Moebius: Empire Rising...thoughts?

[LimpingFish]

Let me just preface this by saying that I've only played the demo, and, based on that experience, I don't intend to buy the full game any time soon. Let me also say that I'm typing this while on my back, and in a minor amount of pain, so some of that may come across in my tone.

After reading John Walker's scathing review on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, along with various other opinions, it would seem (at least initially) that the game isn't reviewing too well. Based on the demo, I can see why this might be the case.

But a comment on the game's Steam board triggered a long-dormant feeling in me. The comment went something like this: "Traditional adventures don't tend to rate above %75 on the sites that Metacritic uses. Wait for a review on Adventure Gamers, where it will be judged against it's peers."

I say "went something like this", because the thread entitled "Watch out before you buy it..." has this minute been cleansed of comments (not that I'm implying shenanigans on the part of Phoenix Studios), so I'm unable to quote it verbatim. Edit: It was just moved to a sub-forum. You can see it here, though that particular comment has now been edited by it's user.

The feeling I mentioned pertains to an argument that I used to debate quite frequently; that hardcore adventure fans wilfully ignore mainstream opinions about the quality of adventure games, and will defend a title based on the smallest redeeming factor they can find, while they continue to play the underdog card (the mainstream doesn't like adventures, The Walking dead and Broken Age aren't really adventures, etc), because it suits them.

More in a bit. Excuse me.

[Radiant]

The comment went something like this: "Traditional adventures don't tend to rate above %75 on the sites that Metacritic uses.

This despite Telltale having over a dozen games rated 85% or above

[Snarky]

Yeah, some people do that. I'm sure it's not just adventure gamers either. After all, if the thing you like doesn't get the respect you think it deserves, the mainstream has got to be biased, right?

There is a form of the argument I can get behind. If you are an adventure gamer, then you probably have slightly different priorities than the average non-fan. You like the genre, so if it uses traditional adventure-game gameplay and storytelling, you're probably fine with that (while some "mainstream" reviewers may find it boring or outdated). You're probably used to some common limitations (not the most cutting edge 3D graphics, for example) and don't consider them deal-breakers. On the other hand, having had more experience, you may be less tolerant of certain other shortcomings, like banal puzzles, dead ends, etc. So a genre-specific review site that calibrates its standards accordingly may be more useful to you. (Similarly, if you're a fan of mystery novels or sci-fi TV shows, what you care about in that medium is probably enough out alignment with the mainstream that you can get better recommendations from a fellow fan than a New York Times reviewer.)

Just as long as people recognize that this is a matter of individual preference and prioritization, and not some kind of conspiracy or the stupidity of the masses.

Hope you feel better soon, LimpingFish.

[qptain Nemo]

Well, it's not a one-sided situation I think. On one hand I'd hardly go to RPS for reliable opinions on traditional point and click adventure games. Not after they drowned Deponia and Yesterday in mud. And needless to say, there are plenty of people who simply can't appreciate the traditional point and click gameplay (or even only the stories if they're told through such), and I think that matters of course. Not even to mention that adventure games do sometimes tend to be subtler in their content and not everybody can appreciate that either. But having said that, I do think traditional adventure gamers do tend to ignore the other side of the fence a bit too much at times as well.

And I think regardless of all that, things like The Walking Dead aren't really in the same genre as point and click adventure games. I mean, it's simply a different genre with different gameplay. Which makes all the difference in the world. Just look at the sales and compare to sales of any traditional point and click. If you can argue with that then... yeah I think that's the case I (we?) was talking about, ignoring the reality outside of your niche.

As for the game itself... well I'm only 2 hours in and it hasn't captivated me as much as Gray Matter did, but neither has it really disappointed me with anything. I'm fully enjoying it so far.

[LimpingFish]

Yeah, some people do that. I'm sure it's not just adventure gamers either. After all, if the thing you like doesn't get the respect you think it deserves, the mainstream has got to be biased, right?

Oh, yes, that's true. It's a similar case with JRPG fanatics. What strikes me about adventure fans in particular, though, is that it doesn't matter what the game actually is. While it's the reaction to individual games that causes the debate to resurface, the underlying argument always seems to be about the genre as a whole, and that a bad mainstream review of an adventure game is a bad review of the adventure genre.

Like I said, you see similar behaviour in the JRPG scene, but can the same be said about FPS or Simulation die-hards? Or any other game genre for that matter? It could be that I'm too close to the adventure genre, or, conversely, not close enough to those others, but it's something I've just come to associate with adventure fans.

Hope you feel better soon, LimpingFish.

Thank you.

On one hand I'd hardly go to RPS for reliable opinions on traditional point and click adventure games. Not after they drowned Deponia and Yesterday in mud.

But they loved Gemini Rue, Resonance, and The Blackwell Convergence. You can't get more traditional than that! And while Primordia perhaps didn't rate as highly, it's still a review with a number of positives.

With such games as The Inner World, The Dream Machine, and Night of the Rabbit rating very highly, and others, like Cognition, Broken Sword 5, and Journey of a Roach, rating favourably (if not glowingly), RPS seems pretty consistent in their approach to the genre.

As to their more negative adventure reviews, this latest for Moebius is by far the most damning (the review for the final Deponia game comes a close second - the initial Deponia title got a more favourable review).

I don't want to bang on about RPS (or send them any more page hits!), but as a mainstream outlet (or as mainstream as a hardcore PC-exclusive site can be), they rate pretty highly on my list of go-to adventure coverage.

But back to my initial point: Adventure fans have embraced the tropes and foibles of the genre, to the apparent detriment of the actual games. Of course, they may be fine with that, and if so, I salute them. But in doing so, they have given up their right to complain about opinions outside the scene.

I'm putting my foot down.

It's down.

EDIT: Edited to remove jaded cynicism.

[qptain Nemo]

Thank you.
But they loved Gemini Rue, Resonance, and The Blackwell Convergence. You can't get more traditional than that! And while Primordia perhaps didn't rate as highly, it's still a review with a number of positives.

With such games as The Inner World, The Dream Machine, and Night of the Rabbit rating very highly, and others, like Cognition, Broken Sword 5, and Journey of a Roach, rating favourably (if not glowingly), RPS seems pretty consistent in their approach to the genre.

As to their more negative adventure reviews, this latest for Moebius is by far the most damning (the review for the final Deponia game comes a close second - the initial Deponia title got a more favourable review).

I don't want to bang on about RPS (or send them any more page hits!), but as a mainstream outlet (or as mainstream as a hardcore PC-exclusive site can be), they rate pretty highly on my list of go-to adventure coverage.

Well sure, which is why I said "reliable". I'm not saying they shoot adventure games on sight, but after these examples, which are very important to me, I'd never be able to rely or even listen to their point and click-specific critique with much enthusiasm.   Not recognizing Primordia as one of the absolute pinnacles of the entire genre is also telling. You just don't get many examples of the classic formula done any better than that. And then Night of the Rabbit and Cognition get favourable reviews in spite of that? Hah.

But back to my intial point, I think adventure fans get the games they deserve. That may sound pretty harsh, and I don't mean it in a particularly negative way, but when the line between quality games and not so quality games remains blurred...Or rather, Jane Jensen and Phoenix have seemingly made a game specifically for point and click adventure fans, and the mainstream hate it. Adventure fans say it's because the mainstream doesn't get adventures (despite evidence pointing otherwise). Telltale made an adventure game that wasn't(?) for adventure fans, and the mainstream loved it. They appoint it game of the year, and claim it to be the triumphant return of the adventure as an example of gaming perfection. Adventure fans say it's not really an adventure game.

But it isn't! It's beside the point whether it's a better or worse genre than our beloved adventure-games-with-profoundly-anti-intuitive-inventory-puzzles, but it's a very different genre even though we still cling to the same names. I really fail to see how do you intend to disprove the issue of people really not enjoying the gameplay of classical point and clicks using as example games... that specifically cut it out completely and focus on stuff that classic point and clicks often don't even touch on. Seriously, you may think the TWD style is an improvement over the traditional adventure games all you want, and I may agree with you in a way (in the sense that I think the way TWD does it is fucking shit, Blade Runner, Culpa Innata, The Vacuum or the recent Kentucky Route Zero did it way better, but yeah), but claiming that those games somehow retained everything traditional adventure games have and so they can meaningfully represent them is just bizarre to me. I just don't think you can make people who cling to intentionally pretty much illogical inventory puzzles and people who absolutely hate that (i.e. the majority of gamers) forget their differences and stop wanting what they want, and just start liking the same things.

Adventure fans have embraced the tropes and foibles of the genre, to the apparent detriment of the actual games. Of course, they may be fine with that, and if so, I salute them. But in doing so, they have given up their right to complain about opinions outside the scene.

I largely agree with the sentiment. There are still absolutely mindblowingly good examples of the genre done right and now then (e.g. Primordia, Memoria), but they're a minority. And the audience of the genre is very much responsible for the overall stiffness of it. Not everything benefits from sticking to the classic formula so bloody much.

However, even though I get the notion, I don't think I can agree with that it completely deprives them from their right to counter-critique. They may be partial to some stagnation in their niche, they may be blinded a bit, but it doesn't mean everybody outside of it is unbiased and correct about everything. I'd like to point out that TWD is very likely so successful mainly because it is very accessible and has enjoyable content. And not because it's some ingenius masterpiece of game design or drama writing.

[Snarky]

I agree that this is a general mentality among some (certainly not all) adventure gamers, and whenever an adventure with some hype or fanbase behind it gets a bad review, the chances of this argument coming up approaches 100%. (To be fair, you can easily point to examples of complete baffling reviews on mainstream outlets, where it seems like the reviewer either hates new adventures on principle or doesn't really understand what they are, but those are pretty much the exception.)

But just because someone says it doesn't mean they speak for fandom as a whole. I've seen hardcore adventure game fans absolutely rip Moebius apart as well. Given the reactions of players on e.g. adventuregamers.com (which run the gamut from "terrible" to "I enjoyed it and graphics don't matter anyway"), it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of adventure fans would agree with the poor reviews. I'm not sure you can really blame us for this one. ... Especially since much of what's being criticized are things adventure gamers have complained about for years if not decades, like not being able to pick up items until they're needed.

I don't know, I guess I don't share your frustration over this issue. I think fans are fools to dismiss all outside criticism of what they like, but I don't see that the attitude really does any harm. I'm much more annoyed at some of the prescriptivist sentiment you get: "This certain (type of) game is not what adventure games should be like, and therefore it's a threat to the genre, the people who made it are no-talent frauds, and people who like it are worthless as adventure gamers and barely fit to be called human." People who can't tolerate the existence of Telltale, or David Cage, or Myst-clones, or fan games, or games with retro graphics, or games that adhere to adventure game convention...

I mean, I knew I wasn't going to play Moebius when I learned that the main character was named "Malachi Rector" (FFS, JJ!), but if Jensenheads get their fix, it's no skin off my back. Everyone involved seems pretty passionate about it, and the dev studio is apparently good at learning from their failures, so maybe this will lead to something more up my alley at some point in the future. And if not, it still doesn't impinge on me in any way at all, so why care?

[LimpingFish]

I'm not saying they shoot adventure games on sight, but after these examples, which are very important to me, I'd never be able to rely or even listen to their point and click-specific critique with much enthusiasm.   Not recognizing Primordia as one of the absolute pinnacles of the entire genre is also telling.

But that doesn't make sense to me, if I get what you're saying. How does not liking two (or three) specific games, out of the ten or so that I mentioned, invalidate their entire opinion on the genre? If Adventure Gamers gave a bad review to a game you liked, would that result in the same dismissal?

But it isn't! It's beside the point whether it's a better or worse genre than our beloved adventure-games-with-profoundly-anti-intuitive-inventory-puzzles, but it's a very different genre even though we still cling to the same names.

I didn't specifically claim that one way was better than the other. The point I was making was that some adventure fans are prone to knee-jerk reactions regarding games that don't meet certain criteria as adventure games, despite the overwhelming similarities they share.

I really fail to see how do you intend to disprove the issue of people really not enjoying the gameplay of classical point and clicks using as example games... that specifically cut it out completely and focus on stuff that classic point and clicks often don't even touch on. Seriously, you may think the TWD style is an improvement over the traditional adventure games all you want, and I may agree with you in a way (in the sense that I think the way TWD does it is fucking shit, Blade Runner, Culpa Innata, The Vacuum or the recent Kentucky Route Zero did it way better, but yeah), but claiming that those games somehow retained everything traditional adventure games have and so they can meaningfully represent them is just bizarre to me.

I never set out to disprove that. My problem was never with people enjoying them, it's with people blindly defending them to the detriment of future games. I don't see why The Walking Dead can't represent adventure games, though. It's different to point and click, sure, but so is a text parser, or a verb list, but nobody questions their right.

There are still absolutely mindblowingly good examples of the genre done right and now then (e.g. Primordia, Memoria), but they're a minority. And the audience of the genre is very much responsible for the overall stiffness of it. Not everything benefits from sticking to the classic formula so bloody much.

Yes! I totally agree. On all three points.

To be continued...

[qptain Nemo]

But that doesn't make sense to me, if I get what you're saying. How does not liking two (or three) specific games, out of the ten or so that I mentioned, invalidate their entire opinion on the genre? If Adventure Gamers gave a bad review to a game you liked, would that result in the same dismissal?

Because to me they were exemplary. If I found them simply a bit good or enjoyable I wouldn't mind. But to me they were the highlights of what makes good games and adventure games and I'd use them as examples to any players or designers. So when somebody doesn't share that, it's hard for me to regard their opinion as useful. And frankly I think it'd be very hard to reconcile your views with an opinion of somebody who completely rejects all that you hold the most dear and right even if you wanted. So yeah, after the impassionate 3 star review of Memoria I find it hard to hold the opinions of Adventure Gamers in high esteem as well. People like different things, and they're entitled to, but I also believe that there's such a thing as simply not getting it, you know?

I never set out to disprove that. My problem was never with people enjoying them, it's with people blindly defending them to the detriment of future games. I don't see why The Walking Dead can't represent adventure games, though. It's different to point and click, sure, but so is a text parser, or a verb list, but nobody questions their right.

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, but I genuinely believe that spawning new genres instead of all clinging to one banner would make for more constructive discourse. Because I'm not talking about whether this kind of game "deserves" to be called adventure games or whatever. I'm just saying that its gameplay differs, the focus differs, the pacing differs and it ended up engaging a completely different audience as the result.

Oh and regarding the text parser? Well, text adventures do exist as a separate genre for quite a while now. They're called interactive fiction.

[yamipanda]

I just finished it about an hour ago, and I thought it was pretty good. It had potential to be awesome, but fell a bit short. Some of the puzzles felt more like time consuming obstacles than challenges. Still, I think it was worth the $100 I donated to their kickstarter and I hope for a sequel.

[Gurok]

It's such a shame we can't like this game now because Rock, Paper, Shotgun et al have given it bad reviews. I really enjoyed it.

Terrible game. 1/10.

[qptain Nemo]

It's such a shame we can't like this game now because Rock, Paper, Shotgun et al have given it bad reviews. I really enjoyed it.

Terrible game. 1/10.

Hah! Thanks for posting this. I'm terrible at moving on, so I needed to hear something like that. I mean it.

[m0ds]

Are you saying there are review sites MORE biased than RPS out there somewhere??

PS. Congrats to Phoenix though, an inspirational project & release!! Not played it myself yet though.

[Eric]

RPS on Moebius:

One puzzle requires you to bribe an explicitly teenage girl to bend over such that her arse will distract an adult man while you steal from him. Another requires you to bestow a woman with empty gestures and gifts until she's interested in sleeping with you, whereupon the only correct solution to the following sequence is to horrifically threaten to murder her with a knife, in possibly the most ill-advised scene I've seen in a long time.

RPS on Goodbye Deponia:

I want to assume that this isn't a directly and deliberately racist statement, but rather the result of abject stupidity. But it remains what it is, and what it is, is plain grotesque. Meanwhile, there's no mistaking the deliberate choice to offer a pathetic portrayal of a Chinese stereotype, complete with Ls swapped with Rs....This is mostly a bland, overlong, and unamusing game. But that god-damned monkey scene, and the thick seam of misogyny that runs throughout, renders it an ugly, foul experience.

It strikes me that the main issues they're raising against these games aren't issues of the genre, as these things have little to do with point-and-click, but issues of prejudice wrapped up in poor storytelling (which, unfortunately, spans all genres).

[qptain Nemo]

Yeah, except Goodbye Deponia doesn't consist of just those couple of moments. It has lots to offer aside from a couple of very unwise jokes. And it is still an example of good storytelling if you ask me. Which is what makes such merciless, narrowly-focused and generalizing critique especially painful.

[LimpingFish]

So when somebody doesn't share that, it's hard for me to regard their opinion as useful.

But this undermines the whole point of critique. Why bother entertaining anyone's views on anything, ever, if the validity of a critique is based entirely on whether you agree with them or not?

Yeah, except Goodbye Deponia doesn't consist of just those couple of moments. It has lots to offer aside from a couple of very unwise jokes. And it is still an example of good storytelling if you ask me. Which is what makes such merciless, narrowly-focused and generalizing critique especially painful.

Case in point. Your opinion is the game is good. Their opinion is the game is bad. Fair enough, opinions are opinions. But why go on to label the review in a number of ways when you can't have any way of knowing the reviewers mindset? Why should the reviewer choose to be narrow-minded towards this particular game? Surely such behaviour would be prevalent across a body of reviews, and not localized to a handful of particular titles, if the reviewer was prejudiced or ill-informed about the genre in general?

And what is it about the adventure game in general that's so hard to understand, that failing to grasp it would result in the automatic dismissal of opinions?

Oh and regarding the text parser? Well, text adventures do exist as a separate genre for quite a while now. They're called interactive fiction.

I was referring more to graphic adventures that used text parsers (Early Sierra titles, Trilby's Notes, etc), in relation to those that used verbs or icons, rather than IF.

I just finished it about an hour ago, and I thought it was pretty good. It had potential to be awesome, but fell a bit short. Some of the puzzles felt more like time consuming obstacles than challenges. Still, I think it was worth the $100 I donated to their kickstarter and I hope for a sequel.

That's great. You paid your money, and you enjoyed what you paid for. Far be from me to try to taint that enjoyment...

It's such a shame we can't like this game now because Rock, Paper, Shotgun et al have given it bad reviews. I really enjoyed it.

...despite what people may think.

It strikes me that the main issues they're raising against these games aren't issues of the genre, as these things have little to do with point-and-click, but issues of prejudice wrapped up in poor storytelling (which, unfortunately, spans all genres).

True, but they also mention...

Goodbye Deponia -

Spoiler

" In and amongst this game's poor puzzles and clusters of crude mistakes, are flashes of inspiration."

"As an adventure game, the recurring fault in all three chapters rules supreme here: one solved puzzle does not lead naturally to a clue for the next. So when you finally stumble on the solution for a situation, there's never a sense of progression, of having achieved â€" instead the game either bends the plot to have your success be a failure, or it just ticks a mystery box and then leaves you equally lost. The game's penultimate chapter â€" an absolutely enormous section â€" has you playing as three different characters, each in their own sprawling location, with an inventory that's shared to ensure maximum confusion and dead-ends. Figuring out what to do next is a needle in a haystack, and so very often those needles are entirely nonsensical. And so, so many puzzles require you gather a bunch items without being given any clue why you're after them â€" it's such a huge failure of adventure design."

[close]

Moebius: Empire Rising -

Spoiler

"It also manages to throw a new twist on inventory puzzle horror. While there are still idiotic random-on-random nonsenses, like using the florist putty on the window pole to retrieve the hook from the bottom of the river , here they double-down on the stupid by refusing to let you pick up objects before their abstract purpose has become a need. Yes, in some ways it's more realistic that someone wouldn't pick up the scissors in the kitchen before they knew they needed to cut something. But when almost every item's eventual use is so disingenuous, it makes the process utterly agonising. So many times I thought I'd reached a dead end, because a tiny object Rector said he didn't need five screens ago was then deemed vital for an undeclared purpose. Even worse, it does this with locations too. One puzzle near the end of the game required magically knowing Malachi would now go into a bar in a city in another state that he had adamantly refused to enter at every other point in the game, including only moments earlier in the same chapter.

"If your adventure game is barely coherent, it's best to avoid killing the character at random. That's a tip there. And so random. Right near the very end, opening a gate near a hole triggers a sequence where the game takes over, forces your characters to walk through, climb down the hole, and then kills you at the bottom. The game over screen informs you that you ought to have prevented yourself from being followed. ALL I DID WAS OPEN A GATE!

"Moebius is an utter disaster of a game...gibberish puzzles, ghastly animation, flawed conceits, the stupidest plot idea I can remember, and the whole thing scored with lift music. It's as if the moustache puzzle from Gabriel Knight 3 got an agent, and a starring role as an entire game!"

[close]

...which are clearly problems with design, rather than content.

The crux of my argument: Are these reviewers simply mistaken when they raise these issues of design? Are said design issues given a pass by fans because that's just how adventure fans like their games? Or are they not issues at all, in the eyes of adventure fans?

I realise I may be overly-general when I say "adventure fans", a fact that has been pointed out to me previously, and I don't want give the impression that every person who likes adventure games behaves in the same way. I'm just drawing on my personal impressions of over a decade's worth of perusing the on-line scene.

Edit: I also clicked "Post" instead of "Preview" just now, before reading over the contents, so forgive me if some minor editing changes appear.

[qptain Nemo]

But this undermines the whole point of critique. Why bother entertaining anyone's views on anything, ever, if the validity of a critique is based entirely on whether you agree with them or not?

Of course it's a good idea to entertain others' views despite disagreements. But I see a certain breaking point when your core beliefs differ with someone else's to such degree that it renders the potential for extracting useful information from their opinion to near zero. I'm not talking about some superficial or medium differences in opinion. I'm talking about non-reconcilable fundamental differences.

Case in point. Your opinion is the game is good. Their opinion is the game is bad. Fair enough, opinions are opinions. But why go on to label the review in a number of ways when you can't have any way of knowing the reviewers mindset? Why should the reviewer choose to be narrow-minded towards this particular game? Surely such behaviour would be prevalent across a body of reviews, and not localized to a handful of particular titles, if the reviewer was prejudiced or ill-informed about the genre in general?

And what is it about the adventure game in general that's so hard to understand, that failing to grasp it would result in the automatic dismissal of opinions?

Well, actually you have a point. If we look closely, when I'm defending Deponia for instance, the issue for me would be mostly the issue of narrative analysis rather than anything genre-specific. You can consider it happening with an adventure game a coincidence if you wish. Maybe it is.

The crux of my argument: Are these reviewers simply mistaken when they raise these issues of design? Are said design issues given a pass by fans because that's just how adventure fans like their games? Or are they not issues at all, in the eyes of adventure fans?

Well, that's a good question. After 8 hours of Moebius I'd certainly say that John Walker is definitely overreacting to what I as an adventure gamer perceive as absolutely standard fare of adventure game bullshit. He makes it sound like it's some kind of remarkable atrocity. But it's not worse than any average adventure game, I assure you. Certainly not worse than Cognition for instance. And even though "can't pick up things you don't know you'll need" principle can be frustrating, and I kept wishing it wasn't employed, it's a meaningful design decision. Permadeath in roguelikes can be frustrating too, but you can't dismiss it as some random flaw. However, on the other hand, just because it's standard adventure game bullshit, it doesn't mean it's not bullshit. I'm certainly getting more and more tired of the same artificial "here be puzzles" design philosophy in what I used to hold as favourite genre without a doubt. I'm having a lot of fun with the narrative of Moebius, even despite not liking the main idea of the plot, but I can't say the same about the puzzles, they feel like a chore. Like an old chore.