|
>>
|
1d157d.jpg
Castle Prancer
1d157d
Okay so I just read the Q&A log, very informative. If we weren't there, is it okay if we ask a few questions of our own? I'm surprised no one asked about the giant in the courtyard, for instance...
>>92222
Continuing on the "too hard" criticism, I feel like, while the pieces were there, there was too little time to figure it out -- not real time, obviously, but in terms of the number of actions players had in the quest. I did see a number of people making good suggestions to gather more information (talking to people, investigating loose ends from early on), but they never got the opportunity to use them since things moved so fast. I guess that was what you were going for with "it's messy, not clean", but it still made things pretty confusing. I felt like players were mostly just making stabs in the dark by the end -- like, you said you were very impressed with Nan's "it doesn't matter who I am" retort? I got the impression that the players said that more out of lack of any better options than true understanding and acknowledgement of Nan's character. If people have no idea what's going on or why, that really becomes the only logical response to the Padre's speech.
I believe that's also why people were so quick to jump to "out there" theories. Like I said, when reality is out to lunch, everything seems equally valid. There was time travel and weird memory flashbacks and the geography of the hotel kept shifting -- in that context the theories didn't seem unreasonable. It wasn't until things became more grounded in part 4 that more rational theories became possible, but I guess people still stuck to the old ones.
This could even be why players were so afraid to act -- if someone is placed in an extremely dangerous place that uses different and seemingly arbitrary rules of reality, of course they're going to be overly cautious. That's why I never made any suggestions, and tend not to make quest suggestions at all -- I know I'm stupid and don't want to screw things up by making the wrong decision when I don't understand things fully.
(If people couldn't figure out something as simple as light = memory though, that was pretty stupid of them, I can't defend that.)
>I don't fault players for wanting information and I don't think it was unreasonable to look into backstories and flashbacks. I encouraged it.
Ooh okay I did misinterpret that, sorry. I thought that was what you were referring to with the "missing the forest for the trees" bit.
>So few people bothered to just stop and analyze what they'd seen and heard, and instead of working with what we had ("okay, what's the pattern here?")
Okay, but then what was causing the blackouts? What was up with the time travel clock? Why did Anna look different the first time through, if that was Anna? How did Henry get to the saferoom so fast? People speculated about those things feverishly and desperately tried to find answers, but nothing ever came of it. I think players were using critical thinking, they were just applying it in the wrong direction. But the problem is, how were they supposed to know what was the right direction? There are so many hotel mechanics to focus on, but only one (light = memory) really paid off.
>Looking at it as "difficult" just proves you're thinking about it in too goal-oriented a way, that you're trying to shoot for some good ending or some plot reveal secret. Just focus on what's right in front of you instead, and worry about surviving, not getting 182 out of 182 points.
I don't think I thought of it like an adventure game... I saw it more as, like, a mystery novel or something, which sounds more like you were going for. But even though my sister and I discussed and analyzed plot points a lot, we were still left scratching our heads over some of the final reveals.
|