Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
WallaceChambers This is too much jiu-jitsu for me! I yield! Dave’s games are good, or bad, or old school, or forward-looking, or whatever it is you want me to confess to! Old Skies and The Shivah are the same game! There are five lights!!
Actually, while I'm happy to let whatever your position is on Dave pass -- I can't tell if it's criticism or damning with faint praise or genuine admiration, but whatever it is, Dave's adventure games have made him a jet-setting millionaire and mini-celebrity in the game development community, and he can brush off criticism if he gets it -- I'm can't ignore your take on Resonance:
I don't think that every adventure game needs mind melting, obtuse as fuck puzzles, with 50+ red herrings in your inventory and 30+ screens full of hotspots to try them on.
That doesn't describe Resonance at all. It's a slim, efficient game; the puzzles are not "obtuse as fuck"; the inventory is, if anything, too small; the puzzles absolutely "involve the player in progressing the narrative" and aren't non sequiturs as you're suggesting. There are a lot of hotspots, and a lot of dialogue, but that reflects Vince Twelve's generosity as his designer, not some kind of malice toward players. It's true that the STM system can be a little tricky, and some of the puzzles are challenging (I wouldn't call them "mind-melting"), but it's one of the few adventure games I've played that legitimately expanded, rather than contracted, the methods by which players can interact with the world in comparison with adventure games of the 1990s.
If you bounced off it, that's fine. Like I tell everyone who dislikes Primordia (or any of Dave's games, for that matter!), not every game is for every player, and a player's genuine dislike is unimpeachable and is a sign that the developer failed in reaching that player. But it's highly misleading to characterize Resonance as "obtuse" and laden with "red herrings," or as lacking an engaging narrative. It's a really good game, and it's a real shame that people basically stopped playing it -- something that happened, I think, because a meme took hold that the game's puzzles were too tough.
Furthermore, since when do radial menus not work with a mouse? Is it too complicated to move your mouse in a certain cardinal direction to select an option? I feel like games have already done this before - I want to say Mass Effect or some other streamlined consolized kind of game that was simply a stepping stone towards unbound creative freedom or some other bullshit.
WallaceChambers This is too much jiu-jitsu for me! I yield! Dave’s games are good, or bad, or old school, or forward-looking, or whatever it is you want me to confess to! Old Skies and The Shivah are the same game! There are five lights!!
Actually, while I'm happy to let whatever your position is on Dave pass -- I can't tell if it's criticism or damning with faint praise or genuine admiration, but whatever it is, Dave's adventure games have made him a jet-setting millionaire and mini-celebrity in the game development community, and he can brush off criticism if he gets it
lmao that's not "my take" on Resonance. You brought Resonance up not me. What I said wasn't specific to any particular game. You'll notice the portion I quoted from your post, and was responding to, didn't include your mention of Resonance. It was just a comical / hyperbolic way of stating my position that, personally, I don't think adventure games need super hardcore puzzles to be good. So given that, I wasn't insulting Dave's games in my earlier post when I said his games are easy.
I guess I'll just be super literal whenever I say something from now on. I don't think my posts are that hard to follow but apparently they are.
As Emerson wrote, "To be great is to be misunderstood," so you should take comfort that lesser folks like me are daunted by your posts. In my more limited mind, when someone responds to a mention of Resonance with a rant about "obtuse as fuck puzzles," that's an aspersion on Resonance. But now I see that you meant it not directed at Resonance in particular, but at puzzles that are more difficult than Unavowed's generally. The thing is, Resonance's puzzles are harder than Unavowed's, so your rant would sweep in Resonance (its nearest antecedent) as well as everything from Freddi Fish and the Case of the Missing Kelp Seeds upwards, so ....
The weird thing is, and I think this is why I keep misreading (mea culpa!) your posts as criticisms of WEG's developed and published titles is that what you're now saying is exactly the same thing that I was saying -- not every WEG game must have hard puzzles, retro gameplay, or retro graphics. It's great for some developers to make puzzle-lite, narrative-heavy, console-style games. It's great for other developers to make puzzle-heavy, narrative-lite, Myst-like games. It's great for yet others (like me!) to stumble through efforts to rehash the adventure games of the 1990s. The main thing is that developers should be able to pursue their passions. If the market rewards those passions, all the better! If I thought Dave's current batch of projects were being made under compulsion, I'd feel bad for him. But he's been clear that it was his older games that were made under compulsion -- he never set out to make retro games, it's just that's where the market/engine/resources led him. Now he's free of those constraints. What I hope for is not that he makes the best version of the games I want (I don't have time to play his games, anyway!), but that he is able to make the best version of the games he wants.
I'm somewhat confused (sadly, I'm no Emerson!), though, about your assertion that Dave hasn't grown or changed at all as a designer -- that all of his games follow the same script and methods. Dave himself has emphasized his growth and move away from puzzles and "love-letters to Ninenties adventure games" toward narrative:
"[Streaming] isn't something that's going away, so it's something that you have to work with. At the very least, it's got me out of my comfort zone, and in a way it's pushed me to make the game that I've always wanted to play... I've been thinking about this for a very long time. When Jennifer Hepler gave that statement [*], which was before streaming culture, really - before Twitch, at the very least - there were YouTubers doing Let's Plays, but they weren't that big of a thing then. I knew I wanted to mix things up a little bit. I've been known for doing a very specific thing, and I wanted to do something new." ...
[Gilbert] recognises the need for the studio to adapt in order to stay creatively relevant and commercially viable.
"It's no secret that I sorta resent it when people call our stuff a love-letter to Nineties adventure games, or a nostalgia-fest. ... I have all of these ideas and theories about narrative and how it should work in an interactive way, and I was straining with it in this game. I would love to have that focus, but maybe with a different type of gameplay style."
* Here is the relevant part discussing the statement:
"What Jennifer said in an interview was that, in combat-oriented games, they usually let you skip the story in the cut-scenes to get back to the combat, but you can never do the opposite," Gilbert says. "This is the opposite. She got a lot of awful, unnecessary flack for that statement, but I thought it was a wonderful idea... Unavowed has the narrative aspect of those games, without the combat."
If you read his older interviews, by contrast, he emphasized that an adventure game could not be "good" without puzzles. For instance, here's his discussion of Emerald City Confidential:
Q: Both Big Fish Games and PlayFirst are publishers of mostly casual games. In what way, if any, do you see your own games, particularly Blackwell Unbound and Emerald City Confidential, being targeted for the causal game market? Why are adventure games particularly suitable for causal gaming compared to games of other genres?
A: The fact that my games found a niche in the casual market came as a total surprise! Blackwell Legacy and Blackwell Unbound were not made to be casual friendly in the least, but they did very well there. I am at a loss to explain why or how it happened. The best I can do is say that they are both mysteries, and mystery games are very popular in the casual market. They both star strong female characters and those tend to be more relatable to that audience.
Emerald City Confidential is the first attempt by a casual publisher to be scientific about the adventure-game-in-the-casual-market thing. I have worked jointly with the PlayFirst team to take what makes adventure games good (the story, the dialog, the puzzles) and have done our best to fine-tune it for a more casual audience. Nothing like this has been done before, and it's so cool to be the developer behind it.
Q: What kinds of puzzles can gamers expect to find in Emerald City Confidential? What puzzles, if any, in the game are more targeted towards causal gamers?
A: My inspiration for creating the puzzles in Emerald City Confidential was "Dreamfall", a game that if you were stuck another character would usually point you in the right direction. The puzzles in Emerald City Confidential range from dialog puzzles to inventory puzzles everything in between.
In other interviews, he talks about how "the focus has moved away from puzzles and more towards immersion and 'fun.'"
Anyway, to the extent we disagree, we're only disagreeing about history. My understanding from playing Dave's earlier games, talking to him about game development, and reading his interviews is that early on, he made games that were more in the mold of 90s adventures, but that he didn't want to do that (it was a compromise) and now he's "moved away from puzzles and towards immersion and 'fun.'" I think your understand is that he never included puzzles, that all of his games follow the same design, etc. But since we both are happy for Dave's ability to succeed making puzzle-lite stories. As he puts it, "You can't just think of them as adventure games ... They're stories, and everyone likes stories." If we disagree, it seems to be about adventure game puzzles (which I staunchly approve of), but no need to extend this fray further.
The full context of the post is me explaining why I see value in the easier side of puzzle design. Generally when people quote someone on a forum, they're responding to the selection they quoted. So the fact that you mentioned Resonance later on in your post isn't material to what I highlighted and responded to. At least it wasn't to me.
But now I see that you meant it not directed at Resonance in particular, but at puzzles that are more difficult than Unavowed's generally. The thing is, Resonance's puzzles are harder than Unavowed's, so your rant would sweep in Resonance (its nearest antecedent) as well as everything from Freddi Fish and the Case of the Missing Kelp Seeds upwards, so ....
The point is the hyperbole I used wasn't a piss take on Resonance. It was just a joking way of describing the idea of a hardcore adventure game. So you saying that my rant still "sweeps in Resonance" is misleading. The perceived insult doesn't apply, which is the point I'm disputing. Generally speaking, it applies in a extremely tangential way since Resonance is a fairly tough game -- among many -- with a level of puzzle difficulty that I don't think is necessary for a game to be worthwhile.
Although my point never invoked a specific game, intentionally. For the record I like Resonance. It's a good game.
The weird thing is, and I think this is why I keep misreading (mea culpa!) your posts as criticisms of WEG's developed and published titles is that what you're now saying is exactly the same thing that I was saying -- not every WEG game must have hard puzzles, retro gameplay, or retro graphics. It's great for some developers to make puzzle-lite, narrative-heavy, console-style games. It's great for other developers to make puzzle-heavy, narrative-lite, Myst-like games. It's great for yet others (like me!) to stumble through efforts to rehash the adventure games of the 1990s.
I agree. My only point is that you've made posts suggesting that WEG is going through this phase of dumbing down their puzzle design. You also say that it's fine for them to do so. My point is there's no real evidence that's the case. Especially in the context of a Technobabylon 2 thread. There's legit no reason to think Tech 2's difficulty wont be roughly in line with the first game. At least not from what Dave and James have shown us of the game so far.
I'm expecting it to be in the ballpark of Tech 1's challenge. Moderately difficult puzzles in self contained areas consisting of 3 to 5 "screens" that use cool Sci-Fi concepts. I guess we'll see when the game comes out but that's how it's looking right now.
Are you doing this on purpose? Please quote me where I said "Dave hasn't grown or changed AT ALL as a designer." Do you think someone saying that Dave Gilbert directed games are generally in the same range of difficulty is the same as saying he "hasn't grown or changed at all as a designer?" This seems like an extremely bad faith reading of my post.
So where in that quote does he talk about moving away from puzzles? You bolded him talking about trying "something new" but he's clearly talking about the Bioware origin story structure and narrative branching. Alright? Embracing a new narrative structure doesn't mean you're moving away from puzzles.
I'm pretty sure I remember the talk/interview that quote is from. IIRC he was talking about needing to adapt to include narrative branching because people will just watch an LP of an adventure game and not play it themselves. But if their choices change the outcome they're more likely to buy to game and do their own run. That's not about dumbing down puzzles.
Also this bit: "It's no secret that I sorta resent it when people call our stuff a love-letter to Nineties adventure games, or a nostalgia-fest." He's mentioned this in multiple interviews. It's not that he's moving away from love-letters to Nineties. It's that, despite the retro graphics, he NEVER considered his game design "retro." So he dislikes it when the press describe his games as throwbacks:
So where is that? That would be a way better quote to pull and prove your point. Assuming he did say that somewhere, did he also say that applies unilaterally to all WEG going forward? Specifically Technobabylon 2? What's the full context?
I think your understand is that he never included puzzles, that all of his games follow the same design, etc. But since we both are happy for Dave's ability to succeed making puzzle-lite stories.
So, this is where I'm gonna have to press X to doubt on your paraphrasing skills. I didn't say his games "never included" puzzles and "follow the same design." What I said is that they're all generally easy *. How could I even talk about his puzzles being easy If I thought he never included puzzles?
* Just to make this distinction clear. From Blackwell Legacy to Unbound Dave added the ability to switch between Rosa & Joey (well, actually it was Lauren but whatever) so that's a design difference. Me saying that the puzzles have roughly been at the same difficulty level throughout his career isn't speaking to whether or not design changes like the aforementioned exist. They do and it's a separate topic.
If you think Dave's design philosophy regarding the role and use of puzzles in adventure games hasn't changed from 2006 to 2019, in what way do you think he's grown as a designer? By "embracing a new narrative structure"?
Anyway, here's a sample walkthrough of one casein Blackwell Deception:
Introduction – Ryan and June
You arrive on the yacht with Rosa and Joey. Select to play with Joey and click on the carvings on the side of the ship. It says “Ryan and June”.
Switch back to Rosa and go inside through the lower door. Click on the light switch by the door and watch the scene.
Switch back to Joey and go up the ladder and through the door at the top. Talk to the ghost and watch the scene.
Go back in with Joey and blow on the keys by the door. Blow on them again to move them closer to the vent in the floor.
Switch back to Rosa and go in through the downstairs door. Select the dime from the inventory and use it on the vent above the bed. Then click on the vent to go up. Rosa’s arm will appear through the vent in the upper compartment. Click on the key to grab it.
Go outside and up the ladder, and use the key on the upper door. Go in and talk to the ghost. At the end of the scene, inspect the diagram by the door and memorise to positions of the letters.
Go back downstairs and walk to the end of the room. Click on the knotty pine.
Click on the knots to spell out JUNE according to the diagram.
A compartment will open with a lot of money in it. Right click on the money to find out it has wrappers around it saying “GTC”.
Access the phone and go to the notes. Combine “bank” and “GTC” to find out there is a bank named Grant City Trust. Go to the Oogle app on the phone and type in Grant City Trust.
Go back to the bridge upstairs and talk to Ryan. Select Bank Robbery from your notes. Then talk to him about Boston until the conversation ends.
Change back to Joey and click on the GPS system (or the “map gizmo” as he likes to call it). It will start spewing random locations.
Switch back to Rosa and talk to Ryan about Boston again. Keep talking to him until finally the GPS says you’re just outside Boston. Follow Ryan outside and talk to him there.
Switch back to Joey and go back to the bridge. Select Joey’s tie from the inventory and click on Ryan to help him move on.
Have a little chat with Ryan in the afterlife. When you’re back, exit the bridge, go downstairs and jump off the boat through the gap at the rear.
And here's a sample walkthrough of one case in Unavowed:
1. You know the drill by now. Talk to all the characters and then have Kalash call the meeting. It’s time to take Vicki back to Astor Place to look at the body. Head to the train. We need Vicki and you need to take either Eli or Mandana with you. I chose Mandana. Get off at Astor Place.
2. Head back to the Village Eye and to the corpse in the basement. Have Vicki inspect the body. She’ll take his fingerprints and have Donny analyze them. He’s Harry Taylor.
3. Now that she’s done, Vicki wants to leave. Tell her to send Logan in. Use Logan to talk to the ghost. Mention his name and then Logan will help him cross over.
4. Try to leave the basement. You can’t! Some weird plant creature named Galene of the North Woods appears and thinks you’re Melkhiresa. Have a chat with her. She’ll kidnap Mandana (or Eli if you took him with you instead).
5. After a chat with Kalash, get back on the train with Kalash and Eli (or Mandana). Get off at the North Grove of Central Park. Eli (or Mandana) chases after Galene. Follow her.
6. Eli tries to free Mandana (or Mandana tries to free Eli) and gets tangled in vines himself! Try to free them and Galene will appear. I believe no matter what you say next, Kalash will have to fight her to the death.
7. Use Kalash as an item and have him attack Galene. She’ll disappear but return and attack him. This will keep happening each time Kalash attacks her, so you need to do something different. When she disappears after his attack, you need to pick up the sword and use it to try and free Eli. Kalash will stop you, but then you can ask what the Rules of Engagement are. They are as follows:
“The combatants shall be known as: Kalash and Galene.
The prisoners shall remain incarcerated until one of the combatants is dead.
Whomever deals the death blow shall be declared the winner.
The winner shall have their wish granted.”
8. Ok, now that we know the rules, let’s figure out how to save everyone. Don’t worry, because if Kalash dies, you’ll get another chance to save the day. The loophole is……… that you have to kill Kalash yourself! Whoever kills him gets their wish. So after he swings his axe at Galene, use the sword on him. You have to kill him to continue.
9. Now you have a choice what to wish for. I chose for peace in the forest, as it seemed like the right thing to do. That also means Galene can help you later, but you do you. Mandana is not happy you killed her father, but the case is closed and you’re back at headquarters.
To me, the differences in puzzle design philosophy are pretty stark. So stark that it's hard to imagine that someone arguing in good faith would say that Deception and Unavowed have the same level of puzzle density, complexity, and difficulty. But perhaps I'm missing something?
The full context of the post is me explaining why I see value in the easier side of puzzle design. Generally when people quote someone on a forum, they're responding to the selection they quoted. So the fact that you mentioned Resonance later on in your post isn't material to what I highlighted and responded to. At least it wasn't to me.
I really liked the puzzles in The Shivah and the first Blackwell game—haven’t played the others or Unavowed—but I always recognize the de gustibus rule; if you don’t like them, you might try Resonance, which has great puzzles!
I never said I didn't like the puzzles. I said they're easy and generally are in all the games he directs. I don't think that every adventure game needs mind melting, obtuse as fuck puzzles, with 50+ red herrings in your inventory and 30+ screens full of hotspots to try them on. I appreciate the puzzles in Blackwell for what they are. A mild challenge and a way to involve the player in progressing the narrative.
Maybe this is just another example of my not being able to follow your more sophisticated reasoning, or maybe my weary old eyes are deceiving me, it certainly looks to me like you quoted me saying that you should try Resonance, and then immediately went on a rant about "obtuse as fuck puzzles." Since I can't paraphrase or read well, could you clarify how I "mentioned Resonance later on in [my] post" and not in "the selection [you] quoted"?
Maybe we should all press X and move on because my normally limitless assumption that someone is arguing in good faith is starting to get tested.
lmao, kk buddy. I literally say one thing, then you spin that out into something else entirely. That's perfectly reasonable grounds to question if someone is speaking in good faith. All the sarcasm in the world wont change the simple fact that saying "these puzzles are generally easy" isn't the same as saying "this design has changed or grown AT ALL."
Asserting I said the latter when I said the former is just straight up wrong. It's not that hard to admit when you're straight up wrong. Here check this out:
Yeah, you're right about this. I made each post at the end of the day and totally forgot that I did include your mention of Resonance in my quote. So I can definitely see how you got the wrong impression, that's my bad. I should have dropped it when you agreed that you misunderstood me in the first place, regardless.
If you think Dave's design philosophy regarding the role and use of puzzles in adventure games hasn't changed from 2006 to 2019, in what way do you think he's grown as a designer? By "embracing a new narrative structure"?
Anyway, here's a sample walkthrough of one casein Blackwell Deception:
And here's a sample walkthrough of one case in Unavowed:
Alright, these are super cherry picked examples. That puzzle is not characteristic of puzzle solving in the Blackwell series overall. It's even mentioned in the commentary for Deception that this puzzle is a stand-out. Purposefully selecting one of the most complex puzzles in Blackwell (which is still pretty easy tbh) vs one of the simplest in Unavowed isn't indicative of an overall trend. Which is what you're trying to establish when satisfying the claim that WEG is heading in a new less puzzle focused direction. Which apparently applies to Technobabylon 2.
I'd say in terms of difficulty among Dave's games Unavowed is basically at the level of the first 3 Blackwell games. Deception and Epiphany are harder overall (albiet still on the easier side of things as a genre wide comparison). The Shivah is easier overall. So in terms of difficulty for Dave Gilbert games Unavowed is in the middle of the pack. I wouldn't consider that evidence that he's dumbing down the puzzles for WEG.
Perfect timing for Wadjet Eye to make a final move into the mainstream adventure games. Unavowed was for Dave a big success so he wants to even bigger piece of cake. With the demise of Telltale he doesn't need to be afraid of competition. He won't saturate the market as well and it isn't an episodic game so it should be for him a total slam dunk.
Perfect timing for Wadjet Eye to make a final move into the mainstream adventure games. Unavowed was for Dave a big success so he wants to even bigger piece of cake. With the demise of Telltale he doesn't need to be afraid of competition. He won't saturate the market as well and it isn't an episodic game so it should be for him a total slam dunk.
It'd be cool if they did but I don't think this is possible with the current level of graphical fidelity WEG is capable of. On the high end there's Quantic Dream who historically have had big publisher backing and top tier graphics that pull in ppl who aren't typically interested in the genre. You could probably toss Supermassive into that category too, but I don't like their games. Then there's the higher middle tier like TellTale, DontNod, BigBadWolf, Red Thread Games, Campo Santo and The Odd Gentlemen. Devs who are, graphically, competing in their respective current gen space but aren't in that upper echelon. TTG scored some hits, Dreamfall Chapters sold half a million which isn't anything to sneeze at. Dontnod did 3 million with LiS (although the jury is still out as to whether or not that's a flash in the pan -- LiS 2 sales are down. Also I think LiS 2 is shit but thats just my take.) and Campo Santo did 1 mil with Firewatch.
With what they've shown I don't think Technobabylon will look good enough to compete in that space and will still be squarely in "indie" territory. I don't think that means the game will be bad but I do think it will be targeting a niche of gamers who won't scoff at the graphics. They might have offset this by going for a more stylized look but it it was it is.
I do hope the game continues to improve, visually, because even if the mainstream is out of reach; I do think they can hit a bigger audience with a well made decent looking 3D adventure.
I finally got to talk to James this AdventureX after intending to for two editions and somehow not managing. We only briefly discussed TB2 and he said it's progressing at a pace that's comfortable to him at the moment, but it's progressing, so I have the feeling it will definitely happen eventually. And James is a really nice guy in person, as I expected him to be.
I have red on adventuregamers site that the project is on hold, is it true?
Also I have red a great deal of comments on a bunch of different sites, and all saying the same thing don't do the 3D, and I agree with them, wadjeteyegames is a trademark for 2/2.5D old school classic adventures please don't change that.
Thank you and all the best!
Dave Gilbert said:
Yes this is true. James is sadly going through some medical issues at the moment and his priority is taking care of himself. He is working on it, but extremely slowly. If things ever change, we will definitely post about it!
That post is from December. James is extremely active on Twitter, and not just about Brexit and politics, so I'm confident his health is improved. For instance:
