next »

[JamesGecko]

You must admit, it's a situation that doesn't happen with traditional media.

[Ixis]

You must admit, it's a situation that doesn't happen with traditional media.

[Zaphos]

Duchamp, really?  It's more like Clue: The Movie ... (I mean, just in terms of randomly getting a different experience)

[X3N]

Props on Fathom!
Will this super-awesome flash framework support Mochi ads?
http://www.mochiads.com/

[PGGB]

Given that water and death are supposed to be vaguely the same thing here, instead of restarting the first level after falling into the pit, I think you should just get rid of the pit entirely and not let the player actually die before reaching the boss. That way the player's experience will depend less on randomness.

Note that if you die from the robots you simply respawn.

[DarkNemo]

Well, it seems I have my hints now, even if Adam says nothing at all and prefers let the others do it. But it's ok

Fathom's a very interesting work, but maybe there's too much ideas in it to understand them all.

For example, randomness in the experience. If you fall in the very first pit, and finish the game without having seen the boss and even seen the whole first level, I don't think the other themes can be understand. The player can only thinks he has forgotten somethingn and maybe he failed something somewhere. The more curious guys will play the game again, maybe find the boss and then fall in water, and finish the game again, with no differences. At this moment, the player could think "well...I don't get it".

The "meaning" of the game is really strong if the player meet the boss, but harder to understand if it falls before.

About the end : we know that a movie has an end because the light turns on in the cinema, because the dvd menu launches again,... But a game isn't a movie. And  Fathom is totally not like a movie.
When you finish the game, the title screen changes, and reflects what the game really is. but you can play it again, and again, and again, without seeing any differences. It could have been great to play the game again and see something new. For example, the world is already full of water, or the boss is dead at the end of the level, I don't know...

Well, I think this game is a good work to speak about many themes, like death in games, ending and stuff like that. So thank you Adam, you've made a great piece of work to discuss inusual themes The game will always be frustrating if played as "another flash game", but well...

(NB : Excuse my poor english)

[Anthony Flack]

I agree, the first pit doesn't seem to add anything positive to the experience.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to not have the game playable again after winning (or if you do, you find that the game-state is not reset and you can't do anything meaningful). Something to show that the experience is all done.

[William Broom]

I'm sorry, but I don't like this game at all. Having some sort of thematic agenda is no excuse for bad design.

You have to ask yourself why a player would be motivated to go to the end of the game, when that entails nothing but wandering around a painfully repetitive environment, using a control scheme that seems deliberately designed to annoy, trying to complete objectives that are unclear even after you reach them. Oh, and whoops, sometimes the game isn't obscure because it's supposed to be obscure, it's just that you encountered a game-breaking bug!

[Synnah]

Clearly the internet has already discussed this game within an inch of its life, but I figure I may as well add my voice.

Essentially, I enjoyed it. I started by killing all of the small enemies at the start, though I noticed that they never attacked me, so I felt slightly uneasy about my wanton destruction, kind of expecting that things were going to change. I also expected that the boss would be unwinnable once I saw how little damage I was doing; the unbeatable boss mechanic isn't a new one after all. The major change in gameplay after that was kind of unexpected, though, and not unwelcome. Initially I just floated about collecting fish, enjoying the ambience, before finally stumbling across the object I needed to progress. I didn't actually realise that the second underwater area was the same as the first level until my second playthrough, but that was an interesting realisation. And then, all of a sudden, a rather melancholy ending.

The way I see it, Fathom addresses an issue that I have with games, in that they are always designed to be winnable, the levels are always laid out in such a way as to be tailored for your character's abilities to jump, swing and climb (Which is a limitation of their very nature, obviously). I found it refreshing that there was no 'win condition', and I didn't feel like I'd 'lost'; just that a sequence of events had played out, and I just happened to be involved in them.

Another thing I find interesting is how opinion of this game is split almost directly down the middle. In forum comments, pretty much every post of 'I didn't get this at all' is followed by 'I thought this was a great idea'. Several people mentioned they were disappointed that the game didn't continue as it started, but I didn't feel any particular attachment to it; sure, it was a polished run 'n' gun, with nice graphics and music, but there are many other similar games around. So what if one of them doesn't conform to your expectations? There's nothing wrong with a bit of subversion.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

but if (as i interpret it and as a few others have interpreted it) the point of the game is to make fun of people who only want fun/gameplay over all else in games and look down on games trying to be anything greater than that, then it'd just make the game more powerful for people when they finally realize how pavlovian they're acting

Ya but there's no rule that says that greater meaning HAS to be less fun

But there's no rule that says it had to be fun either. The point of the game as I interpret it is the superimposition of the expectancy of traditional twitch-gameplay "fun" and then delivering something else untraditional. Making the second part "fun" as well, for instance by having things to collect or a mini-map or power-ups or bosses would defeat the point (as I understand it).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm sorry, but I don't like this game at all. Having some sort of thematic agenda is no excuse for bad design.

You have to ask yourself why a player would be motivated to go to the end of the game, when that entails nothing but wandering around a painfully repetitive environment, using a control scheme that seems deliberately designed to annoy, trying to complete objectives that are unclear even after you reach them. Oh, and whoops, sometimes the game isn't obscure because it's supposed to be obscure, it's just that you encountered a game-breaking bug!

Sure, but don't you also have to ask yourself why some people enjoyed the game while you didn't? If what you wrote about bad design is true, why would anyone enjoy it? Are they all just lying or deluding themselves?

[NathanielEdwards]

"Fun" specifically, shouldn't always be the ultimate goal. "Entertaining" maybe, but then that will always depend on the person.

[DarkNemo]

After having discussed about Fathom with another game designer colleague, it seems I had a different (and worse, maybe) experience than him. Here is why.

I played and went to the boss. Here, I saw that it was clearly impossible to beat him, so I expected something when I fall, and never thought "oh non 'ill die" so the water level did'nt suprised me.
But my friend has fallen in a pit and because he was in a run'n'gun mood, expected to die, and so was surprised by the water level.

What do you think about it ?

[Bennett]

I don't mean to undermine adam's efforts or anything, but I don't really get what they could put into a flash game framework that isn't already in flash besides a few minor things

Are you joking? Making pixel games in Flash requires a whole lot of really tedious code, either to get your sprites into bitmap arrays or to snap all your graphics to pixels. A good pixel framework could really eliminate a lot of the boring parts.

[Soulliard]

There's really no excuse for some of the bad design decisions that went into this game. The pit at the beginning, for example, really dilutes whatever meaning the game was supposed to have. I was in the mood to explore when I started playing, so I jumped down the pit voluntarily. I enjoyed the aquatic ambiance, but quickly decided that the above ground area was more fun. Seeing that I couldn't return, I refreshed the screen.

The above ground area really is fun. But the underwater area has some major flaws (most of which I believe have already been noted). The control scheme is frustrating, especially with all the snags along the walls. The light is annoying, since you have to stop and spin 360 degrees to use it (this is made even more annoying by the cumbersome controls). The ambiance is nice for the first minute or so, but with no variety, it gets boring quickly. The puzzle to leave the water area is completely arbitrary. The only way to solve it is by randomly bumping into everything until something works. Since I thought the seed was a enemy at first, this took an especially long time for me.

The ending was a letdown. I'm guessing the game is about the permanency of death, but there are plenty of other games that express this theme well. Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but it was not a positive experience for me.

but if (as i interpret it and as a few others have interpreted it) the point of the game is to make fun of people who only want fun/gameplay over all else in games and look down on games trying to be anything greater than that, then it'd just make the game more powerful for people when they finally realize how pavlovian they're acting

Ya but there's no rule that says that greater meaning HAS to be less fun

But there's no rule that says it had to be fun either. The point of the game as I interpret it is the superimposition of the expectancy of traditional twitch-gameplay "fun" and then delivering something else untraditional. Making the second part "fun" as well, for instance by having things to collect or a mini-map or power-ups or bosses would defeat the point (as I understand it).

It doesn't need to be fun, but it should at least be captivating. If the level is so boring that the player is about to quit the game, then there is a problem. The annoying gameplay mechanics and puzzle of the first underwater area could have all been eliminated without destroying the game's meaning, and the resulting experience would have been much better.

As an analogy, there are plenty of meaningful movies that I wouldn't call fun (Schindler's List, for example). It's not the type of movie that makes you say 'Let's grab a big bag of popcorn and some friends, and prepare for a rip-roaring good time!' It's not fun to watch. But it is still captivating. The story and characters interest the viewer so he wants to keep watching to find out what happens, regardless of whether or not he's having fun in the traditional sense.

Games don't have to be fun. But if they aren't captivating, I have no motivation to keep playing. Finding whatever meaning the game has feels like a chore, and it leaves me with a bad memory afterwords.

[AdamAtomic]

My 10 day experiment is not Schindler's List   It has flaws in abundance, but as should be clear from some of the other comments, statements like this:

The puzzle to leave the water area is completely arbitrary. The only way to solve it is by randomly bumping into everything until something works.

are not really valid.  I am not a good enough designer to make sure the things that I do are accessible to absolutely everyone yet, but I have learned so much from designing and releasing this game that I should be able to improve my ratio the next time around.  Thank you for playing and leaving feedback, though, as this is the only way I will learn!

[Ixis]

It sounds like people going into the game with an expectation are the ones who came out liking the game the least.

So maybe the question now is: the game sets out to dash expectations, but why? What's the point of using a game style bait-and-switch? (Other than pissing some folks off, lol.)

[Glaiel-Gamer]

It sounds like people going into the game with an expectation are the ones who came out liking the game the least.

So maybe the question now is: the game sets out to dash expectations, but why? What's the point of using a game style bait-and-switch? (Other than pissing some folks off, lol.)

I think the point is to piss people off lol, and it seems to be working.

Then again it isn't particularly difficult to manipulate gamers and piss them off.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/481434

[AdamAtomic]

the point is to piss people off

As I've said repeatedly, this is absolutely NOT a "stick it to those cave story sheeple" type of stunt, and it's pretty disingenuous to keep claiming that it is!  I promise that the problems people are having are due to my inexperience or poor judgment, OR a simple incompatibility with the few things that I did manage to get right   But not a willful effort to piss on somebody.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

but if (as i interpret it and as a few others have interpreted it) the point of the game is to make fun of people who only want fun/gameplay over all else in games and look down on games trying to be anything greater than that, then it'd just make the game more powerful for people when they finally realize how pavlovian they're acting

Ya but there's no rule that says that greater meaning HAS to be less fun

But there's no rule that says it had to be fun either. The point of the game as I interpret it is the superimposition of the expectancy of traditional twitch-gameplay "fun" and then delivering something else untraditional. Making the second part "fun" as well, for instance by having things to collect or a mini-map or power-ups or bosses would defeat the point (as I understand it).

It doesn't need to be fun, but it should at least be captivating. If the level is so boring that the player is about to quit the game, then there is a problem. The annoying gameplay mechanics and puzzle of the first underwater area could have all been eliminated without destroying the game's meaning, and the resulting experience would have been much better.

As an analogy, there are plenty of meaningful movies that I wouldn't call fun (Schindler's List, for example). It's not the type of movie that makes you say 'Let's grab a big bag of popcorn and some friends, and prepare for a rip-roaring good time!' It's not fun to watch. But it is still captivating. The story and characters interest the viewer so he wants to keep watching to find out what happens, regardless of whether or not he's having fun in the traditional sense.

Games don't have to be fun. But if they aren't captivating, I have no motivation to keep playing. Finding whatever meaning the game has feels like a chore, and it leaves me with a bad memory afterwords.

I agree with that completely. However, judging by the large number of comments from people who have finished the game and enjoyed it, I don't think it not being captivating is a problem. Games can't be captivating to everyone, that's a metaphysical impossibility. It just seems like a lot of people go from "It didn't captivate me" to "it's not captivating", ignoring the other people who were captivated by it.