Blogging the experience of gameplayhttp://www.gamelog.cl/gamers/GamerPage.php?idgamer=http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7914I just picked this up again after not playing for...months? (I have to check my last gamelog for this one - assuming I even wrote one). I was worried that I would have forgotten everything - and that re-learning would be such a chore that I'd just give up and move on to something else. Thankfully, I had last set the game to "easy" (whatever it's actually called in the game) which made the process of remembering/re-learning it NOT a chore, and actually kind of enjoyable. I then looked at the controller mapping to see what actions I had missed in my re-learning process. I've been having a lot of fun playing it on "easy" - I was really looking for an adventure, not so much a challenge. But it made me realize - typically when a game has difficulty settings they only affect ONE "vector" for that game's difficulty. In this case, the "vector" relates to the games combat - you have shorter windows to react, enemies might have more HP, they might be more aggressive, that sort of thing. But, this game also has environmental puzzles - and I've assumed that the difficulty of these is basically fixed: it doesn't vary depending on the difficulty level. From the perspective of "designing challenge" - having varying difficulty for puzzles is a tough design problem. Really though. Generally it is "solved" by having some sort of clue system to hopefully give the player some guidance on the puzzle at hand - and the more sophisticated systems might have different levels of clues, with each one giving more information and thus allowing the player the "minimum" amount of help needed to solve the puzzle. Anyways... that's where I'm at in my headspace - since I'll be playing a lot of "thinkygames" and I've also been thinking about challenge in games. In terms of progress I've unlocked Kashyyyk as a destination - but I'm currently exploring other parts of Zeffo just to see what's going on. I've also appreciated the fact that the collectibles are all cosmetic stuff. Ok, ALMOST all - there's a few that help with your health and force stats..but most so far are cosmetic and related to your lightsaber (multiple components, each with their own cosmetic), poncho/cloak, spaceship look, and little robot look.jpWed, 13 Aug 2025 19:11:18 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7914&iddiary=13426http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7923This was a good indie with some strong points, though a little rough around the edges. It's like a Grimm Brothers fairy tale, the original dark version. There's suicide, ritual sacrifice, baby murder and other disturbing things in this story about a boy trying to rescue his sister from the titular Mountain King. Patrick kept saying, "Aaah, why are they showing us this?!" Then he made a joke, something to the effect that Germans tell horrifying children's stories. Like, a little boy was wandering through the woods and came upon an owl. "Hello!" the owl said. "Hello!" the boy said. "What are you doing in the woods?" And the owl swooped down and ripped the boy's face off. Germans tell horrifying children's stories. The game has moments of great camera work that show off some beautiful environments. It also does well with scale, especially when you are foregrounded against a big enemy or stuff happening in the background. I’m thinking of one time where in the background there is a big troll pushing a handle around in circles to work a smelter or something. It occasionally causes a great thunder and sparking of electricity. You are in the foreground platforming right to left, hiding behind objects to avoid the electricity. In this, Bramble definitely reminded me of Little Nightmares, itself a legacy of Limbo. Bramble has more 3d sections though. The platforming could be a little frustrating. The character sometimes doesn’t like to jump very effectively or grab on to where you are trying to go. There were a handful of sections that we did over and over trying to get the finnicky platforming right. Annoying, but overall not all that frustrating. So, fun little indie, not too long. It’d be great if a sequel had a bigger budget! dkirschnerWed, 13 Aug 2025 09:58:13 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7923&iddiary=13425http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7929I finished playing Real Crimes: The Unicorn Killer and then, five minutes later, booted this one up. MSL is behind both games (as publisher I think?) so I was curious to see if I could tell... ...both games seem like night and day from each other! They're both hidden object games, but their basic game design is different. This surprised me and I also felt that this game was "worse" than Real Crimes...but as I played I realized I wasn't sure why? From a "strict" game design perspective - Tropical Lost Island, at least as far as I got, has more variety in its gameplay... a. Each level has a list of items to find (the list is shorter in Real Crimes). b. In some levels you get a picture of what you need to find! (so you have to do them in the order the game gives you) c. One level only had one object! d. Some of the levels are "action" stills - so instead of a really static shot of an area (like most games), they're almost like a cinematic image. Combine c and d above and you can have a really interesting effect on the game's pacing - for the level I had played, the character was in a plane crash, and you had to find their PDA (presumably this would help other characters locate the crash site?). It sort of added some urgency to the game's narrative...obviously this was a cost production wise (someone made art that was only used once, though perhaps it appears later in the game again) So, I think overall my distaste for this game (compared to Real Crimes) has more to do with how the objects are hidden in the scenes...Real Crimes felt more "fair" with this one having objects that both made less sense and seemed more arbitrary? Perhaps if I had played them in the opposite order I'd feel differently? Playing both together - it's interesting to see how the games are dated in what you have to find in the scenes... a PDA, CD, mobile phone (represented with an old-pre smartphone picture), etc. I wonder how inaccessible the games will become just by virtue of what people will look for/recognize from the clues? (yes, I'm old so I knew what a PDA looked like...)jpMon, 11 Aug 2025 15:50:48 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7929&iddiary=13424http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7928I only figured out at the END of this game that the whole thing is based on a real-world crime! Wow, that changes things. Not that the game needs to change - it's a pretty standard "hidden object game" (I seem to have a soft spot for these, or perhaps it's because I'm picking up a few of them due to their being cheap on the used market?). I don't think this was ever released in the US, which is also interesting given the subject matter. I wonder why that was? I also noticed - and this is because I played this game and "Tropical Lost Island" (GameLog coming soon) back to back, that the same company (MSL) is behind both games though it's possible not the same dev teams? (I'm too lazy to boot both games up now to check). They're both hidden object games - but this one (Real Crimes) felt like a better game in some ways...but I recognize that the other was doing some interesting things as well. The game was remarkably short - I wonder if it was a budget PC title later ported to DS? Not a lot of levels - and no way to re-play anything other than starting over! Each level is the same - with things to find with some "special" things - there's Go boards you can find to solve a puzzle to get a clue for the main game, and sometimes the clue is indirect (rather than the name of the object) or has a two-part component (find object and then find another object to use it on such that both meet the clue - e.g. cigar and lighter with clue being "time for a smoke" - I just made that up it wasn't in the game). You get clue points you can spend for a direct "answer" (camera moves and directly shows you an object you're missing from the list) and you can earn clue points by finishing levels, and a few other ways. Clue points are capped at 9, so when I had that many I'd just use the clues to clear the level. As with many of these games - sometimes the object is hidden in an "unfair" way or it's not evident what the object is from the name (and the quality of the image on the screen). So, clue points really solve for this in a way I appreciated. Occasionally there are some other puzzles from which you can earn an extra clue point if you succeed. They're sort of palate-cleansers - with the hardest one being a pile of fingerprints you need to match to 4 fingerprints on the top screen. This one felt really hard - because of the screen resolution. It felt hard but I somehow solved them, which surprised me... After a while, especially as I got past the mid-point, I was getting used to the game's art direction and how they hid objects and such. It felt mostly fair - which I thought was interesting. So, they were consistent in how things were hidden, rotated, resized, etc. such that I could learn and improve!jpMon, 11 Aug 2025 15:36:22 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7928&iddiary=13423http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7927I had some fun with this one for a few hours. I think it's interesting - and I kind of want to figure out a way to incorporate this into my teaching - to look at old games with low budgets on platforms that are now obsolete but not THAT obsolete? Partly I'm thinking - this is exactly the level of stuff that students can do nowadays with current tools, etc. But, I'm also thinking - these low budget games have lots of little game design issues that are interesting to notice and discuss. It sort of shows how far game design has come? But also shows how little things can really tank the experience of a game while (possibly) having easy/quick fixes that are easy/quick to implement EARLY in the development process but are probably much more expensive to implement later. Especially when you're making a game on a tight schedule, with little budget and a small team. So, tight schedule and small team is many student teams! So, the bigger picture is that I wish students had a way to play this game - critique it - and learn from it! Without getting hung up on the technical limitations of the platform, etc. So, interesting things about this game (to note and or discuss if this was in class): a. You fly a plane with touch controls - really simple - but you can also use the buttons (yay for accesibility!) Guess which form of input makes the game easier to play? (answer: it's harder on touch screen - or at least it was for me) b. They added a few "special moves" you can do with the play at the bottom of the touch screen - 90degree turns in each direction, a hard U-turn, and a loop that leaves you facing the same direction (now presumably behind a plan that was on your tail). Why did they add these buttons? (you can use them whenever you like, so they're not limited in any way). I think it's because it makes the plane easier to fly, they also do a nice thing with the camera so you see the plane do the move - and I found using the u-turn and other two turn moves really helpful as a "fast" way to change direction.. The loop was less helpful - but this might change on later levels if the enemy planes get smarter? c. You play as a nameless pilot - and a lot of the story is told through the letters you write to your loved one (Wendy was it?) back home. This broke immersion a bit for me - but mostly because the letters have all sorts of information that would have been censored at the time (at least I think they were censored - I know the US mail was, I've assumed the same for the RAF) - stuff like where he's stationed, what they'll be doing, etc. d. I got a bit frustrated because I lost two missions due to running out of fuel - which is annoying (but maybe shows I need to get better at the game). I wondered how often this happened historically - and it seems like there's a missed opportunity here for some storytelling. Wouldn't it be neat to, say, choose to stick around, bail the plane and then you find out later if you made it back (or were captured/killed). This stuff really happened, so it could add some flavor? e. Missions are all pass/fail with fail meaning retry - Could we design different ways to move forward with the story that included more "not quite a win nor a loss" situations? Sure, maybe you didn't shoot down all the enemy fighters, but eventually they also had to fly back because they ran out of fuel? So, many missions/sorties might have had mixed outcomes (and yet the campaign moves on).jpMon, 11 Aug 2025 15:02:34 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7927&iddiary=13422http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7891I beat this like a week or 10 days ago or something. I wish I remembered when! But I've been too busy to sit down and write about it, though I have given it some thought. Most of my thoughts relate to the story, tied as it is for me with the HBO show. I played the first game alongside watching the first season of the TV show, which was a fascinating way to experience both and heightened my appreciation for both. I tried the same thing this time, but wasn't able to keep my playing up to speed with our watching the second season (I think we were watching around the end of the semester and my Game Pass month, the former of which meant minimal gaming and the latter of which meant bingeing Game Pass games). Therefore, instead of experiencing them together, they were more sequential. I did go back and forth with the show until Ellie and Dina arrive in the TV station in Seattle. Then I finished the show, and a month or two later finished the game. It turns out that this is a decent way through the show, but only the earlier hours of the game. This is because the second season of the show stops a little more than halfway through the second game. This was frustrating (a) because the season alone felt unfinished even before I knew that the game kept going and (b) now I have to wait however many years to see how the show compares to the second half of the game, and there's a decent chance I won't care by then. Anyway, I won't spoil anything related to the story, but will note that the show and game continue to be really similar; I had expected more differences, as typically the longer an adaptation continues, the farther it strays from its source material. Granted, there were a couple large parts of the show that were created for TV, such as the entire first chunk in the town or introducing the Scars early to develop them (early) as an antagonist, but most of the differences simply involved a character in the show doing something that a different character did in the game. I think the biggest of these "character swaps" happened toward the end of the show/game (and you'll know that the same character can't do the same thing at the end of the show and the game once you get there). These swaps were generally to expand Ellie's character or her relationship with Dina, which was fine, but I worry that it will diminish Abby's characterization in season three. I preferred the game's characterization better. It's hard for a six-episode TV show to create the same depth of character as a 25-30-hour game. And given how the second season of the show pulled material from the second half of the game, the third season of the show might have less punch; they'll have to create more content not currently in the game to fill space. This is fine if they write some excellent new material, but the old material was great where it was in the game, and after playing and looking back on the show, the absence of that great game content could really be felt in season three. Story, story, story. How did it feel to play? Great. It's got a nice rhythm back and forth between combat-heavy parts and exploration parts, and these weave together seamlessly. I liked and actually used all the guns, though I didn't bother with all the tools (bombs and traps went ignored). Enemies are tough and there are multiple ways to approach many encounters. I used both stealth and guns-a-blazing. There are lots of buildings and places to explore off the main path; this game definitely had a bit of an open world vibe compared to the first one, especially when you first arrive in Seattle and are exploring the city on horseback. The crafting system returns and is really useful. I was always crafting new shivs, silencers, health kits, deadly melee weapons, and so on. I know that a game is doing something right when I engage with the crafting system and "optional" tools (even though I ignored the bombs and traps)! The only gripe that I have about the entire game is that (but yay useful crafting system!) there are so many crafting materials to pick up. Exploring a building became me methodically running up and down aisles, scouring bookshelves and cabinets, going in every corner, looking for a little highlighted thing to pick up. I didn't look at the environment, just head down, scanning the shelves for crafting materials. I would have to pull myself away from scrounging around to actually take in the building! This is partly a "me problem" but when there are items all over the place, it's hard for me not to become very instrumental in my exploration; I don't like being so instrumental, but am compelled to do it. So, A+ for The Last of Us II. Now I can give it to my friend to play, hooray! dkirschnerWed, 30 Jul 2025 06:57:30 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7891&iddiary=13421http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7926I haven't played any of the Thrillville games (I assume there's at least two because I think this one's a sequel) nor am I a huge fan of what I think are related games like "Rollercoaster Tycoon". But, I was impressed with this one - somewhat. It started when I saw that it was published by LucasArts! That was unexpected and, weirdly, whenever I see that I assume developed by them but that's obviously not the case. There must be a fair amount of years in which LucasArts was publishing all sorts of things that have no relation to anything by Lucas...or their own IP either. Anyways, what I've thought most interesting in the game is how it really eases the often overwhelming experience of many of these simulation games - especially those on the DS where you have a touchscreen but you can't expect the same fidelity and interaction resolution as you had on the PC. It's just more clunky and slow so some stuff doesn't work as well. So, I've been playing the campaign and was able to quickly figure stuff out - and you start with a park template for which you sort of fill in blanks as told by different goals (build a this kind of ride). There's enough flexibility that I've gone off-piste and it's been fine...but I liked how it has really leaned into the story (rival amusement park is trying to sabotage you and steal your amazing ride designs) - and as I meet objectives more parks have opened up (there's a nice rotating globe to select them as a menu). The missions are short, pretty easy and I've been able to appreciate all of stuff in this game. Strangely, at least so far, a lot of if it is playing carnival-style mini-games. I'm either playing park visitors (if you beat them, they'll do something you want/give you info) or my own employees (same as visitors, though there are some games to play to train them to be better employees). So far the management part of these kinds of games has been downplayed significantly - I generally have enough money to pay for whatever new thing I put in the park, and happiness hasn't been an issue either. I've played enough to get to the point where you build rollercoasters - and there's a new interface "gimmick" the game uses here (and elsewhere, but it makes the most sense thematically here). So, you pick the coaster and it shows you (on bottom screen) a generic layout/outline. You trace it with the stylus and go to the next step. Here the generic layout has a few sections highlighted and you can design those specific sections (e.g. make a loop). You're essentially picking from available options - but you have to draw them with the stylus (draw one of the possible shapes). Then the highlighted section is replaced with a track section embodying the change (e.g. shows a loop). It's pretty neat and I preferred it over the typical "pick the thing you want" that then turns into a drag/drop nightmare of trying to slot/fit/orientate the section into the track you're making (things don't line up, etc.). Very elegant and works really well for the DS and it's screens! THe same idea (draw a shape from a few pre-approved ones) is also used in the game-y conversation interface. Here you need to convince an NPC about something - and must choose from a few response options. Instead of just tapping the option you want, you have to draw the shape that corresponds to that option. Thematically it makes no sense - but I guess it's part of this games interaction vocabulary for some reason. I wonder if it will appear in other parts of the game as well?jpTue, 15 Jul 2025 17:10:16 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7926&iddiary=13420http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7925Short and sweet beat-em-up that is very reminiscent of old TMNT games. I used to love going to the arcade to play Turtles in Time. They nailed the retro feel of those old ones and added lots of fun animations. There are more modern elements here like a bigger move set and subtle leveling up, but at the end of the day it's pretty button mash-y. I liked the music, but the audio quality of the voices wasn't great. I often couldn't hear/tell what the character was saying; voices would be lo-fi and drowned out by music. One time the audio went all choppy cutting in and out. I understand that they got some good voice talent, so I'm not sure why the audio quality wasn't better. One thing I did that I usually don't do was play online co-op. Me and some other person (and a couple third people) played through about 5 levels. Someone had already beaten the game because they'd unlocked paths between levels and we took a shortcut from level 5 or 6 to level 11. So technically I skipped a handful! It was fun playing with a few random strangers, all beating up foot soldiers and bosses. You can cheer on teammates, which gives them some health, and you can revive fallen teammates too. There are a handful of characters who vary in power, range, and speed. I chose April O'Neil because she smacks people with a microphone, which was funny. There's replay value here for big fans to explore all the characters, but this is definitely a one and done for me. Fun little nostalgia trip.dkirschnerSun, 13 Jul 2025 17:13:35 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7925&iddiary=13419http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7924A student recommended this game - it's a rogue-like snake shooter game. Which, on the face of it just sounds super interesting. And it is/was! ("was" because I finished playing it and I'm not sure I want to spend more time getting all the achievements or that sort of thing... It's 25 levels or so, each consisting of waves of monsters you must avoid and each snake segment is a "character" with some abilities. There's a cool stacking mechanic - each character can have one or more classes and if you have multiple of the same class you get a bonus buff so it's worth specializing - but at the end f each level you can buy from the shop (from three options). When you beat the game you can unlock a higher difficulty AND a +1 on the maximum length of your snake. There's some more stuff going on, of course (different enemy types, different effects from the different characters) but there's a few design decisions I thought were neat/clever/smart... a. Increasing the maximum snake length seems like a perfect balance with the increased length of the snake BUT it also feels like a real incentive to play at the higher difficulty because a longer snake means more chances of getting the buffs from different snake types which is an exciting thing to look forward to for each run. b. You get money at the end of each level which you use to buy new characters (these can also get upgraded when you buy multiple of the same). The shop has a "reroll" - it was a smart decision to make the reroll cost money BUT it's pretty cheap - especially when you get to the higher levels (and earn more cash). It really helps you lean in to the intent to try to get a set of same character class to get the buffs. Also, curiously, the shop levels up too (automatically, but you can spend money to upgrade early if you want) - this changes the odds on the rarity of characters that will show up! I've beat the game, but I'll leave the GameLog open in case I think of something else I want to write about.jpSun, 13 Jul 2025 11:28:27 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=7924&iddiary=13418http://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6004So, ten years later and I started to play this again having forgotten completely that I had played it before. Strangely(?) I'm not experiencing issues with the interface, and while I would not say I'm having a wild and great time, I'm perhaps a lot more permissive of some of this game's quirks? In fact, I'm finding some of them positively interesting from a game design perspective. In most games of this type you move and attack - typically in the same turn. Here, you move and you attack in a later turn - and when it's your turn to attack you need to see how your opponent will move, and so on. So, there's a different cadence to each turn which makes things a bit trickier to figure out an resolve. I find it's a lot easier to make a mistake by, say, getting a unit into trouble and also a lot harder to predict the outcome of a battle. Units are also a lot hardier - they'll stick around for longer. Another interesting departure from Advance Wars is that positioning matters and can give you an advantage. If you're attacking and have multiple units adjacent to the enemy, that's a bonus. But. the bonus is better if your units are on opposite side of the enemy. So, surrounding and then attacking is always a good idea if you can manage it. Finally, and I'm not sure how much of an effect this has - units gain experience and get better! Every time you're in a fight and survive you get a star. Destroy an enemy unit, two stars. When you have six starts you level up and are boosted in combat. I'm not sure by how much since I haven't been able to do this too often. But, so far it's pretty interesting. It's still a bit tricky for me because there are lots of different units and I haven't really learned their ranges, attack ranges and so on. It's definitely more complex than Advance Wars.jpSat, 12 Jul 2025 13:44:05 UTChttp://www.gamelog.cl/logs/LogPage.php?Log_Id=6004&iddiary=13417