Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers – 20th Anniversary Edition

If you can deal with early 90s point&click design philosophy and a slightly outdated graphics, you should play the original. 1993 version has more consistent visuals and better overall dubbing. Thanks to this, the atmosphere is way better. If you prefer 3D models and QOL updates, stick with the remake. Without comparing to the original, 20th anniversary is a pretty good adventure game. There are some flaws, the game can be a bit buggy, freezes after skipping dialogues can be pretty annoying and some animations are pretty wonky. Personally, I also dislike most of the 3D character models. They're kinda lifeless and some of them are just badly done, especially faces. I'm trying not to compare both versions too much, so I won't be complaining about modern Gabriel missing his trademark gritty and tired look, but his grandma is some sort of abomination. Who thought it was fine? Still, the story is engaging, locations look pretty nice and music is enjoyable. If you don't wan't to bother with the classic version, try this one.

I'm basically happy that there's a remake of Gabriel Knight - Sins of the Fathers, as it brings Jane Jensen's great Gabriel Knight series back into focus after decades and makes it more accessible to younger gamers. I think it's a good, thoroughly enjoyable game in its own right, and I can absolutely recommend it. Still, it can't come close to the original, which I consider one of the best adventure games ever. 1) From my point of view, drawn, artistic backgrounds and sprites fit the slow, story-centered gameplay of "art-house" point-and-click adventures much better than rendered 3D worlds. Point-and-click adventures easily fall into the "uncanny valley" when they pretend 3D realism but fail to achieve it. A classic example, unfortunately, is the 3rd installment of the Gabriel Knight series. Unfortunately, this also applies - to a lesser extent - to the remake of Sins of the Fathers. 2) I don't like the look of Gabriel Knight in the remake. He looks like a cold, unsympathetic, out of time pretty boy. A bit like a singer of a 90s commercial hard rock band. In the original he was a likeable, cool guy with lots of rough edges who looked like a mix of a young David Bowie, Neil Tennant, Morten Harket and Conan O'Brien. 3. The voice acting in the remake is really very well done. However, it was brilliant and even much better in the 1993 original (Tim Curry, Mark Hamil, Michael Dorn, Leah Remini, Vriginia Capers,...). Too bad they didn't find a legal and technical way to use the original recordings and digitally remaster them. However, what has been significantly improved in the remake from my point of view: The cut scenes and the music (even though I still like the warm FM synth sound of the original).

Gabriel Knight 1 is one of the great adventure games. An engrossing story with characters who truly pop and puzzles which, although fiendish, stay just on the right side of possibility (well, except for that nonsense with the snake bracelet) The remake does a decent job in the area of aesthetics. The art style is different from the original game, with deep colours switched out for a more naturalistic look. I'm fine with that as it brings a unified look across the whole the game. The cut scene graphic panels may work better here than they did in the original. The musical remastering is great, as you'd expect with original composer Robert Holmes involved. And although the new voice cast cannot hold a candle to the original Hollywood names, they're well directed enough to carry the story. My unease with this remake stems from some of the design choices. Clearly GK1's difficulty is a step above many modern adventures and it does make some concessions to modern players - but its approach is confusing. Most of the original puzzles are left in place and what was obscure then is obscure now - moreso because the logic which underpinned 90s point and clicks isn't found much in modern games. Instead, a lot of time and energy was spent on adding additional puzzles and it's not entirely clear what purpose they serve. They're mostly minigames from the casual gaming arena which rely on trial and error rather than logic. Casual fans aren't going to be able to penetrate far enough into the game to find them, but they're too far removed from GK1 to be easter eggs for experienced players. The one piece of streamlining which does work is the simplification of the map interface. GK1s locations are now accessed on the days when they are required - and I would have liked to have seen more changes in that vein. The remake seems confused about whether to embrace the original's design or to apologize for it - but it's still enjoyable to revisit and celebrate this great game.

This update of one of adventure gaming's crowning achievements is a stellar effort from a small studio (Phoenix under the direction of creator Jane Jensen), but the franchise deserved so much more than they were capable of giving. GK20 is essentially an attempt to appeal the series to a newer and more casual audience, particularly mobile gamers. As such, many of the most notable mechanical changes are for the sake of streamlining and linearity. These changes I don't mind. What I did find slightly jarring were some of the dialog and puzzle changes, most of which, with a couple exceptions, struck me as completely arbitrary. The graphics are an inevitable improvement considering the 20 year technological gap, but here's one of the biggest criteria this remake falls flat. These graphics were not cutting edge 10 years ago, let alone 5. They don't even hold a candle to, say, Syberia, which had come out 10 years before. The voice acting is another inevitable change here, and for the most part I think it's pretty spot-on. While GK himself sounds a little more lethargic than how Tim Curry voiced him, he's mostly a dead-ringer. Leah Remini's hard-to-fill shoes were recast pretty admirably. My biggest complaint here is the narrator, who is a pale and inconsistent immitation of the original, and sounds like a white lady trying to do a caricature of a black voice. What GK deserves is a reboot in the style of Quantic Dream or Naughty Dog games. I'd contrast GK20 with the recent reboot of King's Quest. KQ lacked the original creative force and feel of the franchise, but had great production values and graphics. GK had all the right creative talent but lacked those production values, and as such, largely failed in its goal to revitalize the series. At the very least, however, it is an amazing revisitation of the classic for fans of the series.

I cannot recommend this game. It hurts me to say it, because the original is one of the best horror adventure games every written and made. But with this "HD" remake, the game lost majority of it´s appeal. The story is still there, though slightly tweaked and the game is still as well written as it ever was. BUT... All chapters have been simplified, you cannot go anywhere or do anything until the game specifically allows you to do so. You could do thing out of order in the original. not so much here. The game is just ugly. Look at the images above. Even some hidden object games look better than this. The perspective of a lot of the locations is screwed up (Mosely´s office being one of the worst examples), some objects are badly inserted into the backgrounds etc. The character models are badly animated and often ugly looking etc. The original was dark and gritty and this looks like a cheap Saturday cartoon. If you want to experience the first Gabriel Knight, one of the best adventure games ever made, play the original. This is a barely "OK" remake, and it pales in all departments when compared to the original