Non-player Criticisms of The Last Guardian *pile*

[OCASM]

The game seems to have an outdated game design from PlayStation 2 times with all the typical errors like the rough camera and control problems.

I don't think "outdated" is the right word. Third person N64 games like Zelda have a more functional camera and more responsive controls than this. It's just a poor design decision because for Ueda function follows form.

The framerate is just a disgrace.

 

[MrFox]

 

[OCASM]

Haters gonna hate.

This game seems to take the concept of Agro from Shadow of the Colossus and expands it into an entire game mechanic rather than just an element of the control scheme. Not having played The Last Guardian yet I can't speak to the effectiveness of it (unlike the insecure and jealous xbots) but it was an insanely effective experience in SotC.

This is nothing like Agro. In that case you had control of the reins, here all you can do is yell. It's a camera-blocking Yorda without the hand-holding.

A lot of highly successful games these days seem to be built on the foundation of repeatable processes that can be exploited for consistent success and reward. I just don't see Udea trying to emulate that and that's OK.

Stubborn AI that gets in the way of the player solving the game's challenges is not good design. It's just annoying.

I agree with that. Demo'd my game Adventures a month ago and it didn't go down well as the players had many expectations and no patience to learn new rules and a new way to play. I had to change my ideas a bit (thankfully always intended because the demo was a quick stop-gap coop implementation) and the new demo was well received. One feature was a duck-herding objective, which required patience. This patience was absent and the player was frustrated he couldn't run full speed and have the ducks follow.

As a business, you have to work with an audience that doesn't want to spend time learning new things. If you want to teach new things, you have to introduce them gradually around an existing mindset. I think that's completely different from the 80s and 90s when we got big-ass manuals and loved reading through them. Games like Lair show the economic failure that comes from exceeding people's limits and turning them away before they have chance to learn and appreciate the new mechanic you're offering. TLG could probably only happen as a first/second party title (perhaps with Japan backing) because no sane publisher would invest in a game with an organic mechanic that doesn't fit current gamers' mindsets.

That seems like either a failure of level design or just bad mechanics.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That seems like either a failure of level design or just bad mechanics.

Interesting fob off. When shown at a gaming festival, this lousy level design and/or bad mechanics saw a queue to play form and some people coming back the next day to play the game with their friends or family...

It's different mechanics. Each player had a particular enemy they had to fight. Think dungeon crawler with skeletons, goblins and vampires, and each player can only fight one type successfully. At the gaming festival I could repeat this and guide people until they picked up how to play properly and they enjoyed the cooperative aspect. With the home demo leaving them to try the game for themselves without this guidance, as the product will be experienced outside a gaming show, they went after any enemy, wouldn't coordinate, and died when they picked the wrong fights, because of their expectations. In every dungeon crawler that's what you do, so that's what they did, ignoring all the instruction and guidance to the contrary.

The subsequent design lost the specific class per monster mechanic (which was only temporary) and they enjoyed it a lot more because it worked how they expected. The coop aspect comes from other skills and abilities of the characters and other mechanics.

 

[OCASM]

Interesting fob off. When shown at a gaming festival, this lousy level design and/or bad mechanics saw a queue to play form and some people coming back the next day to play the game with their friends or family...

It's different mechanics. Each player had a particular enemy they had to fight. Think dungeon crawler with skeletons, goblins and vampires, and each player can only fight one type successfully. At the gaming festival I could repeat this and guide people until they picked up how to play properly and they enjoyed the cooperative aspect. With the home demo leaving them to try the game for themselves without this guidance, as the product will be experienced outside a gaming show, they went after any enemy, wouldn't coordinate, and died when they picked the wrong fights, because of their expectations. In every dungeon crawler that's what you do, so that's what they did, ignoring all the instruction and guidance to the contrary.

The subsequent design lost the specific class per monster mechanic (which was only temporary) and they enjoyed it a lot more because it worked how they expected. The coop aspect comes from other skills and abilities of the characters and other mechanics.

That's the thing: during the festival they had you to direct them, but as a standalone the players needed the game itself to direct them (as in, manipulate, not suggest) and it didn't do it, hence their frustration. At least that's what I can gather from your commentary.

In the case of TLG, it doesn't seem like players lack the patience to learn the mechanics, rather, they learn them but the game fails to respond when they execute them.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's the thing: during the festival they had you to direct them, but as a standalone the players needed the game itself to direct them (as in, manipulate, not suggest) and it didn't do it, hence their frustration. At least that's what I can gather from your commentary.

That's what I said. You need to do it gradually enough around the existing mindset. My earlier quote :

If you want to teach new things, you have to introduce them gradually around an existing mindset.

If I want to introduce existing gamers into the idea of specific enemies, I can't just tell them up front as I was doing in a very simple tutorial and description of the characters*. What I need to do is start by having them fight all monsters based on their existing preconceptions of how to play based on their experiences of other games, and then gradually introduce enemy specialisation. This is because they lack the patience or interest to relearn existing skills/knowledge.

What you can't do in the YouTube/COD generation is tell people anything. You also can't rely on people to notice subtle clues and have to be more obvious, certainly if reaching outside the typical, experienced core gamer. This is mostly because the audience is no longer just the few million avid gamers, but the tens of millions of more relaxed gamers who have limited time and are wanting more immediate fun from a hobby, who are used to getting answers to problems in the form of immediate video tutorials instead of reading through a passage of text. They already know how to play games and aren't going to bother wrestling with any that deviates from that existing formula and loses the immediacy of pick-up-and-play.

That's not to say TLG is doing it right - I haven't played it and have no opinion. Perhaps it could be introducing the mechanics more effectively. What it can't do, regardless how well designed, is expect the players to have plenty of patience and be happy to wait around while nothing happens, or expect players to fit in with a new simulated behaviour mechanic if it gets in the way of their expectations of computer games (tell someone to do something and they do it immediately without question), at least not without lots of gradual training to break gamers in to the new paradigm.

* Some more detail on this, so you can determine if the blame lies with me or the game design or my players. I have a hit graphic star that visibly scales based on damage dealt, so players can see whether they are strong or not. It's very pronounced but no-one notices it nor makes the correlation between star size and damage dealt. I need to use 'numbers'. I had a tutorial that asked "who are you strong against" and had combat training dummies of each monster type. The enemy you were strong against dropped coins when hit (with large impact stars) and was destroyed in two hits. All the other enemies took 10+ hits (small impact stars) and didn't drop coins. My test subjects hit a few dummies and then moved on, immediately progressing into a room with different enemy types where the very previous 30 seconds experience explained what they needed to do but they just waded in and hit everything. The reason, I believe, is because they already 'knew' how to play a dungeon crawler, so paid no notice to the explanations (which they already 'knew'). And most importantly, when the game didn't work as expected ("my character's useless. She keeps dying.") the blame is levied at the game.

 

[OCASM]

That's what I said. You need to do it gradually enough around the existing mindset. My earlier quote :

If I want to introduce existing gamers into the idea of specific enemies, I can't just tell them up front as I was doing in a very simple tutorial and description of the characters*. What I need to do is start by having them fight all monsters based on their existing preconceptions of how to play based on their experiences of other games, and then gradually introduce enemy specialisation. This is because they lack the patience or interest to relearn existing skills/knowledge.

What you can't do in the YouTube/COD generation is tell people anything. You also can't rely on people to notice subtle clues and have to be more obvious, certainly if reaching outside the typical, experienced core gamer. This is mostly because the audience is no longer just the few million avid gamers, but the tens of millions of more relaxed gamers who have limited time and are wanting more immediate fun from a hobby, who are used to getting answers to problems in the form of immediate video tutorials instead of reading through a passage of text. They already know how to play games and aren't going to bother wrestling with any that deviates from that existing formula and loses the immediacy of pick-up-and-play.

That's not to say TLG is doing it right - I haven't played it and have no opinion. Perhaps it could be introducing the mechanics more effectively. What it can't do, regardless how well designed, is expect the players to have plenty of patience and be happy to wait around while nothing happens, or expect players to fit in with a new simulated behaviour mechanic if it gets in the way of their expectations of computer games (tell someone to do something and they do it immediately without question), at least not without lots of gradual training to break gamers in to the new paradigm.

* Some more detail on this, so you can determine if the blame lies with me or the game design or my players. I have a hit graphic star that visibly scales based on damage dealt, so players can see whether they are strong or not. It's very pronounced but no-one notices it nor makes the correlation between star size and damage dealt. I need to use 'numbers'. I had a tutorial that asked "who are you strong against" and had combat training dummies of each monster type. The enemy you were strong against dropped coins when hit (with large impact stars) and was destroyed in two hits. All the other enemies took 10+ hits (small impact stars) and didn't drop coins. My test subjects hit a few dummies and then moved on, immediately progressing into a room with different enemy types where the very previous 30 seconds experience explained what they needed to do but they just waded in and hit everything. The reason, I believe, is because they already 'knew' how to play a dungeon crawler, so paid no notice to the explanations (which they already 'knew'). And most importantly, when the game didn't work as expected ("my character's useless. She keeps dying.") the blame is levied at the game.

Perhaps the problem is the dummies. During the tutorial phase the players learn that they're more effective against certain monsters, not that certain monsters are more dangerous. Basically the player has no reason to believe that some monsters will be "too hard", instead he goes thinking that some monsters will be "too easy". Expectation (from the tutorial) meets reality and frustration ensues.

 

[bunge]

This is nothing like Agro.

The ability to understand analogies is linked with intelligence.

In SotC, the end user didn't have direct control of Agro.
In TLC, the end user doesn't have direct control of Cat-thingy.

 

[OCASM]

The ability to understand analogies is linked with intelligence.

In SotC, the end user didn't have direct control of Agro.
In TLC, the end user doesn't have direct control of Cat-thingy.

So is the ability to make them in the first place.

Being able to call to Aggro and Trico are where the similarities end. Beyond that you have NO direct control whatsoever over what Trico does, but you do over what Aggro does. Not only that, Aggro's behavior is 100% predictable so a player can be 100% confident that performing the same action in the same circumstances will always result in the same behavior. Not so, in TLG.

It's determinism VS randomness.

 

[Nesh]

So is the ability to make them in the first place.

Being able to call to Aggro and Trico are where the similarities end. Beyond that you have NO direct control whatsoever over what Trico does, but you do over what Aggro does. Not only that, Aggro's behavior is 100% predictable so a player can be 100% confident that performing the same action in the same circumstances will always result in the same behavior. Not so, in TLG.

It's determinism VS randomness.

I personally like the idea of having a "companion" who has his own independent personality and isnt simply a vessel that does nothing but obey. I havent played the game yet but if they gave it a good enough AI that conveys properly that Trico is a living being with its own personality then thats perfect.
It something different. I dont want it to be just a giant horse, or a biological substitute of a vehicle. I want him to be something more.
Otherwise I dont see how it could develop a sympathy or relationship within the story if its nothing more

 

[goonergaz]

So is the ability to make them in the first place.

Being able to call to Aggro and Trico are where the similarities end. Beyond that you have NO direct control whatsoever over what Trico does, but you do over what Aggro does. Not only that, Aggro's behavior is 100% predictable so a player can be 100% confident that performing the same action in the same circumstances will always result in the same behavior. Not so, in TLG.

It's determinism VS randomness.

Do you have a dog? Sounds to me like they got the AI spot on...or certainly that of a young dog...very random and stubborn behavior

 

[OCASM]

Do you have a dog? Sounds to me like they got the AI spot on...or certainly that of a young dog...very random and stubborn behavior

Indeed, making it nothing like Aggro's AI.

 

[MrFox]

I've read on quite a few occasions that you also have to read the creature correctly if you want it to do your bidding in a more consistent manner. Now that might of course just be projection on behalf of the people who don't seem to struggle with it quite as much, though.

Either way, cannot wait.

Yeah it's important to see Trico as a coop partner instead of some dumb NPC bot. His behaviour is often an integral part of the puzzle, story progression, and the emotional narrative. If something catches his attention, or he found something related to the puzzle, he's expressing it with sniffing, vocalizing, looking at it, and mostly it's the animation that speaks the most.

It has similarities to the usual coop NPC except Trico doesn't say "Nathan, I found a ladder. Give me a boost!". Sometimes it's obvious, like he will be afraid of something, the hint system ("hold L3") will give you something like "XYZ is making Trico panic, you have to find a way to calm him down". Or the other way around something smells good and he'll try desperately to reach it. The rest of his behaviour is more subtle, but mostly he's reactive to either you or elements of the environment.

So is the ability to make them in the first place.

Being able to call to Aggro and Trico are where the similarities end. Beyond that you have NO direct control whatsoever over what Trico does, but you do over what Aggro does. Not only that, Aggro's behavior is 100% predictable so a player can be 100% confident that performing the same action in the same circumstances will always result in the same behavior. Not so, in TLG.

It's determinism VS randomness.

It's not randomness. The basic aspect of "coop with an NPC" is still there, triggers from gameplay are still there, it's just more credible here because there's a lot more work put into it, more than any game I can remember. Same concept, much more elaborate implementation. You can certainly predict Trico's behaviour if you pay attention to the details, it's a central part of the game. If Trico was random it would be a really stupid game, and if he was a simple robot NPC executing order the narrative wouldn't work.

You seem to be here only for shit posting and picking fights.

 

[OCASM]

Yeah it's important to see Trico as a coop partner instead of some dumb NPC bot. His behaviour is often an integral part of the puzzle, story progression, and the emotional narrative. If something catches his attention, or he found something related to the puzzle, he's expressing it with sniffing, vocalizing, looking at it, and mostly it's the animation that speaks the most.

It has similarities to the usual coop NPC except Trico doesn't say "Nathan, I found a ladder. Give me a boost!". Sometimes it's obvious, like he will be afraid of something, the hint system ("hold L3") will give you something like "XYZ is making Trico panic, you have to find a way to calm him down". Or the other way around something smells good and he'll try desperately to reach it. The rest of his behaviour is more subtle, but mostly he's reactive to either you or elements of the environment.

It's not randomness. The basic aspect of "coop with an NPC" is still there, triggers from gameplay are still there, it's just more credible here because there's a lot more work put into it, more than any game I can remember. Same concept, much more elaborate implementation. You can certainly predict Trico's behaviour if you pay attention to the details, it's a central part of the game. If Trico was random it would be a really stupid game, and if he was a simple robot NPC executing order the narrative wouldn't work.

Does Trico respond the same way to the same player stimulus under equal circumstances every time? No.

And that's not taking into account pathfinding glitches.

So yeah, it's nothing like Aggro.

 

[MrFox]

This game seems to take the concept of Agro from Shadow of the Colossus and expands it into an entire game mechanic rather than just an element of the control scheme.

This is nothing like Agro.

Indeed, making it nothing like Aggro's AI.

Does Trico respond the same way to the same player stimulus under equal circumstances every time? No.
So yeah, it's nothing like Aggro.

Are you retarded?

 

[Arwin]

Guys guys, calm down. You are failing the spirit of this game! You should be listening to each other and find common ground towards a better appreciation of this game and how it relates to its ancestors, not devolve into yay or nay and ad-hominem squabbling!

 

[MrFox]

It was just a question!

 

[BRiT]

It was just a question!

Was it? Was it really?

 

[MrFox]

Was it? Was it really?

 

[Nesh]