Retro Gamer review...

[Yak]

Well that might be relevant criticism if it were actually true that SG is indeed so inaccessible, but really, it isn't. It's more a case of people not being arsed to make even a cursory effort these days I think, and what's disappointing is the prospect of having to dumb everything down to cater to the lowest common denominator.

And FWIW the game was designed with an intent to bring people some kind of pleasure for a very reasonable value, not as some kind of masturbatory self-pleasuring exercise which is how you seem to think it was done. If I wanted so badly to jerk off I'd find some cheaper, less self-destructive way of doing it. Fuck's sake.

[PVB]

....and like your games rock hard and trippy.....

'Trippy' it may be, but so are other games, such as Geometry Wars to an extent and that's hardly a valid base for criticism.

'Rock hard'? I disagree.

I'm shit at games (as most on here know), but with just a little play here and there I've been able to get through a quarter of the game so far, improving every time I play, so, as Jeff says, it just needs a bit of effort.

[Yak]

Yeah it really isn't that hard. And all that it really asks of the player is that they learn one (1) basic new concept, which is explicitly told to them in the included "How to play" text and also in the tutorial section where they can't die and have plenty of scope to try it.

Understand that one thing, and it becomes obvious how the game differes from tempest, and apply that one thing, and all the rest of the layers of the game open up and you see how and why the levels were designed the way they are.

The fact that those who have bothered to make that simple bit of effort pretty much universally adore the game signifies to me that the design is sound, and it does what it should do. The real problem is that it seems people can't be arsed to learn one very slightly challenging thing in order to engage with the game, and it is that which is disappointing.

Also remember this game wasn't made in supreme isolation here in my Fortress of Solitude - during all the time the actual game levels were being made it was in the hands of our alpha crew who are a bunch of experienced gamers from inside the biz and outside too - if it'd really been nothing but self-indulgent wankery I am quite sure I would have heard about it at that stage. The alpha guys were chosen largely because they were the sort who wouldn't be afraid to tell me if things stank.

So I think it's overly simplistic to say that the main problem was that the game was inaccessible. Plainly it isn't if people make a slight effort. I do think that it indicates people are less willing to learn than they used to be, and I also think there are all kinds of other factors involved and i won't really know fully until I have another game out there which I can compare it to.

The next game, however, will have *no* tutorial mode (in fact I think I will now make a basic rule never to do a tutorial mode ever again, I have been completely put off doing that). I think the only way to go in order to keep any kind of design niceness is to make the basic game modes utterly idiot-obvious and make the subtleties and possibilities for actually being good really very subtle indeed, so the idiot-level people never miss them.

Also this time round much less pre release screenshots and YouTubery, and very, very definitely no affirmative replies to sneaky journos asking to do a "review" before the damn thing gets released. In fact I may add special code to crash the xbox and print a rude message to the accompaniment of a flying polygonal hand flicking the Vs if certain gamertags are detected .

[Kamineko]

Moar attract mode!

[PVB]

Also remember this game wasn't made in supreme isolation here in my Fortress of Solitude - during all the time the actual game levels were being made it was in the hands of our alpha crew who are a bunch of experienced gamers from inside the biz and outside too - if it'd really been nothing but self-indulgent wankery I am quite sure I would have heard about it at that stage. The alpha guys were chosen largely because they were the sort who wouldn't be afraid to tell me if things stank.

One thing next time might be to get someone like Dave down the pub to have a go, to see what really bad players make of it.

The next game, however, will have *no* tutorial mode (in fact I think I will now make a basic rule never to do a tutorial mode ever again, I have been completely put off doing that). I think the only way to go in order to keep any kind of design niceness is to make the basic game modes utterly idiot-obvious and make the subtleties and possibilities for actually being good really very subtle indeed, so the idiot-level people never miss them.

Good idea.

Also this time round much less pre release screenshots and YouTubery, and very, very definitely no affirmative replies to sneaky journos asking to do a "review" before the damn thing gets released.

Great idea.

In fact I may add special code to crash the xbox and print a rude message to the accompaniment of a flying polygonal hand flicking the Vs if certain gamertags are detected .

Bad idea.

[Big&]

I would just like to reply to the point about dumbing down games.

I have worked on over 40 published commercial games throughout my career. Now, during this "console" phase, all we ever have to do is make things more and more obvious to cater for the criminally inept. Admittedly, not every game out there should be as hard or as subtle as it can be but when a game, especially the likes of Space Giraffe, comes from genera that has both hard and subtle written all over it, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that you would have to put a little effort into it.

Also, the comment about being stuck in the 80's with "arcade hard games", I mean, WTF! Wasn't this what games where supposed to be about? Not giving you 100% of everything from the off but making you actually work for your achievements?

Oh well, maybe times have changed, some good, some bad. The good things in technology pushing forward, giving us better tools to make some excellent games. The bad things in peoples apathy towards anything they are not given on a plate. That in itself is not just the domain of games but pertains to a lot of things in society today.

[PVB]

I would just like to reply to the point about dumbing down games.

I have worked on over 40 published commercial games throughout my career. Now, during this "console" phase, all we ever have to do is make things more and more obvious to cater for the criminally inept. Admittedly, not every game out there should be as hard or as subtle as it can be but when a game, especially the likes of Space Giraffe, comes from genera that has both hard and subtle written all over it, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that you would have to put a little effort into it.

Also, the comment about being stuck in the 80's with "arcade hard games", I mean, WTF! Wasn't this what games where supposed to be about? Not giving you 100% of everything from the off but making you actually work for your achievements?

Oh well, maybe times have changed, some good, some bad. The good things in technology pushing forward, giving us better tools to make some excellent games. The bad things in peoples apathy towards anything they are not given on a plate. That in itself is not just the domain of games but pertains to a lot of things in society today.

You seemed to have slipped under the 'Welcome' radar on your first post, so here it is:

Welcome Big&, to the fluffiest forums on the net!

[oddbob0]

I would just like to reply to the point about dumbing down games.

I have worked on over 40 published commercial games throughout my career. Now, during this "console" phase, all we ever have to do is make things more and more obvious to cater for the criminally inept. Admittedly, not every game out there should be as hard or as subtle as it can be but when a game, especially the likes of Space Giraffe, comes from genera that has both hard and subtle written all over it, it should have come as no surprise to anyone that you would have to put a little effort into it.

Also, the comment about being stuck in the 80's with "arcade hard games", I mean, WTF! Wasn't this what games where supposed to be about? Not giving you 100% of everything from the off but making you actually work for your achievements?

Oh well, maybe times have changed, some good, some bad. The good things in technology pushing forward, giving us better tools to make some excellent games. The bad things in peoples apathy towards anything they are not given on a plate. That in itself is not just the domain of games but pertains to a lot of things in society today.

Andy, we've proved categorically without a shadow of a doubt that you *don't* have to dumb the game down in any way though.

And that's whats frustrating me about this argument, blowing hot air and indignation over having to dumb a game down when you plainly don't have to do any such thing to make a game more accessible doesn't actually make it true. No matter how many times it's repeated.

The next game, however, will have *no* tutorial mode (in fact I think I will now make a basic rule never to do a tutorial mode ever again, I have been completely put off doing that). I think the only way to go in order to keep any kind of design niceness is to make the basic game modes utterly idiot-obvious and make the subtleties and possibilities for actually being good really very subtle indeed, so the idiot-level people never miss them

Yeah, I get and understand Space Giraffe. Yeah, I fucking love the game to bits and you can insert all the usual "at that price you'd be a prick not to buy it" stuff here - and yes, you can check out my gamertag if you want .

Right, that's the disclaimer out the way...

If it's commercial *and* artistic success that's being chased here, then there's no reason not to learn from 30 years of mistakes made by games as well as 30 years of what games do brilliantly.

Space Giraffe has the second nailed beautifully, but the former needs some work to break through to mainstream success more. As it stands, the game is a momentous achievement and something beautiful to behold - get the second part nailed with the next game and there's no excuses for not having the money roll in as well as the praise.

It's not apathy or unwillingness to learn on behalf of the player (although no doubt in a small amount of cases it is, but those players wouldn't be potential sales anyway), or games players becoming increasingly dumb, it's really not. Games have evolved, and rightly so - we didn't know any better in the eighties, we do now.

So I think it's overly simplistic to say that the main problem was that the game was inaccessible. Plainly it isn't if people make a slight effort. I do think that it indicates people are less willing to learn than they used to be, and I also think there are all kinds of other factors involved and i won't really know fully until I have another game out there which I can compare it to.

It's as much about the game developer fixing the bad as it is taking the good, not about some decline of society or shortening attention spans.

Yes, there is a shift in gaming towards accomodating more people, yes - a large part of the commercial industry gets it wrong beyond reasoning but that's by the by.

It's not because players are too thicky to grasp things these days. In the same way we don't have disabled toilets because some people are too thicky or dumb to use normal ones.

It's a bit depressing to read that rolled out as if society itself is to blame for people not buying or grasping Space Giraffe. If anything, *that's* an overly complex view and you'll be chasing external factors till the end of time if you really believe that.

[Jamesac]

We live in a gaming culture where Madden is considered acceptable in terms of complexity. Or, to relate it better for the Euro audience, PES. Point is, nobody can tell me Space Giraffe is too obtuse or complex for the mainstream gamer and make me believe it.

James

[fog]

It's not apathy or unwillingness to learn on behalf of the player (although no doubt in a small amount of cases it is, but those players wouldn't be potential sales anyway), or games players becoming increasingly dumb, it's really not.

Based on the number of people I know who have tried to understand SG and failed I'd say you're right. And these aren't lazy, modern day gamers who expect everything handed to them on a plate either, these are people brought up on old school arcade games and many on Jeffs earlier work. It's not that they don't "get" the game either as many have grown to love it once they've had the gameplay mechanics explained to them and that takes no more than a minute or two. And now that they do understand it I'm sure none of them would want future games dumbed down either.

Based on what I've been told, all that was needed was an option to tone down the background on the tutorial levels so people can concentrate on learning the gameplay with no distractions. That wouldn't compromise the proper game in any way.

Has anyone considered doing a quick survey to get some proper feedback on SG? That would be a lot more useful than a bunch of random posts and anecdotal evidence on a forum.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It would change the game and that's not what the game is. The game is pretty much perfect. The only place it fails is the tutorial in teaching people how to play it. I was thoroughly confused.

The background doesn't need to be toned down, as can be attested by those who have "stuck with it" and now thoroughly enjoy the game. The backgrounds don't bother me at all. If I ever can't see something it's usually down to the shape of the level.

If the tutorial was different, so that the backgrounds were toned down there, and gradually "faded up" so that people could see what the tutorial was talking about (because it does take time to know what to look for), then it would be good.

The game is fine, it's people's way "in" that's a problem (if there is a problem).

The tutorial should probably be re-done to explain the most important move (the bull run/pod thing). If the tutorial showed you how to get your first achievement (the way the TEXT help in the game does) then I think people would understand it a LOT better. I know getting it really helped me!

[Deckard]

It took me a while to realise that the reason I seemed to keep dying very quickly after being "re-spawned" is that the flowers / and maybe some other enemies dont disappear when you get respawned so its perfectly possible to come back onto a level and die in exactly the same circs as before....Took me a while to get and still not sure if I like it.

[rowan]

It took me a while to realise that the reason I seemed to keep dying very quickly after being "re-spawned" is that the flowers / and maybe some other enemies dont disappear when you get respawned.

Have to agree, the one bit of the game I get a bit annoyed about is
respawning and dying again straight away before the camera's properly
zoomed in. At its worst I've lost maybe 3 lives in a row like this and
because the camera's not in the usual place I've lost them by trying to go
somewhere else on the web but am still unable to see what may be there.

[choddo]

If the tutorial was different, so that the backgrounds were toned down there, and gradually "faded up" so that people could see what the tutorial was talking about (because it does take time to know what to look for), then it would be good.

That's what he said

[skweek]

I really didn't find it 'rock hard' to play or to learn. It's definitely a very challenging videogame but then I love stuff like Robotron (Defender is rubbish ) and pinball machines and they don't hold your hand at all. I prefer a game to feel like it's holding me down and kicking me repeatedly in the back of the head when I fail and to tell me I'm awesome when I'm doing well.

Although I don't think my opinion is that valid though as I did know how a lot of the basic concepts worked before I even played the thing (just by watching the videos and the little bits of info that came out during development) but then again most of it is pretty easy to pick up if you read the help or if you've played any decent arcade games for score. I think the root of the problem is that true arcade games are dying out and most of the gamers today feel they need everything explained to them otherwise it's shit.

You should just 2 modes in your next game Jeff, 'old school' and 'push start to win' that'd satisfy everyone I think.