Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

Finished it last night.

This game is hilarious! :lol Feel-good hit of the summer I laughed all the way to the end. Some of the deaths I was able to orchestrate were a lot of fun.

I did feel it was too short, like I would have enjoyed another quarter of the game (I finished it in about 6 hours). But the game was definitely a pleasure to play while it lasted.

 

[voodoopanda]

Did anyone else go through this process while playing the game?

Spoiler

At first, I was trying to avoid deaths as much as possible by going slowly and carefully trying to explore and solve the puzzles. Then a little later becoming resigned to the fact there's a lot of unavoidable deaths, so I accepted that I was going to die a lot. Then finally turning the corner and purposefully dying in order to figure things out? At one point, dying became like an ability or power of my character, and I'd toss him headlong into almost certain death in order to see what would happen/explore/experiment with what stuff did so that I could solve the puzzles. Death became a tool.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Did anyone else go through this process while playing the game?

Spoiler

At first, I was trying to avoid deaths as much as possible by going slowly and carefully trying to explore and solve the puzzles. Then a little later becoming resigned to the fact there's a lot of unavoidable deaths, so I accepted that I was going to die a lot. Then finally turning the corner and purposefully dying in order to figure things out? At one point, dying became like an ability or power of my character, and I'd toss him headlong into almost certain death in order to see what would happen/explore/experiment with what stuff did so that I could solve the puzzles. Death became a tool.

I agree with this, it's a bigger reason why the criticism makes no sense to me than the fact that dying only takes a few seconds.

 

[Amir0x]

Limbo's gameplay, its repetitive deaths, perfectly serve its concept, themes, and even its 'plot'. I have massive admiration for that, because almost no games manage this harmony (which Johnathan Blow would probably call ludonarrative consonance), almost no game designers know how to create or sustain it, and almost no game players ever even stop to think about it.

On a simple level, Limbo asks us to consider our attitude to death in videogames and the ways we take it for granted (just as, say, Bioshock briefly asked us to consider the linearity and narrative determinism of videogames). You could take it further and say it prompts us to consider our attitude to any and all arbitrary frustrations and suffering we encounter in the real world.

The title wasn't chosen at random, and this isn't just a convenient setting for a videogame. It's a gameworld that mirrors the states of being lost, stuck, trapped, frustrated (and this is a puzzle game, remember). Limbo argues -- through the very nature of its gameplay, through its unavoidable deaths -- that arbitrary and repetitive suffering can be surmounted by perseverance, by open-mindedness to new discoveries or approaches, and above all by a healthy mentality.

Don't want you to think I'm ignoring your efforts, since you clearly have tried to explain your point well in this post (up until your last paragraph, when you fall back to the bullshit argument about gaming expectations already debunked).

In my opinion, this is you arbitrarily deciding to find deeper meaning in the proceedings then there actually is (like I've said earlier). If you can formulate in some specific way why the deaths in LIMBO are any more relevant or meaningful than any other game which has this exact same life-and-death mentality (and there are a shit ton), I think we might tread some new ground. But as it is, I'm not finding new information.

In every way, LIMBO functions as a typical, fairly standard game. The fact that the guy names the game LIMBO and gives it a bleak, LOST-IN-YOUR-SUBCONSCIOUS art direction does not suddenly change the way the game actually feels when you play it. And it FEELS like any other flawed trial-and-error product, where it is the game's fault for death and not the player. It feels unfair, like you're being cheated. And that's -precisely- what it is, because LIMBO uses its iron thumb to exert complete control over the player. Occasionally, it's then utilizing its leverage over the player to intentionally kill them beyond their control, and this is the least interesting, clever or fun gameplay mechanic there ever was. And don't fool yourself to thinking LIMBO is doing something new with it. I've played dozens of games that I found fault with for this precise reason.

I can at least appreciate the point you made about the guy trying to tie the themes of the game into the death mechanic and trial-and-error gameplay, but in the end a game is about fun. Yes, I realize that you actually like this shoddy type of game design, and so I don't feel like going around in circles about whether it actually is fun or not for either of us since we know the answer. It is fun for you (and others), and it is not fun for me (and others). It is fairly pointless to go down that path again.

I would argue Limbo offers a lesson, along with cool art and some nifty puzzles, that you have unequivocally refused to even consider. The moment it asks you to question something you have long since internalized as standard ("Dying in a videogame is bad; it is the enemy of progress; I know this because in the games I have played, dying has hampered my progress."), you just get angry and frustrated. This saddens me, honestly, because games that are this clever, as well as being this fun (and I found Limbo fun 97% of the time while I was playing), are exceedingly rare.

Again, not all of us are jaded gamers who require gimmickry in order to have fun. Not only do I think game's of LIMBO's quality are exceedingly common (I've played at least five other games this month that were more enjoyable, including two XBLA titles), but it's not particularly above average in the clever department either. And it's not innovative either. So we're really essentially playing air boxing now, since both of our positions are completely foreign to the other.

In short: if you tend to rage over Limbo's "bad game design", you may find ordinary day-to-day living very, very difficult to bear.

Every day life for me is incredible. So, your logic does not actually bear itself out at all. Which was obviously going to be the case, since your attempt to now try to explain LIMBO as some life lesson is even more retarded than your previous argument.

 

[Zeliard]

Pretty cool that you can turn off the death animations (cuts to black). It's a bit too disturbing seeing a child mangled in such ways.

I think the grisliness adds profoundly to the sense of dread and the foreboding atmosphere.

You know you're in a really messed up place, almost right off the bat. You don't know who you are, or why you're there. You don't know how you got there. But you do know that there's a significant amount of danger with every step you take.

 

[KoruptData]

I think some people get it and some people dont.

If videogames are considered an art form, then this game would fall under abstract art.

Here is abstract art that I can look at an I have no idea what the artist is thinking about.

Here is another piece that I can make some guesses on. You can look at the Image URL for explanation for each.

I value image 2 more than image one and I bet some people will like image one better. There are some people that dont like either image. Its all subjective.

I look at Limbo and question why they called it Limbo. I question the black and white imagery. I try to get into the head of the designers. Much like a person would looking at the above art. I think some people here have really figured this game out and it appeals to them. You are in Limbo, neither dead or alive. You are not afraid of death as death only puts you right back in Limbo. The goal is to get out of Limbo.

Ever had a dream where you realize your dreaming in the dream and you just want to get out but dont know how? Thats how I would best describe limbo to me. Thats the thing though, there is no real definition of Limbo. Its something you dont experience when you want to. So in a place not easily explained, why is death such an issue? Thats the part you either get, dont mind, or dont like. Much like the pictures above. Its all subjective.

 

[voodoopanda]

And it FEELS like any other flawed trial-and-error product, where it is the game's fault for death and not the player. It feels unfair, like you're being cheated.

This is the sticking point for me that you keep repeating but I feel is a flawed idea. It is making the assumption that dying is bad. That the game causing you to die is a bad thing, that by dying you(or the game) is making an "error." That by causing you to die, the game is doing something wrong, or that if you yourself died, you are doing something wrong. You aren't! In this game, dying isn't bad so it isn't a fault. It's more like a power or ability. Sure, in other games, dying does all sorts of bad things. It uses up a life, it erases progress, it lowers your score, it ends the game. But in this one, it sets you back only a few seconds(usually to the spot perfect for solving the puzzle) and teaches you something important about the puzzle you're on: that area is electrified, that button will crush you, that pit has spikes in it, etc. It also fits in thematically with the rest of the game. It helps you out, it's a plus, not a negative.

 

[WanderingWind]

This game is so beautiful, it nearly defies words. I am at a loss. Truthfully, Limbo has brought back to me everything that I've missed about gaming.

If there is anybody lurking this thread that worked on it, thank you. That's all. Thank you.

 

[sprsk]

I think some people get it and some people dont.

If videogames are considered an art form, then this game would fall under abstract art.

Here is abstract art that I can look at an I have no idea what the artist is thinking about.

Here is another piece that I can make some guesses on. You can look at the Image URL for explanation for each.

I value image 2 more than image one and I bet some people will like image one better. There are some people that dont like either image. Its all subjective.

I look at Limbo and question why they called it Limbo. I question the black and white imagery. I try to get into the head of the designers. Much like a person would looking at the above art. I think some people here have really figured this game out and it appeals to them. You are in Limbo, neither dead or alive. You are not afraid of death as death only puts you right back in Limbo. The goal is to get out of Limbo.

Ever had a dream where you realize your dreaming in the dream and you just want to get out but dont know how? Thats how I would best describe limbo to me. Thats the thing though, there is no real definition of Limbo. Its something you dont experience when you want to. So in a place not easily explained, why is death such an issue? Thats the part you either get, dont mind, or dont like. Much like the pictures above. Its all subjective.

I'm gonna have to stop you right there, sir.

 

[KoruptData]

I'm gonna have to stop you right there, sir.

Make too much sense?

 

[Amir0x]

This is the sticking point for me that you keep repeating but I feel is a flawed idea. It is making the assumption that dying is bad. That the game causing you to die is a bad thing, that by dying you(or the game) is making an "error." That by causing you to die, the game is doing something wrong, or that if you yourself died, you are doing something wrong. You aren't! In this game, dying isn't bad so it isn't a fault. It's more like a power or ability. Sure, in other games, dying does all sorts of bad things. It uses up a life, it erases progress, it lowers your score, it ends the game. But in this one, it sets you back only a few seconds(usually to the spot perfect for solving the puzzle) and teaches you something important about the puzzle you're on: that area is electrified, that button will crush you, that pit has spikes in it, etc. It also fits in thematically with the rest of the game. It helps you out, it's a plus, not a negative.

We're at the same impasse still. LIMBO is doing nothing that a dozen other trial and error puzzle/adventurers have done before. And in those, it wasn't some positive gushed over feature either. People are imposing meanings and qualities to something that isn't there.

Your entire premise is flawed, in fact. Everything you suggested (about the merits of dying in LIMBO) could be done and done BETTER if some of the puzzles weren't trial-and-error, and required critical thinking instead. An area is electrified? Visual indication that the area is electrified. This part of the ground is a switch? Visual differentiation to show it's a switch. Players learn and adapt far better and at a far more reasonable and enjoyable pace when they feel it isn't the game's faults for death.

Since you agree with me with the basic foundation of this position (that the game kills you, in ways that are out-of-your-hands), the only disagreement is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. There's not much to say beyond that. In LIMBO, the actual feel of death is exactly as negative as every other trial-and-error game with this sort of checkpoint system. It functions the same, it works the same. Those other games didn't teach me any life lessons, and this one doesn't either. Those other games didn't teach me some fundamental lesson about subverting game design, and neither does this one.

All that I learned is that many developers have a hard time making a challenge level that is legitimately based on skill, rather than dumb luck. They're still stuck in the phase that you can arbitrarily extend the life of a title (or the difficulty of a title) by merely making something more obtuse to the player rather than skill/intellect based.

I want to also repeat that not all of the puzzles in LIMBO are like this. I don't even think a majority are. MOST of the puzzles have perfect indicators that give you subtle hints about how to solve the puzzle the first time in. Since most of the puzzles in LIMBO aren't like this, it's amusing (read: completely implausible) to believe that the developer put this death system in place to make an elaborate statement about the necessity of death and the development of game design.

 

[Shake Appeal]

You are not afraid of death as death only puts you right back in Limbo. The goal is to get out of Limbo.

Yeah, exactly.

In almost every videogame ever made, death is the worst thing that can happen to you. Videogames usually simulate worlds where, like in our world, dying is a catastrophe that represents the end of any and all opportunities for progress... at least until you reload a saved game or put another coin in the slot.

In the game Limbo, which coincidentally takes place in limbo (however you want to understand it)... dying is not a catastrophe, because you are already dead. It probably remains a very painful, wretched thing, but it soon reverts and doesn't actually make your overall situation any worse. The only real catastrophe would be remaining in limbo. Meanwhile, you can sometimes learn about this same state or place by 'dying' in it. That is, the repetitive and often arbitrary suffering can help you persevere toward a solution to being stuck (both in the gameworld, and in the game's world; this is where the ludonarrative consonance comes in).

You either grasp this right away, or you learn it through playing, or you never learn it and feel frustrated by the 'trial and error' deaths. So Amirox feels the game is "unfun", "unfair", like "being cheated", and I can't understand how someone could feel that way without missing the point, because I felt the exact opposite.

 

[d0c_zaius]

So Amirox feels the game is "unfun", "unfair", like "being cheated", and I can't understand how someone could feel that way without missing the point, because I felt the exact opposite.

Trolling, boredom, etc. Take your pick.

 

[sonicmj1]

We're at the same impasse still. LIMBO is doing nothing that a dozen other trial and error puzzle/adventurers have done before. And in those, it wasn't some positive gushed over feature either. People are imposing meanings and qualities to something that isn't there.

Your entire premise is flawed, in fact. Everything you suggested (about the merits of dying in LIMBO) could be done and done BETTER if some of the puzzles weren't trial-and-error, and required critical thinking instead. An area is electrified? Visual indication that the area is electrified. This part of the ground is a switch? Visual differentiation to show it's a switch. Players learn and adapt far better and at a far more reasonable and enjoyable pace when they feel it isn't the game's faults for death.

Since you agree with me with the basic foundation of this position (that the game kills you, in ways that are out-of-your-hands), the only disagreement is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. There's not much to say beyond that. In LIMBO, the actual feel of death is exactly as negative as every other trial-and-error game with this sort of checkpoint system. It functions the same, it works the same. Those other games didn't teach me any life lessons, and this one doesn't either. Those other games didn't teach me some fundamental lesson about subverting game design, and neither does this one.

All that I learned is that many developers have a hard time making a challenge level that is legitimately based on skill, rather than dumb luck. They're still stuck in the phase that you can arbitrarily extend the life of a title (or the difficulty of a title) by merely making something more obtuse to the player rather than skill/intellect based.

I want to also repeat that not all of the puzzles in LIMBO are like this. I don't even think a majority are. MOST of the puzzles have perfect indicators that give you subtle hints about how to solve the puzzle the first time in. Since most of the puzzles in LIMBO aren't like this, it's amusing (read: completely implausible) to believe that the developer put this death system in place to make an elaborate statement about the necessity of death and the development of game design.

I kind of look at those puzzles (at least the more cleverly disguised ones, like the two switch puzzle mentioned frequently in this discussion) like the end of the tutorial in Demon's Souls. Sure, it's possible to defeat that enemy at the end of the tutorial, but a player at that point in the game does not have a developed-enough skillset to succeed. They're expected to die brutally, and that death sends a message about the nature of the world they're in. If that enemy significantly hindered progress through the game at that point, it'd be total bullshit, but it's a part of the game's narrative structure.

Similarly, deaths in those puzzles are 10-second impediments to progress that tell the player about the world. Puzzles just as lethal in some of the more malicious trial-and-error games (like I Want to Be the Guy) do the same thing, except they tell that same lesson over and over, make the solution really difficult, and space the answers far apart through distant checkpoints. Limbo's solutions generally are pretty simple after you die once, the checkpoints are rarely punitive, and most puzzles don't absolutely require death. The death-requiring puzzles that remain aren't so bad.

I agree with you about electric floors, and there are a few puzzles that barely give you any visibility that are annoying, but generally, Limbo's design is fair when it wants to be, and when it's unfair, it isn't punishing.

On the other hand, Another World is a great experience, and does a fantastic job of communicating narrative through gameplay (I love the bit where you're mashing buttons on an alien control panel to start a spaceship), but it's filled with terrible trial-and-error design that serves very little purpose.

 

[Shake Appeal]

People are imposing meanings and qualities to something that isn't there.

But it is there. The developers named their game 'Limbo', not 'Funworld', or 'Don't Die, It's Bad Land'. It is actually set in limbo. They have even called it a "trial-and-death" puzzle game in interviews.

The exact same gameplay could be transposed to a different setting with a different backstory, and it wouldn't be as affecting. It is the particular way the gameplay harmonizes with what the game is about (and the art, the music, the setting) that makes Limbo a great game and not just a good puzzle-platformer. And when I say "what it's about", I don't just means what happens in it, but what is thematically important: our relationship with arbitrary suffering and frustration, with death.

The devs knew what they were doing. They asked you, through gameplay: "Hey, why do you feel this way about death and progress in videogames? Have you stopped and thought about it for a second?" And you shouted back: "UR GAME IS MEDIOCORE, 7/10"

 

[SapientWolf]

Teaching through trial and error has been a staple of platformers since Mario. You didn't learn that Goombas don't like hugs or that mushrooms give you more hit points through skill or critical thinking. I think it's a good topic of discussion but I don't see why people feel so strongly about it.

 

[KoruptData]

Yeah, exactly.

In almost every videogame ever made, death is the worst thing that can happen to you. Videogames usually simulate worlds where, like in our world, dying is a catastrophe that represents the end of any and all opportunities for progress... at least until you reload a saved game or put another coin in the slot.

In the game Limbo, which coincidentally takes place in limbo (however you want to understand it)... dying is not a catastrophe, because you are already dead. It probably remains a very painful, wretched thing, but it soon reverts and doesn't actually make your overall situation any worse. The only real catastrophe would be remaining in limbo. Meanwhile, you can sometimes learn about this same state or place by 'dying' in it. That is, the repetitive and often arbitrary suffering can help you persevere toward a solution to being stuck (both in the gameworld, and in the game's world; this is where the ludonarrative consonance comes in).

You either grasp this right away, or you learn it through playing, or you never learn it and feel frustrated by the 'trial and error' deaths. So Amirox feels the game is "unfun", "unfair", like "being cheated", and I can't understand how someone could feel that way without missing the point, because I felt the exact opposite.

My wife gets frustrated playing it because she is afraid of death. Its painful to watch because she sits there and analyzes the environment, stands at edges and thinks, walks back somewhere and stands and thinks, only to die where my gut instinct had me die in a lot less time because I was not afraid too.

I play a game like Demon Souls where the reality of the game is more entrenched in a world I live in than Limbo does and I hated to die. I have armor, I have weapons, I expect to be able to progress without getting frustrated by the deaths that you have to go through in order to learn the game. When you did die, you had to start back from the beginning and do it all over again as to simulate that the reality of that life couldnt have been real so lets rewrite that chapter a better way with the outcome of you living. When you die in Limbo, your right back where you started. Its like Inception explained, you always start off right in the middle of the dream. Your right back in the action.

 

[WanderingWind]

d0c_zaius
Banned
(Today, 09:29 PM)
Reply | Quote

What did we learn?

 

[Amir0x]

But it is there. The developers named their game 'Limbo', not 'Funworld', or 'Don't Die, It's Bad Land'. It is actually set in limbo. They have even called it a "trial-and-death" puzzle game in interviews.

So apparently the way to change poor gameplay that functions exactly the same across multiple titles is to try to make philosophy 101 students believe it has some deeper purpose.

Again, it seems we're at the same road we've been at from the start. You're sitting here trying to parse meaning about why the game is killing people, and I'm sitting here saying "hey, you know, you can think whatever it is you want about the meaning behind it, 'cause it ain't changing how it plays out. It plays out like every other flawed trial-and-error adventure game, unfun and lame." There's practically no innovation to this at all.

The exact same gameplay could be transposed to a different setting with a different backstory, and it wouldn't be as affecting.

Now your entire argument about LIMBO being something special is hoisted up the simple fact that they decided to change the art direction and add a relevant name.
If that's all any developer has to do to grab you by the balls and OPEN YOUR EYES TO A RARE, UNPRECEDENTED gaming experience, then I can list a million more flawed trial-and-error adventure/puzzle games with liberal checkpoints.

I am sure that you'll appreciate them more than me. If you like, I'll mod one of the games with a darker art direction and call it AFTERLIFE.

The devs knew what they were doing. They asked you, through gameplay: "Hey, why do you feel this way about death and progress in videogames? Have you stopped and thought about it for a second?" And you shouted back: "UR GAME IS MEDIOCORE, 7/10"

Well that's one interpretation. I think the developers were really trying to say to players "hey, why do you think people get pretentious about indie games? Have you stopped to think about it for a second?" And to that I responded: "LOL"

 

[kylej]

Now your entire argument about LIMBO being something special is hoisted up the simple fact that they decided to change the art direction and add a relevant name.

You're calling other people's arguments bullshit yet using the "break the whole down into mundane elements and ignore the fact that everything in the world is more than the sum of its parts" angle? :lol

You seemed stunned that fans of [something] get more out of it than those that don't.

 

[J-Roderton]

Wow. Finished it today. The ending was deff my favorite part.

 

[KoruptData]

You're calling other people's arguments bullshit yet using the "break the whole down into mundane elements and ignore the fact that everything in the world is more than the sum of its parts" angle? :lol

You seemed stunned that fans of [something] get more out of it than those that don't.

I could cut and paste his arguments into a game like Demon Souls and he would be taking Shake Appeals role.

 

[Amir0x]

We just discussed Demon's Souls a page ago, and for the record, the argument could not apply to that game. Demon's Souls does not have trial-and-error gameplay. It has "kill impatient people" gameplay.

 

[KoruptData]

We just discussed Demon's Souls a page ago, and for the record, the argument could not apply to that game. Demon's Souls does not have trial-and-error gameplay. It has "kill impatient people" gameplay.

Did you die in your first play through?

 

[Amir0x]

When I was impatient. The problem isn't death, remember that. The problem is death caused by things beyond your control. I.e., deaths that neither brain power nor skill could complete on a first go without dumb luck.

Every single time I died in Demon's Souls, it is because I KNEW I had gone in too fast or did not utilize a skill I had learned. This increased my motivation to improve my skill level tenfold, and that's precisely what happened. It was more enjoyable too because I knew there was something I could do to actually avoid such deaths in the future. In LIMBO, it's out of my hands. The game arbitrarily decides when they will throw a puzzle or obstacle in your way that there's no visual clues about. So there's no way to really consistently apply your skill evenly across the game.

 

[KoruptData]

When I was impatient. The problem isn't death, remember that. The problem is death caused by things beyond your control. I.e., deaths that neither brain power nor skill could complete on a first go without dumb luck.

Ok fair enough. Did you die multiple times in the same area? Do you think there is one person in this world that has played Demon Souls and beat it without dying in the 1st play through?

Im fairly confident I could go through Limbo my second time and get through the whole game without dieing.

 

[kylej]

We just discussed Demon's Souls a page ago, and for the record, the argument could not apply to that game. Demon's Souls does not have trial-and-error gameplay. It has "kill impatient people" gameplay.

whoosh

It's not about trial and error. You're trying to strip away all that fans enjoy about a game by talking about its game mechanics, as if this will enlighten them. That's not how the real world works. People who don't enjoy certain things will always stare in incredulity at those who do.

 

[Haunted]

Where the fuck did the Demon's Souls comparison come from, anyway?

The concept of "death" in these two games are basically polar opposites, so comparing them does not yield any insight whatsoever. If you never die in Demon's Souls, you haven't missed anything. If you never die in Limbo, you have missed a big part of the experience.


And Amirox can argue that the trial and error gameplay of Limbo is "bad game design" as much as he wants, but well, it isn't - for reasons both Draft and Shake Appeal sufficiently explained already. The fact that deaths in Limbo are done so well and tie so perfectly into the game's plot and themes is the reason why the conscious decision to have some unavoidable (and even that is arguable) traps waiting for the player is not bad game design, but an example of particularly good game design.


Also see how "death" is handled in Prince of Persia '08 - its mechanical implementation is pretty much exactly the same as Limbo's (not a punishment, setting the player back 5 seconds max without any penalty), yet Limbo's approach and reason for it is completely different, and again, ties into the rest of the game perfectly. That's good game design.

 

[Amir0x]

whoosh

It's not about trial and error. You're trying to strip away all that fans enjoy about a game by talking about its main game mechanic, as if this will enlighten them. That's not how the real world works. People who don't enjoy certain things will always stare in incredulity at those who do.

Uh no I'm not. The discussion is merely focusing on this specific aspect right now. I understand context in a conversation and it makes no sense to change subjects right now or look at a different aspect of LIMBO.

Indeed, your comment is better aimed at Shake Appeal, since he is the only one seemingly having difficulty grasping how someone could not like this type of gameplay mechanic (he even said as much). I, however, can understand perfectly fine that someone might appreciate this. I do not agree with them that it is good, I do not agree there is some profound underlying meaning that justifies the poor game design, but I can understand it. There is no incredulity.

Also see how "death" is handled in Prince of Persia '08 - its mechanical implementation is pretty much exactly the same as Limbo's (not a punishment, setting the player back 5 seconds max without any penalty), yet Limbo's approach and reason for it is completely different, and again, ties into the rest of the game perfectly. That's good game design.

Again if the entire argument relies on the belief that changing a title and art direction suddenly makes a poor gameplay mechanic 'good' (sidenote: PoP is not trial-and-error whatsoever, however, which is the problem I have with this game at times), then I am perfectly content with my belief that I am on the rockier ground.

I merely like fun. So do you guys, I presume. Like I said, it makes no sense to debate this point about whether this is fun or not for you and I. Trial-and-error gameplay where death's are the GAMES FAULT is never fun. You can put lipstick on a pig etc etc

 

[Haunted]

You want to separate gameplay mechanics from everything else. That's wrong.

Again, having gameplay mechanics tie into art direction, plot and theme of a game is an example of particularly good game design, not the other way around.



edit: speaking of gameplay mechanics - anyone else love the way the player character feels? Fluid animation plus weight and momentum being applied to his every movement plus believable physics (to him and the world around him) made for some extremely satisfying platforming. Deliberate and precise, too, once you understood how his movement speed affected the jumps.

 

[Amir0x]

Im fairly confident I could go through Limbo my second time and get through the whole game without dieing.

Oh sure, I think I could play through LIMBO again and beat it without dying. Seems like a pretty easy thing to do really. Once you know the puzzles, there's no meat left to the game! So any bad puzzle design really sticks out like a sore thumb.

You want to separate gameplay mechanics from everything else. That's wrong.

Again, having gameplay mechanics tie into art direction, plot and theme of a game is an example of particularly good game design, not the other way around.

I want to separate what makes a good game and what makes a bad game. You guys are literally arguing now that because LIMBO is named the way it is and has a bleak art direction that magically the gameplay becomes super viable. I am playing games for fun. I am extremely consistent about what I find fun, and what I don't. LIMBO does absolutely zero new with the idea or the gameplay, and so my opinion on that type of gameplay is not going to change. Bad game design is bad game design, no matter how you dress it up.

 

[a Master Ninja]

What are you doing, Amir0x?

 

[kylej]

Again if the entire argument relies on the belief that changing a title and art direction suddenly makes a poor gameplay mechanic 'good' (sidenote: PoP is not trial-and-error whatsoever, however, which is the problem I have with this game at times), then I am perfectly content with my belief that I am on the rockier ground.

I believe Demon's Souls is a boring hack and slash JRPG filled with genre tropes, a dismal art style and poor production values. You believe the sum of its parts transcend criticisms because you enjoyed it. Now I'm going to continue to tell you why Demon's Souls sucks because of its individual pieces.

This is your argument right now. You are in a Limbo thread saying the main mechanic of the game sucks, and because of this the game should not be receiving praise. You are arguing with people that clearly do not care and in fact vehemently disagree with you. Yes, it is a trial-and-error platformer. People here know this. How much longer will you continue to argue something that is so subjective?

 

[Amir0x]

What are you doing, Amir0x?

We're having a discussion. If you don't feel like discussing the game, leave the thread or start a separate discussion ITT with someone else. Nobody is stopping you. Have fun.

 

[Amir0x]

I believe Demon's Souls is a boring hack and slash JRPG filled with genre tropes, a dismal art style and poor production values. You believe the sum of its parts transcend criticisms because you enjoyed it. Now I'm going to continue to tell you why Demon's Souls sucks because of its individual pieces.
This is your argument right now.

That's cool. Would love to have a debate about Demon's Souls in the Demon's Souls thread.

Additionally since you are literally now going completely off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything I've been saying so far, I'm not sure it's worth really responding to you.

I am NOT saying the game sucks because of individual pieces, instead I called the game mediocre. I called the game mediocre because it has several flaws which DO significantly impact the 'sum of its parts' (which is not, it happens, more than), of which the trial-and-error gameplay is occasionally one of them. LIMBO is not even mostly made up of those sorts of puzzles, and its relative impact to my overall enjoyment of the title is only secondary to a host of other problems I had with the game. And even then, it's only problems - the game has a solid foundation. I've even gone on record on several points to mention things I love: the art direction. Many of the puzzles are quite clever. I love the animations in this game. I really like the use of audio. It's got a lot of good, strong foundations.

In fact, it seems you guys just hear what you want to hear: which is, by the way, exactly what apologists and fanboys do.

This is your argument right now. You are in a Limbo thread saying the main mechanic of the game sucks, and because of this the game should not be receiving praise. You are arguing with people that clearly do not care and in fact vehemently disagree that it is good. Yes, it is a trial-and-error platformer. People here know this.

Never once said the game should not be receiving praise. We're debating the merits of a specific aspect of the game. If you don't like hyper focused conversations, feel free to broaden the debate with someone else.

How much longer will you continue to argue something that is so subjective?

Oh here's a good moment to discuss double standards again. I feel like some of you guys are in pre school when I have to get to this side topic.

EVERYONE is discussing something subjective in this topic. EVERYONE is continuing to go on and on about what they find positive, and what they find negative. It makes no sense to try to single out anyone in this conversation, since we're all doing the exact same thing.

Discuss the topic at hand. Not how much you don't want someone to say something negative or how long the person is going to go on about the point.

 

[Bernbaum]

Just finished it.

It was an entertaining if somewhat unengaging and ultimately disappointing game.

Concerns over ‘trial and error’ gameplay are completely valid. Throughout the entire game, the puzzles or hazards introduced to the player are typically shown via the most extreme way- killing them. The game almost intentionally lacked the teaching style employed by puzzle-heavy action platformers like Braid and Portal- a respectable goal of the design team, but not necessarily one enjoyable by the player.

The physics and controls, for the most part worked well, but having a physics system (no matter how refined) is inherently flawed as it puts the player at the whim of an imprecise environment. You may have solved a puzzle in your mind, but think again asshole- you may have placed that box an inch in the wrong direction, or the rope you set up to swing a certain way may wobble just a little bit more than you’d like. A lot of puzzles were fun, but there were too moments of flimsiness where I felt unnecessarily punished.

I think the game lacked ‘A-ha, Eureka!’ moments of genius when each puzzle was solved- there just wasn’t the same sense of satisfaction after completing each scenario as there were in other puzzle platformers. That sentiment stems from my experience where I felt I had solved the puzzle, but had to wrestle with the game’s physics in order to actually implement it.

My initial impressions of the game were quite strong- the sheer violence was unsettling and the game hit just the right atmosphere it was aiming for. There were long sections in the beginning chapters where the player is traversing large sections of a level without any real gameplay- a nice way to introduce the environment, but one that will feel more linear and tiresome the next time I play it. The layout of levels and lighting worked well together to highlight areas of interest for the most part, but the ‘hidden threats’ that you don’t notice until you’ve stepped on and subsequently get killed by were just dumb.

Perhaps the developer sought to create a game that is more enjoyable on the second playthrough when the player is aware of all the hazards and understands the timing required for certain sequences in the game. If so, I’d imagine the well-crafted atmosphere and aesthetic would no longer carry the same impact as on the first playthrough, as I’d seen it all before. The straightforward linearity would be tiresome as there are simply no two ways about solving the entirety of the games puzzles.

Games like Braid and Portal had their moments of difficulty on the first play, but retained a level of genius that matured on subsequent playthroughs. Limbo lacks that genius, and is all the more disappointing for it because of the strong presentation and richly-realized world the developers have created.

 

[KoruptData]

Its been 11 years now that ive been posting on videogame message boards and I have learned that nothing Limbo supporters say will change Amir0x's mind and nothing he says will change our mind. My opinion has not been swayed but have insight now why someone might not like something I really enjoyed. I will now bow out and say nice talking.

 

[Amir0x]

Its been 11 years now that ive been posting on videogame message boards and I have learned that nothing Limbo supporters say will change Amir0x's mind and nothing he says will change our mind. My opinion has not been swayed but have insight now why someone might not like something I really enjoyed. I will now bow out and say nice talking.

I think a concept people find hard to understand (or believe) is that I have no interest in changing anyone's minds. And I think people who discuss things with me know it's rare when I change my mind (because I don't hold opinions unless I believe in them passionately).

I just enjoy the conversations I have with people. It gives me insight about things I didn't have before. Sometimes I'll get a deeper appreciation for an aspect of a game. Sometimes I'll get better perspective. It allows me to get into the heads of people different than me, and that's a value I love. People think I'm angry or bitter when I have these discussions, but they don't understand that I have the biggest smile on my face.

To me, these conversations are just a different type of learning experience, and a way to broaden my horizons. I hate participating in conversations where everyone agrees with me, because those types of conversations are lame and doesn't do anything to add to my knowledge of the world and its people. It's boring, in other words. Even when I love a game, I do not participate in those threads as much as when I hate/dislike a game or some aspects of a game. I find that type of discussion more compelling.

This discussion is far more fun to me than LIMBO ever was for me. I love GAF and I enjoy those that take the time to try to really explain out their positions instead of running away or flinging insults. That is the type of thing I appreciate. :salute:

 

[Karma]

Just finished the game for the second time. Now at 104% complete. Finishing the game with 5 or fewer deaths is going to be difficult for me but having a great time trying.

Also noticed that there are 114,000 people on the leader boards so far. Seems to be doing well. Great game.

 

[AniHawk]

Amir0x: More or less frustrating than Splosion Man.

I have 800 points and I think I should just wait for Fez.

 

[Aaronology]

Re: the piston puzzle, and 'trial and error' gameplay.

Spoiler

1. The game presents you with an obvious set-up from every other side-scrolling game (and many conventional cartoons) down through the years: avoid the trap trigger, or be crushed.
2. The game subverts your expectations by having the area around the trap trigger be the trigger; the trap trigger in fact the only safe spot, and you have been mushed to a paste for your assumptions.
3. Having reloaded (instantaneously, above five paces back), the player chuckles to himself, internalizes this new rule, and applies it to the next puzzle.
4. But the second piston subverts the previous lesson by reversing the trigger again. Player laughs heartily (if they appreciate what is happening), and reloads instantly.
5. This is now a memory puzzle, not merely a test of jumping prowess: what do I do for each piston? You are being asked to confront your prejudices, to rewrite the innate, unquestioned principles of "game design" taught to you by copypasting hacks for two decades. You are being asked to do and remember something new. This is a triumph!
6. Having passed the pistons, you are then required to run back through them because of an attacking tribe. The game smiles wryly: "Okay, but can you do it backwards?"

If you don't see why this is genius, why this is hilarious, this is not the game for you and you should just fire up a SNES emulator and play Super Mario World.

Just finished Limbo. This was one of my favorite moments of the game (and I had very, very many) and easily the funniest.

 

[Draft]

Also noticed that there are 114,000 people on the leader boards so far. Seems to be doing well. Great game.

Yup. Seems a lot of people really get it.

 

[Amir0x]

Amir0x: More or less frustrating than Splosion Man.

I have 800 points and I think I should just wait for Fez.

When is Fez coming out?

Like I said earlier, this specific aspect is just more like a mild irritation because only some of the puzzles really represent this trial-and-error gameplay some people are defending here.

I think it's a flaw, sure, but it's not really terribly frustrating compared to some other games because there's a strong checkpoint system and most of the puzzles are -not- like what I'm complaining about.

A bigger problem is that the game is over in close to no time and there's almost no replay value. I have issues with the way the physics/momentum based controls and gameplay work in some instances, since the game logic doesn't always seem consistent. And yes, there are quite a few trial-and-error puzzles that serve no purpose other than to annoy the player (read: make a DEEP, LIFE-CHANGING statement about the nature of game design and your existence lolol).

Knowing you, you'd probably like it enough, but you'd also probably be super annoyed you spent your points on this instead of Fez once you're finished with this game in 2 hours. However, you're a big fan of NyxQuest, which was similarly short. There is far less compelling 'pure platforming' in this game though. NyxQuest had some real fun segments.

 

[SapientWolf]

Amir0x: More or less frustrating than Splosion Man.

I have 800 points and I think I should just wait for Fez.

I'd be really surprised if Fez was released this year. Breach won't be out until 2011 because they missed an open June slot. But I'm gonna buy Super Meat Boy so hard.

 

[AniHawk]

When is Fez coming out?

Some time in the distant future. The wikipedia page said "Early 2010" and I don't think they're going to make that.

Like I said earlier, this specific aspect is just more like a mild irritation because only some of the puzzles really represent this trial-and-error gameplay some people are defending here.

I think it's a flaw, sure, but it's not really terribly frustrating compared to some other games because there's a strong checkpoint system and most of the puzzles are -not- like when I'm complaining about.

A bigger problem is that the game is over in close to no time and there's almost no replay value. I have issues with the way the physics/momentum based controls and gameplay work in some instances, since the game logic doesn't always seem consistent. And yes, there are quite a few trial-and-error puzzles that serve no purpose other than to annoy the player (read: make a DEEP, LIFE-CHANGING statement about the nature of game design and your existence lolol).

Knowing you, you'd probably like it enough, but you'd also probably be super annoyed you spent your points on this instead of Fez once you're finished with this game in 2 hours.

2 hours? Really? That would make it shorter than Braid.

Would a more accurate comparison be to A Boy and his Blob's puzzle levels?

I totally missed out on that time travel platformer thing from earlier in the year so maybe I should check that out. Sir something something quest for pie something something.

I don't want to miss out on a good platformer, but at the same time, it would mean getting another 1600 points card just to get it, and I still have Sin & Punishment 2 and 3D Dot Game Heroes among others waiting in the wings.

 

[Amir0x]

2 hours? Really? That would make it shorter than Braid.

Put it this way. I played the game for fifteen minutes and was already 30% complete.

Would a more accurate comparison be to A Boy and his Blob's puzzle levels?

I totally missed out on that time travel platformer thing from earlier in the year so maybe I should check that out. Sir something something quest for pie something something.

Oh, I know what you mean. That platformer actually IS really pretty good! That game is better than LIMBO by far actually :lol

Buy that (The Adventures of Winterbottom...or...pie...I forgot the name too lol)! I endorse it!

 

[Self_Destructive]

Amir0x is pretty much spot on. I agree with him 100%

No offense, but these other guys are simply trying to rationalize some deeper meaning than what was ever intended.

 

[Haunted]

Amir0x: More or less frustrating than Splosion Man.

I have 800 points and I think I should just wait for Fez.

I don't think those 800 points will help you much! It's 1200.

Less frustrating then Splosion Man. Actually, it's not frustrating at all, some puzzles are timing/skill-based, some are logical, but all are pretty easy (for puzzleplatforming veterans).

And it's better than Winterbottom, that's for sure.

 

[SapientWolf]

Amir0x is pretty much spot on. I agree with him 100%

No offense, but these other guys are simply trying to rationalize some deeper meaning than what was ever intended.

I'd say that is true for both sides, although I find the discussion to be really fascinating from a psychological standpoint.

 

[Rlan]

Just finished it -- I agree with Amirox for the most part.

I'll just say this: While Braid and limbo are very different games, in Braid where you had to solve the puzzles made me feel like a genius afterwards. Comparatively, Limbo makes me feel like an idiot for half of it, having to fall into death a lot, or not being able to complete a puzzle because a piece was left ages away.