• Announcements

    • Spaff

      These Forums are closing!   10/04/2019

      After more than a decade of serving this community well, these forums have finally run their course and it's time to close them down. That doesn't mean we want to close the doors on our community, quite the opposite!
      Our discord server grows ever busier by the day, and we encourage all Double Fine fans to meet us over there www.discord.gg/doublefine In a short time these forums will become a read only archive and will remain that way until they become needed again.
      You never know, it might happen.  There is... a prophecy. Thank you all for being part of these forums, and remember that the fun is definitely not over - so please join us on Discord! Love ya, Spaff, Tim, Info Cow, and all of Double Fine.
Sign in to follow this  
Cryocore

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

Recommended Posts

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

Can you put the link?

I prefer that he spends his time and energy doing just that than explaining why the first part was easy.[/url]

Complex and difficult are different things. I want a good design, a complex design as the others adventures of Tim Schafer, but not necessaryly a difficult adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We hear you. This is one of the most frequent criticisms of the game. There's not too much that can be done about it now for act 1 but everyone including Tim wants to make sure act 2 is more difficult.

He doesn't say a word about complexity. If they simply do the dialogues more ambiguous for the second act, the game would be more difficult, but the design wouldn't be richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its never okay for a game to be easy. Stuff being hard is encoded in our dna, thats the whole reason we adapt and change and seek out new challenges.

I would rather have a game brutally hard, then one i can pick my nose and shoot with the boogies, and be on auto pilot.

But i have a feeling that the weak puzzles might be a result of suddenly having to split the game up, obviously you would want to do the puzzles last when you have created the entire game world,, since you cant really make puzzles before you know what locations will be there and where.

Its just a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We hear you. This is one of the most frequent criticisms of the game. There's not too much that can be done about it now for act 1 but everyone including Tim wants to make sure act 2 is more difficult.

He doesn't say a word about complexity. If they simply do the dialogues more ambiguous for the second act, the game would be more difficult, but the design wouldn't be richer.

I don't agree that alone would make it any harder at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We hear you. This is one of the most frequent criticisms of the game. There's not too much that can be done about it now for act 1 but everyone including Tim wants to make sure act 2 is more difficult.

He doesn't say a word about complexity. If they simply do the dialogues more ambiguous for the second act, the game would be more difficult, but the design wouldn't be richer.

Come on dude, show some faith. This reply indicates that you don't want a solution, just a reason to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I agree, changing dialog would not be enough, not even close. Even wthout ridiculous hints, the puzzles are not challenging and complex.

We don't lack good will, it's just that changes should be dramatic in Act2 in order to be good in terms of puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I agree that making a game more difficult by hiding hints you already have in place is just cheating. A more difficult adventure game means more complex puzzles, which means adding more steps to puzzles and adding more puzzles, while at the same time being fair and giving enough hints as to how to solve them.

You don't have me against you in this guys, I grew up with Tim's adventure games and I was also disappointed by how easy it was to complete the first act and the level of the puzzles. I want more levels in the puzzles. I want to carry an item for hours till I find why I need it. I want to think I have found the solution only to get a cut-scene where I failed because I forgot to put the explosives in the turtle which I spent 2 hours trying to understand how to revive. I want to be made a fool until I find the solution and feel like a genius. Some of the puzzles did this for me, but not on the expected level. Selecting the correct dialogue choice to get the bucket was just too easy.

I just disagreed with demanding from Tim to step forward and be judged, when the team promised us that they see our complains and are looking into the issue. Apart from that, we are on the same side. I am interested to hear your ideas on how you would improve BA Act 1's puzzles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anarchist: I don't want a public hanging of Tim. I dont hate him, I actually have sympathy for him.

It would be great though if he wrote something himself addressing the comments of the backers who felt it was too easy.

Regarding act 1 and making better puzzles there, I'd say that one of the problems was that there was little conflict going on and that does not help the possibilities of puzzle design. Yes, Vella did not agree with tradition (a ridiculous one that had no really good arguments going in favor of it wich was bit dissapointing for me) and was not allowed to leave the cloud colony and Shay was a little restrained by the mother ship. But conflict that does not translate into many practical concrete obstacles is mainly about the characters motivation and having them embrace an adventure.

Good adventure games are stories that have you working you way through it, and that usually translates in having you doing complex favours for characters in order for you to get something from them you need for something else. Or trying to convince, cheat, frame, confront, characters or make other characters fight themselves, etc.

Having complex relationships among the characters of a given area helps a lot in a game.

There was no complexity in the relationships of the members of the cloud colony.

Some characters were almost completely useless: the man with the middle age crisis and his son accomplish almost nothing (or nothing atall? I can't remember right now). The girl in the green dress just gives a pair of shoes, and the other girl gives you a ladder. Both of them give you an item just like that and that's it.

Without having a complex situation there cannot be a good puzzle unless you place a lock with a rubic cube puzzle (not my favourite puzzles).

A good example of characters and conflict that creates a puzzle was given in a previous post response by recalling DOTT and the diamond situation (read above). It is a perfect example because Dr. Eddison is an ally yet at the same times is an obstacle, in order to have this you need complex personal situations.

I also liked puzzles without characters that are not exactly rubic cube puzzles like the one in Chains of Satinav [SPOILER ALERT]where there was this magical forcecage where there is a magic ring. The forcecage traps anything it comes in contact with. Using a liquid dropped from above to fill the forcecage and make the ring come out by being displaced buy the liquid itself was a really clever simple solution which is not evident in the context at all.. that really got the AHA moment.[END OF SPOILER ALERT]

Having a space ship should have been a better opportunity for non -character related puzzles than the teleporting-shrinking head puzzle or the weaving puzzle. Yet again having more coplex character interactions might have sufficed; no need to make a hacking mini game puzzle (by the way I hate mini games and the reflex mini game was really, really not of my liking). The navigator could have been equipped with a way of preventing someone from altering the wool-navigating charts. Thus being necessary to find a way of fooling him. Instead characters are just there and show little to no opposition.

I would have LOVED having those wool creatures having problems among themselves over something ridiculous and maybe having one behave in a non-teddy bear manner when he was not on the job (fake missions) and returning to the teddy bear pose when being councious of being watched.

It also really helps having more items and stuff to interact with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I tried to ignore this thread but even in its blocked state its constant reappearance annoys me. There was so much considerate criticism of the difficulty of the first act that could have served as a basis for discussion, why does this spiteful, hateful, insulting and utterly unconstructive comment receive so much attention? And please refrain from pointing out that I'm adding to that attention right now. As I said, I really tried to ignore it but I'm mildly pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? Spiteful, hateful, insulting? You haven't even been reading the thread. The OP may have started that way, but there's been some fair discussion going on here since then. How about you read the thread instead of barging in like a know-it-all and telling everyone how they should be behaving when you don't even know what's going on? It's not the original comment that's getting discussion, which may or may not have been unfair, I honestly don't remember or care, but it's where the comment was born from. The game didn't sit well with some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, I tried to ignore this thread but even in its blocked state its constant reappearance annoys me. There was so much considerate criticism of the difficulty of the first act that could have served as a basis for discussion, why does this spiteful, hateful, insulting and utterly unconstructive comment receive so much attention? And please refrain from pointing out that I'm adding to that attention right now. As I said, I really tried to ignore it but I'm mildly pissed.

I know what you mean. The OP is horrible. There may have been a decent, worthwhile discussion to come out of it, but it's a shame that it had to happen in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, I tried to ignore this thread but even in its blocked state its constant reappearance annoys me. There was so much considerate criticism of the difficulty of the first act that could have served as a basis for discussion, why does this spiteful, hateful, insulting and utterly unconstructive comment receive so much attention? And please refrain from pointing out that I'm adding to that attention right now. As I said, I really tried to ignore it but I'm mildly pissed.

I know what you mean. The OP is horrible. There may have been a decent, worthwhile discussion to come out of it, but it's a shame that it had to happen in this thread.

Absolutely, and there are other threads about difficulty. The bile that started this one should have been left behind long ago, not legitimised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hw has it been legitimized exactly?

Simple, this shouldn't have been the venue for legitimate criticisms of the game. There are criticisms and sensible points to be made (and indeed, I've taken part in a few of them) but having the discussion in this thread, of all places, automatically legitimises the original poster's bile, and some of the other posters who have followed on with comments that are frankly ignorant. It's a poisoned thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think playtesting really has become a problem. We can see that in Episode 13 of the documentary. The playtesters got stuck somewhere and it was noticed as if this would be a mistake in puzzle design. Or when it becomes frustrating. That is a good thing for adventure games. They need to be frustrating to a certain amount. Making a good adventure game is to make it look and feel so good, that players want to know how the story continues, that they accept a level of frustration, but still want to stay in the world of the story. (Example: "The Dig" had been really difficult in puzzle design -for me- and I walked around in this world for hours and hours and hours, doing and achieving sometimes nothing much. But I loved every minute of it. And I have a lot nostalgia about it. I exactly remember that I played it all winter long. 1998 I guess. I remember going on walk with my family and thinking about this game. Etc. pp.)

101: Puzzles are there for "frustration" –some strange folks used to call that "playtime" somewhere in the 90s– and you need to make the world, the story, the characters so great, that players accept this frustration. Not only accept, but to love this frustration. That is what a good adventure game has to achieve as a rule. As rule No. 1.

Conclusion: You need a damn good story (check!), a lovingly crafted world (check!) and characters (check!) and GREAT and sometimes difficult puzzles (missing!). You need those puzzles because without them you would rush through this world.

So it's sad that the puzzle design is compared to other works of Tim Schafer, so extremely easy this time. That's sad because if we think how great the general design really is. And the puzzles are not bad, not overwhelmingly clever also, but ok. BUT: Far too less. And too often too easy.

So we end up rushing through this great story and world as if it was a really great movie. But for adventure games that's a problematic and also a little bit sad statement.

You need to get stuck in adventure games. Perhaps not as much as Ron Gilbert described in his imaginary plans for a Monkey Island 3a, but you need to get stuck somewhere. For some days. While at school, work, or trying to get to sleep you had to think about this wonderful world of an adventure game and how to solve these damn puzzles and how the story would develop. And you were fascinated by it and couldn't wait to get back on the computer on a summer's evening. THAT's were the nostalgia came from. Yeah, that's where it really came from. All of it! Because it was on your mind nearly all of the time and we remember those memories we had while thinking about the puzzles in our favorite adventure games we played.

And you need to get "frustrated". I never felt frustrated with the old adventures. As is if people nowadays even get somewhat offended when they're "frustrated". However: You need that. Read above.

If so many people finish Act I in 4-5 hours, that is a problem. Not a show-stopper, but for me it's is like (when I watch all the documentary, the heart and the genius of all the development, than I don't get it, why playtime was kept so "convenient". It's somewhat a little sad.) It's like in my head: "WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY?"

Because everything else is pretty much perfect. Puzzles are too easy, playtime is way too short, even the "look at" verb is missing, which additionally reduces playtime heavily. Let's file a bug report for this missing verb maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I also missed being able to "look at" things. This was the original way hints -reasonable ones- were given to the player regarding possible solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think playtesting really has become a problem. We can see that in Episode 13 of the documentary. The playtesters got stuck somewhere and it was noticed as if this would be a mistake in puzzle design. Or when it becomes frustrating. That is a good thing for adventure games. They need to be frustrating to a certain amount. Making a good adventure game is to make it look and feel so good, that players want to know how the story continues, that they accept a level of frustration, but still want to stay in the world of the story. (Example: "The Dig" had been really difficult in puzzle design -for me- and I walked around in this world for hours and hours and hours, doing and achieving sometimes nothing much. But I loved every minute of it. And I have a lot nostalgia about it. I exactly remember that I played it all winter long. 1998 I guess. I remember going on walk with my family and thinking about this game. Etc. pp.)

101: Puzzles are there for "frustration" –some strange folks used to call that "playtime" somewhere in the 90s– and you need to make the world, the story, the characters so great, that players accept this frustration. Not only accept, but to love this frustration. That is what a good adventure game has to achieve as a rule. As rule No. 1.

Conclusion: You need a damn good story (check!), a lovingly crafted world (check!) and characters (check!) and GREAT and sometimes difficult puzzles (missing!). You need those puzzles because without them you would rush through this world.

So it's sad that the puzzle design is compared to other works of Tim Schafer, so extremely easy this time. That's sad because if we think how great the general design really is. And the puzzles are not bad, not overwhelmingly clever also, but ok. BUT: Far too less. And too often too easy.

So we end up rushing through this great story and world as if it was a really great movie. But for adventure games that's a problematic and also a little bit sad statement.

You need to get stuck in adventure games. Perhaps not as much as Ron Gilbert described in his imaginary plans for a Monkey Island 3a, but you need to get stuck somewhere. For some days. While at school, work, or trying to get to sleep you had to think about this wonderful world of an adventure game and how to solve these damn puzzles and how the story would develop. And you were fascinated by it and couldn't wait to get back on the computer on a summer's evening. THAT's were the nostalgia came from. Yeah, that's where it really came from. All of it! Because it was on your mind nearly all of the time and we remember those memories we had while thinking about the puzzles in our favorite adventure games we played.

And you need to get "frustrated". I never felt frustrated with the old adventures. As is if people nowadays even get somewhat offended when they're "frustrated". However: You need that. Read above.

If so many people finish Act I in 4-5 hours, that is a problem. Not a show-stopper, but for me it's is like (when I watch all the documentary, the heart and the genius of all the development, than I don't get it, why playtime was kept so "convenient". It's somewhat a little sad.) It's like in my head: "WHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY?"

Because everything else is pretty much perfect. Puzzles are too easy, playtime is way too short, even the "look at" verb is missing, which additionally reduces playtime heavily. Let's file a bug report for this missing verb maybe?

3-5 hours for a half is fine play time why do games need to be 20 hours total. Don't think full throttle is not much longer then 6 hours and even though people call it short it was one of my favorites. Just because of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this in the Eurogamer review, I find it relevant to our discussion:

"In fact, I struggled most at the start of the game precisely because I was over-thinking the puzzles, dismissing the obvious solutions and clumsy hints as red herrings designed to obscure something more ingenious underneath. Nope. It's as simple as it looks, and any reasonably experienced player - surely the key audience for a game with Broken Age's heritage - will glide to the end in a few hours with very little trouble.

In the unlikely event that you do get stuck, you're free to switch between the storylines whenever you want, but this throws up its own problems. It's safe to say that Vella and Shay's plots do overlap, but the way in which they do - while clever - is so heavily foreshadowed in each strand that however you play through them, one side of the game can't help but act as a spoiler for the other. A stronger authorial voice, forcing the player to swap stories at the most dramatically effective points, would have helped the twists land more consistently.

Even without the expectation and hype of a fêted developer and a Kickstarter windfall, Broken Age would feel like a slight little thing. Had it arrived without fanfare, just another quirky Double Fine experiment in the vein of Stacking or Costume Quest, its surface charms might have been enough.

Disappointment? Underwhelming? Those criticisms are far too harsh for a game that is undeniably delightful to play, but they carry a sting of truth. Pleasant but undemanding, gorgeous but lacking in depth - fans will be forgiven for expecting something a little more chewy, a little more experimental, from a developer who made his name by turning adventure games upside down. Here's hoping Act 2 builds some gameplay muscle to go with the supermodel looks."

I find interesting that the reviewer finds not only problematic how easy it is. I also felt it lacked deph... and taht makes puzzle absence more problematic.

If BA were a game with complex twists along the way (not only in the end), with complex dialogues and situations, the ride might have been more enjoyable... though I'd still think what I think about the puzzles.

I feel it lacked a bit in content too. I did not explore the themes it engages nor is there real meaningful character interaction... An argument to prove this? Tell me peolple if it is not true that most characters could have been replaced without having a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgiev me but I want to quote yet a nother piece of a review, this one is from Metro (bold was added by me):

There are also plenty of puzzles to block your way, but although they’re certainly more complex brain-teasers than anything in any of Telltale’s games by the old standards they’re surprisingly simplistic. In fact they seem to be there more out of a sense of tradition than any obvious passion from the developer.

The game clearly worries that the more complex, abstract puzzles of old are too much for modern gamers but that surely defeats the whole point of having fans fund a game in the first place. And yet for whatever reason you’re unlikely to be stuck on any puzzle for more than a minute or two, thanks to hammer-over-the-head clues in the dialogue and item descriptions. And if you don’t believe us consider the fact that the game doesn’t even bother to have a help system.

Perhaps things will become more challenging in the second act but since that doesn’t have any kind of specific date, just sometime this year, it may be some while before we find out. Disappointment may be too strong a word for Broken Age but despite the spotlight it’s made for itself it makes no attempt to either move the genre forward or to recreate the old style in more exacting detail.

Instead it concentrates purely on being as charming and engaging as possible, which is fine and admirable but it can’t help but seem rather anticlimactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all personal preference and personal opinion, but the question is:

Why Kickstarter?

1.) The scale of the game, the impression. The art, the music, the technical aspects, the voice acting. Everything is masterfully blended and done. Without any publisher bullying the developers. Certainly achieved!

2.) To revive non-mainstream more edgy aspects of adventure games. Make it modern, but revive those aspects. But like the game is right now? This would have been possible with some publishers. It's pretty much a mainstream title. Don't get me wrong: It's VERY unique, heartfelt, but at the same time far too easy and streamlined in the interface and puzzle design. Not (yet) so much.

Kickstarter could have been used to revive the use of some verbs. To have only ONE cursor which says: "click here and something appropiate or surprisingly will or might happen. But it's looks like a good idea just to click ." this is really the equivalent to the "Return to the combat zone!!!11" design, from which the modern shooter genre suffers so much. And this gets even heavier with having no verbs. I remember funny dialogue in Grim Fandago when I looked e.g. at Manny's secretary Eva. Or I remembered discovering/looking at shelves of shelves of books in Indiana Jones 3 Graphic Adventure, which seemd endlessly but it really made me feel like Indiana Jones. Or I remember looked at bricks in stone walls in The Dig. "Hmm, this stone seems odd." Lines like this. I miss them!

Kickstarter could have been used to revive non-modern puzzle design. Non-modern means: more difficult than 'really easy'. It is great to craft a unique and astonishing experience (which Broken Age certainly is) but this is not what you need Kickstarter for. The game as is could have been released by a publisher today. Don't get me wrong: It is made really good and that's something that not many studios could achieve so well. But it has absolutely no edges concerning the interface, concerning puzzle design.

"Why Kickstarter?", "Why no edges?" those questions remain (for me) (sometimes), regardless how great the game really is. And these questions could have been avoidable. Or... could be fixable (Hardcore mode! :) ) And by that I mean also an additional "Hardcore mode"(= more difficult than easy) for Act I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the old adventure gamers like me, when the game begun to show some issues during testing, that's probably when it was on the right path. The type of game we like isn't supposed to be beaten on one sitting. You sure can surf it in a few hours once you know the solutions, but the first time we play, we, this specific audience, we expect long hours of exploration, failing, and most of all, we expect a lot of "A-HA" moments. Let us get stuck and spend sometime imagining and discussing possible solutions with friends, on forums, meetings, etc.

When did a game was doomed to fail because it was categorized as hard? Has Megaman, for an example, ever failed to sell because it was too hard?

I understand that putting money on it own, DF got a little scared and needed to be sure that the game would be a success, so they changed the game so it would appeal to a broader audience. But I fear that this decision may backfire.

For example, when I buy something at Amazon, I read the consumers reviews. First the good ones, but mostly the bad ones. Some are only talking trash, but some are really helpful and bring good arguments. Tim himself told some days ago that it is the bad reviews and comments that they end up reading . An as consumers, and not industry professional reviewers, we have some pretty good arguments here and all over the internet. This could hurt sales just like the fact that it is too hard and people get stuck on puzzles.

In a different perspective, this game is getting so much attention and free press everywhere, that people will end up buying it even if it is only to check what is this game everyone keep talking about. It's not that expensive. Double Fine should take advantage of this and do whatever they feel make a good adventure game. And all points out that they were trying to do something they believed was right, then some people got concerned with testing results and all the investment they were doing on the game, and everything was toned down and dumbed out.

Should they be concerned that the game will get reviews saying that it is too hard, or that the game failed to revive a classic style of playing? Those are the kind of reviews that will actually impact on buyers decisions.

PS.:

I like this post. I like the the fact that it keeps getting resurrected from now and then, and that it is always at the top.

I'm pretty sure our message is reaching who we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like what this post has become leosarma and as I said above I agree with you. But the thread title shows lack of class, as if a 12 year old is shouting in an MMORPG and that is why some people don't like it when this thread appears in front of them. Nevertheless, I still believe that Tim is listening to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video games (p)reviews, many of them are like listening to virgins talking about sex, exceptions approve the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I don't even remember the first post.

And I don't even notice the title of the post anymore... + though it is not the kind of title I would have chosen it is effective at attracting readers like shit attracts flies.

We should keep this post alive…

Regarding reviews… yes, it is true: but I found that the reviews that were most insightful and knew what they were talking about (i.e. knew about old adventure games) were not the 9.5/10 reviews but the 7/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posts, kringel and leosarma.

I agree, the game in the state like it is now doesn't scream "crowd funded". It wouldn't surprise me, had Tim pitched the idea exactly this way to the right publisher, they might have greenlit it, and it would be exactly the game we have now. It caters to the biggest potential audience it can reach, and the only "risk" it takes is the art style in my opinion (which turned out great after all), and the overall genre itself.

The Secret of Monkey Island is by no means a complicated and difficult game. It just has some design flaws in its puzzles, and that puts people off. My girlfriend who never played an adventure game in her entire life and gets easily frustrated with games, finished the first part of Monkey Island 1 almost without my help within one evening.

I had to help her on a few occasions, for example the red herring (that the troll wanted it, she actually figured out the plank puzzle on her own), or how to sneak past the cook with the right timing. I had to explain the interface at first, but she soon understood it (even though we were playing the Special Edition which probably has the worst possible point and click adventure interface I've ever seen).

She figured out the shop keeper (both how to follow him to the sword master and how to rob his safe), she figured out how to get Otis out of his cell with Grog, she figured out the rubber chicken, she figured out how to beat the sword master, and even the cryptic Melee Island Treasure map, also how to fire herself out of the cannon in Act 2, all completely on her own. And I'd call these ones of the most difficult puzzles of Monkey Island 1.

There were a few puzzles that frustrated her because they seemed based on trial and error or VERY creative thinking. Bombing a banana tree on a beach on purpose without any hints whatsoever is probably too much to expect of a non-seasoned player, and she kinda destroyed all chances of her solving the Act 2 recipe puzzle as she accidentally threw the RECIPE into the fire first, but this is where my point lies:

I expected Tim and DF to ask the question: "How would I design these very same multi-step complex puzzles now, after decades of experience?" or "How did people get frustrated with some puzzles, and how can we achieve that more people have fun trying to solve these complex puzzles?" I don't think people are "too stupid" for adventure games, they just don't come in with the right mind set and the game fails to correct this. There must be some reason like the interface or the rules of this world haven't been explained well enough. If so, what can be done to explain it better? Games and school are very similar in a way. You teach someone a system incrementally, then have exercises and finally an exam. Schools improve the method of teaching, not lower the standards. Why shouldn't games do the same?

Instead of tackling these questions and serving a game that implements all the things Tim has learned over the years and the insight of Ron Gilbert (caged design, intentional misleading but rewarding for almost-right solutions, and what not else the two have spoken of in the documentary and various interviews over the years), Broken Age has bypassed the problem elegantly by simply not having any puzzles that require more than one or two steps to solve and STILL manages to have one or two completely unfair or badly designed puzzles like the I-need-to-backtrack-to-a-dead-area-to-get-a-peach puzzle or the I-fell-on-Gus-by-accident puzzle.

More complexity is needed in adventure games. Not by making the puzzles more obscure, but by adding more depth. More ways for interaction. More ways to spend your time, if you're stuck on a puzzle. Avoiding the feeling of being stuck in a dead world, which happened in the cloud colony for example. Give the option to repeat dialog to get a reminder of your goals, like how you can ask the pirate leaders in SMI as often as you want "Tell me again about sword fighting." Heck, grey out the lines if you want to give a visual clue that the player has already said a particular line before. Instead, in BA the lines just disappear after you used them once. Why even have a dialog tree then? Just have one large cutscene would have the same use.

I am convinced that if these and other underlying problems are tackled first, a deeper puzzle structure would be appreciated by newcomers and veterans alike without the need of dumbing down the whole game in favor of newcomers. I was hoping this is what DFA would be about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how the border wanders, and how clever you design the puzzles (this isn't about pixel hunting or obscure ones at all) at some point you'll always have to decide if you're more a chess or a tic-tac-toe player. The chess minded people don't want to play tic-tac-toe and it's just about the same the other way around. Those games which try to please everyone are mostly going to suck for one of those camps (unless you're very lucky) and/or they'll leave you partly unsatisfied with being something undefined neither fish nor meat in between, unless, they put a lot more effort into containing two different (or dynamically adapting) game experiences, like offering two difficulty levels, adding a clever/mighty/attractive-help-skip-system or whatever you want to come up with in order to enable both a complex game experience for one camp but also holding hands enough for the others. *1

For the story guys who enjoy less thinking there are movies already or TTG or now DF *sigh*.

For the rest there is ... i guess there will be some nice puzzles in LOG2, right? That's where you have to go as an adventure gamer these days, deep down into the dungeon.

*1 And of course we are not talking about two camps only, instead it's the whole range/mix from dumb to highly intelligent people, from lazy to insisting ones, from noobs to veterans. If it's financially reasonable, making a game for a dedicated niche sounds easier and like more fun to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good posts, kringel and leosarma.

I agree, the game in the state like it is now doesn't scream "crowd funded". It wouldn't surprise me, had Tim pitched the idea exactly this way to the right publisher, they might have greenlit it, and it would be exactly the game we have now. It caters to the biggest potential audience it can reach, and the only "risk" it takes is the art style in my opinion (which turned out great after all), and the overall genre itself.

So the only risks are the two most immediately noticeable, thing about the game? In other words the exact things that a publisher would take notice of when being pitched to? Right. You seem confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the rest there is ... i guess there will be some nice puzzles in LOG2, right? That's where you have to go as an adventure gamer these days, deep down into the dungeon.

Come on now ;)

I expected Tim and DF to ask the question: "How would I design these very same multi-step complex puzzles now, after decades of experience?" or "How did people get frustrated with some puzzles, and how can we achieve that more people have fun trying to solve these complex puzzles?"

...

Instead of tackling these questions and serving a game that implements all the things Tim has learned over the years and the insight of Ron Gilbert (caged design, intentional misleading but rewarding for almost-right solutions, and what not else the two have spoken of in the documentary and various interviews over the years), Broken Age has bypassed the problem elegantly by simply not having any puzzles that require more than one or two steps to solve

...

More complexity is needed in adventure games. Not by making the puzzles more obscure, but by adding more depth. More ways for interaction. More ways to spend your time, if you're stuck on a puzzle.

...

I am convinced that if these and other underlying problems are tackled first, a deeper puzzle structure would be appreciated by newcomers and veterans alike without the need of dumbing down the whole game in favor of newcomers. I was hoping this is what DFA would be about.

Well put, I hope feedback like this, and the ones before Yours (and like this) will reach the creative minds at the helm. A shame Broken Age can't be "that game", but who knows, maybe now that the underlying leg/engine-work has been done, someone at DF could still take the points to heart and pitch something spectacular at an Amnesia Fortnight one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but let's just be clear and not be dividing the world into adventure game fans who are disappointed and ... other miscellaneous backers who aren't.

It seems silly to have to prove my hardcore classic adventure game cred here, but I first started playing adventure games at the age of about 9, around the time Monkey 2 came out, but my first was Monkey 1. I played both of those on the Amiga as well as Last Crusade, and soon after that had a PC which played Fate of Atlantis, then DOTT and Sam and Max, Full Throttle, The Dig, Curse of Monkey Island, Grim Fandango... well, pretty much all the adventures LucasArts put out. I was into it enough that I used to be a regular on the #monkey-island channel on IRC - an OP even (and yes, this is ridiculous, I'm now boasting about being an IRC op in a semi-popular internet channel in the 1990s) I didn't only play LucasArts games, of course, but they were by far my favourite ones, and .... uh... I met Ron Gilbert once, about a year ago.

I'm being a little bit silly, but the point is that it's not obvious that everyone who enjoyed those games in 'the old days' wants the same thing from them, and so I can't help but sigh a little whenever someone says something like 'looks like us classic adventure fans will have to look elsewhere...'

Share this post


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