next »

[Nate Kling]

I think part of the problem is that you started the game off giving the player huge expectations for the game.  From the beginning there is this really cool intro screen and then you drop in with this fast-paced music and there are all these great enemies and bolts to collect.  Complete with a boss to fight.  Originally I thought this kind of gameplay would continue and I was really drawn in, I had high expectations because of what I first experienced and then came the water level and all else and I was disappointed that the game play changed so drastically.  But taking into consideration its length and time in development I'd say it was a pretty decent game.  I didn't feel quite enough artistic intention in any of the design to draw any real meaning or metaphors from it though.

[AdamAtomic]

Last night I wrote a little about the process of making the game and collected some of my favorite responses:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/AdamSaltsman/20090519/1407/Fishing_for_Compliments.php

Preserved for...posterity...or whatever   Thansk again to everybody who played it and discussed it, regardless of the polarity of your opinions!

[Soulliard]

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.

How so? The solution isn't logical. The only way to solve the puzzle is to bump into the three distinctive objects in the right order. Sure, the fish guide you, but the puzzle itself is still illogical and arbitrary. Why does the robot pod cause a tree to grow which causes a door to open?  

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

I think this is very true. I played the game because I thought 'Ooh, old-school platformer!' And at first it didn't disappoint. The gameplay was tight, the graphics were perfect, and the music was top-notch. Then I got to the water area, and the only reason I kept going was because I hoped I would get to another area of fun platforming. When the game ended abruptly, I felt cheated. I wanted those last fifteen minutes back.

That's not to say that the water area didn't have very real flaws that needed to be mentioned, though.

not a willful effort to piss on somebody.

I believe this. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that this is the effect it has. You lure people in by promising a retro platformer, and then they wind up playing a fifteen-minute art game (and an art game with serious gameplay flaws, at that). People don't receive what they want, and end up disappointed.

The ending is also inherently disappointing. It's very difficult to pull off a tragic ending in a video game, because that makes the player feel helpless at best, and worried that they did something wrong at worst. Fallout and Planescape: Torment are the only games I can think of that pull off a tragic ending successfully (without making the player feel like a failure). Fathom, I'm afraid, is no Fallout or Planescape: Torment.

[ninjascience]

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.)

For me the experience of going from a polished run and gun, with tight controls and predictable platformer cliches such as falling blocks, ceiling "spikes", enemy drops, boss battle etc. to the complete opposite was hugely refreshing.  While I thoroughly enjoyed the above ground game and could play a full multi-level version of it to my hearts content, falling in that pit while in the middle of a furious boss battle and finding myself in a completely different world really activated my sense of wonder.  

The water world is completely opposite from the above world.  The goals are not clearly defined, the map is not linear, the obstacles are not overcome with deft hand-eye-co-ordination, the controls are not tight, cause and effect are not clearly connected, the creatures you meet are not enemies and getting to the end is not a moment of triumph.  For me all those factors made this a very fun experience.  This abrupt change made me abandon my expectations.  I didn't spend any time spinning around trying to shine the light in front of me, not did I mind getting lost in the maze, I just bubbled along trying to discover what there was to do.  

This game has its flaws, but "bad design" isn't one of them.  A lot of the things I hear people complaining about all seem intentional, and in my mind positive, parts of the game.

I'm not sure what is says about someone that they did or didn't enjoy this game, but I think it certainly must.  For those of you that didn't enjoy it, maybe you should think about what you really expect to get out of a game.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

Ya I mean, it's not exactly a bad game or anything, it's just hard to figure out what makes it interesting.

Like, it's not fun (and I don't think it was trying to be fun, other than the first part), and I don't think many would argue that drifting around underwater with a vague goal is fun.

And it doesn't have much of an artistic meaning to it it seems either, and if it does there's too many holes to figure it out.

Yet something made me play it a couple times, hope for something different perhaps? Maybe because its recommended on the tigfront?

Who knows, but it's good to see you're trying, and hopefully you'll do better next time. I know edmund felt this way about coil, and he's improved since then.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

The water world is completely opposite from the above world.

I think the pretentious arty term for this is "juxtaposition of opposites". Throw that theme anywhere and you're an artist!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Ya I mean, it's not exactly a bad game or anything, it's just hard to figure out what makes it interesting.

i think the wide range of different players' reactions is what makes it interesting, mainly.

[Corpus]

I got lost in the underwater bit. Went all the way around three times, but I couldn't find anything

Furthermore:

I think the pretentious arty term for this is "juxtaposition of opposites". Throw that theme anywhere and you're an artist!

"kk m8"

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

you find a green seed, bring it to a beam of light, and it plants itself and becomes a tree. you can then go further down into the darkness.

[c-foo peng]

The first time I played Fathom, I ran into the bad seed bug (I followed the fish, planted the seed, nothing happened, spent another 30 minutes wandering the dark caves before I gave up due to frustration). I wonder how many of the more negative comments had something to do with this. After the bug was fixed, I quite enjoyed it!

I agree that the fishies could be a little more obvious in their hints. Putting on my game designer cap, I assumed that was the main reason for their existence, and interpreted any little directional tendency as the way to go. It was kinda like reading an Ouija Board (no, they're going this way! I'm sure of it!).

[Melly]

This is the kind of game that really CAN'T have bugs, because you're trying to do something that people aren't used to, so if a bug happens, they don't really know it's a bug or not, and that may fuck up their whole experience, or make them give up on the game.

[fish]

i didnt get it.

but i enjoyed it.

[Alec]

This is the kind of game that really CAN'T have bugs, because you're trying to do something that people aren't used to, so if a bug happens, they don't really know it's a bug or not, and that may fuck up their whole experience, or make them give up on the game.

Sometimes bugs can actually add to an experience.

I'm not sure if this is the case here, but in some games bugs have made them more fun and in some cases more meaningful.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

This is the kind of game that really CAN'T have bugs, because you're trying to do something that people aren't used to, so if a bug happens, they don't really know it's a bug or not, and that may fuck up their whole experience, or make them give up on the game.

Sometimes bugs can actually add to an experience.

I'm not sure if this is the case here, but in some games bugs have made them more fun and in some cases more meaningful.

20 points if you've ever played it

[Alec]

Oh, snap.

[Zaphos]

It's not like Adam decided to have a bug ... I don't see the point in saying it "can't" have bugs.

[Anthony Flack]

I think the pretentious arty term for this is "juxtaposition of opposites". Throw that theme anywhere and you're an artist!

Well, make a game and you're an artist anyway.

[Ivan]

Why is that a pretentious arty term? Sounds like the english language to me.

[team_q]

I thought the Juxtaposition of opposites was the basis of a lot of comedy.

[Corpus]

You guys are just too pretentious to see the truth.

Paul, I don't really feel motivated in any way to reattempt the game after swimming around lost for so long I'll come back to it in a few days and see how I feel then.