Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
New posts
No new postsMoebius
The overall graphics are good. But there are issues there like the animations, modeling etc. Thats what I’m talking about.
I didn’t see any issues in the modelling. The characters don’t look 100% lifelike but neither did Guybrush in Curse. I’ve heard criticism of his shoulders and arms but that’s how they wanted him to look, it was a stylistic choice.
I’d say from the modeling perspective the models are not very good technically. They look like a work of a person who doesn’t have quite a good grasp of human anatomy. Not that my grasp is perfect mind you, but I do know enough of it to spot a model done by someone who is as well lacking in the department.
And as far animation goes, there’s online servies nowdays, quite cheap even, with loads of pre-done animations you can utilize. If you know animation isn’t your strongest suit, then I’d suggest using those services.
Here’s one I tried with an old model of mine. I didn’t even have to create a rig for it, as their own system did relatively good job rigging the model better than I ever could. And with their pricing the service wouldn’t be out of POS budget range.
http://www.mixamo.com/
The overall graphics are good. But there are issues there like the animations, modeling etc. Thats what I’m talking about.
I didn’t see any issues in the modelling. The characters don’t look 100% lifelike but neither did Guybrush in Curse. I’ve heard criticism of his shoulders and arms but that’s how they wanted him to look, it was a stylistic choice.
It was a curious ‘stylistic choice’, considering we’re repeatedly told how devastatingly handsome he is, despite his hunchback, skinny arms and almost alien physique.
Certainly odd enough to make me seriously question whether it was in fact a stylistic choice and not just ineptitude being retroactively argued as a legitimate choice.
If people genuinely think the performances in that scene are worthy of 4-5 stars, I don’t think there’s really any room for meaningful discussion. We’re may as well have been playing two entirely different games.
That’s the thing with differing opinions - sometimes there’s just no middle ground.
The last 50-something pages of this thread should’ve been an indication of that… 
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
If people genuinely think the performances in that scene are worthy of 4-5 stars, I don’t think there’s really any room for meaningful discussion. We’re may as well have been playing two entirely different games.
That’s the thing with differing opinions - sometimes there’s just no middle ground.
The last 50-something pages of this thread should’ve been an indication of that…
True, but the thing is a lot of people are accepting middle ground and that’s where much of the interesting discussion lies in terms of finding out what works, what doesn’t and ways things can improve.
The plot is about a government organization which believes in a theory of predestination. If there’s a plot-hole, it’s not in the plot itself but the government’s theory within the story. Unless you are talking about something else, but I don’t see it.
I explained it pretty thoroughly in this previous post, and I doubt I can explain it better so I will just refer to that.
But you do have a point, it is however not just the agency it is also the villain, the politician, Malachi himself, and pretty much everybody in the story that has ever heard about the theory. Also the Moebius theory the way it is described in the story, the little it is actually described, doesn’t in itself includes predestination only reoccurring archetypes and patterns, the predestination is just assumed by everybody including Malachi.
The problem and the reason it becomes a plot-hole in the whole story and not just in the logic of the characters, is that JJ doesn’t in any way addresses this problem, she just ignores it!
Everything about the story speaks “pilot episode”, laying something down they could build upon later - and there is a LOT there to build upon. Not to mention the title - I mean come on, “Empire Rising”??
True, and the tittle seems to indicate that the predestination thing is not just in the head of the characters, but an important part of the whole game and/or series.
Anyway this is just something that annoys me immensely, others might not even notice it, and I still found the game to be overall enjoyable, despite this and many other flaws.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
I didn’t see any issues in the modelling. The characters don’t look 100% lifelike but neither did Guybrush in Curse. I’ve heard criticism of his shoulders and arms but that’s how they wanted him to look, it was a stylistic choice.
Really, it was a “stylistic choice” to make him look like an undernourished, at times rather creepy, looking man? I don’t recall the story explaining why the main character has a limp. Comparing the Moebius characters to a graphically/stylistically completely different game from 1997 seems quite odd.
(Yes, lots of games have the “you can’t pick this up until you need it for a puzzle” horribleness, and they ALL get deservedly knocked for it.)
Still Life - number 20 in AG’s Top 100
The Black Mirror - number 83
Lost Horizon - 77 score on Metacritic
And so on. They were never knocked for it - on contrary, they were praised for their “logic” (I remembered that word) puzzles that “don’t make you grab everything that is not nailed down”. I disagreed back then, I disagree now. But it seems like critics are ready to change their opinion depending on the game they are playing.
By the way, weren’t you one of the people who were refusing to “dig deep into the story” of Broken Age and insisted it was all just a kiddie cartoon?
I wasn’t, I was just saying that people shouldn’t put their own words and fantasies into Schafer’s mouth, who hasn’t even come up with a full story yet. Moebius is a finished game where the ideas are presented well enough to dig into them.
No one seems to dispute that the main character comes across as an uptight asshole – only, some fans insist the game manages to turn it around and make him likable in the end, while others never warmed to him.
I’m not sure about Malachi growing into a likable person, but I sure cared about him and David by the end. But this means that the characters were well-established, not that both of them suddenly grew a pair of wings on their backs 
Who likes perfectly correct, polite, friendly and sterile heroes anyway?
PC means personal computer
Out of interest, do any examples of stellar scenes spring to mind? Ones that showcase the 4/5 - 5/5 star writing of Malachi and David’s relationship?
Here are a few memorable scenes that come to mind:
The scene between Gretchen and David is very well written. It is only let down by the mediocre 3d-model of Malachi. It’s true that he just doesn’t look as devastatingly handsome as he is supposed to be. However the scene is well written.
Malachi’s conversations with the three possible Livia candidates in Paris and Zurich, revel interesting and well-thought through backstories for all of them.
Malachi’s two panic attacks and the way Walker’s presence helps him plus Malachi’s very different reaction to David’s help in each case. There is not much actual dialogue, but the scenes are vividly atmospheric and the characters reactions believable and again well thought through. It’s just a few words really (“Falling, “Get out” and “Thank you” being the most important among them), but I consider it a classic example of less is more. Powerful scenes and very telling in matters of character development.
The “Call me Kye” scene is one of the best examples. Both well-written and directed. Malachi remains both as arrogant as he was in the beginning, thus staying in character, yet he is obviously profoundly changed. In my opinion that’s an example of very good writing. When a character reaches his redemption, it’s wrong to just make him change in a way that he suddenly seems like a completely different person, a mistake often made in films, books and games. Malachi changes very believably, reaching out to Walker and becoming a better person, while fundamentally remaining the same arrogant bastard we love/hate.
In my opinion all of the above are examples of a sort of character development that we don’t often see in games and are indicative of good and well thought through writing.
And like Rufus in the Deponia trilogy we are not supposed to like Malachi. We are supposed to sympathize with him (which the game does very well) and to be unwillingly drawn to him (which is unfortunately undermined by his 3D model).
The scene between Gretchen and David is very well written. It is only let down by the mediocre 3d-model of Malachi. It’s true that he just doesn’t look as devastatingly handsome as he is supposed to be. However the scene is well written.
Could you elaborate on what you thought was so well written about your examples? I’m genuinely interested.
Funnily enough, that specific scene was, to my mind, a great example of bad writing - a big chunk of character exposition that serves no purpose other than tell the audience what to think. Telling not showing.
To illustrate how JJ has done it properly in the past; during the opening of Gabriel Knight, we see our hero groggily stumble into the store, get Grace to make excuses so he doesn’t have to receive a call from a previous ‘conquest’ and then immediately hit on her, despite her obvious disapproval of his behaviour. This is all rich information that tells us a great deal about the character of Gabriel Knight in an incredibly short space of time and in a completely naturalistic way - we’re learning about the character first hand and it stays with us because of this.
Gretchen and David’s scene on the other hand is all expositional information that JJ wants us to know about Malachi, being handed to us in one big verbal chunk. It’s information that doesn’t even tally with what we are subsequently shown of the character - we’re told everyone falls in love with Malachi because of how handsome he is, but that he always ultimately rejects them - this is purely in order for his eventual softening with David to be remarkable. However, because we don’t see this happen, the eventual ‘softening’ isn’t nearly as effective as it could be.
And like Rufus in the Deponia trilogy we are not supposed to like Malachi. We are supposed to sympathize with him (which the game does very well) and to be unwillingly drawn to him (which is unfortunately undermined by his 3D model).
I disagree that we’re not meant to like Malachi or Rufus, I believe we’re meant to like them despite themselves. However, mileage varies depending on how charming a character is in their writing and portrayal. This is another area where, leaving the obvious graphical issues asside, I personally feel Jane Jensen stumbled. When writing an aloof ‘savant’ character - to use their term - the intelligence and/or caustic wit, coupled with a damaged soul/hidden vulnerability is often the key to what makes an audience interested.
These are all attributes that JJ attempts to include, but - in my opinion - struggles with and, at times, outright fails. We’re routinely told of Malachi’s genius, but what we carry out are a series of groundless deductions - had this mechanic been expanded on and improved, I would be far more willing to buy into the legend of his intelligence - again, show don’t tell.
Similarly, I find the attempts at caustic wit - that have made characters like House and Sherlock so popular - don’t come off, largely due to flat delivery and some pretty uninspiring material - I think it’s fair to at least partially attribute these factors to why some people are complaining that the character is unlikeable beyond the story’s intentions.
The crucial character vulnerability in Malachi’s case stems from a pretty laughable back story story - very poorly paced in its telling in the ecomic - and therefore the subsequent softening of Malachi doesn’t have as strong an effect because so many people didn’t care enough about him in the first place.
Malachi’s two panic attacks and the way Walker’s presence helps him plus Malachi’s very different reaction to David’s help in each case. There is not much actual dialogue, but the scenes are vividly atmospheric and the characters reactions believable and again well thought through.
The ‘panic attacks’ strand is definitely one of the better handled aspects, in that we actually see the change in the way the characters interact, making the difference in Malachi’s reaction far more impactful. However, it feels slightly unearned to me, in that not enough changes in their relationship in the intervening gameplay. It’s almost a jump from ‘Characters distrust one another’ to ‘Characters trust one another’ without any great exploration of the growth from point A to point B.
Just to reiterate, I am genuinely interested in your take on these scenes and you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion.
Could you elaborate on what you thought was so well written about it? I’m genuinely interested.
It’s interesting in the way Gretchen treats him somewhere in between as a possible rival for Malachi’s affection and as a possible new love interest for herself now that Malachi has rejected her.
And the deduction mechanic was actually the part of the gameplay that I found really fun, the rest of the puzzles were too mundane and easy for me to find them more than just OK.
It’s interesting in the way Gretchen treats him somewhere in between as a possible rival for Malachi’s affection and as a possible new love interest for herself now that Malachi has rejected her.
That’s certainly what happens in the scene, but what does that add to the story? It fleshes out the character of Gretchen a little, but ultimately she’s not important to the tale. The scene serves the story purely as an exposition dump for information about Malachi. Gretchen’s romantic interest in David also seems to be purely there to rather heavy-handedly tell us that he’s gay, when it’s not even necessary to hint at - the Malachi/David romance aspect should (and does) stand on its own two feet simply through their interaction, without a character directly asking about David’s sexuality.
And the deduction mechanic was actually the part of the gameplay that I found really fun, the rest of the puzzles were too mundane and easy for me to find them more than just OK.
I’m on record as saying how much I enjoy the deduction mechanic - my frustration lies in it not reaching its full potential. So many of the final decisions seem completely arbitrary and just as believable as the other options - someone else said it best when they pointed out that they found themselves reverse engineering the problem; deciding what the outcome needed to be to progress the story and then choosing the options based on what would achieve that result.
That’s certainly what happens in the scene, but what does that add to the story? It fleshes out the character of Gretchen a little, but ultimately she’s not important to the tale
In my opinion it’s little details like this that make good writing. It wasn’t really necessary, but it makes what might otherwise have been a heavy-handed scene interesting. Plus it is this scene combined with a fleeting remark by David that his parents rejected his lifestyle that hint at his being gay. Otherwise all discussion about his sexual orientation and the subtle homoerotic overtones in his relationship with Malachi would have been mere fan-fiction.
someone else said it best when they pointed out that they found themselves reverse engineering the problem; deciding what the outcome needed to be to progress the story and then choosing the options based on what would achieve that result.
Yes, but this is sort of like breaking the game, like many people do with grinding in RPGs to make fights easier. It ruins the gameplay and it is not the way it is meant to be played. In most cases the deduction was really fun and felt like detective work on the characters based on their behavior patterns. In most cases the right answers can be reached by combining Malachi’s observations. What would make more sense as the right answer for each observation, when we take into consideration the general direction of all observations? When played this way, the mechanic is fun and it very successfully puts you in the uncomfortable shoes of Malachi.
In my opinion it’s little details like this that make good writing. It wasn’t really necessary, but it makes what might otherwise have been a heavy-handed scene interesting. Plus it is this scene combined with a fleeting remark by David that his parents rejected his lifestyle that hint at his being gay. Otherwise all discussion about his sexual orientation and the subtle homoerotic overtones in his relationship with Malachi would have been mere fun-fiction.
I guess we’re working from a different definition of ‘good writing’ then. Little details are all well and good, but they don’t stop an exposition dump from being a bad way to tell a story. It’s still all information that doesn’t ring true because we don’t see it.
In terms of details, you could come up with the most wonderful line/character/scene, but if it doesn’t serve the story, it’s extraneous.
I personally feel there were more than enough clues in Malachi and David’s relationship for the homeroticism to be implicit, without resorting to “Are you gay?” “Not telling” style exchanges. Also, what would be wrong with leaving it more ambiguous? It’s never explicitly shown or stated anyway, so by your standards the homosexual interpretation is still arguably ‘slash fiction’. It seems clear JJ was toying with ambiguity and I feel these more heavy handed moments detract from that.
I love Jane Jensen and was first in line to back this but the game was crushingly disappointing. Some of the excuses I’m seeing around here - and I don’t mean to sound like a prick - seem like fan devotion.
There were a few pluses, like the music. I liked the whole concept of “Moebius theory” and Malachi’s observation system was an interesting novelty. But the plot just didn’t add up in the end. Everything about the storytelling felt passive. There was no antagonist or stakes…just some vague shadow organization stuff that wanted to disrupt the pattern and hardly factored into the ending all. If Jane had wanted to establish the threat as some sort of intangible conspiracy, she should have played up the paranoia element more (who was the suspicious Asian woman that was referenced as looking for Malachi? Never mentioned again).
I got used to Malachi’s snooty-waiter brand of cartoon snobbery but David’s stilted, lispy voice acting made for a lot of unintentional laughs.
I can get around the the jerky animations and the fact that Malachi looked like a walking scarecrow…but story and game design wise, how can anyone be satisfied with this? Gray Matter - despite its flaws and sloppy ending - was a much more realized Jensen game.
I’m rooting for Jane Jensen to keep delivering adventure games, but this was a big misfire.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
