fireside
Quote:
|
Samarost actually is one of the few adventures that has true puzzles. A puzzle always involves ordering of either physical objects or events. Samorost used the ordering of events, mostly.
|
Samorost games were all about "catch the pixel" logic, like most flash games. From time to time you did have to trigger events in the right order, but it was always so obvious that you could hardly call it "a puzzle". Most of the time you were searching for the right pixel on the picture. And the lowest form of puzzle is even not "guessing objects that had no logic or clues" (btw, that's not the case with Full Pipe, as I wrote before), but pixel-hunting logic.
Jackal
Quote:
|
I'm not sure where you expected it to go.
|
I hoped that you would agree with some untrue points in your review, i.m. "illogical puzzles" or the "no story, no characters problem".
Ok, you enjoyed Samorost and said that "such type of games don't need story/characters" (and FP actually HAVE characters). But while your review talks a lot about such issues (actually making them some of the major problems), here, on the forums, you stated that "the game is just no fun". I really can't understand the issue with "illogical puzzles" or their repeativness. The issue with "returning to some objects being boring" is even more strange to me - I thought it was a great designer decision to make the player actually think about the items he needs, without collecting a full pocket of useless items.
Quote:
|
the negative things weren't ALL I saw. But I did see them, and the game was a lesser experience because of them.
|
But you managed to find faults in EVERYTHING, including interface and mini-games. It looks like your personal goal was to make everything look blunt, so you looked at FP through the magnifying glass, deeply analysing every component of the low-priced game, and excluding such "global" questions as "atmosphere" or "gameworld". That's how you got everything to be "repeatative". Well, again, that's a matter of personal taste.
And about that puzzle you mentioned being "illogical"
Spoiler:1. There were clues on the picture that indicated what that particular person required in exchange, as I mentioned
2. By that moment you knew that you need some small object to put into drawer-creature, because the eating-creature required more balls and the drawer you had in your inventory was too big for this procedure (the character even tried to put a drawer into a drawer-creature). And that's why you needed glasses.
It is easy to show everyone that the puzzle you just ripped out of the context of the game is "so strange and illogical". But if you know the game universe and know how the logic works inside its boundaries (that's where the "atmosphere and gameworld" issue is nessesarry), you'll make it more understandable. Though it is still not fair to use game material in such a way.
