Hey reviewers- Its a ONE man work

[Im walking here!!]

And it is said in the first sentence of the description, right at the store page. A 'short', one-man, interactive narrative-driven story. I don't own it yet (i will wait it get way cheaper) but i couldn't stand seeing the reviews...
You can criticise it not having real choices or choices enought (theres only 2 ways i believe), bugs or whatever, but the rest is your fault: the video shows the quality of production/animation, and the shaky cammera. The store page says out loud its a short- damn, short games of few hours never say that, if something describes itself as short you gotta believe it.

I went to read the reviews and got baffled for all the negative ones starting stating what ive just saw right at my face at the store page as major let downs. For gods sake, put more tought in your purchases guys, think a little harder, idn, just don't be silly like that. Its like buying tetris and complaining all levels are the same blocks and colors, or how it lacks depth of field and next gen graphics.

'It should be a short movie instead'- i guess thats right; If theres little to no interaction or consequences thats really bad... focus on those them. These are proprer criticism and relevant ones. I had to browse a flood of reviews complaining about the obvious to gather any real info of what else to expect(and the non obvious flaws). These 'reviews' are a disservice, really.

'Interactive media' is a new medium- few decades old compared to any other art/entertainment form. Its still in its diapers and as such is bound for experimentation and mistakes. We barely have proper definitions. This may not be a 'game', but the very definition of game is changing. I can't blame the author for trying and experimenting- im on the same field, whatever i would do or explore would be in this medium im familiar with, i wouldn't go make a short movie. I also can't blame him for asking a price- from what ive readed it ain't 'broken' and theres people who enjoy those.

He can be blamed for not delivering; For falling short of expectations, not pushing it further, wasting the opportunity with the interactivity and so on and forth.

[FUSHIGI BONG RIPS 1998]

Whether one guy made it or not, it's still subject to criticism: it is what it is. If someone says it's mediocre and badly executed, they probably said that for a reason. You should look into that.

And for the record: Tetris is good at what it does. This game, according to most of the reviews, is not.

[atksolotl]

Being made by one person isn't a free pass for being poorly designed. There are plenty of excellent one-man games that have been critically aclaimed (ie. Braid, Thomas Was Alone, Dust: An Elysian Tail, the list goes on...).

Also, just because the store page mentions the fact that its short and "experimental" doesn't give it a free pass on bad design. If the store page of Earth: Year 2066 said it was a buggy piece of crap that shouldn't be on sale, does that mean its no longer subject to criticism just because it openly admits it? Of course it doesn't.

Anyone stating the game is "broken" though is quite frankly wrong, and again jumping on the band-wagon for things they don't understand. The game is just poorly designed and has poor execution. You can see the potential that was there, sure, but it didn't pull it off very well at all. That's why I was so negative about it.

On a final note, yep, it absolutely should have been a short movie. If you're going to make a game, make a game. This could have easily been an animated movie and I would have got the same or probably better experience with it, because it has next-to-no gameplay mechanics to speak of, you have no impact on the world at all and the limited use of walking around tiny areas is not "gameplay", it's simply a corridor you walk down... So what's the point?

[GreenDazed]

I saw Jim Sterling's Squirty Play of it and the credits listed a whole slew of people involved.

But regardless they are selling this for money, and from what I saw I don't think it's worth that or even the whole 20 minutes it takes to play it.

[Mazi7]

Lifeless Planet is one man work. Just saying.. Critics need to be recieved if they are justified.

[ElfShotTheFood]

The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was also a one-man job.

[Barathrum]

Story: Mediocre
Gameplay: Nonexistent
Replay Value: 3 endings essentially

IMO It's worth 1-2 dollars but not 5. Would you guys be complaining if it was around that price just curious?

[himmatsj]

Originally posted by VeryNakedVeryEmporer:

Story: Mediocre
Gameplay: Nonexistent
Replay Value: 3 endings essentially

IMO It's worth 1-2 dollars but not 5. Would you guys be complaining if it was around that price just curious?

I think it's simply not worth the 30 mins or so, so money is inconsequential. I myself like experimental games like this, and expected much, but it just flat-out doesn't deliver. A very incoherent game.

[himmatsj]

I bought the game explicitly for what it is and I do not criticize it knowing that. What I criticize though is the fact the game is not executed well at all. Read my review. Or Alpha's review is more substantive than mine.

[@jbu3]

One-man work? The credits beg to differ.

[Im walking here!!]

I haven't looked trought the credits, ive saw some of it on a video let's play. The store page mentions 'made by one person'- could be blatant lie, but more likely its an authoral project for the most part(concept, coding, level design, etc), with more people joining later for the other stuff (music, voice, debugging, etc).

I get the game is bad for various reasons (reason i hadn't bought it), and looking at the videos i agree. But i mantain that most reviews were nit-pikcy with stuff that was blatant obvious from the get go, like the fuzzy camera and the graphics (both of wich are very clear from the video).

All im saying is reviewers should be more precise. For example Duke Nuken Forever is really bad, but a proper review would focus on what is off from the promise, and not rant of it being an oldschool fps(wich was the intention). Im seeing people bringing up all they don't like about 'narrative games' (many label 'walking simulators') when reviewing this- wich makes me question why the hell they bought it and whos their intended audience. Or ranting about bad graphics.

[TheGravesOfThe80s]

The things I disliked the most were things that weren't obvious from the information given on the storepage (simple nagivation is a chore, the writing is awful, etc.). I love games that are often considered "artsy-fartsy," but this game just didn't deliver on that front. I feel bad saying all of this, and I wish the creator luck, but that is simply how I felt about 4PM.

[Nytengale138]

The Floor is Jelly is another rather stellar one-man game.

[hellosweetie]

I liked the premise of this game from its decription. I love Christine Love's games, The Cat Lady, The Novelist, Gone Home, and all those games The Stanley Parable mocks (and I love the Stanley Parable). I am the target audience for this game and love things in this genre. But I did not like this game when I played it.

4am's plot, the stilted choices, the two-dimensional characters -- all of these turned me off. It even made me carsick somehow (was it supposed to? I'm not sure). It's not about the gameplay or voices or whatever for me -- this game just handled alcholism in a juvenile way. I was never moved, only insulted. See The Cat Lady for depression and suicide expertly handled (for example, the mini game to keep her from a meltdown as she tries to make dinner is elegant and moving).

Still, all the problems in this game are forgivable in a free game. But I paid for this. So yes, I am not happy and I'm not going to be quiet about it.

[TheGravesOfThe80s]

Originally posted by hellosweetie:

I liked the premise of this game from its decription. I love Christine Love's games, The Cat Lady, The Novelist, Gone Home, and all those games The Stanley Parable mocks (and I love the Stanley Parable). I am the target audience for this game and love things in this genre. But I did not like this game when I played it.

4am's plot, the stilted choices, the two-dimensional characters -- all of these turned me off. It even made me carsick somehow (was it supposed to? I'm not sure). It's not about the gameplay or voices or whatever for me -- this game just handled alcholism in a juvenile way. I was never moved, only insulted. See The Cat Lady for depression and suicide expertly handled (for example, the mini game to keep her from a meltdown as she tries to make dinner is elegant and moving).

Still, all the problems in this game are forgivable in a free game. But I paid for this. So yes, I am not happy and I'm not going to be quiet about it.

Honestly, I feel like if in-game movement weren't so nauseating and frustrating, the game would be at least a little less offensive as an experience. Even if someone wasn't into The Stanley Parable and Gone Home, they could at least play through it easily, as the player movement was flawless. With this mistake, it has alienated pretty much everyone. People who actually like the story (maybe some of these people exist?) are stuck in a game where traversing something as simple as an apartment is much more annoying than it should be. And people who don't like the story have yet another thing to hate.

[Wif]

I didn't mind it, but I knew it played more like an interactive movie than a game and based all my opinions on that. $5 for a 20-30 minute experience is on the expensive side, but I am a fan of new angles to tell a story and I think this game took a reasonably bold step in doing so.
A similar experience, but definitely a game, would be Dream.