Law & Order: Dead on the Money Review

|Tap-Repeatedly|FFC Archives1

Law & Order: Dead on the Money

Review by Old RoosterOctober 2002

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups—the police who investigate crimes, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

Twenty-nine times per week, in the U.S., this calm, dulcet-toned introduction can be heard at the outset of Law & Order episodes—from the current season’s weekly offering on Wednesday evening to reruns of the last eleven seasons scattered throughout the week on multiple channels at different times of day. I must confess to watching at least two or three shows per week—one of the joys of being retired.

For those of you not familiar with the series and its approach to crime dramatization, here is a very brief synopsis. Roughly the first half of the hourlong show is spent with the criminal act being discovered, evidence collection and witness interviewing by two detectives supported by their sergeant, and, finally, the arrest of the prime suspect. The second half of the show consists of the trial of that suspect, again by a team of two, this time supported by a sometimes difficult senior district attorney. Occasionally, there are complications (like the wrong suspect!), and sometimes members of the two teams (investigators, prosecutors) will get together.  Over the twelve years, cast faces have changed, but the writing has remained consistently gripping, entertaining, often quite timely.  In terms of style, Law & Order often reminds me of the original Dragnet series (“just the facts, ma’am,” from Sergeant Joe Friday).

Rooster, We Are Talking About a Game Here, Aren’t We?

Yes, we are; and it’s a wonderful game! Not only has Dead on the Money been modeled almost precisely on the format of the T.V. show, but also one of the show’s writers has helped with the script, and three of the primary actors are present as your companions—in terms of physical, dialogue and voice representations! It’s even very timely in its subject matter.

Throughout this review, I’ll be careful not to give too much away in terms of spoilers. I think it’s initially safe to give a first description of the crime, as shared by the developer: “Hotshot investment broker Jenny Russ was found strangled in Central Park and you must find her murderer. Was the killer an unhappy client, a former lover, or a complete stranger? Step into the world of Law & Order to apprehend and convict Jenny’s murderer.”

“Lemme Give You a Few Tips Before You Go out on this One” —Lennie

You’ll be hearing tips and sarcasm from your partner, Lennie (as voiced by Jerry Orbach). Let’s take his advice this time and look at an overview of the game design. After a smooth 700 MB install, DOTM gives an option of tutorials, which are recommended even for the experienced adventurer. These carefully guide you through elements of both detecting and prosecuting. For example, as a detective, with Lennie beside you, you’ll be:

  • Examining and collecting evidence, often adding it to your case file;
  • Deciding to request lab tests or research reports with some evidence;
  • Sometimes having to solve a puzzle or type a password before getting to the evidence;
  • Interviewing witnesses and suspects, sometimes multiple times, adding results to your case file;
  • Deciding to request a research report, surveillance, and/or psychiatric evaluation;
  • Requesting search and, when your act finally comes together, arrest warrants.

If and when you are successful with the arrest, and Van Buren approves, you’ll be joined by Assistant District Attorney Serena Southerlyn (as voiced by the show’s star). Here, in the second half prosecution phase, you’ll engage in such tasks as:

  • Conducting research on relevant legal issues;
  • Engaging in further investigation of areas explored in the first half of the game;
  • Presenting, at trial, witnesses and evidence that support your case;
  • Cross-examining defense witnesses;
  • Dealing with questions, objections and the general ebb and flow of the trial; and
  • Ultimately, after your closing argument, convincing the jury that you’re right!

Prior to beginning each phase (detecting and prosecuting) of the game, you’re given a choice of “skills,” or helping strengths.  You may select zero, one or two, and these stick with you throughout each half. To modify them, you’d have to restart, something you really don’t want to do! The skills or strengths include:

  • Interview—helps reduce unhelpful or irrelevant questions during interviews;
  • Evidence collection—cursor presents a magnifying glass over viewable items;
  • Teamwork—your supervisor gives hints via cell phone, precinct chalkboard, and D.A. office fax machine;
  • Efficiency—actions cost less game time.

“That’s about It; We’d Better Get Going; Seems There’s Never Enough Time” —Lennie

Ah … the infamous “clock,” about which you may have heard. In brief, as Lennie might say: “don’t sweat it.”  As a detective, you have seven eight-hour days to make an arrest and as an ADA two eight-hour days for investigation. However, the “clock” doesn’t literally tick away. Rather, actions taken (evidence collection, interviewing, etc.) chip away, typically in 15-minute segments, at the time allowed. Just exploring, even looking at things, or sitting idle costs nothing. It’s when you take an action, add an item to inventory, that the clock ticks. It can be a problem if you get carried away with all of the stuff collectible at the crime scene, much of which is irrelevant to the case, in that this can give a bad, irrecoverable start to the game. However, the developer, who is supporting the game very nicely, has offered this patch, which effectively makes the clock a nonissue if you select the “efficiency” skill.

I did restart the game several times in order to fiddle with the various skills and see what was different when a particular one or ones were chosen. They’re interesting. For example, with the “teamwork” skill, you may have a call from the sergeant that you otherwise wouldn’t have had, saying: “It’s Van Buren; you may have overlooked something at the crime scene; maybe you two should take another look,” or Lennie saying: “Looks like we’re missing something here.” With the “interview” skill, you’ll not be encouraged to make such comments (which cost “time”) as: “Nice place; you own this?” I finally selected the “efficiency” (couldn’t resist that patch) and “evidence collection” skills. With the patch, you can really meander, take your time, pick up a lot of stuff and talk with a lot of folks.

“Who Hasn’t Got a Motive?” —Lennie

Dead on the Money runs full-screen at 640×480 resolution, and it looks great. I installed the QuickTime provided on the CD (of which there are three) and had not a single crash, glitch or other problem with the game during the entire enjoyable experience.

You play in the first person, with a full 360-degree viewpoint; mouse is used for movement. A hot cursor depicts conversations and evidence available. A small navigation bar at the bottom of the screen is activated with the space bar. Icons are present for the map, case file, cell phone and main menu. The “dreaded” game clock is also shown with time left. The main menu allows up to 15 saves, which can be activated anywhere in the game and overwritten if needed. I only used nine.

The map allows for travel between places in the game, with the number of sites increasing as your case builds. “Travel times” are a bit slow in loading, but not seriously so.

The case file is beautifully done. Up to 52 items can be stored in the inventory. One or more of the items can then be dragged and dropped into sections of the case file—lab test, surveillance, psychiatric evaluation or research requests. Search and arrest warrants, as well as subpoena sections, are also present.

Not only is the overall graphical presentation of DOTM very satisfying, but there is special pleasure in the faces and expressions of your associates, witnesses and suspects. Lennie, Van Buren and Southerlyn look like their T.V. counterparts. Lennie will raise an eyebrow at an appropriate time. Indeed, he’ll occasionally look over to you while you’re questioning a suspect with clear facial expressions suggesting such thoughts as: “Hey, that’s a lie, we got him/her;” or “Yeah, right, who does he/she think they’re kidding!” In that regard, while questioning, the responder will sometimes look to you, then to Lennie, much as you might expect in a real team situation. Your questions are unvoiced (script only), while responses and Lennie’s questions are voiced (no text, unfortunately).

As you might guess, the script and voice acting are outstanding.  One of the joys of the T.V. show is the small segment cameos (see Dragnet, again), with varying actors. In the game, not only are the primary leads exemplary, but also the secondary characters are different, varied and consistently interesting. The musical themes and transition notes from the T.V. show are fitting to the situations, blending nicely.

Lennie’s Life Observations

Lennie is a cynical New York City cop. He’s seen it all and isn’t very cheered by his observations of life. Along the way in the game, he’ll make such comments to you as:

  • “Hmm, this job ever make you feel like a scavenger?”  (while evidence collecting);
  • “Some mornings it pays to stay in bed” (after viewing the early morning jogger victim);
  • “My ex said you should never mix your money issues with your marriage problems—too bad she didn’t remember that at our divorce hearing;”
  • “Everybody wants to join the party, until they wake up the next morning with a hangover;”
  • “It’s our job to bother people;”
  • “Seems like you need a password to use the john these days;” and my personal favorite:
  • “I guess women are as temperamental as the stock market!”

And the Murderer Is …

If you proceed carefully, methodically and with a decent degree of intuition and intelligence, you should come to the point where you can request an arrest warrant from the D.A. If you’ve fallen short somehow, he’ll make such a comment as: “You need to work shrewder, not just longer; as far as I can tell, you don’t have a case yet.” Once you have your act completely together, your reward for Part One is the statement: “Alright, tell — we’ve got a reservation for her/him at Rikers.” And, of course, the closure/reward for part two—the trial—is conviction, or is it?

Law & Order: Dead on the Money is one of the finest police procedural or detective adventure games ever created. Being a fan of the series may give a positive bias toward the game but, just as clearly, being a fan of the series would lead me to be very critical if the game did not fairly represent the quality of the show. Frankly, I wasn’t expecting this fine an effort, cynically worried that the game might just be a quickie spin-off from the T.V. series. How wrong I was; how pleased I became; and how happy you’ll be with this game. There are virtually no nits I can pick, especially with the “clock” patch now available. The writing is superb, with suspense, misdirection, humor, careful mystery plotting.  The acting is outstanding, not only with the main characters who clearly enjoyed themselves and gave their all, but also with the bit players. Game construction in terms of how it’s played and how you progress is clear, efficient, logical. Graphics, particularly facial expressions, are well above average.

I am pleased to award Dead on the Money a Gold Star. It’s the most enjoyable gaming experience of any type I’ve had in the last couple of months and, whether a fan of the T.V. show or not, the game is highly recommended. One truly hopes this is the first of a series. Congratulations to all involved!

Rooster’s Hints and Tips

  • Get the patch, located here. 
  • Select “Efficiency” (patch related) and “evidence collection” as your two skills.
  • Save just before interviews in part one and just before witnesses take the stand in part two.
  • Don’t pick up every little thing, especially at the crime scene, and be careful what you kick out of your inventory—it’s irretrievable once you exit, whereas you can go back if you haven’t yet acquired it.
  • Len Green has a wonderful walkthrough here, but don’t use it unless really stuck—as in, “I know I’ve got my gal/guy; why won’t they let me arrest him/her?”  (cf. supporting evidence and witnesses with the arrest warrant). The End

The Verdict

The Lowdown

Developer: Legacy Interactive Publisher: Legacy Interactive Release Date: October 2002

Available for: Windows

Four Fat Chicks Links

Player Feedback

Screenshots

Click to enlarge Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlarge

System Requirements

PII 400 12X CD-ROM drive 8 MB video card 700 MB free hard drive space

Where to Find It

Links provided for informational purposes only.  FFC makes no warranty with regard to any transaction entered into by any party(ies).

      Copyright © Electric Eye Productions.  All rights reserved.  No reproduction in whole or in part without express written permission.

Pages

Top

Category Archives

Top

Blog Posts

Top

16 Responses to Screw the Internet

  • Matt "Steerpike" Sakey

    God damn, Scout, I’d never heard of this Lanier fellow, but that’s pretty profound.

    Information is not a manufacturable item… as you said, we are making less and less. This is either indicative of a larger-scale societal transformation, or a bad thing. I’m afraid I’m inclined to assumed the latter.

    Thanks!

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    Steerpike, that was exactly the argument Lanier was having with callers on the BBC. Lanier was all fatalistic about society’s drop in real productivity while his opponents claimed that this was a huge transformation and that he was just too old to grasp the coolness of it all. If you notice, the web address of that first Lanier link is well.com. I mean, that is old! The Well?

    Lanier’s thoughts were pretty much echoed by David Simon, one of the creators of The Wire. Here he speaks with Bill Moyers about the fate of paid journalism in the face of the web.

  • Spike

    I’ve read many criticisms of Facebook et. al.  I’ve also read contradictions of those criticisms, namely, that social sites are making people more connected than ever.  I think that that connectedness is an illusion.

    For several months at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 my daughter badgered me to join FB.  I could connect with her and some of her friends that I know as well as renew old acquaintances with some of her friend’s mothers.  I finally signed up so she’d quit the badgering. I used to check in every day to see what daughter and friends were saying because if I didn’t she’d ask if I saw her post, or a friend’s post. 

    What I’ve learned is this:

    1.  “Karen Likes John’s photo (or post)” IS NOT communication.

    2.  The reason I lost contact with some of these “friends” in the first place is that we no longer had anything in common.

    3.  I am bombarded with so many ads in so many places that I can do without more.  My policy is to never click on ads on FB or on many other sites. 

    4.  While FB’s original mission was connectedness/communication, I think it has become “Let’s make as much money from these fools as we can.”  “Wanna have gobs of fun playing a free game on FB?”  That game is gonna cost ya big, folks. 

    5.  Social sites are just more places where your personal info can be stolen.  There’s enough risk out there as it is.  Additional risk is not providing any valuable payoff for me.

    6.  Why do I want to “friend” a certain handbag manufacturer?  Why do I want to take a quiz that tells me what my personality is?  FB content providers tell you up front that if you click the link to take their quiz (goes for other types of content as well) you are giving them permission to access your profile info.  That’s ok.  I’ll also give you my SSN, bank account number and the key to my front door.  Not.

    7.  Don’t even get me started on the number of people who start an account in a pet’s name, and even have the pets making friends and posting.

    “…he was just too old to grasp the coolness of it all.”

    No, it’s just that most of us get to the age when we demand a bit of wheat with our chaff.

    At 38 my daughter is older than the average demographic of social sites although I know that that demographic is skewing up.  She seems to be cooling on FB.  Some of her 221 friends are as well.  Many of them do want some wheat.  When more cooling has taken place I will unjoin.

    I wonder, though, what new fad will come along when FB, Twitter and others run their course?  MySpace, anyone?

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    My favorite line from the BBC interview was when Lanier was comparing MySpace and Facebook. He admitted that MySpace had some eye gougingly bad pages but said that he liked the “strangeness” of personalities that you get with it. With Facebook, he claimed that it was like looking at a tax form. A boring, watered down, bland presentation of people.

    I joined Facebook almost exactly a year ago. Apart from sparking up a new friendship with a very dear buddy, I’ve gotten about zero back from it. I sort of read with bemusement the activities of people I hardly know and could care less about. And when you consider how much information the devs harvest there…it’s scary. Lanier claims that the information is so far worthless to the investors and that the whole thing has become a sort useless ritual serving no purpose. He claimed that Google’s ads on the other hand will probably turn out to be the greatest advertising model ever created. He also thinks Google should stop before it’s too late but says they probably won’t. Just a glance at the side bar reveals about 4 ads for advertising agencies. Heh.

  • lokimotive

    Has anybody read Anti-Oedipus? I’m slogging my way through it (the third attempt I believe), and Deleuze and Gauttari’s ideas seem relevant to this in a way that I’m not sure I can articulate. This probably has something to do with a conversation I was eavesdropping on that, coincidentally, mentioned a lot of Deleuze and Gauttari’s theories. Someone was talking about another theorist (whose name I didn’t catch) who was defending “Generation Y” essentially. The argument went that Generation Y is an example of a “de-Oedipalized” cultural group (that’s Anti-Oedipus jargon, just stay with me). Apparently this meant that they made connections in a different manner than other generations, the idea of bricollage was brought up and things were generally mired in a lot of reasons why I don’t have my Masters in English. What I got from it was this Generation Y shoots out connections everywhere and attempts to make up a whole idea with them as opposed to relying on predefined pathways. In Deleuze and Guattari’s language: the schizo as opposed to Oedipus. In language that probably makes sense: Peer to Peer as opposed to client-server.

    So, of course, no one’s really right. I’m skeptical of the idea that Generation Y (full disclosure: I’m 29 so I’m part of that group) has enacted some sort of paradigm shift in how to operate in social systems, but facebook has changed how I connect with people. Then again, it’s not like I don’t value face to face communication.

    The future is somewhere in between. I’m really not cynical enough to believe that we are at the end times of civilized society because of Web 2.0. Instead society will change and stay the same because that’s what it does. Facebook is not the future; it’s probably a rung up the ladder though.

  • kaythomas

    To me, Facebook and Twitter are 0’s. They are not worth my time.  I do not care what someone I know or don’t know did a half hour ago or will do next.  I have met up with people on facebook I had lost contact with.  But, in truth, the reason I had lost contact was I was not that interested in staying in contact.

    I think for many people the Facebook/Twitter world is great.  For me it has nothing to offer. 
    kay

  • Matt "Steerpike" Sakey

    Tap has an automated device that twits… tweets… whatever whenever someone posts a new article. Just in case it draws some visitors.

    To be honest, though, I’m on Kay’s side of the fence, I don’t understand Twitter and I don’t understand why it’s so popular. I barely care what I’m doing from moment to moment, why should anyone else?

    I don’t get Facebook either, though I’m a member to keep track of all the girls who wouldn’t give me the time of day in high school.

  • Lewis B

    Tweets are great for giving me snippets of news.  If I like what I’ve read in the short paragraph tweets give, then I will visit the main page for that tweet. (Very good for following world news, favourite columnists, etc.)

    However, reading tweets from people such as “Just woke up, Madonna is giving me a massage while I shave my nuts” is not my idea of a good read.

  • Toger

    I use tweets the same way Lewis does. Of the people/things I follow, if the tweet is interesting I’ll follow the link to read the entire article. I follow fairly intelligent people, so I’m not subjected to the idiocy of “Just brushed my teeth while sitting on toilet”.

  • Gregg B

    @loki: I’m afraid I’ve not heard of them. I’m a couple of years below you so that puts me in the same Generation Y as well. I read through a few of those links Scout posted as well as a few more on Lanier’s new book “You Are Not a Gadget” and it took me a fair while to get to the crux of what he is saying and he has a lot to say, most of which I find very confusing.

    As a graphic designer the whole “everything is becoming advertising” thing has been bothering me for years. The incessant barrage of advertising is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my soul, which sort of makes me a hypocrite. After all the years of tuning my art and design skillz my creative abilities have amounted to nothing more than crafting pretty ads that sell things. Non of it speaks any truth or has any sort of ‘beauty’; it’s just stone cold mechanical capitalism. Granted there are ads out there that are beautiful, clever and visionary but the front line stuff is as dull as it gets. I’m sure this isn’t strictly what he’s getting at but it’s definitely something that irks me in relation to Scout’s last remark.

    Anyway, I remember Twitter just exploding in what seemed like the space of a week and I still can’t fathom the allure of it aside from providing a direct stream of consciousness from famous folk to their ravenous fans. I wish I’d thought of it to be honest. I can see the creators sitting around a table staring at Facebook and then saying “I know! We make a website that’s just about status updates! You can even update them with your mobile phone!”.

    With regards to Twitter news snippets, unless it’s for a phone, I don’t see the point because RSS feeds do a great job. At present too great; I simply can’t keep up with my subscriptions. There’s too much information on this super highway.

  • Jen

    Twitter is officially the dumbest thing ever.

    That said, it looks like I will have to be the official “tweeter” for my day job before too long. I can’t wait! (roll eyes)

  • xtal

    I’m with everyone else here. I’m glad to say I’ve never signed up for Facebook; I fear that if I ever had I would have long ago died from loss of brain cells due to reading moronic status updates. It’s as Kay said: ninety-five per cent of people with whom you lose contact are probably no longer in your life because you have nothing left in common. And echoing Steerpike’s comment, me eating toast and jam on a Sunday morning watching Fawlty Towers is not interesting, not to me. Why the hell would anyone else give a shit?

    Twitter I signed up for about a year ago, not really understanding what it was. I now understand it…but don’t care to use it often. I have made 58 tweets over that year. I suspect for some that is a daily or weekly average. It’s just Facebook status updates without all the drunken photographs. I admit it can be mildly useful for following, say, a news site. Usually when I hop on my twitter (once every two weeks??) it reminds me that I should read The Onion more often. That’s about it.

    Let’s see… looking at the actual humans I follow, um… Wil Wheaton is happy that the LA Kings have won 9 games in a row, my sister-in-law thought our dinner tonight was “delicious,” and Kevin Smith’s batteries are recharged … or something.

    Wow, my life is already getting better!

    p.s.  <—– Gen Y'er (can we call ourselves that?) and proud that when I Google my own name a real estate company pops up.

  • Fraser

    Twitter is exactly as useless as the person who’s writing it. If someone is telling you boring shit over Twitter, it’s the person wasting your time, not the delivery channel.

    MySpace is the same, but it seems more intrinsically garbage because for some reason almost everyone who used it was an intellectual embryo with a fetish for unreadable hyperneon text on top of garish uninteresting photos. Facebook’s great trick is that it prevents you from realising that most of your friends would make a brutally hideous homepage for themselves if they could.

    That’s the argument against the whole of this post: the internet isn’t evil, but the people who use it might be. It’s people who make business models successful; people who make money flow to advertisers instead of artists, by buying into the advertising.

    This has been a pretty didactic post, so let me compensate by saying VIDEOGAMES WOOOOOOO!!!

  • Gregg B

    Good point about not blaming the delivery channel Fraser. I seem to recall Lanier saying that he preferred the personality that MySpace has over Facebook despite its Craptastic Pages of Illegibility. I’m trying to think of something intelligent to follow that up with but my brain is failing me at the moment, so…

    VIDEOGAMES WOOOOOO!!!

  • Jason Venter

    Fraser, I really loved your following comment:

    “Facebook’s great trick is that it prevents you from realising that most of your friends would make a brutally hideous homepage for themselves if they could.”

    I think that may just be one of the most hilariously true comments I’ve read in a comments area on any video game web site ever.  That sounds overly dramatic, I know, but I actually mean it.  Kudos to you!

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    Yeah but don’t you miss all the ugliness of MySpace? All those hideous pages at least had personality or what Lanier called the “strangeness of the person” to them.

    I actually don’t agree with a lot of what Lanier says esp “the hive mind must die” stuff. But I do think he is right about the spirit shriveling blandness of Facebook.

    I also suspect that Twitter is going to be around for a while. It will be more and more influential. People are simply not as willing to ingest huge amounts of information in the form of pages of text anymore. The delivery systems that succeed will be those that can communicate a lot of information in a short amount of time. Most days we want “glimpses” or “snapshots” not total immersion. Lewis, Toger and Fraser are correct in that you get out of it what you decide to follow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.