Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lobopampeano

  • Rank
    Double Action Newbie
  1. I did not remember those details, thanks. I did not have much of a problem with it, so I reconstructed the puzzle with the bits I remembered... If it is as you say, people who got frustrated with it (one person was mentioned to quit because of that) are really not built for Adventure Games...
  2. I dont know if anyone pointed this out already, but I think I know what is the problem(s) with the train puzzle: 1. There is a timing/reflex element to it, I know it isn't hard but the player is in a relaxed slow mode playing state and suddenly he/she has to come up with a timed response. I know adventure games had timed puzzles in the past, sometimes, but they were always subject to controversy since most think reflexes shouldn't be part of adventure games. Plus, some of those puzzles were cmopletely evident in their solution and the only obstacle was making it happen (e.g. fighting in Indiana Jones games). 2. There is an aditional degree of frustration when you have to do something all over again. It is not the same as being stuck at a given point. And when something starts all over again it is more difficult to focus. Some are ok with being stuck in time but are not ok with doing things all over again. Plus the situation is deliberately designed as frustrating because it is a repetitive cycle while being stuck at a given point might frustrate but it ain't something deliberately designed to frustrate. When stuck in time there is "infinite" time to contemplate and think while in this case you have to get it at a given moment or start all over again which is distracting. 3. Lastly, if you dont pay close attention to the line of dialog that says that the mountain can be told to lower the bridge or raise the bridge it is very, very hard to solve because of a simple fact: the mountain is sleeping and though yelling at someone to wake them up seems more than reasonable, yelling or saying a word that would render them back to sleep seems unreasonable/ counter intuitive to me. Had the mountain been awake and waiting for instrucctions to lower or raise the bridge while being awake it would have been a little bit more easy to solve. Had the mountain said something like "ready to lower or raise the bridge at your command" it would be clearer. And it also doesn't help that the solution means doing something contrary to human nature's intinct and gaming insting which is not saving the character from falling. We spent decades trying to avoid that in games. For all this reasons this puzzle though quite easy might be difficult to see for many people and difficult to tolerate. Only when a puzzle is both intolerable and difficult is it bad for a game or a particular gamers experience. Conclusion: sometimes there is a problem with the design of a puzzle NOT with the difficulty level. My two cents.
  3. kringel: You got my money already for your imaginary DF old school adventure game. Plus though I really, really loved the documentary (that alone was worth my money and more) the next game should use the documentary money in designing puzzles. Hell you should create a survey regarding this idea of yours to see how many people out there are really into it.
  4. To be honest I don't even remember the first post. And I don't even notice the title of the post anymore... + though it is not the kind of title I would have chosen it is effective at attracting readers like shit attracts flies. We should keep this post alive… Regarding reviews… yes, it is true: but I found that the reviews that were most insightful and knew what they were talking about (i.e. knew about old adventure games) were not the 9.5/10 reviews but the 7/10.
  5. Forgiev me but I want to quote yet a nother piece of a review, this one is from Metro (bold was added by me): There are also plenty of puzzles to block your way, but although they’re certainly more complex brain-teasers than anything in any of Telltale’s games by the old standards they’re surprisingly simplistic. In fact they seem to be there more out of a sense of tradition than any obvious passion from the developer. The game clearly worries that the more complex, abstract puzzles of old are too much for modern gamers but that surely defeats the whole point of having fans fund a game in the first place. And yet for whatever reason you’re unlikely to be stuck on any puzzle for more than a minute or two, thanks to hammer-over-the-head clues in the dialogue and item descriptions. And if you don’t believe us consider the fact that the game doesn’t even bother to have a help system. Perhaps things will become more challenging in the second act but since that doesn’t have any kind of specific date, just sometime this year, it may be some while before we find out. Disappointment may be too strong a word for Broken Age but despite the spotlight it’s made for itself it makes no attempt to either move the genre forward or to recreate the old style in more exacting detail. Instead it concentrates purely on being as charming and engaging as possible, which is fine and admirable but it can’t help but seem rather anticlimactic.
  6. I found this in the Eurogamer review, I find it relevant to our discussion: "In fact, I struggled most at the start of the game precisely because I was over-thinking the puzzles, dismissing the obvious solutions and clumsy hints as red herrings designed to obscure something more ingenious underneath. Nope. It's as simple as it looks, and any reasonably experienced player - surely the key audience for a game with Broken Age's heritage - will glide to the end in a few hours with very little trouble. In the unlikely event that you do get stuck, you're free to switch between the storylines whenever you want, but this throws up its own problems. It's safe to say that Vella and Shay's plots do overlap, but the way in which they do - while clever - is so heavily foreshadowed in each strand that however you play through them, one side of the game can't help but act as a spoiler for the other. A stronger authorial voice, forcing the player to swap stories at the most dramatically effective points, would have helped the twists land more consistently. Even without the expectation and hype of a fêted developer and a Kickstarter windfall, Broken Age would feel like a slight little thing. Had it arrived without fanfare, just another quirky Double Fine experiment in the vein of Stacking or Costume Quest, its surface charms might have been enough. Disappointment? Underwhelming? Those criticisms are far too harsh for a game that is undeniably delightful to play, but they carry a sting of truth. Pleasant but undemanding, gorgeous but lacking in depth - fans will be forgiven for expecting something a little more chewy, a little more experimental, from a developer who made his name by turning adventure games upside down. Here's hoping Act 2 builds some gameplay muscle to go with the supermodel looks." I find interesting that the reviewer finds not only problematic how easy it is. I also felt it lacked deph... and taht makes puzzle absence more problematic. If BA were a game with complex twists along the way (not only in the end), with complex dialogues and situations, the ride might have been more enjoyable... though I'd still think what I think about the puzzles. I feel it lacked a bit in content too. I did not explore the themes it engages nor is there real meaningful character interaction... An argument to prove this? Tell me peolple if it is not true that most characters could have been replaced without having a different story.
  7. Yes, I also missed being able to "look at" things. This was the original way hints -reasonable ones- were given to the player regarding possible solutions.
  8. anarchist: I don't want a public hanging of Tim. I dont hate him, I actually have sympathy for him. It would be great though if he wrote something himself addressing the comments of the backers who felt it was too easy. Regarding act 1 and making better puzzles there, I'd say that one of the problems was that there was little conflict going on and that does not help the possibilities of puzzle design. Yes, Vella did not agree with tradition (a ridiculous one that had no really good arguments going in favor of it wich was bit dissapointing for me) and was not allowed to leave the cloud colony and Shay was a little restrained by the mother ship. But conflict that does not translate into many practical concrete obstacles is mainly about the characters motivation and having them embrace an adventure. Good adventure games are stories that have you working you way through it, and that usually translates in having you doing complex favours for characters in order for you to get something from them you need for something else. Or trying to convince, cheat, frame, confront, characters or make other characters fight themselves, etc. Having complex relationships among the characters of a given area helps a lot in a game. There was no complexity in the relationships of the members of the cloud colony. Some characters were almost completely useless: the man with the middle age crisis and his son accomplish almost nothing (or nothing atall? I can't remember right now). The girl in the green dress just gives a pair of shoes, and the other girl gives you a ladder. Both of them give you an item just like that and that's it. Without having a complex situation there cannot be a good puzzle unless you place a lock with a rubic cube puzzle (not my favourite puzzles). A good example of characters and conflict that creates a puzzle was given in a previous post response by recalling DOTT and the diamond situation (read above). It is a perfect example because Dr. Eddison is an ally yet at the same times is an obstacle, in order to have this you need complex personal situations. I also liked puzzles without characters that are not exactly rubic cube puzzles like the one in Chains of Satinav [SPOILER ALERT]where there was this magical forcecage where there is a magic ring. The forcecage traps anything it comes in contact with. Using a liquid dropped from above to fill the forcecage and make the ring come out by being displaced buy the liquid itself was a really clever simple solution which is not evident in the context at all.. that really got the AHA moment.[END OF SPOILER ALERT] Having a space ship should have been a better opportunity for non -character related puzzles than the teleporting-shrinking head puzzle or the weaving puzzle. Yet again having more coplex character interactions might have sufficed; no need to make a hacking mini game puzzle (by the way I hate mini games and the reflex mini game was really, really not of my liking). The navigator could have been equipped with a way of preventing someone from altering the wool-navigating charts. Thus being necessary to find a way of fooling him. Instead characters are just there and show little to no opposition. I would have LOVED having those wool creatures having problems among themselves over something ridiculous and maybe having one behave in a non-teddy bear manner when he was not on the job (fake missions) and returning to the teddy bear pose when being councious of being watched. It also really helps having more items and stuff to interact with.
  9. No, I agree, changing dialog would not be enough, not even close. Even wthout ridiculous hints, the puzzles are not challenging and complex. We don't lack good will, it's just that changes should be dramatic in Act2 in order to be good in terms of puzzle.
  10. I don't think that Tim "sold out". But it would be ridiculous (and naive) not to think that when they had to put so much money of their own to make things happen he would not take into account broader sales issues. He runs a company and people depend on him. Since he never placed on paper specific things he promised to do, there is no way of stating that there has been a breach of agreement, therefore I cannot (nobody can) say he did something that could be said to be a "scam". BUT If you do not see things in black and white and are open to degrees of gray.... then I'd say he took a safer bet, diluting what had originally been talked about. I just think that we had objective reasons to expect something different BUT I don't say I know or think he had ill intentions. I think he weighted pros and cons and tried to come with a solution that could deal with the mess, that (we all know) came from bad resource managing. This is not a Tim is a monster vs Tim did 100% well dilema (which is a ridiculously simplistic dilema)
  11. MusicallyInspired:I agree so much with your posts that I don't know why I keep posting myself ThunderPeel: Tim sopke MANY TIMES about the criticism he got from FT about length. In one of the last episodes, when the others said that people wouldn't mind length, he said "believe me they will". Still even FT had some good puzzles, "the lock to hold fast the door to climb the wall puzzle he always kept bringing up is much better than most BA according to the defintion of good puzzle he gave and that I somewhat quoted a few posts ago. GF was Tim's beast and the game was a lot longer than FT and had good puzzles. So as MusicallyInspired said already, we had many objective reason to assume somthing different was on the way. From his past work and from the things he said. I have the theory that when thingd dtsrted to get too expensive and the idea to put their money came up, and then the need to raise more money and not getting enough... he started to think that in order to protect the economic health of double fine he needed to sell this game to a broader audience, hence changeing the original idea: I find a gruop of people who like old adventure games and if they pre-pay it they get that... the idea of pre-pay involves not having the need of a publisher or the need to sell to a broader audience. When economic self suficiency fell apart the proyect adjusted the new needs.
  12. MusicallyInspired: great posts! I subscribe to your explanation 100%! Working your way through makes you experience the story in a deeper and more meaningful way. DoubleFieps: you are welcome You are right things cannot change substancially. My only hope comes from the last episode (I think) where he states that part 2 should have a higher level of difficulty. I'm crossing my fingers.
  13. The problem is that I'm not expectig Tim to match my expectations (puzzle wise) because I am the center of the universe. I am expecting him to match them because he originated those expectations in a very concrete way. Tim described many times what he thought was a good puzzle, how it made you feel smart, etc. So I expect him to follow his own advise. Some of the things he said: 1. A puzzle involves getting stuck, make you think and thus providing challenge and satisfaction that comes only from mental challenge, you only need to keep it logical (within the world in question). 2. Th puzzle makes you work for the AHA moment. 3. The good puzzle ususally involves (aacording to Tim): a. Portraying a problem clearly. b. Getting the player to think the straightforward solution is X, then finding it doesn't work for a given circunstance wich must be explained. c. Sometimes second and third options fail as well. d. Then the player sets himself to find a more creative solution he gets an aidea and tries it, while incomplete the game hists you its its the right direction. e. Finally you piece it all together in a creative yet now logical way which makes you think it is smart yet it was there right in front of you. He did not get points 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e. I must admit though unlike many average adventure games he never fails in point 3a: you never wonder "what am I supposed to do now?"
  14. Never said it was noy ok to like it, read my above post. I eve said I am honestly happy some people enjoyed it a lot. And I don't telle them to get over themselves as some have told me. And I do not think puzzles are COMPLETELY subjective. Tim doesn's think so (he tackles the subjecvt about puzzles in the documentary). If puzzles were completely subjective then chances of making a good puzzle game would be completely random and I don't think you are willing to take it that far, are you? Thinngs are not 100% subjective or objective.
  15. Yeah at least we should be able to agree that it is not an old school game AS PROMISED (even if some loved the game anyway).
  • Create New...