Wadjet Eye Primordia - A Point and Click Adventure - Now Available

[Elthosian]

Passing by to say that I've started playing Primordia for the first time after checking Fallen Gods' announcement and what a gem, actually makes me feel bad for not playing it before expecting it to be lackluster, I truly hadn't enjoyed a game this much in a while and despite having gotten this one in a bundle next games by Wormwood are going to be just to make up for the amazing experience

I am philosophically opposed to day 1 purchases. Buy cheap, and be cautious. Developers frequently lose their mojo, and Primordia was a different genre, with a different team. FG might suck. I'm not opposed to hope, but I think the Count of Monte Cristo had the formula right: "Wait, and hope."

That said, I'm glad you enjoyed Primordia. I'm going to be shameless and say that it helps the game a lot to get positive reviews on Steam or GOG or Metacritic, so if you're inclined to do so, I'd really appreciate it. But given that you've already paid your hard-earned money, ffs, don't feel under any obligation to do anything.

I might be tempted to follow your advise but the $0.5 fraction of the $5 I paid for the game in groupees is simply not enough to when compared to the amount of fun I've gotten from it, beat it just a few hours ago and I can't believe it actually maintained it's greatness up to the very ending unlike many other games I've liked in the last years, might be late but I must congratulate you and your team for such an unique and well thought adventure game.

 

[MRY]

I wish it was $.50. IIRC, it was $.17. Groupees was a catastrophic decision by WEG, although potentially it spread word of mouth: we sold 40k keys and made like $5k for it.

I'm pleased you liked it up to the ending. Many people felt that it was too compressed from the Council Tower sequence on.

 

[Blackthorne]

Yeah, god, Groupees - the amount we made in a Groupees bundle was very similar to yours. Never again.


Bt

 

[Gambler]

The video for Until I Have You looks pretty darn good. I love the overall art style (the combination of visuals and music). Reminds me of certain Sega games. I wish more indie games looked like that, rather than adopting all the typical hipster conventions, which usually boil down to garish colors, over the top stylization and primitivism.

That said, I don't usually play platformers, so what I think about the game probably doesn't matter in the long run.

...

As for Trenchmouth, what's up with everything being beige... again?

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

Just played through it and really enjoyed the ride. It felt like a compromise between old-school and contemporary adventures-lite.
Good story, amazing atmosphere and really dark existential themes made this little gem a personal favourite of mine

Spoiler

One thing that really threw me off course was the haiku part, that clue was really really really obscure and actually obfuscated the solution for me for the longest time and I just bruteforced my way through, somehow.

 

[MRY]

Gambler I have no control over Vic's color choice, except with respect to FG, where I can plaintively beg for a broader spectrum.

DramaticPopcorn Yeah, that acrostic has been the bane of players forever. I wish I'd been able to crack that particular nut, as I think the ovreall puzzle is pretty cool, but that step is one of those "either you see it or you don't" type things. I'm glad you enjoyd the game, though! I'm assuming the Steam review from the today is yours, so thanks for that, too.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

DramaticPopcorn Yeah, that acrostic has been the bane of players forever. I wish I'd been able to crack that particular nut, as I think the ovreall puzzle is pretty cool, but that step is one of those "either you see it or you don't" type things. I'm glad you enjoyd the game, though! I'm assuming the Steam review from the today is yours, so thanks for that, too.

It's my pleasure, really.

While at it, mind if I pick your brain about another puzzle?

Spoiler

To solve a dispute between Oswald and Cornelius, you have to answer a series of logical questions, I couldn't understand why the answer to the second question was that option, maybe I'm just poor at logic, but do help me out:
There are 2 factions that built the robots (F and S)
three type of processors, of which F can build every type, and S can build only 1 type
F built more robots than S
2 F-built robots have the same core (meaning that minimum of 4 have been built by F)
This is all the data that we are given yet, the true statement is that S built 3 robots. Why?

 

[MRY]

The proposition we are testing is " (C) Three of the seven robots were built by Sturnweiler."

As you noted, if F+S = 7 and F>S, then F>=4 and S<=3.

So to test the proposition, we need to know whether S<3 can ever be true. For that to be true, F>4 must also be true.

F can come in three categories: q, l, m. We know that F.q<=2, F.l<=2, and F.m<=2. We also know that if F.x=2, then F.~x<=1 (because if F.q =2 and F.l=2, for example, then "four Factbuilt robots have the same type of processor").

Thus, we know that the largest quantity of F we can get is 2+1+1. So F cannot be greater or less than 4, which means S cannot be greater or less than 3.

Let me note that in addition to the haiku, this puzzle has caused the most consternation, seemingly entirely from people for whom English is a second language, which is odd because as best I can tell "exactly" means the same thing in English as "exactemente" or "exactement" or whatever in Spanish and French. Nevertheless, it seems like people have two objections:

(1) It is ambiguous whether "exaactly two have the same type of processor archicture" means that within a given subcategory, the number cannot exceed 2, but it does not forbid multiple subcategories from equalling two.

(2) Exactly somehow permits either more or less than 2.

Here's an example thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/227000/discussions/0/558755529562395680/

The oddity is that people have proposed "exactly only" as the correct phrasing, though I've never seen that phrase in English (or in Spanish, for that matter) in my life.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

Thanks for the breakdown MRY, it seems that steam thread mirrors my thought process completely.

 

[MRY]

If you don't mind my asking, is English your first language? I'm curious if it really is the case that only non-native English speakers get tripped up here. (The oddity is that it's not like that people getting tripped up aren't fluent in written English . . . .)

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

If you don't mind my asking, is English your first language? I'm curious if it really is the case that only non-native English speakers get tripped up here. (The oddity is that it's not like that people getting tripped up aren't fluent in written English . . . .)

No, it's not my first language.
I think the confusion comes from difference in how conditions for math problems are relayed in countries other than USA.
Or it could be the nuance of how the emphasis of the word "exactly" is percieved in different languages.

For instance, if it were a word-by-word translation of the question to russian, then, as in italian it would not rule out this composition:

F - LLLQM
S - MM​

"Exactly" being "no less than"

However, if it were "only", then the correct solution would be the only possible outcome.

P.S.: It's strange to have such similar perception of this phrase as OP in that steam thread (who is from Italy), given that his language is much closer to English in its roots, than mine.

 

[MRY]

This is so bizarre to me. Let's say you were playing some kind of tower defense game, and there is an achievement with one of these two descriptions for what unlocks it:

(1) At the completion of the level, only two enemies have passed through your defenses.
(2) At the completion of the level, exactly two enemies have passed through your defenses.

I believe I would be modestly annoyed if I permitted no enemies to pass through my defenses, yet did not get achievement #1. (In other words, I would view the rule as ambiguous but favoring a <= interpretation.) By contrast, I would be astonished if I let three enemies past my defenses, yet got achievement #2. Is it your understanding of English that achievement #1 unambiguously unlocks if, and only if, EnemiesPassedThrough=2, whereas achievement #2 potentially unlocks if EnemiesPassedThrough>2?

This really may be the weirdest idiosyncracy of English (a language chock full of such things) that I've ever encountered if so because it would mean that the connotations of these two words basically flips in other languages.

 

[V_K]

It may have to do with two things:
1) Words rarely translate literally between two languages, but people tend to do it anyway. E.g. you could translate "exactly" into Russian as either "точно" (literal translation), "в точности" (literally "in exactness") or "ровно" ("equal(ly)") - in the last two cases there would be no ambiguity.
2) Word order affecting things. A Russian equivalent of "exactly two robots have" (if we translate "exactly" literally) would not mean the same as "two robots exactly have" - the latter would definitely mean "no less", the former would sound a bit awkward and can be read ambigously.
"Precisely" could be a less confusing option for a Russian-speaker, probably (but then again, personally I have no problem with "exactly" either).

 

[PlanHex]

I'm also not a native english speaker, but I got the answer to the puzzle anyway. Although if memory serves, I had to break out the ol' pen and paper to do so. Which I love btw. So rarely do you have to actually write things down to solve puzzles in adventure games these days. Always makes me think of mapping out the rat maze on paper in The Neverhood, one of my favourite games. I pulled out the pen and paper for the code too, since I didn't get the haiku thing at all. You're doing good MRY and I love it.

 

[Tigranes]

This is so bizarre to me. Let's say you were playing some kind of tower defense game, and there is an achievement with one of these two descriptions for what unlocks it:

(1) At the completion of the level, only two enemies have passed through your defenses.
(2) At the completion of the level, exactly two enemies have passed through your defenses.

I believe I would be modestly annoyed if I permitted no enemies to pass through my defenses, yet did not get achievement #1. (In other words, I would view the rule as ambiguous but favoring a <= interpretation.) By contrast, I would be astonished if I let three enemies past my defenses, yet got achievement #2. Is it your understanding of English that achievement #1 unambiguously unlocks if, and only if, EnemiesPassedThrough=2, whereas achievement #2 potentially unlocks if EnemiesPassedThrough>2?

This really may be the weirdest idiosyncracy of English (a language chock full of such things) that I've ever encountered if so because it would mean that the connotations of these two words basically flips in other languages.

In English, at least, there is no problem. English is a half-native language for me (picked it up early, now write in it professionally), and I've tutored lots of people and I can't imagine any confusion.

It may have to do more with what their first language is. My French is limited but exactement should work the same, right?

 

[MRY]

Tigranes Yeah, the weird thing is that my understanding is that "exactly" means the same thing in all the Romance languages, yet Italian players have complained of the issue. My guess is that it has to do with some kind of secondary meaning the words have in English and non-English, but who knows?

PlanHex Thanks! We tried to strike a balance between recording information for you that, in days of yore, would've been done by the player himself on paper (as in, say, Star Control II), and still encouraging you to use paper to puzzle some of the stuff out.

 

[MicoSelva]

Primordia is now available on GOG for less than $2. Get it if you have not already.

EDIT: Offer has expired.

 

[MRY]

Maybe in some objective sense this is dorky, but it delights me to no end. He even has a plasma torch! And Clarity has total swagger.

 

[MRY]

https://www.facebook.com/BlackDove

 

[bertram_tung]

Maybe in some objective sense this is dorky, but it delights me to no end. He even has a plasma torch! And Clarity has total swagger.

People love what you created and they are showing it. In no way is it dorky for you to enjoy that. You deserve the praise! Thanks again for making a fantastic game.

 

[MRY]

Amazing. He did a recreation of the cover:

Here's the album.

 

[JudasIscariot]

https://www.facebook.com/BlackDove

Errrm that link is a wee bit dead...

 

[MRY]

The album should link to his site as an alternative.

 

[ghostdog]

Maybe in some objective sense this is dorky, but it delights me to no end. He even has a plasma torch! And Clarity has total swagger.

I knew it ! Primordia 2 will be a 3D sandbox adventure game created with Cryengine !

 

[JudasIscariot]

The album should link to his site as an alternative.

Thanks, that works. Very nice work, amazing!