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

New Tim interview on Rock Paper Shotgun

Recommended Posts

Really one of the most bizarre and unprofessional interviews I've ever seen. The guy came really unprepared, technical problems abound, etc. Nice hard-hitting questions from time to time, but the interviewer sounded too stoned to really make sense of and build off the answers anyway.

"Hm! ...(long pause)" - The interviewer after every long, thought-out answer.

"What's that noise?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really one of the most bizarre and unprofessional interviews I've ever seen. The guy came really unprepared, technical problems abound, etc. Nice hard-hitting questions from time to time, but the interviewer sounded too stoned to really make sense of and build off the answers anyway.

"Hm! ...(long pause)" - The interviewer after every long, thought-out answer.

"What's that noise?"

Ha thats exactly what I thought... that guy interbiewing Tim is either stoned out of his brain...or extremely weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the format was a bit weird too.. too much happening at once.

What was really cool was that we got to ask tim some questions through the chatbox.

I hope the reds team could do something like this: a playthrough with their comments while viewers can ask some questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was first try for a new format of interviews/playthroughs for them, so it was bound to be a bit messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think time just went a lot slower wherever the interviewer was...

thanks a lot for the link! good listen...too bad tim was so low in the mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enjoy, Tim responds to a lot of forum response: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/22/a-game-and-a-chat-ep-1-tim-schafer/

Youtube version:

If someone posted this already.... I am sorry.

i did post it in the general discussion zone:

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewforum/40/

but i forgive you ;)

they said somewhere that the hole thing was quite spontaneous, which is why neither of them was really well prepared

but nathan also is a little weird, which is why rock paper shotgun is so much fun to read most of the time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it fun to read? I've never read it.

Anyway, he needs to up his social game. I thought it was hilarious how he ended on, "I want my money back!" but it's rather poor form to be testing out a new (bad) idea on someone like Tim Schafer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a transcript? 50 minutes is a long time to watch a video and there's no timestamps for questions/topics either. The audio is also really terrible, the interviewer is too loud and tim is too soft at the same volume, so it's unbearable to listen to.

No pain, no gain. (Yep, it sucks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I learned from this was that they will add an option to click-click items instead of having to click-drag them.

Beyond that, Tim just basically says what has already been said in the documentaries. He responds to some criticism, like the characters feeling undeveloped "They feel developed to me, maybe that's because I know them and what will happen in Act 2", and also he talks about how reviews of the game are treating it as a complete game and seem to forget the story continues in Act 2.

Again, nothing illuminating here, but, it is always nice to hear from Tim.

Oh, also he gives a very rough estimate for when Act 2 will be released: maybe at the end of this summer. They are trying to take the feedback from Act 1 into consideration, so it may take longer. Personally, I wouldn't mind waiting a year for a much richer Act 2 experience, but of course that would upset a lot of people who want it NOW.

“I want my money back!” was a funny/awkward way to end. I hope Tim and DF aren't getting discouraged by any of this feedback, but instead motivated to just rock it with Act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the "why do you enjoy banging your head against a wall over and over" analogy to trying to solve difficult puzzles. Like someone else said somewhere here, there can be challenging puzzles that don't have to be so skull-crushingly difficult. It's not gluttony for punishment we crave, it's the need to feel challenged. That's why people play games in general, for the challenge. Why do people play sports? Why do people race? It's not just for the chance to have fun with your team or have the chance to drive a really nice fast car. It's to accomplish the goal; to beat the game.

That said, Tim did remind us that they were at one point considering not having any puzzles at all, but decided against that. So, at least we have puzzles at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with the "why do you enjoy banging your head against a wall over and over" analogy to trying to solve difficult puzzles. Like someone else said somewhere here, there can be challenging puzzles that don't have to be so skull-crushingly difficult. It's not gluttony for punishment we crave, it's the need to feel challenged. That's why people play games in general, for the challenge. Why do people play sports? Why do people race? It's not just for the chance to have fun with your team or have the chance to drive a really nice fast car. It's to accomplish the goal; to beat the game.

That said, Tim did remind us that they were at one point considering not having any puzzles at all, but decided against that. So, at least we have puzzles at all.

The problem is crafting a puzzle that's actually enjoyable to solve, and that doesn't crush your skull. The ending of the game, where you fight the monster (spoilers!), was very frustrating to me -- and no, not in an enjoyable way. The story came to a crashing halt as I ran up and down the beach, completely stumped as to what to do.

The enjoyable moment came when I found the solution -- when I stopped banging my head against the wall.

That said, there ARE puzzles that are enjoyable to solve, of course. PORTAL 2's puzzles were incredibly refined: Never too fiddly, never too complicated, never too simple. It's hard for me to play any of the LucasArts titles as a new player, as part of my brain holds the solution, so I end up trying to remember it, instead of solving it -- but I imagine that wandering around Melee Island, unsure of what to do, wouldn't be as much fun as it was when it was 13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

indeed that statement from tim made me sad, too...it doesn't sound like a hard mode is very likely..:(

but maybe he's right and we are a smaller part of the backers then we (or at least i) thougt..this board is just a very small subset of the 90000 backers and even there we aren't all on the same page about that..now considering that unhappy people are always shouting much louder than the happy ones it is absolutely possible just a hand full of users want it to be really hard..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with the "why do you enjoy banging your head against a wall over and over" analogy to trying to solve difficult puzzles. Like someone else said somewhere here, there can be challenging puzzles that don't have to be so skull-crushingly difficult. It's not gluttony for punishment we crave, it's the need to feel challenged. That's why people play games in general, for the challenge. Why do people play sports? Why do people race? It's not just for the chance to have fun with your team or have the chance to drive a really nice fast car. It's to accomplish the goal; to beat the game.

That said, Tim did remind us that they were at one point considering not having any puzzles at all, but decided against that. So, at least we have puzzles at all.

The problem is crafting a puzzle that's actually enjoyable to solve, and that doesn't crush your skull. The ending of the game, where you fight the monster (spoilers!), was very frustrating to me -- and no, not in an enjoyable way. The story came to a crashing halt as I ran up and down the beach, completely stumped as to what to do.

The enjoyable moment came when I found the solution -- when I stopped banging my head against the wall.

That said, there ARE puzzles that are enjoyable to solve, of course. PORTAL 2's puzzles were incredibly refined: Never too fiddly, never too complicated, never too simple. It's hard for me to play any of the LucasArts titles as a new player, as part of my brain holds the solution, so I end up trying to remember it, instead of solving it -- but I imagine that wandering around Melee Island, unsure of what to do, wouldn't be as much fun as it was when it was 13.

I agree about Portal 2 and that the puzzles were well done but probably too easy, I think the game uses a hint system similar to Broken Age's just in a different way. You can really tell they play tested the game and saw how players got stuck and in what way and made the goals more obvious by changing factors like lighting and such to highlight the solution in a subtle way.

A game that I think still stands as the gold standard for puzzles is Braid. Incredibly ingenious puzzles with very logical solutions, every puzzle basically consists of the one screen you are on and all the puzzles are fair. You can trial and error the puzzles but it is usually to your detriment, they require thought and planning. There are no real "gotcha" puzzles with absurd solutions, there is only one puzzle that really requires reaction time, they are all tests of logic and design. They really remind me of programming problems. Not like programming in Java or something, but designing algorithms to form a solution. They require logic and planning.

Compare this to a game like Grim Fandango where many of the puzzles are entirely nonsensical and are often solved by random guessing. I think that really takes away from the reward of working out a tough problem, that satisfaction you feel when you mastered something and you know it was no mistake but due to your intelligence and planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portal 2 wasn't hard at all. The co-op mode had some great puzzles, though. Filled in the gap that was missing that Portal 1 didn't have. Braid was awesome. I haven't yet played Grim so I can't comment on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

indeed that statement from tim made me sad, too...it doesn't sound like a hard mode is very likely..:(

but maybe he's right and we are a smaller part of the backers then we (or at least i) thougt..this board is just a very small subset of the 90000 backers and even there we aren't all on the same page about that..now considering that unhappy people are always shouting much louder than the happy ones it is absolutely possible just a hand full of users want it to be really hard..

Tough but that is how democracy works. If any of the 90000 want their voice to be heard as a backer, each has the right and the opportunity to be involved. Right here, on the backer-only forums. And the people here have spoken. Just look at the poll threads: 80% think its too easy, not hard enough. 1/3 are disappointed or feel something important is missing.

The thrill of mastery, of overcoming challenge, of earned achievement - that is what is missing.

indeed, but this ain't no democracy...tim is the king and it's up to him if and how to interpret his sources of information ;)

if he comes to the conclusion we're a minority (which actually really MAY be the case), he has every right to act that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, nathan posed an interesting question that revealed an important problem with broken age, i feel.

Tim was asked why he made the decision to make shay and vella basically 'empty' characters so we can project our own character through them.

Tim replied he thought that shay and vella did have interesting characters to them... this seemed a bit odd to me as indeed: the conversations you have with NPC can't be influenced at all by the conversation options you choose (unlike the telltale games). This limits the way you can project yourself in the game.

Then it dawned on me: RPS just meant to say, in the most polite way: shay and vella are boring characters.... This reminds me a lot about what redlettermedia said about the star wars prequels. Let me just apply their logic on BA

I just replayed full throttle yesterday. Ben is an awesome protagonist (even looks like the mighty Tim himself, but with the added bonus of being voiced by duke nukem'!). Thinking about the others: guybrush threepwood, manny calavera,... all iconic characters. You can easily write an essay about their personality. Now try to do the same with shay & vella....

A typical example for a lens-like protagonist is james bond or indiana jones. They want us to project ourselves through the actor, but it only works when you have a sexy sean connery or a young harisson ford playing on screen. Some random stranger with wooden acting and zero character just wouldn't work, i feel more awesome than that!

Now i'm not saying shay & vella are badly written characters, but they're teenagers. So: inherently boring :) It doesn't help you have all these eccentric people surrounding them to enhance their contrasting boringness. I'd rather play as the kids up in the cloud colony!

Now again, Tim said he didn't feel this way because he knows what will happen in act2, so i'm pretty confident the characters will come into their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

indeed that statement from tim made me sad, too...it doesn't sound like a hard mode is very likely..:(

but maybe he's right and we are a smaller part of the backers then we (or at least i) thougt..this board is just a very small subset of the 90000 backers and even there we aren't all on the same page about that..now considering that unhappy people are always shouting much louder than the happy ones it is absolutely possible just a hand full of users want it to be really hard..

Tough but that is how democracy works. If any of the 90000 want their voice to be heard as a backer, each has the right and the opportunity to be involved. Right here, on the backer-only forums. And the people here have spoken. Just look at the poll threads: 80% think its too easy, not hard enough. 1/3 are disappointed or feel something important is missing.

The thrill of mastery, of overcoming challenge, of earned achievement - that is what is missing.

Er, the development of this game isn't a democracy. (Oh, someone else got there first)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta say, nathan posed an interesting question that revealed an important problem with broken age, i feel.

Tim was asked why he made the decision to make shay and vella basically 'empty' characters so we can project our own character through them.

Tim replied he thought that shay and vella did have interesting characters to them... this seemed a bit odd to me as indeed: the conversations you have with NPC can't be influenced at all by the conversation options you choose (unlike the telltale games). This limits the way you can project yourself in the game.

Then it dawned on me: RPS just meant to say, in the most polite way: shay and vella are boring characters.... This reminds me a lot about what redlettermedia said about the star wars prequels. Let me just apply their logic on BA

I just replayed full throttle yesterday. Ben is an awesome protagonist (even looks like the mighty Tim himself, but with the added bonus of being voiced by duke nukem'!). Thinking about the others: guybrush threepwood, manny calavera,... all iconic characters. You can easily write an essay about their personality. Now try to do the same with shay & vella....

A typical example for a lens-like protagonist is james bond or indiana jones. They want us to project ourselves through the actor, but it only works when you have a sexy sean connery or a young harisson ford playing on screen. Some random stranger with wooden acting and zero character just wouldn't work, i feel more awesome than that!

Now i'm not saying shay & vella are badly written characters, but they're teenagers. So: inherently boring :) It doesn't help you have all these eccentric people surrounding them to enhance their contrasting boringness. I'd rather play as the kids up in the cloud colony!

Now again, Tim said he didn't feel this way because he knows what will happen in act2, so i'm pretty confident the characters will come into their own.

Wow I find this such a profoundly weird view. I actually think that on the whole, these are some of Tim's best defined protagonists, and some of the better ones I've seen in adventure games.

Guybrush was essentially a cipher, only really defined by his relative naivety compared to everyone else in the world and an air of mischief. We learn practically nothing about him until the later games attempt to pin down his personality in more certain terms.

Manny is a great character, but we (quite deliberately) don't hear much about how he became the person he is, because it's not particularly relevant to the story being told. Sure, he's a grim reaper wage slave too which I guess is inherently interesting, but that's what he does, rather than who he is.

And while Ben from Full Throttle is wonderfully written, he's also basically the gruff-but-well-intentioned/lovable archetype.

Which is to say, I love these characters but I don't think there's anything really inherently interesting about them as characters. They become interesting by participating in the stuff that happens to them in the games.

On the other hand we have Shay who has lived all his life alone in an environment he's increasingly growing out of, and is straining against the walls of his cage - that's interesting from the outset, there's a constant tension between the grudging acceptance of his predicament and his needs as a person which really defines the character.

Vella is a little less well defined; we don't really discover how she came to be the way she is but we know that she sees herself as different to how society wants her to be, and I hope we get to hear a bit more about that in Act 2.

I felt I understood the characters at least as well as I did in those old games, sometimes a little more. Certainly more than I ever understood Guybrush (who again, I love)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta say, nathan posed an interesting question that revealed an important problem with broken age, i feel.

Tim was asked why he made the decision to make shay and vella basically 'empty' characters so we can project our own character through them.

Tim replied he thought that shay and vella did have interesting characters to them... this seemed a bit odd to me as indeed: the conversations you have with NPC can't be influenced at all by the conversation options you choose (unlike the telltale games). This limits the way you can project yourself in the game.

Then it dawned on me: RPS just meant to say, in the most polite way: shay and vella are boring characters.... This reminds me a lot about what redlettermedia said about the star wars prequels. Let me just apply their logic on BA

I just replayed full throttle yesterday. Ben is an awesome protagonist (even looks like the mighty Tim himself, but with the added bonus of being voiced by duke nukem'!). Thinking about the others: guybrush threepwood, manny calavera,... all iconic characters. You can easily write an essay about their personality. Now try to do the same with shay & vella....

A typical example for a lens-like protagonist is james bond or indiana jones. They want us to project ourselves through the actor, but it only works when you have a sexy sean connery or a young harisson ford playing on screen. Some random stranger with wooden acting and zero character just wouldn't work, i feel more awesome than that!

Now i'm not saying shay & vella are badly written characters, but they're teenagers. So: inherently boring :) It doesn't help you have all these eccentric people surrounding them to enhance their contrasting boringness. I'd rather play as the kids up in the cloud colony!

Now again, Tim said he didn't feel this way because he knows what will happen in act2, so i'm pretty confident the characters will come into their own.

Wow I find this such a profoundly weird view. I actually think that on the whole, these are some of Tim's best defined protagonists, and some of the better ones I've seen in adventure games.

Guybrush was essentially a cipher, only really defined by his relative naivety compared to everyone else in the world and an air of mischief. We learn practically nothing about him until the later games attempt to pin down his personality in more certain terms.

Manny is a great character, but we (quite deliberately) don't hear much about how he became the person he is, because it's not particularly relevant to the story being told. Sure, he's a grim reaper wage slave too which I guess is inherently interesting, but that's what he does, rather than who he is.

And while Ben from Full Throttle is wonderfully written, he's also basically the gruff-but-well-intentioned/lovable archetype.

Which is to say, I love these characters but I don't think there's anything really inherently interesting about them as characters. They become interesting by participating in the stuff that happens to them in the games.

On the other hand we have Shay who has lived all his life alone in an environment he's increasingly growing out of, and is straining against the walls of his cage - that's interesting from the outset, there's a constant tension between the grudging acceptance of his predicament and his needs as a person which really defines the character.

Vella is a little less well defined; we don't really discover how she came to be the way she is but we know that she sees herself as different to how society wants her to be, and I hope we get to hear a bit more about that in Act 2.

I felt I understood the characters at least as well as I did in those old games, sometimes a little more. Certainly more than I ever understood Guybrush (who again, I love)

hmmm maybe you're right about the 'not-knowing' the characters, but you've got to admit: shay & vella are a lot less quirky than the previous protagonists and therefore less memorable? I think a lot has to do with the amount of dialog we have to get to know your characters. As we have a 4-hour game that's split in 2 characters, we basically only have 2 hours to get to know them each, which is quite a short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I find this such a profoundly weird view. I actually think that on the whole, these are some of Tim's best defined protagonists, and some of the better ones I've seen in adventure games.

Guybrush was essentially a cipher, only really defined by his relative naivety compared to everyone else in the world and an air of mischief. We learn practically nothing about him until the later games attempt to pin down his personality in more certain terms.

Manny is a great character, but we (quite deliberately) don't hear much about how he became the person he is, because it's not particularly relevant to the story being told. Sure, he's a grim reaper wage slave too which I guess is inherently interesting, but that's what he does, rather than who he is.

And while Ben from Full Throttle is wonderfully written, he's also basically the gruff-but-well-intentioned/lovable archetype.

Which is to say, I love these characters but I don't think there's anything really inherently interesting about them as characters. They become interesting by participating in the stuff that happens to them in the games.

On the other hand we have Shay who has lived all his life alone in an environment he's increasingly growing out of, and is straining against the walls of his cage - that's interesting from the outset, there's a constant tension between the grudging acceptance of his predicament and his needs as a person which really defines the character.

Vella is a little less well defined; we don't really discover how she came to be the way she is but we know that she sees herself as different to how society wants her to be, and I hope we get to hear a bit more about that in Act 2.

I felt I understood the characters at least as well as I did in those old games, sometimes a little more. Certainly more than I ever understood Guybrush (who again, I love)

hmmm maybe you're right about the 'not-knowing' the characters, but you've got to admit: shay & vella are a lot less quirky than the previous protagonists and therefore less memorable? I think a lot has to do with the amount of dialog we have to get to know your characters. As we have a 4-hour game that's split in 2 characters, we basically only have 2 hours to get to know them each, which is quite a short time.

Maybe, but still I'm not so sure. I don't think Ben is all that quirky. Certainly Biker-in-trouble is no more quirky than bored-space-boy-all-alone or girl-up-for-sacrifice-to-a-monster as a reductive character premise. Or even naive-wannabe-pirate. Perhaps the quirkiest is grim-reaper-salesman but I think that's the exception here rather than the rule.

I feel like Shay's character is really well established and will be better now that (SPOILER)

he's outside and will get to talk to more people

I feel like Vella could have used more fleshing out at the start, but I think she got a chance to reveal here brave, scrappy personality plenty of times through the course of this part of the story, and (SPOILER)

I think that we'll see a lot more of that in the belly of the beast.

So I think any remaining concerns about the characters are ripe to be resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't yet played Grim so I can't comment on that.

Wait... what? Grim is arguably Tim's masterpiece, and you get to enjoy it right now! No waiting. Chocked full of puzzles, too.

(Also, I agree that BRAID had amazing puzzles. One of the best puzzle games of all time, IMO.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

indeed that statement from tim made me sad, too...it doesn't sound like a hard mode is very likely..:(

but maybe he's right and we are a smaller part of the backers then we (or at least i) thougt..this board is just a very small subset of the 90000 backers and even there we aren't all on the same page about that..now considering that unhappy people are always shouting much louder than the happy ones it is absolutely possible just a hand full of users want it to be really hard..

Tough but that is how democracy works. If any of the 90000 want their voice to be heard as a backer, each has the right and the opportunity to be involved. Right here, on the backer-only forums. And the people here have spoken. Just look at the poll threads: 80% think its too easy, not hard enough. 1/3 are disappointed or feel something important is missing.

The thrill of mastery, of overcoming challenge, of earned achievement - that is what is missing.

Er, the development of this game isn't a democracy. (Oh, someone else got there first)

Right, but that minor quibble ignores the thrust of my argument:

1. That lots of people here on this forum are dissatisfied.

2. That something is missing, and that is the sense of challenge, of accomplishment.

Schafer around 17:30 talks about the difficulty and making it fun for the most number of people. Around 18:45 he acknowledges that adventure game fans are better/more experienced at puzzle solving than regular people. But don't we deserve a fun game too?

1) as said before it's not that easy even though a lot people posting seem to be dissatisfied, but you can't take a few board posts (and they still are compared to the 90000 backers) as representative - or at least you don't have to...especially as many of those people posting came the first time just to do that (not that this would be wrong, but it makes the "group" less representative of the whole backer)

2)thats not a fact, it's just an opinion. your opinion... and mine... and of some others...jet not even a proven opinion of the majority, see 1)

i do think we deserve it, but if we actually are just a few hundreds or thousands maybe we're just not worth the amount of work..sad, but true..

to me hard puzzles were an inseperatable part of the adventures and before not long ago (ba beta release) i didn't even think of the possibility that others wouldn't see it that way, but obviously it seems to be the case...

anyway, to me what tim said sounded like they will actually make it harder than planed, just not as hard, as we "hardcore fans" might want it to be..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, everyone's threshold for that is different. It's too bad it's such a wide scale. I don't want to say that people are smarter than others, but people who have a higher threshold for hard puzzles are really feeling left out :(. But it's not about enjoying punishment, that's all I'm saying.

indeed that statement from tim made me sad, too...it doesn't sound like a hard mode is very likely..:(

but maybe he's right and we are a smaller part of the backers then we (or at least i) thougt..this board is just a very small subset of the 90000 backers and even there we aren't all on the same page about that..now considering that unhappy people are always shouting much louder than the happy ones it is absolutely possible just a hand full of users want it to be really hard..

Tough but that is how democracy works. If any of the 90000 want their voice to be heard as a backer, each has the right and the opportunity to be involved. Right here, on the backer-only forums. And the people here have spoken. Just look at the poll threads: 80% think its too easy, not hard enough. 1/3 are disappointed or feel something important is missing.

The thrill of mastery, of overcoming challenge, of earned achievement - that is what is missing.

Er, the development of this game isn't a democracy. (Oh, someone else got there first)

Right, but that minor quibble ignores the thrust of my argument:

1. That lots of people here on this forum are dissatisfied.

2. That something is missing, and that is the sense of challenge, of accomplishment.

Schafer around 17:30 talks about the difficulty and making it fun for the most number of people. Around 18:45 he acknowledges that adventure game fans are better/more experienced at puzzle solving than regular people. But don't we deserve a fun game too?

1) as said before it's not that easy even though a lot people posting seem to be dissatisfied, but you can't take a few board posts (and they still are compared to the 90000 backers) as representative - or at least you don't have to...especially as many of those people posting came the first time just to do that (not that this would be wrong, but it makes the "group" less representative of the whole backer)

2)thats not a fact, it's just an opinion. your opinion... and mine... and of some others...jet not even a proven opinion of the majority, see 1)

i do think we deserve it, but if we actually are just a few hundreds or thousands maybe we're just not worth the amount of work..sad, but true..

to me hard puzzles were an inseperatable part of the adventures and before not long ago (ba beta release) i didn't even think of the possibility that others wouldn't see it that way, but obviously it seems to be the case...

anyway, to me what tim said sounded like they will actually make it harder than planed, just not as hard, as we "hardcore fans" might want it to be..

I don't like the term hardcore much, but I would say I fit the definition pretty squarely. So would many other people who loved it... I think there's hardcore, then there's fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tough but that is how democracy works. If any of the 90000 want their voice to be heard as a backer, each has the right and the opportunity to be involved. Right here, on the backer-only forums. And the people here have spoken. Just look at the poll threads: 80% think its too easy, not hard enough. 1/3 are disappointed or feel something is missing.

So let's look at those numbers:

The vast majority (82%) of people feel the game was too easy for them.

Yet another majority (67%) are happy with the game's controls.

But most importantly: Another majority (67%) are happy with the overall finished product.

(I think I fall into the majority of all these -- I felt it was too easy, but I'm also happy with the final product.)

BUT! These were only voluntary polls, from backers who visit the forums, and as we all know (and as any game company's forum, and Steam discussion group attests to), people are very likely to take to forums just to complain. So it *might* be reasonable to assume that these results are skewed negatively -- even if it's only slightly.

Either way, it's worth noting that the MAJORITY of people are HAPPY with Broken Age. So even if this was a democracy, which it isn't, the majority have gotten what they desired -- even if it was a little easier than they would have liked.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...