Joystiq review
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/30/review-puzzle-agent/
3/5 - seems to be a mainly negative review (copy of Professor Layton but not as good)
3/5 - seems to be a mainly negative review (copy of Professor Layton but not as good)
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Here's mine for what it's worth: http://buttonbasher.net/2010/06/30/you-see-them-dont-you-a-nelson-tethers-puzzle-agent-review/
10/10??
WOW!!!
How long is the game, BTW?
Im not saying its bad because im biased and love Telltale, but in that review he kept comparing it to Professor Layton. I understand using Professor Layton when talking about the Puzzles but the characters and setting are not suposed to be any thing like 'Professor Layton' its Grinkle where the characters all look the same and usually have no names.
I feel very strongly about this game and it's series potential.
As for length it seemed about the same length as a typical Telltale episode if not a little bit shorter. Your mileage may vary depending on how long you spend stumped on puzzles.
The game is subtle, and that's a bad thing, because Professor Layton is "deliberately charming"? Give me a break.
Well, no, he complains that most things that Puzzle Agent did, Layton did better. That's not quite the same thing.
It seems enjoyment of the game is very much tied to the Layton-shaped elephant in the room: if you can get past the fact that, yeah, it's fairly derivative, then you'll have a good time. If you can't, then you might want to lower your expectations now.
All I care about are whether the puzzles are good and interesting, and whether the story is worthwhile. Honestly, I'm worried that it will fall in the same trap that Layton fell in, that most of the puzzles will be "chestnuts" (puzzles that are so well-known that most seasoned puzzlers could give you the answer without thinking about the problem at all).
Yeah, it's like saying: "Oh noes, all the Adventure Games are rip offs of the early text adventure game but with images :eek:!!!!!!111!!Q!!!"
And, considering the Layton games, or at least the first one, dunno about the others, were a direct fork of a brain teaser book in Japan... Same puzzles, same order, etc...
You get the idea. Chestnuts be expected in Layton's case as a result of the origin of the puzzles.
Actually, the sock puzzle shown in the second review is very much a chestnut.
Of course, the review really didn't tell me anything other than the guy's personal opinion about the atmosphere of the game. Or anything about whether it is voice acted all the way through, etc. Telltale games are generally 'talky' type of games, where Professor Layton has no voice work outside of a few *specific* animated scenes and soundbites when you solve or fail a puzzle attempt.
I chose that screencap mainly to show the other kind of puzzle (Brain Teasers; Click Puzzles). It's one of the easier solutions in the game, for what it's worth. They're not all as simple as that.
Fair enough. I'm not so much concerned about "simple" though as I am "trite". Whether that puzzle is simple or not isn't the point; I knew the answer without thinking about it at all because I have seen it dozens upon dozens of times.
If a company really wants to out-Layton Layton, they need to hire someone who's good at producing original, never-before-seen brain teasers and puzzles, or at least creative enough to hide the fact that they're not all that new. I'd love a computer game from Greg Brume (http://pandamagazine.com/) or Mark Halpin (http://www.markhalpin.com/puzzles/puzzles.html) for example, because their puzzles are consistently interesting.
Exactly. This is my argument too. Just because the gameplay is the same, that doesn't mean it's a complete rip off. This is a game set in the world of Grickle. That to me already makes it unique and stands it apart from Layton.
I guess the idea is that they need to be original while keeping the fundamental difficulty along the lines of the previous puzzle games. With the exception of some extra-hard mode. As of right now, some of the existing puzzle types have been redone because of a single rule or position changed, which changes the outcome. Those will seem familiar, but with a few gotchas. Case in point, in Layton 1, they had the good ol' get these folks across a river in one raft puzzle. However, they changed a rule from the version of the puzzle I did before, so I kind of had to do it anew instead of just coming up with a memorized answer.
Oh, they most definitely are, but I also know he's smart enough to make puzzles for all ability levels. Any puzzle creator worth his salt can adapt the difficulty level to fit the audience. I don't want people to take my links and say "Oh, he wants hard puzzles" because, while I *love* hard puzzles, that's not the point I was trying to make.
To be perfectly honest, since this is a Grickle game, I'm much more interested in art, atmosphere, story and general ambiance than I am with the specifics of the puzzles.
I mean, classic puzzles are that for a reason, producing wholly new ones can be quite the task, if you're aiming for a diverse audience.
I'm sure this is one of the dangerous points of making a game like this. You have to fend off all the eggheads (not meant derogatory) who focuses only on the puzzles.
I'd be a lot more worried if the puzzles weren't properly integrated into the style and mindset of the game itself, than that the puzzles are somehow unoriginal, because quite frankly, when you've played enough adventure games and solved enough puzzles, nothing is really very inventive.
One of the biggest problems in modern gaming is the idea that everything's been done to death, so why even focus on invention? If everyone thought like that, then why even bother making games? Just make movies if the puzzles are just hackneyed pauses between scenes that we've seen millions of times already.
It kills me when people say "I'll settle for unoriginality if the story's good." Why settle? We can have our cake and eat it too!
I just want to reiterate that I am not talking about Puzzle Agent, a game I have no right to criticize because I have not yet played. I'm talking about the general state of gaming.
Edit: Also, "creating wholly new ones can be quite the task"? I shouldn't demand more of my games because it might be hard for the designers? Boo hoo for them. I'd gladly wait longer for a truly great game.
The state of the video game industry summed up in 3 images...
What's even better is that the reviews of said games (and other similar "AAA" titles) always get good reviews and little is said about the fact that they're all essential ripping each other off.
I disagree with your image. Not one of those games featured plasma rifles and hostile aliens,
And yeah I agree with you here. This genre get's more and more boring fo years now.
Maybe some badly coloured strawberry jam. I think I can agree on that.
Looks like they've realised how many children play Modern Crapshot 2 and have self-censored by making them paintball guns.
Nah. They just wanted to cover over half of the screen with it and noticed that while this might look hardcore it makes the player almost completely blind.
Oh please. Like this has anything to do with what I said.
Invention, in this case, is making logical conundrums that are topologically different. Anyone who's dabbled just a tad with mathematics, game mechanics or puzzles know that essentially, most of what is produced is very similar in how it functions, if you look at it in a more abstract fashion. Puzzles generally aren't inventive, at all; and they pretty much can't be, unless they're made a lot more advanced.
This has nothing to do with how gaming as a whole is bad, the strawman-argument of me "settling for less" or whatever you're blabbering on about. This has to do with how designing good games aren't about just sitting down "being innovative", but about making sure the game ends up as a work that feels whole and autonomous. The design process isn't just arbitrary throwing together "innovative" stuff. You've got to take into account if the puzzle elements fits into the story, the feel of the game, if you can incorporate (or even use existing) premises of the setting or artwork, if the puzzle fits the humour or the atmosphere, or even the pacing.
You act as if similar puzzles is some kind of key indicator of gaming quality in general. Of course it isn't. Yes, gaming is in shambles right now, but that has nothing — at all — to do with how classic puzzles are used in puzzle games like Professor Layton or Puzzle Agent. I can tell you that right now, even without knowing anything about the puzzles in PA. So, let's just wait and see how the puzzles incorporate into the game, and don't get our panties in a twist just because some simpleton over at Joystiq can't think outside of comparisons.
Personally i can't stand the Layton art style.
On the other Side i really enjoy the Grickle Look and it's One of those rare games where you don't have to differ between the Cover Art and how the Game Looks in real.
I was often asking for Games which Look like the Concept/Cover Art and here it seems like i get what i want.