the rules link in the first post is broken, a %20 where there shouldn't be.
So is this another 'review any game you like' one?

Yeah, we kind of need to know what games are in the contest this week, if we want to participate.

maybe we're supposed to review a LACK of games, also known as the real world? How good the graphics are and how you don't need a good video card for 16x AA, good surround sound but an appaulingly dull story, unpredictable difficulty curve and no cheats.
Also the romance subplot is way too hard to do

Not having played the game, I cannot comment on whether it really deserves as much of a beating as the current reviews are giving it, but my gut feeling tells me it does. I can, however, say something general about why it is really sure to get more negative reviews than positive.
Once, adventure games were a flourishing genre. They were funny, they were challenging, they told good stories and they were all 2D, because that was all there was at the time.
Enter 3D technology. By now, CPUs were fast enough to perform the needed number of calculations per second to render 3D images. They weren't very good 3D images though, because technology hadn't gone that far, so the "textures" were extremely lo-res, there was no lighting to speak of, etc. But it was 3D, and it was new. Suddenly, many development houses (or publishers) said "3D is the latest thing, so we have to use it". To quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, they "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
And so, 3D was imposed on lots of games that didn't really need it. That did, in fact, become worse games for using 3D than they would have been if they hadn't.
Some genres benefitted. Shooters are all about movement, and the benefits of new movement options that 3D added to shooters, outweighed the drawbacks it imposed, such as, let's face it, really ugly graphics.
Adventure games, however, are not all about movement, they are about storytelling. One of the most important tools traditionally used for that in adventure games (outside of the writing itself, naturally) is its visuals. "A picture says more than a thousand words". If an adventure game was meant to be funny, or serious, or eerie, the first way you'd notice was through the graphics. Using 2D graphics allowed game designers to illustrate the game world in any style they wanted, and to do it well. Trying to accomplish the same with very primitive 3D graphics, is a losing battle. Not to mention that the added movement options which were such a benefit to shooters, were also more of a drawback in adventure games.
And so, the genre all but died. The one question that could have saved a lot of games, namely "will 3D make this a better game", was sadly asked by almost nobody. Other than the players of course, but nobody listened to them at the time. As more and more 3D adventure games failed, developers (or publishers) seemed to draw the (wrong) conclusion, that people were tired of adventure games, and so fewer and fewer of them were made.
Even today, you can still find examples of games that are 3D "because you just have to use 3D". I've seen a Tetris clone done in 3D, for crying out loud! Which would be fine, if the game had actually been 3D Tetris (or Blockout, if anyone remembers that), but it wasn't. It was plain old 2D Tetris, but the playing field was rendered in 3D. But since you can't really tell that it's 3D if you're viewing the playing field head-on (as is the custom in Tetris, it'd be hard to play if you viewed it from the side), the entire playing field wobbled very slowly about the vertical axis, so the viewing angle changed from slightly to the left, to slightly to the right all the time. Just so you would appreciate the hard work the developers had done.
Okay, I'll wrap this rant up now. My basic point is: 3D is a tool like any other in game development. If it's not the right tool for the job, don't use it!

I think the reason people tend to beat on games that made the transition from 2d to 3d is because they are either afraid of change or the developer either didn't take the time to polish the gameplay/story element in order to focus on 3d graphics and, to those devoted fans, it shows.
My theory is sometimes developers want to take the time to fully polish a game but they are whipped by their frenzied publishers (or the developers' basic need of being able to keep a roof over their families' heads and over their own company...I'm sure it sucks trying to code in the snow and rain...) to get the game done as fast as possible, more so if the holiday season is coming around and they want that slice of the holiday spending pie.
What concerns me most is that the video game industry is so competitive to the point of ridiculousness. I am all for competition that brings out great games, but the kind of competition that the game industry has forces the publishers and devs to sometimes deliver a product that they try to carpet bomb it with patches (looking at Fallout 3 here).
One thing that irks me about 3d is that it ramps the cost of development to the point that the development of games is tantamount to a movie production with budgets in the millions. Thus, companies are forced to use the latest gimmicks in games that would have done better without them.
SO what does this have to do with Simon the Sorceror 3?
A. Fans are afraid of change.
B. The 3d did not improve the game as intended and it shows, according to the fans.
C. For even more enlightenment, go to tvtropes.org and type in "You Changed it and now it sucks!" or "Unpleaseable Fanbase".
Disclaimer: All of the above is merely the opinion of an industry outsider and should not be taken as facts. If I am wrong, then tell me instead of flaming, thanks.

I generally agree with WIshbone here.
I've found Adventure games don't transition too well to 3D. Technology is now at the point where they can be done well, but you still need to retain the mechanics of the 2D genre, and especially try not to change the core game too much.
I'm not full of fear of change, I'm concerned about bad implementations.
Simon 3, simply is bad. While humour may still be there, it's difficult to enjoy over all the flaws.
Broken Sword, took a similar dive (In my opinion), it's getting better though. In contrast, I felt that Telltale's 3D revival of Sam & Max worked very well.
The (3D) Sherlock Holmes series has been recommended to me by others here as keeping with traditional gameplay, but I've not played anything of it to give an opinion.
There's still life in this genre. But you have to know where to look for the good stuff.

I never thought someone could quote Jeff Goldblum (on the Internet, no less) to enforce a serious, well-thought point, but you proved me wrong.
Regarding 3D and adventure games, you're right. I think it destroyed the genre. Don't get me wrong, some adventure games are better in 3D. But there are some that should have realized it would be better to stick with 2D.

I'm a man of many talents ;-)
And hey, I like Jeff Goldblum.

I like Jeff Goldblum too. He's just sort of... "out there".

I also generaly agree with WIshbone on this.
Another example for me is the Gabriel Knight Series. The first was OK, the second in spite of being diferent (using video and video capture) and passing the initial "shock" was also ok (altough lacking the voice of Tim Curry as GK). The third one being on 3D and having the original GK voice over i did't like the way it looked and felt.
For me good adventure games are supposed to be either 2d or with video (i.e: Tex murphy series) to be 3d they have to be extremely well crafted.
EDIT: P.S. Sorry for the off-topic.