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

To the DFA staff: Can I get a refund?

Recommended Posts

I'm going to try this at my local Gamestop store. I'm going to preorder a game, play it, beat it, and then go back to return it because it didn't live up to my expectations. I'm sure they'll agree to it.

Be sure to take all the collector's edition swag out of the box before returning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we are, with a streamlined adventure game for tablets, that is everything BUT old-school.

You're right, you can't please everyone; the problem is that just like every AAA publisher out there, you guys decided to please just the lowest common denominator possible... and did that with money from those old-school fans, to whom you promised a classic adventure game.

So making an adventure game for tablets is bad?!? In what bleeeping universe you live in? You like adventure games, right? Why would you dislike if they attempted to reach wider audience?

You sound like one of those people that hates that adventure games now all have those graphical thingies and aren't just random arcane verbs you type to move from room to room. I can't think of a worse fate for the adventure genre than being glued, nailed and riveted to the old text adventure series. They are trying at least something new and I think their current game is extremely charming.

You're right, you can't please everyone, especially people that decide to quit in the middle of the series. Also, how great that you consider yourself a majority based on random sampling of one or two loudest person. Very scientific.

I'm a backer, my first DF or Tim Shafer's game was Psychonauts and I am actually happy with the PuzzleLite™ version of the game. I don't regret time nor money spent on this game and hell I'd play this game on a tablet if I had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound like one of those people that hates that adventure games now all have those graphical thingies and aren't just random arcane verbs you type to move from room to room. I can't think of a worse fate for the adventure genre than being glued, nailed and riveted to the old text adventure series. They are trying at least something new and I think their current game is extremely charming.

Hey! Text adventures have come a long way since the 80s and they are more accessible than ever. There are lots of titles that are more newbie friendly these days like Photopia, Lost Pig, or Slouching Towards Bedlam. As for trying something new, there's a game that's basically one long conversation (Galatea) and there's another that's written entirely in Gostakian English (The Gostak). There are lots of great stories and new intriguing text adventures constantly being made. Graphic adventures are no more an improvement over text adventures than movies are an improvement over books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we are, with a streamlined adventure game for tablets, that is everything BUT old-school.

You're right, you can't please everyone; the problem is that just like every AAA publisher out there, you guys decided to please just the lowest common denominator possible... and did that with money from those old-school fans, to whom you promised a classic adventure game.

So making an adventure game for tablets is bad?!? In what bleeeping universe you live in? You like adventure games, right? Why would you dislike if they attempted to reach wider audience?

You sound like one of those people that hates that adventure games now all have those graphical thingies and aren't just random arcane verbs you type to move from room to room. I can't think of a worse fate for the adventure genre than being glued, nailed and riveted to the old text adventure series. They are trying at least something new and I think their current game is extremely charming.

You're right, you can't please everyone, especially people that decide to quit in the middle of the series. Also, how great that you consider yourself a majority based on random sampling of one or two loudest person. Very scientific.

I'm a backer, my first DF or Tim Shafer's game was Psychonauts and I am actually happy with the PuzzleLite™ version of the game. I don't regret time nor money spent on this game and hell I'd play this game on a tablet if I had one.

A closed-minded argument like this helps nobody. The fact that you don't consider our tastes in adventures games as legitimate is highly oppressive and I resent it. It's wonderful you have such a high-praise opinion, but not everybody shares it, and with good reason besides just being "stuck in the past".

Also, they're not trying anything new at all. Telltale went exactly this route with their first "adventures". As have many other developers. This is not new, and it's not old-school either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From style and mechanics-wise this does work and behave just like any other old-school adventure game I remember, and I played a lot of them in my youth.

Only the difficulty is the one that really stands out as the problem with the game, and that will be addressed in Act 2. Everything else was executed perfectly in my opinion. So I would agree this was delivered as promised and DF certainly have many reasons to be proud of their game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A closed-minded argument like this helps nobody. The fact that you don't consider our tastes in adventures games as legitimate is highly oppressive and I resent it. It's wonderful you have such a high-praise opinion, but not everybody shares it, and with good reason besides just being "stuck in the past".

Also, they're not trying anything new at all. Telltale went exactly this route with their first "adventures". As have many other developers. This is not new, and it's not old-school either.

I'm not close minded, I don't think textual adventures are bad, but to be honest I prefer the graphical adventures in every way possible. The textual adventures can be fun, but they are very tedious. I remember my first text adventure on C64 (this was the era just before PS1 came out) and how frustrated I was being unable to use normal words to achieve things, because it's not a word the text adventure understood. I don't think I tried an adventure game for the next 15 years after the horribleness of that first text adventure. Apparently, you shouldn't walk, but must move in that world...

That is bad UX, not great design or anything. If you think about it, graphical adventures 'dumbed-down' the UI of textual adventures, by limiting number of verbs you can perform and this opened new audience and allowed creators to have more freedom, knowing it's easier to navigate and explore the world. Why are people opposed to 'dumbing-down' of that UI is beyond me, because let's face it most of what that UI in adventure game does is needlessly complicate and obfuscate interaction - e.g. in the first quarter of MI, I never had to use push verb. It might as well as not be there. People that are telling that Broken Age is a horrible simplified travesty, might as well yell at Monkey Island for dumbing down their interface from infinite number of verbs to a few...

Also, for Nostalgia sake, I've gotten my hands on the first Monkey Island and to me it's no more difficult than Broken Age (took around 2.5 hrs for ~25% of the game). Maybe I'm just a super gifted for adventure games but I think they weren't that hard to begin with. Most of difficulties I have with Monkey Island were of UI nature (how to use sword on man?) or just missing an important part of the story or wrong tree of insults - I did hilariously came across treasure while exploring the forest. Isn't Monkey Island old school?

I think a massive Rose Tinted Nostalgia Glasses Effect is in motion. I.e. people judge things that happened in their past more favorably than they did at the time they did it. It's a well known effect.

PS. So did Telltale make any adventures for tablets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay this no mind.

"my juniper bushes!"

And on topic (not in reply to The Nude Wizard):

I'm starting to wonder if some people have only considered this considered an old school adventure game if:

1) it was done in pixel art

2) had illogical/gamelogical puzzles including barely coherent combinations of items to make something that from a certain angle could be possibly mistaken for the actual item you need

3) no voice acting

4) midi/chiptune music

Dont get me wrong - i love all those things! - but apart from #2 they are really just technical limitations of the time those games were made in - not THE genre itself. Anyway I am really happy with what I have so far for my $30 pledge - if you can't be content with what DF made then I suggest that you are the type of person who is likely rarely satisfied with the end product of any game. Maybe just play self/publisher funded games in the future then at least you won't be so emotionally invested when your expectations go unmet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't play the beta, came here and find all these posts saying the game is bad and so.

I was pretty scared.

Went to play the game and it was fantastic, pretty easy yes, but that's the first part so it's to be expected I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay this no mind.

And on topic (not in reply to The Nude Wizard):

I'm starting to wonder if some people have only considered this considered an old school adventure game if:

1) it was done in pixel art

2) had illogical/gamelogical puzzles including barely coherent combinations of items to make something that from a certain angle could be possibly mistaken for the actual item you need

3) no voice acting

4) midi/chiptune music

Could You point out who exactly expressed they only consider games with these things as "old school adventures", or are you just trying to dismiss the criticism around here by bringing the arguments to absurdity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay this no mind.

And on topic (not in reply to The Nude Wizard):

I'm starting to wonder if some people have only considered this considered an old school adventure game if:

1) it was done in pixel art

2) had illogical/gamelogical puzzles including barely coherent combinations of items to make something that from a certain angle could be possibly mistaken for the actual item you need

3) no voice acting

4) midi/chiptune music

Could You point out who exactly expressed they only consider games with these things as "old school adventures", or are you just trying to dismiss the criticism around here by bringing the arguments to absurdity?

Yeh i'd simmer down a touch - or not its a free internet - it just seemed to me that a lot of the loudest whing... critics have a comeback for every attempt at placation and it usually boils down to "its just not old school adventure gamey enough for my liking". This was my "wonderment" as to what that might be. Yeh i'm taking the piss a little but I just can't understand how far off the deep end some people have leapt over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay this no mind.

And on topic (not in reply to The Nude Wizard):

I'm starting to wonder if some people have only considered this considered an old school adventure game if:

1) it was done in pixel art

2) had illogical/gamelogical puzzles including barely coherent combinations of items to make something that from a certain angle could be possibly mistaken for the actual item you need

3) no voice acting

4) midi/chiptune music

Could You point out who exactly expressed they only consider games with these things as "old school adventures", or are you just trying to dismiss the criticism around here by bringing the arguments to absurdity?

To be fair, at various points I have seen people complain on this forum that the game didn't have one of ALL these things (except perhaps MIDI music), although not at the same time.

If I were DF I'd regret using the term 'old school' because it quite quickly became apparent that there were about a dozen interpretations of what that actually meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pay this no mind.

And on topic (not in reply to The Nude Wizard):

I'm starting to wonder if some people have only considered this considered an old school adventure game if:

1) it was done in pixel art

2) had illogical/gamelogical puzzles including barely coherent combinations of items to make something that from a certain angle could be possibly mistaken for the actual item you need

3) no voice acting

4) midi/chiptune music

Could You point out who exactly expressed they only consider games with these things as "old school adventures", or are you just trying to dismiss the criticism around here by bringing the arguments to absurdity?

To be fair, at various points I have seen people complain on this forum that the game didn't have one of ALL these things (except perhaps MIDI music), although not at the same time.

If I were DF I'd regret using the term 'old school' because it quite quickly became apparent that there were about a dozen interpretations of what that actually meant.

This. But yeh #4 probably was my exit into hyperbole (if anything the music has been universally praised!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, at various points I have seen people complain on this forum that the game didn't have one of ALL these things (except perhaps MIDI music), although not at the same time.

If I were DF I'd regret using the term 'old school' because it quite quickly became apparent that there were about a dozen interpretations of what that actually meant.

I don't believe anybody here would argue that a particular graphical style or the presence/lack of voice acting (wut) is an integral part of an "old school adventure". The visual side is a matter of taste obviously, someone might prefer pixel art to Broken Ages graphics and that's that. What I did see is some arguing that, since for budgetary reasons Tim had to "hack into the design", it would've been better to invest some of the resources that went into the (arguably top notch) voice acting and the (arguably gorgeous) visual style into the gameplay instead. That's a matter of priorities, but if the game had engaging, more complex puzzles, I doubt You'd find anybody complaining about the presence of voice acting (wut).

So I don't really think there's "a dozen" of interpretations, most of the discussion is about gameplay and level of challenge. And many people have been posting thought out explanations of what that exactly means to them, why it's important, and how it's not about nonsensical, illogical or unfair roadblocks. That's why I think these kind of sweeping statements aren't helping, by reducing the critics to "stuck in the past", "wearing rose tinted glasses" or otherwise unreasonable extremists, they're making it seem like those explanations aren't being heard and provoking the back-and-forth.

Heh, seems like we've posted around the same time about "sweeping statements" on both sides of the discussion Kestrel. Isn't the symmetry of the world a wonder? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are completely confused...

Tim had to hack into the design because of budget reasons because of the animation and recording time that would be needed to implement those puzzles... he had to figure out what could be eliminated safely without damaging things and using the assets that already existed that the budget as it existed could be used for the programming of THAT design based on what had been paid for with the budget.

There was no way to cut from the budget for LESS graphics and acting. That's not how it works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh I take your point mops - however, I do think that a lot of people are behaving like "unreasonable extremists" and perhaps the rest should probably just learn to let it go - well unless Act 2 disappoints them as well in which case its time to bust out the pitchforks and join in!

Anyway, for the record i found Act 1 quite easy too so i understand some of the difficulty issues people have - but to turn around and legit want a refund over it... guys, come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I backed a old-school, classic adventure game made by Tim Schafer and Double Fine, but I didn't get one.

You are in a minority on this one.

The puzzles are obvious, the world feels empty, the controls are streamlined and the entire game feels more like a animated cartoon with some gameplay tackled in, absolutely devoid of any challenge. In no way this game is on par with Day of the Tentacle, that the Double Fine kickstarter itself presented as "point-and-click classic".

They are as complex as the puzzles in Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle, etc. They are meant to be enjoyable, not hair pullingly frustrating. Like every other PnC adventure game. A linear story is told with some active player involvement. It is no different from anything made in the past.

I spent $100 (+$10 shipping) on this. So far I got half of the game, the poster and the t-shirt, but you guys still owe me Act 2 and the big box (+shipping). I would be very satisfied if I could get a refund on those items.

You never buy the product on kickstarter. read their terms of use. It's group funding. You made an investment into double fine, and instead of having a hand in the profits of the title you helped fund, you instead opted to get the game (both parts when finished) and some door prizes. While your dissatisfaction is unfortunate; What you were getting into was quite clear beforehand.

Now, I understand that "old-school" and "classic" are subjective concepts. I can't do anything to force a refund, but I can ask nicely and hope for comprehension on your side.

I have to give you props on this. I've seen people involved in other KS projects just flip out and start swearing endlessly.

And before fans start to be overly defensive or calling me a troll, I have absolutely no interest in arguing or offending anyone. If you loved this game and think that the puzzles and challenges of old games were never fun to begin with, that large inventories are overrated and having 12 verbs was pointless, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it; but so am I.

I don't agree at all with your reasons as like I said, if you play the old PNC games the only difference you'll notice is in graphic and music fidelity. The puzzles and flow will be the same. On the other hand it's obviously not my decision, I just felt the need to express that you should have been aware of the game play elements beforehand, especially if you had played a PnC game before.

Good luck in your epic quest for a partial refund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not close minded, I don't think textual adventures are bad, but to be honest I prefer the graphical adventures in every way possible. The textual adventures can be fun, but they are very tedious. I remember my first text adventure on C64 (this was the era just before PS1 came out) and how frustrated I was being unable to use normal words to achieve things, because it's not a word the text adventure understood. I don't think I tried an adventure game for the next 15 years after the horribleness of that first text adventure. Apparently, you shouldn't walk, but must move in that world...

Sure, text adventures are not for everybody. There are likewise people who find books tedious (eyes get tired, have to keep turning pages or scrolling down, attention wanders, etc).

However, the goal of text adventure interfaces is not to mimic human conversation (Lost Pig, for example, gets around it wonderfully by having your orc character speak in sentences similar to the commands you enter). Although some text parsers try to make extensive use of natural language processing, mostly it is limited to a rather small subset of natural language. A text parser is about entering commands, and, although there is some variety, they are very similar from game to game. In fact, most situations in most adventure games can be solved by using only a handful of common commands. Here's a nice reference chart as an example: http://pr-if.org/doc/play-if-card/play-if-card.html

That is bad UX, not great design or anything. If you think about it, graphical adventures 'dumbed-down' the UI of textual adventures, by limiting number of verbs you can perform and this opened new audience and allowed creators to have more freedom, knowing it's easier to navigate and explore the world. Why are people opposed to 'dumbing-down' of that UI is beyond me, because let's face it most of what that UI in adventure game does is needlessly complicate and obfuscate interaction - e.g. in the first quarter of MI, I never had to use push verb. It might as well as not be there. People that are telling that Broken Age is a horrible simplified travesty, might as well yell at Monkey Island for dumbing down their interface from infinite number of verbs to a few...

It is not a simple matter of text parser -- bad user experience, verbs -- better user experience, one-click -- best user experience. To the player who wants to experience a story there's nothing worse than a complex interface. To the player who wants to explore, interact and play around with the game's systems there's nothing worse than a simple interface. Apart from having very different kinaesthetics -- playing Hero's Quest feels very different from playing Quest for Glory, although they are basically the same game -- text parser vs verbs vs one-click each give a different degree of freedom to the player when it comes to interacting with the world.

In the case of the text parser, the player has a frightening amount of possibility space, but also a large degree of freedom to interact. The player has to know what they are doing, as they usually can't brute force the solution, which requires a high involvement in the game and awareness of the game world. On the other side, to make a good text adventure, the designer has to take into account a large number of things that a player might try, solving for the most common cases as well as for the most interesting ones.

In the case of verbs, the player's toolset is more limited, but it still influences the degree to which players can interact with the world. For example, having a "push" verb means everything in the world is "pushable". It gives the player very concrete and easily understandable means to interact with the world and express themselves in it.

In the case of one-click interaction, the player has the least amount of control over interaction and it is not always immediately obvious for the player what happens when they click on something (although they can often make good educated guesses) -- it can be unclear whether the character will pick up the object, look at it or try to interact with it in some other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an adventure game. You have a story, you have a problem, you solve puzzles, resolve the problem, and have an adventure along the way. You take objects from your inventory and use them to interact with the environment, sometimes they would solve puzzles, sometimes it would just be funny. That is what you do in an adventure game, old school or modern. That is what you do in Act 1 of Broken Age.

I think there are issues with the puzzles in Broken Age, but these issues are not a result of the interface. What happens if you add a bunch of verbs like on the old SCUMM interface? You end up increasing the number of potential solutions, but that does not increase the difficulty of the puzzles. All this would do for the Broken Age puzzles increase the time it would take to brute force the solutions, artificially lengthening the game. And the problems would still remain.

The issue with these puzzles was not the logic of the answers being too simple (it could have been more obtuse, but I still got that sense of satisfaction when figuring out the logic for each puzzle). The problem is that nearly every puzzle in the game was solved by using an item from the inventory, so you could brute force your way through this game in short time if you so desired. There were also barely any feasible alternatives - one of the things I love about Schafer adventure games is when you are so sure you have the right answer because it logically could not be anything else, but your solution wont work because you are wrong. Broken Age needs more puzzles like opening the safe in Monkey Island. This was not a puzzle you could just brute force by clicking on every adjective and every item in your inventory, you had to lure the shop keeper out of his shop, hide, then watch him perform the combination to open the safe when he came back. The only puzzle that was similar in BA Act 1 was going through all the teleporters to shrink your head so that it would fit inside the tiny helmet.

But yeah, Broken Age is definitely an adventure game. The emphasis might be on the adventure part more so than the game part, but expect Act 2 will have a much better balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scared to post since the discussion seems a bit infected...

...but I have to, with a nice gentle tone, chime in and say that I'm also a tad disappointed. Not that I want a refund or so. Oh no, the guys deserve every penny and probably more. But Act 1 is more a "point-n-click, watch a cut scene" type of game. The puzzles are so easy I wouldn't really call them puzzles. Not at all like I remember the old school adventures like Monkey Island or Fate of Atlantis. Maybe it's me though and that those games from my childhood has special place in my memory and are mentally idolised. From what I can remember I spent days and nights and almost weeks playing those games. There were no internet to turn to for hints but instead magazines that people had to write to and ask fore help. In a galaxy far far far away... =) I miss this in Broken Age (well, maybe not the writing to magazines part...) and I ran through Broken Age in a few hours. But hey, maybe I'm just too old and clever these days. ;) But no, I wouldn't even think of asking about my money back. I assume it's a matter of taste in the end and there's no doubt in my mind that hell of a lot of love have been given to this game.

All I hope for is that Act 2 is less of a "point-n-click, cut scene" and more of a brain twister that'll keep me awake for days and nights. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, at various points I have seen people complain on this forum that the game didn't have one of ALL these things (except perhaps MIDI music), although not at the same time.

If I were DF I'd regret using the term 'old school' because it quite quickly became apparent that there were about a dozen interpretations of what that actually meant.

I don't believe anybody here would argue that a particular graphical style or the presence/lack of voice acting (wut) is an integral part of an "old school adventure". The visual side is a matter of taste obviously, someone might prefer pixel art to Broken Ages graphics and that's that. What I did see is some arguing that, since for budgetary reasons Tim had to "hack into the design", it would've been better to invest some of the resources that went into the (arguably top notch) voice acting and the (arguably gorgeous) visual style into the gameplay instead. That's a matter of priorities, but if the game had engaging, more complex puzzles, I doubt You'd find anybody complaining about the presence of voice acting (wut).

So I don't really think there's "a dozen" of interpretations, most of the discussion is about gameplay and level of challenge. And many people have been posting thought out explanations of what that exactly means to them, why it's important, and how it's not about nonsensical, illogical or unfair roadblocks. That's why I think these kind of sweeping statements aren't helping, by reducing the critics to "stuck in the past", "wearing rose tinted glasses" or otherwise unreasonable extremists, they're making it seem like those explanations aren't being heard and provoking the back-and-forth.

Heh, seems like we've posted around the same time about "sweeping statements" on both sides of the discussion Kestrel. Isn't the symmetry of the world a wonder? :P

The thing is, although you don't believe anyone here would argue that, I've seen arguments from people on this forum exactly to that effect. That when they backed an old school adventure game they expected something pixelly and low-fi, and they couldn't understand why all this money was being 'wasted' on the art for an old school game. And yes, some of them did go as far to say they don't see why the game needed voices.

And yes, that does seem a little crazy, doesn't it? To both of us? So perhaps you can see why it COULD seem a little crazy to some of us that some people are fixated on difficulty. I'm not saying that it's wrong to enjoy difficult games (I enjoy plenty of them myself, and if this had had very tricky puzzles I'd have been cool with that too), but I don't think they're essential to what I like about adventure games any more than pixelly art or reading text was.

re: rose tinted glasses, they ARE inevitable, sadly. We aren't just comparing this game to the old games... we're comparing them to the old games plus 15-25 years' worth of nostalgia that has built up around them. I'm not saying it's all in the mind, but a not-insignificant portion of it has to be. You can't be a fan of a game for 15 years, then spend 2 years hyped up for the next in line from the same creator without that having some effect on your perception, and how much every moment gets scrutinised against the moments of those past games which you've internalised because you probably played them so many times since you were a child. It's just impossible.

So I think that, at the very least, means that it's going to take a good few years to understand where this sits in my adventure game collection. But for me, at least, early signs are very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's reasonable to argue that wanting harder puzzles is different than wishing for pixelation and no vocals. Like, personally I'd like for adventure games to evolve to a place where the art and sound were more beautiful, the controls simpler, the storytelling more affecting, and the puzzles more elegant and natural. I'd say with Broken Age we got all of those, which makes me very happy, but the one area where I'm a little disappointed is that the puzzles weren't harder to figure out. Because one of the greatest things about Tim's old games were how smart you felt when you finally figured something out. I think people are somewhat exaggerating how easy Broken Age is, but in general it IS a lot easier than those old games, and so I don't get to feel as smart. I believe they decided to go that route because of play testing and wanting the game to feel fun and not frustrating, and you can see in the latest documentary episode that they really want this game to sell well so they can stay independent. So, I do believe they're catering to a broader audience at the expense of us old school adventure game fans. And I can't say I blame them. Would I rather have a tougher game and no independent Double Fine? If that's really the choice, then no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say it's reasonable to argue that wanting harder puzzles is different than wishing for pixelation and no vocals. Like, personally I'd like for adventure games to evolve to a place where the art and sound were more beautiful, the controls simpler, the storytelling more affecting, and the puzzles more elegant and natural. I'd say with Broken Age we got all of those, which makes me very happy, but the one area where I'm a little disappointed is that the puzzles weren't harder to figure out.

o_O

Overall I agree it's not realistic for Double Fine right now to not appeal to the masses and try to make as much profit off of this game as possible. That's simply too bad. An unfortunate scenario for people like me. This might be a success story for Double Fine, and I'm happy for them if it is, but it has little to do with me.

At least I got my documentary. And the game isn't half bad, if you ignore the puzzles (which is impossible not to do :P). Bring on Act II!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say it's reasonable to argue that wanting harder puzzles is different than wishing for pixelation and no vocals. Like, personally I'd like for adventure games to evolve to a place where the art and sound were more beautiful, the controls simpler, the storytelling more affecting, and the puzzles more elegant and natural. I'd say with Broken Age we got all of those, which makes me very happy, but the one area where I'm a little disappointed is that the puzzles weren't harder to figure out. Because one of the greatest things about Tim's old games were how smart you felt when you finally figured something out. I think people are somewhat exaggerating how easy Broken Age is, but in general it IS a lot easier than those old games, and so I don't get to feel as smart. I believe they decided to go that route because of play testing and wanting the game to feel fun and not frustrating, and you can see in the latest documentary episode that they really want this game to sell well so they can stay independent. So, I do believe they're catering to a broader audience at the expense of us old school adventure game fans. And I can't say I blame them. Would I rather have a tougher game and no independent Double Fine? If that's really the choice, then no.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to wish for any of these things, and I'm not saying they're all the same. The point I'm making is that people have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, and so framing the discussion as 'this was supposed to be an old school game, but ' is just going to cause disagreement and bad feeling from the get go.

People should definitely talk about what they'd like to see, certainly. Rather than imagining that they've been misled or deceived in some way by the kickstarter, which is only going to insult the people that made the game and annoy the people that -are- satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. Yep, totally agree.

I'd say it's reasonable to argue that wanting harder puzzles is different than wishing for pixelation and no vocals. Like, personally I'd like for adventure games to evolve to a place where the art and sound were more beautiful, the controls simpler, the storytelling more affecting, and the puzzles more elegant and natural. I'd say with Broken Age we got all of those, which makes me very happy, but the one area where I'm a little disappointed is that the puzzles weren't harder to figure out. Because one of the greatest things about Tim's old games were how smart you felt when you finally figured something out. I think people are somewhat exaggerating how easy Broken Age is, but in general it IS a lot easier than those old games, and so I don't get to feel as smart. I believe they decided to go that route because of play testing and wanting the game to feel fun and not frustrating, and you can see in the latest documentary episode that they really want this game to sell well so they can stay independent. So, I do believe they're catering to a broader audience at the expense of us old school adventure game fans. And I can't say I blame them. Would I rather have a tougher game and no independent Double Fine? If that's really the choice, then no.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to wish for any of these things, and I'm not saying they're all the same. The point I'm making is that people have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, and so framing the discussion as 'this was supposed to be an old school game, but ' is just going to cause disagreement and bad feeling from the get go.

People should definitely talk about what they'd like to see, certainly. Rather than imagining that they've been misled or deceived in some way by the kickstarter, which is only going to insult the people that made the game and annoy the people that -are- satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the lowest common denominator possible...

Wow you are a good troll. When I read this I filled my room with expletives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the things to get worked up about ...

@Karlgamer, calling it a game made for "the lowest common denominator possible…" is the least trollish thing in the thread.

.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to wish for any of these things, and I'm not saying they're all the same. The point I'm making is that people have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, and so framing the discussion as 'this was supposed to be an old school game, but ' is just going to cause disagreement and bad feeling from the get go.

People should definitely talk about what they'd like to see, certainly. Rather than imagining that they've been misled or deceived in some way by the kickstarter, which is only going to insult the people that made the game and annoy the people that -are- satisfied.

Two things regarding that:

1) People might have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, but as always, not all opinions are equal.

2) I'm sorry, but people who are satisfied will have to endure people who aren't, including their opinion on what constitutes as old school. Being satisfied doesn't grant your arguments correctness, nor does it grant you the right to hear no criticism. And I thank you very much not to imply I am imagining things, which, as opposed to enduring dissenting opinions, actually is insulting.

"This game was to be an old school game and it isn't" is the correct description of this situation, as has been explained e.g. here (i.e. posts #3, #5). If that causes disagreement and bad feelings, it's certainly not the problem of those making that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of all the things to get worked up about ...

@Karlgamer, calling it a game made for "the lowest common denominator possible…" is the least trollish thing in the thread.

.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to wish for any of these things, and I'm not saying they're all the same. The point I'm making is that people have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, and so framing the discussion as 'this was supposed to be an old school game, but ' is just going to cause disagreement and bad feeling from the get go.

People should definitely talk about what they'd like to see, certainly. Rather than imagining that they've been misled or deceived in some way by the kickstarter , which is only going to insult the people that made the game and annoy the people that -are- satisfied.

Two things regarding that:

1) People might have all sorts of ideas about what old school means, but as always, not all opinions are equal.

2) I'm sorry, but people who are satisfied will have to endure people who aren't, including their opinion on what constitutes as old school. Being satisfied doesn't grant your arguments correctness, nor does it grant you the right to hear no criticism. And I thank you very much not to imply I am imagining things, which, as opposed to enduring dissenting opinions, actually is insulting.

"This game was to be an old school game and it isn't" is the correct description of this situation, as has been explained e.g. here (i.e. posts #3, #5). If that causes disagreement and bad feelings, it's certainly not the problem of those making that statement.

No, no, a thousand times no. Pay particular attention to bolded statements above. You can have my opinion you like about what "old school" means in this context. By the power invested in me, I, KestrelPi, grant you the right. Go forth and opinionate.

Where it becomes insulting is when it is implied that Double Fine were somehow being deceptive when they made the kickstarter. It's true that not all opinions are equal but it's pure fantasy to suppose that Double Fine are breaking a promise by releasing the game they did. They believe that this is an old school adventure in every way that really matters and (incidentally) I agree with that. It's not crazy to think that, and so the implication that they have gone back on their word is, and will always be insulting to them and dismissive of those who enjoyed it just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't consider what they are doing "breaking a promise", but that is because I don't consider what they wrote in the KS to be promises. They certainly are not putting out now what they had in mind then -- the puzzles, such as they are, are a design choice. Greg and Tim said as much, if you recall. The focus shifted to a (supposedly) more accessible game, which, given the 3 millions they invested themselves, is quite understandable, but nevertheless (for me) a pity. The conclusion I'm drawing for future KS is that only if there is going to be no other money than the one directly from the KS involved the intended game is likely to show up in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I don't consider what they are doing "breaking a promise", but that is because I don't consider what they wrote in the KS to be promises. They certainly are not putting out now what they had in mind then -- the puzzles, such as they are, are a design choice. Greg and Tim said as much, if you recall. The focus shifted to a (supposedly) more accessible game, which, given the 3 millions they invested themselves, is quite understandable, but nevertheless (for me) a pity. The conclusion I'm drawing for future KS is that only if there is going to be no other money than the one directly from the KS involved the intended game is likely to show up in the end.

There's nothing whatsoever in the docs or the episodes that says they decided to shift focus to a more accessible game. This was the plan from the very beginning. The money of their own they invested in the game only served to make it bigger, not 'more accessible.'

But they're not only not breaking a promise making the game the way they did, they're not being deceptive either. I want to be clear about that. The only way they could be being deceptive is if one supposes that their particular interpretation of what an old school adventure is is so widely accepted that it would be misleading to suppose otherwise. But that's not true. I've lost count of the number of reviews of this game or podcast discussions I've listened to that specifically comment on how old school they think the game is (some of them saying that it's old school almost to a fault.)

I mean, I don't necessarily agree with THAT. I do think the game is old school, I do think it's reasonable to view it that way, but I don't think it's old school in an insistent or pedantic way. But the point is, outside of this forum and a few isolated pockets I'm not seeing many people say it isn't old school, I'm seeing the opposite.

They set out to make an old school adventure, I know THEY think that's what they've done, I know I think that's what they've done and I know that this is a widely held view of what they've done. Feel free to disagree with that, but not from the perspective of 'they said they'd do something but they've done something else' which implies deception that just isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...