|
Gods will be watching is a game. It was a different game first. A ludum dare thing or something. Gameplay What manner of game is it? There are buttons. If you press a button some numbers go up, or down, or both. You're not allowed to see the numbers. You may see the buttons, but there are no labels. If one of the numbers gets too high or too low you lose usually. Sometimes you win though, at which point all the buttons and numbers go away and are replaced with different buttons and a whole new exciting set of numbers you are also not allowed to see. So it's utter shite then, you might think. But in my opinion you'd be wrong. While you can never really know what effect you're having for sure, you can put it together for yourself. There is a logical thread. You can make educated guesses what certain actions will do. If you shoot a man in the head you can expect he will die. The environment will react. You ought to be able to till if witnesses are pleased with what you've done or not from visual cues. It is, in essence, not a puzzle game at all, but a very vague resource management game. Vague in the sense that there is always a degree of uncertainty concerning what the resources are, how much exactly you have and which ones you actually need. Art and Story and Such The art is pixels, and while not being as gorgeous as say Kentucky Route Zero or Superbrothers, they are perfectly servicable. Like those games I would classify it more as an "experience" than a "video game" as such, however unlike the other two I didn't delete it out of boredem yet. Your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance or retro grafix (tm). The story is run of the mill sci fi hogwash. The draw So the art is ok, the gameplay is obtuse and the story is nothing to write home about. Many an observer might reason that since I bothered to make a thread about this game there has got to be something to it. And here's the thing: the game is all about making choices. Difficult choices, in a game where to cards are constantly stacked against you. Do you have agency over the plot? No, and yet the choices you make will carry wheight. Somehow. Some choices might even make you feel bad. Then you'll complete the stage and be shown what choices other people made. And you'll find out that those super difficult choices you made, the ones that made you hate yourself weren't even necessary in the first place. The game is good that way, and I would argue that is the point of it. Hints and Stuff You're going to fail a lot. If you feel you've failed too much look at the challenges for the part you're on. If ever there is a challenge akin to "complete the thing witout doing x" then doing x is probably something that will make your life a lot easier. If you're still failing at least there is a thread now so ask, someone will probably set you right. Use spoiler tags. Discuss theories, ask for help (I am pretty loving confused right now) or let everyone know why this game owns or sucks. Whatever you post remember gods will be watching. edit: Going by the steam thread lots of people are feeling befuddled by the first screen, so I thought I'd share some thoughts. When it explicitly tells you something has a, say 65% chance of success, then that chance is exactly 65%. If you go for it and lose then that session might have already become unwinnable. Game does not care. Gods don't either. From observation I am certain that actions do not have discrete results. Threatening hostages will not calm them down 10 points. 7-15 points seems more like it. Don't expect the same action to necessarily have the same magnitude in results every time. Finally some fail states appear to have guaranteed tells, while others do not. To avoid being surprised by poo poo hitting the fan and events cascading out of control, find these "safe" fail states and err on the side of them. how me a frog fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jul 24, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
how me a frog posted:Gods will be watching is a game. It was a different game first. A ludum dare thing or something. you are poo poo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
You were meant to use spoiler tags.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Had to knock the difficulty down to easy to even get past the first scenario. Then the second scenario kicked my rear end and I have NO idea how you'd do that on normal. Maybe I was just super poo poo, (most likely) but it always felt like the game would just randomly make a hostage get up and run or attack me. I'd try different approaches with them each time. Try and talk to them to keep them calm, when that didn't work I'd just shout at them once they got any bright ideas about me being distracted and in the end I even tried hobbling them all, but they then bled to death. I'm liking the 3rd chapter more than the first two, even if it feels like it'd be a chore to play, skipping all those hours. I was honestly expecting something much different. I guess them Telltale games have spoilt me a bit, because I thought it'd be a "no lose" kinda deal. You'd get through each phase but what you did and how you did it would stack up and effect you the further along you got.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
It definitely seems like you're meant to fail every scenario several times (a line of dialogue in the second one even directly references this), and there are some patterns that seem to form. For example, I'm going to make an educated guess and claim the hostages that had been screwing you over were mostly the far right and far left one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
I honestly can't remember, though I do know they weren't doing the agitated animation when they attacked. It's probably one of those where being nice all the time wont cut it and you have to give them a kick to show them not to gently caress around. One complaint I'd levy at the second scenario is it feels like you'd have to memorize the pattern of what happens to you each day and pick the thing that'd help the most each time. I know this is probably the whole point, but that whole scenario felt a bit less, uh, moral? Than the other two I've played. If that makes sense? Like it's definitely a numbers game with keeping each characters health up and knowing how much they can take as opposed to making a moral choice? I think that's what I mean, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Lasher posted:I honestly can't remember, though I do know they weren't doing the agitated animation when they attacked. It's probably one of those where being nice all the time wont cut it and you have to give them a kick to show them not to gently caress around. I agree to an extent, the morality in that one comes from the fact that You don't need Jack to survive so you can use him as a punching bag to ensure your own survival.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Lasher posted:I honestly can't remember, though I do know they weren't doing the agitated animation when they attacked. It's probably one of those where being nice all the time wont cut it and you have to give them a kick to show them not to gently caress around. I haven't beaten the first screen yet (staying on Original, because I am a masochist), but you definitely won't win just being a sweetie. The scale of calm/agitated has a fail state at both ends where they'll try to escape, either because they're relaxed enough to think they have a chance or frantic enough that they'd rather risk dying. You need to keep them just uncomfortable enough that they don't get any funny ideas, but feeling safe enough that they aren't gonna just panic and make a break for it. So yeah, you're gonna be kicking someone's teeth in one turn, then flipping around and having a friendly chat with them the next. Or shooting them in the leg and spraying it to heal them the next. Stockholm syndrome the poo poo out of those poor hostages. Edit: Screen 1 character state spoilers Basically, if someone is either sitting comfortably (legs straight or one leg raised), or curled up with a hand on their face, they're at one of the extremes and might freak. Also, I usually have a text alert come from one of them, either something about me being distracted or "I just need to run", which gives a good notice that their attitude needs correcting. One other thing I've figured out is that the ability to trade hostages is very very useful for a lot of different managements. RandallODim fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
how me a frog posted:I agree to an extent, the morality in that one comes from the fact that You don't need Jack to survive so you can use him as a punching bag to ensure your own survival. He got ripped in half on the wall. I thought maybe because he was full health he could have taken a bit more. Obviously not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Anyone got the pattern to chapter 2? I made it to the wall part ok, but I didn't expect them to kill burden in one go
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
I played the flash game when it was out and it was awesome. Did they ever get to the voice acting stretch goal?  Lasher posted:He got ripped in half on the wall. I thought maybe because he was full health he could have taken a bit more. Obviously not. Yeah that part's brutal. You can't let them crank it more then once or twice. If the guy that's not on the wall provokes them a lot it'll help a bit, at least. I like the game though. It's a combination of adventure-puzzle-resource management that's really interesting. Frankly I don't think I can reccomend it to other people. I just find it strangely intrgueing. Cuntellectual fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Something is bugging me about the third part. Jack died during the interrogation, but he is alive again for some reason. He showed at night as a ghost during the torture, but now third parties are talking to him so that can't be it. Is this a bug or is that just how the game is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
That's definitely how the game is. After playing this for many hours, I've come to the conclusion that this is a Bad Game. There's a fine line between making something that's intentionally obtuse, difficult and/or harrowing and something that is just tedious poo poo from a design perspective. In my opinion this squarely falls into the latter category. Gods wants to use its difficulty as a means to create a strong thematic resonance, but this only maybe (and that's a strong maybe given the quality of the writing) works once. When you finally figure out what the purpose of a chapter is, it just becomes one long game of managing variables inside a spreadsheet until you find a satisfactory combination. It takes away from the atmosphere, and it is emphatically unenjoyable to actually play. That might be the point, but as it is, it just makes me want to attribute the game's failings to poor design. To me, comparing this game to something like Dark Souls (or any well-designed difficult game) is an insult, because that game understands and respects the player's time and skill investment. Gods is like going through one of those placemat mazes at a cheap restaurant, only you aren't allowed to look at the exit. Your choices are presented as being meaningful, but what you're really doing amounts to keeping a set of invisible statistics from getting out of control. I really wanted to like this, but the more I play, the more I actively loathe everything it stands for in terms of gameplay design. The difficulty selection jokes about people hating the designers, and it almost seems like a dare, but as it is I just kind of don't ever want to play this game again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Do not play on normal because it's really awful. I'm actually enjoying it on easy, but I also really enjoyed the flash game. But even then I've had to restart sometimes because I just got blindsided by something that either flat out killed me or set me back too far to recover - Jack dying so fast from the wall stretcher in Chapter 2 being the biggest one so far. Chapter 3 and 4 are also probably really lovely on normal, as well. Basically I think I have to agree that it's not a terribly good game, which is a shame because I think it's actually pretty interesting. But the difficulty doesn't work very well with the huge amounts of RNG, especially when you're often asked to interpret visual cues that aren't clear until you've already seen them (and probably died) once. Edit: Even on Easy, the first mission is way harder than the next three (I haven't finished Chapter 5 yet), so if you don't like it at first, just power through it and see if you like the rest of the game better. DoubleDonut fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
There's definitely something going on with Jack, he died on the wall in chapter 2 but came back in chapter 3, then I tried a risky antidote and he died there too, now he's back with us in chapter 4. Going to leave him out of the food round since he clearly doesn't need it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Faraday Cage posted:There's definitely something going on with Jack I clicked him in the 3rd part and Burden said "Jack" while Jack became a SNES era glitch for a second. Feature? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
The game would have been much better if they had done three things: - Had the status of various characters showing over their head instead of having to go through two steps of dialog trees every turn to get the info - In addition, had added some way to numerically get the hostage moods in the first chapter - Made the game completely deterministic with no random elements. With how it is now, you can play perfectly but still get hosed over by the RNG
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Edit: Even on Easy, the first mission is way harder than the next three (I haven't finished Chapter 5 yet), so if you don't like it at first, just power through it and see if you like the rest of the game better. Really? I thought the first mission was one of the best. The only RNG is optional and you can manipulate it. Chapter two is probably the worst part of the entire game. Hostage moods have five, I believe stages. Two legs down, one leg up/down, two legs up, two legs up and rocking, two legs up and head in hands The mid range is safe, the left and right most extremes are bad. You need to keep them as close to center as possible. If they're in the break room or say something about needing to escape or you being distracted that means they're much more likely to run or attack. I think backing this for the price of the game was a mistake on my part but that's kickstarter. 
Cuntellectual fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Hostage moods seemed to go up and down basically at random from hack boosting/reinforcing security/boost charging. Or maybe some hostages are affected differently by different actions? Either way I would end up with one super-nervous guy and one super-relaxed guy really early and I'd end up sending the nervous guy to the break room only for him to try and strangle me two turns later. Basically every action affects every hostage which made it really frustrating to not lose at least two basically immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Hostage moods seemed to go up and down basically at random from hack boosting/reinforcing security/boost charging. Or maybe some hostages are affected differently by different actions? Either way I would end up with one super-nervous guy and one super-relaxed guy really early and I'd end up sending the nervous guy to the break room only for him to try and strangle me two turns later. Basically every action affects every hostage which made it really frustrating to not lose at least two basically immediately. I, too, made the mistake yesterday of starting on 'Original' difficulty and losing repeatedly while juggling the 8+ variables(4 hostages, Hacking Percent, Security, Hack Boost, Guards). The hostages *seem* to have no equilibrium point: there's a [panic]<->[relax] spectrum and no stable midpoint. So if you've got them mostly panicking, they'll continue to panic. If you've got them mostly relaxing, they'll continue to relax. The problem is they all start at different points on this spectrum and not all actions are neutral. It's just really, really, really complicated variable juggling. I think my best attempt on Original was 70% hack progress but it just always spirals out of control. I'll try again on Easy today and see if it is any more fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I beat the first level on Original on my first shot. I even got the challenges done. It seemed pretty straight forward to me. The second level is almost a comically downwards nosedive in how bad it is, being 100% based on RNG. You can calm them all down by chatting to the boss a bit and then attack the guards or shout at the boss to stabilize it. Chapter 3-4-5 I thought were alright. Overall if I paid $5 instead of $10 I'd have been happy with it, I think. Cuntellectual fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
The game's an almost-literal plate-spinning simulator for most of its missions, isn't it? Making sure nothing tips over too far one way or another, keeping everything balanced, then going into panic mode when things start going wrong. I really want to like the game, bur once I realised that, I had a hard time seeing it as anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
This game is like flashback if it was made by itchy and scratchy
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
I don't understand this game. I don't understand what it wants to be or how it wants me to accomplish its goals. In literally 60 seconds a flashbang ended my play. Played the game a second time, found out that negotiate halts the guards. Lost again in 5 minutes. The hostages weren't even an issue, I couldn't loving figure out how to keep the guards off my back. Eventually I learned that attacking drives them back and eventually I beat the scenario on Original without losing a single hostage or getting a security breach. In literally any other video game ever designed by humans, attacking someone is a last resort. What happens when you get into conflict in Baldur's Gate or any other choice-based adventure game? You either talk the hostile party down or steel flies, someone dies. But not in GWBW where the game provides zero feedback on your actions. Is shooting someone a final action or a pacifying action? Sometimes both and in the same scenario under different conditions. You just have to try it and see. You'll probably fail but that's okay, that's how we designed the game! There's games with trial and error like Long Live the Queen, but they always provide feedback on what you failed and how you can succeed in the future. This ends with a gameover screen that provides no information on how you failed or what to do to not fail in the future. "4 hostages left alive?" Yeah, thanks. How about giving me an idea on what each of the actions do or how the time units work. Apparently blue actions take little time while red actions take a lot of time. Or maybe not, I don't know? This feels like a browser game* but unlike Fallen London or Kingdom of Loathing if I fail because the RNG hated me I can usually click on a single box to try again. Here it's do or die. Oh, you're dead? Do it all over again and figure out where you went wrong. We sure as gently caress aren't going to tell you, neither directly nor intuitively. Half-Life will put a circuit box to show you the water is electrified. GWBW wants you to try the dialog option that switches the camera over to the advancing guards who will end your game until you try the dialog option that has you openly engage them with gunfire. *I know it started as a browser game but it could have been so much more. e: This game would have been so awesome without fail states the more I think about it. What happens if the guards win and you're forced to retreat while Liam is captured? How will people react to you in the next scenario if you murdered hostages? How will people react to you if you negotiate with the guards and never fire a shot at them? This could have been a really strong CYOA style game and I can't replay it without thinking about how it was a lost opportunity. Hakkesshu posted:(and that's a strong maybe given the quality of the writing) This game wasn't made by someone whose first language is English, was it? Because within the opening there's a glaring typo and the main character speaks with forced exposition straight from a bad anime. "Don't be sad guys Xenolife will rescue us Xenolife is cool sure they're harsh but they're not racists like the evil empire and they fight for freedom and life and liberty." The best line of dialog is the guy who answers with shut the gently caress up. al-azad fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Eventually I learned that attacking drives them back and eventually I beat the scenario on Original without losing a single hostage or getting a security breach. It makes perfect sense to me. Negotiations are to distract in a hostage situation more than anything, and slow the opposing party down. An attack will force the enemy to rethink their advances and push them back. This is the entire point of the game, learning the rules of the scenario and using them to win. You aren't meant to win on your first try, and it isn't a choice based game. This is a puzzle game. Whilst it has slight moral choice elements, it is a puzzle game. The scenarios are puzzles. It is in no way, shape, or form, a choice based adventure game. Also, it is best to play through it on Easy to learn the rules, then play on Original to get some challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It makes perfect sense to me. Negotiations are to distract in a hostage situation more than anything, and slow the opposing party down. An attack will force the enemy to rethink their advances and push them back. It makes zero sense, both in real life and in video game world. The attacker has every advantage over the hostage taker. Negotiations are to try and end things without bloodshed but once bullets start flying that's it, deadly force is authorized. I won't argue against it being a puzzle game but that doesn't make it any less lovely of a puzzle game. The concept of forcing the player to practically lose the first time so they understand how things work just blows my mind from a design standpoint. And good puzzle games are backed by solid rules. The first step to playing this game are learning the rules which change in each scenario. It would be like switching from Tetris to Dr. Mario to Yoshi's Cookie each level, it's a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
I kinda like the narrative in this game, but then again I have pretty low standards. The game part of the game is just goddamn tedious though. I can see what they were going for, but gently caress me it feels more like work than fun most of the time. After figuring out and beating Chapter 4 on the second try(and having to just click as fast as I could through 15 days for no good reason), I quit right at the premise of Chapter 5. gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Yeah, as soon as I got to "The desert from Quest for Glory 2, but no Marx Brothers to tell you how many skareens everything is" I quit and haven't looked back. I don't really regret funding it because I'm okay with interesting, different games existing even if they're kind of lame like this one, I just wish it was actually enjoyable to play at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Kaboom Dragoon posted:The game's an almost-literal plate-spinning simulator for most of its missions, isn't it? Making sure nothing tips over too far one way or another, keeping everything balanced, then going into panic mode when things start going wrong. Yeah. The trick is most of the plates don't matter. The other trick is they don't give you enough information to figure out the difference between far and too far. Like Chapter 1? The hack boost doesn't matter. If you never put a single turn into the hack boost, you'll easily beat the scenario with all four hostages alive. Chapter 2? Just Provoke back to back, then get medpacks. Rather then both your guys getting beat up every turn, only one guy gets beaten up per turn. I never even bothered using Confessions/Lies until the last few days, and I started at almost max health on Burden. I haven't gotten further because I got bored, which I suppose says something about it, but I'm guessing every scenario going forward has a similar thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Yeah, as soon as I got to "The desert from Quest for Glory 2, but no Marx Brothers to tell you how many skareens everything is" I quit and haven't looked back. I don't really regret funding it because I'm okay with interesting, different games existing even if they're kind of lame like this one, I just wish it was actually enjoyable to play at all. That's me also. I'm going to watch a Let's Play of it and hope that my  went to producing more games of this ilk by people who used this game's flaws as a learning experience. Juggling invisible numbers is fine; many games do it, even ones that have visible numbers for most things such as RPGs. My problem with the game is there's little to no feedback regarding if what I'm doing is hindering or helping my chances of winning this level. I like what the game is trying to do and hope more experimental games come from it, but I'm just not going to play it.Also the fact that they didn't even both to write in alternate scenarios for when a main character dies is bad game writing of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
I really really wanted to like this game. I like the atmosphere, the graphics, the story (such as it is), music, everything...except the gameplay. It just gets into really tedious poo poo without checkpoints, and it really feels like you're always at the mercy of the RNG. At least with FTL, in comparison, you feel like you have more control and could, at the very least, work to have more favorable odds. The moral, and I guess the whole theme, of this game is a bit poo poo too. Everything you do doesn't matter, not even the end where it seems like your character actually has some semblance of choice, because its a video game lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
This game is like Stanley Parable if it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
al-azad posted:In literally any other video game ever designed by humans, attacking someone is a last resort. I mean I think the game's mediocre but what? In 90% of video games, attacking someone is only last resort because it's the only possible option and in 9% of the remainder it's one of the first options presented to you! You can hate the game all you want and I have no stake in it either way but seriously, what? al-azad posted:Apparently blue actions take little time while red actions take a lot of time. Or maybe not, I don't know? The game says "Talk to Liam if you have any questions" then he basically breaks the fourth wall saying "You can do as many blue actions as you want, red ones advance time." al-azad posted:It makes zero sense, both in real life and in video game world. The attacker has every advantage over the hostage taker. Negotiations are to try and end things without bloodshed but once bullets start flying that's it, deadly force is authorized. Every advantage except, you know, having the hostages. BJPaskoff posted:Also the fact that they didn't even both to write in alternate scenarios for when a main character dies is bad game writing of the year. It acknowledges that they die if you interact with them Burden will make a comment about it and their sprite flips out for a second and they actually even made a reason for it being the way it is, but you have to beat the game. Endorph posted:This game is like Stanley Parable if it sucked. So.. Stanley Parable. Cuntellectual fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:I mean I think the game's mediocre but what? In 90% of video games, attacking someone is only last resort because it's the only possible option and in 9% of the remainder it's one of the first options presented to you! Wait, you don't remember Wolfenstein 3D, where you had the option of sitting down for tea with the Nazi's and just talking things out and hopefully convincing them that Hitler sucks and they should just set you free? Or what about Space Invaders, where you use diplomatic means to end the invasion of Earth. I don't know what this guy was referring to. In a lot of games, you're pretty much driven to violence, or it isn't an option. Which says something about the usage of violence in videogames. There are exceptions to the whole attack rule, but the only games I could think of were games like Hitman or other stealth games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
TerminalBlue posted:After figuring out and beating Chapter 4 on the second try(and having to just click as fast as I could through 15 days for no good reason), I quit right at the premise of Chapter 5. gently caress that poo poo. I legitimately liked chapter 5. I dislike a lot of things about this game, like the fact they couldn't be bothered to get an editor, or even use Microsoft Word's spellcheck, or that the ending is "The arm is your wife" levels of idiotic but I genuinely have to wonder if most of the people complaining about how "Things don't make sense!" just ignore everything and blindly click away while determinedly avoiding everything else. The game's very clear about lots of things, even if it's saying "Hey you win or lose entirely on the RNG, enjoy suckers." Cemetry Gator posted:Wait, you don't remember Wolfenstein 3D, where you had the option of sitting down for tea with the Nazi's and just talking things out and hopefully convincing them that Hitler sucks and they should just set you free? Yeah but Hitman, Deus Ex, Thief, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, whatever all have "Kill everyone" as a perfectly viable option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Are the really retards who honestly believe it's ok to fund artsy garbage sub-games with the hopes that it will be proof of concept for some unrelated person to make something that is similar but not completely awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:I mean I think the game's mediocre but what? In 90% of video games, attacking someone is only last resort because it's the only possible option and in 9% of the remainder it's one of the first options presented to you! No, in games that give you the option to chat or fight (basically any RPG), fighting leads to a fight. Here the shoot option can pacify someone, kill someone, or delay someone or sometimes all the above. Sometimes you're given a prompt, sometimes you aren't you'll never know unless you click. There could be a symbol telling you an option leads to more options but no, that's just something you have to try for yourself because failure is fun, I guess. quote:Every advantage except, you know, having the hostages. No police force is going to sit around while you take pot shots and risk having more people killed. Showing hostility is a final action and practically every rapid response is trained to ignore injured civilians to take down the threat immediately. But my point isn't the realism of the situation, it's there's no feedback to this. You can ask Liam, who gives you a basic rundown of the actions, but the actual effects are unknown until you execute them which could drive things into a failure state before you realize why. That's not good game design. That's not a good puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Devour or Fire posted:Are the really retards who honestly believe it's ok to fund artsy garbage sub-games with the hopes that it will be proof of concept for some unrelated person to make something that is similar but not completely awful. That is how the indie genre seems to go. Of course there'll be tons more equally or even more awful clones before anything good comes out of it. The best thing that can happen is the hype leads to more point and click adventure games. I mean, this game definitely has a great atmosphere, just terrible gameplay. Also I'm trying desperately to justify my purchase when in reality I'd ask Steam for a refund if that was something they did, because this is the most overhyped thing I've ever played. So leave me alone. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Did you try the flash game? A lot of people who are dissapointed seem to not have known what they were getting.al-azad posted:No, in games that give you the option to chat or fight (basically any RPG), fighting leads to a fight. Here the shoot option can pacify someone, kill someone, or delay someone or sometimes all the above. Sometimes you're given a prompt, sometimes you aren't you'll never know unless you click. There could be a symbol telling you an option leads to more options but no, that's just something you have to try for yourself because failure is fun, I guess. There is a symbol. If something ends with elipses then it means there's further options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
al-azad posted:No, in games that give you the option to chat or fight, fighting leads to a fight. Here the shoot option can pacify someone, kill someone, or delay someone or sometimes all the above. Sometimes you're given a prompt, sometimes you aren't you'll never know unless you click. There could be a symbol telling you an option leads to more options but no, that's just something you have to try for yourself because failure is fun, I guess. I didn't have a problem getting the grasp of what each scenario expects of you. Obviously you have to find it out by trying a couple times, but I don't think they're all that obscure. My problem is that even when you totally grok how things work but still lose despite doing everything as correctly as possible. I don't mind some trial and error gameplay, but the real sticking point for me is that there are no checkpoints of any kind and that meant that I ended up being bored of each one because it takes so long to give it another go. And then occasionally it'll go the other way like it did for me in chapter 4 where I essentially 'beat' the scenario halfway through, but still had to sit there clicking and clicking and clicking until the days finally ran out and I won. I'm not entirely sure I've ever seen a game that's so... willfully unfun I guess is the way I'd describe it. Maybe that's the meta point or something, but if I'm not engaged on any level by a game other than being bored by it I really can't bring myself to care. Devour or Fire posted:Are the really retards who honestly believe it's ok to fund artsy garbage sub-games with the hopes that it will be proof of concept for some unrelated person to make something that is similar but not completely awful. Is putting money into experimental games some sort of cancer that's killing the industry or something? You make it sound like some sort of moral failing to accept that if you buy experimental/indie games the diamonds will be buried under a mountain of poo poo. I mean if somebody was getting SO MAD after buying an indie game that ended up being bad, then yeah whatever gently caress 'em because INDIE GAME ROULETTE BITCH
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:45
|
|