Why I was interested in this game, but not anymore (important for dev maybe)

[The deadly Cutsman]

Before using the clow award or the "ok" chain, please read a bit. I don't want to ♥♥♥♥ on the game nor bring the dev down by any means, I just want to bring some problems I see with the game to attention. Sorry about the bible you'r eabout to read (if you decide to do it) and sorry for any grammar mistakes, as english isn't my native language.

SPOILERS BTW
First off, I'd like to say I love Dusk (just so you know i don't hate your other creations) and I 100% it legit, got the "cheat" achievement last. I love this retro/ps1 aesthetic and I see no problem with any other surface elements of this game.
The problem that I have with this game is that it isn't a game, it is an experience. As someone else mentioned ( https://steamcommunity.com/app/1846170/discussions/0/3275814396766873828/ ) The game feels more like an interactive attraction ride than a game. I've seen a video of the game to see if it was worth the purchase (I don't care if it's dirt cheap, please keep reading), but the problem is: The game feels like a video, like, once you see it, the "thing" of the game is gone. The fact that the game got dissected almost immediatly after launch also deletes any atmosphere you could have gotten from playing it yourself. "Well, avoid watching playthroughs the" is not valid, I've seen multiple videos of Dusk and it still was a blast to play. The game lacks replayability, it feels like a one time thing.
I won't claim to be a better game designer than you are, because clearly you've released games and I didn't and probably will never do that, but I guess I could help with my 2 cents on how I would improve the game to be more replayable and to transcend the "1 playthrough" status.
- The map: The game would benefit greatly from randomized maps. I don't even mean multiple levels, just that the map you play changes every time. This could be done either by making multiple different maps or map pieces that merge when the game starts, something like minecraft but with less complexity and more controled.
- The points of interest: Making the points be on pseudo-random spots would also make every playthrough different and more interesting. Changing the objects you photograph (having more monoliths and objects) every playthrough would also make exploration more interesting.
- The creatures: I know that the idea is that the environment is mostly barren, but adding different, smaller creatures that are only varely visible would make the player go "huh, did I just see something in that picture?" for them to take another picture and see that the thing they've seen is gone.
- Easter eggs: It would be pretty cool and it would make multiple playthroughs offer new objectives. These don't need to be signs with youtuber names, Dusk easter eggs or anything like that, just simple "off interest" spots where you can see structures or formations that might not be present in the rest of the map.
- The ending: I don't want to suggest to change the ending, but I've read multiple people reaching the last point of interest and every event triggering, leaving the sub wrecked for the rest of the game without any repercussion. I'd suggest that the triggers of these events should be based on how many points you've succesfully photograph instead on map triggers.
- Achievements: Maybe add a couple, tho don't make the player focus on them because that might kill the tension.

To Mr.Dev: If you read everything up until this point and actually let me know if anything I suggested is right wrong or useful, I'll give you a purchase. I really like the concept, it's just that a video gives you pretty much the whole experience.

[Hevo]

tldr

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by Hevo:

tldr

Cool, but the idea is that it's a feedback thread. It's better to be a single, long thread than multiple small and separate suggestions.

[Mister Macaroni]

Feedback isn't particularly useful if you didn't actually play the game for yourself tbh.

You're correct that it's designed as an "experience" rather than something more gameplay-driven like Dusk.

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by DuskDev:

Feedback isn't particularly useful if you didn't actually play the game for yourself tbh.

You're correct that it's designed as an "experience" rather than something more gameplay-driven like Dusk.

I mean, I've seen the gameplay. There's only 5 buttons to press, a very rudamentary navigation system and a "documenting" camera. Most of the scares come from scripted events, I feel like the game lacks the unknown factor after you've seen it/played it once. But I get it, fair. Will wait for the eventual update before buying.

[Enargo]

I don't really see what's wrong playing a game as an experience. You go into the cinema for 15$ + snacks and time management and you don't complain about the investment even if the film was ♥♥♥♥.
You don't have any say whatsoever in the film. you are in the submarine without even controls to have a sense of independence.
Iron Lung isn't much, but what it does it does great imo and that's good enough for me. You can play the game in under 1 hour and even get your money back but I won't, because I got what I paid for.

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by Enargo:

I don't really see what's wrong playing a game as an experience. You go into the cinema for 15$ + snacks and time management and you don't complain about the investment even if the film was ♥♥♥♥.
You don't have any say whatsoever in the film. you are in the submarine without even controls to have a sense of independence.
Iron Lung isn't much, but what it does it does great imo and that's good enough for me. You can play the game in under 1 hour and even get your money back but I won't, because I got what I paid for.

I mean, if Dev said that it was designed to be more of an experience rather than a game, then yeah, you are paying an entrance ticket to a interactive digital attraction that you can keep after "riding" it.
My points come from me wanting to "make this game feel more like a game", but if Dev doesn't want to take it to that direction then it's fine too! Who knows? Maybe my ideas actually suck or are not good ideas for this specific game.

[piecewise66]

Originally posted by Enargo:

I don't really see what's wrong playing a game as an experience. You go into the cinema for 15$ + snacks and time management and you don't complain about the investment even if the film was ♥♥♥♥.
You don't have any say whatsoever in the film. you are in the submarine without even controls to have a sense of independence.
Iron Lung isn't much, but what it does it does great imo and that's good enough for me. You can play the game in under 1 hour and even get your money back but I won't, because I got what I paid for.

I complain if a film is bad....

The issue is that Iron lung, for me at least, is somewhere between movie and game and doesn't really have the strengths of either. In a movie I'm able to just focus on the events unfolding; the lack of interactivity means the experience can be more tightly focused and there's nothing to distract from it. In a game I have the agency to control my actions and the tension of a situation revolves around the consequences of my choices. Iron lung doesn't really have any agency in its gameplay, and its gameplay is fairly distracting. I'm sitting and looking at a map trying to figure out the best angles and movement and its hard to keep the tension up when I'm doing mental math.

I feel like if it leans further one way or the other it will be better because it can capitalize more on the strengths of interactive or non-interactive experiences.

[Grimoirian]

Machine for Pigs was my fave Amnesia game, and a lot of people levelled the same criticism at it. Sounds like this game might be worth my time.

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by Meat Priest:

Machine for Pigs was my fave Amnesia game, and a lot of people levelled the same criticism at it. Sounds like this game might be worth my time.

I mean, "A machine for pigs" gives you a lot more freedom of gameplay, has a fairly developed story and all that. My comment comes from a place of "this looks more like a disney ride rather than a game", but Dev said it's suppoused to be more like an experience, so I guess it's fine.

[MartensoftWorld]

Originally posted by DuskDev:

Feedback isn't particularly useful if you didn't actually play the game for yourself tbh.

You're correct that it's designed as an "experience" rather than something more gameplay-driven like Dusk.

Played the game myself and I tend to agree with cutsmans argument. Sure, it is a great idea, atmosphere is pretty good, but the game's mechanics are such a slog that it makes watching someone else play it a worthy alternative. It's not as bad as a walking simulator but if you are going to expand on this concept, go all the way with the submarine idea. Make the controls more in depth than they are.

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by Microsoft has terminated file:

Played the game myself and I tend to agree with cutsmans argument. Sure, it is a great idea, atmosphere is pretty good, but the game's mechanics are such a slog that it makes watching someone else play it a worthy alternative. It's not as bad as a walking simulator but if you are going to expand on this concept, go all the way with the submarine idea. Make the controls more in depth than they are.

If you go that route, you risk turning this into a submarine sim. What I'm trying to argue that the game's too close to one of "choose your own adventure" books, giving you the illusion of control, but with none of the risks that come with said control. Like, you can't expect me to be on the edge of my seat after giving me the knowledge that the monster is just trigger events and the only way to "die" is by hitting walls... but again, it's more of a 1 time experience rather than a game. Some people can watch the same movie multiple times and still enjoy it, some others can't...

[Praisethevillain]

You're simply missing the point of the game. It is supposed to be an interactive experience. The dev even said it himself. It's about taking in the atmosphere and the sense of claustrophobia and isolation, leaving time for introspection, feeding into the fear of the unknown. Reading your replies, you seem like you simply want this game to be something it's not, which is keeping you from enjoying the game for what it is. To which I say, just accept it for what it is and move on, it's clearly not for everyone.

[Praisethevillain]

You also have to realize this was made by one guy. He did everything himself. The entire area you navigate with the sub is a 3d environment, it's not just jpgs the photo taker gives you, it's ACTUAL pictures of where you are in that 3d space. If this was made by a whole team over a long period of time, that would be a problem. But the fact that it was made by one person in a very short amount of time, he had a clear vision and a goal, and I think he did a fantastic job with it.

[The deadly Cutsman]

Originally posted by Praisethevillain:

You're simply missing the point of the game. It is supposed to be an interactive experience. The dev even said it himself. It's about taking in the atmosphere and the sense of claustrophobia and isolation, leaving time for introspection, feeding into the fear of the unknown. Reading your replies, you seem like you simply want this game to be something it's not, which is keeping you from enjoying the game for what it is. To which I say, just accept it for what it is and move on, it's clearly not for everyone.

Originally posted by The deadly Cutsman:

I mean, if Dev said that it was designed to be more of an experience rather than a game, then yeah, you are paying an entrance ticket to a interactive digital attraction that you can keep after "riding" it.

Originally posted by The deadly Cutsman:

but Dev said it's suppoused to be more like an experience, so I guess it's fine.

Originally posted by The deadly Cutsman:

but again, it's more of a 1 time experience rather than a game.

Bruh

Originally posted by Praisethevillain:

You also have to realize this was made by one guy. He did everything himself. The entire area you navigate with the sub is a 3d environment, it's not just jpgs the photo taker gives you, it's ACTUAL pictures of where you are in that 3d space. If this was made by a whole team over a long period of time, that would be a problem. But the fact that it was made by one person in a very short amount of time, he had a clear vision and a goal, and I think he did a fantastic job with it.

Dev made Dusk, a game a million times more complex than this game. Bad argument.

[MartensoftWorld]

Originally posted by The deadly Cutsman:

Originally posted by Microsoft has terminated file:

Played the game myself and I tend to agree with cutsmans argument. Sure, it is a great idea, atmosphere is pretty good, but the game's mechanics are such a slog that it makes watching someone else play it a worthy alternative. It's not as bad as a walking simulator but if you are going to expand on this concept, go all the way with the submarine idea. Make the controls more in depth than they are.

If you go that route, you risk turning this into a submarine sim. What I'm trying to argue that the game's too close to one of "choose your own adventure" books, giving you the illusion of control, but with none of the risks that come with said control. Like, you can't expect me to be on the edge of my seat after giving me the knowledge that the monster is just trigger events and the only way to "die" is by hitting walls... but again, it's more of a 1 time experience rather than a game. Some people can watch the same movie multiple times and still enjoy it, some others can't...

Agreed that it shouldn't be at 'sub sim' levels, but check out the arcade sub game steel diver: sub wars for the kind of controls I would argue make more sense. Minus the weapons it makes it feel like you're commanding an actual sub without it being overbearing, in iron lung, it just does not seem immersive because who would design a sub like that. Even with the massively limited material budget of the future this game takes place in. As for the game basically being an interactive movie, I agree. It's nice the game doesn't hold your hand on the way to the journey but the fact you can just watch someone play it to get the same feel as the game itself is the direction games started to turn with walking sims, and people rejected that for good reason. This has more going for it than that, yes, but it still feels along the same track.