PDA

View Full Version : Question: Who thought that this game was a good idea?


saxybeast
05-12-2011, 11:03 AM
I have to say, I find myself confused by this game's very existence. Question: How many times has a water level not been horrible?

The only water level I remember not being awful was Jolly Roger Bay in Super Mario 64. It was fairly easy, and actually rather peaceful and soothing. There were no unfair enemies, it didn't take up too much time, and it was very easy to avoid drowning. It was also gorgeous, especially when 3D graphics were brand new.

And... that's it. Every other water section in any video game that I can think of, classic and modern, 2D or 3D, is utter rubbish. Generally, you have to deal with difficulty of movement, poor visibility, enemies infinitely better suited to the environment than you are, the constant fear of drowning, or some combination of all of the above. And while these properties of water are certainly faithful to the real world, fidelity in this case does not translate into *fun.*

Which brings me back to my original question: who thought to themselves, "Hey, you know the water levels that are almost universally loathed by anyone who has had to suffer through one? Yeah, let's make that into an entire game."

The further you get into this game, the more this philosophy makes sense. Everything, even the non-water bits, are designed to stall and annoy, from the enemies that need to be killed twice to the unintuitive level design that almost demands the hand-holding waypoint system.

So yeah, I'd recommend that people skip this one, unless you feel the need to punish yourself for all of the fun and enjoyable video games you have been playing.

netnerd85
05-12-2011, 11:05 AM
Everyone has different tastes. Some people love "water levels". Some people think modern day shooters are bad. Others like sci-fi shooters, others like WW2 shooters and some people like to pat virtual kitties. Get over it ;)

Judging by the MASSIVE response to this little indie game... I'm amazed and saddened. But everyone has different tastes. Look at how many people play farmville.

cherokee67
05-12-2011, 11:54 AM
Can' t see your point. If you don' t like water levels (in fact in this game all is about water!) you don' t need to buy it.

Jaheebus
05-12-2011, 12:01 PM
Your post doesn't really make any sense. Obviously not a game for you.

Saijin_Naib
05-12-2011, 12:06 PM
Yeah, its not the game's problem so much as it is yours. The game is simply not to your taste, nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't mean its a bad game however.

noxwyll
05-12-2011, 12:10 PM
To answer your question. I think the game is a good thing.

flava_clown
05-12-2011, 12:31 PM
Which brings me back to my original question: who thought to themselves, "Hey, you know the water levels that are almost universally loathed by anyone who has had to suffer through one? Yeah, let's make that into an entire game."


i think the real question is: why did you buy this game? or what made you buy this game? you obviously don't like water in games, so what were you thinking when you bought a game where water plays a big role? you did not watch the trailer? nor the screenshots? not even bothered yourself to read the description on the storepage?

Fox_McCloud
05-12-2011, 01:10 PM
Zelda OoT had a good water level, oh wait...

I love this game and as others have said the problem lies with you and you only.

Grumbel
05-12-2011, 01:24 PM
Question: How many times has a water level not been horrible?
Wave Race is awesome, Tomb Raider is awesome, combine those two awesome things and you get Hydrophobia which is equally awesome.

I mean seriously, seeing water in a game that actually behaves somewhat like actually water and isn't just a scripted cutscene is something I have waited for for a long long time and it is fantastic to finally see it in Hydrophobia.

Kalen Darkmoon
05-12-2011, 01:35 PM
And that is just your opinion. I fully enjoyed the game,myself, and hope to see future installments of Kate in action continuing where this one left off.

Thanks Dark Energy Digital!

robert_tlse
05-12-2011, 01:35 PM
Wouldn't call this game awesome, but it's really not too shabby at all.

I've been playing mainly fps shooters since the times of doom/duke3d, and don't find underwater battles and not drowning anymore complicated than jet-packing in tribes, rocket jumping in quake, or doing aerial fighting jane's combat simulators.

If you've got a problem with spatial orientation in 3d video games, then definitely don't buy this. You should probably also skip games like god of war, uncharted, portal ..well anything that's not a 2d scroller, or got a top-down view :)

MADDOGGE
05-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Have to agree it's simply a matter of taste , you didn't research enough, you found it to hard in some way that annoys you and so it's a bad game. Thats simply not true, it just isn't for you and you have buyers remorse. It's not like it's a $60 pos like Crysis 2 is compared to Crysis 1. It's a $10 innovative Indie game offering something different for a change instead of the usual run of the mill shooter.

meimeiriver
05-12-2011, 01:43 PM
Can' t see your point. If you don' t like water levels (in fact in this game all is about water!) you don' t need to buy it.

The OP is suffering from a typical case of hydrophobia. What can you do? :P

So yeah, if water is not your thing, this game won't be, either.

N.B. My gut keeps telling me I should put a 'duh' somewhere in there.

Uryel
05-12-2011, 02:09 PM
The only water level I remember not being awful was Jolly Roger Bay in Super Mario 64. It was fairly easy, and actually rather peaceful and soothing. There were no unfair enemies, it didn't take up too much time, and it was very easy to avoid drowning.

No offense here, mate, but... What you describe isn't what I expect from a game. If it's easy and not challenging at all, why would I want to play it ? I'm fine with the soothing aspect. That's why I play Osmos. But if I'm oplaying a game with some action and all, I expect some challenge.

Just a matter of tastes, I guess.


Every other water section in any video game that I can think of, classic and modern, 2D or 3D, is utter rubbish.

Just one word : Bioshock. Enough said.

Also, I'm a liar and there is just no way I say something with only one word, so I'll talk about Rift. It's a rather new MMORPG, so I don't know if it qualifies for the comparison as MMORPG are quite apart from other games...

Anyway, there is a lake near the area of Freemarch, and I mean a really, REALLY big lake. Better bring some underwater breathing potion or be blessed by a friendly cleric, 'cause this is gonna take a while to explore. And why would you explore the depth of a huge lke ? Well, for loot !

There are hidden containers, and by hidden I mean they are sometimes no bigger than the head of your character and deep, below some huge aquatic plant... Also, they have a good chance to drop awsome loot. Oh, and there is a riddle to solve, to. A typical MMORPG enigma, so far from unbeatable, and guess what you get for solving it ? More loot !

Well, that's a nice and quiet area, save for the super-uber monsters on some edges of the lake itself. The sound is muffled to feel like you really are underwater, and well, yes, this is calm and soothing. That's not what I'd call "rubbish", mind you.


Generally, you have to deal with difficulty of movement, poor visibility, enemies infinitely better suited to the environment than you are, the constant fear of drowning, or some combination of all of the above.

Well, I guess there is a reason this game is named "hydrophobia" ;)

Anyway, while I do understand your point of view, I did find all of this quite entertaining. I mean, just yesterday I opened a door and saw a malthusian just ahead. Of course I get my gun ready, aim... And fall on my back.

Water. The water levels were uneven, and I was just pushed away by the water mass. That's just awsome.

Saijin_Naib
05-12-2011, 02:13 PM
I'm fine with the soothing aspect. That's why I play Osmos. But if I'm oplaying a game with some action and all, I expect some challenge.

Osmos is also incredibly challenging (or at least I find it to be so). Same goes for Eufloria. Love both of them though :)

PereKermann
05-12-2011, 02:14 PM
Why would anyone buy a game called Hydrophobia, whose biggest claim to fame is a very advanced water mechanic, if they didn't like water levels in games?

meimeiriver
05-12-2011, 02:20 PM
Which brings me back to my original question: who thought to themselves, "Hey, you know the water levels that are almost universally loathed by anyone who has had to suffer through one? Yeah, let's make that into an entire game."

Answer: the folks at DarkEnergy thought so. And obviously they thought they could do a better job than what you've seen before. And guess what?! They were right!

Also, it may surprise you to hear, but there's actually people like me, who enjoy games like this, if for nothing else, for the physics, and the way it's gonna tax your graphics card. :) Seriously, I love shiny physics, that make me feel I'm getting my money's worth.

The further you get into this game, the more this philosophy makes sense. Everything, even the non-water bits, are designed to stall and annoy, from the enemies that need to be killed twice to the unintuitive level design that almost demands the hand-holding waypoint system..

The game was actually pretty easy, skill-wise. And it's a good game, all the way. Beautiful graphics, cute girl, and nice design. But yeah, it's got water. :P

N3Burgener
05-12-2011, 02:51 PM
Just one word : Bioshock. Enough said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did that game even [i]have "water levels"? I only played about eight hours of it, but I don't remember a single sequence that was remotely like the "conventional water level" type of gameplay. Just because a game is set underwater, with a water theme, and water visuals everywhere, it's not necessarily a "water game." Aside from the intro sequence and a couple of puddles here and there, I don't remember any water that played a functional role in the gameplay.

Fox_McCloud
05-12-2011, 03:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did that game even [i]have "water levels"? I only played about eight hours of it, but I don't remember a single sequence that was remotely like the "conventional water level" type of gameplay. Just because a game is set underwater, with a water theme, and water visuals everywhere, it's not necessarily a "water game." Aside from the intro sequence and a couple of puddles here and there, I don't remember any water that played a functional role in the gameplay.

It had water but it just sloshed about at your feet or was an excuse to block a passageway.

MADDOGGE
05-12-2011, 03:11 PM
There are sections with water you can electrocute people in and some outside parts but the big waters are scripted like when you got your first plasmid and the piece of airplane bust through one of the glass tunnels. Still it's nothing like hydrophobia.

StingingVelvet
05-12-2011, 03:33 PM
I have to say, I find myself confused by this game's very existence.

I'm confused by this thread's existence.

OH!

Couldn't resist. Anyway I do get your point about water often being frustrating, so why build a game around it. That said I think the game did it as well as it could and it makes it unique, which is a GREAT thing now-a-days if you ask me.

bes
05-12-2011, 03:38 PM
I think this game has a lot of potential ..I like it ..

Obviously it could use a lot more work ..and a more in-depth story and stuff but its still very cool and worth the money.

JudgeUK
05-12-2011, 04:22 PM
lmao. I'd say the poster has been served.

oliathsg
05-12-2011, 04:55 PM
I think this thread sums up how dumb some people are when it comes to buying games and how little people actually read before they buy.

If you know you hate water levels in games then why on earth would you buy a game that describes its water as one of the main characters?

N3Burgener
05-12-2011, 07:43 PM
Honestly, to anyone who's saying "If you hate water levels, why'd you buy this game? It's your own fault if you didn't like it,":

I don't think it's unreasonable to buy this game expecting the water mechanics to be better than "the typical water level." Water levels tend to suck because they're sort of an after-thought side-show. The games are not built from the ground up to accommodate for functional water physics or gameplay. And since water sequences are usually only one level, there's never any real incentive for a developer to pump a lot of time, budget, or attention into it.

But if an entire game is built around water mechanics, you'd like to think that the development team would put all of their effort into making it work---to do water-based gameplay the right way. I think it's pretty reasonable to be optimistic about the water aspects of this game, even if you traditionally hate water levels. You might wonder how fun a "water level" might be if it's done properly, for once.

I don't agree with the general tone of the original post, but the guy makes some good points concerning why water levels are traditionally insufferable. But I also don't agree with the logic of "If you don't like water levels, why'd you buy this game." If you're going to criticize the guy, make it concern the question "Who thought this would be a good idea," cause that's the statement that betrays a certain degree of ignorance, not necessarily the "I hate water levels" part.

sirkiko
05-12-2011, 08:05 PM
I tried to read your post but all I got was "trollololololol...".

Your thread makes as sense as someone who hates soccer games posting in a Soccer game area asking people to skip it.

meimeiriver
05-12-2011, 09:00 PM
I don't agree with the general tone of the original post, but the guy makes some good points concerning why water levels are traditionally insufferable.

Yeah. But his logic was tantamount to: "Water levels have been traditionally insufferable, so what's the point of this game?" That's not giving it much chance, is it?

Then there's statements like this:

Every other water section in any video game that I can think of, classic and modern, 2D or 3D, is utter rubbish. Generally, you have to deal with difficulty of movement, poor visibility, enemies infinitely better suited to the environment than you are, the constant fear of drowning, or some combination of all of the above. And while these properties of water are certainly faithful to the real world, fidelity in this case does not translate into *fun.*

That's like saying: "I don't like Crysis because I keep running the risk of getting shot!" People buy this game because they like water!

Yeah, water offers resistence, so walking thru it is harder, especially when it goes high up. But there were no "enemies infinitely better suited to the environment than you are:" they were killable fairly easily -- a fact you only know when you've actually played the game, btw, making the OP's comment rather uninformed.

saxybeast
05-12-2011, 09:13 PM
Just one word : Bioshock. Enough said.



Um, there was no water level in Bioshock. It did take place in an underwater city. There was water everywhere, in puddles and whatnot. On occasion, you had to wade through the water. But you never had to go swimming in the stuff, now, did you, let alone fight in it?

I don't hate water. I just hate water levels. Also, I didn't buy the game; my roommate did. I decided to try it, because the water effects looked cool. My opinion is clearly stated above.

Question: why are so many posters defending this game so vehemently? Saying that "it's my problem" or "it's just a matter of taste" doesn't address the criticisms that I brought up. Also, the "just don't buy the game" is just silly. You don't have to have a vested interest in the success or quality of a game to criticize it.

That example from Rift, diving into the lake? That sounded pretty cool. Any other water levels that aren't horrible?

Also, Uriel, in response to that whole bit about not expecting something soothing from a game, try Flower for the PS3 at some point. Games don't have to be limited to frantic shooters, they can be relaxing. Super Mario 64 had a great deal of variety, and its water level was one small part of it. I found it to be a nice, peaceful aside before I continued to jump on everyone's heads again.

Anyway, if you could respond to my criticisms instead of saying silly things or crying troll, that would be great. Also, Hyrdophobia is still an unpolished irritating mess, and nothing can excuse any game from that.

N3Burgener
05-12-2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah. But his logic was tantamount to: "Water levels have been traditionally insufferable, so what's the point of this game?" That's not giving it much chance, is it?

That was kind of my point. Criticize the idea behind "Who thought that this game was a good idea," because that's the attitude that conveys a sense of prejudice. If one just criticizes him for not liking traditional water levels, then the criticism is missing the point and doesn't wind up being constructive.

saxybeast
05-12-2011, 09:32 PM
That was kind of my point. Criticize the idea behind "Who thought that this game was a good idea," because that's the attitude that conveys a sense of prejudice. If one just criticizes him for not liking traditional water levels, then the criticism is missing the point and doesn't wind up being constructive.

Thank you :-)

I have to say, the word "prejudice" is kind of hyperbolic. Why is mistrusting something based on prior experience with a dodgy mechanic "prejudice?" Sure, it's not fair, but then again, it wasn't fair when I believe the developer's lie that the game had been optimized for the PC.

I gave the game a chance and played it on my buddy's laptop. I didn't like it, saw that a significant number of people agree with me, and came to the conclusion that Dark Energy holds the notion of quality control in as much contempt as this particular steam forum :cool:

meimeiriver
05-12-2011, 09:38 PM
Anyway, if you could respond to my criticisms instead of saying silly things or crying troll, that would be great. Also, Hyrdophobia is still an unpolished irritating mess, and nothing can excuse any game from that.

You criticize us for it, then close your post with a comment that makes me want to cry troll again.

N3Burgener
05-12-2011, 09:38 PM
Question: why are so many posters defending this game so vehemently? Saying that "it's my problem" or "it's just a matter of taste" doesn't address the criticisms that I brought up. Also, the "just don't buy the game" is just silly. You don't have to have a vested interest in the success or quality of a game to criticize it.

I find it hard to believe that it's just a personal problem, hence why I'm a little annoyed at the overwhelming response in this thread. (Though some of the posts do have valid points.) The guys at Rock, Paper, Shotgun thought Hydrophobia: Prophecy was an exercise of tedious frustration (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/12/impressions-hydrophobia-prophecy/). I tend to trust their opinions and assessments over at RPS, because their reviews are usually far more informative, descriptive, and analytical than most other reviews out there. Maybe I'm just biased, but if they didn't like it, then I don't think it's fair to say that it's entirely a matter of personal taste or personal problems.

3dReadyGamer
05-12-2011, 09:54 PM
I find it hard to believe that it's just a personal problem, hence why I'm a little annoyed at the overwhelming response in this thread. (Though some of the posts do have valid points.) The guys at Rock, Paper, Shotgun thought Hydrophobia: Prophecy was an exercise of tedious frustration (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/12/impressions-hydrophobia-prophecy/). I tend to trust their opinions and assessments over at RPS, because their reviews are usually far more informative, descriptive, and analytical than most other reviews out there. Maybe I'm just biased, but if they didn't like it, then I don't think it's fair to say that it's entirely a matter of personal taste or personal problems.

You are saying that you trust the reviews from some other web site. Every one likes different games, which is O.K. We were all created to like different things.

The price point of $12.00 is good, and their customer service has been great thus far (They have already released 3 patches in a week!)

This in my opinion is a great game. And yes, we all can have an opinion; just because we don't have official reviews for this game does not make our opinions any less since our tastes, preferances, and ideals of what make up a great game differ.

meimeiriver
05-12-2011, 10:05 PM
I find it hard to believe that it's just a personal problem, hence why I'm a little annoyed at the overwhelming response in this thread. (Though some of the posts do have valid points.) The guys at Rock, Paper, Shotgun thought Hydrophobia: Prophecy was an exercise of tedious frustration (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/12/impressions-hydrophobia-prophecy/). I tend to trust their opinions and assessments over at RPS, because their reviews are usually far more informative, descriptive, and analytical than most other reviews out there. Maybe I'm just biased, but if they didn't like it, then I don't think it's fair to say that it's entirely a matter of personal taste or personal problems.

Sorry, read the review, but couldn't take it all that serious. And I completely lost the guy when he went on a tangent how he kept dying in the elevator shaft because.... he was supposed to look behind him and and find a door to open. I kid you not!

N3Burgener
05-12-2011, 11:55 PM
Sorry, read the review, but couldn't take it all that serious. And I completely lost the guy when he went on a tangent how he kept dying in the elevator shaft because.... he was supposed to look behind him and and find a door to open. I kid you not!

Since I've not played the game, would you care to enlighten me as to how or why the RPS review is rubbish? RPS is usually pretty good about their reviews (or "impressions"), but I've disagreed with them before. This is a case where I was still planning to buy the game once I have time to play it, just to see for myself, mostly.

Just from reading the article, though, it sounded as though most of Mr Walker's complaints were fairly objective. He'd describe some things and I'd think "Yeah, that sounds kind of weak." Are his complaints about "random deaths, dodgy jumping, invisible barriers, bad checkpoints, no saves, shoddy combat, crappy interface, and inane story" unfounded? (I understand some of this may have been patched since he posted his impressions, though, eh?)

Reading some of the comments, it sounds as though Mr Walker didn't play the game "the way it was intended" (as Dark Energy berated other reviewers with the original release). I'm generally skeptical of the "you didn't play it the right way" argument, though, because something can be intended to function a certain way and still be tedious. Just because there's a line of text "justifying" something in a game, that doesn't necessarily make the mechanic any good by its own merits. Hence why I'm skeptical.

As I said, I usually trust RPS, but I'm willing to listen if you think those impressions were rubbish. Consider it an opportunity to convince me to buy Hydrophobia.

And 3dReadyGamer, forgive me if I put more faith in an established, reputable, credible reference than in anonymous users. Of course, opinions will differ and different people will have different tastes, and there are times when the reputable sources fail and the general public opinion prevails. This may be one of those times, but again, forgive me for placing my confidence in a source I usually trust.

meimeiriver
05-13-2011, 12:41 AM
Since I've not played the game, would you care to enlighten me as to how or why the RPS review is rubbish? RPS is usually pretty good about their reviews (or "impressions"), but I've disagreed with them before. This is a case where I was still planning to buy the game once I have time to play it, just to see for myself, mostly.

Well, for one, like I said, the guy got frustrated dying because he couldn't find the door in the elevator shaft. Mind you, not that he couldn't open it, he simply couldn't find it. Now, if you've played the game, then you know that this pretty much disqualifies a person from being able to review this game properly, as finding it was as trivial as looking around a bit. If he's unable, or unwilling to turn his head some and look at his environment, then yeah, naturally everything is going to be an uphill battle from there on in.

Just from reading the article, though, it sounded as though most of Mr Walker's complaints were fairly objective. He'd describe some things and I'd think "Yeah, that sounds kind of weak." Are his complaints about "random deaths, dodgy jumping, invisible barriers, bad checkpoints, no saves, shoddy combat, crappy interface, and inane story" unfounded? (I understand some of this may have been patched since he posted his impressions, though, eh?)

The game could use some extra save options, for sure. I've even pleaded to get some. But these sort of secondary matters are hardly a good reason to dismiss the game. Dodgy jumping? Didn't encounter it; nor the invisible barriers he keeps bumping in to. Combat was fine; interface was a bit console-ish, yeah; but so is that of Portal 2 -- are we going to diss that game for that reason as well?

Largely, it's simply his bizarre namecalling that makes his less than a worthy review. I mean, "It's horrible. It's weirdly horrible. The whole game appears to have been designed with a sense of contempt;" that just sounds like someone having fun dissing a game -- not like a professional reviewer.

Reading some of the comments, it sounds as though Mr Walker didn't play the game "the way it was intended" (as Dark Energy berated other reviewers with the original release). I'm generally skeptical of the "you didn't play it the right way" argument, though, because something can be intended to function a certain way and still be tedious. Just because there's a line of text "justifying" something in a game, that doesn't necessarily make the mechanic any good by its own merits. Hence why I'm skeptical.

Well, getting back to the elevator thingy, let's quote the man: "So it turns out what I was meant to do was break my neck by looking behind me midway up and notice the grey elevator doors, rather than climb up the bright red pipes in my immediate view." Yup, there it is: a man not willing to see past his own immediate view is very clearly not playing the game right. I don't think he's actually too stupid to look around; I think he had simply already decided he's not gonna like the game, and deliberately sabotaged his own gameplay. But what does he say in the next sentence instead? "It appears to be deliberately designed to be as annoying as possible." Gimme a break.

IntelliMoo
05-13-2011, 12:55 AM
Well, I guess there is a reason this game is named "hydrophobia" ;)

+1 for you! :)

N3Burgener
05-13-2011, 02:05 AM
Thanks for your elaboration. I acknowledge and concede most of it.

Largely, it's simply his bizarre namecalling that makes his less than a worthy review. I mean, "It's horrible. It's weirdly horrible. The whole game appears to have been designed with a sense of contempt;" that just sounds like someone having fun dissing a game -- not like a professional reviewer.

Well, that's kind of what they do over at RPS. They don't adhere much to "professional review" standards; to knock it for not being like a professional review is rather like "not reading it the way it was intended." They don't give games scores, they call their reviews "Wot I Think" and their less-than-reviews "Impressions," they entertain as well as inform, they write with a certain sense of character/style. I could go into more detail about the significance of these features, but the point is they do things differently---if you were expecting them to churn out the same type of stuff as the mainstream sites, then perhaps you set yourself up for contempt.

(That whole paragraph is perhaps analogous to why people might not like Hydrophobia and perhaps why Mr Walker gave it such bad worth of mouth.)

But let's go back to the elevator shaft. You're making it sound like looking around is a really trivial task that Mr Walker couldn't be bothered to do. That he's unqualified to comment because he couldn't do a simple task that the game expected him to do, and that it's his fault he struggled. That may be true. But his description made it sound like the game wasn't very clear about where he was supposed to go, and that by appearances the path was actually misleading him while he was supposed to be aware of something off-camera while an instant-death scenario presented itself to him. That doesn't sound like excellent game design to me. Is the scenario not like that at all?

JudgeUK
05-13-2011, 02:28 AM
Well, once again this game has managed to achieve some pretty mixed reviews. Some people say they love it and some say they hate it. The objective reviewers give it good and bad points, some more towards good and some more towards bad. The point here I guess is to not go by one review and read the good, the bad and the ugly to form your own opinion. As we all know, opinions are down to the individual.

Hydrophobia does break the mold a little and some people love it for this. There are some porting issues that seem to be caused by very high frame rates, some of these have been sorted already in DE's fast patching process. I wouldn't wanna be one of their programmers right now, I bet they're working beyond their usual daily hours.

Yes, this is a port, yes the console version probably had a cap on FPS, so these extra issues weren't found until people with crazy machines had a play (I want one). Reading the mentioned review and a couple others from the same guy, it is obvious he creates a very strong opinion (he also seems to LOVE his own writing, kinda like how my 1 year old loves the sound of his own voice). He's a descriptive writer and not a great one, favouring MSN messenger style shortenings in his titles. Hmm, I'd read his articles to see what he says, but I wouldn't form my opinion from them, I have my own brain for that.

Edit: BTW saxy, you ask why no-one has responded your original post properly, well thats probably because it isn't really a post you can respond to. It just says, 'I don't like water levels'. Well, I really dont like sport games, but EA seem to keep releasing them, so I guess I'm just going to thave to avoid buying them. Aren't you happy you were able to find out for yourself without spending a penny?

meimeiriver
05-13-2011, 02:39 AM
Well, that's kind of what they do over at RPS. They don't adhere much to "professional review" standards; to knock it for not being like a professional review is rather like "not reading it the way it was intended." They don't give games scores, they call their reviews "Wot I Think" and their less-than-reviews "Impressions," they entertain as well as inform, they write with a certain sense of character/style. I could go into more detail about the significance of these features, but the point is they do things differently---if you were expecting them to churn out the same type of stuff as the mainstream sites, then perhaps you set yourself up for contempt.

Well, I didn't profess to know anything about that site, so I don't feel at all guilty for not 'getting' them. I merely read the article, and didn't think much of it, is all. But now that I know, I'm willing to accept they are 'special.'

But let's go back to the elevator shaft. You're making it sound like looking around is a really trivial task that Mr Walker couldn't be bothered to do. That he's unqualified to comment because he couldn't do a simple task that the game expected him to do, and that it's his fault he struggled. That may be true. But his description made it sound like the game wasn't very clear about where he was supposed to go, and that by appearances the path was actually misleading him while he was supposed to be aware of something off-camera while an instant-death scenario presented itself to him. That doesn't sound like excellent game design to me. Is the scenario not like that at all?

Off-camera? You're not supposed to use a camera there. Nor do you even have to lean back and perform neckbreaking acrobatics, like he suggested. This game works like most third person shooters: you can just rotate and view your surroundings by circling your mouse (or go up and dow with it to look up and down respectively). Extremely straight-forward. Since you have to find a path to climb up to, in that elevator shaft, not looking around first seems ostentatiously antagonistic to regular gameplay.

Oh, and the instant-death scenario which presents itself is actually very good game design; because, instead of dying on a timer, so to speak, which would be very frustrating, the game gives you as much time as you need to figure out this mild puzzle first. One simpe look up, and he'd had seen the door. Instant death only follows when you proceed past a certain point, as he realized himself (and don't get to the door in time). From that moment on it's assumed, I guess, you found the exit. So, you'll likely die there maybe once; then you look up, see the door, figure out how to get there, and open it. Easy-peasy. And mind you, I'm not good with ninja moves or other ungodly reflexes some gamers seem to possess. So, if I can do it, you can bet it was real easy.

N.B. It does account for his troubles elsewhere in the game. Yeah, if you're not looking around, an enemy might have walked right behind you or something. Then you die. So you keep your bearings, take cover every once in a while, and fire away with your infinite ammo. In fact, I'd say combat was rather easy too; almost too easy, even.

Uryel
05-13-2011, 04:17 AM
Um, there was no water level in Bioshock. It did take place in an underwater city. There was water everywhere, in puddles and whatnot. On occasion, you had to wade through the water. But you never had to go swimming in the stuff, now, did you, let alone fight in it?

Well, I did use lightning bolts to the water and such a whole lot, so the whole game was sort of "water level - like" for me. But my comaprison comes mostly from the fact that Bioshock and Hydrophobia have one very similar thing in their gameplay : environnment kills.

In Bioshock you'll electrify the water puddles or smash you enemy to the wall or whatnot, while in Hydrophobia you'll drown enemies, make stuff explose nearby... It's not so much as a "warer level" proper, but there are some similarities in the gameplay.

But I guess you're right, my exemple was biased : it's not "water level" proper.


Games don't have to be limited to frantic shooters, they can be relaxing.

Don't get me wrong on that, I do appreciate a relaxing game, and I'm not too fond of shooters. At lest, not the basic "doom-like", first person view with brainless enemies and all.

I guess it all depends on what you're looking for. If I go playing Amnesia, I won't complain about being scared or about the lack of weapons. The game is about evading unkillable enemies and outsmarting them... It's not Crysis.

If I get a game called "Hydrophobia", from ancient greek "hydros", water, and "phobia", fear... Well I'm expecting a lot of water, stressing gameplay and such. So, while it's a bit far-fetch to say "matter of tastes", I do think it mostly comes to that, really. You like, or don't like, the idea of being in confined spaces with water and water-based gameplay.

True enough, that game needs some polish and all. Nothing's perfect. But personnaly, I like the ideas, even though ttheir execution needs a little more work.

Matter of tastes ;)

Me2nice
05-13-2011, 11:15 AM
Have to agree it's simply a matter of taste , you didn't research enough, you found it to hard in some way that annoys you and so it's a bad game. Thats simply not true, it just isn't for you and you have buyers remorse. It's not like it's a $60 pos like Crysis 2 is compared to Crysis 1. It's a $10 innovative Indie game offering something different for a change instead of the usual run of the mill shooter.

Twelve Dollar (or, rather, $11.99)

saxybeast
05-13-2011, 12:05 PM
Off-camera? You're not supposed to use a camera there. Nor do you even have to lean back and perform neckbreaking acrobatics, like he suggested. This game works like most third person shooters: you can just rotate and view your surroundings by circling your mouse (or go up and dow with it to look up and down respectively). Extremely straight-forward. Since you have to find a path to climb up to, in that elevator shaft, not looking around first seems ostentatiously antagonistic to regular gameplay.

Oh, and the instant-death scenario which presents itself is actually very good game design; because, instead of dying on a timer, so to speak, which would be very frustrating, the game gives you as much time as you need to figure out this mild puzzle first. One simpe look up, and he'd had seen the door. Instant death only follows when you proceed past a certain point, as he realized himself (and don't get to the door in time). From that moment on it's assumed, I guess, you found the exit. So, you'll likely die there maybe once; then you look up, see the door, figure out how to get there, and open it. Easy-peasy. And mind you, I'm not good with ninja moves or other ungodly reflexes some gamers seem to possess. So, if I can do it, you can bet it was real easy.

N.B. It does account for his troubles elsewhere in the game. Yeah, if you're not looking around, an enemy might have walked right behind you or something. Then you die. So you keep your bearings, take cover every once in a while, and fire away with your infinite ammo. In fact, I'd say combat was rather easy too; almost too easy, even.

Seriously?

Alright, here we go.

1) On the subject of name-calling: If I were to call you a moron, a n00b, a troll, a racist, I would be name-calling. Name calling requires that you call a name. Horrible is not a name. It is an adjective, and one that was qualified. If you can't take a review seriously because it doesn't agree with your opinion, then I have to ask why you would even read any reviews in the first place.

2) I'm not sure what your first point about "not using a camera" was about. To clarify, the "camera" is what the player can view. In a film, the director uses the camera to focus the audience's attention to what the director thinks they ought to notice. This can be tricky in a game, especially when the player has control over the camera, but randomly putting your path completely out of the player's natural view is not good game design, especially when the ladder the developer put there seems to indicate that the player should use that to move.

I'm not saying that everything should be spelled out for the player, that you can't have secrets, or false paths, or anything like that. But the developer is responsible for communicating to the player how to play their own bloody game. Perhaps a slight shift in camera angle in the elevator shaft would have hinted that they might need to go to the opposite side at some point. Perhaps an earlier section where going from one wall to another would have made the player comfortable and open to the idea of using different view angles. DarkEnergy could have made it work. They didn't.

3) Instant death traps are good game design? Are you mad? The reviewer took what seemed like a perfectly valid route, and so the developer decides to make him start from the last checkpoint? The developer clearly didn't give him a reason to look for an alternate path. He didn't learn anything, or earn anything beyond progressing further into the game. There was no purpose for randomly killing him. That was just laziness.

Random, completely unexpected or unavoidable deaths do not make a game more challenging. They make it annoying, forcing you to replay the same section again because the developers are too lazy to actually design a good full length game.

As you point out, Hydrophobia is actually quite easy. My complaints with the game, such as the having to kill enemies twice (or stun once and then kill) wasn't a difficulty or challenge complaint. It was a complaint about repetitiveness, tediousness, and just plain awful game design.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I name-called, didn't I? The game design must feel terrible, what with me calling it awful. I'll give it a hug, and hopefully keep the game design from cutting again.

:cool:

MADDOGGE
05-13-2011, 12:08 PM
Twelve Dollar (or, rather, $11.99)

Not if you pre-ordered.:cool:

bertrand0
05-13-2011, 03:46 PM
As you point out, Hydrophobia is actually quite easy. My complaints with the game, such as the having to kill enemies twice (or stun once and then kill) wasn't a difficulty or challenge complaint. It was a complaint about repetitiveness, tediousness, and just plain awful game design.


Well, it seems to me that you were encouraged to use the environment to kill ennemies: what with all those gas tanks, and electrical panels that you can use to take out those guys ? There were explosive barrels everywhere ! Glass panels or hull breaches waiting for a round to break them on a passing malthusian ! I had a lot of fun lying under cover to surprise them. The only time I absolutely had to fire on the guys was that scene on the plaza with infinite ennemies who kept arriving while I tried to reach the roof...
You could also use the electrical or freeze rounds to kill multiple ennemies with just one round...
Of course it is repetitive if you only ever use the sonic ammo.

saxybeast
05-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Well, it seems to me that you were encouraged to use the environment to kill ennemies: what with all those gas tanks, and electrical panels that you can use to take out those guys ? There were explosive barrels everywhere ! Glass panels or hull breaches waiting for a round to break them on a passing malthusian ! I had a lot of fun lying under cover to surprise them. The only time I absolutely had to fire on the guys was that scene on the plaza with infinite ennemies who kept arriving while I tried to reach the roof...
You could also use the electrical or freeze rounds to kill multiple ennemies with just one round...
Of course it is repetitive if you only ever use the sonic ammo.

And how about the times when you didn't have electrical/freeze rounds? When either there were no handy environmental traps, or they had all been triggered and had not eliminated the entire enemy force? Then you were stuck with the sonic pistol, peppering away at an enemy's still-living ragdoll model, hoping that it would courteous enough to die or drown if you manage to knock it into the water.

Also, is it just me, or does bertrand0 sound like he has first-hand knowledge of what the designers intended the players to do if ya know what I'm getting at?

bertrand0
05-13-2011, 09:49 PM
Aren't you the paranoiac ?
I am just sharing my experience as a counterpoint to your own, no need to be so agressive.

freespace
05-13-2011, 10:28 PM
Sounds like the game is too hard for you.

I hardly ever had to use anything BUT sonic rounds. If it wasn't for the robot, I can probably finish the entire game using *only* sonic rounds.

Saijin_Naib
05-13-2011, 10:43 PM
Sounds like the game is too hard for you.

I hardly ever had to use anything BUT sonic rounds. If it wasn't for the robot, I can probably finish the entire game using *only* sonic rounds.
The sonic rounds are all I ever use. They're amazing, one well placed charge shot to the head and they typically go down. If not, a second'll do it, or I use some environmental effect.

Game is pretty fluid to play once you get the hang of things.

freespace
05-13-2011, 10:50 PM
The sonic rounds are all I ever use. They're amazing, one well placed charge shot to the head and they typically go down. If not, a second'll do it, or I use some environmental effect.

Game is pretty fluid to play once you get the hang of things.

+1. It is almost a complaint that the other ammos are so terrible in comparison they are almost downgrades compared to sonic :P

Uryel
05-14-2011, 02:16 AM
Sonic rounds are awsome. I haven't even used freeze rounds, and barely did use some gel or full auto just for testing purpose.

Sonic rounds can do everything, including move stuff around. Granted, I'd like to be able to just move stuff normaly by pushing it and all (Devs ? Add this in Hydrophobia 2 ?), but at least I CAN move stuff around in a way and set booby traps the way I want, so... Sonic rounds rock :)

saxybeast
05-22-2011, 09:52 AM
*Long sigh* To everyone saying that I am simply "bad at the game" or that "the game is too hard for me," I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible. Read this carefully, and maybe take a break between paragraphs. I wouldn't want you straining yourself.

I'm not saying that the game was difficult, or that killing enemies was difficult. Quite the opposite actually.

I'm saying that it was tedious. Repetitive, and unnecessarily so. It's not that I can't whittle down enemies health or pepper them with ineffective ammo if my trap doesn't work exactly as I planned. It's that I don't want to. It isn't fun, it isn't challenging, it just takes longer than it aught to.

netnerd85
05-22-2011, 10:02 AM
I'm saying that it was tedious. Repetitive, and unnecessarily so. It's not that I can't whittle down enemies health or pepper them with ineffective ammo if my trap doesn't work exactly as I planned. It's that I don't want to. It isn't fun, it isn't challenging, it just takes longer than it aught to.
Agreed. "traps", aka barrels (same trap that is used in 1000 other games and is definitely old), don't even work most of the time. Guards stand next to a barrel, barrel explodes, guard still alive.

Tinctorius
05-22-2011, 12:01 PM
Though I really do not like H:P, it is not because of the reasons put forward in the opening post. In fact, the only parts of H:P I liked where the parts where you had to plan/panic your way to air. Unfortunately, those sections where scarce and short. The game is not enough about water, it's more about wading.

Bear Cat
05-22-2011, 12:07 PM
Maybe your timing is off? Or they're not as close as you thought they were to the barrel? I never had issues with barrels not killing enemies, especially since they'd almost always catch fire, so even if the impact of the exploding barrel did happen to fail to kill, they'd burn to death.

The only time I had an environmental trap fail to kill was the odd electrical box, and that was because they were just on the fringe of the area of effect.

And that Rock Paper Shotgun article? Why the hell is that guy even reviewing games in the first place if he can't be bothered to try? The complaints about the elevator part was the smoking gun.

Seriously, how can one even get stuck there? You KNOW where the damn door is, because you entered through another door below. Protip: Elevators have at most, two doors, and they'll be opposite of each other. Given the other side of the shaft is occupied by a ladder, it's safe to say that particular elevator only has ONE door. Not to mention the first ledge you can grab from the ladder is lined up with the bottom of the door, something that most people should have noticed after at most a try or two.

I died once in that spot, and that's because of the odd choice of using a key to drop rather then just being able to push down to climb down. Whatever. Once I knew that ledge was lined up, I don't even bother going higher then that.

That reviewer (and lets being frank, that was a review. A crap review, but a review nonetheless) decided he was going to hate the game from the start, and if he's going to be a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ like that, then he has no business writing game reviews.

jadenxi
05-24-2011, 12:15 AM
The game was really good(especially with the newest patches) for 12 bucks.


Saxy who is just trolling because he expects a triple A title for a 12$ game that he didn't even pay for is pathetic.

netnerd85
05-24-2011, 03:02 AM
The game was really good(especially with the newest patches) for 12 bucks.

Saxy who is just trolling because he expects a triple A title for a 12$ game that he didn't even pay for is pathetic.

Price is no excuse for bad story. Glady would have paid more for a game with more story/gameplay time. It just wasn't a great game. It's okay, sure, worth the price but... eh!

jadenxi
05-24-2011, 05:27 AM
Yeah but then again I get duped into paying 50-60$ for crappy or atleast substandard games all the time, I only paid 12$ for this one and I found it pretty enjoyable and interesting.


I also felt like this was a "Part 1" of a series that could get better and better.

Tinctorius
05-24-2011, 10:28 AM
I still really can't understand why people are positively baffled by this game and use its price as an argument. I have seen worse games that cost more and I have seen better that cost less.

The premise is fine, but there are some big mistakes that should have been noticed with testing. And I'm not talking about glitches. There are severe issues with the controls, the level design is unsatisfying and redundant and the pacing isn't helping at all, especially in the first act, which is essentially a long cutscene with some gameplay intermissions.

I understand if you want to charge a high price for a chess board made of polished marble and chess pieces carefully crafted from jade and obsidian. But when I buy a chess set for ten bucks, I still expect a chess set. For the same reason, the low price is no excuse for H:P having big issues, even though it "looks nice, considering the price".

meimeiriver
05-24-2011, 12:08 PM
I understand if you want to charge a high price for a chess board made of polished marble and chess pieces carefully crafted from jade and obsidian. But when I buy a chess set for ten bucks, I still expect a chess set. For the same reason, the low price is no excuse for H:P having big issues, even though it "looks nice, considering the price".

What you want is for gamemakers to ignore all commonsense laws of economics. Well, you're not getting that. :P You get what you pay for. And for a measely 7 euros you get a helluva game, with cute physics and an equally cute girl, an overall good design, plus a helluva support team constantly fixing the outstanding issues.

Honestly, you can't expect a kind of diversity and level design they had in Portal 2 or something: a game you pay 7 euros squared for (49). For the square root of the price of Portal 2 you get Hydrophobia: enjoyable, slick looking game that may not have the strongest storytelling in the world, and may have the odd repetitive corridor; but again, if you want more, expect to pay more.

Tinctorius
05-24-2011, 01:47 PM
What you want is for gamemakers to ignore all commonsense laws of economics.No.

Hydrophobia could have been much better if the developers had shifted their focus to their main selling point: water. There is a lot of water in this game, but only a few parts really confronted me with its presence (mostly parts where I nearly drowned). In most of the game, it was just sitting there.

Instead, the developers chose to add more bells and whistles, while not taking into account whether it adds something or not. The combat, for instance, is repetitive, tedious, needs explicit explanation and really has nothing to do with the central theme of the game (water!). The combat, as it is now, adds nothing to the game and could be left out. And what about the ciphers and frequency keys? Because there is no challenge in finding either, having to find them and grab/scan them only becomes a nuisance.

It's nice that a small developer like Dark Energy can find the resources to produce a lot of neat-looking game assets and still only charge ten euros. Unfortunately, it's not the quality or quantity that counts, it is how you put them together. H:P is missing its own point, just because the developers wanted to put more stuff into the game.

Bear Cat
05-24-2011, 04:10 PM
Well, I personally clocked in 38 hours, which was to get 100% completion. Explored the hell out of the game.

It had some frustrating points, but switching to a gamepad make most of that better. Really, now that I think about it, 3rd person platforming is generally easier with a gamepad. If it was first person, I'd still be mouse and keyboarding it up lol.

So, for me, 38 hours, of a largely positive experience, for 12 bucks was a great deal. Could the story be stronger? Maybe, but recognizing that it's a) Originally an XBOX Arcade game, and b) clearly a launching point for a series, I don't mind the story at this point.

So when I get more hours out of a 12 dollar game then I did with a 49 dollar game (Portal 2), sounds like a decent investment. As a rule, I like to try to get at least an hour of gameplay for every 10 dollars spent on a game, to justify the purchase, but that's just me.

meimeiriver
05-24-2011, 04:53 PM
@Tinctorius:

Imagine someone complaining the Portal games are repetitive and tedious, just because you have to fire portals each time! I mean, seriously, repetition is part and parcel of playing every game: you'd go stark-raving mad if there were no recurring actions to take, believe me.

As for combat, there's not much variation to be had: either you face enemies above the water surface, or underneath it. They come at you and fire their gun. Combine (Half Life 2) always attack you in a pretty monotonous way too. And that's not really a bad thing, as they vary in quantity and location, kinda like the henchmen in Hydrophobia. Maybe they could have occassionally charged you in a speedboat or something; but being in the water you're handicapped enough as it is.

Corridors were a bit repetitive at times, yes. Two things about that, though:

A) You're on a large ship: the design is naturally a bit repetitive... by design! You don't really complain about doors and corridors on a submarine looking all the same, do you? This floating ship Kate is on is a lot larger, of course; but seeing some variation against a pretty basic skeleton-design is not that unreasonable.

B) Design costs money. That would be the part where you choose to ignore those basic laws of economics. :P Seriously, designing takes time and Energy (and not just the Dark kind); and thus, money.

The same goes for using the water. There isn't a whole lot you can do with it, really: either it hinders you from moving, or it makes you (nearly) drown. And as for Kate using her waterpowers since early in the game, I can't look inside the minds of DarkEnergy, of course, but I can imagine that having done so would have drastically changed the nature of the game. You would effectively no longer deal with regular water physics, but be able to use your newly begotten powers to largely sidestep/overrule the limitations of normal water physics.

The use of the water physics was actually done pretty well. You can shoot barrels in it, causing -- next to the immediate explosions -- fire to pull over the water surface, towards your foes; you can fire at half-cracked wall-panels, causing massive flooding of your attackers; and you can shoot nearby power-junctions, causing temporary electrocution of those standing nearby. I'd say, for 7 euros, they really maxed out the things to do with water. The only drawback I can see, is that you don't really need to do most of the above: your foes die too easily the 'boring' way (for that same reason I hardly ever used anything else than sonic rounds).

I didn't mind the ciphers, although they could probably be found a bit too easily -- especially past Act 1. And I liked the MAVI's rescoureful use of cameras (especially to open doors in other rooms and such).

All-in-all, for 7 euros, I feel I got more than just my money's worth.

Tinctorius
05-25-2011, 02:46 AM
@Tinctorius:

Imagine someone complaining the Portal games are repetitive and tedious, just because you have to fire portals each time! I mean, seriously, repetition is part and parcel of playing every game: you'd go stark-raving mad if there were no recurring actions to take, believe me.Portal understands what it wants to be: it is a game about portals. There is still quite a lot of variation in Portal, as it slowly teaches the player more and more techniques (buttons, portal re-entry, flinging, turrets, sentries, etc.).

But let me take another example: Osmos. I find it slightly boring, but it is a good game. The developers knew what it was about (absorbing other spheres), and added variation by building upon that core mechanic. They kept the artwork simple and functional, and managed to make it pretty appealing.

As for combat, there's not much variation to be had: either you face enemies above the water surface, or underneath it. They come at you and fire their gun. Combine (Half Life 2) always attack you in a pretty monotonous way too. And that's not really a bad thing, as they vary in quantity and location, kinda like the henchmen in Hydrophobia. Maybe they could have occassionally charged you in a speedboat or something; but being in the water you're handicapped enough as it is.But see, this is where things start to go wrong. Hydrophobia was about water and now it is about water and aggressive NPCs. No wait, it is about water, aggressive NPCs and the player having a gun. The reason Valve could make Half Life 2 about some physics puzzles and aggressive enemies and the player having a gun, is because Valve had the time and money. If they didn't have that to begin with, it would probably have been a bad game. The same goes for Dark Energy, except that they didn't have the time and money.

The player shouldn't have had a gun in H:P to begin with. The game is about water, so use the water. Sweep enemies of their feet. Use water flows to combat enemies. I even doubt H:P should have had aggressive enemies, because with a bit of creative thinking, water can already be your enemy and your friend.

Corridors were a bit repetitive at times, yes. Two things about that, though:

A) You're on a large ship: the design is naturally a bit repetitive... by design! You don't really complain about doors and corridors on a submarine looking all the same, do you? This floating ship Kate is on is a lot larger, of course; but seeing some variation against a pretty basic skeleton-design is not that unreasonable.I'm aware of that, but if there had been any significant variation in the gameplay, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

B) Design costs money. That would be the part where you choose to ignore those basic laws of economics. :P Seriously, designing takes time and Energy (and not just the Dark kind); and thus, money.Design costs money if you're trying too hard. H:P could have been an awesome game if it were about water and water alone. It could still have been a great game if it were about water and how you use it against enemies. But now it is about water, enemies, using a gun and finding hidden keys. To balance these things in a proper way, yes, that costs money. But if the designers would have kept their focus simple, the game would be much better.

The same goes for using the water. There isn't a whole lot you can do with it, really: either it hinders you from moving, or it makes you (nearly) drown. [...]Either you're just blindly defending the game, or you're even less creative than I am. There is a lot you can do with the water. If you can sweep enemies off their feet by shooting a glass window and flushing them away with water, then that mechanic can also be transformed into something without a gun, making it a first class way to combat enemies. You could use waves to reach an otherwise unreachable door (I haven't seen that anywhere). You could use water pressure to break through a bulkhead. There are a lot of unexplored options, even without 'water powers' (which, too, are a hack).

The use of the water physics was actually done pretty well. You can shoot barrels in it, causing -- next to the immediate explosions -- fire to pull over the water surface, towards your foes;I don't see how the water is helping, let alone how the water is the main mechanic.you can fire at half-cracked wall-panels, causing massive flooding of your attackers; and you can shoot nearby power-junctions, causing temporary electrocution of those standing nearby.Or you can just shoot the enemies. The game doesn't show you that, and in fact, the opportunities to do this are scarce.

Wading and swimming doesn't make the game about water. If the game doesn't require and hardly allows you to use the water, then it isn't about water anymore. It's about your gun.

jo291
05-26-2011, 06:42 PM
Dark Energy holds the notion of quality control in as much contempt as this particular steam forum :cool:

Are you kidding? The developers have interacted with this steam forum from day one taking criticism and fixing glitches.

Tinctorius
05-26-2011, 10:33 PM
jo291: your post would be better if you'd stripped it to the only content it has:The developers have interacted with this steam forum from day one, taking criticism and fixing glitches.Not only is this sufficient to disprove saxybeast's statement, but it certainly makes you look less like a frustrated troll feeder, and transitively, makes saxybeast look less like the troll he isn't.

...

:cool:

netnerd85
05-27-2011, 09:08 PM
Well, I personally clocked in 38 hours, which was to get 100% completion. Explored the hell out of the game.

How? :confused: I've played it through twice, just over 8 hours.

Are you playing around in that challenge room or something?

Bear Cat
05-27-2011, 10:40 PM
Some of those things were very annoying to find for me alright? lol.

Plus, didn't mind playing the game more then a few times :p

jo291
05-28-2011, 05:31 PM
jo291: your post would be better if you'd stripped it to the only content it has:Not only is this sufficient to disprove saxybeast's statement, but it certainly makes you look less like a frustrated troll feeder, and transitively, makes saxybeast look less like the troll he isn't.

...

:cool:

There you go.

I don't think it matters though since hes probably left the forum already.

stillwater78
05-29-2011, 09:58 AM
How embarrassing for you that you've always hated water levels, but you only remembered that after you bought a game that's all about water. Don't worry, we all screw up sometimes.

saxybeast
05-29-2011, 09:48 PM
stillwater78: Played it on a friend's comp. Hated it. Hindsight, being what it is, made me realize that the game was bad on a fundamental level, as in design and concept. Shared thoughts on this forum. Got mobbed by what appear to be the developers' mothers.

As far as my remark about contempt for quality control... yeah, I'm sticking with it. First off, the fact that the devs are STILL fixing the game is kind of sad. This isn't a multiplayer title, where you have to worry about exploits and balance. This isn't a procedural content game like minecraft, where you cannot possibly test every randomly generated level/game world. This is a finite, linear single player game.

The whole "working hard to fix the game" only came after Dark Energy got flak for yelling at anyone who didn't think that their game was the greatest thing since Pong.

Protip: if someone is forced to take responsibility for their actions in order to avoid consequences, that person's subsequent actions cannot be trusted to have come from sincere good will.

And as far as the "extra content and story" is concerned, that's not bonus stuff. That's stuff that should have been there in the first place.

It's like this. Take "Lair of the Shadow Broker" for Mass Effect 2. That was extra, bonus content. It was a self contained story that was both significant and important to the story of the main universe, but was also not essential to fully enjoy Mass Effect 2. It made things better, but if you never heard about it, you wouldn't feel something missing.

That is a bonus.

Compare that to Fallout 3's "Broken Steel." While vanilla Fallout 3's ending feels rushed and stupid, "Broken Steel" actually lets you finish the game, forcing players to pay $10 to see the end of the game. Hydrophobia's content falls into the latter, seeing as how vanilla Hydrophobia ended with a cliffhanger that screamed "We got tired of working, now give us money!"

Edit: One more thing: the price has no impact on the standards for quality. There are worse games that are more expensive, and there are better games that are cheaper. The price is not the issue. The game being garbage is.

meimeiriver
05-29-2011, 10:26 PM
The whole "working hard to fix the game" only came after Dark Energy got flak for yelling at anyone who didn't think that their game was the greatest thing since Pong.

Protip: if someone is forced to take responsibility for their actions in order to avoid consequences, that person's subsequent actions cannot be trusted to have come from sincere good will.

Protip: If a new Indy company makes one wrong judgment call, and they immediately thereafter mend their ways, being supportive and polite, and there's still one wee bitter man on the Internet who just cannot let go, then pity the latter!

And I love you the way how you twist their making one patch after another into something bad. I would laugh if it weren't so sad. Oh, I know folks like you: if they hadn't come up with game fixes, you'd be screaming red all over that. You just want to spew negativity, right?

Maybe it's time you dropped your personal crusade against Dark Energy; or at least fess up on the real reason you're so bent on badmouthing them at every corner.

JudgeUK
05-30-2011, 06:47 AM
Sounds like saxy may be an ex-employee, probably got himself fired. Lol, sorry saxy, just a dig at number of times you say other people must be a dev family member. ;)

saxybeast
05-30-2011, 08:52 AM
Sounds like saxy may be an ex-employee, probably got himself fired. Lol, sorry saxy, just a dig at number of times you say other people must be a dev family member. ;)

LMAO! JudgeUK, I believe I just got served.

You're absolutely right. I hereby apologize for and retract every single post saying or implying that Hydrophobia's defenders have a personal connection to the devs. It was moronic of me to engage in such an asinine fallacy.

Everything else I've said, I'm sticking with ;)

meimeiriver: If you pay attention to my posts, you might notice that I don't say that Dark Energy (or anyone) is ever beyond forgiveness. People can learn from their mistakes and improve. The point that I was trying to make is that a forced apology isn't an apology at all. And Dark Energy fixing their game? That's a forced apology right there. They thought that their game was fantastic, and only when public backlash threatened their bottom line did they feel the need to make the game less crap.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Dark Energy needed to apologize for their behavior months ago. They have not done that. Saying, "We're sorry that some people had problems with our game," or "We're sorry that some people thought that we were overzealous with reviewers," is not a real apology.

Forgiveness is not something that should be given out quickly and freely. It should be carefully and jealously guarded. Forgiveness and trust are things that need to be earned and actively asked for. Otherwise, learning and growth cannot occur.

And no, I'm not forcing anyone to apologize. Granted, I would have liked to not have to prompt an apology, but I can't tell Dark Energy what to do. They have to apologize to the community because they believe they aught to. If they don't, then people who place value in owning up to one's mistakes will not do business with them.

Bear Cat
05-30-2011, 02:39 PM
It's like this. Take "Lair of the Shadow Broker" for Mass Effect 2. That was extra, bonus content. It was a self contained story that was both significant and important to the story of the main universe, but was also not essential to fully enjoy Mass Effect 2. It made things better, but if you never heard about it, you wouldn't feel something missing.

That is a bonus.

Compare that to Fallout 3's "Broken Steel." While vanilla Fallout 3's ending feels rushed and stupid, "Broken Steel" actually lets you finish the game, forcing players to pay $10 to see the end of the game. Hydrophobia's content falls into the latter, seeing as how vanilla Hydrophobia ended with a cliffhanger that screamed "We got tired of working, now give us money!"

LotSB is a plot that should have been in ME2 from the start, actually. Without it, there's no resolution to the plot line. It just ends with "Thanks for helping me, but I got this. Now go on and do whatever it was you were doing...", so to say that you'd never think anything was missing without it is off the mark.

Heck, the Arrival is kinda silly to have as DLC since the events in it are directly related to the start of ME3. If someone who didn't know about that DLC goes and plays ME3, they'll be like "Whoah whoah whoah. Mass murder? When did I do that? I would think I would have remember that...."

Bang on with Fallout 3 however. New Vegas is going down a similiar line, in that characters that were major components in New Vegas are only found in the DLC, one of which is directly tied to the history and future of the Courier. Someone that important to the personal story of the main character really should be in the main game.

And no, I'm not forcing anyone to apologize. Granted, I would have liked to not have to prompt an apology, but I can't tell Dark Energy what to do. They have to apologize to the community because they believe they aught to. If they don't, then people who place value in owning up to one's mistakes will not do business with them.

But it's not the community that was slighted. They have nothing to apologize to the community for, beyond gameplay related issues (which they've clearly been working on since release).

The PR problems is between Dark Energy and the reviewers they had a beef with, and noone else, and noone else has any business in saying they should apologize, in my eyes.

In any event, the current Dark Energy is behaving considerably different from the way it did back then, so something prompted them to change their tune, even if they havent publically said anything on the matter.

Played it on a friend's comp. Hated it. Hindsight, being what it is, made me realize that the game was bad on a fundamental level, as in design and concept. Shared thoughts on this forum. Got mobbed by what appear to be the developers' mothers.

Well what did you expect? You act like your opinion on the game are fact. Noone likes it when someone comes up to you on the forum of a game you like and get told something along the lines of "This is a very bad game.", amirite?

Softer language like "I hated this game. Here are my reasons" would result in much fewer people being annoyed, because you are clearly stating your opinion, and not trying to tell people what they should think.

oliathsg
05-30-2011, 05:39 PM
stillwater78: Played it on a friend's comp.

'played it on a friends pc'
It's the new way of saying "I pirated this"

Bear Cat
05-30-2011, 06:36 PM
Now now, no need to make assumptions.

oliathsg
05-31-2011, 06:23 AM
Sorry :(
I didn't mean it in a spiteful way.

You just see it alot on forums and think... oh yeah.. a friend...

sinisterene
06-01-2011, 08:31 AM
I liked the water levels, I kinda wish there were more puzzle-oriented water levels since limited breath increases the tension.

I didn't like underwater combat so much but I have to admit, given the clunky controls, combat feels more "natural" (clunky as it should be) underwater than not, where it just feels clunky.

oliathsg
06-02-2011, 08:12 AM
Yeah i think that they should have added way more puzzles.
The breath does add huge tension and the atmosphere is great. My second playthrough only took a few hours but was absolutely more fun than the first since i was used to the controls and mechanics.

Brimshae
06-02-2011, 06:00 PM
I like water levels. I thought the game and the concept seemed like a good idea, so I gave it a shot.

I've liked what I've played so far, other than a couple of little bugs that from what I understand have now been fixed.

Actually, come to think of it, I haven't had a chance to play this since the tenth of May, so I've missed all the patches.

Maybe after I find out what this patch has done I'll give it another whirl.

BeSerious
06-03-2011, 12:54 AM
The game is called Hydrophobia. This is a game for people who like water?

Even considering the potentially valid points you make, I cannot help but stand in sheer awe of the irony inherent. Bravo.

DarkByke
06-03-2011, 01:20 PM
OP. You're very arrogant and full of yourself. Just leave, please. We will be enjoying the game and you can go cry in a corner somewhere and have nightmares about water all night.

jimgnarkill
06-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Yeah, its not the game's problem so much as it is yours. The game is simply not to your taste, nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't mean its a bad game however.

How do you have time to play this game when you should be playing proper games like BoB? ; P

Bogan711
06-08-2011, 10:14 PM
Everyone has different tastes. Some people love "water levels". Some people think modern day shooters are bad. Others like sci-fi shooters, others like WW2 shooters and some people like to pat virtual kitties. Get over it ;)

Judging by the MASSIVE response to this little indie game... I'm amazed and saddened. But everyone has different tastes. Look at how many people play farmville.

Lol Farmville contains more evil than teletubbies, stay away.

ninotoreS
06-18-2011, 05:25 AM
Um, there was no water level in
Question: why are so many posters defending this game so vehemently? Saying that "it's my problem" or "it's just a matter of taste" doesn't address the criticisms that I brought up.


The 'criticisms' in your OP can't be discussed, because everything you said was a completely subjective complaint on your part.

Do you understand that? The difference between subjective and objective?

There wasn't a single objective criticism to be found in your first post, and objective criticisms are the only criticisms of any worth. Everything else is just a matter of personal preference.

You basically just ascribed your own personal preferences to everyone else... incorrectly, obviously, as demonstrated by all the posters here who have posted to disagree with you thoughtlessly ascribing them to your own attitude on the subject.

Also, Hyrdophobia is still an unpolished irritating mess, and nothing can excuse any game from that.

This is the first objective criticism you've made (not a very well expressed one, but a case can be made for it with objective criteria).

Well done. See if you can distinguish the difference and practice it from now on.

BarryWeen
06-28-2011, 02:39 PM
Why would anyone buy a game called Hydrophobia, whose biggest claim to fame is a very advanced water mechanic, if they didn't like water levels in games?

Because they thought it was a game about contracting Rabies? :confused:
Really, the game should be titled "Aquaphobia", although "Hydrophobia" can fit, that word is more often applied to the symptoms of rabies.

In all seriousness, cut the guy some slack. Water levels generally are groan-worthy moments in games. Developers know this and are taking pains to improve upon watery environments. Underwater dynamics in WoW were a major PITA until the Vashj'ir zone in Cataclysm. This game greatly improves upon them as well. I say to the OP have a more open mind and give it another swirl. :)

SomeUnregPunk
06-29-2011, 04:11 AM
everyone has different computer setups. One setup will allow better gameplay experience while another may destroy it. It is the reason why console games can be considered better than PC games because the hardware/software is the same for all the users of the console.

I would bet the friend that the OP of this thread uses a computer that isn't best for this game. I'm playing this game on a quad core amd processor and a ATI 5800 graphics card. I found that the water effects are very nice and not as taxing on my system as the effects in the game Singularity. That is making my experience with this game very enjoyable.

I like that the developers gave us the options to either explore and find solutions or to turn on a pathfinder to point us to the next objective. My load times are quite short and makes death less of chore than of other games. I liked Deadspace but the load times after death would get annoying on my setup. I do not have the same problems the OP have claimed or the problems that reviewer on that Shotgun website. That does not mean neither of them is dead wrong and should be lambasted. It just means their experience was poor due to either hardware/software or mental behavior. Or Combination of.

/-------------------/
For example:
I have played the Portal 1&2's levels with developer commentary on and have learned that players that tested levels for the developers would continually show to the developers that they never explore levels, look around and observe the environment before trying a puzzle. These players would die or make very stupid mistakes repeatedly.

The developers felt forced to dumb down the puzzles or create levels that would force the player to learn mechanics that they felt was obvious to the developers. They felt people would realize that portals could be used as exit and entrance for either orange or blue portal. Instead they learned that play testers could not comprehend this and would get extremely frustrated prior to rage quitting. They found that people would not normally look up or down and were forced to make simplistic levels where people were forced to use portals in a perpendicular directions than parallel ones.

/-------------------/

Fox_McCloud
06-29-2011, 04:52 AM
/-------------------/
For example:
I have played the Portal 1&2's levels with developer commentary on and have learned that players that tested levels for the developers would continually show to the developers that they never explore levels, look around and observe the environment before trying a puzzle. These players would die or make very stupid mistakes repeatedly.

The developers felt forced to dumb down the puzzles or create levels that would force the player to learn mechanics that they felt was obvious to the developers. They felt people would realize that portals could be used as exit and entrance for either orange or blue portal. Instead they learned that play testers could not comprehend this and would get extremely frustrated prior to rage quitting. They found that people would not normally look up or down and were forced to make simplistic levels where people were forced to use portals in a perpendicular directions than parallel ones.

/-------------------/

Valve don't give people enough credit, the testers for P2 must have been mouth breathers as P2 was a really easy game. I only got truly stuck once or twice in single player, they could have made it harder and the majority of people would have beaten it anyway.

SomeUnregPunk
06-29-2011, 05:15 AM
Valve don't give people enough credit, the testers for P2 must have been mouth breathers as P2 was a really easy game. I only got truly stuck once or twice in single player, they could have made it harder and the majority of people would have beaten it anyway.

It wasn't only for P2, check out the developer commentary for P1 and you will find the same complaints from Valve. It just got worse for them in P2.

I think the majority of players that played the significantly harder portal mods like Gamma Energy, Portal Pro or Portal Prelude would have been severely disappointed in Valve's puzzles. Sort of like how some players for Mirror's edge were disappointed that there really wasn't more than one path through that game's levels.

IntelliMoo
06-29-2011, 02:50 PM
... For example:
I have played the Portal 1&2's levels with developer commentary on and have learned that players that tested levels for the developers would continually show to the developers that they never explore levels, look around and observe the environment before trying a puzzle.

For shame, those aren't "true" gamers then. LOL

Bear Cat
06-29-2011, 05:40 PM
Valve don't give people enough credit, the testers for P2 must have been mouth breathers as P2 was a really easy game. I only got truly stuck once or twice in single player, they could have made it harder and the majority of people would have beaten it anyway.

As a mouth breather, I almost take offense to that :p

The one that really got me was the trap walls that try to slam you as you hover across a pit, where you had to shoot the exit portal on the wall across and below you to get pushed to the walkway under where you started. They actually had to change it because playtesters were forgetting which portal they were using to propell themselves :eek:

Really, the game should be titled "Aquaphobia", although "Hydrophobia" can fit, that word is more often applied to the symptoms of rabies.


Yeah, but Aquaphobia sounds stupid lol.

JudgeUK
06-30-2011, 04:01 AM
Yup, reckon the devs new the correct term, but as Bear Cat said, "Aquaphobia sounds stupid". Hydrophobia can easily be equated to the same thing even if it isnt quite right. It sure as hell sounds a lot better.

DeliriousSorcer
06-30-2011, 04:31 AM
I really enjoyed the OP's perspective. Pretty much convinced me not to buy it.

TMNT water level.

SomeUnregPunk
06-30-2011, 05:38 AM
I actually want to see more water effects of reality placed into the next
game. The puff of blood that occurs after an enemy dies in water is very well done except the enemy flashing green, orange and red doesn't fit in the story very well. I do understand why you did it and I applaud it gameplay-wise....just not in regards to the story.

Like levels where the room is shifted vertically or slightly up or down to show the boat is sinking or something.

Like a hardcore mode where the water actually refracts light so that objects look closer than they appear when viewed from the surface into the water.

To see that phobia to become more pronounced and actually forbid the player from diving back into water for a few seconds.
->Make it so after the air limit you have a few seconds prior to death, so you can make a last push but it will come with cost: You would be forced to have to wait for your air meter to recharge while she also calms herself down before diving. Maybe saying to herself that the voices of her sister isn't real; it's all in your head; etc.

I do wish this game opened showing off the ship in the middle of an ocean. Brink had this great opening movie will gave plenty of setting details to immerse the player in the world except they never used that to their advantage in the game. You sort of have the same problem in this game. You do see a celebration and the window in your room doesn't really make you feel like you are on a boat.

more dead bodies of the crew would have made this game's story have more of an impact. Perhaps if she actually said something while she shooting people to show that she is slowing becoming heartless to killing the terrorist. Not like cutscene stuff but her own voice while you are playing the game.

I loved the option to turn off objective viewpoints. It made the game more immersive. When you loose Scoots because he has to run and she starts to panic a little was great.

evosquest
07-09-2011, 09:17 AM
So your argument is that fact this is a water based game which you don't like because it uses water but I am wondering what exactly the problem is with the water in this game?

It was used fairly well in the context of the game and the fact you aren't constantly underwater makes it's use pretty good.
If you had been put underwater from the first second then I could understand the hatred tbh.

Does it slow you down? Yes, water does that.
Does it make you think about what you are planning to do and how to get past certain sections? Yes although it doesn't stop you progressing.
Is it a part of the actual gameplay physics and not just a pretty effect? Yes and it makes the game more than just a generic adventure game.

This isn't an FPS you know.

I see you also mention stalling and annoying gameplay - yes stop/start is in the game but not so bad it makes it unplayable.

Just one more question - Why did you buy this again?

MrtiansinUranus
07-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Isn't the point of this game to make videogame water good? Coming out with a new engine designed to make water cool and realistic?

NY_Knux
07-09-2011, 11:51 AM
underwater escort mission?

Johnnykey
07-09-2011, 04:40 PM
Everyone has different tastes. Some people love "water levels". Some people think modern day shooters are bad. Others like sci-fi shooters, others like WW2 shooters and some people like to pat virtual kitties. Get over it ;)

Judging by the MASSIVE response to this little indie game... I'm amazed and saddened. But everyone has different tastes. Look at how many people play farmville.

looooooool QFT!
(you yourself prolly won't read this as your post is old, but I had to post)

On a sidenote, i'll leave a personal compliment to the game. This game reminded me of The Bouncer! Wow, the lightning effects and graphics really remind me of it somehow, this was instant btw, after seeing the game run for 5 seconds on Kate's appartment.