Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
adamyedlin

Thats it?

Recommended Posts

I agree about the flow, the flow is good and I'm not stuck like the Daedelic games trying to figure out the next illogical step. That being said, I'm not finding the game overly hard, even though I haven't yet finished it. I feel like I know what to do next and most of the puzzles so far are quite logical, perhaps a little too logical.

I found a similar situation in Broken Sword 5 Part 1 which I just played and finished last week. A great game with great art, but a little too easy, still it took me only 5 hours to finish that one.

Is this current beta of Broken Age the full Act 1? Or is it a part of Act 1?

Gotta say I'm enjoying it though and am looking forward to playing the rest of it, I think my wife will like this one too. Great job guys!

Finding that puzzle sweet spot between illogical nonsense and blatantly obvious seems to be tricky :D

Content-wise, the "beta" is the complete first Act. It's only beta in that it's got some bugs and hasn't been officially released to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Act I was just the right length, took me about 5 hours. On one sitting that would've been 3-4 hours.

Only few minor "complaints" I have are that some dialogue options were enabled before even visiting certain areas. At some point I had no clue what the main character was talking about (about an area I haven't yet visited and about people I yet haven't met). Dialogue somehow assumed you had visited all areas first and only then started to talk to people. Some items had a bit similar issues: main character wanted - and specifically asked for - a few items for no obvious reason at that point of the game. For example the artsy thing on the woodsmith's wall, why she wanted that thing so eagerily?

Otherwise, a great experience. Can't wait for Act II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's it. I am very happy with the result. A very high quality game. Wonderful ideas. Very deep atmosphere. I love the main characters and the idea of their bizarre origins. Sheas attitude and voice is lovely. I want to stay more in this world. Brilliant Music and soundscape. The cinematics are fluid and have an expensive look and feel. They serve the story very well.

Great job DF. Thank you very much for this great experience of characters, artwork and music. You have the Magic!

(The game will feel very nice on the iPad.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be two types of people playing this game:

1. Completionists: People who play an PaC adventure for brain workout, and although they care about the quality of the story, they mostly care about the quality of the puzzles, and the amount of said puzzles. This leads to them being a bit disappointed if it doesn't take them long to rush through the puzzles

2. Explorers: People who will take their time completing the game, as they must experience everything that the game has to offer, they will often take longer on puzzles and get stuck a bit more, but won't complain about the puzzles as long as the story and characters has them gripped right till the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seem to be two types of people playing this game:

1. Completionists: People who play an PaC adventure for brain workout, and although they care about the quality of the story, they mostly care about the quality of the puzzles, and the amount of said puzzles. This leads to them being a bit disappointed if it doesn't take them long to rush through the puzzles

2. Explorers: People who will take their time completing the game, as they must experience everything that the game has to offer, they will often take longer on puzzles and get stuck a bit more, but won't complain about the puzzles as long as the story and characters has them gripped right till the end.

I don't believe this dichotomy exists or that these are even mutually-exclusive options.

In fact, they could be two complimentary aspects of a wholesome gaming experience that most people seek.

For example, exploration being incorporated into puzzle solving causes puzzles to be inherently more difficult or more time-consuming, and vice-versa --- having more intricate puzzles forces you to explore more.

Regarding who "enjoys" which aspect more - I for one enjoy both aspects, and if one of them was somehow "taken away" or hindered while artificially keeping the other aspect at a maximum level (not sure how this is even possible) - then I would simply not enjoy the whole experience as much as I would have - otherwise.

Puzzles and interactivity are part of what immerses you in the game (and prevents it from just being a linear slide-show or animation that you passively watch)

Animations, music, sound-effects, story, dialogues and characters is what makes the puzzles have context and meaning, and thus makes them more engaging (more than a word-puzzle in a newspaper or a chess riddle, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours for Act 1 seems perfectly fine, if I compare it to the playtime I have on some other adventure games I have finished on Steam.

Broken Sword 1 Directors Cut - 7.6h

Loom - 4.0h

Monkey Island 1 SE - 4.1h

Monkey Island 2 SE - 5h

The Cave - 5.3h to beat it once.

I assume it would land somewhere between 8-10h for both Act 1 and 2 when it's completed, and I don't think we can ask for more of them.

If I look at other genres, then it seems even more reasonable:

Bioshock Infinite - 9.6h

Iron Brigade - 7.3h to beat singleplayer once.

Max Payne 2 - 6.7h

Portal 1 - 3.5h (an estimation, I beat it before Steam started logging time)

Portal 2 - 10h to beat singleplayer.

Rock of Ages 3.7h to beat singleplayer

Are you joking, 5 hours for monkey 2? No way, you can do this, unless:

1) you played using the solution

2) you played it for 5th time

3) you are a genius, with IQ over 180

4) you played on the easy difficulty level.

In fact you need roughly 5 hours to complete it, even knowing beforehand everything that needs to be done!

Monkey 2 is huge and with great puzzles! For me it is the benchmark by which every adventure should me measured with, in terms of challenge and length! And it is a pity, that, since then, 20+ years after, very few games, can claim to have reached its levels!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours for Act 1 seems perfectly fine, if I compare it to the playtime I have on some other adventure games I have finished on Steam.

Broken Sword 1 Directors Cut - 7.6h

Loom - 4.0h

Monkey Island 1 SE - 4.1h

Monkey Island 2 SE - 5h

The Cave - 5.3h to beat it once.

I assume it would land somewhere between 8-10h for both Act 1 and 2 when it's completed, and I don't think we can ask for more of them.

If I look at other genres, then it seems even more reasonable:

Bioshock Infinite - 9.6h

Iron Brigade - 7.3h to beat singleplayer once.

Max Payne 2 - 6.7h

Portal 1 - 3.5h (an estimation, I beat it before Steam started logging time)

Portal 2 - 10h to beat singleplayer.

Rock of Ages 3.7h to beat singleplayer

Are you joking, 5 hours for monkey 2? No way, you can do this, unless:

1) you played using the solution

2) you played it for 5th time

3) you are a genius, with IQ over 180

4) you played on the easy difficulty level.

In fact you need roughly 5 hours to complete it, even knowing beforehand everything that needs to be done!

Monkey 2 is huge and with great puzzles! For me it is the benchmark by which every adventure should me measured with, in terms of challenge and length! And it is a pity, that, since then, 20+ years after, very few games, can claim to have reached its levels!!!

Of course I have played through it several times. But it still don't feel as a short game when I get through it in 5 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
############!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING: SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!####################

[del]In Vella's first "room", all the interactions you can do with other characters are concentrated in that specific room, and by sheer CHANCE - you can happen to interact with the one object/character that is needed to progress to the next "room", thereby eliminating all the possible interesting/funny dialogues you could have had with the characters in that room... That's a bit of a shame - the way to prevent it is to somewhat HINDER progress by hiding plot-progressing actions behind a "wall" of other interactions (like, having to move to another room first , or having to perform some series of actions - mundane and meaningless as they might be...[/del]

###############################################################

you can't accidently progress to the next spot in the first room because you actually need to click on the knife to progress the scene. if you haven't talked to everyone yet don't click the knife, just take the half of the cupcake and the grandad takes the knife back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours for Act 1 seems perfectly fine, if I compare it to the playtime I have on some other adventure games I have finished on Steam.

Broken Sword 1 Directors Cut - 7.6h

Loom - 4.0h

Monkey Island 1 SE - 4.1h

Monkey Island 2 SE - 5h

The Cave - 5.3h to beat it once.

I assume it would land somewhere between 8-10h for both Act 1 and 2 when it's completed, and I don't think we can ask for more of them.

If I look at other genres, then it seems even more reasonable:

Bioshock Infinite - 9.6h

Iron Brigade - 7.3h to beat singleplayer once.

Max Payne 2 - 6.7h

Portal 1 - 3.5h (an estimation, I beat it before Steam started logging time)

Portal 2 - 10h to beat singleplayer.

Rock of Ages 3.7h to beat singleplayer

Are you joking, 5 hours for monkey 2? No way, you can do this, unless:

1) you played using the solution

2) you played it for 5th time

3) you are a genius, with IQ over 180

4) you played on the easy difficulty level.

In fact you need roughly 5 hours to complete it, even knowing beforehand everything that needs to be done!

Monkey 2 is huge and with great puzzles! For me it is the benchmark by which every adventure should me measured with, in terms of challenge and length! And it is a pity, that, since then, 20+ years after, very few games, can claim to have reached its levels!!!

Of course I have played through it several times. But it still don't feel as a short game when I get through it in 5 hours.

So the question is how long did it take in your first time? Come on you can't say you needed 5 hours only when you say you needed 7.6 for broken sword, which is extremely less challenging on all aspects!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a "That's it?" reaction after finishing Shay's part, and I was worried Vella's would be just as short and easy, but I was pleasantly surprised by both the length and challenge of her section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only played Shay's portion of the story so far but what I can say at this point is the length is just fine, it's the difficulty of the puzzles that needs a bit of fine tuning. The solutions pretty much slapped me in the face every time. I'm hopeful and it sounds like Vella's side of things is a bit harder but only just slightly.

Admittedly a bit of the disappointment I'm feeling is the let down from 2 years of hype; also hoping the let down results in a more realistic viewpoint and I'll find Vella's side more fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

### SPOILERS inside, don't read if you haven't played Vella's POV yet ###

[del]you can't accidently progress to the next spot in the first room because you actually need to click on the knife to progress the scene. if you haven't talked to everyone yet don't click the knife, just take the half of the cupcake and the grandad takes the knife back[/del].

[del]

That's nice in hindsight... obviously i would have done that had I known that giving the knife to the mother would progress the game with no way of turning back. I didn't spend too much time thinking whether I will or will not have the chance to exhaust the dialogue potential with the other family members once I give the knife --- since I thought (mistakenly - obviously) that the knife was going to be used on the cakes or something of that sort, and that we would all remain in the room. I was excited about the game coming out and wasn't thinking TOO clearly at the time.

All I'm saying is that by just being a bit careless I ruined a large part of the story for myself, with no "turning back"... which is a shame.

Like I said, if the grandfather was in another room, for example, I would have tended to first exhaust all there is to do in the first room, before I moved to HIS room, and then back again to the first one to give the knife.

This would have LED players to exploration and story-immersion, rather than just leading them to immediate puzzle-solving.[/del]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never give into hype. I was slightly let down by the ease of puzzles and short length of the game (as a result), but I honestly was half-expecting it anyway. Getting on the hype train is the worst possible thing you can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiler Alert obviously!!

I finished act 1 in about 3.5 hrs, I liked Shay's story more (Elijah Wood nailed the character as did Jennifer Hale as Mother) but typically it lasted nowhere near as long as Velouria's, which became more interesting when the sci-fi stuff was introduced and then her story ended too...

For me I know it's only half the game but it felt ridiculously short, not because of the lack of story, characters or areas but because they were so under utilised (the areas were way too static with nowhere near enough things to click on). This game was made for and funded by hardcore point and click adventure fans and yet they made an incredibly easy game who's puzzles were frankly an insult they were so effortless to complete and unimaginative.

If they upped the difficulty and complexity several fold (as is needed) then the length would have taken care of itself, right now I am really regretting spending $100 on this game, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have backed the game and just spent $15 or whatever when the game came out in it's entirety (but hey I got a nice t-shirt out of the deal...)

The art style also wasn't to my liking (I knew that already of course), I would've much preferred a more traditional old school disneyesque art style that appeared in the best games of this genre (also as a side note, Machinarium's art style whipped this games many times over).

I liked the story a little and the twist ending was cool if a little cliched, the game wasn't very funny though (I loled about 3 times, the spoon was great) and the music was forgettable (with a few exceptions), man I'm depressed :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler Alert obviously!!

I finished act 1 in about 3.5 hrs, I liked Shay's story more (Elijah Wood nailed the character as did Jennifer Hale as Mother) but typically it lasted nowhere near as long as Velouria's, which became more interesting when the sci-fi stuff was introduced and then her story ended too...

For me I know it's only half the game but it felt ridiculously short, not because of the lack of story, characters or areas but because they were so under utilised (the areas were way too static with nowhere near enough things to click on). This game was made for and funded by hardcore point and click adventure fans and yet they made an incredibly easy game who's puzzles were frankly an insult they were so effortless to complete and unimaginative.

If they upped the difficulty and complexity several fold (as is needed) then the length would have taken care of itself, right now I am really regretting spending $100 on this game, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have backed the game and just spent $15 or whatever when the game came out in it's entirety (but hey I got a nice t-shirt out of the deal...)

The art style also wasn't to my liking (I knew that already of course), I would've much preferred a more traditional old school disneyesque art style that appeared in the best games of this genre (also as a side note, Machinarium's art style whipped this games many times over).

I liked the story a little and the twist ending was cool if a little cliched, the game wasn't very funny though (I loled about 3 times, the spoon was great) and the music was forgettable (with a few exceptions), man I'm depressed :(

I also spent $100 but I don't regret it, since even if this game was total rubbish (which it isn't , I really enjoyed it - EVEN with all its drawbacks and weaknesses) -- it gave a real boost for modern-age adventure games and for video-game kickstarters as a whole. So I feel that I had part in contributing to something which is much larger than just this game by itself.

That's my perspective, anyhow.

The art style I came to like eventually, but my gripe with it is different: I think it's too polished for a game with this amount of funding. If they had cut back significantly on the art (making it support only lower resolutions and perhaps being less "3D-ish" and more traditional flat 2D) - it might have freed up enough resources to make the gameplay itself much more rich and multi-layered.

The music - I actually enjoyed a lot, especially Vella's parts. Shay's parts were a bit too... I don't know exactly - but maybe "opera-tic"? I'd have liked it if it was much more "sci-fi-ish" with 80's synth-based tunes ... (and less violin...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own all Daedalic games (except the sequels) and I love them, but they are so lengthy and find some of the puzzles so counterintuitive that I've only managed to finish The Whispered World, and I needed the help of a walkthrough for 3-4 puzzles.

Maybe liking games to be shorter and more straightforward makes me less of a gamer or "not a real adventure game's fan" or something like that, but when you have so little time to play, you start appreciating games like Broken Age, Gone Home or Kentucky Route Zero.

In the 4 days since launch I've clocked 1 hour 50 minutes of play and I'm enjoying it A LOT so far, so if the game is 3-4 hours long it's ok for me (and let's not forget we are talking about a first act only).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own all Daedalic games (except the sequels) and I love them, but they are so lengthy and find some of the puzzles so counterintuitive that I've only managed to finish The Whispered World, and I needed the help of a walkthrough for 3-4 puzzles.

Maybe liking games to be shorter and more straightforward makes me less of a gamer or "not a real adventure game's fan" or something like that, but when you have so little time to play, you start appreciating games like Broken Age, Gone Home or Kentucky Route Zero.

In the 4 days since launch I've clocked 1 hour 50 minutes of play and I'm enjoying it A LOT so far, so if the game is 3-4 hours long it's ok for me (and let's not forget we are talking about a first act only).

I think the time issue should be separated from the difficulty issue.

Obviously they are linked, but not in entirely 1:1 linear fashion.

Meaning to say --- you can keep the game "short" (in terms of avg. gameplay time) but still make it tricker and harder.

I have less issue with the time spent and more with the difficulty.

Machinarium for example - I think I spent roughly the same amount of time on (~5~7hr, maybe more? and we're talking about a whole game, not half a game) but it was significantly harder and more satisfying in terms of puzzles.

So those two are separate issues. I believe MOST people who're complaining about the game would have been content with a short but challenging experience rather than a longer version of the same level of difficulty as we saw in BA-Part1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own all Daedalic games (except the sequels) and I love them, but they are so lengthy and find some of the puzzles so counterintuitive that I've only managed to finish The Whispered World, and I needed the help of a walkthrough for 3-4 puzzles.

Maybe liking games to be shorter and more straightforward makes me less of a gamer or "not a real adventure game's fan" or something like that, but when you have so little time to play, you start appreciating games like Broken Age, Gone Home or Kentucky Route Zero.

In the 4 days since launch I've clocked 1 hour 50 minutes of play and I'm enjoying it A LOT so far, so if the game is 3-4 hours long it's ok for me (and let's not forget we are talking about a first act only).

In my opinion Daedalic is the new benchmark for adventure games. I haven't played its latest gams, but from what I have played, I think, that the best in terms of puzzles and length is Enda and Harvey the breakout. Its the only game, since Day of the Tentacle, that I felt I was back in the golden adventures era of the early 90s. I enjoyed it very much. It is not a game, which you can finish in one day, playing 3-4 hours in average. You really need to think hard and twist you mind. And I had to admit, that in a certain point, being stucked for a couple of days, I resorted to the solution, in order to proceed further. But when I saw what I had to do, I smiled. It was the puzzle !SPOLILER AHEAD! with the monitors and the light switches, for those that have played it !SPOILER END!. The answer to the puzzle was really hard to be spotted, and mind bending, but yes it made sense. It was clever, and explained why you could turn on and off the lights on each room, which was a question I had since the very begining of Edna's adventure inside the building. I smiled, because, it reminded me these old days, where you could have been stuck for days on a puzzle, and go to bed, thinking possible solutions, which you would try the day after. This is what games miss today. It is not bad to have a mind bending, an almost impossible puzzle, in your game, as far as it is not a silly one. On the contrary, it is absolutely healthy, and you will probably get a praise for it, from people who really apreciate a challenging gaming experience. After all, it is a mean to differentiate between experts and novices players. Gaming is always about challenge. It is entertainment; yes; but not alone; challenge should always be there. Taking out challenge, there is no gaming any more, it is just entertainment, it is like watching a movie! If a game lacks challenge, you are never satisfied after it ends; OK it may has a good story, perfect visuals, but if you finish without touching, then you always have a sour taste in your mouth. You always, think, did I gain something? Do I exercise my mind, my reflexes, my dexterities, whatever playing a game needs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue my thoughts from my previous post. Challenge is crucial to a game. Challenge is the fundamental difference that experiences someone who is viewing a game and someone thta is playing it. The player plays, with the purpose of wining the game, the viewer just watches for his fun; he may be thrilled but for reaons which are not inherent in the game's definition. The game has always a winning situation. If you win the game (in our case solve all the puzzles, because this is the wining situtation in the adventures genre), then you are satisfied OK. But the level of satisfaction is different based on 2 factors:

1) the level of your experience (the gamer)

2) the level of your opponent (the opponent in adventures are the puzzles imposed by the designer of the game)

For example no experienced player would be happy to win an easy oponent. On the other hand novice players would be happy even if they do so. Novice player, again, could become frustrated from a difficult opponent, but again competing against such oponents, you only gain experience, which is required in order to level up to the experienced gamer category. Though, a game full of high level puzzles may discourage them from playing again, the same will apply if they cannot win an easy game . You see there are different combination of these two factors, and if one of them is neglected, then it is certain that the game is not adequate balanced and become unsatisfying. A balanced game, should always have puzzles, targeted to all players categories. Experienced players, also need some easy puzzles to get accustomed to the game. But they need also, something that will make them stuck for more than half an hour and scratch their head thinking and thinking. Each game, needs, its so called impossible situtation.

If for a game, there is even a single player, who can win it without a single moment of being stucked then the game has a balance problem. So, I think that challenge, is inherent factor of a game and it should be considered more from their designers.

I hope that it is not too late for TIm to fix things in act 2, though I found it difficult to be done.

I will conclude with an urge to DF:

Come on DF guys, you can do better, do not be afraid of challenge and have two things in mind:

1) All the classics, to be remembered today, were difficult, much more than contemporary games. But they are classics. They are played again and again, they are re-released, despite being difficult! Why? Because they had all the neccessary ingredients in the correct amount. Visuals, story, sound, challenge!

2) Back then we didn't have the internet, we got stuck and days passed until to find or read somewhere about the solution. Nowadays, the internet brings the solution one click away. So, what are you afraid of? Do not breed more self-indulgent gamers, give them something to become healthier. Don't be afraid and you will see that both the gamers community and the industry in general will reward you. Break the "I want dummy players" publishers' spell once and for all!!!

Come on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To continue my thoughts from my previous post. Challenge is crucial to a game. Challenge is the fundamental difference that experiences someone who is viewing a game and someone thta is playing it. The player plays, with the purpose of wining the game, the viewer just watches for his fun; he may be thrilled but for reaons which are not inherent in the game's definition. The game has always a winning situation. If you win the game (in our case solve all the puzzles, because this is the wining situtation in the adventures genre), then you are satisfied OK. But the level of satisfaction is different based on 2 factors:

1) the level of your experience (the gamer)

2) the level of your opponent (the opponent in adventures are the puzzles imposed by the designer of the game)

For example no experienced player would be happy to win an easy oponent. On the other hand novice players would be happy even if they do so. Novice player, again, could become frustrated from a difficult opponent, but again competing against such oponents, you only gain experience, which is required in order to level up to the experienced gamer category. Though, a game full of high level puzzles may discourage them from playing again, the same will apply if they cannot win an easy game . You see there are different combination of these two factors, and if one of them is neglected, then it is certain that the game is not adequate balanced and become unsatisfying. A balanced game, should always have puzzles, targeted to all players categories. Experienced players, also need some easy puzzles to get accustomed to the game. But they need also, something that will make them stuck for more than half an hour and scratch their head thinking and thinking. Each game, needs, its so called impossible situtation.

If for a game, there is even a single player, who can win it without a single moment of being stucked then the game has a balance problem. So, I think that challenge, is inherent factor of a game and it should be considered more from their designers.

I hope that it is not too late for TIm to fix things in act 2, though I found it difficult to be done.

I will conclude with an urge to DF:

Come on DF guys, you can do better, do not be afraid of challenge and have two things in mind:

1) All the classics, to be remembered today, were difficult, much more than contemporary games. But they are classics. They are played again and again, they are re-released, despite being difficult! Why? Because they had all the neccessary ingredients in the correct amount. Visuals, story, sound, challenge!

2) Back then we didn't have the internet, we got stuck and days passed until to find or read somewhere about the solution. Nowadays, the internet brings the solution one click away. So, what are you afraid of? Do not breed more self-indulgent gamers, give them something to become healthier. Don't be afraid and you will see that both the gamers community and the industry in general will reward you. Break the "I want dummy players" publishers' spell once and for all!!!

Come on!

While I generally agree,

I think you should be careful from over-generalizing...

"Challenge" or "A challenge level which matches experience" is not the ONLY THING by which fun or satisfaction is measured.

Otherwise, there wouldn't have been so many people in a game like Diablo who attempt to cheat and gain unfair advantages over other players (virtually making the game not challenging at all for them).

People enjoy different things.

For example, in multiplayer RPG's (although this is also true for other genres) there is something called the BARTLE TEST which specifies 4 categories which characterize a gamer :

1. the killer

2. the explorer

3. the socializer

4. the achiever

A typical gamer would be a combination of all of this -- each to a different degree.

Now obviously this is less relevant for point-and-click adventure games, but we could think of similar categories for those games...

And you could have players which enjoy the story more than the challenge, or players who enjoy exploring every single line of dialogue, and players who enjoy short and concise adventures and others who loves adventures that take them weeks to complete, etc...

I agree that BA should be a challenge-oriented game because that's (i believe) the main thing that the community of backers that supported it wanted. On the other hand, it's DF's (or even Tim's) game and they (he) have (has) the liberty of creating whatever they (he) want(s) or think(s) should be made...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To continue my thoughts from my previous post. Challenge is crucial to a game. Challenge is the fundamental difference that experiences someone who is viewing a game and someone thta is playing it. The player plays, with the purpose of wining the game, the viewer just watches for his fun; he may be thrilled but for reaons which are not inherent in the game's definition. The game has always a winning situation. If you win the game (in our case solve all the puzzles, because this is the wining situtation in the adventures genre), then you are satisfied OK. But the level of satisfaction is different based on 2 factors:

1) the level of your experience (the gamer)

2) the level of your opponent (the opponent in adventures are the puzzles imposed by the designer of the game)

For example no experienced player would be happy to win an easy oponent. On the other hand novice players would be happy even if they do so. Novice player, again, could become frustrated from a difficult opponent, but again competing against such oponents, you only gain experience, which is required in order to level up to the experienced gamer category. Though, a game full of high level puzzles may discourage them from playing again, the same will apply if they cannot win an easy game . You see there are different combination of these two factors, and if one of them is neglected, then it is certain that the game is not adequate balanced and become unsatisfying. A balanced game, should always have puzzles, targeted to all players categories. Experienced players, also need some easy puzzles to get accustomed to the game. But they need also, something that will make them stuck for more than half an hour and scratch their head thinking and thinking. Each game, needs, its so called impossible situtation.

If for a game, there is even a single player, who can win it without a single moment of being stucked then the game has a balance problem. So, I think that challenge, is inherent factor of a game and it should be considered more from their designers.

I hope that it is not too late for TIm to fix things in act 2, though I found it difficult to be done.

I will conclude with an urge to DF:

Come on DF guys, you can do better, do not be afraid of challenge and have two things in mind:

1) All the classics, to be remembered today, were difficult, much more than contemporary games. But they are classics. They are played again and again, they are re-released, despite being difficult! Why? Because they had all the neccessary ingredients in the correct amount. Visuals, story, sound, challenge!

2) Back then we didn't have the internet, we got stuck and days passed until to find or read somewhere about the solution. Nowadays, the internet brings the solution one click away. So, what are you afraid of? Do not breed more self-indulgent gamers, give them something to become healthier. Don't be afraid and you will see that both the gamers community and the industry in general will reward you. Break the "I want dummy players" publishers' spell once and for all!!!

Come on!

While I generally agree,

I think you should be careful from over-generalizing...

"Challenge" or "A challenge level which matches experience" is not the ONLY THING by which fun or satisfaction is measured.

Otherwise, there wouldn't have been so many people in a game like Diablo who attempt to cheat and gain unfair advantages over other players (virtually making the game not challenging at all for them).

People enjoy different things.

For example, in multiplayer RPG's (although this is also true for other genres) there is something called the BARTLE TEST which specifies 4 categories which characterize a gamer :

1. the killer

2. the explorer

3. the socializer

4. the achiever

A typical gamer would be a combination of all of this -- each to a different degree.

Now obviously this is less relevant for point-and-click adventure games, but we could think of similar categories for those games...

And you could have players which enjoy the story more than the challenge, or players who enjoy exploring every single line of dialogue, and players who enjoy short and concise adventures and others who loves adventures that take them weeks to complete, etc...

I agree that BA should be a challenge-oriented game because that's (i believe) the main thing that the community of backers that supported it wanted. On the other hand, it's DF's (or even Tim's) game and they (he) have (has) the liberty of creating whatever they (he) want(s) or think(s) should be made...

Well, multi player games, are another question. I am not so much familiar with such games (for example I know diablo in the single-player version, which I played once), so correct me if I am wrong but I think that these games do not have a clear win situation global wise, in others words they are endless, you can play for ever. So the main concern of users there is to gain superiority over specific situations, but which do not give them a global win. Moreover "dirty players" always existed in every type of game (computer games, sports, etc.). Adventure games, however had the unique characteristic that are only single player, so even cheating, if it was possible, wouldn't annoy anyone, since your opponent the designer is not practically there to protest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can beat Monkey Island in about an hour if you know what you're doing.

That's not a valid argument, since you DON'T know what you are doing, when you are playing Monkey Island for the first time. I wanna see the person who finished Monkey Island in under an hour, the first time they played it and had to figure everything out without any help.

Of course games are shorter if you know the solution beforehand, sadly that's exactly what's NOT the case here. Don't be ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Act 1 in its current state crashed on me 3 times, but the autosave-function let me start at the exact place every time, so that wasn't so bad, considering this is still labeled a "beta". I loved the story, the characters, the music and the graphics. I would have liked some of the backgrounds to be in higher res, but obviously that doesn't take anything away from the gameplay.

I "beat" the act in about 3 h and 40 m, and I think I tried everything and used up every dialogue tree. I didn't really get stuck, which is both good and bad. I guess I would have liked to get "a little stuck", if you know what I mean.

If act 2 is a little harder or "longer" than act 1, then this would end up being a 6-8 hour adventure game for an experienced adventure gamer. I think that is very ok! But just like a movie or a book or a song, you shouldn't make it longer just to make it longer. The story, the narrative and and the gameplay has to flow - and for act 1 it really did! I didn't feel anything was missing.

Considering we still have the entire second act to look forward to, and all the documentaries, the downloadable soundtrack and all the physical stuff we got in the mail, I really think we are getting bang for our bucks!

So far, Broken Age is a GREAT GAME and a good experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can beat Monkey Island in about an hour if you know what you're doing.

That's not a valid argument, since you DON'T know what you are doing, when you are playing Monkey Island for the first time. I wanna see the person who finished Monkey Island in under an hour, the first time they played it and had to figure everything out without any help.

Of course games are shorter if you know the solution beforehand, sadly that's exactly what's NOT the case here. Don't be ridiculous.

Doubt you can do it in less than two hours, even if you know the exact insult-answer matching. Surely, this is not the case for Monkey 2, which is much bigger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe MOST people who're complaining about the game would have been content with a short but challenging experience rather than a longer version of the same level of difficulty as we saw in BA-Part1...

Well, I have just the opposite problem. When I started playing adventure games in the 90's I didn't care to spend 2 hours trying to solve a difficult puzzle because I knew I had the whole evening to play. But when you only have at most one hour a day of gaming, you want to feel that you are advancing (at least a little bit) into the story. That's why I run away from difficult games and that's why I'd prefer a longer and easier game tan a shorter and harder one, but for me the best kind of games are the shorter and easier ones.

I feel sorry, because I know that people like me are the ones who are ruining the industry forcing companies to make casual games and all that, but well... that's how I feel and I'm really happy that great designers like Tim make games that can be played by everyone regardless of the free time we have at our disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, multi player games, are another question. I am not so much familiar with such games (for example I know diablo in the single-player version, which I played once), so correct me if I am wrong but I think that these games do not have a clear win situation global wise, in others words they are endless, you can play for ever. So the main concern of users there is to gain superiority over specific situations, but which do not give them a global win. Moreover "dirty players" always existed in every type of game (computer games, sports, etc.). Adventure games, however had the unique characteristic that are only single player, so even cheating, if it was possible, wouldn't annoy anyone, since your opponent the designer is not practically there to protest!

I was not trying to compare Action-RPG's to adventure games, I was just trying to give an example for a game in which SOME people don't enjoy the challenge, but other aspects (killing other players and annoying them, for example).

It doesn't always have to be dirty. Some people in Diablo could enjoy exhausting all quests and side-quests, regardless of how difficult they are.

I'm just giving examples for cases where the "challenge" of the game is not the only (or even the primary) source of pleasure/entertainment for certain people in certain games.

The same could be said for adventure games:

I'm sure there are people who enjoy story, humor, dialogue etc. more than they enjoy difficult puzzles or complexity, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I don't mind the length so much. That's not my issue, I'm more concerned about the puzzles -- it'd be nice if the game was longer, and games used to be longer (Grim Fadango, GK3, Tex Murphy, TLJ ...), but whatever. However, this:

But just like a movie or a book or a song, you shouldn't make it longer just to make it longer. The story, the narrative and and the gameplay has to flow - and for act 1 it really did! I didn't feel anything was missing.

It's been said a few times, and I disagree. People who say this don't really understand how a creative process works, I think. You can always influence to a degree how long or how short a story (for a book, a game, ...) is. You can't do ridiculous things like making it ten times longer or shorter, at least not without making the story totally different from what it was before, but you have quite a lot of freedom. Just because it feels like nothing is missing for a reader or player in the final product does not mean you couldn't have added or taken away stuff, and it would have felt the same way.

To make this specifically Broken Age-related: I saw quite a few complaints about a lack of hotspots, a lack of items, and a lack of usage of the side characters. Any of those things, if changed, increase the playing time without breaking the flow. If there are more hotspots, you spend more time clicking on them, even if they aren't strictly necessary for puzzles or the story, if there were more items, it'd increase the complexity of the puzzles, and that would stretch the playing time, and if you could wander around more and talk with the side characters about stuff that, again, is not strictly necessary for puzzles or the story, but serves to tell you something about the character or the area, that'd do the trick too.

Aside from increasing the complexity of the puzzles, those solutions are optional, that is, you can still complete the game without doing that, if you don't feel like it.

Now, the problem is obviously that it takes time to do those things. Perhaps it was even planned that way, before Tim had to shorten and streamline things. But any of those would increase the length of the game and not feel fillerish. So even without touching the story you have a lot of leeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own all Daedalic games (except the sequels) and I love them, but they are so lengthy and find some of the puzzles so counterintuitive that I've only managed to finish The Whispered World, and I needed the help of a walkthrough for 3-4 puzzles.

Seriously? I recently played and finished Memoria in like 4 days and I only played it ~2 hours every evening. There were no real blockers that stopped me from easily progressing most of the time. I wouldn't call the game too short, but it's not a long/huge game in terms of the time you spend in it.

Maybe liking games to be shorter and more straightforward makes me less of a gamer or "not a real adventure game's fan" or something like that, but when you have so little time to play, you start appreciating games like Broken Age, Gone Home or Kentucky Route Zero.

I never really understood that argument. Mainly because there's no deadline to finish a game in a certain time period - I guess it's different if you are a game tester... But most people aren't. If someone hasn't the time to finish a game at once, finish it over the course of a few weeks. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to buy 5 games and then finish none of them. 5x30=150 bucks wasted. It makes much more sense to buy just one (I'd say the most interesting) game and then finish that. More fulfilling and much cheaper... Oh and of course there's then no reason anymore to complain that games are too long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the argument defending short games because we "don't have time anymore to play them". What in the world were we doing 20 years ago? Nothing? My father worked just as hard as I do today and still found time to play those really long games. I don't buy this new "busy lives" crap today's generation keeps spouting out. I rather believe the issue is one of lack of patience in a much faster paced society than it was 20 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy this new "busy lives" crap today's generation keeps spouting out. I rather believe the issue is one of lack of patience in a much faster paced society than it was 20 years ago.

And I agree with that. The "busy lives crap" is not just about work and family, it has a lot to do with the ways we consume today and the unlimited leisure options that we have (very different in number to those we had 20 years ago). The world is changing and also our lives, and in my opinion it makes sense that the industry adapts to that.

I never really understood that argument. Mainly because there's no deadline to finish a game in a certain time period - I guess it's different if you are a game tester... But most people aren't. If someone hasn't the time to finish a game at once, finish it over the course of a few weeks. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to buy 5 games and then finish none of them. 5x30=150 bucks wasted. It makes much more sense to buy just one (I'd say the most interesting) game and then finish that. More fulfilling and much cheaper... Oh and of course there's then no reason anymore to complain that games are too long...

Well, I'm not going to argue which way makes more sense to enjoy a game. Every person has different tastes and some of us find hard to maintain interest in a single adventure game if we have to invest weeks or months to beat it. Maybe that's an evidence that I'm not as smart as other people or that I'm a bad gamer or something, but the point is: Double Fine could've done a long and difficult game that could only be enjoyed by people who puts in 4+ hours a day to play games, or a short and easy game that could be enjoyed by everyone.

I'm happy that they chose the second option, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...