|
I don't understand this game. I don't understand what it wants to be or how it wants me to accomplish its goals. In literally 60 seconds a flashbang ended my play. Played the game a second time, found out that negotiate halts the guards. Lost again in 5 minutes. The hostages weren't even an issue, I couldn't loving figure out how to keep the guards off my back. Eventually I learned that attacking drives them back and eventually I beat the scenario on Original without losing a single hostage or getting a security breach. In literally any other video game ever designed by humans, attacking someone is a last resort. What happens when you get into conflict in Baldur's Gate or any other choice-based adventure game? You either talk the hostile party down or steel flies, someone dies. But not in GWBW where the game provides zero feedback on your actions. Is shooting someone a final action or a pacifying action? Sometimes both and in the same scenario under different conditions. You just have to try it and see. You'll probably fail but that's okay, that's how we designed the game! There's games with trial and error like Long Live the Queen, but they always provide feedback on what you failed and how you can succeed in the future. This ends with a gameover screen that provides no information on how you failed or what to do to not fail in the future. "4 hostages left alive?" Yeah, thanks. How about giving me an idea on what each of the actions do or how the time units work. Apparently blue actions take little time while red actions take a lot of time. Or maybe not, I don't know? This feels like a browser game* but unlike Fallen London or Kingdom of Loathing if I fail because the RNG hated me I can usually click on a single box to try again. Here it's do or die. Oh, you're dead? Do it all over again and figure out where you went wrong. We sure as gently caress aren't going to tell you, neither directly nor intuitively. Half-Life will put a circuit box to show you the water is electrified. GWBW wants you to try the dialog option that switches the camera over to the advancing guards who will end your game until you try the dialog option that has you openly engage them with gunfire. *I know it started as a browser game but it could have been so much more. e: This game would have been so awesome without fail states the more I think about it. What happens if the guards win and you're forced to retreat while Liam is captured? How will people react to you in the next scenario if you murdered hostages? How will people react to you if you negotiate with the guards and never fire a shot at them? This could have been a really strong CYOA style game and I can't replay it without thinking about how it was a lost opportunity. Hakkesshu posted:(and that's a strong maybe given the quality of the writing) This game wasn't made by someone whose first language is English, was it? Because within the opening there's a glaring typo and the main character speaks with forced exposition straight from a bad anime. "Don't be sad guys Xenolife will rescue us Xenolife is cool sure they're harsh but they're not racists like the evil empire and they fight for freedom and life and liberty." The best line of dialog is the guy who answers with shut the gently caress up. al-azad fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 27, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It makes perfect sense to me. Negotiations are to distract in a hostage situation more than anything, and slow the opposing party down. An attack will force the enemy to rethink their advances and push them back. It makes zero sense, both in real life and in video game world. The attacker has every advantage over the hostage taker. Negotiations are to try and end things without bloodshed but once bullets start flying that's it, deadly force is authorized. I won't argue against it being a puzzle game but that doesn't make it any less lovely of a puzzle game. The concept of forcing the player to practically lose the first time so they understand how things work just blows my mind from a design standpoint. And good puzzle games are backed by solid rules. The first step to playing this game are learning the rules which change in each scenario. It would be like switching from Tetris to Dr. Mario to Yoshi's Cookie each level, it's a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Anatharon posted:I mean I think the game's mediocre but what? In 90% of video games, attacking someone is only last resort because it's the only possible option and in 9% of the remainder it's one of the first options presented to you! No, in games that give you the option to chat or fight (basically any RPG), fighting leads to a fight. Here the shoot option can pacify someone, kill someone, or delay someone or sometimes all the above. Sometimes you're given a prompt, sometimes you aren't you'll never know unless you click. There could be a symbol telling you an option leads to more options but no, that's just something you have to try for yourself because failure is fun, I guess. quote:Every advantage except, you know, having the hostages. No police force is going to sit around while you take pot shots and risk having more people killed. Showing hostility is a final action and practically every rapid response is trained to ignore injured civilians to take down the threat immediately. But my point isn't the realism of the situation, it's there's no feedback to this. You can ask Liam, who gives you a basic rundown of the actions, but the actual effects are unknown until you execute them which could drive things into a failure state before you realize why. That's not good game design. That's not a good puzzle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 21:17
|
|