Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
New posts
No new postsMoebius
I’m not sure I follow you there. If you can’t pick up an object yet, then you already know it isn’t needed for the puzzle you’re on
There’s “me” the player and “me” the character. Initially neither of us knows we’ll need the object. Often in those games, I know before the character does, which is what I was alluding to.
I also disliked that the hero refuses to pick up certain items unless he is sure he needs them. I hate this modern game mechanics with all my heart, it is cheap, and it’s disappointing to see Jensen making use of it.
I actually seem to have no less than the fourth opinion on this 
I also don’t like when you get this kind of refusal to pick up an item, because the protagonist doesn’t realise (s)he needs it. But I am on the other hand also not a big fan of the normal AG approach where you turn in to a kleptomaniac and takes everything that is not nailed down, simply because it might be something we will need later in the game. And finally I don’t think adding a lot of red herrings to the game is the solution to the problem.
Instead I believe the solution is to design games in a way, so that the most logical path will mean that you encounter the puzzles you need to solve before you encounter the items you need to solve those puzzles. So instead of walking into the world with a full inventory looking for puzzles you can use the items on, than you have a list of puzzle you need to solve and are actively looking for items that can help you solve those puzzles. It might be harder to design a game this way, and I can’t remember a single game that has done it to perfection, but there are never the less many classic AG that has achieved this to a large degree.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
Instead I believe the solution is to design games in a way, so that the most logical path will mean that you encounter the puzzles you need to solve before you encounter the items you need to solve those puzzles. So instead of walking into the world with a full inventory looking for puzzles you can use the items on, than you have a list of puzzle you need to solve and are actively looking for items that can help you solve those puzzles. It might be harder to design a game this way, and I can’t remember a single game that has done it to perfection, but there are never the less many classic AG that has achieved this to a large degree.
I agree, this is the better solution, and, I believe, part of Tim Schafers puzzle design “rules”.
Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.
Instead I believe the solution is to design games in a way, so that the most logical path will mean that you encounter the puzzles you need to solve before you encounter the items you need to solve those puzzles. So instead of walking into the world with a full inventory looking for puzzles you can use the items on, than you have a list of puzzle you need to solve and are actively looking for items that can help you solve those puzzles. It might be harder to design a game this way, and I can’t remember a single game that has done it to perfection, but there are never the less many classic AG that has achieved this to a large degree.
I agree, this is the better solution, and, I believe, part of Tim Schafers puzzle design “rules”.
Yeah, that is the best solution. But just a few games use this approauch to solve puzzles.
Iznogood’s approach sounds reasonable, although it seems like it will work only in a very linear plot-driven game. I prefer more freedom, more open-world adventure experience. It will be extremely hard to plan all the puzzles in such a way, unless you open locations one by one, with only 1-2 puzzles and several items scattered around them. Still, George from Broken Sword 1 had a very good reason to pick up the manhole cover tool, which he carried around through half of the game, using it to solve random puzzles. That’s what I call good design.
PC means personal computer
I think very limited inventory could work the best in an adventure game, like kind of a MacGyver situation where you mostly carry one basic tool, like in the case MacGyver his Swiz army knife, which could be used to solve or start different kinds of puzzles. Rest of the tools to solve the puzzles should always be near the puzzle, like in Moebius the coat hangar thing was idiotic, as personally I would have just used my phone and that even was my first logical choice, second was to try to open the door more wider to let more light in.
I think it’s kinda annoying when you figure out that you need a certain item, but the player character still doesn’t, and that’s why they won’t pick up said item. Otherwise I don’t find it problematic that a character only wants to pick up an item once he deems it useful.
That’s one of the things Runaway did that I didn’t find problematic.
I actually think that the quality of some of the animations (sadly especially regarding the way Malachi walks and poses) is distracting, but that’s not where the graphical troubles end. Some windows don’t look like windows, but merely like posters of an outside view. Like here:
Some environments feel oddly empty and lifeless, which may not only be the graphic’s fault, but also the lack ambient sounds’.
Not all the graphics are bad, occassionally they can be quite pretty, like here, at the Murder Bridge scene:
Yeah, that hotspot lingers after the detective left the scene. The water reflections can be quite odd from another angle, though:
These issues mar the game. I don’t want to put it down, heck, I hope it will be a success anyway, but around the internet I see people having bad impressions of it, because the graphics look justly bad to them and for that reason they think Moebius is a game of low quality. I don’t think it is, but I see lots of issues with it. Not only graphically, even. There are lots of weird pauses and stutters at times. Malachi is kinda difficult to move around.
The sad thing is: I won’t be surprised if Moebius flops. I hope I’m wrong. 
Finished the demo and got really drawn into the story and characters. Also tried different paths the game offers. Impressive! Makes you actually think about the consequences of your decisions. Now I seriously can’t wait for the 15th of April.
PC means personal computer
I don’t really understand all of the bashing. Seems like every single person is doing it. I did have a few little things that I had issues with but I definitely can see past them, and IMO doesn’t affect the game overall! GK3 - Awful graphics, amazing game overall. TLJ - Awful character models and animations - amazing game overall. Even for their time they were still pretty effing bad. I could name a few games like this. Gray Matter IMO was quite the opposite, it had pretty nice graphics but I thought the character animation was a bit unnatural from my memory. Also thought the characters, story, puzzles, cutscenes and voice acting brought the game down too. Yet i’m pretty sure at the time people bigged Gray Matter up, undeservedly so. Probably because people were very protective of the first Jane Jensen game in a long time. So i’m a bit confused why all of criticism of Moebius, as i’m 90% sure this is a better game. You guys really need to consider the 400K budget they had and at least admire what they’ve done with it!
ALSO, what are these different paths/consequences the demo offers @Doom ?! 
I didn’t see any! Seemed pretty linear to me. I’m gonna replay the demo again anyway before the release so i’ll have a look for them.
ALSO, what are these different paths/consequences the demo offers @Doom ?!
There are a few different ways your conversation with the guys at the hookah bar can go down, that have implications later in the chapter.
There might be other points too that I’m forgetting.
ALSO, what are these different paths/consequences the demo offers @Doom ?!
There are a few different ways your conversation with the guys at the hookah bar can go down, that have implications later in the chapter.
This. Also, you can fail at saving David from assassins. This will result in slightly different events, which you can also screw up by bad dialogue choice
PC means personal computer
You guys really need to consider the 400K budget they had and at least admire what they’ve done with it!
I don’t think that anyone doubts here that Phoenix Online worked hard on this game and gave their all! But what does that help when the end result is still lacking, and when some aspects of the presentation give to the broader public, not necessarily us few hardcore adventure gamers here, the perception that Moebius is a game of low quality? Knowing that Phoenix Online gave their all won’t convince people to spend their money on Moebius. And it seems to me that whoever animated and rigged and created the character model of Malachi wasn’t entirely qualified for the job. Maybe they did Malachi first and the rest of the characters later, which may explain why they’re better done, in that case they would have learned how to do their job properly now, I think.
I don’t have an agenda against Moebius, I just think some of its flaws stick out like a sore thumb.
Gray Matter was a better looking game, yes, though the cutscenes were worse. The mood came much better through through its graphics.
Edit: Chapter 2 Malachi already looks a bit more convincingly human, at least.
I’m not that concerned about Moebius’s aesthetics because I don’t know that they need it to be wildly successful beyond the core demographic for it to be a “success”. The GK1 remake is a bigger problem in the sense that we want it to succeed beyond our little niche. I doubt Activision is expecting a miracle, but hopefully it performs well enough and gets a decent enough amount of mainstream attention for them to continue with GK4.
What would be really amazing is if it did so well that they basically greenlight a medium-high budget for GK4.
Okay, I just finished the demo now. The second chapter feels like a considerable step up compared to the first one. I actually don’t have much to complain about it. Well, the cutscenes are annoyingly low-resolution, and there are some smaller bugs. On the whole, I’m quite excited now to play the rest of the game. Yay! 
Just downloaded the chapter 2 demo to check my laptop can run it OK before preordering. I don’t want to play too much because I don’t want to spoil it by playing out of order,but a couple of things stick out. Story wise, in the opening cutscene, the part where the guy with the rucksack laughs off having a gun pulled on him by a stranger is completely ridiculous - please tell me that there’s some context that explains this!
On the technical side, the background of the Cairo street is pixelated as hell. Changing the graphics setting to “Fantastic” helps a bit, but it’s still not great. I think this is because it’s scaling the background image down to fit my laptop resolution (1366 x 768). Has anyone else seen this issue? If it looks fine, what resolution are you running at?
Regardless, I’ll still buy it. I’ve been putting up with jank in my adventure games for years so I’m sure I can deal with it for a new JJ game.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
