|
RealSovietBear posted:I sometimes get the impression is that people try to break down these systems to prove how they're actually simple, like trying to say how magic tricks are fake, or crying how the blood in a horror movie is obviously fake. Games aren't just interactive in the sense that you supply input and you get results, they also require you approach them with the right mindset. But there are few places in Until Dawn that don't invite the suspension of disbelief. Once you're in the moment the opportunity for consequences is made to seem significant - only in hindsight with total information, or deliberate attempts to push back against what the game is funneling you towards, does that opportunity diminish. The degree to which that can bother you probably comes down to whether the experience of play is paramount or the elegance and complexity of the game's design as a piece of art / engineering. Some people get a lot of mileage out of flimsy facades and some people find them offensive once they realize the experience was "false". Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Sep 18, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
the first 30 minutes the game falls wanking to the floor over THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT, so you'd think they'd actually try to incorporate it somehow. it's their own set expectations they don't live up to, not ours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:
I suspect it determines which one of them gets out of the lodge first, and potentially which one burns if Sam screws up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
a cop posted:at least it gave us this Oh my god somehow I had never seen this. I was desperately trying to not bust out laughing at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
RealSovietBear posted:No, but if the game maintained the illusion on the first playthrough, does it matter how it actually works? Are you talking about on its own or as a $60 product? Because they're not the same thing. It is fine as a single-playthrough experience with some minor flaws. That is why I like it. It is bad as a product sold as a full-priced video game. It has no replay value and in fact a replay drastically hurts the game because it highlights just how little what you did mattered. Other similar games have these problems but are sold significantly cheaper or get similar complaints. There are things which are just genuinely bad design like Mike's Sanatorium Escape or the Convenient Rock Wall Of Sending Everyone But Sam Away but they're not crippling problems until you try to replay. It's a great rental game and it stands well on its own as a single-play through experience. It's a poor purchase or replay. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
It's a matter of value, really. Did you get more fun out of this game than you would if you had 3 $20 new DVD releases? I did, so it's a valid purchase to me. But I can certainly see how people might disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
This whole argument isn't really much of anything except a vindication of the AAA publishers who left the adventure game business (of which Until Dawn is part) high and dry. What are some incredibly long PC adventure games that people really enjoy? Cuz I don't believe for a second that anyone is actually clamoring for a 25-hour version of this game. A 25-hour horror game? Alien: Isolation was roughly 15 hours long and everybody boo hoo hoo'd about how it would have been better had they cut 4 or 5 of them. You can't make your games too long or they'll get panned. You can't make them short or people won't pay for them. You can't skimp on visuals or you'll never be published. You can't charge budget prices because games like this cost money to make. Modern adventure games aren't worth anyone's time or money! But gamers, consumers who comically style themselves as consumer advocates, still want what they don't think is worth paying for. Supermassive can't win. And when this kind of game does out gamers will say it's unfair and that publishers are faithless. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:It's a matter of value, really. Did you get more fun out of this game than you would if you had 3 $20 new DVD releases? I did, so it's a valid purchase to me. But I can certainly see how people might disagree. Pretty much my stance. Replayability is a nice bonus, but "time I spent with a game = $$$ paid" is not an attitude I agree with. It's not a taxi. Otherwise Bethesda games would be the most expensive games ever. ImpAtom posted:Are you talking about on its own or as a $60 product? Because they're not the same thing. I buy a $60 game once every three months and the first playthrough alone was worth $60. It was an exciting experience and just because I was able to look behind the smoke and mirrors after that and go "Oh, so this is how it actually worked" doesn't diminish that for me. I'd rather have a quality experience than a padded out one. Replay value is a buzzword in the same hat as FPS and other stuff of this and the previous generation of games. If that's someone's main justification for a price, then there are certain types of games that really aren't gonna do it for them (including linear narrative-focused games). RealSovietBear fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:This whole argument isn't really much of anything except a vindication of the AAA publishers who left the adventure game business (of which Until Dawn is part) high and dry. What are some incredibly long PC adventure games that people really enjoy? Cuz I don't believe for a second that anyone is actually clamoring for a 25-hour version of this game. A 25-hour horror game? Alien: Isolation was roughly 15 hours long and everybody boo hoo hoo'd about how it would have been better had they cut 4 or 5 of them. You do know the opposite option is true. There are in fact a lot of adventure games being released for $15-$20 on a regular basis now. When people are saying 'this is too expensive" it is because there are games of roughly similar quality being released for much much cheaper. RealSovietBear posted:Replay value is a buzzword in the same hat as FPS and other stuff of this and the previous generation of games. "Replay value is a buzzword" doesn't work when the actual advertising and design of the game is built around the idea of playing it multiple times. I liked Until Dawn, and frankly liked it a lot more than a good number of other games in the genre, but in terms of "is this worth your money" then I can't really argue it is. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You do know the opposite option is true. There are in fact a lot of adventure games being released for $15-$20 on a regular basis now. When people are saying 'this is too expensive" it is because there are games of roughly similar quality being released for much much cheaper. There are a lot of adventure games coming out, sure, but there are far less coming out that are actually any good. Plus, we all know that the reason this game is expensive is because of the graphics engine, not the storyline. We are paying for the cool set dressing, which is pretty important for something that is so linear and film-like
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
looking at plot contrivances and scoffing at them is fine and dandy if they're super transparent and don't fit neatly with the rest of the text aka game, but the only time i genuinely felt things were poor was at the very end, when everyone but mike and sam gets tossed in as an afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You do know the opposite option is true. There are in fact a lot of adventure games being released for $15-$20 on a regular basis now. When people are saying 'this is too expensive" it is because there are games of roughly similar quality being released for much much cheaper. Maybe you're the sort of adventure game diehard who makes no meaningful distinction between a SCUMM-like or janky Sherlock Holmes game and something like Until Dawn, but if you are then you're pretty rare. You could compare a community theater version of King Lear with your old drama teacher in the lead with a Royal Theater production featuring Patrick Stewart and say "these are essentially the same thing", and in a sense you'd be absolutely correct, but you would be pretty deluded even if your drama teacher was a very good actor. People don't pay to see Picard because they're venal. Picard is good, but he's also uncommon. I don't think there's much virtue in dismissing set dressings. I feel like we'll lose something if these huge undertakings that aren't Gears clones or open-world RPGs die out. Most people give a poo poo about bells and whistles, and thus developers must, because they only get paid if people want what they make (or can convince purseholders that there are people out there who might). Spectacle and ambition are okay things, even in a genre like adventure gaming which is considered old hat by pretty much everyone. The only conventional adventure games I've played through in the last few years have been Gemini Rue (very good) and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened (not as good as its premise suggested it might be), because they ever so slightly deviated from the workmanlike indie adventure games that I'd been pelted with over the years.* Most adventure games don't really work to impress you. They know the basic poo poo you're looking for, standardized 20 years ago, and they're happy to provide. But more than that, I think most of them know that their audience wouldn't come through for them if they tried to do anything unexpected. I would like to see more ambitious stories and setpieces from my indie games, but I know they can't really afford to provide those things even if they wanted to. I can only take so many faintly humorous psychics solving Scooby Doo mysteries. Which is why, in a broad sense, I support AAA adventure gaming. I don't consider it a betrayal that it's essentially "playing a movie" (in fact I think it's pretty cool). Most of the things that Until Dawn aspires to do simply cannot be accomplished by a boutique studio. poo poo takes money. The best comparison out there to Until Dawn (besides rare and expensive one-offs like the Quantic Dream games or L.A. Noire) is clearly the newer TellTale series. Maybe the game would have benefited from a similar episodic model in terms of perceived cost-benefit, but it was clearly meant to be contiguous even with the chapter breaks. * Now that I mention it, there's an adventure game about an orthodox rabbi I've been meaning to check out. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:The difference isn't in quality (whatever that means), it's in scale, which matters. I don't agree with this at all. Until Dawn is a very small scale game. It makes use of it to the best of its abilities but it actually doesn't have a very big scope either in actual terms or in ambition. This isn't a bad thing and they made the game they were aiming to make but I'm not giving it a pass for scale when it is neither. It might have more people working on it but I don't think that is inherently a positive thing (or inherently a negative thing either.) Basic Chunnel posted:Most of the things that Until Dawn aspires to do simply cannot be accomplished by a boutique studio. poo poo takes money. I'm honestly curious what you mean by this. Aside from the generally good graphics (which are nice) I can't see what makes Until Dawn significantly more impressive than, say, Life is Strange. (or the TellTale games you mention.) In terms of plot structure, design and general focus I don't think it actually does anything particularly unique. The high-quality visuals are nice but I wouldn't argue enough to carry it entirely on its own. I enjoy Until Dawn because it is entirely competent. It knows what it is looking to do and it does it. It was an enjoyable horror film and a fun encounter. However I don't feel it's unique. Its competition isn't SCUMM-likes. It is Telltale's games, Life is Strange, D4, the Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Murdered: Soul Suspect and the like. And while I think Until Dawn is a very fun experience I don't think it is particularly head and shoulders above all the competition like you do. I think it's better than some of the games on that list for certain but many of them were either cheaper or likewise suffered for their full price tags. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
To some extent, Until Dawn's production values are its own worst enemy. The motion capture and character modeling may help to maintain the illusion that you're playing a high-budget interactive horror movie, and it does add something to the storytelling itself. Just the same, those values are arguably what made it release at $60, rather than a lower, more sensible price point. A smaller studio could have made the same game, more or less (you could probably do the game with three people if you made it in that old create-your-own-adventure-game freeware engine), but they wouldn't have had access to high-end motion capture or this level of recognizable talent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
I think my biggest problem with the game isn't the lack of choice, but how easy it is. Like, looking at the numbers behind everything.... Emily can only really die if you gently caress up QTEs, or decide to shoot her. Otherwise she's pretty much invincible. Ashley can only really die to the trapdoor. That's it, that's her only death besides lodgefire. And it's super well telegraphed ahead of time/why would you open anything to the goddamn mines after you knew what the wendigo were. Chris can only die by loving up QTEs, or doing something the game outright says not to do ( shoot Ashley )/you try to get him killed purposely ( send him into the room you just saw Ashley die in ). Matt and Jessica are the only two with tricks to them, and even then, it's not that crazy. For Matt if you leave Emily you'll live. The flare gun is super unexplained by the game, so I'd say he generally dies the most in most peoples games because they don't keep the flare gun/try to play him as his character and save Emily, but that's more of a fault of the game then it is an actual difficulty. And Jessica only really lives if you know to rush with Mike/have Matt alive, which again, Matt is usually the only other death most people have. Like for all the talk of Mike/Sam's plot armor, everyone is pretty safe for large chunks of the game. In my first, blind run of the game, I ended with Mike/Sam/Ashley/Chris/Matt/Emily, which is waaaaaay too many survivors for a blind run of a horror game. And looking at most of the videos on youtube/reading this thread, it sounds like that holds true for most people outside of those who made the oddball off mistakes that got certain characters killed. The average survivors are Mike/Sam/Ashley/Chris/Emily ( or Mike/Sam/Chris/Emily for the people who hit the trapdoor, or Mike/Sam/Chris/Ashley for people who deliberately killed Emily ), which is still way too many people to be making it out of something like this without foreknowledge. That to me is the bigger sin that hurts replay value then anything. The only thing most people need to change in their game is figuring out how to save Jess/Matt, as they already hit the right choices for everyone else. And if they didn't, they will on their second run, netting them the everyone alive trophy. After that it's just looking for collectibles to try and figure out what actually happened up on the mountain/whats going on/achievement crazies. And that's not really enough reason to play the game for more then 10-14ish hours tops, which isn't exactly a great value proposition even if you like this sort of adventure game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I think you're seriously overestimating how easy most people find QTEs. The people who LP these games aren't necessarily a representative sample. I managed to save everybody once I knew where the danger was, but on my first blind run I only saved Sam and Emily. Everybody else died because I hosed up a button press or made a bad decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Having watched both a "everyone lives" and "everyone dies" playthough, one little choice had me wondering when it came to the animals/karma Sam can get her eye hurt by a bird, and then infected, but does that actually lead to something? Kinda expecting an "Sam with an eyepatch" ending in there somewhere 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Having watched both a "everyone lives" and "everyone dies" playthough, one little choice had me wondering when it came to the animals/karma Sam can get her eye hurt by a bird, and then infected, but does that actually lead to something? Kinda expecting an "Sam with an eyepatch" ending in there somewhere If you shoot the squirrel as Chris early on, Sam can't escape from the psycho due to her eye injury, which locks you into a specific series of choices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
As a counterpoint my first run through of the game I did all the quicktime events perfectly but just made a one or two bad choices that led to me getting out with barely anyone so it's definitely possible to just have one or two slipups that totally wreck the group (and not from doing dumb typical horror movie decisions either). I'm still not sure how Matt would have made it out for me, he fired the flare gun off without that being a decision I made and then got wrecked by the monster and the butterfly thing says it's because he didn't have a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
thebardyspoon posted:As a counterpoint my first run through of the game I did all the quicktime events perfectly but just made a one or two bad choices that led to me getting out with barely anyone so it's definitely possible to just have one or two slipups that totally wreck the group (and not from doing dumb typical horror movie decisions either). I'm still not sure how Matt would have made it out for me, he fired the flare gun off without that being a decision I made and then got wrecked by the monster and the butterfly thing says it's because he didn't have a weapon. The Matt thing is the one death that isn't a direct result of the scene you're in. if you agree with Emily earlier then he fires it off, if you don't then he doesn't. It's the only time someone can die for something they do while you're not in control of them AFAIK which is why it trips a lot of peopel up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
I first finished with only Sam and Ashley alive. Matt died by me killing the deer and failing the qte, emily failed qte, chris failed qte, then same ran right for the light at the end and killed Matt but Ashley made it out alive. Oddly I don't try for trophies because I really don't care but this is the first time I've gotten a platinum for getting all the others because of multiple playthroughs, and I wasn't even trying. In case anyone wants to know what is in the 1.02 update: Fixed progression issue related to a barrel in Episode 5 (including fix for save games affected by the problem) Fixed progression issue related to a totem in Episode 1 Fixed progression issue at end of an episode when holding R1 Fixed progression issue related to the end of a scene in Episode 9 Various other bug fixes Additionally, the Until Dawn FAQ calls out a few other fixes in 1.02, though be warned as they are specific and do contain spoilers: Addressed in Update 1.02 I held the controller still, but the game thought I moved it. I’ve become stuck controlling Ashley in the tunnel, and I’m unable to progress. I’ve noticed that there is no credit for [X person]. I’ve become stuck where Mike pushes the barrel to get up onto a ledge in the sanatorium, and I’m unable to progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Hmm, question- I'm still only about halfway through the game (Josh just gave his big reveal), and one of the recurring choice structures have been to do a couple of speed vs. risk prompts in a row: Mike and Emily both had variants of "take a safe, slow path, or jump/climb a hellishly dangerous route that's faster. Is there a consistent thing that these choices do, or are they just flavor text/mild variations on the scene they apply to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Omi no Kami posted:Hmm, question- I'm still only about halfway through the game (Josh just gave his big reveal), and one of the recurring choice structures have been to do a couple of speed vs. risk prompts in a row: Mike and Emily both had variants of "take a safe, slow path, or jump/climb a hellishly dangerous route that's faster. Is there a consistent thing that these choices do, or are they just flavor text/mild variations on the scene they apply to? Mike's determines whether or not Jessica survives. You have to get to her as quickly as you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Mike's determines whether or not Jessica survives. You have to get to her as quickly as you can. Oddly the fast/hard path doesn't even have more QTEs. Maybe if you fail one the consequences are more dire? I don't even think that
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Mike's determines whether or not Jessica survives. You have to get to her as quickly as you can. Man, I feel justified then! One other thing on the topic, because I'm morbidly curious... What happens to Emily if you screw up the run away/don't move thing with the flamethrower guy, before you realize he's on your side? Do you startle him into accidentally toasting you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Omi no Kami posted:Man, I feel justified then! One other thing on the topic, because I'm morbidly curious... You can't screw it up at all. He won't burn you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Wait a minute, really? Then I guess the totem with Emily getting set on fire was way later? I found that in the very beginning, and I've been waiting to avoid it all game
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Oddly the fast/hard path doesn't even have more QTEs. Maybe if you fail one the consequences are more dire? I don't even think that
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Omi no Kami posted:Wait a minute, really? Then I guess the totem with Emily getting set on fire was way later? I found that in the very beginning, and I've been waiting to avoid it all game The Totems don't necessarily show you something that's going to happen soon, or at all. There are two found relatively close together in Episode 2, IIRC, that show both a character's death and survival, and are found well before the choices that determine either. Some of them, I think, are rather specifically there to make you think twice about your actions. It probably isn't an accident that you find a Totem that portrays someone dying a terrible, fiery death right before you're supposed to be defrosting a lock with spray-on deodorant. Which is still one of the dumbest goddamned plans I've ever even heard of, although I was just about that stupid at 19.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:It probably isn't an accident that you find a Totem that portrays someone dying a terrible, fiery death right before you're supposed to be defrosting a lock with spray-on deodorant. Which is still one of the dumbest goddamned plans I've ever even heard of, although I was just about that stupid at 19. I was super disappointed that we didn't have the option to make Chris be an idiot and actually kill someone with that deodorant, you could see the B-movie cliche coming from miles away. Speaking of totems though, I like the system in general, but I'm still kinda salty about Mike's fingers. I'm completely cool with the first part: show us a video of someone's fingers getting cut off, then place an obvious trap, that part's great. But I got really miffed when getting his hand out destroyed my machete- I had no idea it was asking me to choose between fingers or a weapon until I actually made my choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Omi no Kami posted:I was super disappointed that we didn't have the option to make Chris be an idiot and actually kill someone with that deodorant, you could see the B-movie cliche coming from miles away. IIRC don't you damage the Machete like twice before you finally make your choice? I may be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:IIRC don't you damage the Machete like twice before you finally make your choice? I may be misremembering. You do, but I wasn't sure what the outcome of having it half-destroyed was. I thought the worst outcome might be for waffling, so I choose to have a fully intact hand, instead of half a hand *and* half a weapon
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Some more little things I'm just noticing: The sequence with Mike saving Jessica seems to run on a sort of 'point' system, where each time you screw up a QTE or take a safe path, you get a point or two added. A few screw-ups/safe paths won't screw you; you can take the safe path at the river, for example, and still save Jess as long as you take all the other risky paths and get your QTEs right. I've seen someone screw up at least two QTEs and still save her. There's a similar system in place regarding Emily when she's running from the Wendigo in the mines; if you don't miss any QTEs in the first section and immediately choose to go left, you will skip the Don't Move section at the elevator, presumably because she's far enough ahead to be out of there by the time it catches up to her. Also (and this is an extremely esoteric possibility, to the point where I have NEVER seen this done on a blind playthrough): Emily actually can use the flare gun to stop herself from being bitten, but it requires you to make every correct decision during her escape and miss no QTEs. If you do that, and she has the flare gun, she will have enough of a lead to turn around and use it on the monster as it's coming up the conveyor belt, which will delay it long enough for her to catch her breath against the door and move away before it bursts through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
This game's pretty sweet. It's like a cool Adventure Game. I think this should become the new thing in Adventure Games. I got a lot of survivors my first run, though I cheated a bit because at 1 in the morning, opening a certain trapdoor sounded like a good idea and I reset the game to try and get past it (and succeeded). My survivors were Emily/Sam/Matt/Mike/Ashley/Jessica. I didn't realize that saving Jessica is actually kind of hard? So, that's cool. I have no idea if you can save Josh from getting splattered though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:This game's pretty sweet. It's like a cool Adventure Game. I think this should become the new thing in Adventure Games. I got a lot of survivors my first run, though I cheated a bit because at 1 in the morning, opening a certain trapdoor sounded like a good idea and I reset the game to try and get past it (and succeeded). My survivors were Emily/Sam/Matt/Mike/Ashley/Jessica. I didn't realize that saving Jessica is actually kind of hard? So, that's cool. I have no idea if you can save Josh from getting splattered though. You can save Josh, but that isn't necessarily a happy ending.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Now that I have a free moment, let me go into some detail about what I liked about the game. Overall, I think Until Dawn was a great success in capturing what it sought to do, i.e. tell an interactive horror movie with real bite to its actions. The rest I'll place under spoiler tags for the sake of avoiding upsetting anyone. I really liked how this game toys with the player, and the slow burn intro is a big risk that pays out wonderfully on a first run, but could prove to be a sluggish obstacle to anyone who wants to replay the game and try out different routes. I don't really see the ending being particularly different beyond your list of survivors. I was kind of bummed there wasn't any larger epilogue for any of the characters, like a "one year later" sort of thing, but I do dig that the surviving characters all have a little closing monolog after the end. I got plenty of survivors, with my only failures being quickly reset by closing the game immediately once the consequences were made clear. I only got Ashley and Ashley and Mike killed in the last two possible deaths of the game, and both of those were mostly from misunderstanding the situation moreso than anything else. I'm glad you have an emergency mulligan option that isn't advertised anywhere, and I don't feel bad for abusing it to get past the ending. This is easily Quantic Dream's best work, and it shows how awesome their engine and their team can be when under an actually decent director. This is really an adventure game in every aspect, complete with a limited inventory and puzzles that involve said inventory. I felt very reminded of a horror game called Siren, in which you also had a sort of non-linear adventure where your actions as one character have major ramifications for another. In that game, this mechanic is pretty poorly explained and I think it is much better presented here, with the totem mechanic allowing you to get hints as to what to do without feeling too patronized to. I earn forwarning of threats by exploring the environment and using critical thinking skills, and that makes this more of a 'game' than a lot of Quantic's other productions, like Heavy Rain which seemed to lack much need for me to do anything more than hit QTE's. The game's story is fun, I like how they just combined two or three different horror movies into one super horror story and I think the game paced itself well. The tension was well done and since you don't know in advance what is immediately fatal and not, the immersion is maintained for at least one playthrough. I have no idea how the game plays out if you try to gently caress up every QTE, but I suspect that Sam will always survive til the end and there is no true "everyone died" end state. I especially like how the plot has a lot of very disparate elements, and yet there's not a lot of fat to it--the reason why the Wendigo plot ties into the dead friend and the Josh is a psycho plot is clear, but not directly stated: the friends are responsible for the return of the Wendigo because they lead to Hannah falling down the cliff which led to her eating her sister's corpse to survive and transforming due to the mountain's curse. This, presumably, also awakened the other Wendigo, who had been somehow lulled to sleep before? I didn't get that but whatever. Either way, I'd love to see Quantic to continue exploring this style of game, and hope they take the "cheap episodic" approach that Telltale and other similar games do, so as to be more accessible. Despite how interesting it is, I don't know if a six-hour game is worth a full sixty dollar price tag. Overall, I really liked the game and Peter Stormare was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:This is easily Quantic Dream's best work, and it shows how awesome their engine and their team can be when under an actually decent director. This isn't a Quantic Dream game. It was done by Supermassive Games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:This isn't a Quantic Dream game. It was done by Supermassive Games. Lol, and I was wondering why I didn't see their logo on the opening screen. That's what you get for making a pun in the thread title!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Lol, and I was wondering why I didn't see their logo on the opening screen. That's what you get for making a pun in the thread title! in my defense it is an extremely good pun
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
It is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 03:24
|
|