I posted this over at the broken sword forum, but apparently nobody goes there, not a new post in almost a month.

So I recently played Broken Sword 1 Directors Cut on my iPhone.
It was an ok game, but definitely not my favorite P&C. I don't know, I found that Stobbart guy a bit bland and missing some backbone.
(I also found it annoying how Stobbart went to Spain, to visit the Vasconcellos, and even though they were in Spain and the family name is clearly spanish, they pronounced it like it was italian, but I am digressing.)
Still it was good enough that I am willing to continue with the sequels. I don't know anything about Gabriel Knight.

Anyway, what do you recomend for my next P&C?
BS2 Or GN1
How do they compare, what are the strengths and weaknesses of each one, what's the better story, etc.
Thanks.

I preferred BS2 over GN1.

GN1 represents both the best and worst of the Sierra early 90s titles.. it had some spectacular writing and atmosphere, but I thought some of the puzzles were fairly unforgiving, and even though the voice acting features an all-star cast (Tim Curry, Mark Hamill, Michael Dorn, etc.) it fell pretty flat.. Curry's New Orleans accent is completely ridiculous.

If you liked BS1, you'll probably like BS2, because the two games are pretty similar in presentation and style. I thought that the gameplay was a little more refined in 2, and the interplay between Nico and George is pretty well-done in it.

So, yeah, between the two, I'd recommend BS2 over GK1 first, but both are pretty good games and I'd recommend playing both of them eventually.

I loved the Broken Sword series (let's just forget about Angel of Death shall we) and found them far 'easier' to play than the Gabriel Knight games. They definitely come from two different eras of P&C games as far as I'm concerned and appeal to different sensibilities.

All that being said I loved both of them. Maybe grab hold of BS2 and finish that before moving on to GK1.

Ok, so BS2 it is.
I didn''t know Gabriel Knight was a Sierra. I'll definitely check it out once I am done with the BS series.
Thanks for your comments.

I know it is too late but still...

I think the first Broken Sword game is a very good adventure. One of my favourites. I know, it's my opinion but still, I play it eery now and then I always feel very well entertained.

But Gabriel Knight 1 (it's GK1 not GN1 :-) ) is one of the best adventures ever made. Superb story, great graphics, excellent writing and I also found the voice actors to be very good.

There is a thread somewhere where I am arguing with some other users about some puzzles but the truth is, they are very very good. I finished the game in 1993 or so without a walkthrough and I found all the puzzles to be logical.

It's not really to late, and even if it would, some other might find this information useful.
After re-reading the comments above, I think I'll actually go with GK (yes, I got it right this time).

macnbc said: Well, the thing is, I didn't like it THAT MUCH, specifically I didn't like Stobbart. I liked almost every other part of the game, but Stobbart is the main character, and I just didn't like him very much.

Merkaba said he Well I like myself a challenge, so easier is not a selling point, and judging only by the screenshots (because I have no other means of judging until I play them), GK is from my era and appeals to my sensibility

So thanks again for all your replies, I'll go with GK.

I loved BS2, BS3 and BS1 (order I played them in), but the GK series was even more outstanding IMO. The writing is superb (Jane Jensen - Author). They are all pretty different, as Sierra got caught up in the FMV wave for GK2, but all 3 definitely worth playing.

--Jamie

i love how the story goes in Gabriel Knight. i want to give broken sword a try but whenever i load it, i cant get pass the few minutes at the start. i just quit. i'll probably get around to play it sometime soon.

Well, I can't recommend one over the other since I'm yet to play any GK (I'm thinking of buying them which is why I'm here) but I love BS2. I prefer the first but it's a solid game. I don't really like the new version of the first, but that's another story...

I really liked the Broken Sword series and played it before any GK ones. When I first tried playing GK1 the graphics turned me off of it. Then I did the first bit with a walkthrough to help get me started. After that I was hooked. It is superb and the story is great.

I just recently played GK2 and it also has a great storyline and logical puzzles. There is a lot of video which was a little hard to get used to at first, but the game is great. Now I'm looking at GK3 and wondering if the game is made like GK2 or is it 3D?

Some of the 3D games made at that time make me sick to try to play them because I have motion sickness at times.

Gabriel Knight 3 is 3D BUT it's different than most 3D-adventures.

It controls basically like a 2D-adventure using a point and click interface. But except for cutscenes you can completely control the camera so you can look around without walking through the scene.

Also a great feature: Gabriel (or Grace) only walk through the visible part of the scenery - which greatly shortens walking time.

The graphics of GK3 look a little more dated than the 2D backgrounds of previous games because of it's 3D nature but the game is brilliant!

Thanks for the info. I think I will try it because the series has been a great story in 1&2 and I've read that it has some of the best puzzlers.

Indeed!

And, well, one of the worst. :)

Honestly? I don't think that these games can be compared against each other.

From 2 different eras, it's like asking who is the better footballer, George Best (at his best) or Cristiano Ronaldo?

They both have their merits. And pitfalls. I bought both when they originally came out and, personally, would choose Broken Sword over GK because the 'experience' is so much more enthralling in the Broken Sword series and there is just endless eye candy with the sumptuous graphics of the first two especially. But then GK never had that opportunity and the technology wasn't available to give the gamer that experience.
I think it would be a dis-service to both games to compare them against each other.
Better to compare Syberia and Broken Sword.

Well, Philosphy, I think you are slightly wrong here.

Remember that this thread started as a comparison between Broken Sowrd 1 and Gabriel Knight 1.
Gk1 was released in 1993 and BS1 in 1996. I agree, however, that these were important 3 years. A lot happened (Win95 for example). But Syberia was released in 2002 - 6 years after BS1 and THAT is a different era!

Furthermore, both BS1 and GK1 are character driven adult adventures about old cults, ancient secrets, hidden societies and murder. Both establish a female character as a sidekick, use comic sequences (albeit in different styles) and both use a very similar style of puzzles.
Both games are more similar than first impressions may suggest.

You speak of eye-candy that GK1 apparently didn't have - well, I disagree. Sure, it's resolution is lower but GK1 has stunning backgrounds with lots of little details while a lot of BS1's backgrounds are, well, rather plain(but nevertheless beautifully drawn).

I think both games can be compared with each other. As I said earlier, I think both are two of the best adventures ever created (and I wouldn't put Syberia on that list).

Play GK1 with a good graphics-filter (I recommend 2xSAI) and even the pixelation disappears, making GK1 all in all a slightly better game than BS1.