Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DoubleFieps

  1. You are really obsessed with isinuating that other people insult you. I did in fact an no point claim that you are deluded. You are the only one here that is assigning this attribution to yourself constantly. I said it seems to me that you are trying really hard to like the game. If you can't see that these two things are not nearly the same you are in fact beyond help.
  2. Oh, I just re-read my post and came to the conclusion you didn't answer the question (because you were offended): So here it is again: Do you really think that what we got was Tims vision for the game (puzzle wise) and we did in fact not end up with an inferior watered-down version of the game that it should have been?
  3. [...] The way you describe your gameplay expeirence sounds to me like your trying really hard to squeeze some more fun out of the experience which wasn't present the first time around. Kind of squeezing a rock in hope of getting water. Look, you can like or dislike what you want to, but please don't tell me what I'M doing. [...] Stop it. I wrote "sounds to me". That's not the same as calling you a lunatic. I'm not telling you what to do. You can write as much as you want on how much you enjoy Broken Age. I don't care. But that still doesn't change that your posts about Broken Age seem a whole lot like the ones of an apologist to me. If you can't handle that, feel free to put me on your ignore list any time.
  4. Have you tried doing that thirty times in a row? Perhaps something special will happen then... you'lll never know! Could be fun!
  5. I agree with the replay value of the old classic: It's like watching a great movie you've watched a hundred times and now every syllable, every pause and every camera angle and you still LOVE watching the movie and the warm fuzzy felling you have while doing so. Yup, I really love replaying some of the good old ones. That being said: For a game (or movie or book) to have a lasting affect on me it needs to be really good on the first experience. Broken Age wasn't. And that is why I do not have the feeling that I will be going back to it too often. I will replay Act I before the release of Act II, but that's probably it. The way you describe your gameplay expeirence sounds to me like your trying really hard to squeeze some more fun out of the experience which wasn't present the first time around. Kind of squeezing a rock in hope of getting water. I think it's fair to demand that a game with such talented people behind it and a such huge amount of financial backing (at least for adventure games) should be enjoyable right out of the box. And given that it's an adventure game which whole essence is a great story that winds around solving clever puzzles BA doesn't do a very well job here. I am also pretty sure that Double Fine knows this pretty well. A lot of puzzles seem to me like heavily cut down versions of what they were orginially intended to be. Or do you want to pretend that... ...Harm'ny just dropping the egg and it lands directly "on your feet" to pick it up without ANY effort ...NPCs just giving you the stuff you ask them for (in a good game you would have to trick the NPC or trade for the item you want) ...Puzzle chains with a tiny amount of steps (in a good game you would have try to hold your thoughts together and figure out in which order you CAN solve the puzzle because there are so many dependencies and strings attached) ...Practically all items could just be taken (in a good game a lot of time you would be told off by an NPC) ...was Tim's great vision for this the "revival" of the genre? That can't be the case. Or he has become really, really lazy. I do blame it on their financial situation and how they coped with it. It was discussed often enough to be a relevant factor here. My guess is they under-estimated how much the highly polished, hand-crafted animation and VFX had an impact on how much content and puzzles they could implement. After all: If every give/take/use animation is hand-designed, if every sentence has voice-over every puzzle get's a lot more expensive. If they would have cut back the animation and used more default-animations like "take from top", "take from bottom", etc. and would have had a more simple art style (hand-drawn instead of hand-painted => less time to clean up the messy art assets) there would have been a lot more resources for story and puzzles. Comig to think of it: If you add up all pieces of "I designed too much content", "We have to cut this", "We have to cut that" there is simply no other way. What p*sses me of is that they try to justify it by saying that this is how all productions go down. Even if in every game production there is some degree of cutting back, it is normally not done soley to the main feature (the story & puzzles). I am disappointed that there was no honest answer like "Yeah, we focused to much on animation/art/whatever and realized that we couldn't implement the game they way it should have been with the resources we have. But it was too late to revert back to a simpler concept. Sorry, we screwed up there a little bit". Instead everything was hell-bent to form this inspiring success-story of the indie-underdog. Makes a better story for a documentary, doens't it? Anyway: I think the trade-off they went with (more polish, animation, art instead of more content) made BA a shadow of what it coud have been. If you are happy with it than be happy with it. I am not and I will not replay this game half a dozen times to grind some more joy out of it.
  6. Well, the manifest states what rules should not be broken or else an adventure game would suck. It sadly does not state when an adventure game is really good - and that's the point to me. BA does not suck, but as an adventure game it was not that great either. Even though I liked most aspects about the game (great voice actors, great sound design, good animation and VFX, etc.), the puzzles were poorly implemented. Most of them were probably designed good, but the implementation lacked very much. As a somewhat experienced adventure fan you end up with... ...having the items to solve the puzzle beforehand almost every time (if you try to take everything with you - which isn't hard given that there are very few hotspots and items) ...NPCs just giving you what you want by simply asking (which would make sense in Real Life, but is not fun in a game) (which is extremly lazy and just screams: "We didn't have enough time to implement this the right way") ...Puzzles solving themselves for no apparent reason (E.g. Harm'ny just dropping the third egg) ...NPCs spoiling the puzzles by blabbing out very obvious hints before you event had a chance to try to solve the puzzle yourself (which could b solved) ...solving puzzles by accident (The solution to the "riddle" was literally the first item on my inventory bar) ...way too few and far to large hot spots (should be called "hot places") - I blame the cross-plattform design goal for small-screen touch devices for this ...under-developed side characters as of Act 1 (perhaps they gain more personalty in Act2) Edit: ...character switching was implemented very poorly because it was not necessary to switch and they did not interact in any way. In fact there wasn't even the point of "let's try to solve some puzzles over at Vellas side of the story because I'm stuck here" because everything was so obvious and easy (that could change of course and hopefully in Act 2) And that is why BA for me is a highly polished game with a lot of stuff to like, but it's still not a good adventure. It's simply not enough that a game "does not suck". I think a lot of people are over-protective of this game - probably because of the documentary and the feeled "connection" to the developers. After all: It's hard to criticize someone you "know" for something that we know they worked really hard for. I wonder how the game reviews would have been if it hadn't been for the documentary... On the other hand: Perhaps I am overly critical? Who knows: As long as the BA "lovers" are happy with what it is and the BA "haters" can move on to play other real adventure games - everyone's happy, right? Edit: See above
  7. I don't care about gathering telemetry in a BETA. I care whether they are up front with this or not. And I care if they send this to their own servers or use Google Analytics for this. If you want to be a Google exhibitionist thats fine by me. And also: "Oh noes, you had to download a BETA version again?" Oh my gosh I am so very deeply sorry you pour soul! How can I make this up to you?
  8. Seems like responding to my post is a form of "getting drawn into that" but whatever. If you want to believe Google does this without their own benefigt in mind than suit yourself.
  9. DoubleFine may not. But Google does more than this. Otherwise why would there be a premium version with the possibility to opt-out so that Google does not cross-reference the collected data with the rest of their information? This implies that if you use the free version or do not opt-out the data will in fact be aggregated with the rest of their data. And why would they offer a free service if they couldn't use the results to improve their information about a given user? Google is an advertisement company. How Google can do this is shown in me earlier post in this thread. But since they now have an option to opt-out this is a moot point now. Opt-in would still be better though in my opinion, but I can live with this now.
  10. That is a good list of how puzzles in adventure games in my opinion should work and is taken more or less straight from the video where he talks with Ron Gilbert about adventure games. Thanks for taking the time! I also do get why you are disappointed - and I am too - but it was ONE video out of many videos that showed the process. And it was pretty clear that there were some troubles: A tight budget, to much "game" to match the budget and so forth. I think that what we got is either not completely the way he wanted to design the puzzles (but had to) or during the design and early testing phase he came to the conclusion that the games puzzles were sufficient and/or felt good to him or the testers. During the episodes it got clearer and clearer that the final product would not be the thing I hoped it would be. It was obvious that a lot (too much for my taste) time and effort went into implementing the art style and technical highlights (zoomable areas, multiple paralaxing layers, etc.) which had to come at a cost. But the bottom line is: He designed the game the way it is, so we got a Tim Schafer adventure. Some people are happy with it, some are not (I too have gripes with it!). But trying to force the game to be something different now is a moot point since it is done (at least Act 1) and can probably only be changed in minor details (again: budget). I hope for some degree of puzzle tuning (removing spoiler bugs and maybe implementing a few obstacles) in Act 1 and hope the best for a more challenging Act 2.
  11. I know. That's where the disagreement begins. [...] I fail to see the disagreement ;-) I'm completely on your side regarding the length, complexity and difficulty of the "puzzles" in Broken Age. I too think a lot of them don't even deserve to be called puzzles. But the game is still story-driven as is Monkey Island 2 or The Dig or a lot of other great adventure games. The Pacing is completely different though. And I too prefer a slower pacing if it comes from cracking harder puzzles. So no disagreement there. I also loved how Monkey 2 opened up in the middle where you were free to chase after the four map parts on your own terms (well not completely, but it felt that way!) - perhaps Broken Age will open up in Part 2 (does not seem probable at the moment, but who knows...) But that doesn't mean that other people are not allowed to really enjoy Broken Age even if it's puzzles are most of the times flat as a pancake. I don't like flat puzzles and obviously you don't but that doesn't justify going on a crusade to enforce our dislike for the puzzle density upon people who are happy with the game like some people in this thread are trying to do. I think it's not possible to persuade people into disliking a game that they obviously like. Yeah, I would love a "tough mode" for Broken Age because the current Beta does feel like "easy mode" to me. But given the budget and time issues this seems to be a wish that cannot be fulfilled. That's why I think it is a better way to point out things that are still changeable in Act 1, voice one's opinion (but in a reasonable and constructive way!) and to hope the best for Act 2. PS: Deponia is a great game. Haven't gotten to play parts 2 and 3 yet, which is a shame. But since Broken Age Act 1 only occupied two short evenings, there is hope for an escape from Deponia for me yet ;-) PS2: No, I do not want to get in an argument about budget, the work conditions at Deadelic or which game delivers more value per Euro - I just like Deponia ;-)
  12. I don't think the "story-dirven" aspect is a problem: "Old-school" adventures (in your and my definition) were also very story-driven. I think the difference is: Do you explore they story on your own terms, clicking, combining and puzzling your way thru or is it more of a narration where the game developer controls the pace and experience more like a director. I like both kinds of adventure games. I like the current Telltale games a lot because I accept them as an "interactive novel" that is highly engaging but has not a very deep gameplay mechanic. I also (of course) like the adventures where you have to earn every progression in the story by fighting your way thru brain-melting puzzles. When it comes to Broken Age: I expected the latter (difficult and complex puzzles) so I was disappointed in that aspect of the game but at the same time I like the pacing and narration and also how polished the game feels.
  13. Well Steam is no streaming-service, but one could argue that it is a cloud service in that it keeps the copies of your games, your licenses, your game data and more on their internet-based server-structure. That you "download a game" is in this case merely a form of caching because your local cached version ("Download") expires when not regularly connected to Steam servers. So in this definition it is a cloud service, because without their service your copies get useless. Which is exactly my gripe with Steam. If you would download complete copies and also have to option to download the installers for your own safe-keeping, than it would be OK. Steam could even use automatic water-marking to prevent users from spreading such downloads. But that is not their goal nor their business model. They do not want you to have the games at your free disposal. They want you to come back to Steam as often as possible. The offline mode is only in their to accomodate users that are often on the move (Laptop users).
  14. I'm trying to convince. I'm trying to show why this game isn't par to old adventure games. Because I know that if there isn't more unsatisfied people with game, it won't be repaired properly. From what I've been reading here and from what Tim has been saying, they are pleased with a toned down disconnected puzzles short game. The least I can do is try to show some arguments and convince more fellow backers that the game can be (much) better. Yes, and I agree that the game could be a lot better for ME and YOU with more puzzles. And given the recent poll a LOT of backers already think the puzzles were way too easy. But voicing this opinion and rallying support for it is different from trying to disproove that some people are satisfied. You won't change their view that way. So just assemble your thoughts on how to make the game better in a productive way and you might gain support. And be realistic! A complete re-vamp is never going to work as is a change of the art style (which is subjective again, I would prefer pixel-art for that matter...) or setting or story. But I think some things can be done without hurting the games design: For example: I would like the game to not give hints in dialog and/or responses until a certain threshold of time and puzzle-solving-attempts has been reached. I clicked some spoilers simply by accident because I am/was used to goo thru all dialog options but I was baffled that the game offered my tips and help before I event tried to solve the puzzle myself.
  15. For me Steam is a dog collar with a chain attached to a big heavy unmovable rock. It's a super shiny dog collar with sparkles and everything. But a collar with chain nontheless. Steam offers you only as much freedom as is necessary for it to overcome competitors but still maintains as tight a grip on THEIR games of which you only have a measly non-transferable license as they can. The benefits of accessing a game via download faster than to go to the nearest retailer and buy it there can be given to any customer in a non-restrictive way. Amazon does practice this to some extend: E.g. you can buy a CD and start downloading and listening right away (DRM-free!) while your physical copy is on the way. That gives you ALL of the benefits with no downside (except for even more reenforcring Amazons grip on the market and weakening local retailers). So, download services are not per se evil. But if it's all about restraining your rights (that's true for Steam, Apple iTunes and some others) it's certainly not a good thing either. I also would rather have a simple DRM-free download for the Beta than a Steam key. If "keeping control" is an issue (which is a crazy-backwards view which is already disproven - see the already pirated copies online...) why not just add digital water-marks to the individual copies? 90.000 copies is not that big a deal and there must be a download service to provide this service (or is there?!) Could also just be the executeable so it would reduce the individual amount of data drastically and it would make for a nice "collectors piece" if the game starts up saying that this "exlusive Beta is licensed to YOUR NAME HERE". Of course it would also be leaked but that is still true for a Steam-Version. Well, but it's a little late for that as it seems...
  16. I also enjoyed the puzzles in DOTT more than in BA - a whole lot I might say. That's (I think) partly because I liked the weird DOTT-style better and partly because of the fond memories that of course re-inforce over time. So that's a hard combination to beat. If I had a say I would crank the puzzle-meter in Broken Age WAY up. So I agree with you in your subjective view of the puzzles. But that was not my point: The enjoyment you (or anyone) get out of it is still completly subjective. Other people might say they are more happy with more "logical" puzzles and think DOTT's are too cryptic. That would be their subjective view then. So yes, it's still subjective. It's fair to say you did not like the puzzles, it's fair to give reasons for that (which I share!) and voice your opinion but I think it's nonesense to try to convince people that they should also be disappointed if in fact they are happy with the puzzles the way they are - especially using objective means like comparing the complexity (which you did in your post).
  17. Correct. Also he's wrong cause the puzzles in Broken Age are A LOT more creative and a LOT bigger. Just take a screenshot of a broken age puzzle and a screenshot of a DOTT puzzle and you will see that the BA puzzle has a lot more pixels which makes it more creative and bigger. Even if a pixel of BA would only be 50% as enjoyable as a DOTT pixel BA would still win! For example: The maximum any given BA screen can achieve is 2.073.600 pixels of creativity (given a Full HD resolution), the maximum enjoyment capacity of DOTT is just 64.000 Pixels! That means a pixel in Broken Age only has to be about 3,1% as funny as a pixel in DOTT and it would still win. Can we please stop now with trying to apply objectiveness to a completely subjective thing? It is completely OK if one is disappointed with the game but in the same way it must be OK if one is disappointed it must be OK if one likes the game. I am somewhat torn and consider some other contemporary adventures better than Broken Age which is sad but still my subjective point of view.
  18. A good - and given the circumstances - very polite answer. Also: Refunds (except perhaps for a complete fraudulent Kickstarter project) would stand against the basic idea of crowd-funding. The concept is to free a developer from a part of the financial risk that would be associated with a bank loan and to let the developer build a product without the worry of financial success afterwards. So you pledge money for a project that could probably not be funded be a bank and/or investor for risk reasons (sometimes also idiological reasons I guess - the whole "publishers are evil, they hate us all!" thing which some Kickstarter projects try to pull of). So if refunds (because one is unhappy with the product) would be possible or one would even be legally entiteld to one then the risk would be completely back with the developer: If the product would turn out to be not as appealing perhaps a lot of backers would demand refunds and send the developer into bankruptcy. In that case a developer would be better of with a publisher indeed! So: Refunds are incompatible with crowdfunding. Everything else would just be another form of pre-order or a loan which can be better provided by a bank, investor or publisher. If you support the idead of crowdfunding you have to accept the risks. Bottom line: Do not spend more money on a crowd-funded project than you are willing to BET for the idea and are willing to LOOSE (in the worst case scenario). Edit: Oh, for the record: I do not in anway way think my money was ill-spent. The documentary alone was worth my pledge and what I up until now played looks extremly nice and polished albeit a bit flat - but that's common knowledge by now, so no need to pour more salt in that incredibly-stunning-looking wound, especially since Tim will make the puzzles in Act II so DAMN hard that the typical iPhone user will think there is a paywall in the way ;-)
  19. That's not the same. There is a big difference between several traces you leave with several companies or one company that tries to gather all information and aggregate them. It's a well-known concept: Single bits of information about an individual do not concern privacy in a meaningful way as long as they are not widely aggragted to form a profile of said entity. So, yes, I will keep using my phone event though I know what data traces my phone leaves, thank you very much, but that does not mean that I also have to be OK with Google trying to merge every bit of information about me they can get their fingers on.
  20. OR how about this - if they wanted to "tag" your account so badly they would simply check if you had an email with Broken Age steam key in your gmail. Static IPs are getting more and more rare nowadays, so the usefullness of cross-referencing by IPs is dubious at best. With google plus, and your search history, and your browsing history (and that's even when not using chrome) google has much more robust tools to profile users and categorize advertisements than some custom guesswork for tagging miniscule number of users with inconsistent results. Of course: The more data they have the easier it is to identify you. But my example shows that you can identify a single entity over two different data sets even if each data set uses a different "anonymous" IP as long as they share at least one data field (in this case you have two: Timestamp and IP) to cross-reference them. Also my example works in all scenarios and is easily automated (i.e. without the need to gather specific details like a Steam Key) and can be built into the same routines that are used already to aggregate the data for the customer.
  21. Google Analytics uses a unified protocol nowadays for Web, Android, iOS, and application integration so it is possible and since googles main source of revenue is selling ads it's not far-fetched assumption that they do this. Why else would they offer this service? There is a premium version of GA where the paying company can adjust whether the collected data from their service will be aggregated with other data Google has collected elsewhere, which implies that they do aggregate if you don't by premium and opt-out. But of course even then it is a matter of trust since it all runs on their servers.
  22. Ok, fair enough. But do you also trust Google enough to not be pissed off about this?
  23. Yes, you're right, there kinda is. But it's not very useful as you can see. Either way, it makes zero difference as we're talking about Google secretly knowing when you're browsing and when you're playing Broken Age. I'm still waiting to hear the connection. Ok Mr. "Professional Web Developer" here is the explanation and does not need any form of cookies or signature recognition: Google Analytics needs a client ID that should not change (otherwise tracking over different play sessions would be impossible) Therefore your system is evaluated to generate a client-ID or a GUID is used. That means google can "track" you playing Broken Age over different play sessions: - CLIENT84144 - 2014-16-01 - Broken Age - CLIENT12732 - 2014-16-01 - My little Farm <-- Someone else in the same household played some other game, but has a different Client-ID - CLIENT84144 - 2014-16-02 - Broken Age - CLIENT84144 - 2014-16-03 - Broken Age etc. All these records contain: Your external IP, your unique client id, a complete timestamp, the payload and probably even more data that can be used for identification (like details from the HTTP header). Google can now cross-reference this with a list of other records your browser leaves if you are logged in into their service (even if you log out they can still follow you for some time if you don't remove the cookies at once): - xyz@gmail.com - 2014-16-01 - www.youtube.com - abc@gmail.com - 2014-16-01 - www.somesite.com - def@gmail.com - 2014-16-01 - www.some-other-site.com - xyz@gmail.com - 2014-16-02 - www.google.com - xyz@gmail.com - 2014-16-03 - www.google.com Over time there are enough data points to get a pretty good match: It is obvious from the above data sets that Google can without any problem match your Client-ID (CLIENT84144 ) of Broken Age to your Google Profile (xyz@gmail.com) if they get enough different records - which they will given that any site that uses G+ buttons, that embeds YouTube videos, that embeds Google Maps and of course every Google page itself and - as you stated yourself - a majority of websites deliver your data points to them. Also you have the misconception that Google has to get a perfect match but that is not the point. It is sufficient if they can be relatively sure about your identitiy to add "Plays Broken Age" to your data profile. If its a mismatch than somebody else has this tag attached to their profile. Also Google knows if you are behind a NAT with just a few users or some hundre people (like a company, university or residential home) because they see how many different browser signatures originate from that IP at a given time - you stated yourself how many websites use Google Analytics (or G+ like buttons or embedded YouTube Videos or embedded Maps or or or ...). If there are too many they can just apply a lower scoring factor to the gathered information. If it's just one within the last few hours they know that there is probably only one active user and can use a high factor. Point being: If you have not one but a whole bunch of data points from different databases you can cross-reference them even if in each database a different "anonymous" unique ID is used. This is a pretty easy task for a company that has some of the best data-analyzing tools of the world - so the answer is: Yes, they do know if a specific Google User plays a specific game.
  24. That should never be a reason for anything. For Google it's always about marketing because that's their primary source of income. So yes, they will sell the data they gather - mostly indirect by allowing "better" targeted advertising which means higher prices for ads. Regarding DF: Yes, they can probably get metrics like that (it was already mentioned in some post about a year ago I think...) but what would they gain? Surely they won't go back to the drawing board to revise the game based on that because it's a little too late for that. So what's the point? I do not see a benefit for the player to be honest... But of course that's not what tracking and getting meta data is about. Do you read all EULAs of every application and game? It should not be necessary to read all that stuff if companies just sticked to a basic principle: You get what you pay for. If you pay for a game you get a game. That means no ad-ware, no spy-ware, no-tracking. Imagine going to the super market and the clerk puts a mandatory bug on each an every thing you bought to "gather data on how fast you consume our products".
  25. You consented when you agreed to the EULA. Please don't accuse other people of lacking in logic and then go and claim that this was done without consent. And again: 99% of websites use Google Analytics. It's worth mentioning, I think. Finally, this is why a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Without COOKIES it's impossible, technically absolutely and totally utterly impossible, for Google Analytics to be "tracking" YOU. What's more, anyone can see what cookies ARE being sent and used by GA -- and guess what -- they don't track you. Claiming otherwise based on your own opinions about big corporations is like claiming that Uncle Bens places tiny cameras in each grain of rice. Wow, did you just edited your post. I could swear my e-mail notifications shows you writing: "Four words: END USE LICENSE AGREEMENT"? Oh, I think you did. Well CAPS-BOY, I did not claim it was illegal. I said it was without consent. And clicking "Accept" an a multi-page long EULA is not the same as giving explicit consent. It merely means: I want to play the game now. In some countries there are laws that state that "suprising clauses" in EULAs are invalid. Which makes sense: Otherwise why not just add "All your money belongs to us" somewhere in a hundred page long EULA. 99% of website usee GA. That is probably the reason why AdBlock and NoScript are among the most popular addons in Firefox. Cookies are not neccessary for tracking. GA (or any other service that is used in multiple pages or applications) can track you simply by matching your browser fingerprint and your IP address. You have no clue on how tracking works, do you? Yeah it's absolutly possible to tracking users behind a NAT. Talking about Also the fact that you are re-editing about half of your posts in this thread tells a lot about you and your opinions.
  • Create New...