3 ms·

I think this is too "analogue" to be fun and has too many degrees of freedom. I found that the more "discrete" and clear a puzzler is, the more I enjoy it. Is t

I think this is too "analogue" to be fun and has too many degrees of freedom. I found that the more "discrete" and clear a puzzler is, the more I enjoy it. Is there a proper word for what I'm trying to say? Think a chess board with clearly defined squares and moves, vs. a WarHammer-style world where you can freely move anywhere within 5cm. Fez is the former, this is the latter.

Impossible 14y ago
I strongly agree with this and mentioned it in my Shadow Physics failure workshop talk (even though it might not have come across as strongly as I wanted it to). It was, I think, one of the strongest shortcomings of the game, and if I was to revisit it I'd make everything (projection, lighting, physics), far more discreet so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error. Is this really what people want? Serious question. I am surprised to see it, because personally I always prefer more freedom and "trial and error" to discreet options and predictability. I hate when there's only "one right way" to do things, enforced by design. But right now I feel like minority.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    I think that Angry Birds and World of Goo only work because of their freedom. Chess, Tetris and DROD work because they are beautifully simple and discrete. Minecraft took a "mathy" world to the extreme while AAA games seem to explode in organic freedom. Cut the Rope uses a physics engine but enforces "one right way" through its level design. Maybe it's not so black and white, but rather designers make parts of a game discrete until it becomes simple enough to be fun. Whatever it is, the complexity of this game concept feels overwhelming to me. It's a bit like this physics-based Tetris, I would try it for fun but only for free and for five minutes.
zem 14y ago
the c-evo author makes the distinction between simulation and strategy http://www.c-evo.org/text.html#design http://www.c-evo.org/text.html#design

Impossible 14y ago

I strongly agree with this and mentioned it in my Shadow Physics failure workshop talk (even though it might not have come across as strongly as I wanted it to). It was, I think, one of the strongest shortcomings of the game, and if I was to revisit it I'd make everything (projection, lighting, physics), far more discreet so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error.

TeMPOraL 14y ago
> so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error. Is this really what people want? Serious question. I am surprised to see it, because personally I always prefer more freedom and "trial and error" to discreet options and predictability. I hate when there's only "one right way" to do things, enforced by design. But right now I feel like minority.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  I think that Angry Birds and World of Goo only work because of their freedom. Chess, Tetris and DROD work because they are beautifully simple and discrete. Minecraft took a "mathy" world to the extreme while AAA games seem to explode in organic freedom. Cut the Rope uses a physics engine but enforces "one right way" through its level design. Maybe it's not so black and white, but rather designers make parts of a game discrete until it becomes simple enough to be fun. Whatever it is, the complexity of this game concept feels overwhelming to me. It's a bit like this physics-based Tetris, I would try it for fun but only for free and for five minutes.

zem 14y ago

the c-evo author makes the distinction between simulation and strategy http://www.c-evo.org/text.html#design http://www.c-evo.org/text.html#design