[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by colpet

I made it to the subway. I did like LINC space, with the exception of the timed bit, and it took me a while to figure out the item bar.
In so far as the

Spoiler:

trial

goes, it was the most boring part of the game so far. I just clicked my way through the endless dialogue. Please tell me that there are no more court experiences .

Do you have to do the court thing? i didnt see any effect on anything after the door gets closed again as soon as its over...

2 puzzles had me stumped.

Spoiler:

An old fasioned lock means a padlock to me, so I wasted much time looking for a pick. The fingerprint solution was far fetched. I walk around everwhere looking for some tape.

I had that same problem with those 2 puzzles, that and the cabinet in the cathedral
"I bet theres something useful in there" I kept trying to open that
and for the lock, I was thinking its a padlonk and i was trying to break it with the crowbar

well I made it to the underground, now i know what that scene in BS2 was all about

[MoriartyL]

The trial was very clever, definitely the best scene so far. The idea of staging a trial as a game show is a very perceptive extension of the problems of modern law.

LINC-Space is cute. Not much else to say, since you see everything there is to see in the first ten seconds, and then it's dragged out for another minute or two.

Neither of these scenes make up for the drudgery of wandering around this area. Sorry, Kurufinwe, but it's just nonstop tedium. Down to the bottom, back up to the top, back down to the bottom, etc. A note about Foster: although he's thinking so many steps ahead that he can find a use for dog biscuits, he's not smart enough to understand that in order to use the elevator, he'll need to take out his ID card. Picking the ID card, then hunting for the slot and clicking on it, is of course not a problem when you're asked to do it once or twice. But I must have done this fifty times already, and still Foster hasn't noticed a pattern. This isn't a very hard problem to fix. But it is very annoying.

Then there's the sluggish pace of walking around. I think I've mentioned it twice already, but since it's so aggravating I think I'll say it again. This game needs double-click exits. This is not hard to program either. The game needs running, too, or something like it; it takes about twenty seconds to get from the front of the bar to the back. Gee, this is fun!

Before, I said that backtracking had no place in adventures. That was just based on a gut feeling. But now that I've actually played some of this game's backtracking, I can say for certain: Backtracking has no place in adventures. These areas are nothing more than a setting for the characters; they're not interesting enough to sustain exploration. You can't take in an atmosphere and participate in a story at the same time. It just doesn't make sense: the viewer of art is looking to take his time and appreciate his surroundings, while the performer in a story is looking to push his role forward. How can these two different approaches be reconciled?

[Karmillo]

I thought Foster walked pretty fast, the problem was waiting up for joey before going up and down and also when you needed him to do something.

And i didnt get

Spoiler:

Why Joey decided to try and fly down to ground level when he had been going in the elevator ever since he got his new shell...

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

And i didnt get why Joey decided to try and fly down to ground level

I didn't wonder that- I thought it was perfectly clear that it was because the writers said so. Just a cheap trick to get rid of him, because they couldn't think of any way to use him in this part of the story. So the only main character left to us is Foster, I mean Overmann. No, I really wasn't curious what excuse they might have for so unceremoniously dropping Joey out of the sky; I was too busy rolling my eyes.

[Jeysie]

Karmillo: You do have to do the court thing... if you don't then the jukebox bit that lets you get through the door simply never happens. I remember being incredibly stuck with that the first time... looking through the hints and the walkthrough and going, "OK, I did everything, why isn't this working?" only to find out I missed seeing the trial. One of the few parts of the game that I found not very well-clued.

Moriarty: I like having some backtracking because it lessens the feeling of being led through the game by the nose. Being put in a setting where all I could do is move forward would make things feel really artificial to me. As long as there are reasons to backtrack (as in, why you can't do something the first time you enter a location) it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure how you could make an adventure game have no backtracking without making it feel completely railroading linear...

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kurufinwe]

I wasn't especially fond of that part. I miss Joey a lot, especially since I already know

Spoiler:

that Ken will be so boring.

The plot device to get rid of him was incredibly cheap indeed. What bugs me most about it is: how did he get over the railing???

Apart from that, many of the puzzles were awful (the padlock, getting the fingerprints, the jukebox...).

LINC-Space is cool, very clever, but I wish there were more of it.

The trial is fun, especially as, this time, an adventure game character (and the player) is faced with the consequences of his selfish actions. I've never managed to get different outcomes, though (Hobbins always gets sentenced to life two hours of community service). I can understand why colpet may not like it, though.

Once again, I don't see the problem with backtracking. Or rather, I don't see the problem with going from the cathedral to the factory (it hardly takes more the a minute, anyway, the lifts are always close at hand). And, once again, I like the feeling of depth and consistency it gives to the game: there had to be something to do with that reactor, and, finally, it becomes possible. I think it's very satisfying, as well as very elegant puzzle design. Of course, people who don't like puzzles can't appreciate that. On the other hand, random backtracking (as in 'let's re-explore every screen until we find who can do something with the glass') is, indeed, rubbish.

Anyway, people complaining about backtracking should really play Kyrandia 2 (Hand of fate), esp. the second half. They'll see why it's bad when it's missing.

And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Foster's sweater yet.

[Lucien21]

The Sweater was funny.

[colpet]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Then there's two games I suggest you never try: Broken Sword 1, and The Longest Journey. Most talkative games I've seen...

Of course, given my luck, you probably already played and loved them.

I have played both of them. I played TLJ when it first came out, and I did like it, but my tolerance for excessive dialogue is waining. It was my biggest gripe about BS1 (and 2 for that matter). However, other aspects of the game helped me persist though.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Once again, I don't see the problem with backtracking. ... it hardly takes more the a minute, anyway.

And this is okay? Why should it be acceptable for a game designer to waste our time? Sure, it's just a minute, but that's a minute that could be spent telling a story, or fleshing out characters. As it is, we're just watching Foster walk. Is this supposed to be entertaining? And even if you accept that we should be forced to waste a minute for no good reason, we're forced to do this over and over. It adds up to a lot of wasted time and a very bored player.

I think it's very satisfying, as well as very elegant puzzle design. Of course, people who don't like puzzles can't appreciate that.

It is not the puzzle that I am criticizing. The puzzle itself was very good. What I am criticizing is the time it takes to get from one part of the puzzle to the next. There are many ways to do this puzzle without all the walking which cheapens the experience. When you come up with a solution to a puzzle, you should always be allowed to implement it immediately (or close to it). Then you are satisfied with your victory. Drag the time out too much from the point at which the little light bulb goes on, and by the time you pull it off you've lost all enthusiasm. Bad design.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I like having some backtracking because it lessens the feeling of being led through the game by the nose. Being put in a setting where all I could do is move forward would make things feel really artificial to me. As long as there are reasons to backtrack (as in, why you can't do something the first time you enter a location) it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure how you could make an adventure game have no backtracking without making it feel completely railroading linear...

I don't understand- what's wrong with a linear story? Isn't that, um, the good kind of story? Obviously the player should have some control over the direction taken, since figuring out where the next scene is set can be part of a good puzzle. But you shouldn't have to walk through lots of insignificant areas to get there. I say, pick the location, and let the game get there for you.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

I wasn't especially fond of that part. I miss Joey a lot, especially since I already know

Spoiler:

that Ken will be so boring.

The plot device to get rid of him was incredibly cheap indeed. What bugs me most about it is: how did he get over the railing???

Spoiler:

Ken reminded me of kryten from Red dwarf...just less funny.
I dont understand why joeys personality kept changing, the medical robot doesnt has the equipment to have a oarsonality but a vacume does?
And why did he become all posh and polite when he entered tha android?

And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Foster's sweater yet.

I really like how that was hinted when you first met the foreman, never thought anything of it and them *blam*

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I don't understand- what's wrong with a linear story? Isn't that, um, the good kind of story? Obviously the player should have some control over the direction taken, since figuring out where the next scene is set can be part of a good puzzle. But you shouldn't have to walk through lots of insignificant areas to get there. I say, pick the location, and let the game get there for you.

Mmm. It seems to me that you're complaining less about the idea of backtracking than the interface behind it... as in, having to walk from scene to scene instead of simply, say, teleporting from one location to the next via a map or something similar.

But addressing the idea of backtracking itself... IMHO what makes a game a *game* is interactivity. A story that feels too linear *would* be an iffy thing, since it would boil down to little more than an interactive movie where you just get led by the hand from Point A to Point B with some clicking in between. Might as well go watch a movie. I think a good game is one that gives the illusion of the player being free and in control, and backtracking, within reason, helps add to that feeling for me.

But I think a major reason for me is not making the game feel contrived. If you need a given location for one part of a story, and then you need an item for a later puzzle in a later area that would ordinarily be found in that previous location, it seems less contrived to me to put that item in the previous location than to stick it closer by just for the sake of convenience, if there's a logical reason why you couldn't get the item initially. Or, perhaps you don't need to access a location until later, but it makes logical sense to have the location connected to a previously visited area (like the reactor room and the factory), again, if there's a logical reason why you couldn't access that room before.

I'd rather the world feel logical within itself than rearranged just for the sake of eliminating backtracking. I'd also rather the puzzle progression feel logical within itself instead of being reordered to try to eliminate backracking. For me, that's what makes backtracking annoying or not annoying to me, the question of whether it seems to spring logically from the world and plot structure.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

And this is okay? Why should it be acceptable for a game designer to waste our time? Sure, it's just a minute, but that's a minute that could be spent telling a story, or fleshing out characters. As it is, we're just watching Foster walk. Is this supposed to be entertaining? And even if you accept that we should be forced to waste a minute for no good reason, we're forced to do this over and over. It adds up to a lot of wasted time and a very bored player.
It is not the puzzle that I am criticizing. The puzzle itself was very good. What I am criticizing is the time it takes to get from one part of the puzzle to the next. There are many ways to do this puzzle without all the walking which cheapens the experience. When you come up with a solution to a puzzle, you should always be allowed to implement it immediately (or close to it). Then you are satisfied with your victory. Drag the time out too much from the point at which the little light bulb goes on, and by the time you pull it off you've lost all enthusiasm. Bad design.

There are two separate questions here: design problems and technical problems. I'll give some examples:

• In KQ1 (EGA & VGA remakes), once you've found two of the treasures, you can't see a way to progress further. The game expects you to wander around the gameworld, until, Tada!, you stumble upon an eagle, which has decided to suddenly materialize in some screen. That relies on pure random backtracking. That is bad design.
• In The Moment of Silence, a guy at work asks you to get lunch for him. You then have to exit the building, take a car, go halfway through the town, cross a big street, buy the food and go back the same way --- all of that with a character who runs slowly and terrible pathfinding and camera problems. That's a silly puzzle which serves no purpose and takes time. That is bad design.
• In Syberia, Kate Slowalker spends some time confronting what various people say. That means talking to person A, the going to say to person B what person A said, then running to person C, then back to person A, &c., all those people being several (huge) screens afar. It could be decent storytelling, but it requires no thinking on the player's part and is fairly annoying. That is bad design.
• In BASS, of course, you get that glass with fingerprints on it, with no logical way to figure out what to do with it. You then have to re-explore every part of the game, until the idea strikes you --- or you've tried giving the glass to everybody. That is bad design.

But I feel that the various other examples in BASS (using the grapnel on the security building, getting Anita's card and then going back to the LINC interface with it) are not bad design at all: you're supposed to figure out what to do, which is really not that difficult, and then you know where to go. It's a fair puzzle. Then, one could criticize the very fact of having a puzzle which requires you to return to a place you've already visited --- well, I strongly disagree with that, for reasons I've already given. So, as far as I'm concerned, that's not bad design at all.

Then, there's the technical question. Of course, there could be a magic map; or a double-click-to-exit feature. The 'magic map', I feel, would pull you out of the game, and do more harm than good. As to the double-click thing (to which you could add automatic use of the lifts) --- well, yes, surely, but BASS is almost 15 years old; nobody had thought of that at the time, because backtracking was a very common thing in adventures back then (see my KQ1 example), so it really didn't bother anyone. And, you know, I think BASS is actually fairly cleverly laid out. In The Dig, for instance, you have the double-click system; and yet moving in it feels much more tedious --- because the gameworld is big, because you have to cross several screens between the puzzles and the main nodes, because it relies on back-tracking much more than BASS, and often not as cleverly. BASS, on the other hand, manages to get things close to each other: note how the two lifts in Bellevue are on adjacent screens (though they could have put only one lift, with up/down buttons), and how the placse you have to travel from/to are close by (the cathedral, the factory). And so I still say that it takes little time.

You disagree, I guess. Well, so you do. Probably because you're from a newer, spoilt (), generation of adventure gamers. Possibly because you don't play games with the same mentality as I (frankly, when I'm playing a game, I'm already wasting time by playing, so one minute more is not going to kill me --- and, anyway, I don't mind spending some time taking in the sights, listening to the music, whatever... as long as I feel that the backtracking is necesary, 'fair', and well-designed). I don't know. But, frankly, apart from the glass puzzle, you'll hardly find better-designed backtracking than in BASS.


And, Karmillo, I'm not going to reply to your spoiler just yet (I'm following the schedule and haven't replayed this part yet, so I want to see how I feel about it this time), but I think I'll end up agreeing with your disappointment.

And I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who liked the sweater thing.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

You disagree, I guess. Well, so you do. Probably because you're from a newer, spoilt (), generation of adventure gamers. Possibly because you don't play games with the same mentality as I (frankly, when I'm playing a game, I'm already wasting time by playing, so one minute more is not going to kill me --- and, anyway, I don't mind spending some time taking in the sights, listening to the music, whatever... as long as I feel that the backtracking is necesary, 'fair', and well-designed).

Well, I pretty much entered gaming with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, so certainly I'm spoiled. After that, I'm not willing to put up with a pointless experience anymore. Jeysie, I see your point about keeping it from getting too contrived, and I guess all I really need is the double-click exits and not being held up at the elevator.

I actually do like to take in sights and sounds- when they're new. After a few times, there's really nothing more to see or hear. But let's talk about it anyway. The environments are almost unanimously bland. ("Almost", because LINC-Space is very imaginative, with its avatar and its smiley-face buttons.) This blandness suits the story well, since this is after all just an ordinary neighborhood. It doesn't exactly make for a riveting experience, though. They're just stages for the characters, nothing more. The background music is painful- I shut it off.


Edit: Oh, and Kurufinwe: the "bad design" I was referring to was not the fact that the puzzle reached its conclusion in an earlier area; as I explained, the problem is the time in between the act of solving the puzzle in your head and the point at which you are allowed to act on that solution. This time ruins the puzzle.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

The background music is painful- I shut it off.

I realy liked the music, it reminded me of sam and max for some reason...

[MoriartyL]

When Foster had that long chat with Anita earlier, I couldn't take her seriously. As I said then, it was because everything about her screamed "artificial". She wasn't a character, she was an exposition device. Presenting her as a sudden ally made no sense and was obviously yet another plot contrivance. Now she's dead, and I couldn't care less. This brings back the problem I mentioned in the beginning: We are given no reason to care. How important are issues of bad design, really, in the face of such an ineffective story?

Why should we care to find out about Overmann's father, when in all this time we've been given no personal motivation for finding out? Why should we care about Anita's death, when we have not been given any reason to believe in her as a character? The story is progressing solely on the stubborn persistence of us, the players; if we weren't given all these tiny puzzles to solve, we'd have fallen asleep by now! A story isn't about events, it's about characters. We've been given exactly one character we can care about: Joey. The writers destroyed him without giving it a second thought, not for emotional resonance but just because he didn't fit into their plan.

All this leads me to wonder: Are these writers even capable of building emotion? This whole story -no, series of gags- has been played for light chuckles. So why the whole act? Why waste so much time with silly plot twists which will have exactly zero impact? Why the prophecies of eeeeeevil? Why all these deaths and revelations, if there's not a single decent character for them to be built upon? In short, why should I leave the game with a hollow feeling, wondering whether the creators of the game are completely incompetent, rather than being given some tiny hint of a reason why I should care?

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

So why the whole act? Why waste so much time with silly plot twists which will have exactly zero impact? Why the prophecies of eeeeeevil? Why all these deaths and revelations, if there's not a single decent character for them to be built upon? In short, why should I leave the game with a hollow feeling, wondering whether the creators of the game are completely incompetent, rather than being given some tiny hint of a reason why I should care?

Because it's after all just a game?

I mean, sure, a game can be much more than BASS, but still it manages to deliver a fun game with easy-going puzzles, an atmosphere that fits the title perfectily, and a visual treat. So the story is nothing to write home about... sure, but I don't see what you find so surprising about that. Many popular movies suffer from the same syndrome, but that doesn't stop them from being agreable to watch.
Aren't you taking this game a bit too seriously?

[MoriartyL]

Is demanding a good story from a storytelling medium taking it "too seriously"? It didn't need to be a serious story, just a good story of any kind. Tell me, what kind of story do you think they were going for here? All the side gags aside, this plot's not funny, or suspenseful, or in fact evoking any emotion of any kind. For all the clever touches, there's still no meat to this story. What is supposed to sustain my interest here- a bunch of puzzles?!

Oh, and what atmosphere? The whole thing feels really dry.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Is demanding a good story from a storytelling medium taking it "too seriously"? It didn't need to be a serious story, just a good story of any kind. Tell me, what kind of story do you think they were going for here? All the side gags aside, this plot's not funny, or suspenseful, or in fact evoking any emotion of any kind. For all the clever touches, there's still no meat to this story. What is supposed to sustain my interest here- a bunch of puzzles?!

Oh, and what atmosphere? The whole thing feels really dry.

Like I said, I just don't think that BASS's story is good.
But why should adventure games be a storytelling medium? Why not a "solving puzzles in nice background, and with funny lines" medium? I mean, where is it written in stone that an adventure game has to provide the player with a good story?

I do think that demanding a good story is taking a game too seriously.
Don't take me wrong, I love it when a game has a good story, and I rate the said game much higher. But if it hasn't, then (to me) it doesn't mean that it has failed somehow.

As for the atmosphere, the graphical style and surrealism of the dialogs make for a refreshing overall feeling in my opinion. But that's more a matter of taste.

EDIT: Just ot be clear. If I considered that BASS's story was lame or annoying, then it would be a flaw. But in this case, it's merely transparent, so to me it's just a case of the game not having an asset.

[colpet]

Is demanding a good story from a storytelling medium taking it "too seriously"? It didn't need to be a serious story, just a good story of any kind. Tell me, what kind of story do you think they were going for here? All the side gags aside, this plot's not funny, or suspenseful, or in fact evoking any emotion of any kind. For all the clever touches, there's still no meat to this story. What is supposed to sustain my interest here- a bunch of puzzles?!

It also depends on your taste. There has to be enough of an interest to keep playing.
This game has enough of a story to keep me interested. Here's what I'm looking forward to in our next session:
- Where does the subway go?
- How will I get past the Knight in LINC space?
- Will Foster meet his dad?
As long as my curiosity is piqued enough to get back into the game, I'd say the story is ok.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by colpet

This game has enough of a story to keep me interested. Here's what I'm looking forward to in our next session:
- Where does the subway go?
- How will I get past the Knight in LINC space?
- Will Foster meet his dad?

I envy you; I don't care a bit where the subway goes, I never considered that Foster might meet his dad, and it was completely obvious to me that the Knight will be eliminated later on when the writers feel like it. I envy you because really, there's not much to keep me going except for the fact that I've started and don't want to stop so far in. Besides, I don't want to miss out on all the fun in this thread. If I were playing alone, I'd've stopped toward the beginning.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Like I said, I just don't think that BASS's story is good.
But why should adventure games be a storytelling medium? Why not a "solving puzzles in nice background, and with funny lines" medium? I mean, where is it written in stone that an adventure game has to provide the player with a good story?

I do think that demanding a good story is taking a game too seriously.
Don't take me wrong, I love it when a game has a good story, and I rate the said game much higher. But if it hasn't, then (to me) it doesn't mean that it has failed somehow.

I don't see why it's so critical that an adventure be considered a game/*game*. In any case, I'd find it hard to disagree with you just because it's self-evident to me that without a story, an adventure is nothing. You have no thread tying it all together, no motivation to keep moving, no reason to play the game in the first place (I don't consider wasting time an adequate reason, no.). If this doesn't bother you, then I have no valid argument with you.