I almost always do a little background research for a game, just in case there is something that I could miss. Not like a better secret gun (although, I did get the Spur), but anything of gameplay or story importance. It's horrible to realize that you've gone halfway through a game and you've missed something significant and will have to play the entire game through again.

There should be (more, if there is any,) spoiler-free tips/FAQs/Walkthroughs just for these missable things. I hate when I lose something for the entire playthrough, but looking them up and having the game spoiled makes me feel cheap.

Also, secret stars in Braid!? I finished it but don't remember any stars - going to have to fire it up and take a look...

They seem to be awfully hard to get, I only heard of them, but I thought a cloud near the frame in world 2, which is never used in the normal playthrough, seemed suspicious. I never figured out how to reach that cloud, so I simply gave up. I'm not sure if I will even try again.

I had some difficulty with level 3. Apparently I got somewhat off beat and couldn't get the rhythm again, even trying to follow the sound. Maybe you should bring back the helper buttons when the meter goes down to 0.

Cave Story has 2 secret endings. One of them is more secret than the other. The first time I beat it, I didn't even get to see the outer wall. At that point I was like, "Wait, is that all?" so I investigated the internet to see what I missed.

I don't think there are two secret endings. There is a lot left to explore if you don't take the first ending and it is made clear that you are running away. I had no trouble finding my way after refusing the first ending.

I looked up the secret ending and I'm not ashamed. It is one of my few complaints about Cave Story. It is not only unintuitive, but one of the requisites goes against common sense. Don't talk to Dr. Booster when he is fallen? Why!? Why would he survive only if I didn't talk to him!? Not letting Curly drown is also hard to know beforehand... or even after, since the tow rope is so easily missable.

I would never have found the inverted castle in SOTN had it not been spoiled for me.

I also have been spoiled, but I think I would figure that one out eventually if I explored enough. I got one of the rings before knowing what I needed to do. Both of them can be found with some exploration. Once you have them both, they tell you what to do next.

Bikes aren't art because you can use them to get places. Ever see someone try to get somewhere by riding a painting?

Not yet.

Yeah, absolutely. Show me a bike that compares to the great poets.

My bike is very old.

Does it matter? In some games the narrative needs more attention and expressiveness than just the gameplay can provide. Sometimes just having the characters speaking during gameplay is not enough.

Even Half-Life locks the players in a certain places for them to view the scene. It doesn't matter if they don't do, they can't simply leave freely, they have to await the end of the "cutscene". They can't skip it, they can't change the outcome of the events and many will not even experience the events, the freedom is just a feeble illusion, it's a pointless approach. If there is a way to approach this better, it would be something like Indigo Profecy/Heavy Rain "interactive movie" style. Maybe something like Mass Effect, except for that Paragon/Renegade thing, because they make the player go after optimizing their points instead of acting as they would. Even then, sometimes you are just a spectator, even as a playable character.

In the end, I think too many players feel the need to be themselves on the game. This is not bad by itself, but in some of the best story-centric games I ever played, my decisions didn't matter much. I was willing to roleplay the characters and go along with what they decided, with what was already scripted. And you know what? It was awesome. I wasn't less immersed because I wasn't myself. I was immersed because I was the character X. I was trying to understand their motives and act accordingly. Maybe I was even more immersed because I've "become" character X. These characters are often fleshed out much better than if they had given me a couple dialogue choices to "make my own character". I'm not a space marine, I'm not a medieval soldier, I'm not a steam-punk teenager rebel possessed by demons. I do not want to play as an empty shell if the story really matters, because I'm not part of that world.

So, well, I think cutscenes are important. Unless they find a better way to convey the story, cutscenes shouldn't be done away with. They should skippable, that's undeniable, but I think that, even if it's not the majority, a sizable amount of players agree that they contribute to the games.

I think you should hug it and call it Jimmy.

Actually for me Braid is a prime example of that. Even though it was made in a DIY fashion to an extent and contains some things you would never see in modern "mainstream" games, it chooses to almost deny its DIY roots by ulimately operating by the very much mainstream principle of polish and "soundness" of design above all else. I think I'd have liked it a lot more if it was less carefully thought out and took more risks.

I don't get what you mean. Polish and "soundness" of design are not a bad thing, in fact, they are something to aim. Experimental games may be unpolished sometimes, and they are nice to explore the potential of the medium, but when dealing with bigger projects, polish only makes the result better. Not every indie game needs to be small and quirky, and even quirkiness doesn't make them impossible to polish.

My problem with Braid's "indieness" is that Jonathan Blow spent a heck of a lot of money in it. It is kinda of a weird complaint, but I get mixed feelings when I think how much money went into it. On one side it's impressive how much he was willing to invest on it, on the other side this seems more similar to mainstream game development, which has heavy investment, than indie development, which often has to deal with very limited resources. I still think the result is a masterpiece, but I don't think it's the same "indie" that other guys, who don't have that much to invest and depend mostly on their efforts, are.

Yeah, and people see in first-person perspective. Yet in FPS you don't have good grasp of your surroundings. You can't glance around as easily, your hearing is not as precise, you have no tact, smell or sense of balance. The awareness of distance is also diminished. In third-person you have to control the camera or adapt your movement to the camera movement, which is not something a new gamer would be used to and could overwhelm them.

We don't control the real world with buttons... well, most of us don't.

This is awesome, I want to play the full game ASAP.

I just think the Level Up sound doesn't fit the soundtrack.

I wouldn't recommend any 3D game to start with. 3D game navigation is kind of confusing when you are not used to it. 3D games should be introduced later.

Yo I agree. Indie games show off creativity, uniqueness, and good and different game design. That doesn't mean shit to a new player. Give him flashiness and accessibility, Some indie games are exceptions, but for a new player mainstream is the way to go.

I wouldn't be so sure. Many indie games are short, simple to play and fun. The only thing they usually lack is flashiness. Sometimes they can be even more accessible than mainstream games. Arrows + 2 buttons is much simpler than the amount of buttons so many mainstream games need. I'm not saying there are no simple mainstream games, I'm saying not every indie game aims to be cryptic and complex. Lots of them just want to be fun.

Which is a shame, since the iPad would be a nice device to watch animations and even play some mouse-controlled flash games. This won't stop me from using flash, but it may stop me from buying an iPad. All it's needed is a good alternative with flash.

He won't enjoy it as a game, and if he's got any sane artistic sensibilities he will dislike it in that respect too.

You say that as if artistic sensibilities were something objective.

We have seen some incredible Walmart greeters here.

I wouldn't recommend Passage either, though. It's a metaphor made for gamers. A new gamer would never get it.

An oldie but a goodie.

image

Another good old one is this



Mario doesn't headbutt blocks.

Because people are usually ignorant of other countries flora and fauna. I remember watching 101 Dalmatians and being a bit confused by the presence of racoons and a skunk in the middle of the English countryside.

Not necessarily. Sometimes ignorance may be the reason, but sometimes people just want to do it. It is surely wrong when the setting is based on the real world, but when it is fictional, should the creator be limited by the real world?

This particular game didn't seem to have any commitment to realism to begin with.

On the other side, can't say I am against this change. I suck at fighting games, but like them nevertheless. To have complicated mechanics relying on precise timing that simply make everything I do useless is kind of unfair. Why should anyone even be able to parry? If they didn't avoid the hit, they should take some damage. I understand it adds to strategy, but sometimes is good to have accessible games.

what's a bear doing in the same forest as a kiwi 

Destroying expectatives of realism.

It's fun, you should try sometimes.

Maybe they're trying to turn you off honey by associating it with rotting corpses.

As a kid I once told a friend of mine that honey is bee puke. He got repulsed and said he would never eat honey again.

Plants vs Zombies