[jacog]

Our copy has arrived, and we finally played through chapter one last night. The characters are interesting and the discovery aspect of the game is nice. Graphics are average, voice acting is average, animation is not so great. I am intrigued enough to continue though.

One thing though... Jody very clearly commits an act of murder and then proceeds to gloat over it, showing no sign of remorse... why the sudden 'I think I killed my sister' in the journal? Was she possessed or something?

[jacog]

Oh, and it'd be great if Marcellus had more to say and actually sounded like was an elderly man from Mississippi.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by jacog

Our copy has arrived, and we finally played through chapter one last night.

So much for all the previous whining about having to wait 6 weeks for it...

(just kidding, glad to have more people on board to discuss the game in-depth )

One thing though... Jody very clearly commits an act of murder and then proceeds to gloat over it, showing no sign of remorse... why the sudden 'I think I killed my sister' in the journal? Was she possessed or something?

As I said earlier, I think it's just something that happened too fast, spurred by greed, years of resentment, and her newfound "freedom", and that she came to regret when she had a chance to cool down and realise what had happened. But it still feels somewhat odd to me.

[jacog]

Be quiet or I will have to wave my fist threateningly at you and call you something my mother would not approve of.

... chapter 2 is interesting so far ...

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by colpet

But then it wouldn't be fun. Games and puzzles are fun .

Surely. But that's not enough. Take a random movie you like, and imagine that they chopped it into little pieces and spread it through, say, a platformer. Platformers are fun, no? But I'm sure you'd agree that it would lose a lot in the process. The whole would be less than the sum of its parts.

Those of you with unnaturally long memories may recall that I once criticized a poster who asked a similar question of why adventures are not made as movies. I criticized the validity of the question itself. I said that you don't ask why a comic book wasn't written as a novel, or why a puppet show wasn't made as a movie (or something along those lines). It might be misconstrued that I am disagreeing with my previous position, so please allow me to clarify.

(Before I proceed, I should note that I'm assuming the purpose of this game is to tell a story, since it is not (like Myst) trying to present compelling world design. Some of what I will say is based on this assumption.)

This game (so far, at least) is made up of two major parts (not including mini-games, which are as a rule mostly irrelevant to the bigger picture). Section A is a poorly made (by film standards) video about the devil and his work. This is apparently where all the actual content of the game is. Then there's Section B, a generic Myst-clone, with lots of little details which don't mean anything but which lead you back to bits of Section A. (If I am misunderstanding this, I trust you will set me straight.) It is my contention that Section B is redundant. The parts of it which are relevant to the story (telling us about the characters' greed and love for what's-his-name) are also told to us through the videos. And these relevant parts are few, spread through a lot of generic adventure puzzles and settings which have nothing to tell us about the story. (Or at least, it doesn't seem to me that they have anything to add to the story- if adding up numbers and sifting through coal tell us something meaningful about the devil and souls, I'd love to hear it.)

Now, if the adventure section doesn't add anything to (but distracts from) the film section, then this is the same situation as the movie+platformer example I used earlier. Nothing is gained by smooshing the two types of art together. And much is lost. So when I say this should have just been a movie, I'm not suggesting that the material currently in adventure format should have been adapted to the film format. I'm saying that if you were to take the adventure out completely, and keep only the cutscenes which we already had, you'd be getting a more meaningful experience, because it wouldn't be padded out with redundancies and irrelevancies.

[colpet]

I'm not even sure what a platformer is; I have only ever played PC adventures. But I think I can see what you are getting at. As always, the basic idea of what constitutes an adventure is different for different people, thus it is very hard to discuss these issues with both of us comming from a different angle. I find this game fun because there is stuff to do, things to work out and a story to follow and it's presented in a way that appeals to me (solitary 1st person exploration). It all makes sense to me and the way its presented in the game is immersive and enjoyable (to me). I guess if you find that the gameplay is irrelevant to the basic story, then playing it would be a chore.
For everyone that is enjoying the game, do you find it immersive enough? Sometilmes I think that I'm pretty simple in that if I'm enjoying myself in a game, things like disjointed puzzles, poor graphics/cut scenes don't make any difference. I can buy into the game with my imagination and fill out all the rough spots.

[SnorkleCat]

I'm going to reserve judgement about the story for now, since we've only played Part 1. I'm hoping the storylines will intertwine and that questions will be answered in due course.

As for other things, it is a little unusual to play a first person game as a specific character. I would prefer that we get some feedback from Faust, else he's just a non-character in the story.

I quite like the atmosphere- which is the only word I can think of at the moment. The soundtrack really adds a valuable dimension to the proceedings...in fact, I'd probably be less interested in the game if it had a weaker soundtrack.

Voice acting is not great and not terrible. It's just okay.

...interested in seeing what transpires in Part 2. So far, I like the location and again, the atmosphere. I have yet to decide how well the puzzles are integrated with the storyline...I'd like to play a bit longer before I talk about this.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

As for other things, it is a little unusual to play a first person game as a specific character.

Not unusual at all. All the older 1st-person games before Myst had a specific character, and many since too. Examples are the Journeyman Project series, all the Legend 1st-person games, Tex Murphy (last 3 games), Last Express. In fact, only in the Myst series and most of their clones is the player AFGNCAAP.

It is as I feared... the screens in Faust are getting too dark for my monitor. The bedposts!

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Not unusual at all. All the older 1st-person games before Myst had a specific character, and many since too. Examples are the Journeyman Project series, all the Legend 1st-person games, Tex Murphy (last 3 games), Last Express. In fact, only in the Myst series and most of their clones is the player AFGNCAAP.

Okay, maybe "unusual" is the wrong word. How about "a bad idea"? If you're going to have a main character in the story, it's a bad idea to make that character completely invisible. Even if he's not talking, you still need to recognize that he exists. If you see him there, you fill in the blanks of his reactions with how you imagine he'd act. If you don't see him there, he's just left a blank. And it's always a bad idea for a story to leave its main character a blank slate. That's just a weak story.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Okay, maybe "unusual" is the wrong word. How about "a bad idea"? If you're going to have a main character in the story, it's a bad idea to make that character completely invisible. Even if he's not talking, you still need to recognize that he exists. If you see him there, you fill in the blanks of his reactions with how you imagine he'd act. If you don't see him there, he's just left a blank. And it's always a bad idea for a story to leave its main character a blank slate. That's just a weak story.

I'm still struggling with the Second Sin. The First Sin was remarkably short. So I'd better reserve my judgment on Faust and his part in the story. I wouldn't call him or any blank AFGNCAAP in any 1st-person adventure a "main character" though. Right now, I don't feel the game would benefit from a more visible Faust, that would force the player even more in the role of an outsider. I don't feel very immersed as it is. Interested, but not immersed. I guess I'd rather have Mephisto address me, the player, directly and skip the Faust character. But like I said, I may change my mind later.

[SnorkleCat]

I doubt Faust himself is going have much of a part in this story- I may be wrong, but thus far, we have received no feedback from him, leading me to believe that he is to function as "My Friend" does in Myst. It doesn't have to be thus. In the Last Express we are treated to a first person game, yet it is one which involves Robert Cath enough to where he feels very much like the main character...they characterize him, provide facial feedback...all kinds of things. Even Scratches- problematic as it was- provided some feedback from the character, and that too was first person. Perhaps Faust will include more Faust feedback in the future, but so far there is none. Not sure I approve of that. Still, I'm interested to see how the story and game will unfold.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Okay, maybe "unusual" is the wrong word. How about "a bad idea"? If you're going to have a main character in the story, it's a bad idea to make that character completely invisible. Even if he's not talking, you still need to recognize that he exists. If you see him there, you fill in the blanks of his reactions with how you imagine he'd act. If you don't see him there, he's just left a blank. And it's always a bad idea for a story to leave its main character a blank slate. That's just a weak story.

Not necessarily.

On either of the points.

First of all, it's not necessarily a bad idea to leave the point-of-view character as a blank. In stories where the main character is less of a protagonist and more a narrator, there mainly to bear witness (which it sounds like Faust is), it can be a very effective technique that keeps distractions to a minimum.

Also, many stories start out with a relatively anonymous main character whose personality is gradually revealed in the course of the story. So just because someone is a blank in Chapter 1, that doesn't mean he will remain so throughout.

Secondly, a first-person perspective does not necessarily make the main character disappear. The Tex Murphy adventures should prove that quite conclusively. Tex's personality is very present throughout, even though you can only see him in cut-scenes. Duke Nukem 3D provides another example, creating a cult gaming character even as you looked out of his eyes.

Sure, both games relied heavily on voice-overs (which I gather Faust doesn't), but their choice of graphics point-of-view was not a bad idea.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

First of all, it's not necessarily a bad idea to leave the point-of-view character as a blank. In stories where the main character is less of a protagonist and more a narrator, there mainly to bear witness (which it sounds like Faust is), it can be a very effective technique that keeps distractions to a minimum.

No, to keep distractions to a minimum you take out the player character, and just let the player play the game. You are there to bear witness, Faust is there for no good reason.

Also, many stories start out with a relatively anonymous main character whose personality is gradually revealed in the course of the story. So just because someone is a blank in Chapter 1, that doesn't mean he will remain so throughout.

In that case, it should have been a third-person adventure. Either you tell a story in third-person with a main character who is a constant presence, or you take out the main character and let the player experience it for himself. Having a main character who only appears in cutscenes is a very bad idea.

Secondly, a first-person perspective does not necessarily make the main character disappear. The Tex Murphy adventures should prove that quite conclusively. Tex's personality is very present throughout, even though you can only see him in cut-scenes. Duke Nukem 3D provides another example, creating a cult gaming character even as you looked out of his eyes.

I'm not familiar with either game, so I can't comment on those. I can comment on this. This is bad.

[After a brisk nap]

I "like" how you keep asserting that "having a main character who only appears in cutscenes is a very bad idea" when you freely admit that you haven't played games that did it successfully and demonstrated that it can work.

You talk as if the AFGNCAAP is a totally transparent design choice and storytelling device, when in fact artificial anonymity can become very intrusive indeed.

[MoriartyL]

Okay, I'll defer to your experience.

[Melanie68]

At the beginning of the game, you hear that Marcellus Faust is going into Dreamland having lost his memory of the place. So he knows as much as me (the player) going in. From the opening cut scene, he appears to me as a very uncomplicated, laid back, quiet presence. I don't feel he's supposed to be a huge presence as you move through Dreamland. You only see him in a cutscene in 'Twice as Bad' but I think that goes with it being early in the story. Faust is still unsure and therefore still observing but not commenting. As you play Episode 2, stay tuned...

I also never mentioned how much I love, love, love the Sarah Vaughn song at the end of episode 1. Ahhh, what a voice.

[jacog]

Brisk Nap ... Are you playing through Faust with us?

Heh, this playthrough gig feels like being back in school and having to do homework.

[After a brisk nap]

As I said, I'm still waiting for my copy. I'll try to catch up this weekend.

[colpet]

Just finished Episode 2. Caution, there be spoilers ahead.



First off, some game issues. Despite not opening the box in the bed drawer (color bands), I progressed to 1960. Despite not opening the secret drawer in the cabinet (access to the tape recorder) and not finding a treasure hunt item from the well, I got the "Bravo, all the elements gathered. Meet me in the kitchen" comment. So I found myself in the kitchen missing one item in the box and not being able to proceed. I went back to a saved game from 1952, and tried the box again. I had the right idea, but couldn't get the color bands even. Finally, I checked out a hint and apparently my orange band was not perfectly abutted. Anyhow, it was a wasted effort because the missing item was not in the box. At the cabinet, I finally found the tape machine, but again no item. Needed a hint and it turned out I missed the item in the well. Once I had that, the kitchen scene played out.
I find it interesting that I could have reached the ending without those 2 puzzles, and I got a congratulations from Nathaniel without having all the items.
One definite glitch - when I opened the Faust book in 1960, the voice over was completely different than the subtitles.

On to discussion. Nathaniel partook in a covert operation that resulted in the torture and death of a woman he was close to. He regreted this enough to resign and live out his life quietly. It's obvious he craves knowledge, but he refuses Mephisto's offer. In the 8 intervening years, he gathers enough knowledge to create a being - Homunculus. Apparently he goes insane. What exactly was Nathaniel's sin? Why are we passing judgement on someone who seems to have chosen a righteous path after all?

[Lucien21]

Finished Episode 2

I manged to find all the items, so I didn't have the same problem as Colpet.

I did notice the voice over and the wording of the note in the frogs mouth was slightly different.

Like Colpet I was unsure of the story. He seems to have refused the pact so was unsure of the interest from Mephisto or are we being presented with a redemption story. Someone who did something wrong, but made up for it over time.