Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
How hard would it be to implement an alternative interface? Or to assign numbers to each choice that could be selected with keys 1,2,3 and 4 on the keyboard? With keyboard 4 always being to auto-reject all given choices?
I did try a "default" run of the game without making any choices, letting the game itself pick up everything for me and was able to notice that while on the field scene (in which Ellis constantly falls to the ground) the game can run its course, but during the Dekker episode as well as the last one (with the pair stuck in a room) that the game would either force some choices (Dekker), or go into an infinite loop (the room). So I actually had to take action at some points.
Honestly, I did like this visual approach to the choices. It did feel refreshing, even if not all choices were easy to discern. Come to think of it, radio does stimulate our imagination differently from literature or tv. And I always try to experience the different permutations anyway.
Still, since (some) people seem to be struggling with it, perhaps the creators should consider re-working on the interface when developing the console versions. And then later port it back to pc? Perhaps even offering (at the options) 2 different interfaces. The classic, visual one. And also the more conventional, textual.
Since development hasn't fully ceased, it may still be feasible to implement it, even at such later stage.
Let me comment on this. I actually feel that the opposite is true. These choices are pretty much the only game mechanic the game has. Imagine you are being read a choose-your-own-adventure book. And the narrator doesn't give you the options, but instead says: "Here are three option upcomming, do you want the first, second or third one?" You'd probably ask what the options are and he just tell you "Well, I will tell you after you picked. I'm not telling you because I want us to do this over and over."
Not only is that a nonconsecutor, but it's a bit weird as well, isn't it? Someone wanting you to try other options through withholding the information what these options are. Doesn't make much sense to me.
At a certain point in the game a character, let's call them the Red Death is holding a card and you can click on either the card or the bed. (I'm being a bit cryptic to avoid spoilers)
Clicking on the card makes you double down on what was said and clicking on the bed makes you relativize. But from the context of the scene, the bed and hand could mean other things and in similar scenes does (e.g. sexual innuendo). So it would be really helpful to see at least a "double-down" or "relativize" subtitle. It's fine to be somewhat vague, of course you don't need to know the exact specifics of what's gonna happen, but you can still be vague and avoid confusion.
I find that much more encuraging to replay the game if you at least vaguely know what the other option might have been.
If it's about encouraging replays though, I think the best setup is something like in the Green Envy episode of being able to talk to different people at different times giving you different perspective and thus to you as a player giving you more pieces of the puzzle. Though I would have loved to be there more information to be found than just probably accidentally triggering one of two failure conditions.
So, no. If you are going to appeal to gamebooks, the facts actually tell a different story. I'm all for surprising the audience. If we are to pick an option while having a very accurate idea about hot it will play out then most of the fun is already lost.
The characters are dealing with uncharted terrains. A certain degree of unpredictability and risk is only natural.
"Going West" is perfectly fine. There's two things, being vague and being confusing (or not giving any idea. Vague is okay. Confusion is not. There's a difference.
What you're doing is arguing for confusion being good by giving an example of perfect vagueness.
"Going West" is perfectly fine. There's two things, being vague and being confusing (or not giving any idea. Vague is okay. Confusion is not. There's a difference.
What you're doing is arguing for confusion being good by giving an example of perfect vagueness. "
Taken from your own message:
"Imagine you are being read a choose-your-own-adventure book. And the narrator doesn't give you the options, but instead says: "Here are three option upcomming, do you want the first, second or third one?" You'd probably ask what the options are and he just tell you "Well, I will tell you after you picked. I'm not telling you because I want us to do this over and over."
Not only is that a nonconsecutor, but it's a bit weird as well, isn't it? Someone wanting you to try other options through withholding the information what these options are. Doesn't make much sense to me."
Now, what exactly did I misread, sir? The examples I offered totally fit the definition on what you were complaining about.
Having to choose between going east or west, picking door number 1, 2 and 3 fit what you have described. You have tried to appeal to gamebooks, but they actually disprove what you have said.
Being given entirely vague options, with no advanced info of what you will find is totally in accordance with the example you offered.
The characters are out of their element. They are dealing with the unknown. They must take dangerous steps that could result in tragedy, but they are unsure of what the exact consequences can be. And they need to act fast.
Hence, having a time limit and vague choices, as if the characters had to make the choice by impulse, is totally in-line with the kind of story the creators wanted to tell.
Do not get me wrong. You are entitled to prefer having a game with more well-explained choices. Far from me to take this away from you, son. But don't say that i've misread you. I've read you correctly. Not my fault if the example you gave misfired and actually deposes against your complain.
Please, do try to measure up and try to conduct yourself with more intellectual integrity next time. Not projecting your own fault on others would be a nice way for you to start.
My pleasure.
There were no insults on my message. Stop projecting your faults.
Like it or not, jumping into the unknown is a staple of the genre. The chances on me doing a double down maneuver over some mistake is pretty much the same of gamebooks endorsing your position.
People watch horror movies for the jumpscares. No point in having a ten second countdown to act as fair warning prior to each one. There is no point in playing an adventure if the unknown becomes known beforehand. Characters during typical Fight or Flight situations must act quickly. Hence, just the visual hint.
But do not get me wrong. I am in no way against cheat goes, god mode, or anything that will improve the experiences of some players, like a different, easier interface. All I did was to point out that - while your complaint may have some degree or merit and without saying that you should not voice your opinion - you gave a terrible example that did not in fact support your position. Just that. Easy, cowboy. Just because someone contracited you, and then refused to kowtow to your persistence, that does not mean that the person is throwing stones at you.
Take a deep breath, read it again -You may want to learn english first, since your auto-translator isn't doing a fine job - and try again.
You can't write in a clear manner. I must assume that you are equally inept when it comes to reading comprehension, specially considering how bad this auto-translator you use has proven to be. Do acquire better skills. This decision is readily available to you, and you can know beforehand that the consequence will be that your chances of achieving communication will increase dramatically. Same case with the door leading to intellectual honesty, my boy. You can open it without fears. Inside, you will find inner peace.
Best regards.
In terms of clicking a card or a bed, Munro had just given Violet the card and said "call me", Violet held the card and said "shouldn't I call the police first?" Clicking the card was supposed to indicate Munro wanted Violet to use the card (her number) first. The bed was an unknown alternative, and an example of where we'd tried to present a choice instead of using a single timer you could click or leave (the card in this case) as it makes the option un-selectable with the timer freeze option on.
Our experience with CYOA books was that you'd repeatedly die or end the adventure early for choosing seemingly "correct" decisions, and would frequently head back to the last paragraph you'd read to choose an alternate one. Poe and Munro should be far more forgiving than that, and lets the adventure continue ahead with almost any option, but we understand some people won't like the interface - much like the Dekker typing interface.
We don't have any plans for major console changes other than potentially button mashing X for some decisions that are far too easy to select on controller (which would be rolled out to the PC version too). The game is running at quite a financial loss at this current time, but we're still patching and improving, and hope to make more FMVs in the future still (with or without this mechanic) :-)
But I think the vast majority of people would understand that if you offer a card with your contact information while asking someone to call you rather than the police, and after being asked for confirmation, by clicking on it again you would be reiterating your wish (the proverbial "click twice to confirm").
To me, that sounds like the most logical deduction.
A really confusing and bipolar scenario would be <<click on the card for "yes". But after being asked for confirmation, click on it again for a "no">>.
All in all, I think the options in the game, even if not entirely clear, did convey the general feeling or action the authors intended.
And about the scene with violet in the bedroom, this is one of my favorites. On another topic I will explain why. Far from being nonsensical, i think everything we saw during it is perfectly in like with what we know of the characters and one of the very strong reasons why these 3 games are absolute gemstones.
But for the choices in this game, there are plenty of times where you will have no idea what immediate actions that your choices represent (again, I personally don't think this is a big problem, but I can understand that this can seem troublesome or confusing for others)
Again take the Violet bedroom scene for example (which is also one of my personal favorites and one of the funniest scenes in the game IMHO), once you approach Violet to "strip" and Violet says "the bed", the natural thoughts were that clicking on Violet is a "click twice to confirm" option (as how you put it) to continue try "strip" Violet while clicking on the bed is where you get what she means to strip the bed, but the result is completely opposite, you go to strip the bed when clicking on Violet while you are doing something definitely not "stripping the bed" when you click on the bed
Also later on somehow "clicking on the pillow" means "asking about Miss Clay" which are completely unrelated things. It's not even a "vague" choice, it's more like clicking on a random thing so you actually do some completely unrelated another random thing. There are plenty of such choices present in the game (another such example is despite you click on the cat button you still say you'd save Munro) which I myself do enjoy exploring around with but still it's quite different from your standard gamebooks. It's more like a hypothetical gamebook where you are given the choices between "Climb the Tree" and "Enter the Door", but when you choose "Climb the Tree", it says you jump down the river, and when you choose "Enter the Door" it says you climb the tree... Come to think about it, I may actually enjoy such a gamebook as that'd be totally hilarious for me, but I can see how it can be very annoying to some people
Personally, I cant remember having many moments in which the vagueness of the choices prevented me from having fun. Maybe because I dont like overly-explained narratives that spoon-feed the mentality lazy audience. Most of the times I had zero difficulties understanding the general idea behind each option.
Besides, the game seems to want people to experiment with each option. The creators constructed multiple paths and they understandably want the audiences to know what each path is about by having the public experiencing them.
If this was a unified story that required hours of investment, with no saves, I would see the point of wanting to shape the story in a certain direction. But, the reality is that even the longest chapter does not seem to go past 40 minutes. Some can last less than 20 minutes. Regretting a choice sounds like no big deal to me.
These are short mini-stories. That can be constantly replayed. You can re-trace your steps, fast-forward in just a few moments to the point that you want to fix, and then pick your desired choice.