SpryFox please put a disclaimer on all game descriptions

[Lunloley]

I am so sorry to see that people hate the game and write bad reviews because they do not like / did not expect the real time day system. I really want that the game gets the good reviews it deserves.

[Vix]

From the store page:
"Like Animal Crossing, Cozy Grove is synced to real world time, and provides 30-60 minutes of new quest content each day. After that, you can fish, craft and decorate to your heart's content!"

[Lunloley]

In the german version this is not mentioned. And also it is not clear enough, as you see by the reviews... It breaks my heart to see that bad reviews for this game just because people did not research this. I think a fat big DISCLAIMER is required.

[Eversor That Coming]

I must wonder if there is an argument that says unwelcome game mechanics or design choices perceived to be poor can still be criticised regardless of whether their presence is known about before purchase.

I am of the opinion that time-gated content is a bad design choice in 99% of titles. If I choose to buy such a game and have my findings confirmed, I am justified in disliking the game. Such things are a matter of taste of course, but tastes dictate our opinions, and opinions our reviews or recommendations.

If we remove the element of poorly conceived ideas from our consideration when reviewing games, we are not left with much save the aesthetics and technical integrity of the game's programming.

[Lunloley]

That is a continuum of course. To me the daily progress system lies at the essence of this game, such as it does for animal crossing, which rarely gets critizised for this mechanic. To me critizising games like this for the time gated mechanic is like critizising stardew valley for having to raise crops. It is a main feature that people should know about in advance but then it is rather odd to critizise it for that.

You can say of course: the daily progress system is not well executed. it gets repitive, or there is too few to do the first days. But critzising the existence of this mechanic without anything else is senseless. I would also be ok if people would say: the progress system does not work for this kind of game because ...

But what you read in the reviews is just ignorance.

[Eversor That Coming]

I take your point.

Currently I have only 3 and a bit hours in Cozy Grove so my opinion may change but as of now, I dislike the daily progress system as I do not feel that there is enough to do in the "free" time.
This is where my criticism of the mechanic itself begins. Being made to wait until the following day before any further progress can be made would be fine if there were other minor quests to pursue, characters to engage or areas to explore to occupy the player while he waited. Currently, because the map is so small and sparsely inhabited, once the daily jobs are completed there is nothing to keep the player whose hunger has not been satiated by the 30 minutes' worth of tasks for that day. The game plainly tells you to "come back tomorrow" which robs the player of too much autonomy in my view.

I know that the Elder Scrolls games had their own built-in clocks and a rest mechanic, so this example is not directly comparable, but when an NPC or quest giver told you to "come back tomorrow", there was enough to do and to see that choosing to play through that "wait" time could be made meaningful and entertaining. Cozy Grove does not even attempt this unless your idea of long-term, captivating gameplay is collecting shells or sticks.

[Lunloley]

Your criticism is a lot more nuanced (than what I read in the reviews) and I think I agree to some point for the first days. Usually and I think its here the case as well, there will be more to do after like a week into the game. Again, as the prime example, in animal crossing you can't really do that much the first three days as well. They tell you it takes a day to build the museum so come again tomorrow. You get acess to some features like the clothing shop just after some days. It takes like a week of intense gameplay to get into a state where you really have a lot of options, can craft a lot, decorate your island with a variety of items and all. And if you compare Cozy Grove it to this title, that costs 60 bucks and is celebrated by all critics, i just find it unfair when people (and also critics) complain about it in this excess for this indie title for a quarter the price.

But anyway, that was not really the point of this thread. I just want that SpryFox sees this and considers putting a bigger disclaimer on their game descriptions :).

[Joce]

Originally posted by Eversor That Coming:

I must wonder if there is an argument that says unwelcome game mechanics or design choices perceived to be poor can still be criticised regardless of whether their presence is known about before purchase.

I am of the opinion that time-gated content is a bad design choice in 99% of titles. If I choose to buy such a game and have my findings confirmed, I am justified in disliking the game. Such things are a matter of taste of course, but tastes dictate our opinions, and opinions our reviews or recommendations.

If we remove the element of poorly conceived ideas from our consideration when reviewing games, we are not left with much save the aesthetics and technical integrity of the game's programming.

I'm of the opinion that PvP is a horrible gameplay mechanic and it only brings griefing and trolling and is not fun in any way. You're saying I should go buy PvP games and then give bad reviews? That makes zero sense. How about I just don't buy PvP games and stay out of their forums.

[Vix]

Originally posted by Joce:

Originally posted by Eversor That Coming:

I must wonder if there is an argument that says unwelcome game mechanics or design choices perceived to be poor can still be criticised regardless of whether their presence is known about before purchase.

I am of the opinion that time-gated content is a bad design choice in 99% of titles. If I choose to buy such a game and have my findings confirmed, I am justified in disliking the game. Such things are a matter of taste of course, but tastes dictate our opinions, and opinions our reviews or recommendations.

If we remove the element of poorly conceived ideas from our consideration when reviewing games, we are not left with much save the aesthetics and technical integrity of the game's programming.

I'm of the opinion that PvP is a horrible gameplay mechanic and it only brings griefing and trolling and is not fun in any way. You're saying I should go buy PvP games and then give bad reviews? That makes zero sense. How about I just don't buy PvP games and stay out of their forums.

Exactly. It's one thing to say "X mechanic was implemented poorly/could be improved in XYZ ways", it's just... bonkers to get a game and give it negative reviews because it has mechanics you don't like. Where would that end? "I bought a single player game but I wish it was multiplayer-negative review!", "I bought an FPS but I wish it was a Tycoon- negative review!"
There's a number of games I won't buy or play because they have mechanics I dislike, or lack something I like. I'm just not getting them. I might ask BEFORE I buy "Does this game have X? Does it plan to have X?" if not, oh well, too bad. It's just not a game for me, and that's fine. Not every game has to be catered to me.

[KillBurnDeluxe]

While I agree that the speed progression should ultimately up for the devs to decide, the player's progress shouldn't be stopped by things out of their control. If the devs are "totally okay with time travelling", then just make a bed furniture and be done with it.

[Danjal]

Originally posted by Eversor That Coming:

I must wonder if there is an argument that says unwelcome game mechanics or design choices perceived to be poor can still be criticised regardless of whether their presence is known about before purchase.

I am of the opinion that time-gated content is a bad design choice in 99% of titles. If I choose to buy such a game and have my findings confirmed, I am justified in disliking the game. Such things are a matter of taste of course, but tastes dictate our opinions, and opinions our reviews or recommendations.

If we remove the element of poorly conceived ideas from our consideration when reviewing games, we are not left with much save the aesthetics and technical integrity of the game's programming.

Steam allows refunding with less than 2 hours played - while I personally think more people ought to make better informed purchasing decisions, the fact that this game inherently provides limited per-day content ends up meshing well with that.

If you don't like something, is it a shortcoming of the product that it doesn't cater to the things you do like?

"I don't like these game mechanics" hardly reflect on a game itself - they reflect on the users inability to make discerning purchasing decisions that they're trying to deflect on the product.

Steam is flooded with reviews going "I thought it'd be more like X/Y/Z." or "I want it to be more like X/Y/Z."
This is literally information you can obtain with a 5~10 minute investigation prior to purchase even if you're extremely lazy. But instead folks dive in with assumptions and then lash out when those assumptions prove false leaving negative reviews...?

There's this thing called personal responsibility. It'd be one thing if it was advertised as something it was not. A completely different thing if people assume the game to be something without doing some research and then get annoyed when it's not.

Like I can easily see people looking at this and thinking it's a game like Don't Starve rather than Animal Crossing.

People really ought to learn that not every game is going to be tailored to their preferences and that it's okay to skip on a game if it's not their style. But due to fear of missing out they often jump in blind afraid they might miss out on the next big thing.

[Eversor That Coming]

Originally posted by Joce:

I'm of the opinion that PvP is a horrible gameplay mechanic and it only brings griefing and trolling and is not fun in any way. You're saying I should go buy PvP games and then give bad reviews? That makes zero sense. How about I just don't buy PvP games and stay out of their forums.

Upon re-reading my original post I realise that I did not adequately express myself, but my second post explains my opinion much more thoroughly I feel. Allow me to clarify my thoughts:

Certain game mechanics clearly define genres and the difference between genre standard features and additional non-standard game mechanics should be noted here. To buy an FPS game and then complain that it uses a first-person camera and contains guns would be more than silly of course. If the aforementioned FPS contained very awkward gunplay or the hitboxes of enemies interact with the players' bullets poorly, or the enemies themselves are bullet sponges, then criticism is perfectly legitimate. Good criticism is levelled at game mechanics (and most often their implementation) not intrinsic to the genre, even if they were known about before purchase, where as undue criticism I would argue is offered against the mere presence of core features that make a game part of a specific genre as I think you are suggesting in your post.

I am not convinced that time-restricted content is an inherent part of the genre to which Cozy Grove belongs, and even if it were, I would suggest that it is not implemented well in this instance, for reasons outlined in my second response to Lunloley. My own thoughts do however lead me to conclude that those leaving negative reviews because they are shocked at the inclusion of timegates, when they are mentioned on the store page, are wrong to do so and should buy some glasses.

[Gex]

I am pretty sure people put bad reviews because the game offers too little for the price. The fact that they tell you that you have 30-60 minutes does not justify the fact that the world is empty and you can't do anything interesting other than the daily missions. I have already played 4 days, and I must say, it is very simple and limited. This looks like a great game to have on the Ipad for 5$. I played Animal Crossing before, the time gated events are there but the world is big and more alive, so it doesn't leave you frustrated. I tried extending my play of Cozy Grove past the daily missions, by going around fishing, etc, but it's really limited, especially the island size, after 4 days it can't be just that small, it's kinda disappointing. It almost feels like the limitations are there to hide the lack of content

[Lilael]

The store page does identify there is a real-time system. The problem is purchasers who do not read and at that point, no the game does not deserve a negative review for that.

It's obviously okay for someone to not like real-time systems. Those type of people are clearly not part of the game's target audience and that's okay. They don't have to play the game and it's good to learn not every game that exists is going to be your cup of tea.
But one just looks foolish buying a game designed for real-time that clearly says it's real-time based and then writing a review how you hate real-time systems.

Can there be valid suggestions to improve the early stages of a real-time system? Absolutely.
Personally, I do not mind it yet especially as it's only been a few days into the game. I realize as I play more and ultimately unlock the 10+ NPCS and their areas there's going to be a lot more for me to do daily. I enjoy the idea of a real time system where I dedicate a small amount of time playing and can easily stop to go about my day as I have a job, friends, hobbies, housework, etc. Clearly I fit into the target audience well.

[Count_]

Originally posted by Eversor That Coming:

I must wonder if there is an argument that says unwelcome game mechanics or design choices perceived to be poor can still be criticised regardless of whether their presence is known about before purchase.

I am of the opinion that time-gated content is a bad design choice in 99% of titles. If I choose to buy such a game and have my findings confirmed, I am justified in disliking the game. Such things are a matter of taste of course, but tastes dictate our opinions, and opinions our reviews or recommendations.

If we remove the element of poorly conceived ideas from our consideration when reviewing games, we are not left with much save the aesthetics and technical integrity of the game's programming.

What is "bad design" to some is seen as a positive by others.

Get a life.

[Nefrarya]

Originally posted by Count_:

What is "bad design" to some is seen as a positive by others.

Get a life.

Can we keep this civil, please.