Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
(+1)

Very interesting, the game is very dependent actually on what you see as morally good. Some people may see not doing anything bad a good thing! Hence some people may not align with that game choice.

I think you forget the aspect of the narrator in the game. The narrator talks about the requirements to reach "Eden". The player can reach these requirements by doing obviously "immoral" acts. In the ending sequence the narrator says that you beat him because of your own morals(ie. the character playing through the game the way you chose) or maybe because you saw through his lie of the existence of Eden.

Perhaps the post scene was an oversight but in some people's playthroughs you can see how it may have made sense no?

Anyway, please understand this game in the context of a 7 day game jam that we entered late 1 day and a half late into. Sad that you didn't enjoy the game.. will attempt to improve it outside of time constraints.

"Some people may see not doing anything bad a good thing! Hence some people may not align with that game choice"

What do you mean by this?  And what game choice are you referring to?  Are you saying I'm one of those players, or are you presenting a counterpoint to something I said?

I was aware of the narrator.  He immediately tells me to kill the dog, which I'm not willing to do, and then he never comes up again until the ending.  I doubt most players would want to kill a dog, and the ones that do are probably just doing it to see more game content.

If you want to strengthen this aspect of the game, I would suggest establishing more of a motivation to reach Eden.  Make surviving without it extremely difficult.  Have the narrator start with more mundane instructions first, even some that are benevolent and produce great outcomes.  Then let them start to get shadier, until finally you've reached a point where you're less likely to refuse, both because you've already come so far, and because your faith in the narrator has been sufficiently built up.  As is, his outrageous instruction right out of the gate was too easy to disregard.

I had assumed the moral score of the ending was objective rather than based around following the narrator.  Is this not the case?  Is a morally good ending only achieved by doing everything the narrator says?  But then I would expect ignoring the narrator to be designated as morally bad.  Or is there no morally good ending at all?

Maybe the game just wasn't for me, but I can't figure out what the intention behind it is.  If the way to "beat" the game is really to just do what I did and ignore the narrator, then the game amounts to a pretty easy decision in my opinion that results in a lackluster game experience and rather unsatisying conclusion.  Shouldn't achieving the intended goal of the game be more encouraged and satisfying?

(1 edit)

Hi Alectric! I’ve read your comment and agree with many of the things you’ve said, especially that we should spend more time establishing relationships between the player and other entities of the game.

As for beating the game, the moral neutral ending which you achieved is currently the “best” ending. We haven’t implemented different endings for when the player is always moral versus when the player is sometimes moral/not immoral. 

Having said that, we gave more attention to the immoral endings, and have 2 endings based on the extent of your “immorality”. 

We plan to improve and add such features after the Community Game Jam ends (for which the theme was “Liar”, hence the misleading narrator and “prospect” bar in the top left.  

This game was made in a week and thus, we had to take some shortcuts and restrict the amount of content we could safely add to the game, as well as polish and play-test. 

Thank you for playing, and giving constructive criticism. We’ll take this into account when updating the game after the jam :D