next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm not saying I don't empathize with them or have sympathy for them, I'm just saying I can't imagine anyone being like that. I.e., I don't understand why someone would play a game with puzzles and then give up after 20 minutes -- for me, the whole point of playing a game with puzzles is the fun of figuring them out. So it's not that I'm looking down at them or anything, it's more that I don't understand why they are acting like that.

[Matthew]

I think the negativity here about the design tour is entirely unfounded.  Yeah, it includes critiques, but it includes just as much praise. It seemed very fair to me, and it's obvious David put a huge amount of thought into it.  I would be honored if someone thought so deeply about any of our games, regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I agree with all that, but I can still understand being bothered by it too. Reactions are not always rational. For my own part, when someone doesn't understand something I do and misinterprets it, it makes me feel bad, regardless of what they praise about it. Misunderstanding something is worse than not liking it, to me. I prefer being hated to being misunderstood, in other words.

[Matthew]

Also totally agree.  But there is a difference between reacting and posting that reaction--I'm just expressing discomfort with negativity hitting a public thread.  It doesn't really belong here is all...

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Understandable. I think it's an interesting issue though, even apart from this particular video. The issue of puzzles without clues vs with clues is important from a design standpoint. And I think most of the discussion has been on that, not the video.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

As a side note:

http://tigsource.com/articles/2009/01/15/aquaria-design-tour

[Jeff]

Hey Alec, sorry you didn't like the design tour.  I feel like you think that we hate you and your game, when it's actually the opposite.  You're right, criticism can make you feel like shit.  If David knew that you would take the design tour this way, he would not have made it.  It was definitely not our intention to stir up a bunch of controversy and shit on other indie developers.

[Alec]

Naw, I don't think you guys stirred up any controversy, and I definitely don't think that you intended hate or anything like that. Sorry if I gave off that impression.

Its more just me feeling like shit about my own failures, but I don't have to let that leak out onto a forum.

One love.

 

[princec]

I thought it was an excellent design tour and critique and really spot on. The real perspective that seems to be missed in this thread is that the intended audience for the tour is probably developers, so if a puzzle comes along that doesn't give you any idea about how to solve it or even if it is a puzzle in the first place it's probably a worthwhile thing to note down when you're designing your next game if you want it to sell more.

Cas

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think 'doesn't give you any idea' is overstated. There was a door, with four symbols next to it. You earlier were shown how to sing different notes, each note a different symbol. It's not a stretch to imagine that you have to play those four symbols for the door to open. I mean, I guess I can see people not seeing that it's a door, or not connecting the symbols to their own symbols, but that's what puzzle-solving is all about.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

As for a different criticism of Aquaria, hpapillon recently posted this:

http://whineaboutgames.blogspot.com/2009/01/aquaria.html

That criticism I actually agree with. I wish there were more of a way to tell which of the pretty fishes would bite you and which were just decorative. I also wish for a way to play through the game without enemies/bosses.

[Valter]

As for a different criticism of Aquaria, hpapillon recently posted this:

http://whineaboutgames.blogspot.com/2009/01/aquaria.html

That criticism I actually agree with. I wish there were more of a way to tell which of the pretty fishes would bite you and which were just decorative. I also wish for a way to play through the game without enemies/bosses.

I think 'doesn't give you any idea' is overstated. There was a door, with four symbols next to it. You earlier were shown how to sing different notes, each note a different symbol. It's not a stretch to imagine that you have to play those four symbols for the door to open. I mean, I guess I can see people not seeing that it's a door, or not connecting the symbols to their own symbols, but that's what puzzle-solving is all about.

Do you realize that you just kind of contradicted yourself? You said that it's hard to differentiate benign enemies from malevolent ones (or at least, he did and you agreed). The problem people are having with the puzzles is exactly the same. There's trouble differentiating between inconsequential scenery and context clues specific to certain puzzles.

So, I suppose the greatest difficulty with Aquaria is that the incredibly detailed scenery and design is actually its undoing. When you have so many little details everywhere, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish the importance of every single object you observe.

[Craig Stern]

Interesting...

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

No, I agreed that some people might not differentiate between the symbols and door and the rest of the scenery.

I don't think it's contradictory to say that I don't like one part of a game and I felt another part of the game is fine. I'm good at solving puzzles, so I don't mind puzzles, and I feel that puzzles in games are too dumbed down and hand-holding now. On the other hand, I do mind pointless violence, and prefer atmospheric exploration. It's just a set of preferences. I understand that other people prefer violence and hate puzzles, and for them the criticism would justifiably be reversed. I'm just saying that, for me, the problem is not the puzzles, but the violence getting in the way of the exploration.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

What I do have a problem with, though, is presenting personal preferences as if they were design flaws. I wouldn't say that there's anything fundamentally wrong with all the fighting in the game, whereas the design tour implied that there's something fundamentally wrong with having puzzles that many people get stuck on, or having secrets that the player could miss and has to discover on their own. I.e. there's a difference between saying "this part of a game is not to my tastes but I understand why they did it and I understand that some people enjoy it" and saying "this part of a game is badly made because I don't like it, it's broken".

[Craig Stern]

I don't think there is a Big Book of Design Dos and Don'ts you can cross-reference for these things. There is no one objective standard, in other words. Inevitably, statements about what makes a game better or worse-designed are going to revolve around the subjective preferences of the reviewer.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, but there's still the matter of grasping what their intentions were. As I said earlier, I think there's a difference between getting what the developers were going for, and making allowances for that, and not understanding what they were going for. And I prefer the former. I prefer when criticism recognizes that even though they didn't like some particular part of the game, it has its benefits and its drawbacks, and that some people do prefer it that way, and that maybe the designer even intended it for the people who do prefer it that way.

[Valter]

No, I agreed that some people might not differentiate between the symbols and door and the rest of the scenery.

I don't think it's contradictory to say that I don't like one part of a game and I felt another part of the game is fine. I'm good at solving puzzles, so I don't mind puzzles, and I feel that puzzles in games are too dumbed down and hand-holding now. On the other hand, I do mind pointless violence, and prefer atmospheric exploration. It's just a set of preferences. I understand that other people prefer violence and hate puzzles, and for them the criticism would justifiably be reversed. I'm just saying that, for me, the problem is not the puzzles, but the violence getting in the way of the exploration.

I would like to point out Ecco the Dolphin as a counter-example. That game also had a lush environment and beautiful design work, but it also made a point of kicking your ass nine times out of ten. It took everything that you might expect from a game that prominently features dolphins, and slaps you in the face with it.

The people that just wanted to explore everything and enjoy might be disappointed (although there was plenty of room for simple exploration and enjoyment, if you didn't feel like advancing the story), but it wasn't really meant to appeal to them. It was designed for people who not only like rich graphical design, but also want a good challenge.

Aquaria might not be designed specifically for the people who want to run around and explore. It might be more for people who want a proper challenge while they're traveling through environments (which would probably appeal to a large amount of the indie gamer crowd, considering the popularity of IWBTG and YMM's works). There are those who would consider a game that allows you to explore with little effort at all to be unsatisfying.

And about the possibility of misinterpreting friends for enemies: if it's trying to emulate sea life at all, you should know that just about everything's going to try and kill you. Either it's bigger than you and wants to eat you, or it's smaller than you and covered in retractable quills, or it's highly poisonous. Why do you think anything would want to help you?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, as I said, I can understand why they have it the way they do, and understand some people prefer it the way it is. I'd just prefer an alternate version that had puzzles, exploration, and not so much shooting energy bolts. It's impossible to make a large game that works for everyone in all respects. But perhaps they can make allowances, with settings and options, so that people could cater the game to their own play style preference.

I think Alec's frustration is that he's trying to make those allowances for different play styles, but that his attempts didn't work, that people still have the same complaints despite his efforts. And that's understandable, but I still think making such efforts is a worthy goal.

Although a problem with it is I think that unless you enjoy a certain type of play style, it's hard to make a game that appeals to people with that play style. Unless you enjoy just swimming around without fighting, you can't make a game for people who do; unless you enjoy not having to figure out puzzles, you can't make a game for people who don't like figuring them out.

[Zaphos]

whereas the design tour implied that there's something fundamentally wrong with having puzzles that many people get stuck on

Not really, it said people would get stuck but also said it was a valid design choice to leave it as is.

I prefer when criticism recognizes that even though they didn't like some particular part of the game, it has its benefits and its drawbacks, and that some people do prefer it that way, and that maybe the designer even intended it for the people who do prefer it that way.

The designer's intent doesn't really matter -- it's not like the people who prefer the game one way are somehow less valid or right if the designer says it was intended some other way.

The only time author's intent really matters is if the criticism is feedback for the author of the game.  In a case like this, where it is an analysis for designers in general, it is irrelevant.