Inside made me retroactively hate Limbo

[Malidictus]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Limbo is a bad game, just that after playing inside, I found myself really resentful of my subsequent replay of Limbo. It has nothing to do with the story or the atmosphere, so much as pure gameplay design. Let me explain...

When it first came out, I played Limbo and enjoyed it quite a bit, though quite a number of puzzles frustrated the hell out of me. I didn't get Inside when it came out because people overhyped the HELL out of it, turning me off completely, but I did snag it on discount a few days ago. I replayed Limbo as a primer, Finished Inside to 100% and then went back to grab all the secrets in Limbo I'd missed. And BOY was that final playthrough PAINFUL, especially the "secret level." It hadn't really clicked with me just how much Limbo is trying to be a "superhard platformer" until I had to go through miles upon miles of pitch darkness dodging things I couldn't see, needing to make perfect jumps with very little information.

The simple fact of the matter is that Limbo is trying to be challenging by means of being deliberately cheap, in ways that Inside simply never does. Limbo will deliberately frustrate you with death traps you simply can't avoid on a first playthrough. OK, there's a crusher on the ceiling with a big button underneath. Let's jump over the button so I don't... Oh, it's the sand around the "button" that triggers is. OK, dead, but jump on the button next time. Oh, another crusher. So jump on the button and... OK, so on THIS one the button triggers it and the sand doesn't. OK, well there was no way I could have guessed that. I pull a switch, water starts rising, I die. Should have set up the box! I do a complex puzzle, bull a switch, fall on electrified rails and die. Should have pulled the cart first! There are a lot of puzzles where you have to die a few times just to figure out what's going on - the game's intentionally messing with you. Which is fine from thematic standpoint - you're a small child in a world full of lingering danger around every corner. But then there's that achievement for finishing the entire game while only dying 5 times...

...which wouldn't be so bad if JUST knowing the puzzles was enough to go through them perfectly, but the game also relies very, very heavily on pinpoint-precise timing. Not towards the start, no - people who only played the demo usually don't know what I'm talking about. But it definitely does towards the end once gravity-reversing comes into play, or the rotating scenery, or all the various buzzsaws, or the brain leeches. The HOTLE sign is probably my least favourite. To make the jump across the lethal H, I have to jump while the neon is still lit almost to the millisecond. Jump too early and the neon kills me before it turns off. Jump too late and I don't have enough time to make it to the O. And I have no means of really judging when to jump. The only way I figured to approach it was to just keep jumping, dying and adjusting my timing from run to run. And it's not just that. There's the swinging chain over the electrified rail or the swinging ladder on wheels over the elevating electrified rail, or that jump over a large buzzsaw which requires stacking two boxes on top of each other and climbing them and the list goes on. The very last puzzle requires timing that I'm simply not capable of getting on the first try.

Inside, on the other hand, feels a lot more fair on both accounts. Yes, it's an easier game, but I'd argue that's the result of tighter game design eliminating needless frustration. There are almost no places in that game that fast reflexes and split-second timing is required. There are quite a few where it FEELS like you made it out by the skin of your teeth, but those are calculated to give that illusion. If you set them up correctly and don't make serious mistakes, you'll get away every time. Most of the dog chases are like that. The closest to this is probably the Bridge, especially the section with a rotating plate near a climbable ladder. Thing is, though, that you have a lever to stop it with. Want the plate to protect you in the exact spot on the ladder? Stop it there, wait for the air pulse and start it moving again. The two are synced, so it'll be in position on the next cycle. Other than one instance where you have to swing on a rope through a closing door and maybe the rolling containers that chase you down an incline, the puzzles don't come down to timing to any significant degree, but rather to figuring them out.

And when it comes to figuring stuff out, I don't think there was a single instance in Inside where I died to something I didn't think could kill me. Yes, there are a few instances where you can get killed if you don't do something first, like the first appearance of the searchlights that you have to open a gate before triggering, but it's simple enough to go back and turn them back once you get to the door. The dog chases are also pretty well telegraphed, as well. The game makes it pretty clear that you CANNOT outrun dogs in a straight race, but you can out-climb them and out-swim them. So when you're being chased by a dog and see a massive long stretch of ground in front of you, maybe don't try to outrun them. Because you already know that that's not going to work. When the "murmaids" are introduced, it's pretty clear that you don't want them near you. I didn't need one bursting through the bubble of my sub to figure that out - the initial jump scare and their behaviour were clues enough.

To my eyes, Limo is trying to be (or at least pay lip service to) one of those ultra-hard action platformers which infested the XBLA at the time. The cheap deaths, the precise timing, the "I will break you!" attitude feels more like caving to peer pressure, and it comes at the expense of immersion, at least in my case. Dying to an unexpected threat is scary the first time. Dying to a completely expected threat dozens of times is just frustrating. Inside, by contrast, isn't trying to be challenging at all. It has more in common with the "Walking Simulators" of today, albeit with a lot more compelling actual gameplay. Turns out that you don't need your games to be ball-bustingly challenging in order for them to tell a story through moody atmosphere and artistic design. To me, it's a bit like the difference between Portal and Portal 2. The former is trying to be a difficult game with a lot of precise actions and timing, while the latter typically takes on a much more sedate tone and lets players problem-solve on their own time.

I don't regret the time I spent with Limbo (outside that last run), but I see no more reason to go back to it. I can do with less frustration in my life.

[MASTAN]

TLDR: Playdead made INSIDE better than their first game.

[MASTAN]

Malidictus a écrit :

And I have no means of really judging when to jump. The only way I figured to approach it was to just keep jumping, dying and adjusting my timing from run to run.

You have the means. Count.
Wait as many cycles as you need to figure out the moment to jump. Count and instead of jumping imagine if you'd jump now you'd land on switched off area or not. Same thing with gravity.

[Malidictus]

MASTAN a écrit :

TLDR: Playdead made INSIDE better than their first game.

Not just better, but fundamentally better, was my point. Limbo has a somewhat unique premise, but is derivative in execution, influenced by the "ultra hard" platformers of that time. It honestly feels like the developers tried to make something in the vein of Another World or Heart of Darkness, and the result clashes heavily with the themes of the game.

Inside, on the other hand, is fairly unique - I'm having trouble pulling an example game that it's overwhelmingly "like." It shows an understanding of its own core strengths, which are presentation, theme and experience, rather than challenge or player skill. Instead of trying to be Super Meat Boy, it tries to get the most out of its simple controls and relies on the player's understanding of the game's world more so than on their twitch reflexes. Unfortunately, it exposes the derivative nature of Limbo's gameplay design in doing so.

MASTAN a écrit :

You have the means. Count. Wait as many cycles as you need to figure out the moment to jump. Count and instead of jumping imagine if you'd jump now you'd land on switched off area or not. Same thing with gravity.

Count what? "One-one-thousand, two-one-thousand, three-one-thousand jump?" Again, Limbo requires exacting precision in terms of both timing and control inputs while giving me highly imprecise clues to time my jumps by. It's not impossible - I got the timing down eventually, after all. It's just incongruous with the melancholich undertones of the game, is all. Requiring speedrun-levels of precision in a lot of places undermines the feeling of disempowerment the game's going for, replacing it with either an undeserved sense of pride or - more commonly - immersion-breaking frustration.

Inside has almost none of that. When timing is important, precision generally isn't. When precision is important, then timing generally isn't. Inside doesn't test the player on their twitch reflexes or skill - it doesn't bother "testing" the player at all. Gameplay is there to keep the player engaged in interactive storytelling. Despite Inside having about as little story as Limbo, not over-focusing on jumping over buzzsaws and dodging machineguns helps that story stand out far more so.

[dsk1210]

Nice write up.

Inside is really something else, I have had people who are not really gamers have a quick shot and I have ended up finisihing it with them in one sitting.

[Force Fed Broken Glass]

And here Im about to start a new thread asking that, if i did not like Limbo that much does that mean i won't like this? Nice write up, I gots 20 bones left on my account and Im having a bit of trouble trying to find out where i should spend it.

[Malidictus]

52FatalStrikes a écrit :

And here Im about to start a new thread asking that, if i did not like Limbo that much does that mean i won't like this? Nice write up, I gots 20 bones left on my account and Im having a bit of trouble trying to find out where i should spend it.

Hah, you're welcome :) I'd say that depends on what you didn't like about Limbo. If you were turned off by the opaque storytelling, weird non-ending or somewhat metaphoric themes, than Inside has all of that and more. The world IS more cohesive and less dream-like, but with an air of never really being sure what exactly it is that you're looking at, and whether it's more than meets the eye. While there does appera to be a story there, it's still vague and open to iterpretation.

If, however, you disliked Limbo for its stiff controls, proensity to jump off ladders when you didn't mean to, timed puzzles and need to repeat the same section over and over again because you kept dying, then Inside improves on that significantly. The game's challenge has shifted almost entirely into puzzles and environment interactions, providing a far superior set of things you can do while still using the same dirt simple controls.

The generally lower twitch difficulty does diminish replayability somewhat as the game turns dirt simple once you know how it works, but the overall more cohesive world jam-packed with environmental storytelling makes up for that, I find. I find it's worth replaying the entire game at least twice, so you can catch the hints it's been throwing at you since before you knew what to look for.

I got the game for a tenner on discount, and have not been disappointed with my purchase at all :)

[Force Fed Broken Glass]

Thanks, and ya it was the same reasons you posted that turned me off, same as you. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[haeҳҳlor]

I found it to be the exact opposite.
Inside was boring to me and the puzzles were way too easy, so I got it refunded.

Malidictus a écrit :

especially the "secret level."

Absolutely loved this part of the game. You have to solely rely on your hearing (first and only time I have expirienced this in a game iirc) and he audio gives you all the clues you need (with enough time / margin for error).

Malidictus a écrit :

Limbo will deliberately frustrate you with death traps you simply can't avoid on a first playthrough.

The same can be said about some puzzles in Inside. Not as often, but you will die on a first playthrough.

Malidictus a écrit :

There are a lot of puzzles where you have to die a few times just to figure out what's going on - the game's intentionally messing with you.

"messing with you" isn't a phrase I would choose, but I get it when people feel that way. I'm not that easily frustrated though and really liked the challenge that Limbo provided. Dying was part of the game.
Also, the danger to die does 2 things: It creates suspense and you feel good once you make it through. (Even more so with harder puzzles.)

Malidictus a écrit :

But then there's that achievement for finishing the entire game while only dying 5 times...

The good thing about achievements is, that they can provide replayability, but are completely optional.
For this particular one, I put it off for the longest time. But eventually I put dedication to it and made it within a few attempts (after going through every section first, taking notes on solutions, timings etc.).
It is one of the few achievements that are worthy of the word. (And I was surprised not to see a similar one for Inside).

Malidictus a écrit :

The HOTLE sign is probably my least favourite.

This is where I used a particular place to stand in; then started running when the light went on (or off, not sure anymore). This way you can make it everytime.

Malidictus a écrit :

Dying to an unexpected threat is scary the first time. Dying to a completely expected threat dozens of times is just frustrating.

Unfortunately, that is entirely on you (unlike in a game like Bad Rats where the physics are super random) You messed up the timing / jump / execution. And although you want to blame the game for it, you can't.
I know it can be hard to break out of that circle, but the more relaxed you are about it, the more focused/concentrated you can be.

Malidictus a écrit :

To me, it's a bit like the difference between Portal and Portal 2

It's funny how you compare the 2, as for me it is the exact opposite again. I prefer Portal over the 2nd installment by a lot.
Portal 2 was a lot of times holding your hand, with only a few tiles where you could place your portals on. Very limiting in terms of creative solving, and it took away a lot of thinking about how to proceed. (There was more but I'll leave it at that).

As for Inside, not sure if I will ever buy it again even when it is super cheap on sale (I even dozed off while watching the rest of the game at 2x speed on youtube).

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what Playdead's next andventure will have to offer.

[Malidictus]

haeҳҳlor a écrit :

The same can be said about some puzzles in Inside. Not as often, but you will die on a first playthrough.

I honestly can't think of any. Maybe the chase at the start, although I'd argue that danger in that one is pretty well telegraphed. Maybe the Murmaid sections, but I never found myself trying something which obviously wouldn't work. Like with the dogs, you can't outrun them. Whenever they show up, there's always going to be some trick to beating them. Since timing often doesn't matter, it comes down to spotting it in time, and that too is usually well-telegraphed for the observant.

Which puzzles do you have in mind?

haeҳҳlor a écrit :

Also, the danger to die does 2 things: It creates suspense and you feel good once you make it through. (Even more so with harder puzzles.)

I strongly disagree. It created no suspense for me of any kind. After a while, I just started walking forward until something kills me and figuring it out from there. There's no danger in either game because the save points are so generous - not that I'd want it otherwise as that would be hella frustrating. Not dying constantly in Inside actually made me care about keeping alive because I'd gotten a nice rithm going. The constant dying towards the end of Limbo took me right out of the experience, and really exposed just how stiff the controls are in both games.

As to "feeling good?" Hardly. I don't find satisfaction in dealing with frustration. It's like hitting my thumb with a hammer. Yes, it feels good when I stop, but that's only in comparison. Getting through the secret level that you liked so far was immensely frustrating, and it certainly didn't make me feel good beating it. It made me want to shut down the game and never start it up again. I don't see that changing any time soon, if at all. Even if it does, I am NOT dealing with that nonsense ever again. It's not scary, it's not tense, it's certainly not rewarding. It's just unpleasant, and beating it only feels good because I don't have to play it any more.

haeҳҳlor a écrit :

It is one of the few achievements that are worthy of the word. (And I was surprised not to see a similar one for Inside).

I'm not, and I'm glad therte isn't one. As I've been saying all along, Inside dropped the compulsion to be ultra-hard at the design level. I'm convinced the only reason Limbo was as tough as it ended up being is that's just what you did on the XBLA. A lot of the games of the time were like that. To me, it seems like Inside had a lot more faith in the streng of its art direction, gameplay and visual themes to not need to advertise itself as an ultra-tough platformer. Far as I'm concerned, it made for a better experience overall.

haeҳҳlor a écrit :

Unfortunately, that is entirely on you (unlike in a game like Bad Rats where the physics are super random) You messed up the timing / jump / execution. And although you want to blame the game for it, you can't.

Blame me if it makes you feel better, but it makes no difference. I had not a single instance in Inside where I died to the same puzzle more than a couple of times. In fact, during my last pretty casual run, I managed to die only once when I fumbled my keys on the "walk like an egyptian" sequence. If I cared to, I could probably do a no-death run, but I don't need the stress of doing so. That's because once you know how all the puzzles work, it's actually pretty difficuly to die. The game is deliberately rigged in the player's favour, provided you do the right motions in the right order. No timing required for damn near any of 'em.

The simple fact of the matter is I enjoyed my time with Inside far more than I ever enjoyed Limbo, either now or originally. It had novelty when it came out, but that's about the extent of it. What uniqueness it may have had in terms of theme or narrative was completely ruined by the experience constantly forcing me to remember that it is a video game. Once I die several times to the same puzzle, whatever immersion I might have had goes away and I start thinking only of pure game mechanics. Not to put too fine a point on it, but neither Limbo nor Inside are terribly compelling on pure gameplay mechanics. Inside simply managed to hide the artifice a LOT better.

[spoolsonicxzombie]

it is sort of like that old french game. what was the name

[eriktorbjorn]

spoolsonicxzombie a écrit :

it is sort of like that old french game. what was the name

Another World? (Also known as Out Of This World.) It's on Steam, so you can check there if it's the one you're thinking of. Or maybe Flashback? (That one's available too, but only as a remake that I haven't played but which looks pretty different in style from the original.)

[Malidictus]

Probably Another World or Heart of Darkness. That's what Inside mostly reminds me off, although obviously without the combat aspect. It's the surreal environment of it all, and the constant sense of discovering newer and crazier things.

[some1stoleit]

You've probably forgotten about this post, but it hits the nail on the head for me. I played both games and enjoyed Inside from start to finish, Limbo on the other hand I dropped halfway through, just way too frustrating a product of the platformers of the time (e.g. Super Meat Boy)

[Malidictus]

some1stoleit a écrit :

You've probably forgotten about this post, but it hits the nail on the head for me. I played both games and enjoyed Inside from start to finish, Limbo on the other hand I dropped halfway through, just way too frustrating a product of the platformers of the time (e.g. Super Meat Boy)

It's been a few years, yeah :) Funny enough, though, I replayed Inside just a couple of weeks ago, and I'd say the game still holds up as I'd described it in the OP. If anything, even the sections I described as "cheap" now feel less so. Inside is very much deterministic. As long as you get the initial timing of a puzzle relatively correct, the rest of the puzzle will play out correctly. Sure, you can still screw up, but that's from not knowing what to do, rather than not being fast enough on the keyboard.

As a result, Inside comes across as far more of a puzzle game, where Limbo was... Well, monochrome Super Meat Boy. Not literally, but I got the same feel from it, personally.

Recently, I also played Cocoon - which feels very much like a top-down successor to Inside. It's by only some of the same people (Jeppe Carlsen, lead gameplay designer on Limbo and Inside) but manages to capture what I personally liked the most about Inside - interactive puzzles which make you feel smart for solving them. It does still have "boss fights" because we can never escape from the action genre apparently, but it's much, MUCH more of a proper puzzler.

If you're looking for "something similar to Inside", I can highly recommend Cocoon.

[some1stoleit]

A good post holds up even as years pass. Added Cocoon to my wish list. I'll get around to it someday...