Mr.Fishy Nov 4, 2012 @ 9:37am
People saying this game is bad?
So a lot of people are giving this game crap because it's very short. Here are a few counter points:

1. It has reply value beyond just trying to figure out the story. The commentary is great for starting indie developers to grab focus on whats important and what to draw on. You can easily get an hour out of this game from just trying to piece the story together then add the commentary to that.

2. The formula of "(cost / time) = value of the game" is a completely wrong. It's never used in real video game reviews or supported by any (decent) video game reviewers because it doesn't take in the quality of a video game. I can make you a game that takes 100 hours to beat, you stare at a black screen until it turns white and it won't turn white until 100 hours of playtime have passed. (Best game ever, kickstarter in 2013 and finished product by 2024.)

3. There is another game with this game called citizen able which adds a bit more time to the game. Unsure of how much as I only played the first level or two but seems like it will easly bring up the time count on this game.

With all this said, as an indie game reviewer and starting off as a game developer, this game is well worth 5 dollars. I threw it in the cart while I was checking out 2 other games and was very pleasently surprised.
Last edited by Mr.Fishy; Nov 4, 2012 @ 9:38am
Showing 1-15 of 32 comments
< >
Cego em Tiroteio Nov 9, 2012 @ 10:12am 
Note that just a few people are complaining about it's length.
But a lot of people, like myself, complained about it's lack of substance (which is different), and we agree that length is not a factor. It would be like paying for calories on your meal.
People complaining often also point something like "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Mr.Fishy Nov 9, 2012 @ 12:44pm 
Originally posted by Cego em Tiroteio:
Note that just a few people are complaining about it's length.
But a lot of people, like myself, complained about it's lack of substance (which is different), and we agree that length is not a factor. It would be like paying for calories on your meal.
People complaining often also point something like "The Emperor's New Clothes".
I believe there is no question of content in the game. There is over 5 dollars worth of content in the game. There is a lot you can pull away from the game and I think I made that point as well.
Mr.Fishy Nov 15, 2012 @ 7:21pm 
Originally posted by Momusu Mimi:
TFOL is basically a quake engine MOD, open console with ~ and type noclip, make it fun for yourself, u can even load quake maps by putting it in the maps folder and then typing "map (mapname.bsp) U can turn this whole game into a quake sandbox for urself ^^
Thats a great way to make more uses for this game. Thats simply amazing. So if you wanted to kick back to the olden days, your 5 dollars gets you that as well.
GodMagnus Dec 27, 2012 @ 10:21am 
Originally posted by TheFishy:
3. There is another game with this game called citizen able which adds a bit more time to the game. Unsure of how much as I only played the first level or two but seems like it will easly bring up the time count on this game.

There are only two levels. You probably finished it and didn't even realize it becuase it's just that bad. It's pointless and makes no sense. The dev had a few ideas and no clue how to make it into a game, but still decided try.
andr3wpr Dec 27, 2012 @ 10:27am 
"People saying this game is bad?"

No, it is nowhere near that good.
psychodegu Dec 27, 2012 @ 11:42am 
The game has an indisciaferable story due to it random seeming time cuts and absent dialog. Even if it could be understood it story is very linier and weak compared to most movies that it is derivative of. In other words it is a crapy movie,and an even crapier video game. Watch some one play this on youtube, save you money. The developer is a douchbag that made the game in a week end, and is charging 5 dollars for 10mins. of lame stroy and no gameplay. What a joke.
Skidoosh Dec 27, 2012 @ 1:58pm 
Houndoora.

Pretty much summed this up

Good work. *thumbs up*
Grapey Dec 27, 2012 @ 5:19pm 
Why are some people getting so worked up about this?
"I am quite disgusted that you call yourself a gamer" must be one of the silliest things I have read in a while. TheFishy is absolutely correct in stating that willingly participating in an activity wherein a black screen turns white after 100 hours is a game. At no point has anyone suggested this would be an ideal product, but the fact remains that it would satisfy the basic criteria of participation.

But allow me to say that the suggestion that there is a "right" kind of interactivity is laughable. Fundamental design decisions such as what the player is allowed to do and what the player is *not* allowed to do should be considered of equal interest, not pointed to as a dichotomy of "good" and "bad".

Is Thirty Flights of Loving "good"? That is something which each person must decide for themselves. But to attempt to apply such narrow criteria to a medium with such a potential for endless permutation is doing nobody any favours.
Last edited by Grapey; Dec 27, 2012 @ 5:28pm
Mr.Fishy Dec 27, 2012 @ 5:45pm 
I will say one of the biggest things I pulled away from Thirty Flights of Loving was how great the game was for game designers. look at the art assets. They are simple block heads that are easy to make. The creator mentioned that in commentary that he wasn't a great artist like many coders and used techniques to make the game look better.

A few areas you can see this:
The first room after the diner, the dark pit has lights going up to make the pit appear deep. It really isn't that deep. In fact he suggests to go to casinos to see visual tricks like this.
Another place is the shoot out scenes are all in black untextured cars with untextured cops. While these actually (in my opinion) look good they took less than it would to make a fully textured shootout. Which may have looked worse.

For budding game designers and game programmers this game is FULL of amazing tips and well worth the price. If you are more into mainstream games such as the ones mentioned above (Borderlands, Starcraft and Dragon Age) I can see how this INDIE game may not be for you.

Remember when you are buying this game, this is an indie title that really not only gives you a great plot and a fun game but shows you how it's created as well. You won't get big title games showing you all their secrets.
Last edited by Mr.Fishy; Dec 27, 2012 @ 5:46pm
Mr.Fishy Dec 27, 2012 @ 6:18pm 
Originally posted by Houndoora:
Originally posted by Grapey:
Why are some people getting so worked up about this?
"I am quite disgusted that you call yourself a gamer" must be one of the silliest things I have read in a while. TheFishy is absolutely correct in stating that willingly participating in an activity wherein a black screen turns white after 100 hours is a game. At no point has anyone suggested this would be an ideal product, but the fact remains that it would satisfy the basic criteria of participation.

But allow me to say that the suggestion that there is a "right" kind of interactivity is laughable. Fundamental design decisions such as what the player is allowed to do and what the player is *not* allowed to do should be considered of equal interest, not pointed to as a dichotomy of "good" and "bad".

Is Thirty Flights of Loving "good"? That is something which each person must decide for themselves. But to attempt to apply such narrow criteria to a medium with such a potential for endless permutation is doing nobody any favours.

Sorry but I've stopped taking your post seriously and stopped reading as soon as you agreed that "staring at a black screen for 100 hours" is an acceptable example to use for a "game". Unless your sanity has gone out of the window, I don't see how it is an appropriate analogy to compare game quality with game time. That is simply like comparing a bird to Superman in order to find the correlation between flight velocity with species.



Originally posted by TheFishy:

For budding game designers and game programmers this game is FULL of amazing tips and well worth the price. If you are more into mainstream games such as the ones mentioned above (Borderlands, Starcraft and Dragon Age) I can see how this INDIE game may not be for you.

Remember when you are buying this game, this is an indie title that really not only gives you a great plot and a fun game but shows you how it's created as well. You won't get big title games showing you all their secrets.

I love how you completely ignore my Journey example. Journey, a perfect example of an INDIE game. It costs about 3 times as much as Thirty Flights of Loving but the gameplay lasts for a couple of hours. Does that mean Journey is only 3 times better than TFoL? No. It is hundreds if not THOUSANDS times better. You can clearly see there is more effort being put into this "short" INDIE game.

I don't understand why people continue to misinterpret this as a GAME when it is clearly not. Even in its description, it mentions "first-person short story".
I think you are holding on the threads of straw here. Journey never claims to be a game either. In fact a lot of indie developers see themselves as making interactive art instead of a "game". This is no different. If you didn't understand the game, if you aren't willing to attempt to see the beauty and usefulness of this game then I can understand that. This game isn't for the mainstream. It's for the budding developer or the ones who explore every inch of a game to figure out why the developers made the choices.

No one here is forcing you to enjoy it but I am stating, As an indie game reviewer that this game is a lot better and provided a lot more quality than most games I've played this year.
Grapey Dec 27, 2012 @ 6:35pm 
Originally posted by Houndoora:
Originally posted by Grapey:
Why are some people getting so worked up about this?
"I am quite disgusted that you call yourself a gamer" must be one of the silliest things I have read in a while. TheFishy is absolutely correct in stating that willingly participating in an activity wherein a black screen turns white after 100 hours is a game. At no point has anyone suggested this would be an ideal product, but the fact remains that it would satisfy the basic criteria of participation.

But allow me to say that the suggestion that there is a "right" kind of interactivity is laughable. Fundamental design decisions such as what the player is allowed to do and what the player is *not* allowed to do should be considered of equal interest, not pointed to as a dichotomy of "good" and "bad".

Is Thirty Flights of Loving "good"? That is something which each person must decide for themselves. But to attempt to apply such narrow criteria to a medium with such a potential for endless permutation is doing nobody any favours.

Sorry but I've stopped taking your post seriously and stopped reading as soon as you agreed that "staring at a black screen for 100 hours" is an acceptable example to use for a "game". Unless your sanity has gone out of the window, I don't see how it is an appropriate analogy to compare game quality with game time. That is simply like comparing a bird to Superman in order to find the correlation between flight velocity with species.

Come now, why attach yourself to that part of my post and avoid adressing the rest? It's really not of any importance to my argument, but I repeat; at no point did I suggest it was even remotely a good concept, but if someone willingly partakes in an activity which requires the participant to watch a black screen for 100 hours until it turns white, it could very well be argued that the activity has fulfilled the base criteria of a game. The rules have established that a player must watch the screen up until a certain point. Without a participant, there is nobody to say the screen has truly switched, and thus there is no game.
It's kinda getting into the really illusory ludological field of video game theory, and I will definitely concede it was a far from ideal example to bring up in the first place, but I don't find any glaring logical discrepancy with the idea.

But what I really wanted to say was that I disagree with what appears to be your particular definition of acceptable agency or lack thereof. And that is all.

P.S
That said, I'm kinda getting a "you don't understand it, it's not meant for you mainstream types" vibe from TheFishy's last few posts, and that's not an attitude I agree with. It's perfectly fine to consider Thirty Flights a lacking work, and it doesn't imply anything about any given person's refinement, or something silly like that. I just happen to disagree with Houndoora's reasons on the matter.
D.S
Last edited by Grapey; Dec 27, 2012 @ 6:40pm
Mr.Fishy Dec 27, 2012 @ 6:59pm 
Originally posted by Grapey:
Originally posted by Houndoora:
Originally posted by Grapey:
Why are some people getting so worked up about this?
"I am quite disgusted that you call yourself a gamer" must be one of the silliest things I have read in a while. TheFishy is absolutely correct in stating that willingly participating in an activity wherein a black screen turns white after 100 hours is a game. At no point has anyone suggested this would be an ideal product, but the fact remains that it would satisfy the basic criteria of participation.

But allow me to say that the suggestion that there is a "right" kind of interactivity is laughable. Fundamental design decisions such as what the player is allowed to do and what the player is *not* allowed to do should be considered of equal interest, not pointed to as a dichotomy of "good" and "bad".

Is Thirty Flights of Loving "good"? That is something which each person must decide for themselves. But to attempt to apply such narrow criteria to a medium with such a potential for endless permutation is doing nobody any favours.

Sorry but I've stopped taking your post seriously and stopped reading as soon as you agreed that "staring at a black screen for 100 hours" is an acceptable example to use for a "game". Unless your sanity has gone out of the window, I don't see how it is an appropriate analogy to compare game quality with game time. That is simply like comparing a bird to Superman in order to find the correlation between flight velocity with species.

Come now, why attach yourself to that part of my post and avoid adressing the rest? It's really not of any importance to my argument, but I repeat; at no point did I suggest it was even remotely a good concept, but if someone willingly partakes in an activity which requires the participant to watch a black screen for 100 hours until it turns white, it could very well be argued that the activity has fulfilled the base criteria of a game. The rules have established that a player must watch the screen up until a certain point. Without a participant, there is nobody to say the screen has truly switched, and thus there is no game.
It's kinda getting into the really illusory ludological field of video game theory, and I will definitely concede it was a far from ideal example to bring up in the first place, but I don't find any glaring logical discrepancy with the idea.

But what I really wanted to say was that I disagree with what appears to be your particular definition of acceptable agency or lack thereof. And that is all.

P.S
That said, I'm kinda getting a "you don't understand it, it's not meant for you mainstream types" vibe from TheFishy's last few posts, and that's not an attitude I agree with. It's perfectly fine to consider Thirty Flights a lacking work, and it doesn't imply anything about any given person's refinement, or something silly like that. I just happen to disagree with Houndoora's reasons on the matter.
D.S
I am not saying it takes a refined person to enjoy this game but it certainly helps to be a person who is detailed oriented. Which is what I was trying to state. It also helps if you want to get into game design as theres a lot of great tips. I also think that this game can't really be compared to any games as it takes a very unique twist on exploration. That said lets drop my metaphore. Either you got it or you didn't. If you didn't then perhaps you could try to see the issue from my point of view on your own.

This game is 5 dollars. In my opinion it's obviously worth it for the knowledge it will give you. If you don't feel like you want/need this knowledge then feel free to pass it up.
qbicfeet Dec 29, 2012 @ 1:34pm 
One of the commentary nodes in this game say (paraphrased) "FToL is not a game for everyone. And that's fine!", and that pretty much sums it up. Some will love it, some will hate it.

If you think it's a game for you, give it a go. If not - pass.

It's not rocket science.
Last edited by qbicfeet; Dec 29, 2012 @ 1:34pm
RSQViper Dec 31, 2012 @ 4:13pm 
This game is lacking content. It is over in a flash. It strings nonsensical parts of itself together. It is completely on rails. 1/2 of the content is walking through the credits.

This game should not be more than $1. More than that is just stealing.
Last edited by RSQViper; Dec 31, 2012 @ 4:13pm
Mr.Fishy Jan 1, 2013 @ 12:15pm 
Originally posted by RSQViper:
This game is lacking content. It is over in a flash. It strings nonsensical parts of itself together. It is completely on rails. 1/2 of the content is walking through the credits.

This game should not be more than $1. More than that is just stealing.
This game is a mash up of small and short ideas from the creator. He is testing everything and seeing what works well in this game and how you can do things like trick the eye and create things like shoot outs that are timed to music beats without an entire development team backing the project. This is one guy, telling a short story. It's like looking at a short story and comparing it to a novel. No, it's not LOTR but its not billed as such either, its 5 dollars, less on sales and it contains five dollars with of knowledge and gameplay.

Sure other games with high development teams have had dropped their game prices less but thats after the fact that they sold a lot of copies for those games. This game hasn't, it's a simple game with great ideas.
Showing 1-15 of 32 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50