Bit Blot Forum
Aquaria => General => Topic started by: SevenMass on February 15, 2009, 02:43:42 pm
-
Hello all,
Now that I've finished the game, I feel the need to make a post about my thoughts and opinions on Aquaria.
I've lurked the forums extensively before signing up, and I actually think I have a comment to make about this game that hasn't been made before.
The vibe I'm getting when I'm playing Aquaria, is that I'm watching a movie, rather than playing a game. I mean this in a good way. The game starts with narration, and it ends with a non-interactive outro. And then the ending credits titles starts scrolling. (I watched them all and waited till it ended, something I rarely even do with movies) And everything that is in the plot is interwoven in the game, in everything, especially the background music. The plot isn't an excuse for the game to exist, nor is the game an excuse to tell the plot.
There are many games and their developers that try to achieve this, but in Aquaria, it kind of happens, and it makes it look deceptively easy. (but then, for all I know, it could have just fallen out of the author's sleeves like that without them even realizing it, sometimes things just happen)
It is also one of the rare games I like to play with the music turned on. Not just because the music is good, (which has already been mentioned countless times before) There are more games with good music, but good music in itself often isn't enough.
For example: The game Diablo2 has absolutely stunning music, but I can't play the game with the music turned on. Cause it loops endlessly and it interferes with the other sounds, creating a wall of sound that is tiring to listen to, and the mind filters out the unimportant background sounds, thus I end up not even hearing the music.
In Aquaria, the music and almost all other sounds are "balanced" in such a fashion, that this problem doesn't occur. (But maybe it isn't entirely fair because this is partially because you don't fight most of the time, and the fights that do happen don't last that long) And as noted before, the music isn't just nice piece of art used to fill the background, it actually ends up being interwoven in the plot.
I also like it how you don't have to fight everything you come across. you can easily cast shield and ignore most of the creatures in the open waters, or use fish form and pass hostile sea stars without much trouble (I wish there where more of such enemies though, It would have been great if fish form also allowed you to pass piranja's and the horseshoe for example) It is also one of the least linear games I've ever played, the amount of freedom in where to go and what to do next is only surpassed by games such as Simcity.
Last, there are the save points: Normally I prefer games where you can save manually, just about anywhere. Save points are often a pain because they force you to finish sections of the game between save points in one session, and they are also often at locations where you either feel you better move on a bit more, or where you really like to quit but haven't found the save point yet. While Aquaria uses a save point system, for some reason, I rarely had any of the problems I just described. It feels as though they are always placed at spots I'd save the game manually if I could.
-
Can't agree with you more and you said everything pretty much perfectly.
The save points were also very strategically placed, you wouldn't want to save just after you got an awesome form and you want to try it out, once you tried everything which isn't THAT long, you go back to finding a save so you don't have to get the form again.
Second, stories, there are a lot of parts in the game where you have a save point before the story, at the start of a story and at the conclusion of the story, which ends up with a boss usually. Also all very strategically placed, who would want to save when you're just coming on to something? Well, unless it's really... really late.
-
welcome to the forums SevenMass, and that was a great thoughtful read :)
... Also all very strategically placed, who would want to save when you're just coming on to something? Well, unless it's really... really late.
on my latest pass through the game I'm saving before and after each boss and the technique is working well to not flood all the available slots too badly. this way when I hear about some crazy boss technique it's not a bus trip across town to get back to the boss in question.
-
Actually, I cheat, I use the Native mod of Hiro to get to the bosses if I need to, even though I did adjust the mod lightly and added all songs to myself. ^^
-
I save before a major fight and right after. For example, the forest goddess: Before you face her, you have the option of saving at that very nearby save point, and after beating her, you can swim right back to that save point and save again! Not even talking about that masterfully placed teleporting flower. That takes you almost right next to the ancient sea turtle.
That said, I couldn't help but also notice a couple of flaws here. There is no handy save point near the jelly king for example. Nor near the big crab in the Arnassi ruins. The big crab isn't a big problem because you are very unlikely to fail here, but with king jelly there is a realistic chance you will die, even for a more experience player. Also, I found it frustrating to fail at the end boss form 5. All the other forms are much easier, at least once you know what to do, then you fail at form 5 because it is a form that require more reflexes and fast thinking, and you have tediously redo all the other forms again, and again. I wish there was a save before form 5.
Exploring is nice, restarting a bossfight because he is difficult is fine, redoing whole sections of what is no more than swimming around because a test at the very end of that long section is difficult is not.
But suppose I can live with it because it is the endboss and only a very small and relatively uninteresting part of the game.
Thinking about this, perhaps a nice idea for any future games, try to make even major bosses optional.
The idea that a game must consist of a series of bossfights was started by a certain console manufacturer, and like the mother song in Aquaria infecting all of Aquaria, that idea ended up infecting every part of the gaming industry. But I believe it isn't needed. As long as the story ends in a satisfying way, it doesn't have to be a big boss fight.
Case in point: In the Neverwinter Nights, Hordes of the Underdark campaign. You have the option of completely avoiding the fight with the last boss by learning his true name and commanding him to die. The story ends almost the exact same way, but you don't have to go through a frustrating fight. I personally don't find the fight that interesting anyway.
(I'm not saying that there should be no fights in the game at all, just that it doesn't need to invove a formalistic boss fight at the end)
-
Not to crack down your idea or something, but once bosses become optional, almost everyone will skip them, or beat them the easy way, just because there is that option.
And the Jelly and Crab and Mantis and loads of other minibosses are all optional.
The only bosses you NEED to defeat are, Energy Spirit, Energy God, Mithalas, Mother Nature, Sun Worm, Golem (parents of Eric) and Creator.
All of these have save point before them (besides the other 4 forms of the creator). So they ain't really all that hard to retry, and then you always have your food, if you explored at least a bit.
-
Bosses are used as climax for both story and gameplay, so thinking up a replacement won't be easy.
-
there are save points close to the Arnassi Mantis and Jelly King, they just arn't down the hall like with Mithalis and Nature. you have to figure out which one is closest, I think in the Abyss I saved at the memory crystal corridor as there is a fish tunnel that can scoot you there pretty quick. As soon as I could I got the Jelly costume, it's a hard boss but worth the effort :)
-
The Jelly costume is pretty amazing, especially as it scales with HP gain. It saved me from having to reload many times.
-
Please don't get me wrong. I know which bosses are optional. My little endboss rant and the comment about the save points near the jelly king are two completely separate issues.
I mentioned the giant enemy crab to contrast with the jelly king. (I have a habit of moderating my own arguments with contrasting examples) Of the two, I only found the King Jelly save a bit annoying, even though both didn't have saves down the corridor. But even then it is only a minor issue. One could argue that it is a part of the difficulty you need to deal with if you opt to fight King Jelly.
The lack of a save before Creator form 5 is my biggest real peeve. I actually liked form 3 and 4 in combination with form 1 and 2, it provided a nice break where you could fight the end boss, without actually "fighting" in the classical sense of fighting end bosses. But form 5 is very difficult, in the sense that it requires a lot of the traditional "gaming reflexes" to deal with him. I wanted to see the ending, but I failed at defeating form 5 several times in a row, and then having to redo form 1, 2, 3, 4, became a bit like grinding your CRPG character.
Continuing the game boss discussion: (I hope it is not to off topic for this forum, but since I started it anyway...)
I don't think bosses need to be replaced if removed, one could easily opt to end a story without one at all. If you reached the end of the game, then you have beaten the game, why is there a need for a big fight? The whole journey to the end of the game was one big undertaking in and off itself.
Imagine a story of a dictator who needs to be defeated, what will happen is that the biggest fight take place at the start of the active war, at some point, one of the sides has managed to gain control of a couple of key locations and defeated some key enemy units, or a certain amount of them. That is when the enemy has lost. Then comes the mopping up part, or maybe the peace negotiations. This could still hold an interesting plot, there might be some personal scores still left to settle, there might be a couple of guerilla groups left to take down. Game wise, some of the most difficult fights (for the main character) might still take place here. (they just don't need to be bosses, they could be hostile terrain with a couple of very nasty mooks)
The plot could still hide some darkness, one could still uncover some horrible crimes that have been taking place, during the dictators reign.
And to top it off, you could could still end it with a confrontation with the dictator himself. Just that, he is a politician, not a fighter. He used to have others fight for him. So instead of an end boss fight, the story ends with a short emotional dialog. If the writer is good and particularly nasty, he may even construct it so that due to the dictator his last stance (he would be a manipulator, not a warrior) the player is left wondering if defeating the dictator was actually a good idea. If he shouldn't maybe joined his cause instead!
Then you could still have the player kill the dictator with an attack, but as stated, he isn't a fighter, so he should go down with one strike.
Also, I do not think that everyone will skip boss fights, even if there is no in-game reward at all, some people will think it is fun seeing if they can defeat something challenging . And even if most people end up skipping the difficult fight, so what? It is only a very small part of the game.
EDIT: And sorry for the long posts. I didn't mean to create a wall of text, but sometimes I get a bit carried away with something. If anyone thinks I should have this discussion elsewhere, please say so.
-
You make some interesting points; however, paced bosses are almost expected in the traditional action/adventure game. The rest of the game would have to be very engaging to compensate for the boss's absence.
-
I mentioned the giant enemy crab to contrast with the jelly king. (I have a habit of moderating my own arguments with contrasting examples) Of the two, I only found the King Jelly save a bit annoying, even though both didn't have saves down the corridor. But even then it is only a minor issue. One could argue that it is a part of the difficulty you need to deal with if you opt to fight King Jelly.
tru dat! gaming would be hollow without good boss battles
-
I don't think bosses need to be replaced if removed, one could easily opt to end a story without one at all. If you reached the end of the game, then you have beaten the game, why is there a need for a big fight? The whole journey to the end of the game was one big undertaking in and off itself.
Because climax.
Game wise, some of the most difficult fights (for the main character) might still take place here. (they just don't need to be bosses, they could be hostile terrain with a couple of very nasty mooks)
I'd still call that a boss fight though; it doesn't take a huge monster or other single powerful character for a fight to be a boss fight.
-
Because climax.
Next question: why does there need to be a climax? The story could end more softly. And even if the story needs some kind of climax, the gameplay doesn't have to follow.
I'd still call that a boss fight though; it doesn't take a huge monster or other single powerful character for a fight to be a boss fight.
Only if it is set up like a boss fight. I know a "boss" doesn't need to consist of a single powerful being.
I was talking about a couple of mooks that can't be mistaken for a bossfight. Such as an entire series of areas/dungeons where these strong mooks hide out here and there.
Imagine the energy temple in Aquaria without the energy boss. You already got the energy form from the ancient test at the start of the temple, and there was a bit of a question on whether you could get back, because the passage was closed. There are a couple of tight spots from lesser enemies here and there. And you had to solve some puzzles on how to open the next couple of doors.
What exactly does the energy boss add other than a challenging fight? The vision could come from an other memory crystal, or from finding the tooth laying about near a big scull. And it could have been said that you've "beaten" the god and earned the form by completing the ancient test at the start of the temple.
(Don't read this as a comment on Aquaria or the energy boss, I simple use it as an example here)
-
The problem would be the level of the game. The level of the "mooks" would have to be stepped up to keep the difficulty of the game at the same level, but when would the mooks become bosses? :)
-
Next question: why does there need to be a climax? The story could end more softly. And even if the story needs some kind of climax, the gameplay doesn't have to follow.
If it has standard build-up, no climax means anticlimax, which is of course bad.
If it doesn't, and has a more constant pace... well, I don't recall ever playing such a game, so I can't say for sure, but there're plenty of extremely veteran game devs that speak of how important it is to have highs and lows in the experience.
-
The problem faced with in this part of the game is which element should be more prominent: the succesfull ending of the story or the gameplay pacing. Game designers will invariably prefer gameplay pacing, because a boss fight can provide a challenge more than once, whereas a story ending can only work succesfully once, meaning any replay attempt of the game will be more boring, with the player knowing the outcome already.
Furthermore, it is essential for the succesful completion of the story and the resulting evaluation that there is a peek in gameplay constancy at the end of certain sections. The Energy temple (from your example) would be dull without a boss fight, the dragging back and forth of the orbs would become tedious and the final part would be anticlimactic, destroying the careful construction of the whole energy temple and invalidating its constancy of proper music, atmosphere and anticipation. The story alone would not be enough of a reward for the completion here, because the way the temple is constructed demands a "crescendo" event. Touching a crystal would only resolve the story aspect, not the required gameplay crescendo.
And adding to that last point is the notice that the storyline of games constantly creates an opposition. There is a goal, usually personified in an enemy (boss), which is superior to the other enemies that you face. The defeat of Mephistophiles at the end of Neverwinter Nights is an example of a boss fight, not a resolution without one. The player is pitted against a mighty devil of the most powerful kind (thus a boss). Just because the option of guile (learning his true name for a load of money) enables you to instantly kill him, does not mean that you do not defeat him.
This is the important difference between the two options you voice. Game designers have ocasionally tried to forego boss fights and create anti-climax resolutions, but they have thus far not been able to fully replace the invention of the "boss" with something else.
-
Of course there should be highs and lows, I'm not arguing against that. It is the "standard build-up" you mentioned that I'm talking about. It is too standard.
When do mooks become bosses? How about never? Taking Aquaria as a reference pool again: (since I assume we all played it here) There are a couple of difficult and tight spots in The Body that will probably cost you more healing food than some of the bosses you've encountered earlier. (And Simon doesn't count) Especially If you haven't figured out yet how to use all available forms most effectively.
-
It's cliché because it works.
Which is not saying that it's the only approach that does.
-
OK, How about a story that involves finding a lost loved one. The climax would be if the main character is finally reunited with the loved one. There could be a lot of trouble on the way, maybe even some smaller enemies you come across on the adventure, but as long as the loved one wasn't kidnapped, there is no end boss to take care off.
-
I'm gonna say something against a lot of critics I have discussed these things with: If you don't like the game, make your own. (I think that's what Alec did. =p )
And of course you are all talking about the story part, not the whole game, but it's still all the same.
Long story short: Everything has been done before, it's hard to find actual ingenuity nowadays. Aquaria has come damn close and still, the slight bits that aren't original are the parts people are complaining about.
Now all I'm trying to say is that these discussions have been made before and as far as I can remember got nothing good out of it.
But, if you like discussing this, or about making a new game yourself, ignore this post in total and keep discussing like good friends.
-
Actually, I was about to stop this discussion because I think everything on this subject has been said by now, but I feel the need to correct any misunderstanding about it:
the slight bits that aren't original are the parts people are complaining about.
It is not a complaint about Aquaria, just a thought that came up in the middle of writing a post. But people reacted to it and I reacted back again. So the discussion went a bit off topic.
-
Excuse me.
Aquaria has come damn close and still, the slight bits that aren't original are the parts people are "talking" about.
Fix'd now.
-
But if we can't give constructive criticism here, where can we give it?
Or just have a debate on something that is ever so slightly related.
-
As said many times, I think Aquaria is near perfection, besides a few bugs, this game cannot be improved.
Yet humanity always tries to fine some mistakes in things that seem or are perfect. Be glad with what you got eh?
Of course, like I said, if you like to keep debating/complaining/talking/discussing, by all means, don't let me stop you, though it might be a smart idea to, OR make a new topic, OR change the topic title. Cause personally, I'm getting pretty tired of running into topics that seems like people need help and that I stumble upon another debate/complaint/talk/discuss over Aquaria.
And if I miss anything in those four variants of communicating, feel free to not post about it and add it yourself mentally, thank you.
-
Sounds like flamebait to me.
-
Sounds like flamebait to me.
Undoubtedly, but Alpha has a point. :)
-
No, he doesn't!
-
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
...
-
But if we can't give constructive criticism here, where can we give it?
Or just have a debate on something that is ever so slightly related.
Constructive is ok, just steer clear of the destructive part where you pull the other member's ideas apart without thought to their feelings ok?
Always think your replies out fully so they are least likely to hurt and upset, read, read and re-read your replies :) And of course a wise use of the smilies does help :)
-
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
Did!
Doesn't!
...
rotfl!
-
... and so on ad infinitum / nauseum. :)
-
I personally still think that some of you people don't think enough about the creators. They have put so much effort in it, which is something a lot of people will never be able to do so themselves. And of course, some people can. Alec did it too, and even if he made this wonderful game, he's still human.
Anyway, to my point before I contradict myself again... I can't speak for Alec, I know that, but I've seen enough reactions of him that I can say he is really tired of all the criticism/'debating'/complaining/flaming his game is getting.
Be careful on what you say and do. Would you, if you had the possibility, go back in time and kick Leonardo da Vinci in the balls because you didn't like the Mona Lisa? Besides the obvious response: "I certainly would, because I can."... I, myself, would not.
Also, silver gives a very good tip, one that... about 90% or so of the people on the internet doesn't do. Think out your post before you send it.
And Xiagan, WHY DID YOU END WITH DOESN'T, EH?
>.>
-
And Xiagan, WHY DID YOU END WITH DOESN'T, EH?
To not add something to the discussion. It was at doesn't and I left it at doesn't. :)
-
I agree with you about Alec. Although you really shouldn't take any criticisms personally, there will always be some flaw that needs fixin' and always some jackass to exploit the existence of said flaw.
Also Alpha, Xiagan had an equal amount of does and don'ts. ;) (he did start with a 'does')
Aw crap, Xiagan types faster than I do. :)
-
I agree with you about Alec. Although you really shouldn't take any criticisms personally, there will always be some flaw that needs fixin' and always some jackass to exploit the existence of said flaw.
Of course, but a good story is not a flaw.
And no, I'm not taking anything personally, just like no one else here, I'm just also just outing my opinion, right?
Also, if it wasn't obvious by the shifty eyes, I was making a joke, Xiagan. =p
-
But if we can't give constructive criticism here, where can we give it?
Or just have a debate on something that is ever so slightly related.
as this discussion was going on it seemed to me to be one of the more intelligent and thoughtful conversations about the game yet, I have no idea what set Alpha off. without dissecting the thread, it seemed to be more of an objective evaluation of gaming and story mechanics then specifically dogging Aquaria and it's creators, why take it so personally?
-
Of course, but a good story is not a flaw.
But even a good story has it's flaws
And no, I'm not taking anything personally, just like no one else here, I'm just also just outing my opinion, right?
I was talking about Alec
-
Think out your post before you send it.
I do think out my posts before I send them. That's why I don't respond much to your posts; I opt to hit X instead of Post.
Perhaps we just have very different backgrounds.
-
Is always possible, but, to make things a bit more... mild, I said in my first post that it could just be ignored if you just liked 'talking' about Aquaria. I was only adding my opinion, eh?
-
Well, yes, I didn't take offense and think you were trying to boss me around or anything, but it just bothers me when people protest against something that's at least decently written out (as opposed to "omg the controls sux") merely because it's a negative comment.
I've seen way too many fanbases go all "omg its so awesome!" at something that's really rather mediocre, half of them just being nice to the author, then cuss and boo and throw poo at anyone who disagrees.
-
I believe everyone who compliments Alec's creation is justified in doing so, but for now, lets have some more constructive dialog. My eyebrows are singed. ;)
-
Constructive criticism: There should be breakable glass on Li's submarine. ^^
-
That's more like it. ;) I'd like that in a future patch, but it's Alec's prerogative.
-
I believe everyone who compliments Alec's creation is justified in doing so, but for now, lets have some more constructive dialog. My eyebrows are singed. ;)
I'm still missing the destructive parts of this whole thread before subjectivly discussing flaming came up.
-
Eh? ??? ;)
-
To get back to the discussion:
I feel that the buildup of the energy temple is certainly not cliché, especially because there is a boss-type creature at the very beginning. It demands use of Aquaria's unique gameplay system of singing. Did I mention that system is unique? Furthermore, it is not a traditional "hit hit kill" type thing, and it awards the energy form, solving the practical problem of having no attack brilliantly with a story issue, introducing the beginning of the buildup.
Again, the end demands another solution, something familiar. Adding something unfamiliar would draw an unintentional parallel with the entry fight, ruining the buildup because the start and finish are too similar. Even more important, the human aspect of the player will also force the gamedesign to obey the 70-30 rule. A max of 30 % can be new, or the game will immediately become confusing, difficult, frustrating and so on. Aquaria has always been spot-on in maximizing the unfamiliar and the original with familiar to create solvable puzzles that require more than the usual "drag X to Y" and "recover X of Y" by making use of just those systems. Where Myst violates that rule and becomes difficult even with the hintbook, Aquaria is more succesful, using the inquisitive nature of the player in combination with previous knowledge to create a synergy of success. (Being on both the levels of gameplay and storyline).
-
So you're saying that to have a successful new game... you would need a lot of old things mended with the new thing. That sounds about right.
Though I also believe that with hints you should come far enough.