Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

plissken

DFA Backers
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About plissken

  • Rank
    Super Action Beard

Converted

  • Location
    Tromsø, Norway. That's really far up north.
  • Occupation
    Student and part-time worker at a gas station
  1. Yeah, I think they need to have a short and simple info about the project plan, what they've implemented and what they're thinking of implementing next. Especially on the steam store and steam forum. People are easily confused, so there's a need to communicate in a very apparent manner to them.
  2. plissken

    YES!.

    Agreed. This, The Black Lake and Autonomous were great concepts. Liked the shift into isometric view. Going to buy it once I get my paycheck. Hope I'll survive the wait.
  3. I'm getting a PS4. I've always been satisfied with my Playstation consoles and their library, their position with the PS4 fit with my consumer ideals, as well as the philosophy of the console aligning with my own. People usually say that the games are the most important thing, but there will always be attractive exclusives on each console. To me it's a mix of the hardware and the games and the philosophy behind them that makes me choose a console. With me having bought far too many consoles last generation, I'm instead gonna focus on PS4+PSVITA+PC this generation and try to avoid building up a big backlog by buying so many "must buys" like I did this generation, while also trying to play broader genres like I did during the PS1 era. I've also pre-ordered the camera, which I'm grateful that Sony made optional instead of forcing it on me. Good that my move controllers will still be compatible, and I prefer controller-based motion technologi like Wii and Move over Kinect.
  4. That's because budget is dependent on the scope. The game at <$400,000 and the game at $2,000,000 have completly different scopes. We're talking about everything from length, to quality of the art and enviornment, music, as well as the content of the documentary. They're not the same game beefed upwith a lot of money. Heck, the concept of the game wasn't even set in stone, since the whole idea was getting to look at all sides of game development. You can't just budget all of that up-front and not expect to have to adjust to the unpredictability of a creative process. t We're just not used to see this part of the process, since we as consumers usually are kept in dark during the pre-production time and most of the development time. Usually it'd be a matter of trying to ask their investors for more money for the increased scope, and if they don't get it, try to cut off everything non-essential to making it a game, but which also ends with a lot of content getting cut, as well as less work on the quality and variation of the game. However, DF seeing their relationship with us backers as something more personal than the relationship with investors care about the value we get as backers rather than the return of the project. Them releasing half the game early is so they don't have to invest more in the project of their own money than they've already done, getting the rest of the game funded by its own revenues. At this point I believe the result will be Double Fine funding 50% of the budget of the game themselves. That's how much they care about us and our experience with their game, of their own craftmanship, that they've basically said "we don't want to throw away all these cool ideas we have that could make the game even better, but we don't want to trouble our backers, oh well, *opens a wallet with money that they've made off of sales of their own games, as well as an "advance" on their revenue from selling the game* water and bread for the next half year". So it's not a management issue in the company, it's an everpresent issue of management/projections that exists in unpredictable creative processes. Heck, it's typical in research as well, especially in qualitative research where you never really can predict your data and constantly have to re-evaluate the project's scope. Like a sosialantropologist struggling finding a role within a tribe that will allow him to access more information and understand their culture. It's always a matter of either investing more or limiting the scope of the project. We as backers care far more of the scope than returns since we don't see any returns on the project, other than what increased scope and quality gives us.
  5. It wasn't an argument against "fewer verbs", but against what is basically "no verbs" and removal of "look". Also, I don't think any good writing fixes those things, it simply tries to compensate the other way. I'm not playing adventure games for a fun, interesting story that could just as well be represented through a cartoon. I'm playing them for the package, for the puzzles/challenge, for the story, for its humor, for the exploration, for the interaction, for the world and its characters. The oversimplification of actions usually ends up just ends with overcompensating with tons of dialogue and objects. That's just shifting the balance and I don't think that's a good thing. I'm glad we got rid of a lot of verbs, because there were far too many of them, but losing the importance of actions isn't the right way to go either. In general I'd be more inclined to have context-specific actions, which is why verb coins are great, since you could have context-specific options for actions. It leads to better context for writing funny situations, like if you have a pair of old boots and get the action choices: "Try on" ("Fits like a.. boot."), "Eat" ("My doctor says I need to cut down on my rubber. Oh, wait, that came out wrong.") , "Inspect" ("It's a pair of old, smelly boots. It smells like gasoline." Wow, a hint?) , "Combine/Use with". I don't see Grim Fandango as some high-point either, it brought both good and bad with it. And Full Throttle had a great system for actions centered around body parts.
  6. I do like looking at stuff. That's basically the only reason why I prefer a verb coin to a one-verb interface. But I don't think it's essential, just nice to have - after all, if they don't have to write and record a bunch of 'look at' lines for stuff, they can use those resources to improve the writing in other areas Except there's a risk of losing vital parts of the genre appeal. Just because something might not seem like an essential part of something, doesn't mean that it isn't an essential part of a good experience. That's always a risk you run when simplifying things. Simplifying interaction can mean more interactable objects in the world and in the inventory, and more fluff text for each of these, but then again, is that why we play these games? To have a large numbers of things to test interaction against and chuckle at the responses? No sense of the protagonist's view on all these interactables? To me, the protagonist's opinion on everything has been a thing to solidify him/her as a character in the world, along with dialogue. I also find that by simplifying verbs too much you aren't allowing the player to completly understand the solution either, but rather have a vague notion of what might be done. Also, by simplifying things on the verb end you are just shifting the weight on the object end, so it essentially becomes interacting with the right object on the right object and not the right action for the right object, or the right action for the right object on the right object. Since adventure games aren't so varied in the interactive portions of the games (dialogue, action on object) I think caution should be used when trying to simplify it. So I hope Broken Age doesn't lose the genre appeal because of trimming the fat too much, since the fat is important to the flavour.
  7. Jesse Cox (http://www.jessecox.com/index.html) for miscellaneous parts in the game. He's just such a fun guy that I think it would be awesome for him to voice someone in the game.
  8. Hoping it will be "use" and "look at" and not simply a context sensitive use/look, because while there's an argument for streamlining the verbs into the more practical "use", "look at" is still a very essential verb that doesn't fall into the category of "use" and which allows you to get further information about an object. Machinarium didn't have speech, so it didn't really have a use for it, but I still missed it in the game. Hoping they don't take too much inspiration from Machinarium, since it's not the best example of an adventure game.
  9. To use a well-known expression: opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one. Honest feedback isn't the same as good feedback. It's very easy to think one's opinion carries some sort of value that is useful, but fact is that it either is quantifiably useful or it's qualifiably useful or just useless. To get a quantifiable opinion is beyond expressing opinions on this forum, to get a qualifiable opinion requires good exposure to data and good reflection and self-criticism. It's very common to use focus-groups to get an idea of what certain segments think about something, but that is controlled factors with lots of data and lots of design behind the questions they answer to get the most out of the data. That's however in cases where the game is really designed to appeal to a certain segment of the market. One thing is a huge % thinking something, another is a small % thinking something. Negativity on an early stage might also ruin a project because it abandons a road that might've lead to something good (or save it from making mistakes, but you can't really know that until you've traveled the road). And I believe we've seen from the documentary that DF has more than enough "negative" members, so I wouldn't be afraid of them being a group of "positive" people. However, they're an intrinsic part of the process, while we're still left out of a lot of it, so they're at a position where they're ahead of us and can see the whole picture, while we've only seen a short teaser trailer and a few video snips here and there. How you are able to express your opinion is all up to the place where you express it, that's not my point.. Rather what I tried to show you is that an opinion requires enough data to be useful. Anyone can express an opinion, but to contribute requires something more. People usually just want to funnel their opinion, that's not the same as being useful in a process. Everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions matter in the end. Usually it's a process of elimination, where you focus on the opinion of a clear segment. They're prejudice, but based upon earlier results, and they are positive and don't try to imagine that they have any impact on the game. Existence is inherently positive, so this game existing and having reached a certain point is enough to warrant some positivity. It would be perfectly understandable to think that the game might not meet its development goals, the documentary provides enough data to make that estimate. To think too much about the game itself is however too hasty at this point. We've been shown far too little to voice any useful opinion except "like" or "not like" the art/animation, and because of the nature of the project these are things that won't be changed, but rather tweaked at best. I think you'll find that your feedback will be more useful once we get more actual gameplay data. Then you might criticize puzzle design or UI or other things that they can more easily change. Again, I can't decide for you what you want to say or not, but I can provide an argument that shows why you're not at a position where you can provide useful feedback.
  10. So is the positivity. Projects need positivity to flourish, and it is the kind of prejudice that has less implications. It's after all harder to turn around a bad impression. The negative feedback is based on limited data, ergo it's prejudice. Adventure games usually are about the sum of the experience, so this really punishes adventure games. The negative feedback concerns things that are not going to change, so it's not constructive: like artstyle and animation. If it was constructive you'd actually suggest ways to make it work without scrapping the whole project or derailing it. A lot of negative feedback is purely taste-based and clouded by limited data, so it's really hard for a company to do much with that kind of feedback.
  11. I have only this to say: 1. The negativity is based on limited data, and it mostly concerns issues that will not be changed and thus aren't very constructive. This project needs some enthusiasm if it is to succeed. 2. Graphics aren't essential for an adventure game, it's more about the sum of the experience, so it's really hard to judge it based upon limited data and prejudice might thus ruin the success of a project. Showing a limited teaser of Ben There And Dan That! or The Secret of Monkey Island could easily make the game seem dull and "cheap", but they're great games.
  12. Disagree. The fact that I played The Secret of Monkey Island in early 2000 would seem to confirm that there was something that wasn't about purely details that made that a great adventure game. The game has good setpieces, but it doesn't have that much detail and the graphics are jagged (duh..). I was initially underwhelmed by the trailer, so I'd recommend doing like I did, that is playing it over and over again, trying to catch the details, perhaps pausing as well to get a good view of the rooms and characters. That made me discover that it was actually pretty awesome and that it had its own unique "soul".
  13. My first reaction to the trailer was kind of underwhelming, but after viewing it a couple of times, pausing at certain points to get a better look at details, I've come to get a feel of the "soul" of the game just from that teaser trailer. I'm now more psyched than ever.
  14. That kind of strong arms them into only focusing on the "human side" of development even if they wanted to do something else, and it's not very transparent in terms of the development process. It's like an episode of How It's Made, in say a sausage factory, where no meat is shown, and the equipment is never on. The Amnesia Fortnight episodes were way closer to transparent. Who would ever eat it if they showed how they make sausage? ;-) Anyways, because of the discretion that has do be done since we will see an actual product come out on the other end, it's expected to be focused on problems that aren't too revealing. Imagine you wrote a book and documented the whole process. No one wants to be spoiled of the book, but at the same time some want the documentary. Thus you focus on more overarching problems, like financing, progression, design, perhaps showing a page here and there, as well as taking up a few micro-problems as well (all of which the documentary does). It, however, has to focus on overarching themes since those are usually best to carry a story, which is much harder with smaller issues, unless there's steady releases of video. I really liked this episode because it thematically connected Tim, his car and DFA & Adventure games in general. Tim tries to change for the better, he tries to fix his car, his team are trying to fix DFA, DFA is trying to fix Adventure games and in general showing that Tim still has one good adventure left within him.
×
×
  • Create New...