 15, 2019)

Boy, let me try to tackle this incoherent mess. Because I believe there's an underlying point that's worth discussing.



notimp said:


> Forgwares comment on game industry abuse damn near broke my heart



Which comment? You don't quote anything, you don't link anything. It doesn't help that the first hit when you google search "frogware game industry abuse" is this thread.



notimp said:


> If you need a little help:



Thank you, I almost thought you wanted us to buy the game and look for ourselves.



notimp said:


> To the second game (the eighth one in the series) ...



So is it the eigth game or the second, is the "first game" you mention actually the seventh? Is there any significance to the first game being the first after the sixth? Have the rights to the IP changed to a different studio?



notimp said:


> ... having the telescope there. But not interactable.



What's the significance of the telescope? Why do you think it was removed due to PC reasons? Was there a core mechanic taken out that could be misconstrued as non-PC?

Seriously, I have no idea what you're even trying to say other than "the new game probably sucks because of publisher pressure".


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Boy, let me try to tackle this incoherent mess. Because I believe there's an underlying point that's worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe a bit clickbatey title and lacking a few details in the text, but the video does make sense of it and answers some of your questions.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 15, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Maybe a bit clickbatey title and lacking a few details in the text, but the video does make sense of it and answers some of your questions.



Yeah, I'm not wasting 16 minutes of my time to find out whether I even care about this discussion. On top of that I'm pretty sure watching two intros fails to put context around what OP is trying to say just as much as the OP itself.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 15, 2019)

Thats not abuse, even if it does suck they took things out.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yeah, I'm not wasting 16 minutes of my time to find out whether I even care about this discussion. On top of that I'm pretty sure watching two intros fails to put context around what OP is trying to say just as much as the OP itself.


Ironic, you're wasting time to post all about how you don't want to waste time.


----------



## notimp (Jul 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Which comment? You don't quote anything, you don't link anything. It doesn't help that the first hit when you google search "frogware game industry abuse" is this thread.



I'm pretty sure that Jim Sterling had it in one of his episodes about game industry behavior as well. Remember the industry is still pre unionization, and stories about crunch and abuse of hiring practices and working hours are still structural.

I didn't want to spell it out, because you loose the effect - and it becomes just another fanboy accusation.

But what you see is the following. Several people that are in an exagerated state of despair. Holding their heads. Kneeling, looking down at their hands, a merchant that has an argument with another person clearly not listening, what he has to say - disregarding his opinion, then shoving him away with a hand on their face, not honoring their opinion at all. An artist in a state of shock, siting on a chair moving her head in a catatonic motion. Looking at her hands and the painting, as if to say - what has she done. And looking through the telescope, right next to her - the same character you see through the telescope in Holmes' flat in the previous game whipping a person off screen with a horsewhip.


Now remember, that this could be one artists opinion given representation in game.

Or even a total coincidence.

But here is, why this is not likely either.

The telescope not being an interactable in Holmes' flat is a conscious decision. They could have simply replaced the scene with a less offending(?) one in the second title and no one would be the wiser. To take it out entirely (in a game that pretty much included every gameplay element of the previous one) - sounds more like a management (not p.c, take out), and not an art departments decision.

Then you put in an easter egg, that on the surface is even more 'riskey'. Having the same women that probably got taken out of the main game hub whipping someone off screen. This clearly is an easter egg. With making an item in game, that most people would click on, uninteractable - and the same item in an area most people wouldn't look at - interactable. Same item class, odd behavior in the main game hub (Holmes' Apartment), expected behavior, in a random game area.

But now you put that game item into a game area, that for no apparent reason has people in utter despair (body language) in it - with an in game NPC "painter", staring at her art - miming "what have I done". And the easter egg being the woman from the previous game, whipping someone off screen 'into shape'.

Its all figuratively - and there is room for interpretation, but something like that could very likely have been the intended meaning.

Also - in regards to the "games as art" discussion. This - if intentional - which I believe it to be - is art. So its a nice example of that to look at as well. If it wasn't for four characters in deep despair, and a salesmen, not listening to the person calmly arguing with him, shoving him out of the way - clearly not taking into consideration anything he says - because even if art, its not pleasant to look at.

This strikes me as an internal comment on how the games development went.

Clear? 

Its expected, that this is not widely reported - because the second game was not a critical or economical success. On gamefaqs f.e. you don't even have one person having written a guide for it, also its an easter egg in the game. Also - because it is partly interpretation. 

It being the eighth game in a series no one knew even existed before Crimes and Punishments (making it the second title in most peoples books..  ), is a trope that Giant Bomb created.

See:



If you cant figure out which game I am writing about in what paragraph, and now have an issue, figuring out which one to buy (clue: I don't care), sadly - I can't help you with that.  The game titles already are in the corresponding paragraphs.

Also 90% of the reviews out there downranked the second (eighth) game, with an "what the heck have they done" sentiment.

I hope everything is clear now - and sorry, that I had you interpreting body language of NPCs in a game, where that is literally a gameplay feature.  (Think L.A. Noir.)


----------



## notimp (Jul 15, 2019)

I believe there is one part I havent literally (figuratively- now, actually  ) spelled out yet - and that is, why putting emotional one note archetypes into your game, that are there to conjure up audience emotions - and using that as your main protagonists motivation for action - is bad story telling.

Because you'll end up with a scene, where a Watson reminds a Sherlock Holmes, that - Holmes, we really should help this boy, because he has no parents. And a lame arm.

Which kind of ruins your suspension of disbelief, or in game industry terms - "immersion".

Its the same as if in a movie, you show the audience, an open door - then have a supporting character point at the door and announce "the door is open". Because the audience already knows.

Difference between the first (seventh) and the second (eighth) game - the first one has a proper, well crafted script. The second one hasn't.

The examples given should have shown you that - instead of simply spelling it out for you.


----------

