wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
Are we waiting on the Final Solution before discussion?
Sherlock Holmes Murder Myster Game - Case 2 - THE GAME'S AFOOT!
- Thread starter deacvision7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
tapatalk didn't let me post the pictures yesterday but ill try again here in a few
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Parts 1 and 2 of 4
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Parts 3 and 4 of 4
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
So now you see why you weren't racing against Holmes in the case as he was trailing Engels the whole time.
However, agreed with phan that there were a LOT of holes in this case and the internet agrees as well. Apologies again, but it was the next case in the book and I had never done it before so didn't know until I had already finished, and by that time you guys had all started.
However, agreed with phan that there were a LOT of holes in this case and the internet agrees as well. Apologies again, but it was the next case in the book and I had never done it before so didn't know until I had already finished, and by that time you guys had all started.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
feel free to discuss, ask questions, or shit all over me for subjecting y'all to this case. just remember I had to do it myself and it took many more turns for me to figure out there wasn't a clear case before deciding to attempt to solve it.
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
I'm writing up some questions now. I don't blame you. To be fair, we would have taken many more turns if we weren't already feeling guilty about dragging the case over several days. The answers to the essential questions are totally unsatisfying.
DeacdeTejas
Well-known member
Agree
I also to be honest just stopped because I didnt realize I wasnt racing Sherlock (which is my fault) but I was so tired of running in circles I couldnt take it anymore
DeacdeTejas
Well-known member
Also dv7 you are the man for writing all of this out. Geez a lot of work
But I can also see the benefit of having the directory in front of you when playing. I felt bad askign you directory questions
But I can also see the benefit of having the directory in front of you when playing. I felt bad askign you directory questions
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
lol, directory questions are the easiest part! please dont feel afraid to ask
a case takes 1-2 hours in real life
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
you had quite the mixture of great clue points and utter dead ends that you already knew
DeacdeTejas
Well-known member
Haha it was bad. Was so frustrating
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Another quirk in these games is that you have a guy like a lawyer or something. So you can go to his home or his office. Sometimes he is at his office and sometimes he is at his home. If you go to the one he isn't at, then you are directed to the other.
I've started to only count that as one move (but forced move to the other location). No way that should count as two moves.
Hasn't happened in these cases, but I've seen it in other versions of this game. That always annoyed me.
I've started to only count that as one move (but forced move to the other location). No way that should count as two moves.
Hasn't happened in these cases, but I've seen it in other versions of this game. That always annoyed me.
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
I'm also kind of annoyed that we spent all this time sorting motive, timeline, movements, etc. for the answer to the "why?" question to just be "revenge." Duh!
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
Happened with our investigation of the Nanny in the last case -- you just told us to move again. Directing us to the children's room automatically would have been too much.
I wish you'd done that in this case with our final Scotland Yard investigation: we wanted to talk to the cop who had the pouch, but we didn't know that the Lambeth Police Station was a thing!
On that same note, how did you know:
to go to the Lambeth Police Station?
to go to the Thames Steamboat Company? We didn't see this referenced in any of the investigations you did prior
to go to St. Barts in Turn 8 (since there wasn't yet a body or a murder)?
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
lol
to be fair, a lot of the times in Holmes' stories the most obvious reason for a crime is the correct one
Robert E Lee from Georgia? WTF
Then her having different names at the hotel. The letters confirmed that they were lovers and since Fahmi was dead.... Q1 and Q2 were obvious to me once I saw them.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Lambeth Police Station was the closest police station to the Ground St Warehouse, so I looked at the police locations in the directory and went there
Thames Steamboat -- Lavoisier took at ship from Le Harve. I looked up steamship companies based on locations on the map to where the action was taking place. 2 had no results in the clue book. the 3rd did. This is why I suggest asking to resource the directory whenever you can -- I'm happy to provide any information and it is MUCH easier than typing out a full clue point
St. Barts -- so many clues about "be careful" "these are bad men" and the like (Raven and Rat, Parsons, Ellis at the Times). figured that at worst it was a nothing burger, but maybe a dead body popped up since so many bad people are around this case.
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
I think some of our questions are essential to understanding the case and actually make more sense than some of the simple explanations the game provides or requires of us. Some big ones for me:
1) How and when did Treyer lose/relinquish the Black Bird after buying it from Akram at the Princess Louise? (DV7 elides this fact in his contemporaneous notes for his Tony investigation, and the Solution only says that "Girard has contacted Treyer requesting his help in getting the bird back") How does Levoisier end up with it? Presumably Treyer just gives it to him, but as far as I know this isn't evident in any of the possible investigations and a leap of logic not supported by any of the facts. See #5 below.
2) What did Ms. Engels write to Al-Saud to lure him to the Boarding House? The solution does not say, but I suspect it can only be in response to Al-Saud's newspaper advertisement ["Will Trade the FROG for the BIRD" -A.A.]. (NB: The syntax does not make clear which item he actually has and which he desires, and this gave us some trouble early on.) Ultimately, the advertisement is directed to someone who actually cares about Lavoisier -- which we are led to believe is Ms. Engels/Swellverly -- but can only be Treyer. Ms. Engels dresses up as Treyer then for two reasons: 1) ultimately to frame Treyer for the murder of Al-Saud // and, most importantly, 2) because (we figure) the only way she could have lured Al-Saud to the Boarding House is to pose as Treyer, the only man in England who would want to rescue Lavoisier and be in a position to possess the Black Bird. So the ambiguous Essential Question: "why was Al-Saud killed" can not fully encapsulate the complexity of the situation -- we knew it was revenge, obviously, but we thought the answer should be more complicated than that.
2b) Ms. Engel's motivation for consulting Holmes -- to sell information to Treyer about the location of Lavoisier -- is completely unbelievable. The only possible solution I can think of was that she planned to use this information to lure Al-Saud to a place where she could murder him. But this information would have been of no use at all because Al-Saud already had Lavoisier. This also proves beyond a doubt that she used the Bird as bait because Al-Saud would not have shown up to the meeting to exchange Lavoisier info. Furthermore, her behavior after visiting 221B Baker Street shows no evidence of following up with Holmes -- either she wanted the information about Lavoisier to lure Al-Saud somewhere or wanted it for financial reasons (as the Solution implies). But this calls into question the framing device for the whole story.
3) It became clear through our investigations that Ms. Engels was actively searching for the bird: searching Akram's house after he's already dead and at the morgue and, especially, asking the police if they've got the package. This suggests that she's just as serious about finding the bird as she is seeking revenge. Or, more likely, the bird is part of her larger scheme -- which includes, of course, consulting Holmes. We figured all along that her love for Akram was genuine (and the revenge plot central), so she needed the bird as a way to lure Al-Saud to the Boarding House. Why make the bird so central to Ms. Engel's movements (and everybody else's motivations) and then make it only peripheral to the solution?
4) We had a ton of trouble with the problem of necessary fore-knowledge, even the specter of it: we could never quite track what Wiggins was supposed to know about Akram's murder, nor was it clear to us whether or not Al-Saud was known (to Wiggins, Ms. Engels, etc.) to be the guilty party. We were also confused by the explanation Tony gives, and both of us thought that "Travis" was responsible for Akram's murder, not the Mummy murders (as the newspaper makes clear).
5) the case's chronology is really confusing (as you reminded us in a post above): after the meeting with Wiggins and Holmes, Ms. Engels visits half a dozen locations before heading back to the Bridge House Hotel in disguise. Presumably, at this point Al-Saud (when he is murdered) can't yet know about Lavoisier's escape -- or it hasn't happened yet. This is because Lavoisier's warehouse escape happens only moments before our "Ground Street Warehouse" Investigation, and as far as I know this investigation is impossible to undertake before you get the note with the location information from Al-Saud's pocket. As far as I can tell, this is Lavoisier's final action in the game (are there "later" clues in his timeline?) and so I have no idea when, in game-time, he would be able to pick up the Black Bird from Treyer.
NB: I don't know anything about the pouch of Roman coins. Is that supposed to imply that Moriarty paid for/was paid for the Bird? Why does Lavoisier throw the money at the dead Al-Saud warehouse guys?
I don't know how you'd score it, but perhaps the better way of concluding would be to narrativize our conclusions. The case should have just had fewer characters and combined a bunch of the stories into fewer investigations.
1) How and when did Treyer lose/relinquish the Black Bird after buying it from Akram at the Princess Louise? (DV7 elides this fact in his contemporaneous notes for his Tony investigation, and the Solution only says that "Girard has contacted Treyer requesting his help in getting the bird back") How does Levoisier end up with it? Presumably Treyer just gives it to him, but as far as I know this isn't evident in any of the possible investigations and a leap of logic not supported by any of the facts. See #5 below.
2) What did Ms. Engels write to Al-Saud to lure him to the Boarding House? The solution does not say, but I suspect it can only be in response to Al-Saud's newspaper advertisement ["Will Trade the FROG for the BIRD" -A.A.]. (NB: The syntax does not make clear which item he actually has and which he desires, and this gave us some trouble early on.) Ultimately, the advertisement is directed to someone who actually cares about Lavoisier -- which we are led to believe is Ms. Engels/Swellverly -- but can only be Treyer. Ms. Engels dresses up as Treyer then for two reasons: 1) ultimately to frame Treyer for the murder of Al-Saud // and, most importantly, 2) because (we figure) the only way she could have lured Al-Saud to the Boarding House is to pose as Treyer, the only man in England who would want to rescue Lavoisier and be in a position to possess the Black Bird. So the ambiguous Essential Question: "why was Al-Saud killed" can not fully encapsulate the complexity of the situation -- we knew it was revenge, obviously, but we thought the answer should be more complicated than that.
2b) Ms. Engel's motivation for consulting Holmes -- to sell information to Treyer about the location of Lavoisier -- is completely unbelievable. The only possible solution I can think of was that she planned to use this information to lure Al-Saud to a place where she could murder him. But this information would have been of no use at all because Al-Saud already had Lavoisier. This also proves beyond a doubt that she used the Bird as bait because Al-Saud would not have shown up to the meeting to exchange Lavoisier info. Furthermore, her behavior after visiting 221B Baker Street shows no evidence of following up with Holmes -- either she wanted the information about Lavoisier to lure Al-Saud somewhere or wanted it for financial reasons (as the Solution implies). But this calls into question the framing device for the whole story.
3) It became clear through our investigations that Ms. Engels was actively searching for the bird: searching Akram's house after he's already dead and at the morgue and, especially, asking the police if they've got the package. This suggests that she's just as serious about finding the bird as she is seeking revenge. Or, more likely, the bird is part of her larger scheme -- which includes, of course, consulting Holmes. We figured all along that her love for Akram was genuine (and the revenge plot central), so she needed the bird as a way to lure Al-Saud to the Boarding House. Why make the bird so central to Ms. Engel's movements (and everybody else's motivations) and then make it only peripheral to the solution?
4) We had a ton of trouble with the problem of necessary fore-knowledge, even the specter of it: we could never quite track what Wiggins was supposed to know about Akram's murder, nor was it clear to us whether or not Al-Saud was known (to Wiggins, Ms. Engels, etc.) to be the guilty party. We were also confused by the explanation Tony gives, and both of us thought that "Travis" was responsible for Akram's murder, not the Mummy murders (as the newspaper makes clear).
5) the case's chronology is really confusing (as you reminded us in a post above): after the meeting with Wiggins and Holmes, Ms. Engels visits half a dozen locations before heading back to the Bridge House Hotel in disguise. Presumably, at this point Al-Saud (when he is murdered) can't yet know about Lavoisier's escape -- or it hasn't happened yet. This is because Lavoisier's warehouse escape happens only moments before our "Ground Street Warehouse" Investigation, and as far as I know this investigation is impossible to undertake before you get the note with the location information from Al-Saud's pocket. As far as I can tell, this is Lavoisier's final action in the game (are there "later" clues in his timeline?) and so I have no idea when, in game-time, he would be able to pick up the Black Bird from Treyer.
NB: I don't know anything about the pouch of Roman coins. Is that supposed to imply that Moriarty paid for/was paid for the Bird? Why does Lavoisier throw the money at the dead Al-Saud warehouse guys?
I don't know how you'd score it, but perhaps the better way of concluding would be to narrativize our conclusions. The case should have just had fewer characters and combined a bunch of the stories into fewer investigations.
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
We caught this immediately, and knew like a paragraph in that she was an imposter. But if you read my way too long post above (sorry!) I explain why this answer is insufficient to explain Ms. Engels' behavior.
wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,182
- Reaction score
- 3,359
I'm probably one of the very few people you know that has read every single Holmes story. (and I have a phd in literature, lol)