next »

[Uykered]

It looks polished in some ways. But the unnatural perspective, weird colouring, and noisiness makes it hard to discern things easily for me. I also feel like my screen is too small for this game (27"), seems like it would be better on a larger TV.

[Mittens]

Yeah so I've played a few levels of this now and my opinion has become
'gam is dum and igf shud feel dum'

[starsrift]

Yeah so I've played a few levels of this now and my opinion has become
'gam is dum and igf shud feel dum'

Okay Andy, it's time to report to this thread and apologize for your game; it turns people into eva.


I was checking out the Steam foramz, the players are saying the game doesn't get good until after the fifth level.  I have gotten this far, and it doesn't feel quite so rail-like, but I still don't think it's my kind of game.

It is nicely done, though.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

Is it 2011?

I'd be interested to see a post/blog from Andy on why it took so long to complete.

[starsrift]

Is it 2011?

I'd be interested to see a post/blog from Andy on why it took so long to complete.

I believe at IGF 2010 the game was 90% complete?
Andy then went on to finish the last 90%.

[Udderdude]

Not dropping 15 bones for this one.

I'll wait until the inevitable bundle/Steam sale .. D:

[Blademasterbobo]

if you stop playing this before you get to the levels that are actually difficult / where you actually have to sneak around (level 5 or so), you're an idiot who loves wasting money and/or can't recognize a drawn out tutorial despite it having giant fucking arrows pointing at what to do.

that you guys are willing to outright dismiss it before that, just to prove some misguided point about hype and the igf, or perhaps just cuz you're just that stupid, makes me sad. (ironic since one of the complaints about the igf is that they don't play the games long enough.)

the game is really good, especially with 2 or 3 players. 4 gets kinda hectic, tho. singleplayer is eh.

[poe]

if you stop playing this before you get to the levels that are actually difficult / where you actually have to sneak around (level 5 or so), you're an idiot who loves wasting money and/or can't recognize a drawn out tutorial despite it having giant fucking arrows pointing at what to do.

that you guys are willing to outright dismiss it before that, just to prove some misguided point about hype and the igf, or perhaps just cuz you're just that stupid, makes me sad. (ironic since one of the complaints about the igf is that they don't play the games long enough.)

the game is really good, especially with 2 or 3 players. 4 gets kinda hectic, tho. singleplayer is eh.

I got that far, don't worry.

[Acccent]

To be honest I don't understand why this game is so hyped. I mean, it's fun, and it's polished, but I think Monaco's popularity is more a case of 'there aren't a lot of 4p co-p games' than actual recognition of its quality. Like Castle Crashers I guess - but obviously, both for CC and Monaco, it's just my opinion, although I can at least see what people like about Monaco (I just don't think it's out of the ordinary).


(partial c/c from twitter incoming)

Basically from what I've played (only 4p) it feels like hectic "multiplayer pacman", stealth works like 1% of the time but it's not a bad thing as there's a nice back-and-forth between "trying to do things properly" and "everybody frantically doing random stuff like madmen"

However ergonomically it's really terrible. The visuals are nice but they're totally unreadable (your character, your friends' characters and the enemies all look *identical*, and often you can't even make out the level's layout because there is no hierarchy in the way wall/doors/objects look), the interface is a huge mess (again, no hierarchy at all), and the controls are not docile at all, you often end up doing something you didn't want to do (like crossing a laser instead of deactivating it).

So, yeah, it's fun, it's hectic, but I don't think it's notable except for the fact that it's a 4p co-op game and looks pretty cool, and I can't understand why RPS or eurogamer (for instance) seem to think that it's "a gem that will last decades" or whatever.

[shinygerbil]

if you stop playing this before you get to the levels that are actually difficult / where you actually have to sneak around (level 5 or so), you're an idiot who loves wasting money and/or can't recognize a drawn out tutorial despite it having giant fucking arrows pointing at what to do.

If people tell you a game doesn't "get good" until a certain point then doesn't that mean the preceding areas are "bad"?

Having not played the game I'm not making any specific comment, but I hear that argument a lot and perhaps it bears repeating here. If the first few levels really aren't that long, then it's not really a huge test of patience to get to the "good bits" of course - but if they take a fair chunk of time then that may bear criticism.

[Fallsburg]

I think it took me a total of 30 minutes to get to the "good" parts.  And that's including reading the story and futzing around the menus.  Active play time was probably on the order of 15 minutes. 

It's not like FF13 and the never ending tutorial, or something.

[Udderdude]

The visuals are nice but they're totally unreadable (your character, your friends' characters and the enemies all look *identical*, and often you can't even make out the level's layout because there is no hierarchy in the way wall/doors/objects look), and the controls are not docile at all, you often end up doing something you didn't want to do (like crossing a laser instead of deactivating it).

Someone else who gives a shit about this stuff?  Thought I was the only one .. >_>

Unfortunate to hear they would rather go for style than have visual clarity in some cases ..

Also, if you don't make learning the game fun, people aren't going to want to learn how to play it and get to the real content ..

[Ashkin]

Been playing some more, I have a better appreciation of the singleplayer now that the difficulty has increased- though I wish there were more times where I really feel like a smooth criminal rather than some guy bumbling around and getting by on pure luck. I agree about the visuals- they are rather confusing, and I think I'd prefer if they went for some compromise between the old, the new, and the 'blueprint' style when things are out of sight.

[Acccent]

Also, if you don't make learning the game fun, people aren't going to want to learn how to play it and get to the real content ..

Yeah and in this case it's not "learning the game" so much as "getting used to the game's flaws" (unless lack of clarity is intentional?)

[Ant]

Been playing some more, I have a better appreciation of the singleplayer now that the difficulty has increased- though I wish there were more times where I really feel like a smooth criminal rather than some guy bumbling around and getting by on pure luck.

That's my biggest gripe really, I'm just bumbling around reacting to guards and lasers that pop up out of nowhere due to the limited view. It doesn't feel strategically stealthy at all, I can't plan out routes and not being able to take down the pop up guards is annoying. Weirdly Hotline Miami is a better stealth game.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i had the opposite reaction to a lot of people here -- i really like the gameplay, but don't like the visuals that much. it felt like the game is trying to get by by paying for as little art assets as possible, which is weird in a game that took so long to make. the visual *effects* are nice, but the sprites, tiles, etc., are barely a step up from a roguelike. i wish the game would at least give the different characters portraits, so that i don't have to tell them apart by color or the shape of a small monochrome set of pixels

also the idea that the game takes a while to get good is true, but a) that "while" is like 15 minutes, and anyone who doesn't play a good game for more than 15 minutes deserves to miss the good parts, and b) if judged by this same standard probably 90% of the games you loved in the past took a while to get good as well. how long did, for example, chrono trigger take to get good? or super metroid? or ico? or shadow of the colossus? or planescape torment? or all the other games that the people in this forum love from their pasts? all of those also took 15+ minutes before you got to any substantial gameplay. so it seems somewhat unfair to judge indie games by a standard that you don't also apply to your favorite games. can anyone really truthfully say that all of their top 10 favorite games are fun for new players in the first minute?

some types of gameplay take a while to learn, because you need to learn their individual elements before you can play the game as a cohesive whole. this is especially true of games that try something new

for example, monaco is largely based on the metal gear solid gameplay. but even metal gear solid isn't fun in the first few minutes--it's all cutscenes, it takes like half an hour before you even get a gun! and longer before you learn subtle things like how to distract enemies to walk by them, how to hide until the alert dies down, how to hide bodies in lockers, etc. etc. -- and that was one of the highest scoring and widely praised playstation 1 games. yet if judged by the first 5 or even 15 minutes that game is terrible, it's just a bunch of talking

even if you skip all the cutscenes and judge metal gear solid by the first 15 minutes of gameplay, it's still terrible, all you are doing is moving around avoiding enemies, you don't have any abilities or get to do or see any of the cool things that the game eventually has and that people remember the game for, like the psycho mantis boss and the second controller, or hiding in a cardboard box, instead you're just sneaking into a building in the snow and probably getting caught repeatedly and trying again

[Acccent]

all you are doing is moving around avoiding enemies, [...] you're just sneaking into a building in the snow and probably getting caught repeatedly and trying again

but... that was way cool?

[Udderdude]

Really not a good comparison, as when Metal Gear Solid was released, the stealth/sneaky thing was relatively new, and so even though all you were doing was stumbling around and getting caught, the newness of it kept players interested.

It also had a zillion times more immersion than monochrome pixel dudes and particle effects.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

fair, but stealth gameplay is still relatively new to many players; if you haven't played mgs, thief, or a tiny selection of other games, it'll be new to you; i'd wager it's new to like half or more of the players of monaco (not everyone's a hardcore gamer and has played as many games as we game devs had)

but as a thought experiment, what would you guys have done to have made the game better? aside from improving the graphics, which i mentioned

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

also, relevant: http://www.p4rgaming.com/most-gamers-quit-new-games-within-first-five-minutes-unless-they-kill-something/