Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Adlleong

DFA Backers
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adlleong

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. When Derek first pitched it, I was very strongly reminded of http://www.traumagame.com/. For anyone who liked the surreal aspect and the idea of piecing together incomplete memories, I think you'd like this game too. It's free to play at the site I linked.
  2. Let me start by saying that I loved BA part 1 and am eagerly looking forward to part 2. What disappointed me, however, wasn't just how easy the puzzles were, but how short and simple the puzzle chains were. In other great adventure games, there would often be large areas that could be explored freely with multiple puzzle chains that could be solved non-linearly (for example, Rubicava in Grim Fandango or the entire house in Day of the Tentacle). The puzzles in these areas would have complex overlapping dependencies. I was sad that each problem in BA had a 1 or 2 step solution. I understand from the documentary that a lot of puzzle scope had to be cut from the game for budget reasons. That sucks, but budgets are a fact of life. But why is the puzzle scope in BA (at least so far) so much smaller and simpler than adventure games with similar budgets (Grim Fandango) or even with far smaller budgets (Day of the Tentacle)? Are games more expensive to make in 2014 than they were in 1993 or 1998? Were there resources at Lucas Arts that made development more efficient that Double Fine doesn't have? Was it that hand painting the backgrounds was too time consuming and expensive? What would it take for Double Fine to make an adventure game with the same size and scope as Grim Fandango? More money (how much?)? A bigger team?
×
×
  • Create New...