Today we will look at a comparison of Agatha Christie’s book The ABC Murders with the game Agatha Christie – The ABC Murders .
Agatha Christie, her name is familiar to all lovers of detective stories, and the characters she created deservedly occupy various tops of the most popular detectives. It is not surprising that her detective stories often received theatrical or film adaptations. Naturally, the video game industry also did not ignore the works of the English writer.
In October 2016, the company Artefacts studio, up to this point responsible for the creation of such games as Garfield Kart, V-Rally 4 and MotoRacer 4, releases the quest Agatha Christie – The ABC Murders. The game is a point-and-click quest in which the player will take control of the Belgian detective Hercule Poire
Since this is a detective story, it is obvious that this article will contain the answer to the main question – who is the killer?? Therefore, if the riddle seems interesting, then I suggest you read the book yourself or play the game, and only then come back here.
The story begins with a mysterious letter. An unknown person challenges Poirot and tells him that something interesting will happen in Andover on the 21st. The detective has received similar letters before, but this time Poirot’s intuition tells him that things are bad. However, the detective cannot take any significant actions, which means he can only wait.
At this point, the game and the book do the same thing, namely show the story from the killer’s point of view. Moreover, this moment looks good in the game, since the scene lasts only a few seconds, the killer’s appearance gives us nothing, and the soundtrack complements the picture, creating the right mood. In the book, these moments spoil the story, because the author immediately reveals the name of the killer, which means it significantly destroys the intrigue.
The 21st arrives and the police inform Poirot that the owner of a tobacco shop, Mrs. Usher, has been found murdered in Andover. Of course, the detective cannot ignore this crime and, in the company of his assistant Captain Hastings, sets off.
Having examined the crime scene, the detective has no doubt that the murder is the work of the one who sent him the letter, since a railway directory opened to the letter “A” was found next to the body of the murdered woman. After interviewing witnesses, the detective comes to the conclusion that the murdered woman did not have any significant enemies, except for her alcoholic husband, who constantly threatened to beat her, but at the time of the crime he was getting drunk with friends in a tavern, so he has some kind of alibi. And the directory clearly hints that the murder was planned by someone smarter than the old drunk.
It is worth noting that in the book Poirot obtained all this information by talking with various witnesses, walking around the area, studying police documents and doing other routine things. In the game, the scene of the crime is compressed into one location, and all the important information is put into the mouths of a couple of witnesses. Of course, for the sake of gameplay, there are game conventions. For example, the key to Mrs. Asher’s apartment is stored in a hiding place, to open which you need to guess the password. But the developers were able to quite succinctly package all the important information for the investigation into short dialogues. Solving puzzles is also going well. As a rule, the safe that needs to be opened itself contains clues for the solution. Occasionally you need to walk around the location and compare some of the detective’s comments with the riddle. Oh yes, the game also gives out so-called ego points for all the successful actions of the detective, but these points do not affect anything and are not needed for anything. But they are always a reason to once again smooth out the famous mustache.
Speaking of investigation. At the moment, Poirot is forced to admit that he has no information about the killer. He is sure that there is definitely some important evidence in the case file, but he has not yet been able to understand its meaning. All we have to do is wait for the criminal’s next move.
Moreover, he doesn’t keep you waiting. Second letter arrives. This time the killer writes that he won the first round and the next murder will take place in Bexhill on the 25th, that is, in 2 days. The detective compares the victim’s name with the cities indicated by the killer and comes to the conclusion that perhaps the next victim’s last name begins with the letter "B".
The police are trying to take preventive measures, but they are unable to prevent the murder. This time it was young waitress Betty Barnard who was killed. Having arrived at our place, Poirot finds out that the girl was killed while walking along the beach. The killer strangled the victim with her own belt.
Witnesses claim that Betty, https://nonukcasinosites.co.uk/review/kaasino/ although she was a good girl, at the same time behaved rather frivolously. Despite having a fiancé, Donald Fraser, Bethia loved to hang out in the company of some random men, which caused attacks of jealousy in her boyfriend. By the way, during the last quarrel, the young man shouted that he would kill her, which makes him a clear suspect in the eyes of the police.
However, a railway directory was left next to the girl’s body, which means that the killer is not Donald Fraser after all. Here Poirot draws attention to an interesting circumstance – if the killer had not left obvious evidence, then innocent people could well have been imprisoned for his crimes. The detective wonders what lies behind such a conventionally magnanimous gesture.
Then the plots of the game and the book diverge slightly. In the game, the police notify the public about the existence of the Alphabet Killer, and in the book, the information will only be made public after the third murder. Speaking of which, the third letter arrives. This time the murder is to take place in Kerston. Don’t be confused by the fact that the city’s name begins with the letter “K”, since in English Kerston is spelled with a “C”. Considering that the victim will be called Clark, we can conclude that the Russian adaptation did a pretty good job.
By the way, there was a problem with the letter. The criminal writes that he will commit murder on the 30th, that is, today. The sender entered Poirot’s address incorrectly and the letter was delayed in the mail. Time is running out, the murder has already happened.
This time the victim was the famous doctor, Sir Carmichael Clarke. Killed while on his daily walk. Naturally, a directory was left nearby. Inspection of the crime scene and interviews with witnesses again do not provide any significant information. The book police, similar to the game police, appeal to the public, and Poirot reflects on what is happening. It seems to him that he is missing something important, some detail that could shed light on these crimes.
Moreover, the detective decides on a very strange move – he invites friends and relatives of the victims to create a team to catch the criminal. Poirot is sure that they have valuable information, they just don’t know it themselves yet. Responding to the detective’s call are: Mary Drower, Mrs. Usher’s niece, Megan Barnard, the sister of the murdered waitress Betty, Betty’s boyfriend Donald Fraser, Sir Clark’s secretary Miss Gray and Sir Clark’s brother Franklin.
They are ready to actively cooperate with the detective and again, in great detail, try to remember the events that took place during the days of the murder. By the way, you can even say that the plan worked, but the heroes will not know about it. The witnesses did mention one important detail in their testimony, which will later help the detective. For now, they just sketched out a small plan of action and went their separate ways. At the same meeting, Franklin conveyed to Poirot a request from the wife of the murdered Sir Clark. She’s dying of cancer, but would still like to talk to the detective.
So it’s time to go to Kerston again. There Poirot learns that Mrs. Clarke immediately after her husband’s death kicked out his secretary Miss Gray because she considered her a kept woman. Moreover, although Mrs. Clark is under the influence of a huge amount of medication, she remembers exactly that on the day of the murder a traveling salesman came to the house and tried to sell stockings. He seemed such an inconspicuous person that everyone immediately forgot about him.
Here the plot of the game again deviates from the book. After talking with Mrs. Clarke, Poirot gets the opportunity to freely explore the Clarke family mansion. Of course, the house is full of mysteries, solving which Poirot will take possession of interesting documents. True, someone tried to burn them, so the contents still have to be restored.
Upon arrival in London, Poirot again refreshes his testimony and Miss Gray remembers that on the day of the murder a man actually tried to sell her stockings. He seemed to her to be a very insecure gentleman of average appearance. So she can’t even really describe it. However, Poirot had already put all the pieces of the puzzle together and realized what he had missed. In the room of the murdered Mrs. Usher there was a pair of new stockings, the parents of the murdered Betty Barnard also bought stockings as a gift for their daughter, and a stocking seller also came to the house of the murdered Sir Clark. Obviously this was the killer. The only problem is that he looks like an ordinary man, which means finding him will still be very difficult. Moreover, according to the classic detective tradition, the police refuse to take Poirot seriously and the inspector says that he will not be distracted by the detective’s inventions. I would like to know why he is so important, given that the police literally have no other evidence at all, but I think Poirot can cope just fine without the power of the police.
Moreover, the fourth letter is already waiting for the detective on the threshold of his apartment. This time the killer says he will commit the crime in Doncaster. True, in the game a new murder is not destined to happen. Remember the burnt papers? So, the detective restores their contents. At this point, it becomes clear to the player what connects all those killed and who will be the next victim. It turns out that they tried to burn the medical records of Dr. Clark’s patients. Among them are Mrs. Usher, Betty Barnard, a certain Alexander Bonaparte Cust and Mr. Dick Donbar. Obviously, the last one on this list is the killer’s potential target. Poirot passes this information to the police and the inspector detains the criminal, he turns out to be the same Alexander Bonaparte Caste.
Arriving at the killer’s apartment, Poirot finds a stack of reference books, packages of stockings, letter paper, and a lot of other small evidence. By the way, in this place the developers cheated a little, which is why there is an inconsistency in the evidence. The fact is that Cast considers himself an employee of a company that produces stockings. It was from the company that he received letters with instructions to which city to go to. Cast’s version is refuted by the fact that the letters addressed to Poirot and the letters supposedly from the company were typed on the same typewriter, that is, written by Cast himself. Moreover, in the game, for some reason, a mini-game about comparing the text of letters with each other is repeated three times. Poirot compares the first letter with the second, the second with the third and the third with the fourth. Obviously the A, I and W keys are defective. But on the letter from the company, all the letters look normal, that is, it was printed on a different typewriter. But Poirot’s line from the book remained in the game, so the detective says that Cast himself typed the letters on his typewriter. At the same time, Poirot refers precisely to the fact that the letters from the killer and from the company were typed on the same typewriter. I suspect that the developers forgot to modify the text of the last letter.
But let’s get back to the book. Poirot, along with a newly minted team of assistants, travels to Doncaster and organizes patrols of the town. However, all efforts turn out to be useless and soon he is informed that a body has been found in the cinema. George Earsfield turns out to be murdered; a railway directory is found next to his body.
It turns out the killer was mistaken, because the victim’s last name does not begin with the letter D. It quickly turns out that a man named Downes was sitting in the same row, but since there were empty seats in the cinema, he moved. The interrogation of the remaining witnesses yields little; many remember that shortly before the end of the film several visitors left the hall, but they cannot describe their appearance.
What happens next is the most controversial moment of the book. The fact is that in the chapters from Caste’s perspective we are shown how he accidentally makes minor mistakes. For example, he told the landlady that he was going to Cheltenham, and the boyfriend of the landlady’s daughter saw him on the train to Kerston. A series of such coincidences gives rise to doubts in the young man, which eventually lead him to the police. This time the inspector is interested in this story and is going to arrest Caste. True, he has already gone on the run. The fact is that the landlady’s daughter warned him about the arrival of the police. You want to ask why a girl helped an allegedly brutal killer escape?? Actually me too. In the book, this moment is explained by the fact that she was simply a compassionate girl. Moreover, this action will not have any consequences, and Kast himself will come to surrender to the police literally a couple of days after the escape.
The game and book plots converge again during the interrogation of Cast. Poirot is still tormented by doubts about whether Caste is really a murderer? A couple of questions only strengthens the detective’s opinion that Cast is not guilty. On the one hand, his biography contributes well to the image of a maniac – the absence of a father, an overbearing mother, difficulties in social interaction, a head wound, due to which Cast suffers from epileptic ancestors and memory loss. On the other hand, he doesn’t really know who Poirot is and denies that he wrote letters to the detective. Moreover, due to memory problems, Kast thinks that he could have killed these people, but does not know why he did it.
However, the brilliant detective has already put all the parts of the story together. It’s obvious that Cast didn’t kill anyone, which means it’s time to find the real killer. Poirot once again gathers a team of friends and relatives of the victim to put an end to this case.
When everyone is gathered. Poirot states that all the evidence was right under his nose, he just couldn’t immediately interpret it correctly. The detective suggests looking at the contradictions. Let’s start with the first letter, why it was addressed to Poirot? After all, if a criminal wanted fame, then it would be more logical to send letters to the police or newspapers, rather than to a private person. Then the murder of Betty Barnard, at that moment Poirot became convinced that the criminal was a man. He was able to seduce a young girl because she went to the beach alone with him, and even allowed him to take off her belt. Moreover, in the remaining three murders, the criminal did not interact with the victim, but simply struck and disappeared. So murder B is different from A, C, D. But still, a directory was left near Betty’s body, which was then known only to the killer and the police, that is, the criminal deliberately made it clear that this murder was definitely connected with the previous one. Having re-read the letters again, Poirot believes that they were written by a completely normal person who is only trying to portray a madman. In this case, it turns out that the killer is guided by ordinary personal motives. Moreover, only one murder was aimed at achieving the goal, and all the rest were committed as a distraction. Finally, the classic phrase comes from the mouth of the detective – the killer is here, in this room.
So let’s go through all the candidates. The first victim was Mrs. Usher, the likely suspect husband, but it is unlikely that an old alcoholic could come up with such a complex and convoluted plan. Second victim – Betty Barnard. The suspect is her boyfriend, Donald Frazier. However, the young man would rather kill her out of jealousy, and a crime of passion does not count well with cold-blooded planning. Sir Carmichael Clarke was the third to be killed. Here Poirot announces that it is Sir Clark’s brother, Sir Franklin, who is the murderer.
Mr. Franklin at first, of course, denies it, but quickly gives in to the detective’s peremptory arguments. First, Poirot says that Caste could not have planned and carried out all the murders, since he has neither intelligence, nor a strong character, nor a seductive appearance. The detective further points out that Sir Clark was a rich man, but he had no children. This means that after his death his wife will inherit everything, but she dies of cancer, and Sir Franklin will become the next owner of money and real estate. In addition, the third letter was not lost in the mail by mistake. It was for this trick that the killer chose Poirot. If Franklin had sent the letter to the newspapers or the police, it would not have been lost, but he needed to gain time, because in case of a warning from the police, his brother would not have gone for a walk.
“The organization itself was great. On behalf of Caste, you ordered a large batch of hosiery in writing. At the same time, you arranged for him to be sent a pack of alphabetical railway reference books, packaged in a similar way. You sent him a typewritten letter in which, on behalf of a large company, you offered him a decent salary and good commissions. You thought through everything so well that you typed all the necessary letters on a typewriter in advance, which you then handed over to the unfortunate man.”.
Agatha Christie
Of course, after the third murder it was necessary to commit the fourth. Here the game looks a little strange, because Poirot himself found evidence to arrest Cast and it is not clear what would happen next. It would be interesting to know if the playable Franklin planned to continue committing murders. In the book, Franklin deliberately makes mistakes and leaves evidence that allows the investigation to lead to Caste. This plan also works doubtfully, because we remember that Caste was eventually identified by a random guy, but in the book, after the fourth murder, the police at least begin to get closer to Caste precisely because of Franklin’s intentional “mistakes.”.
Moreover, the game’s ending was also changed. Simultaneously giving the player choice but making it a little ridiculous. The fact is that in the book Poirot foresaw Franklin’s actions, and therefore secretly unloaded his revolver. Therefore, when Franklin admits defeat and tries to shoot himself, the weapon does not work and the killer is arrested. In the game, Poirot gives the revolver to Hastings with the words that his help may be needed. The player is free to load the weapon with live or blank cartridges. The dubiousness of the scene lies in the fact that the exposed Franklin snatches a revolver from Hastings’ pocket and shoots himself in the forehead. And how did he even know that the captain had a gun in his pocket??
Okay, this is how the stories turned out. The guys from Artefacts studio did a good job adapting the detective story. They managed to fit the narrative into the game design with virtually no loss of essential information needed to solve the murder. Even stockings are mentioned in passing when discussing each murder, and the most attentive player may turn out to be even smarter than the Belgian detective. But the developers got tricky with the ending. Key evidence in the form of burned documents destroys the intrigue even before Caste’s capture, as it becomes clear that all the victims are connected to the Clark estate. The book is also not without its rough edges. One can argue about where Franklin got such perfect stealth skills, because in a movie theater he managed to quietly kill a man with a knife, wait for Cast to leave the theater and plant the bloody knife in his pocket. But I don’t really want to do this. The story manages to lead the reader by the nose until the very scene with the announcement that the killer is one of those present. For me personally, this is the indicator of a pretty good detective.