It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

I've played Broken Sword 1 and 2 ages ago when I was a kid, and played it again over the last week. It's been so much fun to do it all over again, listening to amazing dialogues, and solving the new puzzles in DC edition.

I did realise one thing though: I am not sure I fully understand how everything in the story of the first game fits together. It seems like everything is tied with the manuscript, but its full meaning just escapes me. Can someone offer their take on it?

1. What exactly is the purpose of the manuscript? It has some clues to Templars' locations, but some of them are a bit arbitrary.
2. Particularly, what are the top right and bottom right pieces? The guy working on a loom and a woman looking in the mirror and seeing Baphomet?
3. Why does the manuscript contain the image of the de Vasconcellos knight? Is it because they were the ones who had kept the chalice?
4. How come that when Don Carlos is buried, the hints to where the children are inscribed on his tomb? If he had any idea about that later in his life, wouldn't it make sense to send a note home for someone to try finding the well?
5. Flap and Guido are obviously working for the Templars. Why are they searching everyone who comes in and out of the Ubu hotel? Does it mean they searched Khan too? Why not break into his room instead, if they suspect him? If they don't know who Khan is, what are they doing at the hotel?
6. Plantard carried the briefcase with the manuscript to the meeting with Nico. Why do you think he wanted to show it to her? I believe, he wanted to recruit her into helping the Templars, given her interest in other murders, but maybe there was something else?
7. How did the Templars find the location of the Broken Sword, if Klausner died without telling anyone about his finding in Syria? Same about Marib: without the tripod and the gem, how did they know where to look for other clues?

I am really looking forward to piecing everything together in my head, because everything else in the story makes sense to me.
Sitting here drinking my coffee, so I thought I'd give it a go and try to answer your questions best I could...You definitely aren't the first one to notice some of these plot holes in the game. For example, it always bothered me how, after George finds the tripod in the museum and goes back to tell Nico about it, they just move on from the tripod to discussing the Lochmarne Gem. I mean, I know there's a gem in the manuscript sitting on the tripod, but it just seemed to be a rather large leap of assumption...Especially since just a few lines of dialogue between George and Nico could have shifted the point of discussion from Pegram and the Lochmarne excavation to the gem. Instead, we get an awkward shift where George and Nico are talking about Peagram's excavation in Lochmarne to Nico telling George to go to Lochmarne to find the gem. Haha, it always bothered me. Anyway, on to your questions...
1. I always assumed the manuscript was sort of a visual map to finding the Sword of Baphomet. Not a map in the traditional sense. Rather, it contains a series of clues to locations and items which were needed to find out the location of the Sword of Baphomet. I believe the map was originally in the possession of The Templars, but they lost it when Pegram was assassinated by Khan. Remember, at one point, George mentions to Nico that he thought Plantard was a member of The Templars.
2. The guy working on a loom is symbolic of Spain. That's really all that image means. And the image of Baphomet is just that...Probably so a casual observer would be able to figure out what the manuscript was directing you to. Also, I believe there's an image of a church in that quarter of the manuscript...It looks just like the church at St. Ninian's This image is probably showing the viewer where the Sword of Baphomet lies.
3. Think you answered your own question there.
4. This is another thing that always bothered me. I don't have an answer for you. Seems if people knew what Bible passages to put on his tomb, they should've been able to find the children. Yeah, this part of the game always baffled me. I mean, it's not something that disrupts the flow of the game...It's just something you look back on afterwards and think..."Now wait, that didn't make any sense."
5. Flap and Guido were trying to get the manuscript back. So that's why they searched everyone who they saw leaving the hotel room...In case they were leaving with it. Think they knew who Khan was...They knew to look for him at the hotel...And they Flap kinda implies through George's questioning that he recognizes the guy in George's photo. But you do raise a lot of questions...If they knew who Khan was, why would they let him leave and enter the hotel without accosting him and finding the manuscript? Or why wouldn't they force the receptionist at the hotel to hand it over? Haha, never thought of this stuff before.
6. Remember, at one point, George makes the comment to Nico that Plantar was probably a member of the Templars. This is the most logical assumption, I think. The reasons he wants to meet Nico are never really explained, but I think that just adds to the mystery of the game. We'll never know for sure and that's just fine.
7. Haha, one of the great mysteries in gaming history. How did the Templars find the location of the sword without obtaining the items that George found and without being able to use the manuscript. Your guess is as good as mine.
Hey, thanks a lot for your thoughts!

At least, I don't feel like I am totally misunderstanding some key moments of the plot anymore.

I agree, none of these things interrupt the flow of the game, I only started to think more thoroughly about them once I finished the game again and again over the years. I just enjoy the dialogs and voices in the first two games so much.
Yeah, the first 2 Broken Swords are definitely the two best installments of the series. I was kinda disappointed by The Smoking Mirror when it first came out. I was playing these games in college and I bought them as they were originally released. But I do think time has been kind to BS2. Replaying it now, it's definitely not as bad as I originally thought. I think a big reason why it was met with kind of a lukewarm response is that it was released about a year after BS1. So most people had pretty fresh memories of the greatness of the first one and were expecting BS2 to measure up. Needless to say, BS2 isn't nearly as good as BS1.That doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. LOL took me about 10 years to realize that. In all seriousness though, Revolution could be making Broken Sword games for the next 100 years, and they'll never make another one as good as the first one. That's how great it was and is. I think it's the greatest point and click game ever produced.
Post edited August 21, 2017 by DSDallago
I have the exact same feelings about the second game: the first time I beat it, I was underwhelmed. Seeing all Broken Sword games on sale here on GOG made me get all five of them and after finishing the first one I started the second without much excitement.

But surprisingly it gave me quite a few laughs, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I did all those years ago.
Yeah, I think your initial response is precisely what most people felt after playing BS2. It was a letdown after the all-around greatness that was the first game....But like I said, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. In fact, the light-heartedness and humor of the 2nd game is in many ways better than the 1st game. It was a good idea for Revolution to re-release these games. I think a lot of people are replaying BS2 and realizing that it's really a lot better than they remember. Out of all 5 games in the series, BS4 is really the only bad one. BS3 was a bit of a system shock, because the controls and dynamics of the game were so radically changed. I don't like BS3 as much as 1, 2, and 5, but I've come across people who enjoyed the 3rd one, so I think it's worth playing. BS4 was a waste. I actually thought that game might've killed the entire series, but Revolution rebounded (after more than 10 years) with BS5, which is probably the best Broken Sword game since the second one. I hope Revolution keeps on making more sequels.
parrker: I have the exact same feelings about the second game: the first time I beat it, I was underwhelmed. Seeing all Broken Sword games on sale here on GOG made me get all five of them and after finishing the first one I started the second without much excitement.

But surprisingly it gave me quite a few laughs, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I did all those years ago.
I think its bc the main story is head and shoulders better in broken sword 1 but on the flip side I think the humor and jokes work way better in broken sword 2.
I'm going to be controversial here and say that BS5 was my favourite. It was a real slam-dunk of a sequel. Can't wait to see what they come up with next.