The whole real time stuff ...

[~* BiZZ Keryear *~]

.. doesn't seem too fun. At least for people like me who play on whims. I might want to play a game excessivly for 12 hours 7 days, but then don't touch it for a year or so.

[gitarrlillan]

Originally posted by ~* BiZZ Keryear *~:

.. doesn't seem too fun. At least for people like me who play on whims. I might want to play a game excessivly for 12 hours 7 days, but then don't touch it for a year or so.

Yes for game bingers the real time element is bad. For others like me that don't get tired of a game and love playing same game for a long timeperiod this is awesome with the nice daily portions of content. Getting something to look forward to for the next session of playtime.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by ~* BiZZ Keryear *~:

.. doesn't seem too fun. At least for people like me who play on whims. I might want to play a game excessivly for 12 hours 7 days, but then don't touch it for a year or so.

I feel you. For the first two or three weeks, every single one of my play sessions ended in the frustration of wanting to play more, but being blocked from further progress by the arbitrary real-time gating. Additionally, as an adult with a job, people depending on me, and other obligations, I simply don't have time every day - I may have time for 4 hours on one given day, and I wanted to play the game for those 4 hours, but instead the game arbitrarily halted my progress after an hour, and literally told me to come back the next day - when I didn't have time to play.

I think that this is horrible game design. Everyone who prefers to consume a game in small daily bits, would still be able to do so if the time gating weren't there. But everyone who would prefer to play in bigger chunks, suffers.

That said, the game is very clear about this design, there's even an unmissable warning box on top of the product page. So the vast majority of people who spend money on it, know the risk. Personally I recommend my friends to stay away from the game if the time-gating sounds problematic for them, but I do recommend it to the others.

I also have to say that I did stay with the game despite this frustration. I like the stories and the relaxing, casual gameplay. As the island opened up and more bears got unlocked, the play sessions became more likely to approach the length that I _wanted_ to spend with the game. I would have enjoyed it _more_ without the time gating, but in the end, the positives outweigh the negatives for me.

[~* BiZZ Keryear *~]

Originally posted by Psyringe:

[...]

Thanks. This tells me this game isn't for me.

[TamanduaGirl]

I didn't get it for awhile after learning of the game due that but it actually works very well for me. Spend an hour or 2 doing stuff on the island then have time for other games. Plus at the beginning I spent much more time just fishing and gathering supplies to sell or hold onto which made some quests be quick that people sometimes struggle with because they didn't spend time getting things before being asked for them.

But with the main story done I would log in or not for a short time to do stuff and relax which leaves plenty of time for other games. Though I did play less and less after the story till the DLC dropped. To me it's nice to have a lack of pressure to do stuff and a nice relaxing atmosphere.

There's no need to rush. It's a single player game. And to be fair it'd probably be a quickly done game if it wasn't gated and you just rush through all the quests.

[Piperbird]

Not every game can be for everyone.

I work 11 hours shifts. I'm far too exhausted after work to do anything that requires a lot of concentration. Having a cute little game with nice music that I can sit and play for 15 minutes while dinner is cooking is a blessing. And there's no pressure. If I don't finish the quests, they will either be waiting for me the next time I play, or will have disappeared with no bad consequences.

There are loads of games you can sit and play for 12 hours. Let us have our handful of cozy real time games.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Piperbird:

I work 11 hours shifts. I'm far too exhausted after work to do anything that requires a lot of concentration. Having a cute little game with nice music that I can sit and play for 15 minutes while dinner is cooking is a blessing. And there's no pressure. If I don't finish the quests, they will either be waiting for me the next time I play, or will have disappeared with no bad consequences.

And how would that be any different if the game allowed people to progress further in one day?

I completely understand that some players _prefer_ to consume a game in small bits - that's totally fine. In my review, I specifically recommended the game to players who, for example, want to spend an hour to unwind and relax before they go to bed. What I criticize, is that the game needlessly posits this as the _only_ way to play it, and doesn't care about anyone who would like to play in larger chunks. (And of course it's the devs' prerogative to design the game in whichever way they want, but it's also my prerogative as a customer to criticize design decisions that I deem absolutely terrible. ;) )

My understanding is that you like the game as-is not _because_ of the time-gating, but because you don't feel its effect. The time-gating does nothing to enhance your experience, but it also doesn't bother you because you never run into a situation where you want to do more quests and the game won't let you.

Now let's imagine the game did the following: Whenever Flamey tells you "Come back tomorrow", you get an option to either just say "okay", or to sleep and advance the game to the next day. You (as someone who likes to play in small bits) could still play in the way you like - you'd just end your session for the day, and return on the next one. But people who prefer to play for longer, would be able to _also_ enjoy the game and keep on questing.

For players, there is literally no downside to such a solution, hence I'm so critical of the time-gated design (while still enjoying the casual gameplay and the really nicely written quests).

[~* BiZZ Keryear *~]

I have two reasons why I this game isn't for me.
1) The time gating. But only for a little. I can switch games.
2) The "seasonal" events. As I said: I'm not a person who plays the same game daily. I might play a game for a week (sometimes longer, sometimes less than one) more than it is healthy, but then don't touch it. For months, sometimes years, only to dig it out, and play it for a week or more again, and again way more than it is healthy.

3) Both effects together will most likely cause that I won't touch the game ever again after the initial two hours. (After which I switch games and stay there, missing out on all the seasonal stuff, and then seeing no point of coming back). So, no reason in buying it in first place.

[Atomsk]

I can't think of a single reason why the game is time gated other than it being a gimmick. There's also the fact that only a single sentence that warns prospective buyers of how you'll be spending your time with this game. Having said that that I don't necessarily hate it. I just dislike the fact I can't enjoy a product I purchased unless it's within the arbitrary parameters set to fulfill some cutesy aesthetic.

It's less of a commentary on the game and more on the skill of the game devs; or lack thereof.

[brightstar]

Personally I think this aspect is well and responsibly designed. It balances breadth of content with immersion disruption (the open-endedness of most games is a problem for me). From the store page I had a clear idea of what I was getting ^^

[Piperbird]

Originally posted by Atomsk:

I just dislike the fact I can't enjoy a product I purchased unless it's within the arbitrary parameters set to fulfill some cutesy aesthetic.

It's less of a commentary on the game and more on the skill of the game devs; or lack thereof.

Literally every game is like that, though?

There are games I can't enjoy because they are first person (makes me motion sick), and there's really no reason they couldn't also be in third person other than to fulfill the aesthetic.

Loot and shoot, cozy, simulators, every game is made the way the developer wanted because that's what the developer wanted to do. Some people will like them, some people wont.

Making Cozy Grove real time is not a lack of skill on the developers part, it's how they wanted the game, so it's how they made the game.

I personally enjoy the real time aspect of it.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Piperbird:

Literally every game is like that, though?

There are games I can't enjoy because they are first person (makes me motion sick), and there's really no reason they couldn't also be in third person other than to fulfill the aesthetic.

Loot and shoot, cozy, simulators, every game is made the way the developer wanted because that's what the developer wanted to do. Some people will like them, some people wont.

That's a dead-end argument. If that's your premise, then no discussion about game design decisions is ever possible.

Reality isn't quite as black-and-white. For one, games often _do not_ get made in the way the developer wanted, I can't see where you'd get that impression from. Big publishers very often interfere with the vision of their developers. That's probably not a problem for a game like Cozy Grove, but still, the point that you are trying to make is objectively and demonstrably false (if you want examples, just ask).

But even without a big publisher, games very often have to be changed from their original vision. Sometimes the money runs out, sometimes a part of the original vision just can't be realized due to technical problems, sometimes it's something else.

Let me ask you - how many game developers are you actually in contact with? Because your perspective of game development seems to be very different from the actual reality of it.

Originally posted by Piperbird:

Making Cozy Grove real time is not a lack of skill on the developers part, it's how they wanted the game, so it's how they made the game.

I'm sorry, but that's a really terrible argument for at least two reasons.

One, the statement "they wanted it to be that way so it can't be a lack of skill" is completely illogical. Obviously, a game designer could make a decision of wanting a specific mechanic, design a game with it, ship it, notice that it affects many players negatively, regret it, and design the next game differently. That's how people learn to get better at their job. A game isn't automatically skillfully designed just because it reflects the (past) vision of its designer, that's a nonsensical argument.

Second, unless you are part of the development team, you have no way of actually knowing the things you claim. As an example - the game could have originally been planned as a mobile game with an in-game shop. For such games, it is important to keep the players engaged over a longer period of (real) time, because that increases the chance that players spend money in the shop. So in such a design, limiting the amount of content that a player can experience each day would make sense. The design could then have changed mid-development, with some aspects of the old design still in the game, even though they no longer make much sense.

There are other possible explanations as well. I'm not saying that the one above is necessarily true, because - just like you - I have no way of knowing that. But why are _you_ so sure that you know how this game was developed?

Originally posted by Piperbird:

I personally enjoy the real time aspect of it.

You keep saying that, but you also keep evading the questions that I asked afterward. So I'll ask you again: What exactly are you _enjoying_ about the fact that the game _blocks_ you from doing more quests on a given day?

You still haven't answered that, so it's really hard to make sense of your position. You have explained that the real-time gating does not affect you because you only play for a short duration on any day anyway. But you could do that without the game forcing that playstyle on everyone. So in which way does _your_ experience benefit from the game enforcing real-time limits on others?

[Piperbird]

Originally posted by Psyringe:

Originally posted by Piperbird:

Literally every game is like that, though?

There are games I can't enjoy because they are first person (makes me motion sick), and there's really no reason they couldn't also be in third person other than to fulfill the aesthetic.

Loot and shoot, cozy, simulators, every game is made the way the developer wanted because that's what the developer wanted to do. Some people will like them, some people wont.

That's a dead-end argument. If that's your premise, then no discussion about game design decisions is ever possible.

Reality isn't quite as black-and-white. For one, games often _do not_ get made in the way the developer wanted, I can't see where you'd get that impression from. Big publishers very often interfere with the vision of their developers. That's probably not a problem for a game like Cozy Grove, but still, the point that you are trying to make is objectively and demonstrably false (if you want examples, just ask).

Second, games very often have to be changed from their original vision. Sometimes the money runs out, sometimes a part of the original vision just can't be realized due to technical problems, sometimes it's something else. Your perspective of game development seems to be very different from the actual reality of it.

Originally posted by Piperbird:

Making Cozy Grove real time is not a lack of skill on the developers part, it's how they wanted the game, so it's how they made the game.

I'm sorry, but that's a really terrible argument for at least two reasons.

One, the statement "they wanted it to be that way so it can't be a lack of skill" is completely illogical. Obviously, a game designer could make a decision of wanting a specific mechanic, design a game with it, ship it, notice that it affects many players negatively, regret it, and design the next game differently. That's how people learn to get better at their job. A game isn't automatically skillfully designed just because it reflects the (past) vision of its designer, that's a nonsensical argument.

Second, unless you are part of the development team, you have no way of actually knowing the things you claim. As an example - the game could have originally been planned as a mobile game with an in-game shop. For such games, it is important to keep the players engaged over a longer period of (real) time, because that increases the chance that players spend money in the shop. The design could then have changed mid-development, with some aspects of the old design still in the game, even though they no longer make much sense.

There are other possible explanations as well. I'm not saying that the one above is necessarily true, because - just like you - I have no way of knowing that. But why are _you_ so sure that you know how this game was developed?

Originally posted by Piperbird:

I personally enjoy the real time aspect of it.

You keep saying that, but you also keep evading the questions that I asked afterward. So I'll ask you again: What exactly are you _enjoying_ about the fact that the game _blocks_ you from doing more quests on a given day?

You still haven't answered that, so it's really hard to make sense of your position. You have explained that the real-time aspect does not affect you because you only play for a short duration on any day anyway. But you could do that without the game forcing that playstyle on everyone. So in which way does _your_ experience benefit from the game enforcing real-time limits on others?

That is a really giant wall of text for 'only your opinion is the correct one'.

I enjoy real time for the same reason I enjoyed it in Animal Crossing. It's nice to be able to relax, have a game that you can enjoy long term instead of blowing through it and burning out. I can do the daily tasks, and then the game is open to do whatever I want to do. I love popping in at different times of the day and seeing the ghosts lit up at night, or having different events or items spawning.

There are a million games you can sit and binge and 'complete' in two days. It's nice to have one where you know you have months or years of enjoyment ahead of you.

You want it to be not real time. Someone else may want it to have combat. Someone else might want it to have dungeons. OK. That's not what this game is. There are other games for those things.

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Piperbird:

That is a really giant wall of text for 'only your opinion is the correct one'.

Well - you are the one who claims to know what the developers think. I am the one who says that we cannot know that and that many explanations are possible. Perhaps think about that for a moment before claiming that I don't accept other opinions.

I have no problem accepting other opinions. However, if an opinion makes no logical sense, then I point that out. If you can't logically explain your opinion, then perhaps it's not such a great opinion to have?

But - if you see any logical inconsistencies in my argument, then please, by all means, point them out. Nobody is perfect, and I definitely never claimed that I was. ;) So far however, you haven't done that.

Originally posted by Piperbird:

I enjoy real time for the same reason I enjoyed it in Animal Crossing. It's nice to be able to relax, have a game that you can enjoy long term instead of blowing through it and burning out. I can do the daily tasks, and then the game is open to do whatever I want to do. I love popping in at different times of the day and seeing the ghosts lit up at night, or having different events or items spawning.

Unfortunately, you're once again evading the question. So I'll ask it again: What exactly are you _enjoying_ about the fact that the game _blocks_ you from doing more quests on a given day?

All the things that you're describing, are things that you could do in exactly the same way if the game didn't put an arbitrary limit on the number of quests that you can do per day of real-time. You want to play the game for a long time in short sessions? You can do that without the game forcing you to do it. You enjoy the different night/day graphics? You could have those without the game time-gating the story quests.

You seem to find it really difficult to answer that question, perhaps think about why that is.

Originally posted by Piperbird:

You want it to be not real time. Someone else may want it to have combat. Someone else might want it to have dungeons. OK. That's not what this game is. There are other games for those things.

Interestingly, I haven't seen any posts from people who want combat or dungeons in this game. I _am_ seeing posts from people who strongly dislike the real-time gating. Odd, isn't it?

But you're also still missing the point. The point is not that different players have different preferences, and that different games cater to different players. That is obvious and barely worth discussing. The point is that this game uses a particular mechanic that makes little sense in its design, and that even the people who don't hate that mechanic have trouble finding reasons why they would _like_ it. And if a mechanic has so little to go for it, it's clearly a bad design decision.

[Piperbird]

I've explained several times why I like it. I'm sorry you're not understanding. It also seems like you are way worked up about this, to an unhealthy amount. Why not just go play the game and relax?

[Psyringe]

Originally posted by Piperbird:

I've explained several times why I like it.

You have explained why the daily quest limit does not affect you (because you prefer to play in short sessions), and you have also explained why you like other real-time aspects like day/night graphics and seasonal celebrations (that were never part of my criticism).

You still haven't explained what you _enjoy_ about being _blocked_ from doing more quests per day.

Logically, from the way you are explaining your opinion, you'd arrive at the conclusion "I don't care whether the game limits the daily quests or not, because it does not affect my playstyle".

But for some reason, you're not drawing that conclusion. Hence I'm pointing out that your argument is not logical.

Originally posted by Piperbird:

It also seems like you are way worked up about this, to an unhealthy amount. Why not just go play the game and relax?

Sometimes I play a game to relax. Sometimes I have a discussion on Steam forums to relax. When and how I relax is my own decision, isn't it? ;)

If you think I'm "way worked up", then you may want to work on your telepathy skills. ;) I'm not particularly passionate about this issue. I do like the game, I do think that one particular part of its design (time-gated quest progress) is a bad design decision. As someone who's working in the game industry, I find the topic interesting to discuss. That's all.

I'm a bit disappointed in the sweeping, generalized perspective (especially about game development) that you're presenting here, but I won't lose any sleep over that. Mostly it looks to me like this: I'd like to have an insightful discussion about the effects of certain game design decisions, whereas you are trying to "defend" a game that you like against any criticism, even if you don't actually enjoy the limitation that is being criticized. But that's your prerogative.