Sign in to follow this  
Cryocore

Not happy, and Tim needs to explain why the game is in this state

Recommended Posts

... I think it's nonesense to try to convince people that they should also be disappointed if in fact they are happy with the puzzles the way they are - especially using objective means like comparing the complexity (which you did in your post).

I'm trying to convince. I'm trying to show why this game isn't par to old adventure games. Because I know that if there isn't more unsatisfied people with game, it won't be repaired properly.

From what I've been reading here and from what Tim has been saying, they are pleased with a toned down disconnected puzzles short game.

The least I can do is try to show some arguments and convince more fellow backers that the game can be (much) better.

Yes, and I agree that the game could be a lot better for ME and YOU with more puzzles. And given the recent poll a LOT of backers already think the puzzles were way too easy. But voicing this opinion and rallying support for it is different from trying to disproove that some people are satisfied. You won't change their view that way.

So just assemble your thoughts on how to make the game better in a productive way and you might gain support. And be realistic! A complete re-vamp is never going to work as is a change of the art style (which is subjective again, I would prefer pixel-art for that matter...) or setting or story. But I think some things can be done without hurting the games design:

For example:

I would like the game to not give hints in dialog and/or responses until a certain threshold of time and puzzle-solving-attempts has been reached. I clicked some spoilers simply by accident because I am/was used to goo thru all dialog options but I was baffled that the game offered my tips and help before I event tried to solve the puzzle myself.

Indeed. I think the amount of hints at the moment is actually a borderline balance bug (in that I think it wasn't the intention of DF to give away puzzles before they were encountered, or before I'd had a chance to try for myself but that happened to me a couple of times) and so I started a thread suggesting this might be a realistic kind of change to make at this stage (particularly in light of the fact that I know from recent interviews they recorded multiple versions of the dialogue, and have already been doing this type of tweaking).

I think that sort of suggestion is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm realizing is that what was advertized as "old school" was not my nor the others who share my opinion's definition. This game didn't turn out to be what I had hoped. My sect of adventure that I ascribe to is more puzzle-oriented than this one which seems to be largely story-oriented. As far as I'm concerned DF has gone the way of Telltale and I must look elsewhere from now on for what I'm looking for which is sad for me because I really wanted to support Tim and DF, and I will just not as much now as I would have if it was exactly what I wanted. Hopefully Obduction, SpaceVenture, or Quest For Infamy is something more like what I'm looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm realizing is that what was advertized as "old school" was not my nor the others who share my opinion's definition. This game didn't turn out to be what I had hoped. My sect of adventure that I ascribe to is more puzzle-oriented than this one which seems to be largely story-oriented. As far as I'm concerned DF has gone the way of Telltale and I must look elsewhere from now on for what I'm looking for which is sad for me because I really wanted to support Tim and DF, and I will just not as much now as I would have if it was exactly what I wanted. Hopefully Obduction, SpaceVenture, or Quest For Infamy is something more like what I'm looking for.

I do think that's a bit weird, for a few reasons. Firstly, I should say I like Telltale's latest efforts. I think they are much more successful at doing that than they ever were with their more traditional adventures (with a couple of exceptions). And when they tried to do weird halfway things they never quite worked. I'm quite happy they've struck out in a new direction.

But... I don't see how what DF did here is remotely like that. The puzzles (so far!) are quite easy, but they definitely... well, exist, and inventory options and dialogue trees and point and click exploration is still very much the way the game is played, very much in the old LucasArts tradition, unlike Telltale which has quite clearly changed to a scene-by-scene, low-exploration/challenge but high-drama/character interaction/choice style of delivering an adventure which has its own charms but is quite clearly a very different thing.

They seem like profoundly different approaches to me, and while obviously it's your opinion, I am honestly confused how you draw a line between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm realizing is that what was advertized as "old school" was not my nor the others who share my opinion's definition. This game didn't turn out to be what I had hoped. My sect of adventure that I ascribe to is more puzzle-oriented than this one which seems to be largely story-oriented. As far as I'm concerned DF has gone the way of Telltale and I must look elsewhere from now on for what I'm looking for which is sad for me because I really wanted to support Tim and DF, and I will just not as much now as I would have if it was exactly what I wanted. Hopefully Obduction, SpaceVenture, or Quest For Infamy is something more like what I'm looking for.

I wish more people, or more important people, would share our opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm realizing is that what was advertized as "old school" was not my nor the others who share my opinion's definition. This game didn't turn out to be what I had hoped. My sect of adventure that I ascribe to is more puzzle-oriented than this one which seems to be largely story-oriented. As far as I'm concerned DF has gone the way of Telltale and I must look elsewhere from now on for what I'm looking for which is sad for me because I really wanted to support Tim and DF, and I will just not as much now as I would have if it was exactly what I wanted. Hopefully Obduction, SpaceVenture, or Quest For Infamy is something more like what I'm looking for.

I don't think the "story-dirven" aspect is a problem: "Old-school" adventures (in your and my definition) were also very story-driven.

I think the difference is: Do you explore they story on your own terms, clicking, combining and puzzling your way thru or is it more of a narration where the game developer controls the pace and experience more like a director.

I like both kinds of adventure games. I like the current Telltale games a lot because I accept them as an "interactive novel" that is highly engaging but has not a very deep gameplay mechanic. I also (of course) like the adventures where you have to earn every progression in the story by fighting your way thru brain-melting puzzles.

When it comes to Broken Age: I expected the latter (difficult and complex puzzles) so I was disappointed in that aspect of the game but at the same time I like the pacing and narration and also how polished the game feels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that I'm not expectig Tim to match my expectations (puzzle wise) because I am the center of the universe.

I am expecting him to match them because he originated those expectations in a very concrete way.

Tim described many times what he thought was a good puzzle, how it made you feel smart, etc. So I expect him to follow his own advise.

Some of the things he said:

1. A puzzle involves getting stuck, make you think and thus providing challenge and satisfaction that comes only from mental challenge, you only need to keep it logical (within the world in question).

2. Th puzzle makes you work for the AHA moment.

3. The good puzzle ususally involves (aacording to Tim):

a. Portraying a problem clearly.

b. Getting the player to think the straightforward solution is X, then finding it doesn't work for a given circunstance wich must be explained.

c. Sometimes second and third options fail as well.

d. Then the player sets himself to find a more creative solution he gets an aidea and tries it, while incomplete the game hists you its its the right direction.

e. Finally you piece it all together in a creative yet now logical way which makes you think it is smart yet it was there right in front of you.

He did not get points 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e.

I must admit though unlike many average adventure games he never fails in point 3a: you never wonder "what am I supposed to do now?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw. regardless of what you think about the subject, isn't it strange when devs sometimes seem to prefer to talk about issues of their work outside of their community in the first place? You know, a forum is discussing several aspects about this and that, things are heating up, ... but the questions more get covered far away in interviews or some videos, some are even told to prefer to inform people via reddit instead of their own forum, such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose everyone is welcome to their own opinions so here's mine. Perception is reality for people. My perception is that I disagree with the posters perception (loved the game) and this post is pretty pathetic. I'm sorry to see you're so unhappy, life is tough eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think that's a bit weird, for a few reasons. Firstly, I should say I like Telltale's latest efforts. I think they are much more successful at doing that than they ever were with their more traditional adventures (with a couple of exceptions). And when they tried to do weird halfway things they never quite worked. I'm quite happy they've struck out in a new direction.

I just don't. Telltale are wholly unrecognizable to me now. I don't care what direction they go in, I won't be buying any more of their games because I don't enjoy them. Admittedly, DF hasn't gone as far as Telltale have in abolishing puzzles (Tim's own outlook), but they are moving in the same direciton; less puzzles = broader appeal.

But... I don't see how what DF did here is remotely like that. The puzzles (so far!) are quite easy, but they definitely... well, exist, and inventory options and dialogue trees and point and click exploration is still very much the way the game is played, very much in the old LucasArts tradition, unlike Telltale which has quite clearly changed to a scene-by-scene, low-exploration/challenge but high-drama/character interaction/choice style of delivering an adventure which has its own charms but is quite clearly a very different thing.

I don't see how I can make it any plainer than stating that playing Broken Age and classic adventures just weren't the same experiences for me. But like I said, both DF and Telltale have chosen to abandon the focus of puzzles and strive solely for story. This just isn't an adventure game to me. Many here may call it that, but I don't. Broken Age is on par with Telltale's early adventures (as far as puzzle difficulty is concerned) for something like Sam & Max Season Two (which was decent, at best). Granted the story is better, but I don't care about that. That's not why I play adventure games. You can say that we all backed a Tim Schafer game which has always been primarily about story, and that's true to a certain extent, but his earlier games never cheapened out on the focus of puzzles like Broken Age has. It's just not the same as Day of the Tentacle, I'm sorry. And that's exactly the same feeling I had with Telltale's early games.

They seem like profoundly different approaches to me, and while obviously it's your opinion, I am honestly confused how you draw a line between them.

They're not that different. As I stated above, both have chosen to shallow out on the puzzles. Telltale had them somewhat for a time and then just straight up said "screw it" and tossed them all out in favour of mass appeal and profit. It's not unfair to say that DF has chosen to join the same school of thinking. And while they may never completely abandon puzzles like Telltale has, they're much closer to what Telltale started out like than what LucasArts used to be. I can't see it any other way because I don't focus on story as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(above post was too long)

I don't think the "story-dirven" aspect is a problem:

I know. That's where the disagreement begins. :)

"Old-school" adventures (in your and my definition) were also very story-driven.

Ok, it depends on what you define "story-driven" as. I'm referring to it as the main focus with puzzles taking a back seat. Lucasarts' old adventures were certainly story driven. Every one of them. Ron Gilbert even went as far as to call them Story Games not Adventure Games. But they weren't driven entirely by story. It wasn't the sole focus. Puzzles also played a strong part and those games were designed with it in mind at least as much as story, not as an afterthought or an accessory.

I think the difference is: Do you explore they story on your own terms, clicking, combining and puzzling your way thru or is it more of a narration where the game developer controls the pace and experience more like a director.

Definitely my own terms. If I wanted a game directed to me I would watch a movie. That's why I said I don't care about slow pacing earlier. That doesn't break the immersion for me because I'm not getting lost in someone else's world (the game designer or the protagonist), I'm getting lost in my own experience. I dislike being dictated to as to how my experience should play out. It's always controlled to an extent, otherwise it'd be just a sandbox game so the design does have merit, but I don't care that I'm taking forever to solve a puzzle, or explore the world (just flying around in Space Quest 3, or ripping through time sequels in Space Quest 4, or biking on the old Mine Road in Full Throttle was great fun). That doesn't tear me out of the experience like it does for some people. The almighty story is just not the biggest reason I play adventures. I'm curious to discover the ending as much as anyone else, but I like to earn that. It's a reward for the gameplay, not something I want to be constantly reminded of and being pushed to move forward to if I'm trying to have fun in the world. Broken Age does offer this a little bit, you can simply explore but there's no other reason to do that other than just doing it because there's a distinct lack of puzzles to keep you there.

To me it just seems like Broken Age's and Telltale's design is to rush you through the story at its pace while I just want to slow down and take it all in. More puzzles allow me to do that. I mean, look at Monkey Island 2's easy mode. Is finding all of those map pieces just standing out there in the open more fun just because it moves the story along quicker? Or was it a memorable experience jumping through all the hoops, doing all the convoluted requirements, thinking outside of the box, talking to all the people, visiting every island locating every object to finally find just one map piece? That was an ADVENTURE! The "meat and potatoes" of adventure gaming! Not some shallow drive-thru junk food variety where you get exactly what you want with little to no hassle which may appease you for a little bit, but whose lasting effects don't linger too long after. It makes everything a bit more dramatic because it was harder to achieve progression. This is exactly the experience I'm having with Deponia right now and I'm loving every minute of it. It's a little easy and it unfortunately has limited hotspots and things to look at/interact with, but the puzzles don't cheapen out and it takes a while to achieve your goal (no pun intended).

Now, I know I'm using seemingly derogatory terms like "drive-thru junk variety" but I'm talking about the puzzles. Junk food can taste good, sometimes better than real food, but the effect simply doesn't last. And it lessens the story for me. Like I said above, the story can be made to feel more dramatic just by drawing the experience out. Some say it slows it down and kills it, but to me it's the opposite. If everything I'm experiencing and the time I'm taking to accomplish goals and to figure out how to proceed feels proportionately appropriate to the "size" of the story and how long it would actually take somebody to achieve something like this realistically (in a fantasy world), it feels right. It feels like an epic journey. The Fellowship of the Ring takes place over long periods of time, but the movie makes it feel like it's all happening in the course of a month max, if that (I haven't read Fellowship yet, but I've heard that's how it plays out, if not then just think of some other example that suits the point I'm trying to make lol).

A good example is the King's Quest II+ remake by AGDI. Each step in acquiring the 3 stones is an entire mini-adventure in itself. The game was incredibly embellished and fleshed out to make it more than the meager AGI original. After I got the first stone I had such a feeling of adventure and then still knowing that I had yet two more to get made it all seem like an incredible epic journey. I never got that feeling with Broken Age. Broken Age might have a more interesting story, and it might even tell it better, but it just seems shallow and "lesser" because my experience was incredibly fleeting and over all too soon. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it. Long story short I value puzzles at least as much as story because they really do work together for me. You can't have a game full of awesome puzzles with a meaningless story, but the reverse is also true, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for triple-posting, but it just won't fit in the previous posts.

I do want to add that I don't think that Broken Age is a terrible game, just not what I consider (and looked forward to) as a classic adventure style game. The controls are similar, the mechanics are similar, but it's just not the same. The things most people seem to be able to do without or skimp out on are the very things I believe are crucial to the genre. Remember, I did say that I support Double Fine, just not as much as I wanted to. I was hoping for something I didn't get. That's fine. I'm not bitter about it. Tim made the game he wanted, and that's what I was trying to help. Unfortunately, what Tim wanted wasn't what I thought he wanted. Bound to happen? Maybe, but at the time it didn't seem like it. Broken Age is a fine story and a fairly decent game. It's not groundbreaking or a master piece, but it's nice. It's too bad too...it could have been more.

I feel similarly to Phil Fish who proclaimed that Japanese game designers have lost it and western developers have taken the mantle of (in his eyes) better, challenging, and less hand-holding game design. I feel it's similar with adventure games. Most of the people who designed such great adventures back in the day are now a shadow of what they were and the Germans seem to have taken over and are getting them mostly right. At least from what I've played so far from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(above post was too long)
I don't think the "story-dirven" aspect is a problem:

I know. That's where the disagreement begins. :)

[...]

I fail to see the disagreement ;-)

I'm completely on your side regarding the length, complexity and difficulty of the "puzzles" in Broken Age. I too think a lot of them don't even deserve to be called puzzles. But the game is still story-driven as is Monkey Island 2 or The Dig or a lot of other great adventure games. The Pacing is completely different though. And I too prefer a slower pacing if it comes from cracking harder puzzles. So no disagreement there. I also loved how Monkey 2 opened up in the middle where you were free to chase after the four map parts on your own terms (well not completely, but it felt that way!) - perhaps Broken Age will open up in Part 2 (does not seem probable at the moment, but who knows...)

But that doesn't mean that other people are not allowed to really enjoy Broken Age even if it's puzzles are most of the times flat as a pancake. I don't like flat puzzles and obviously you don't but that doesn't justify going on a crusade to enforce our dislike for the puzzle density upon people who are happy with the game like some people in this thread are trying to do. I think it's not possible to persuade people into disliking a game that they obviously like.

Yeah, I would love a "tough mode" for Broken Age because the current Beta does feel like "easy mode" to me. But given the budget and time issues this seems to be a wish that cannot be fulfilled. That's why I think it is a better way to point out things that are still changeable in Act 1, voice one's opinion (but in a reasonable and constructive way!) and to hope the best for Act 2.

PS: Deponia is a great game. Haven't gotten to play parts 2 and 3 yet, which is a shame. But since Broken Age Act 1 only occupied two short evenings, there is hope for an escape from Deponia for me yet ;-)

PS2: No, I do not want to get in an argument about budget, the work conditions at Deadelic or which game delivers more value per Euro - I just like Deponia ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that I'm not expectig Tim to match my expectations (puzzle wise) because I am the center of the universe.

I am expecting him to match them because he originated those expectations in a very concrete way.

Tim described many times what he thought was a good puzzle, how it made you feel smart, etc. So I expect him to follow his own advise.

Some of the things he said:

1. A puzzle involves getting stuck, make you think and thus providing challenge and satisfaction that comes only from mental challenge, you only need to keep it logical (within the world in question).

2. Th puzzle makes you work for the AHA moment.

3. The good puzzle ususally involves (aacording to Tim):

a. Portraying a problem clearly.

b. Getting the player to think the straightforward solution is X, then finding it doesn't work for a given circunstance wich must be explained.

c. Sometimes second and third options fail as well.

d. Then the player sets himself to find a more creative solution he gets an aidea and tries it, while incomplete the game hists you its its the right direction.

e. Finally you piece it all together in a creative yet now logical way which makes you think it is smart yet it was there right in front of you.

He did not get points 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e.

I must admit though unlike many average adventure games he never fails in point 3a: you never wonder "what am I supposed to do now?"

That is a good list of how puzzles in adventure games in my opinion should work and is taken more or less straight from the video where he talks with Ron Gilbert about adventure games. Thanks for taking the time!

I also do get why you are disappointed - and I am too - but it was ONE video out of many videos that showed the process. And it was pretty clear that there were some troubles: A tight budget, to much "game" to match the budget and so forth. I think that what we got is either not completely the way he wanted to design the puzzles (but had to) or during the design and early testing phase he came to the conclusion that the games puzzles were sufficient and/or felt good to him or the testers. During the episodes it got clearer and clearer that the final product would not be the thing I hoped it would be. It was obvious that a lot (too much for my taste) time and effort went into implementing the art style and technical highlights (zoomable areas, multiple paralaxing layers, etc.) which had to come at a cost.

But the bottom line is: He designed the game the way it is, so we got a Tim Schafer adventure. Some people are happy with it, some are not (I too have gripes with it!). But trying to force the game to be something different now is a moot point since it is done (at least Act 1) and can probably only be changed in minor details (again: budget).

I hope for some degree of puzzle tuning (removing spoiler bugs and maybe implementing a few obstacles) in Act 1 and hope the best for a more challenging Act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MusicallyInspired: great posts! I subscribe to your explanation 100%!

Working your way through makes you experience the story in a deeper and more meaningful way.

DoubleFieps: you are welcome :)

You are right things cannot change substancially.

My only hope comes from the last episode (I think) where he states that part 2 should have a higher level of difficulty.

I'm crossing my fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to point out that I'm not trying to change people's opinions on Broken Age. I'm glad they enjoy the game! Similarly, I could care less! ;) I'm not bothered that other people enjoy its mediocre approach to puzzles. I'm not on a crusade to change others' opinions. I'm simply stating mine and also my realization that this is not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that I was searching for. That's nobody's fault (well, I blame DF a little bit). I do have to move on and continue my search, though. I'm saddened that the first and probably most successful Kickstarter game campaign was not about classic adventures but modern adventures. I went in expecting something and got something else. Again, that's nobody's fault, I'm just sad.

I share my views on the matter to help make my case with those who never really understood it. My gravitation to that type of adventure is more than some misguided notion of savouring punishment. That assumption is incorrect. Just because there was something in that that they disliked doesn't mean that's all there was to it and that there was nothing good about it. Perhaps it'll help somebody understand that there's some good in it and change their way of thinking a little to be able to appreciate it. If not for themselves, then at least an appreciation for my view of it as more than simply "he loves punishment". I have to say, I'm really disappointed in Tim's view of us to that end. But I'm not out to make people hate Broken Age. Far from it. It's a great game. And I'd recommend it to anyone.

At this point, I don't expect anything to change. DF might ramp up the puzzle difficulty a tad for Act II but it won't be anything drastic. At least not to my satisfaction. Tim and DF's views on the matter are in complete contradiction to that happening for me and my camp of "puzzle-ites". I'm just going to enjoy Broken Age for what it is rather than what I was hoping it'd be. But these opportunities to share our views on adventure games leads to interesting and thought-provoking conversations, which is why I continue to share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, guys. I think we agree that the puzzles were the weaker aspect of the game. So, if you went into the game purely for the puzzles, then you will feel some disappointment so far.

On the other hand, if you were into the game for the story, dialog, graphics, and audio, you will be very happy with it.

Hence why some people love the game at the moment, and some are disappointed.

I hope for some degree of puzzle tuning (removing spoiler bugs and maybe implementing a few obstacles) in Act 1 and hope the best for a more challenging Act 2.

I'm inclined to think that way myself. The thing is, the game isn't over yet, so it's useless to discuss it as a finished product. For all we know, Tim designed the puzzles to be initially easy, ramping up to more lateral solutions as the game goes on. That would be clever adventure game design.

So, point is, don't be premature in your opinion until you see the game as a whole. It may just surprise you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've accepted it probably won't happen, considering Tim's current philosophy. But I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised. Either way, I am looking forward to Act II, if only to see what happens next. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind if someone is dissatisfied with something for whatever reason. But I do take exception to this continual assertion that it's not what was promised. The view on whether this is a classic, old school adventure is so clearly a matter of perspective. I think it quite obviously is. Quite a few reviewers have even said the game is old school to a fault at times (I don't agree, but merely point it out as an indication of how broad the perspectives are, here.) Some people, usually those who are very focused on puzzles and challenge don't think so. I don't agree with that, either, but I think it's an honest opinion. I just think it's incorrect to conclude that anyone has been misled here, except by their own assumptions about what 'classic' or 'old school' is supposed to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. What was promised was obviously, as you said, a subjective concept. Those of us who are disappointed thought he meant something else. Obviously we are disappointed for a good reason due to this. It's nobody's fault (rather, it's everybody's fault). It just sucks. Do we not have a right to feel that way? To feel like we got our hopes up for nothing? Or at least for something lesser than what we expected? "Classic adventure game" (actually, "adventure game" in general, I suppose) just means something different to me than it does to Tim & co. And I thought that would never be the case. I mean THE Tim Schafer who designed DOTT and helped design Monkey Island 1 and 2! It's unthinkable. I mean he's got puzzles of all kinds sitting in his office! He talks like such a genius of puzzle design and I believe he really is. But somewhere along the line his philosophy went in a weird direction and now all those rubik's cubes aren't so impressive to me anymore. I was wrong and I'm disappointed.

What I think is incorrect to conclude is that there's no other way to look at this. Clearly people are happy with the game, for good reason. There are also people unhappy with the game, for GOOD REASON. We have a right to be unhappy. We have a right to define "classic adventure game" by what we feel made them classic and we have a right to be upset that Tim didn't use the same definition as we did, when all signs seemed to point to that direction. They could have been more specific. They could have been more forthcoming about their philosophy and approach to puzzle design. Tim was equating it to Machinarium! From what I hear that is a fairly difficult game! (another one I have to get to) There was nothing there that I could see that pointed to the reality of what we actually received. Everything they said seemed hopeful to me. But it all crashed and burned before my eyes when the game finally came out. I am upset about this. You can't throw around a subjective term like "classic adventure game" and not expect multiple interpretations of that nor expect those people to immediately understand what your definition is. I feel like everything that was said in the documentary was PR talk and not entirely honest. I mean they kept talking about DOTT and Monkey Island! Machinarium! And then they give us what I like to call a "modern adventure game". Not groundbreaking, just a story game like everything else right now with little to no puzzles. Even Telltale's early games had a "classic" adventure interface. That doesn't make it classic I'm sorry. That's not enough. Telltale's games were not classic adventures I think everyone will agree to that. Broken Age is no different than anything Telltale had made in the past. Everything misled me. I really thought the puzzles would be better. I thought someone was finally going to get it right. I mean who better than Tim Schafer, right? Nope...not so much. They could have even said that their focus would be more on story than puzzles and I would have gotten the hint right away because I know what that means (from experience with Telltale). They didn't, to my knowledge, say anything so specific until after Act I came out.

So yes, we were misled by our own assumptions, but it's not like DF couldn't be more forthcoming about it or help us understand their terminology more. The blame doesn't lie solely on us. It wasn't until all these video reviews AFTER the game releases that Tim starts saying that the game was meant to appeal to a broader audience and the puzzles were easier to accommodate a larger group of people. There was NONE of that talk in any of the documentary videos. In fact, I recall Tim saying "I hope people will like it. I hope people won't find it too easy." I will not take all the blame for this confusion. I'm willing to take some, and like I said I'm not going to be bitter about it (no matter how this post may come across). I'll enjoy the game for what it is and won't hold a grudge, but I'm not taking all the blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the game is probably too easy, but at the same time, I'm very happy with it. If anything, I think I'm enjoying it more the second time through. I'm sorry you place more importance on puzzles, than on characters, atmosphere and story -- but that's by no means a mistake. It's just what you value.

One thing I would say is that Full Throttle and Grim Fandango were really Tim's two games. DOTT was co-designed with Dave Grossman of TellTale Games, and MI2 was co-designed with Ron Gilbert and Dave Grossman. So it seems somewhat unfair to expect that Schafer was going to produce games that he co-made with others.

I know you haven't played Grim Fandango, so what did you make of Full Throttle? It takes about six hours to complete -- which makes it around what people are expecting for Broken Age. Personally I'm pretty sure that FT had more puzzles, but I know I also found it quite frustrating at times, too.

Anyways, I hope you come to terms with what Broken Age is, instead of what you'd hoped it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MusicallyInspired:I agree so much with your posts that I don't know why I keep posting myself :)

ThunderPeel:

Tim sopke MANY TIMES about the criticism he got from FT about length. In one of the last episodes, when the others said that people wouldn't mind length, he said "believe me they will".

Still even FT had some good puzzles, "the lock to hold fast the door to climb the wall puzzle he always kept bringing up is much better than most BA according to the defintion of good puzzle he gave and that I somewhat quoted a few posts ago.

GF was Tim's beast and the game was a lot longer than FT and had good puzzles.

So as MusicallyInspired said already, we had many objective reason to assume somthing different was on the way. From his past work and from the things he said.

I have the theory that when thingd dtsrted to get too expensive and the idea to put their money came up, and then the need to raise more money and not getting enough... he started to think that in order to protect the economic health of double fine he needed to sell this game to a broader audience, hence changeing the original idea: I find a gruop of people who like old adventure games and if they pre-pay it they get that... the idea of pre-pay involves not having the need of a publisher or the need to sell to a broader audience. When economic self suficiency fell apart the proyect adjusted the new needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MusicallyInspired:I agree so much with your posts that I don't know why I keep posting myself :)

There is credibility in numbers. Please keep posting. It's good to know there are others of my creed around here who aren't just "ok" with everything. Not that I'm trying to start a revolt or a revolution, but just to prove that these things are important to us for a good reason and we're not just whining because we didn't get what we wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Do you really ascribe to lobopampeano's theory that Tim Schafer has "sold out" (ie. changed the game) just so he can make more money? I can completely understand if you feel Broken Age was something different than what you were expecting/promised, but I sincerely believe that Tim did his very best to create as good a game as he could, and believes in what he's made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just responding to his sentiments of my posts, to which we seem to be in complete agreement about. That's all I quoted. I don't think Tim was trying to sell out, I just don't think he was sharing everything he could have. Maybe he thought he didn't have to and we'd all know. Nobody is perfect, even Tim makes mistakes. This was an unfortunate one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Tim "sold out".

But it would be ridiculous (and naive) not to think that when they had to put so much money of their own to make things happen he would not take into account broader sales issues.

He runs a company and people depend on him.

Since he never placed on paper specific things he promised to do, there is no way of stating that there has been a breach of agreement, therefore I cannot (nobody can) say he did something that could be said to be a "scam".

BUT If you do not see things in black and white and are open to degrees of gray.... then I'd say he took a safer bet, diluting what had originally been talked about.

I just think that we had objective reasons to expect something different BUT I don't say I know or think he had ill intentions.

I think he weighted pros and cons and tried to come with a solution that could deal with the mess, that (we all know) came from bad resource managing.

This is not a Tim is a monster vs Tim did 100% well dilema (which is a ridiculously simplistic dilema)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with lobopampeano. We put more than 3 million dollars, but Double Fine spent much more money in the development, they risk a lot, may be even the company itself. So Tim decided make a game for a big audience (not for us, as he promised). Good story, good graphics, good music... and poor puzzle design (you can play BA even if you never used your lateral thinking). He thought that's the way to reach a large audience, the way to pay his staff. And is sad that Tim Schafer don't believe in adventure games (and the puzzle is the only thing inherent to adventure games), but I understand that he was worry about for their employees. I gave him my money because I do, I believe in adventure games, and I wanted that Tim did the adventure with creative freedom, without thinking in money or fighting with a publisher. Obviously he didn't. He was not limited to his budget and he couldn't make the adventure with creative freedom (in the main aspect of an adventure game: the puzzle design).

I'm very interested in adventure design, I'm studying adventure games for years (and write a lot of articles about adventure design, even an introduction to puzzle of 75000 characters long), and of course, I have studied the designs of Tim Schafer (designed just for him or in the company of Ron Gilbert and/or Dave Grossman). This is the poorest design in his career, but Tim Schafer understands adventure games, without doubt. He can't do a poor design if he don't want to. He did a poor design on purpose (for reaching the large audience). I was very hopeful with this game, not just for playing a cool adventure, but for adventure game like a genre. But now, Tim Schafer, with Broken Age ("a game for fans of adventure games"), is defending the puzzle as an obstacle in the narration (because he relegates it to a place of no importance). But puzzle is, and ever was, the way in which the adventure games tell the stories. In short, Tim Schafer came as a messiah willing to claim the space for adventure games. But what he has done is hammer a new nail in its coffin.

I would like so much that Tim explains why the Broken Age's design isn't complex.

And yes, I think Broken Age, this private forum and the documentary are worth more than what I paid. But knowing how is the design of puzzles, I would not have supported the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After many complaints, in another post Tim did promise more complex puzzles in the next part.

I prefer that he spends his time and energy doing just that than explaining why the first part was easy. So let's stop asking for the man to step forward to be judged, let's trust his promise and let him work to fulfil it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the puzzles will be harder and/or more complex. I just don't believe at this point that it will be hard or complex enough seeing that the very things I'm looking for in an adventure game are the very things Tim seems to be against. Like I said, I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised, though.

Share this post


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