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

I feel bad for not liking Act 1

Recommended Posts

Just finished Act 1 in something less than three hours and I'm disappointed for several reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I liked what I was playing, but Broken Age didn't come up to my expectations.

1.) I don't like the art-style of the game, which is a personal thing. It has a beauty of it's own, but I just don't like it.

2.) The characters are just meh, they're flat, exchangeable (compared to the characters of other, newer Adventures like the Deponia trilogy).

3.) The puzzles are way too easy. There's no problem with the 3 hours playtime (this is a actually a fine time for an episode of an adventure), but I think these three hours had more to do with walking and watching Cutscenes instead of solving puzzles. The chapter of the boy (already forgot his name, which speaks for point 2 on my list), is awfully boring in the beginning until you're done with the mini game for the second time.

The part I liked the most was, let me call it without spoilers, the third half of the girls storyline. This felt like one of the classics, mixed with some newer elements, but unfortunately it was only this last piece of the game I enjoyed. By the way: hope to see more from my bearded friend with the flannel shirt, because he was my favorite :D

Like I already said in the title: I feel bad for not liking it because I see all the work, the creativity and the effort you guys put in there, but I had to share my thoughts about this to see if I'm the only one thinking like this.

Still would recommend it to my friends and I think my money was well spent, but I have high hopes for a better second Act.

P.S.: Sorry if everything sounds a bit harsh, but my english isn't that good and my vocabulary is pretty limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree with much of what you said, but everyone's entitled to an opinion. I'm extremely interested in what Act 2 will bring. Act 1 was intriguing and beautiful imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone has some suggestions that would make Act 2 better. For instance, I don't like how they let you click on certain objects twice if they aren't critical to a puzzle. For example, if I can click on the fish guts repeatedly then I KNOW I'll have to interact with them in some form. But why have it be the same for the fishing rods if the protagonist is just going to say the SAME thing about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you on the gameplay part. It's not very challenging and you don't spend very much time doing puzzles. I too had great expectations for this game. I like the characters though and I liked the ending of the act. Someone in the documentary said that the game would get harder as it progressed, so there is that to look forward to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The chapter of the boy (already forgot his name, which speaks for point 2 on my list), is awfully boring in the beginning until you're done with the mini game for the second time.

I agree that Shay's start felt very restrictive, boring, and tedious, but I wrote that off as being intentional and reflecting his own existence at that point in the story. I haven't played a lot further yet. Feeling optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the characters were exploding with personality! And each of them unique and interesting to boot. I did not hate one character from the game, they were all entertaining. Every one. From the voice acting, to the designs, to the animation, to the dialogue, to their roles. Just spectacular. It's the first adventure game I've ever played, I believe, where I truly considered the voice acting as crucial to the gameplay experience. It was all so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think everyone has some suggestions that would make Act 2 better. For instance, I don't like how they let you click on certain objects twice if they aren't critical to a puzzle. For example, if I can click on the fish guts repeatedly then I KNOW I'll have to interact with them in some form. But why have it be the same for the fishing rods if the protagonist is just going to say the SAME thing about it?

Changing this would largely defeat all the puzzles. You're not intended to immediately know which objects will be used later and which won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed The Boys storyline funny stuff packed in there... saving the Girls adventure for tomorrow , I looked in every nook and cranny enjoyed the art the puzzles

were fun and a bit simple but they made you feel like wow that worked , some will call it way to easy but I enjoyed every part of the game so far. Length vs entertainment

will be a debate I am sure, but I was entertained and enjoyed the escape to a really fun place. Can't wait to savor the Girls story and see where Act 2 takes me !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say first: I'm absolutely in love with this game. I would change VERY few things about it -- the characters are brilliant; the art gorgeous; the music masterful; the story incredible. I've had a huge grin on my face all day, and I can't wait for Act II.

HOWEVER.

I have one problem with the game: there aren't enough clickpoints for my taste. If you can click on something in this game, chances are it's going to be used as a puzzle, probably immediately following. This made some of the puzzles a lot easier than they probably should have been.

Hopefully Act II manages to rectify this small problem, adding to the difficulty as a whole in the process.

Bravo to the whole team, though! I think people are really going to love this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I loved the game and thought it was very well written, I'd place it among the best games Schafer has done and if it rises higher depends a lot from if the act 2 can follow up the first part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I loved the game and thought it was very well written, I'd place it among the best games Schafer has done and if it rises higher depends a lot from if the act 2 can follow up the first part.

What? I really don't get this game I guess. But still. Grim Fandango is a masterpeice. I really wanted to like this game but it is very beta despite them saying it is ready for realese. The art is far from great even if you like the style because stuff doesn't mesh togheter... look at the monster it is very ugly not in a good way, just unfinished and uninspired. And the pixelation when they zoom in, just horrendous. The animation doesn't help. A lot of talk about great animation but I see parts that are ok, and many that are not.

I found it pretty boring and a bit annoying to be frank. I like a lot of concepts they have but not the execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I loved the game and thought it was very well written, I'd place it among the best games Schafer has done and if it rises higher depends a lot from if the act 2 can follow up the first part.

What? I really don't get this game I guess. But still. Grim Fandango is a masterpeice. I really wanted to like this game but it is very beta despite them saying it is ready for realese. The art is far from great even if you like the style because stuff doesn't mesh togheter... look at the monster it is very ugly not in a good way, just unfinished and uninspired. And the pixelation when they zoom in, just horrendous. The animation doesn't help. A lot of talk about great animation but I see parts that are ok, and many that are not.

I found it pretty boring and a bit annoying to be frank. I like a lot of concepts they have but not the execution.

The pixelation when the game zooms, is intentional, in order to give a cinematic perspective. It is an effect extensively used in movie industry, as well. Camera zooms on something, usually a person, and the background around him becomes blurred. In fact blurring is the correct term for this effect not pixelation. I do not find it bad, to be frank I think I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I loved the game and thought it was very well written, I'd place it among the best games Schafer has done and if it rises higher depends a lot from if the act 2 can follow up the first part.

What? I really don't get this game I guess. But still. Grim Fandango is a masterpeice. I really wanted to like this game but it is very beta despite them saying it is ready for realese. The art is far from great even if you like the style because stuff doesn't mesh togheter... look at the monster it is very ugly not in a good way, just unfinished and uninspired. And the pixelation when they zoom in, just horrendous. The animation doesn't help. A lot of talk about great animation but I see parts that are ok, and many that are not.

I found it pretty boring and a bit annoying to be frank. I like a lot of concepts they have but not the execution.

That is some pretty strong nostalgia. Grim Fandango is full of flaws, the gameplay is pretty spotty and inconsistent and the difficulty curve looks more like a sin graph than what it should be like. The puzzles are largely nonsensical and require tons of guesswork.

Broken Age I think is a vast improvement on that, all the puzzles felt natural and logical but I do wish that there were less hints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pixelation when the game zooms, is intentional, in order to give a cinematic perspective. It is an effect extensively used in movie industry, as well. Camera zooms on something, usually a person, and the background around him becomes blurred. In fact blurring is the correct term for this effect not pixelation. I do not find it bad, to be frank I think I like it.

Source for it being intentional?

I agree that zooming is a cinematic/storytelling effect/tool. Also that the background gets more out of focus when zooming in video due to decreased focus depth with increased (or was it decreased?) focal length.

However I did not see blur in the game. I saw pixels. We go from looking at a painting at say three feet to standing a few inches in front of the canvas. And the detail of the original painting could not handle this.

I'm guessing the reason is not cinematic but budgetary. They did not paint special backgrounds but choose to zoom in on 10-25 percent of the original. A lot of places just look bad and there was talk in the doc about not painting somethhing extra for close up of mog chatra due to budgetary constraints.

The mog chatra looks bad in all scenes, the maidens often look bad, a lot of the spaceship looks bad, the fluffy animals all look bad. These are not zoomed. Also for cinematic effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with the OP in most of these points.

For one, I really don't feel the art style. I really wish DF had chosen Peter Chan to do this work instead.

Secondly, agreed on the difficulty level. Certain interactions give hit you over the head with hints right away, instead of introducing gradual hints if you get stuck.

The kickstarter promised an old-school point-and-click adventure game - which this doesn't feel like.

Somewhere along the line DF have made some compromises to make this more accessible to the general public. No matter how I look at it, I feel a bit disappointed with the end result. And trust me, I wanted to believe!

The pixelation when the game zooms, is intentional, in order to give a cinematic perspective. It is an effect extensively used in movie industry, as well. Camera zooms on something, usually a person, and the background around him becomes blurred. In fact blurring is the correct term for this effect not pixelation. I do not find it bad, to be frank I think I like it.

It just looks like low-res textures to me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pixelation when the game zooms, is intentional, in order to give a cinematic perspective. It is an effect extensively used in movie industry, as well. Camera zooms on something, usually a person, and the background around him becomes blurred. In fact blurring is the correct term for this effect not pixelation. I do not find it bad, to be frank I think I like it.

Source for it being intentional?

I agree that zooming is a cinematic/storytelling effect/tool. Also that the background gets more out of focus when zooming in video due to decreased focus depth with increased (or was it decreased?) focal length.

However I did not see blur in the game. I saw pixels. We go from looking at a painting at say three feet to standing a few inches in front of the canvas. And the detail of the original painting could not handle this.

I'm guessing the reason is not cinematic but budgetary. They did not paint special backgrounds but choose to zoom in on 10-25 percent of the original. A lot of places just look bad and there was talk in the doc about not painting somethhing extra for close up of mog chatra due to budgetary constraints.

The mog chatra looks bad in all scenes, the maidens often look bad, a lot of the spaceship looks bad, the fluffy animals all look bad. These are not zoomed. Also for cinematic effect?

For fairness, Lee Petty has posted in this thread that the zoom-in pixelation is going to be fixed by the art department. Apparently in some parts the blur isn't working as intended, and in others, the backgrounds are being repainted in high resolution for the final release.

I don't know if they'll also repaint some characters. I wouldn't rule it out. It depends on how much time they have, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree...to me, this has "casual" gamer written all over it. This is not meant as an insult, I'm simply pointing out that what one would consider casual gamers are not the people who backed this project. It was more people, like myself, who grew up playing old-school point-and-click adventures, who wanted to rekindle that spark and nostalgia we remembered when playing these types of games. There's nothing casual about an old school point and click. When you think back to playing DotT, Monkey Island, King's Quest, these games combine frustration, challenge, and "aha!" moments when you solve a difficult puzzle.

To me it is incredibly telling, when a game, that is by it's own definition, a "casual adventure game," could not only look better, but be more difficult, than something that was touted as an old-school PaC. I'm speaking specifically of the Drawn series. Those games are absolutely gorgeous, the storylines are compelling, and they offer more of a challenge than this, and they're considered casual adventure games. So if that's the case, what does that make this? To me, it certainly doesn't scream old-school. I don't hate Act 1, there are things I like and things I don't...I just hope they do a better job in Act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not meant as an insult, I'm simply pointing out that what one would consider casual gamers are not the people who backed this project.

Lots of people backed this project. Probably with lots of different expectations. (My opinion of what the good parts of a classical adventure game are is different from the opinion of you and the others who'd like a more difficult game, for example. (Ok, that was an awkward sentence, but hopefully you'll be able to parse it anyway. :) ))

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...