[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

There is (to my mind) a good reason for this that isn't yet apparent.

I'm willing to accept that. Actually, I thought about it some more, and my problem was really about that particular dream (which served no purpose storywise, and therefore felt more like an obligatory 'dream of the day').

I'm a bit confused what you're getting at here. You say the game is too short and lacking subtlety at the same time as saying not much backstory is revealed. Isn't the bit by bit revelation of the backstory exactly an example of the subtlety you're looking for?

But that's the exact problem: there's too little backstory, and therefore it comes across as heavy-handed. It worked better on the first day (like the thing with the owner killing his wife and himself, which made you realise that something was going on), but this time it doesn't: you've got this big library with potientially lots of information, and the only thing the game gives you is that story with the father and his son. There's absolutely no reason (yet) to think that it should be especially relevant, apart from the fact that it's the only thing that the game chooses to dwell on. That's what I call a huge lack of subtlety.

Again I'm not sure what you mean by this. In day 2 all 3 of the non-player characters stay in particular locations. (Phil in the garden. Jim in the dining room. Simone in the library.) The only person that moves about is Philip once you've got the metal detector off him and there's no sensible reason for looking for him before day end.

Well, to me there was, as I didn't immediately think of looking in the swimming pool. And there's another character who seems to appear and disappear mysteriously: AJ. I mean, he's disappeared from the start of Day 1, but his body only turns up in the swimming pool on Day 2. Where was he during Day 1? I hope the game explains that later, because for the moment it just feels like that problem with magically disappearing characters.

And, once again, this is a story-telling problem. This game is basically sending two contradictory signals:
1) Be careful, people are disappearing and dying, you should make sure to check if you can find them, because they may turn up dead any moment. Be afraid. MWAHAHAHAHA!
2) Well, characters are there when the designer needs them, and then the rest of the time they're just nowhere. Don't worry, move along, there's no point even noticing that.
You see the problem? And the consequence of that is that the game can't let the player realise that someone is missing and start worrying about finding them, and instead has to rely on the other characters repeating that someone is missing. Once again, this lacks subtlety.

Yes, it's perfectly normal. See my earlier comment about sparing use of music.

Yes, I had missed that part of your post. I'm fine with the silent atmosphere, it's just that I was afraid of a bug.

Originally Posted by stuboy

Salt.

ROFL.

Originally Posted by Snarky

I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to tell you that the hidden staircase will feature later in the game, so consider this mention foreshadowing. As for why you drain the pool, if you look at it, Trilby will notice something at the bottom, won't be able to make it out, and suggest "maybe if it was drained".

I agree that it's a problem that the game lets you go ahead and drain the pool even if you don't know the reason to do it, but this is a tricky problem which even professional games often get wrong.

I wouldn't call it a major storytelling problem.

I think it all depends on how you play the game. If you first notice the 'thing' in the pool, then it's quite logical that your mind would be set on finding a way to drain it. On the other hand, I started the day by talking to Jim, then going in the library (which was the 'new thing' of the day, and therefore (I thought) would be where the plot would progress), and got in my head that the goal of the day was to explore that secret passage in the kitchen. Why then would I even consider having a look at the pool? I think the problem for me worked in three steps, three connected design flaws:
1) The problem of the appearing / disappearing characters. See above. And that's why I didn't think AJ would materialise in the pool, and therefore I didn't think of looking there until much later.
2) The game relies too much on random backtracking. I mean, it's been two days, and it has already happened twice: Jim in the tree and AJ in the pool. I'm completely willing to have a look around each room everyday, of course, but if that means having to look at / use everything in every room in hopes that something will have changed, then I don't like it. Actually, I find that even worse than the eagle in KQ1 (which I mentioned in the BASS playthrough as an example of bad backtracking). Also, note how in both cases this problem is related to the first one (the characters moving around magically).
3) The designer expects you to play the story in a special order (that is, seeing that there's something to do with the pool first), instead of thinking that you could be seeing things a completely different way (and looking for a way to access the hidden passage).

That depends on how long he has been under water, surely?

You're right, he probably just materialised there the exact instant you first decide to look in the pool on Day 2.

Hey, wait a minute, I understand! It's a game about quantum physics, Schrödinger's cat, and all that.

I disagree that the game is rushed or too short. In fact, I think it's exactly the right length. Short and sweet, tightly constructed without any unnecessary fat.

I will agree that it's a pretty simple ghost story, although you shouldn't assume that everything is as it seems...

We'll see when it's over. For the moment, I think it is rushed and, because of that, lacks subtlety, but my impressions may change as the game progresses.