Adventure Gamers - Forums

gray pierce - 10 December 2013 05:51 AM

I’m starting to get annoyed by the fact there’s still no review up for this game here. I kinda expected that to happen the first day after release. There’s probably a very good reason for the delay but I am starting to get very anxious te read what the offical AG verdict is.

I’m not sure that reviewing the first half of a soon-to-be completed whole is appropriate. A preview, perhaps.

Because no single episode of a telltale game got a review? What?

Revolution revived the Broken Sword with The Serpent’s Curse, which is rudely divided (we could say “broken”) in two parts. This first episode of the investigation is pleasant to follow, and even a little easy, it offers some of what fans expect from this point & click series: the humor of unusual characters and a funny world of clichés, but it misses the dark fantastic side, pushed back to the next episode. So, we keep a cool head and we wait for Episode 2. 6/10[“Gameblog.fr”]

If they gonna show any attempt to set game to better path second
episode must be delayed,eeh let’s say about a year at least.

Iznogood - 10 December 2013 06:50 PM

I disagree, many people will wait for a review before deciding to buy the game or not, and there is really no need to wait for the last part before providing that service to the readers.

Besides it seems to be the site policy to review all episodes in episodic games individually and not as a whole.

The distinction here, is that the “episodes” are not really episodes, and cannot be purchased individually. You pay for a whole, and in order to review the game and make a value judgement, one would have to play that whole.

There’s nothing wrong with writing about the first episode, but it seems wrong to rule on whether or not it’s worth the $20 without playing everything that $20 buys you.

I have the same take on Broken Age. They’re selling it as “early access” not as a stand-alone episode. I think reviewing it is as bad as reviewing a beta. It’s just not a complete product.

It’s a solid effort that won’t win any new fans to genre, since it’s a very traditional point and click adventure, but hey, isn’t that what we all wanted?
The voice acting is pretty good and the humor mostly works. I even had a few LOL moments. There are 2 things which I would like to commend revolution for doing:
1) Not using the ‘hotspot highlight button’ so common in adventure games these years, and deciding to use fewer hotspots in each screen instead. What this button was supposed to do was eliminate pixel hunting, and in my opinion this is pure game-design laziness. You can eliminate pixel hunting by not making every object on-screen interactive, and by making sensible decisions on which objects should be interactive (Not a small pin in the back of the bus that doesn’t even tingle. I’m looking at you Pendulo). I really hate it in a game (cough.. Vampyre story.. cough) when I reach a new screen and press that button only to see about 20-30 red dots. It’s discouraging, and 99% of these hotspots mean nothing to the game, and simply trigger an uninteresting response from the main character. If the graphic design is good enough I can see what’s going on in the scene, and I don’t need the main charecter to tell me that (Look at window - “It’s a window”. No s**t).
2) Choosing condensed areas for puzzles. Everyone says the puzzles in this game are easy, but are they really? Some of them are quite obscure, but they all take place in 1 or 2 locations at a time. This is good game design. Think about games 20 years ago - the 1st Simon the sorcerer for example, where you could visit about 15 locations from the start, and needed to solve the puzzles across all of them - was that good game design? I don’t think so. Sure, it made the game a lot harder, but what’s the difference between that and pixel hunting? It made everything more tedious - picked up a new item? Let’s go everywhere we can and see if there’s anything you forgot on which you can use it. Want another example? I’m not sure if any of you remember “Ark of time”, but in that game you had to pick up a blank piece of paper in one country, and than travel to another one to use it. This is ilogical game design at best.

Just finished. Not going to write a thorough review, and I did enjoy the game although not nearly as much as I had hoped. The biggest issue for me is that the game felt too guided by the dialogue and “trapped” map locations. I prefer games that leave the player to form a solution through multiple possibilities and areas. Also, what’s up with useless items in the inventory? It seems really unnecessary to collect those items in the first chapter if they’re intended to be for the next one.

rottford - 11 December 2013 01:35 PM

Almost the entire first half of the game felt like classic Broken Sword, except for one part: Henri’s apartment. Is it just me, or does that location look and feel like something out of Runaway?

Thank you! I was trying to figure out why that part felt so off and that’s exactly it.

gray pierce - 10 December 2013 05:51 AM

I’m starting to get annoyed by the fact there’s still no review up for this game here. I kinda expected that to happen the first day after release. There’s probably a very good reason for the delay but I am starting to get very anxious te read what the offical AG verdict is.

Maybe it’s just me, but I agree with an AG review maybe 20% of the time lately. I’m kind of confused by the great reviews they’ve been giving mediocre games.

doron - 11 December 2013 01:47 PM

“Ark of time”, but in that game you had to pick up a blank piece of paper in one country, and than travel to another one to use it. This is ilogical game design at best.

Such a crap game

*runs*

doron - 11 December 2013 01:47 PM

2) Choosing condensed areas for puzzles. Everyone says the puzzles in this game are easy, but are they really? Some of them are quite obscure, but they all take place in 1 or 2 locations at a time. This is good game design. Think about games 20 years ago - the 1st Simon the sorcerer for example, where you could visit about 15 locations from the start, and needed to solve the puzzles across all of them - was that good game design? I don’t think so. Sure, it made the game a lot harder, but what’s the difference between that and pixel hunting? It made everything more tedious - picked up a new item? Let’s go everywhere we can and see if there’s anything you forgot on which you can use it. Want another example? I’m not sure if any of you remember “Ark of time”, but in that game you had to pick up a blank piece of paper in one country, and than travel to another one to use it. This is ilogical game design at best.

For me the first StS was a brilliant game, also in terms of puzzle design, but tastes may differ. Of course one can give examples of bad puzzle design in (let’s say) “multiple locations puzzles” (your example from Ark of Time. Remember though that BS1 had several puzzles like that - even various “cross-countries puzzles”).

But “one location puzzles” (or adjacent locations puzzles) and multiple location puzzles can both be designed in a good or bad way. Of course there’s a difference between “multiple location puzzles” and “pixel hunting,” unless the former involves pixel hunting as well (e.g. one has to associate in order to solve parts of the puzzle, or figure out a series of puzzles to solve the initial one – but there are more differences and (dis-)advantages that could be mentioned here).

There are games with “one location puzzles” that are very hard (and sometimes brilliant). The problem with this installment according to various posts is that the game has too many “one location puzzles” (1) that are easy to solve (2), and one can add that overall the type of puzzles is pretty common/familiar/uninspired (3) (at least for those who have some experiences with playing adventure games). The player also will realize soon that he/she always can find the solution in one location (or adjacent location), which in itself tends to make the puzzle solving easier (though not necessarily results in easy puzzles). Moreover, it diminishes the sense of adventure, not only because you don’t have to do some exploring to solve a puzzle (preferably in a multi-linear game world), but also (by not blocking/postponing the solution for the moment) because it doesn’t create expectations that can be resolved later on, which can give the player a greater sense of accomplishment.

I had been looking forward to the announced “new puzzle design” (combining previous acquired knowledge) but apparently these were considered to be too “hard”. But as said in my previous post, this way of designing puzzles must have been a conscious decision by Revolution, to attract more (casual) gamers, and, noticing the huge decline in locations that one can explore in comparison with the first BS game, apparently to reduce development costs. The first could have been avoided to suit the players that like “hard” adventure games, the latter is something quite sad. If I remember correctly I read somewhere (at Tony’s Tumblr blog I believe) the development costs are about three/four times the Kickstarter amount, and even for such an amount nowadays it isn’t apparently possible to develop a game with the length and richness of the first BS game. Let’s hope the sales do very well, so Revolution can create games that will satisfy all kinds of fans.