Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David_Holm

  • Rank
    Action Newbie


  • URL
  • Location
  1. He doesn't say a word about complexity. If they simply do the dialogues more ambiguous for the second act, the game would be more difficult, but the design wouldn't be richer.
  2. Can you put the link? Complex and difficult are different things. I want a good design, a complex design as the others adventures of Tim Schafer, but not necessaryly a difficult adventure.
  3. I agree with lobopampeano. We put more than 3 million dollars, but Double Fine spent much more money in the development, they risk a lot, may be even the company itself. So Tim decided make a game for a big audience (not for us, as he promised). Good story, good graphics, good music... and poor puzzle design (you can play BA even if you never used your lateral thinking). He thought that's the way to reach a large audience, the way to pay his staff. And is sad that Tim Schafer don't believe in adventure games (and the puzzle is the only thing inherent to adventure games), but I understand that he was worry about for their employees. I gave him my money because I do, I believe in adventure games, and I wanted that Tim did the adventure with creative freedom, without thinking in money or fighting with a publisher. Obviously he didn't. He was not limited to his budget and he couldn't make the adventure with creative freedom (in the main aspect of an adventure game: the puzzle design). I'm very interested in adventure design, I'm studying adventure games for years (and write a lot of articles about adventure design, even an introduction to puzzle of 75000 characters long), and of course, I have studied the designs of Tim Schafer (designed just for him or in the company of Ron Gilbert and/or Dave Grossman). This is the poorest design in his career, but Tim Schafer understands adventure games, without doubt. He can't do a poor design if he don't want to. He did a poor design on purpose (for reaching the large audience). I was very hopeful with this game, not just for playing a cool adventure, but for adventure game like a genre. But now, Tim Schafer, with Broken Age ("a game for fans of adventure games"), is defending the puzzle as an obstacle in the narration (because he relegates it to a place of no importance). But puzzle is, and ever was, the way in which the adventure games tell the stories. In short, Tim Schafer came as a messiah willing to claim the space for adventure games. But what he has done is hammer a new nail in its coffin. I would like so much that Tim explains why the Broken Age's design isn't complex. And yes, I think Broken Age, this private forum and the documentary are worth more than what I paid. But knowing how is the design of puzzles, I would not have supported the project.
  4. Puzzles are the most important thing in an adventure game, because puzzles are its language. In the same way images in movement are the language of cinema. When I saw Kickstarter's video, I said "shut up and take my money, Mr. Schafer". Tim worked on amazing adventure games, he designed (or co-disigned) amazing adventure games, he knew what an adventure design is. I wanted some of that, more modern and yes, smaller, I know (because the low budget), but I wanted a design like that, Schafer seemed to offer something like that in the campaign. A great design tell the story through the puzzles, complex puzzles (not necessarily difficult ones) narrate the story in a deep way, because they involve the player so much. If a film's leading lady cries and says she is very poor and unhappy, that's superficial. If you watch this: You receive the same information, but in a much deeper way. Broken Age is superficial in its narration. Yep, the art and music are great, characters, story, dialogues... but, in the main section, the interaction, the puzzles, it's a mediocre work. This is like tomorrow Dimitri Kirsanoff's zombie asks for money to make a movie with creative freedom, and then, we get a telefilm with a good story, nice costumes, good actors... but poor filmed like the others telefilms (ok, that would be a stunning work for a zombie, but you understand me). I had fun playing Broken Age in spite of everything, but I would never have backed something like this, adventure games with a poor design was already publishing every years. Everyone can solve a complex puzzle if you put in your game a progressive help system (and integrated), for example, NPC's would have more to say if player is getting stuck some time on a puzzle.
  5. Las referencias a Soylent Green son muy recurrentes en la ciencia ficción moderna, Soylent se mantiene siempre igual en la traducción, de otra manera sería imposible captar la referencia. En Futurama hay un refresco que se llama Soylent Cola en el original, en la traducción española se mantiene igual. El Dreams se puede traducir por cualquier nombre típico de cereales que suene bien (Soylentcrispis valdría), pero Soylent ha de mantenerse tal cual en la traducción. Salvo que haya una gran conspiración mundial en torno a la soja y esta no sea realmente una planta (siempre lo he sospechado). No sé si es apropiado usar el español aquí, pero hablar de errores de traducción del inglés al español en inglés me parecía un poco surrealista. No recuerdo el momento exacto, pero tras hablar con "Madre", Shay dice una expresión que termina con "Brother". Se traduce literalmente por hermano, pero ahí tiene el significado de "tío", de "colega". Probablemente haya una traducción neutra mejor, pero desde luego el "hermano" no procede.
  6. Soylent Dreams was translated as: Soy[lent] no se refriere precisamente a la soja, es una referencia a la película Soylent Green (Cuando el destino nos alcance).
  7. I am not against the direct control in adventure games, I'm saying the direct control for Grim Fandango's design isn't the best choice; point & click, in this case, would have been more suitable. In a real 3D adventure, I agree with you.
  8. Yeah, using direct control you only have to run (and Manny is in no hurry), doesn’t that make the whole thing rather pointless?, it's the same, a cutscene had been a better solution for the first time you cross the bridge; but other times you should be able to take a shortcut and not have to cross the screen each time, the scene already fulfilled its mission, repetition is not necessary.
  9. I don't see any inconvenience with point & click in that scene, you click in the end of screen and Manny crosses the bridge.
  10. I'm sorry, I can't find any of those close-ups which make the mouse a rather tool for navigation, can you give an Grim Fandango's example?
  11. Tell me one you can't control the character very well by only using the mouse.
  12. What???? Did you play Grim Fandango? Because you are not talking about Grim Fandango, I did it. I didn't say a word about the possibilities of placing camera anywhere, I wrote about particularities of Grim Fandango, that's the topic.
  13. Well, Charles Cecil was saying in interviews not that long ago that traditional point & clicks were dead and that 3D was the way to go. But people do change their mind from time to time. Also, maybe game designers tend to believe what publishers tell them. And what publishers tell them is "OK, I'll fund your adventure game, but make the main character cooler, he was such a nerd in the first episode. Oh, and people are telling us your game was too hard, make it simpler and add a hint system so it will sell more copies, customer don't like to get stuck. And by the way, you have half the budget that we gave you for the previous game." The main problem of Pendulo is that they have always been financially dependant on publishers. So you tend to do what you're told to do. For the first time, Day One would have allowed them to really go back to their true vision. And to be in direct contact with the players, since it is also the beauty of crowdfunding and they seem to be very open to player's interaction during the creative process. Who knows, I think that's unlikely, I have not seen anything that leads me to think so (in their previous games or in this campaign), but if you see it, I think is great that you support Pendulo's project. I really wish you're right, if in the future Day One is a reality and is a complex game with a clever puzzle design, I'll be the first to purchase; but although I love adventure games, I can't support every adventure project, I have to choose.
  14. Well I don't know where you have heard that, but, having played the first Hollywood Monsters, which was both long and extremely hard, I doubt that's their philosophy; their last couple games haven't really been any long, but they have never been completely staightforward, although they tend to be illogical at times; I wouldn't really think that "short and simple" really applies to Pendulo in general. Hollywood Monsters isn't a good example, 1997, a great idea for a game but a bad design, they tried do it well recently (The Next Big Thing is an update of HM), doing a short, superficial and simple game. About their concept of adventure I refer to this interview. I don't care about the difficulty (word of diffuse meaning about our genre), the complexity is the important thing. Hollywood Monsters was difficult, yes, but it was difficult because of nonsense puzzles, arbitrary and incoherent, it isn't a complex game. I like to use my lateral thinking when I play adventure games, I don't think I can find it in Day One. Last years Pendulo design more casual games, and of course they have an audience, but that kind of players buy a final product, don't fund games, I think that is a reason of the unsuccessful campaign.
  15. Can we expect a good surprise from Pendulo? They think adventures have to be short and simple, there are a lot of games like these, why do we have to fund another?
  • Create New...