Real-life lawyers and Crime Scene Investigators have complained that CBS' hit crime-drama franchise C.S.I. is causing jurors to put unrealistic expectations on them. Sweeping crime scenes and solving cases is never a tidy sixty-minute process, and evidence is rarely as convenient as it is on the show. Ubisoft's videogame translation from television to videogame pulls half its inspiration from the series and half from real-life experience. Unfortunately, they pull the worst from each.
For some realism, Ubisoft pulls the tedious nature of Crime Scene Investigation into the game, frequently forcing gamers to backtrack (or more accurately, run circles) from one location to the next repeatedly. Gamers will discover a piece or two of evidence at a scene, go to the interrogation room to ask a suspect about it for a minute or two, then have to run back to the same location for more evidence. Gamers will visit the same locations dozens of times in order to collect evidence or ask further questions. Real-life investigation is certainly time consuming, but the game drags out too many of the cases long after gamers will have correctly determined what happened on their own.
The game pulls its simplicity directly from the show. The game feels too much like a point-and-click adventure, with the word 'adventure' used lightly. Gamers enter a location and receive a giant arrow to scan the area. If the arrow turns from dull gray to a bright green, they can hit 'A' to zoom in for a closer look. Typically, there is evidence to collect at the zoom-in views, and the game makes sure you are aware by changing the arrow to an open tool case. Rather than let gamers make mistakes, by picking up unnecessary evidence or accidentally destroying evidence by mishandling it, the game only lets you do exactly what you should. The rigid camera system leaves no question as to where gamers should be looking, never allowing them to wander off the bloody path. Letting you get a little lost and look at unrelated items would have added some challenge, but cases take long enough to 'solve' as it is.
When looking in your tool case for the correct instrument to document the evidence, the game usually only gives a choice of one or two tools instead of allowing you to think for yourself by investigating what each item in your case does. After collecting the evidence, almost every item will need processing either at the lab or at the scene with the use of your tools. Again, the tools to select are extremely limited, and the game never allows you to 'use' the wrong tool. Even the lab leaves little question as to what to do next, as the computer stations you should be using light up with an exclamation point, tipping gamers off as to what to do next. Once you have investigated a piece of evidence as completely as possible, the game removes any doubt by placing a green checkmark in the upper right-hand corner of the item. The game's strict by-the-book approach leaves gamers with little to do other than follow along as the game pushes you through the crimes.
Questioning at the scene and in-station interrogations are handled so poorly that gamers are typically given the choice of one question or to stop asking questions altogether. For a game about detection and solving crimes, there is simply not enough thought involved. Select the game-provided question, listen to the response, and wait to see whether the game spoon-feeds you another question to ask. There is no 'wrong question' to ask, and the game never really lets you get too far ahead without asking the questions to the suspects. The massive amount of handholding makes for a mindless gaming experience. The result turns what is compelling viewing on television into bland, unimaginative gameplay. There is so little thought involved that your household pet could probably solve a case a day if you gave them a controller.
