Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-25234323-20130823163643/@comment-10658895-20140328190519
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Givemepancakes wrote:
I'm taking the time to write because I've never been so disappointed by a game that has so much potential to be a great game. It seems as though the designers have lost sight of game theory in a mad drive to achieve a game based on the rules of sound game theory. A shining example of this failure is also the most fundamental mechanic of the game: winning and losing, or in this case, living or dieing.I'll start with the obvious fact that going hungry doesn't result in death in the universe we live in. Indeed, there are people who live for years being very hungry or starving. But in this game, if you don't get your 3 square meals a day, you perish into an abyss of insanity and are dead by morning. You are losing a huge portion of your audience to people who want to play this game, but after 5 to 10 hours of playing, they walk away and never return for the main reason that they have to keep repeating the same processes with a new game every time they die. Just read any professional review about the game and you'll hear the same thing.It seems like every element than needs to be discovered in the game also requires that you die and start over from day 1. (Want to find out how strong a penguin is, well, if you do, you're going to die. Want to know if you can attack your hallucinations, well if you do, you're going to die.) Is it too much to ask for a reasonable answer to this absurdity? Even if the game saved permanently every 5th level, I would be happy to pick up where I left off 4 days ago. If this feature existed, you would have me as a long standing fan of the game sometime in the near future. But I just can't stomach such bad design on the fundamental level and then be asked to tolerate inane and dysfunctional elements like toolbars that are glitchy or things spontaneously bursting into flames for no apparent reason.If I were really this little character on the screen and I picked up a fur hat, I'd be able to assess that this would extend the amount of time I can spend away from heat without freezing during the winter. However, as the player, there is no reasonable way to determine this data, so there is a major disconnect between the player and the game they are playing. I think its hilarious that people are saying this game is of "innovate and good design". In which case, lets do away with the stomach meter too. It would be a more "adventurous" game if you had no idea when you were actually hungry. You should take away all the meters and just let the screen turn red to indicate that the game is only about 30 seconds from being over.Until some reasonable changes are made, I'll leave this game to the professional smart people who "get it" or who understand that "games are supposed to make you think". Good luck.
I'm taking the time to write because I've never been so disappointed by a game that has so much potential to be a great game. It seems as though the designers have lost sight of game theory in a mad drive to achieve a game based on the rules of sound game theory. A shining example of this failure is also the most fundamental mechanic of the game: winning and losing, or in this case, living or dieing.I'll start with the obvious fact that going hungry doesn't result in death in the universe we live in. Indeed, there are people who live for years being very hungry or starving. But in this game, if you don't get your 3 square meals a day, you perish into an abyss of insanity and are dead by morning. You are losing a huge portion of your audience to people who want to play this game, but after 5 to 10 hours of playing, they walk away and never return for the main reason that they have to keep repeating the same processes with a new game every time they die. Just read any professional review about the game and you'll hear the same thing.It seems like every element than needs to be discovered in the game also requires that you die and start over from day 1. (Want to find out how strong a penguin is, well, if you do, you're going to die. Want to know if you can attack your hallucinations, well if you do, you're going to die.) Is it too much to ask for a reasonable answer to this absurdity? Even if the game saved permanently every 5th level, I would be happy to pick up where I left off 4 days ago. If this feature existed, you would have me as a long standing fan of the game sometime in the near future. But I just can't stomach such bad design on the fundamental level and then be asked to tolerate inane and dysfunctional elements like toolbars that are glitchy or things spontaneously bursting into flames for no apparent reason.If I were really this little character on the screen and I picked up a fur hat, I'd be able to assess that this would extend the amount of time I can spend away from heat without freezing during the winter. However, as the player, there is no reasonable way to determine this data, so there is a major disconnect between the player and the game they are playing. I think its hilarious that people are saying this game is of "innovate and good design". In which case, lets do away with the stomach meter too. It would be a more "adventurous" game if you had no idea when you were actually hungry. You should take away all the meters and just let the screen turn red to indicate that the game is only about 30 seconds from being over.Until some reasonable changes are made, I'll leave this game to the professional smart people who "get it" or who understand that "games are supposed to make you think". Good luck.
The above post was an ACTUAL POST by a user on the DS forums. Yeah, us people who play modern games don't need to look any more fucking childish, retarded, and assholish.
This is why I live on a different planet.