Deleted Member 22431
Guest
That's a bad, infantile point. You don't have successful experiments without failed ones. The only world where all experiments are successful is where there are none - which doesn't mean anything. The only way to assure a success is to follow a safe formula ; in effect, to avoid experimenting. To value experiment independent of their success or failure is essential to creative processes. What your interlocutor is trying to say, is that the game tried something "new" - and that is good and should be recognized.
You talk as if the only way to succeed is by accident. The game failed because they didn’t anticipate how much work was needed and gave up halfway. In other words, they are not that different from dozens of other studios that disappointed their players with interesting conceptual promised and awful delivery. They failed and because of this their game will be forgotten. They have only themselves to blame. But then again we have idiots like you indulging them with the bizarre notion that is okay to release an unfinished game and that they deserve a participation award just because they were not trying to do a shooter with stats. It is the other way around: it is because they had a chance to make something special that they deserve even more severe criticism.
It is not revolutionary by any means. Eternal Darkness (Gamecube) did this in 2002, and it was much, much better.I also feel like the game should be recognized for one feature that should absolutely be picked up by future titles : a negative experience system. A system where you character gets worst over time. You gain "bad levels" in this game. This is in a way revolutionary and goes against the usual power-dynamic of cRPGs. The review only mentions it as an after-note to the playthrough, but from a design perspective this is a big deal, I feel.
Last edited by a moderator: