Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lobopampeano

  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).
  16. Never though to refute the fact you enjoyed them you miss read me there (which by the way I am glad, believe it or not... good for you). I was discussing creativity. How it is elaborated, presented, if it has twists, etc, out of the box thinking, clever ways of pointing towards the solution. Shay, for example, says right away "I should try changing the pattern with needle thext time we are about to travel" HE told me the solution to an easy puzzle!! thats lacking a creative way of hinting. Again, no need to play the game, but I think even though taste is a part of it there are common elements that can be depicted about something intelligent and creative... Otherwise there would't be so many people earning their money by writing reviews and the success of the puzzles of games would be totally random. Adventure gamers always speak about the puzzles and anaylize them etc. Again don't do it, but propossing it is not ridiculous. And of course I do not thing I am the universal judge of fun.
  17. well I guess we do have a different taste on humor... for example "the humiliation" meltdown I did not find it funny. I hated all the lines of the small wool beings in the simulated missions... the obvious hints were not funny tome.. then again maybe taste... BUT I can argue it follows that pattern over and over again... in fact I found it more irratating than anything... wanted to burn those fluffy wool beings... The other thing I disliked about dialog is that everybody (girls and their families) were happy, eager, and content with the sacrifice.. I would have expected at least a big portion of them doing it out of fear... but some of them found the idea of putting up a fight even mean to the monster I mean I would have expected a better job at depicting the two sides of the story... plus Vella just keeps suggesting they should fight using the same frase, no counter argument... never points out how can they enojoy and cheer watching the girls devoured... I don't know I found it immersion breaking
  18. No need to play my game, no need to call it silly... its a pretty valid proposal anyway. I wrote already aboy the head puzzle... nothing to add to prevoious description of it and arguments. The starmap was also straight forward... no curve balls there. You just had to place "x" in the right spot!!! How is that creative??? The hardest part for me was doing it quickly due to the awkward way inventory items are used... I clicked it and got the description, and had to open invetory again in order to drag it out.
  19. Why dou I feel that not even polite criticism is welcome? This is a feedback forum... I really tried to enjoy and I did to an extent... finished it quickly and was not impressed. BA like every game, every, movie, book, etc., is subject to fair equivalent comparisons
  20. You really mean that about puzzles could be compared? In terms of: 1. Creativity? (name the 3 top puzzles of this game interms of creativity) 2. Difficulty? (name the 3 most diffcult puzzles of this game) I challenge you to compare those with the ones in DOTT.
  21. A little over-critical, my friend. Your criticisms are exaggerated. Sure, many puzzles were straight-forward, but others were clever. I liked the way Shay had to break out of his cycle of tedium. The head shrinking puzzle was a little tricky. Plus I found it profoundly satisfying to spray a couple of overdressed and narcissistic girls with fish chum. I found the shrinking puzzle to be no puzzle at all, it was completely obvious what had to be done you just had to find your way around the spaceship, a very, very easy puzzle for classic adventure games, I solved it immediately. You can't say it was not clear what needed to be done and how... About the "shallow" girls depiction... seen that a 1000 times... nothing remotely new there. The dialog was more than OK, it was great! Agree that I'd like more of it, especially when returning to an interesting character. Some of the Meriloft characters were begging for some witty conversation! Don't agree. Nothing stuck with me. I'd like to know your list of favourite lines and how many are they. Too straight forward? I don't know. Merrick was quite intriguing. The whole purpose of the Shay Trek is still vague. There's the whole Sugar/Steel Bunting question of how and why they changed. And Project Dandelion? Still many questions that need answering. There are questions, but the game itself so far was very straight forward. A room in the ship you can't enter? ok, but nothing to do about it, not even dialog options from shay about it!!... he rolled with it as he rolled with many things. Vella had everything WAY too straightforward. I cannot think of a single interesting puzzle or situation. The riddle was ruined with grotesque hints! Not very funny? I dare you to not to laugh as Curtis passes you his stool. No, I'm not super tough on comedy but did not find curtis funny. Plus alll characters were used for something specific once and for a story about 2 teenagers with "initiative" their dialog options were pretty flat. I found the game "nicy", lacking punch. Not enough darkness explored with the wolf (worst on Vella's side). No clever puzzles. It is clearly made for a wider audience a not for old timers. Compare this game to DOTT, FTT or GF. Compare, characters, dialog, and puzzles, do you think they aimed at something like those games? I do not think so.
  22. I do agree with much of the criticism. I found it to be very short. Puzzles were not only very easy, they were not very creative at all. Plus in the videos we have seen Tim speak so much about clever puzzles and the example taken from full throttle with the door, the lock, and the climbing. Puzzles here resolved themselves. And old school adventure game had challenging puzzles as a prime characteristic... the subject was dealt with in the forums during the whole process and I remember that the vast majority said they did not wanna have easy casual games like puzzles. The dialogs, I thought they were ok, but I did not like the fact that one could exhaust all dialog options with a character in a quick rush, get something from them and then they became so unimportant that became part of the landscape. There isn't enough small talk there is no coming back again and again to the same character with new things to talk about with the exception of merrick (but also it is all bussiness). Some characters are just there for you to get an item from them and that's it (the two girls from cloud colony). Except for the end of the chapter twist, everything is too straight forward. I cannot let the subject be gone without underlining that Tim spoke about it said he wanted a bigger game, that he knew we would matter about length (people in the forums said so) and then we get this. So complaints about length were something they had coming. Plus I think that the other games in the market (from daedalic, wadjedt eye, telltale, etc) hell even “the cave” are something that they should be in the capacity to being compared. And as many pointed out, there are games with nice hand-drawn backgrounds that are a lot longer and have a far more intricate story or characters interaction. I cannot explain this… I think that looks count but adventure gamers (in general and specially old timers) DO NOT think it is a priority over the content. I would have preferred no superstar voice acting, no bagel, and more story, more dialogs (even useless funny dialogs). I did not think it was very funny, I did not think it was insightful about the themer (coming of age, old ways, new ways, etc) They went to sell something to a specific target (lovers of old adventure games) who paid for it and they made a game for a different (probably bigger market): They do not have excuses for the level of complexity and stuff like that: they know the market, games from wadgeteye in low resolution got great reception for their content, including their puzzles. So I can only conclude this: If they did not give us what they promised is because they feared they would have little chance of selling it to a bigger audience, and then they did not make it for us as their main target, and I feel a little cheated by it… even if I do not judge their intentions which I will assume to be ‘good’ in general… I can say that they failed to realize or to keep in mind who they were making this game for.
  23. I like broken age but it somehow reminds me of broken sword (which is a very high profile adeventure game).
  • Create New...