next »

[RoseSkye]

Out of curiousity.. how long did it take you to finish this?

[soundofsatellites]

I'm afraid I might be narrow minded or something. Every time a discussion arises around the a-word and games, and how to evolve games, and what constitutes a game, or even what "game" means; I feel it's just wrong to call it games, as if the word won't fit no matter how I try to explain it. In this particular case, we can see how interactivity is a major factor by which people determine if game actually is a "game". It's kind of interesting, because these same issue has been appearing all around in the reviews of "The Path". I can't talk about the latter since I have yet to play it, but both games can't be exactly called games in my book.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want to see interactive entretainment, or games, or whatever we should call them, mature. And I love when they deliver a great story. Me? I'm always been a sucker for the tale. I've been playing games since I can remember, and the first thing I went through a game for was the story. Then it would came paying attention to level design, or balance, difficulty, etc.
Perhaps that's why I love adventure games so much, and I've learned to love IF in the recent years.

Traditional IF relied as much in puzzles as graphical adventures tend to do, but since, the genre has evolved, and now we have games where the interaction is minimal and puzzles almost non existant. And yet they deliver a compelling story. And this is my main gripe with Judith. The story didn't get a hold on me. Btw, never heard about bluebeard before, so never had the knowledge to make the connection, and read the intertext between the two. Maybe I'm dumb or maybe not, but I didn't feel the writing was particularly brilliant, nor the mechanics, nor the graphics. I do think that the moments it takes control from you reinforces what terry and increpare where aiming for. As for the atmosphere, well, for me the peak reached with the prisoner, and then it quickly faded away. It's not that I don't get it, but it simply seemed a bit shallow. And I totally agree with Paul that people tend to read too much in vague stories -As it happened with braid. As for linearity and story: I think there is an inherente problem when designing a story for a game, because all the interactive-gameplay-thing just takes control from the writer. I can probably name a few games with branching stories that were well done (i.e. MASQ) but every other good story that comes to my mind has been a linear one. I tend to prefer IF -Gun mute comes to mind as an example of a linear story, yet completely pleasurable- or a book, but maybe that's just because that's what *I'm* into, not that *it has to be* actually this way.

For me it's not a game, since I didn't feel like I was playing. I don't recall feeling fun either. But I know I felt genuinely interested about actually finishing it. Yeah, the story dissapointed me. Is this bad? Not at all, it was just an experience; a linear-on-a-rail one, and I really want to like it, but ultimately it's a bit shallow. I will continue trying terry and increpare's games even if at the end I just don't like them, just because they are experimenting. And I think it's safe to say that not every experiment ends well, but they're no less important for that.

Sorry guys for the uber long post, and I know it's all messy; I kinda just left it flow from my head.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I thought GunMute's puzzles got in the way of the otherwise good story actually -- even with the hint system. The methods to defeat each opponent were too precise and exact and felt like jumping through hoops. Is it really "interaction" if the only way to progress through the game is one exact way that you have to figure out?

[JoeHonkie]

I thought GunMute's puzzles got in the way of the otherwise good story actually -- even with the hint system. The methods to defeat each opponent were too precise and exact and felt like jumping through hoops. Is it really "interaction" if the only way to progress through the game is one exact way that you have to figure out?

Yes.  Solving puzzles with only one solution is interaction.

You have to think and overcome a problem instead of passively clicking on things until the story moves ahead.  Unless you mean the problem is pure trial and error, in which case I would agree with you.  I haven't played that game, so if the puzzles are that bad you are probably right.  I've certainly played games that felt like that.

EDIT:  It's neat how much discussion this has generated.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I don't think that's interaction, it's just "challenge". It takes the same exact amount of clicking to solve a puzzle as to progress through a story, and the results are exactly the same. In neither case do your decisions have any impact on anything. I don't think challenge or difficulty in figuring out how to progress is interactive at all. You're not interacting with anything, you're solving a puzzle. And I don't think it always makes a story better to force the player to solve puzzles before they are able to progress in it.

[JoeHonkie]

I don't think that's interaction, it's just "challenge". It takes the same exact amount of clicking to solve a puzzle as to progress through a story, and the results are exactly the same. In neither case do your decisions have any impact on anything. I don't think challenge or difficulty in figuring out how to progress is interactive at all. You're not interacting with anything, you're solving a puzzle. And I don't think it always makes a story better to force the player to solve puzzles before they are able to progress in it.

Interaction isn't a count of clicks.  If you have to take some active initiative to solve the puzzles yourself, that is interaction (you are taking an active engagement in solving the puzzles, rather than a passive engagement of following a linear path and doing what you are told is ok to do).

Whether or not that makes a good game is another thing.  Certainly if I'm enjoying the puzzles in a game I don't mind if the story framework behind them is not so good.  If the puzzles really suck as you are suggesting, sure, it's not helping anything.

Not to say that things like Judith don't have their place.  I didn't enjoy it, but I like the concept, and maybe with a story I had liked better I would have enjoyed it.  But it seems more like a multimedia project thing than an actual "game."  Although I can't think of a better place to discuss it than here.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The way I think of interaction is perhaps more literal: to interact. To interact, there has to be some other actor, either computer controlled AI characters, or other players. A puzzle isn't another active entity, so there's nothing to interact with. You might just be using a much more broader meaning of "interaction" -- could you elaborate on what you mean by it? "active engagement" vs "passive engagement" is a bit too abstract / vague for me to understand what you mean.

[JoeHonkie]

The way I think of interaction is perhaps more literal: to interact. To interact, there has to be some other actor, either computer controlled AI characters, or other players. A puzzle isn't another active entity, so there's nothing to interact with. You might just be using a much more broader meaning of "interaction" -- could you elaborate on what you mean by it? "active engagement" vs "passive engagement" is a bit too abstract / vague for me to understand what you mean.

You are interacting with the game itself.  And what's confusing about the difference between solving a puzzle as an active activity, and just clicking on things until they work as a passive activity?  One causes you to engage your brain and think (and sometimes even take notes), and the other doesn't.

In a strict definition, Judith is obviously interactive in that you have control over what you do, but my reason I wouldn't define it as a "game" is that you can only do the specific things the game allows you to do, and you don't have to figure these things out on your own.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But I don't think it's less engaging for the brain to be occupied in thinking about the story and taking notes about the story, and the brain being occupied in thinking about the puzzles and taking notes about the puzzles. The latter even seems more boring to me, except for games like Braid where the puzzles actually are more interesting than the story. But in most games with both puzzles and story, the story is by far more engaging, and requires far more note-taking. So I don't really see a story-focused game without puzzles as being less engaging, since the story is what the brain is primarily engaged with anyway.

[JoeHonkie]

But I don't think it's less engaging for the brain to be occupied in thinking about the story and taking notes about the story, and the brain being occupied in thinking about the puzzles and taking notes about the puzzles. The latter even seems more boring to me, except for games like Braid where the puzzles actually are more interesting than the story. But in most games with both puzzles and story, the story is by far more engaging, and requires far more note-taking. So I don't really see a story-focused game without puzzles as being less engaging, since the story is what the brain is primarily engaged with anyway.

Ok, I'll just have to agree to disagree.  I have yet to play a game, indie or otherwise, that had a story that even approached the best books I have read and movies I have seen.  Aside from that, I play games for the puzzles and interactivity.  If you want to do pure story, I don't think it's the best medium, although again, I like what Judith was trying to do even if I wasn't a huge fan.

Also, I think about the story in books and movies, but nobody would argue those are interactive.  The type of thinking that is involved in solving a puzzle isn't the same as the type of thinking in enjoying a scripted story.  Anyways, I think I'll bow out, because people may want to discuss the actual game.  Certainly if this doesn't appear on the front page of playthisthing.com, those guys aren't doing their job.  It's definitely more interesting to me than previous attempts at this, like the Graveyard.

EDIT: Might be a good topic for some sort of discussion thread.

[mirosurabu]

The real question is:

Are we going to lose much if we eliminated all interaction in this game and instead made the short movie?

My answer to this is yes - there will be no subversion of player's expectations; in fact, players would build expectations which are not targeted by the game and hence there would be no subversion.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

A story in a game doesn't have to be good for it to be engaging and entertaining. Harry Potter for instance isn't the best story ever, but if you read the novels it's very engaging and does occupy the mind. Mystery novels also aren't often great literature, but they're very mentally engaging because you're trying to figure things out.

I think it's a huge fallacy to say that just because the story isn't as good as great works of literature that it's not worth focusing on the story. The story of Judith won't go down in history as one of the best stories ever told. But it *is* an entertaining and engaging story. Stories don't have to be masterpieces for them to be worth reading or worth focusing the entire game on.

And I wasn't arguing that the story was interactive, just that the story was engaging. You were earlier saying that interaction is synonymous with "active engagement", and my point was that thinking about stories is actively engaging. I don't think interaction can be reduced just to active engagement though, or that you can "interact with a game".

Also, I know a writer for playthisthing.com (the99th / Patrick Dugan is a friend, he slept on my couch once and we watched some weird King Arthur remake on TV together), so I could recommend the game to him. I also occasionally write for playthisthing (I have like 3 total posts there or something) so I could do it myself.

And yes, the nature of interaction might be worth its own thread, I don't want to pollute Judith's topic with it too much, terry and increpare might get annoyed at me.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Following up an earlier point, I think there are basically two types of people when it comes to enjoying art. There are people who can't enjoy something unless it's great literature, or has well-balanced "good" gameplay, or has perfect perspective and color balance, etc., and there are people who just are addicted to art and enjoy it pervasively, and can enjoy any artwork even while recognizing that it has flaws. I.e. people who have an internal monitor in their heads judging "is this story good? is this game good? is it worth my time?" and people who can enjoy anything, without that internal critic. I think that internal critic is usually a bad thing though, because it prevents people from enjoying all kinds of things, instead restricting their enjoyment to a particular subset of things. I know you can't just turn that internal critic off, but at least realize that not everyone has that thing, and sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth. I think the more you're able to ignore the things that get in the way of enjoyment, the better. It's more fun to lose yourself in the experience of something, regardless of its flaws or how it doesn't fit up to some ideal or something else you've experienced before.

[JoeHonkie]

Following up an earlier point, I think there are basically two types of people when it comes to enjoying art. There are people who can't enjoy something unless it's great literature, or has well-balanced "good" gameplay, or has perfect perspective and color balance, etc., and there are people who just are addicted to art and enjoy it pervasively, and can enjoy any artwork even while recognizing that it has flaws. I.e. people who have an internal monitor in their heads judging "is this story good? is this game good? is it worth my time?" and people who can enjoy anything, without that internal critic. I think that internal critic is usually a bad thing though, because it prevents people from enjoying all kinds of things, instead restricting their enjoyment to a particular subset of things. I know you can't just turn that internal critic off, but at least realize that not everyone has that thing, and sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth. I think the more you're able to ignore the things that get in the way of enjoyment, the better. It's more fun to lose yourself in the experience of something, regardless of its flaws or how it doesn't fit up to some ideal or something else you've experienced before.

That is honestly pretty stupid.  Maybe some people don't like the same things you like?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Of course they do. But my point was more broader than that: it was that I don't *dislike* anything in the same way that critics dislike some things. In other words, I do think there's a difference between people who enjoy all of the games they play, and people who only enjoy some of them. And I think enjoying all of the games you play is preferable. So I agree that if it were just "you should enjoy this game, and you don't", it'd be stupid. But it's not that, it's "you should enjoy all games". I know it might seem impossible if you don't enjoy all games, but it really is possible.

[Tom Sennett]

Finally got around to playing this. Spoilers in here. Also some rambling probably.

Firstly, I don't understand the calls for WASD+mouse look. That wouldn't have suited this game at all. Besides, didn't you people ever play Wolfenstein? Arrow keys fit this game well I thought.

Secondly, I mostly enjoyed the graphics. I felt like things had a consistent look to them and it added to the atmosphere. (The room with the hooks on the walls creeped me out) My main gripe would be with the character graphics - they just seemed out of place and not very easy to get attached to.

Those little piano flourishes scattered throughout were a great touch.

I'm still on the fence about the story. I really like the structure of the narrative, and the way it's presented makes it more interesting than, say, a movie about the same story would be. But none of these characters felt particularly real or interesting, and I found myself asking how much of the story was implied/ambiguous and how much was just plot holes.

A big issue I have is that we never find out why dude does what he does - I mean, he's pretty set up with a castle, money, a wife - what could motivate him? I suppose, sticking to the Bluebeard tale, that it's undefined or maybe unimportant. But this makes Judith's husband an unreasonably threatening figure rather than a character. Some development of his thoughts and feelings could have made things more interesting and illuminated more about Judith.

And Judith. Judith stays in the castle, and indeed, wants to know more of the horrible things going on, after finding rooms full of blood and a near-dead prisoner. She says something like, "I need to know everything about my husband to love him." What? How about, "I don't need to know anything about my husband beyond 'he is running a torture chamber behind the bookcase' - I'm fucking out of here." She decides to kill and bury the prisoner, even though this obviously gives away what she's seen. Why not just, you know, try to save him instead? Some of her actions don't make any sense from where I'm standing, and you guys gave me no explanation beyond "they're in love" and maybe curiosity.

I liked the story following Jeff and Emily better. However, I had a couple issues.

How does Emily get through all the locked doors before Jeff? When you put the Civil War book back on the shelf to open the passage, Jeff wonders aloud if Emily discovered this and went through. That thought doesn't make any sense - why would the book be on another shelf if she had? And you can't tell me that there was some other path she took, because I investigated all over the place in that castle. It may be handy thematically and atmospherically to have the two lovers separated mysteriously and without explanation, but I think it weakens the impact of the story overall.

Oh, and why would you rent an entire castle for a lover's rendezvous? What's wrong with a hotel room?


I did like the game though. It was certainly a unique experience and a good way to tell a story. I think there is room for improvement on that story aspect, but I would not label myself disappointed by this game. I look forward to more from both you guys. 

[Derek]

Of course they do. But my point was more broader than that: it was that I don't *dislike* anything in the same way that critics dislike some things. In other words, I do think there's a difference between people who enjoy all of the games they play, and people who only enjoy some of them. And I think enjoying all of the games you play is preferable. So I agree that if it were just "you should enjoy this game, and you don't", it'd be stupid. But it's not that, it's "you should enjoy all games". I know it might seem impossible if you don't enjoy all games, but it really is possible.

I get what you're saying Paul, and I agree.  I wouldn't say it's just two types of people, but definitely some people can "enjoy" something they don't necessarily think is "good."  By enjoy, I gather you don't mean "be made happy by" but a more broad definition of intellectual satisfaction or somesuch.  A kind of internal thrill at having a new experience.

[Zaphos]

Oh, and why would you rent an entire castle for a lover's rendezvous? What's wrong with a hotel room?

It's not private enough!  Only a spooky abandoned castle will do.

[choiniere]

You are the most boring person in the world if you pick hotels over castles.

Well this game is pretty much as if that Windows Maze screensaver was made by some guy who just read a Dean Koontz novel. I never thought a low textured 3D game could be so atmospheric with creepy piano playing. Sure Doom had that light flickering stuff, but the emphasis on sound really sucked me in.

Story confuses the shit out of me though. Still it was really suspenseful in it's own way.

Modify: Also to the WASD peeps, stop living in the present.

[moi]

This game is just proof that games can't be art, gameplay rules and narrative is accessory, egbert was right. What do you think Rinku?