Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs

Alectric

8
Posts
2
Topics
A member registered Sep 02, 2018

Recent community posts

If you're still stuck, the synonym you're looking for is a number.

"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)

My first playthrough I didn't give away money or food, but I didn't steal or harm anyone either.  I walked to the end and got the Moral Neutral and Truth endings.

Then I figured I'd try for a Moral Good ending by doing the same but giving food to the dog and money to the homeless guy.  I didn't see any other ways to be morally good.  But when I got to the end, it was the same as before.  And both times the post-ending scene claimed that I believed Eden existed but stuck to my morals anyway.  But I didn't believe Eden existed, and I don't know what actions I could have taken to indicate that.

The only things I imagine I could have done to get different endings is to steal or kill, which I didn't care to do.  So I guess that ends my experience with the game, a resounding "meh".

For anyone still stuck (SPOILERS):

That metal fragment is in the cave after all.  It has nothing to do with light in-game as far as I can tell.  The guide text file says it's hanging from the ceiling there, but I still had trouble finding it.  It turns out it's at the end of one of the hanging chains.  Because it's metal and rounded, it looks like part of the chain, so it's really easy to miss.  You have to look closely to see it.  If you hover the mouse over it, it will change to a yellow hand cursor.

Thanks for the explanation.  There may have been some issues with the execution, but there was a lot to admire, too.  You were able to portray a believable and captivating thought process, one that I'm sure many people can relate to, and form a bunch of characters that all seemed real despite a simplistic art style.   I saw a lot of that in Paradigm as well.  I look forward to your future projects.

I played this game after enjoying Paradigm.  It certainly felt believable, and I could understand Derek's thinking even if I didn't always agree.  I'm not sure what the overall point was, though.

I got Bad End, having gained no friends, but I'm honestly not sure what choices I could have made to get a different outcome.  I strongly suspect there was no "good" ending.  I didn't reject Mia when she appeared, so I'm not sure if that could have changed things somehow.  She seemed to only be a positive influence, though, so I doubt it would have made things better.

I started to suspect she wasn't real pretty early on,  with the way Derek kept saying he had no friends despite her clearly being his friend.  And classmates were so weirdly, blatantly avoiding and excluding Derek towards the end that I was waiting for an explanation, like they saw him talking to himself (imagining Mia) or something.  Or maybe he had been bad to them in some interactions that we weren't shown.  But no such explanation was ever given.

I felt just as baffled as Derek when people would strike up conversation one day, but then have no interest the next, or when they would see him and then immediately avoid him despite supposedly being on good terms.  I suppose his negativity was supposed to be offputting, and his thoughts weren't always great, but in all the actual dialog the game had, Derek seemed perfectly reasonable and polite, so I'm not sure if this was a case of unreliable narrator or what.

When Mia started psychoanalysing Derek, I had hopes that she might convince him to seek actual therapy, which he seemed like he could clearly benefit from, but nothing really came of that either.  I could understand a game like this where you'd be provided choices like seeking therapy or finding clubs with people who shared interests with Derek, that he could connect with better than with his classmates, but it seems like you're just forced to play through the experience of someone who never even considers such avenues to better his situation.

If the point of the game was that people like Derek should change their thinking, try other things, or seek therapy, it didn't really come across.  It almost seemed like the point was more about the classmates, and that they should be more open to people like Derek when they try to connect, but as I mentioned, I'm really not sure why they weren't more open to begin with.

Paradigm community · Created a new topic Interesting Game!

I was getting frustrated with it, until I discovered that you have to reach HumanBot's ending first before Annie's ending opens up, and then eventually the rest of the game.  I also thought that the "Wrong End" might have been a bug or something, since it was abrupt with no real lead-up, but I guess the choice that triggers it ties into the actual ending of the game.

Anyway, great work.  Quite impressive for such a relatively small project.

The story is pretty interesting.  I look forward to the final chapter. 

I was a little lost in trying to play this, though.  I wasn't sure what the interface represented or how my choices affected things.  I figured I'd pretty much just pick whichever option had the highest percentage, and that seemed to work out.  But if doing that does end up being correct, it kind of trivializes all the decisions.

Oh, wait, I played with Helper Mode enabled, so maybe that's what that was.  That's another thing I would critique, though, that I had to choose whether to enable it before starting, with nothing to explain what it was, and no way to guage whether I'd want it.  I went back to see what happens without it, and it seems to just omit the percentages.  But the "receptiveness" ratings still pretty much give away which answer to choose.  And do the percentages mean there's an element of random chance regarding success?

None of that makes sense to me.  Shouldn't I have to be figuring something out in order to get a success?  But the way it is, either success comes from following what the receptiveness ratings show, which is trivial, or from getting lucky on random chances, which I don't have control over.   Is there something else I'm supposed to base the decisions on?  Otherwise, it seems like the gameplay element was included more for being plain interactive than for being actually interesting or fun.

The failure responses do kind of hint at why a choice fails, so maybe some strategy could actually be involved if the receptiveness ratings weren't shown.  But then partially correct choices shouldn't just randomly succeed or fail.  It would make more sense for you to simply gain a proportional amount of insight.

I don't really understand how the mechanics all fit together.  What does "insight" represent?  Any choice, even "failures," seem to move the narrative along regardless, providing the same information.  The difference between a success and failure seems to be whether your future self becomes more receptive to you.  But then labelling accumulative successes "insight" wouldn't really fit.  And since insight is needed to unlock more of the narrative, I would expect it to be acquired by "questioning and doubting," like the game keeps saying.  But picking the choices your future self is most receptive to doesn't really have anything to do with that...

On another note, I also found it hard to tell which text belonged to which character.  It seemed like your spoken voice was yellow, your future self's voice was red, and then what looked like your thoughts appeared in green.  But later the rebel voice was also green.  And text also changes color during transitions, making things even more confusing.

One last thing I'll suggest is to allow us to refer back to what the last statement was when making a choice, so that we don't have to risk forgetting the context of it.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  I hope they can be of some help, and thank you for the game.  The presentation is very impressive.

The game only gives me one option for dimentions, 1920 x 1080.  I played in full screen mode.  There were a couple times where the text reached four lines, with the fourth line not being visible.

Any time there was a fourth line of text, it was not visible.