While this game wasn't terribly well received by the press, I'd have to say that I enjoyed it. While many of the better puzzles of BS1/2 have been replaced with simple climbing/sneaking/pushing action, the charm of the first to installments is still to be felt.
The graphics, while now in 3D, beautifully pick up on the highly detailed 2D backgrounds of BS1/2, with bright and sunny cartoon-like environments alongside dark blue night environments.
The characters likewise transfer astonishingly well to their new 3D form. Maybe they even feel more "alive" than their previous 2D installment, as the amount of animation that could be put into a game was obviously a limiting factor for BS1/2. The (still) excellent voice acting doesn't hurt either.
If you can forgive relatively easy puzzles and some misplaced Metal-Gear-Solid sneaking action, then this game is still one of the better games to make the transition from 2D to 3D.

Sure it was. Its Gamerankings.com average is 83%.

I guess the German press still had a bit higher requirements back then... most German magazines got pretty mad about the box puzzles. Anyway, it didn't score bad in Germany either, just not as good as the previous installments.

I have always wondered why a previously 2d series that makes the transition to 3d it gets a slight case of "the dumbs". What is it about 3d that does that ?
Anyways, always nice to see more Broken Sword on GOG; Y'all are the best!

Me thinks you should use this as a review and maybe get it for free hehe. :)

If I'm not mistaken, this one was a cross-platform release. It's not so much the transition to 3D that was the problem, it was the transition to the console crowd. Countless series have suffered from the transition: Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout to name a few.
So if this game feels dumbed down, it's most likely a function of that. That said, I'm still looking forward to it, since I've only played the second one.

I never really noticed much dumbing down, I noticed a change in direction to a bit more of a mix of game styles and to be honest I didn't mind it that much aside from the crappy box sliding puzzles.

I object to that! The console crowd doesn't like dumbed games more than anybody else. Yes, it's true: We like dumb games like Tekken or Crazi Taxi, but that doesn't mean that we like jump 'n run, fighting game or MGS elements in EVERY game.

The problem is the 'perceived notion' that console games *have* to be dumbed down, both by gamers and the suits behind the games.
While complex games can certainly work on a console, it's just what you find there has to be slightly simplified. Usually for technology reasons, but the audience itself does factor into it.
This is changing, but was not the cast during this games release.
--
That said, as I've voiced before, I've found BS does not transition to 3D very well. BS3 is certainly the worst of the bunch, though the story side at least holds up decently.
I still check each new game out though, as they are slowly approaching something I like.

The lower hardware of the consoles certainly dumbs down PC games on a technical level... we would have a lot more Crysis level graphics in games if we had more big budget PC exclusives.
The more important dumbing down has a lot less to do with consoles and a lot more to do with games costing so much to make and needing millions and millions of sales to make their budgets back.
Look at movies... big budget releases with lots of effects and such tend to be pacified, dumb and as mainstream as possible. Indie movies and smaller budget releases are generally more interesting and deep. Same is going on with games now... big budget series will be dumber and more streamlined, but smaller games like Hinterland and such will offer deeper experiences.

The technology argument is old... The current generation definitely has more to offer than an average (yes, there are more powerful PCs, but on PC too developers have to work with the lowest common denominator) gaming PC. It's just that you have to develop differently for consoles as the argument "your PC is too slow" won't work. Many people marvel at Crysis (can't say I agree), but how many people can actually play this game with acceptable settings?

Crysis runs pretty well on a cheaper rig, actually... you just need to dial down the settings. My father-in-law plays it and his computer is by no means advanced or high powered, he just plays it on low in 800x600 resolution.
In any event, the arguement over who would use the higher settings is irrelevant, I simply stated that console versions of newer games hold PC advancement back on a technical level, and there is no real way for you to argue otherwise. History shows a strong trend of games pushing boundries and moving graphics technology forward at a much faster pace before the Xbox introduced PC-style games to consoles and PC games all became ports. Look at Doom 3, which was ported to the Xbox a year after its release and had to be massively scaled back to function. Today, Doom 3 would have been made with the Xbox in mind first, and would not have looked as stunning.
The fact is that Crysis on high looks drastically better than anything on console and is perfectly playable with modern video cards, yet we see no other games challenging it. What the percentage is of people who could play on those higher settings neither of us knows, but it's not the point.

The XBox was a scaled down PC not a console, so I won't even discuss that. Anyway Doom3 was a stunning game, but it wasn't stunning because the developer targeted an unrealistic "hardcore gamer" system, but rather because they properly optimized their game and that's something that's essential for PC and even more-so console development. Doom3 ran fine on an average system, that's what made it great, whereas Crysis... well you said it... can be played in 800x600 with low-quality settings on a normal PC. But Doom3 used existing technologies to create something new... I don't see how that wouldn't work on consoles. Especially as the PS3 in actually a lot more flexible than an average PC (I know, the current generation of games doesn't show that terribly well, but that will change) with less power for standard tasks, but a lot and I mean a LOT more power for custom procedures. Most of what we today take as standard-effects originates on consoles. Framebuffer effects? They were available on the PS1, but the average PC couldn't do them until years later. Non-blocking I/O? Consoles (and it still doesn't work too well on most PCs). There's a lot of innovation coming from PC software, but saying that console hardware is holding development back is just... silly.

Games get dumbed down for consoles also because of the limited control set up. you can't do a maze of complicated controls or menus for a console because it simply won't work or will be too frustrating. Try playing FS2 on solely on a gamepad, can't be done. Most old-school RPG's don't work either. Newer RPGs, like Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect are basically designed with a console in mind, which completely infuriates the PC players because of the stupid menu designs that make NO sense on a PC (Ala Oblivion, god that was a stupid system).