Adventure Game Studio

When you grab the tree root and then look at it, the character disappears

-hotspot at the base of the left tree is glowing like it was supposed to be glow for his eyes.  Only a small region too.
-holding the branch while looking at it or the tree will cause the player to go invisible You just fixed it.
-She uses Glowworm in the dialog when she picks it up but it says Glow Worm when you hover over the item (or it was looking at the item).
-interacting items with the grave and acorn on the ground result in "I don't see how that would help." without voice.

When you throw bread to a spot, the little pigeon lags behind the big ones, perhaps try throwing some to him once they've flown away?

Perhaps he needs a bit more time to get the bread... try getting the other pigeons as far away from him as possible first

use the bucket with the grave

- The left tree's talking animation starts about 3 seconds before the voice file, and is about twice the speed of the voice anyway.
- You could speed up the credits a bit. :)
- I wonder if there is a way to infer the different stages of grieving, rather than state it outright, because I feel that this may be one of those cases where there is more power in leaving something to be interpreted to the player, rather than outright told.
- The "villain" of the story: I thought the atmosphere change was a bit jarring in the beginning, from tranquility to downright horror. Perhaps if there was a more gradual change into it. (You know, in Trilby's Notes how the dark world slowly manifests itself and you don't know what's going on... then finally the Tall Man appears after numerous build ups of suspense). You could just open the door and leave the player in mystique as they seem to be going down into a proverbial rabbit hole.

Some minor gripes (in my humble opinion):

- The left tree's talking animation starts about 3 seconds before the voice file, and is about twice the speed of the voice anyway.

- You could speed up the credits a bit. :)

- I wonder if there is a way to infer the different stages of grieving, rather than state it outright, because I feel that this may be one of those cases where there is more power in leaving something to be interpreted to the player, rather than outright told.

- The "villain" of the story: I thought the atmosphere change was a bit jarring in the beginning, from tranquility to downright horror. Perhaps if there was a more gradual change into it. (You know, in Trilby's Notes how the dark world slowly manifests itself and you don't know what's going on... then finally the Tall Man appears after numerous build ups of suspense). You could just open the door and leave the player in mystique as they seem to be going down into a proverbial rabbit hole.

was sort of obvious from the beginning, that Fio was dead and all that. I did like the stages of loss review and didn't think that stating it outright was a bad thing.

we had gotten to know everyone before it started. The ending wasn't that sad because we didn't really know them. It felt like reading about it in a newspaper. I was genuinely sad, but I feel it would have been much more powerful if we had seen, for example, (or at least heard of) some specific examples of the good/bad times both had been through together.

The puzzle with the bucket: You pull the rope and can't get it down because you're not heave enough. Fair. But when you pick up the stones, you still can't. Only after they're in the bucket you can get it down.. What's the weight difference?

It's the last one (#3) in the credit list: Grostesque = Grotesque

Did you really pick up that the five "rooms" were the five stages of grief?
If so, bravo.

Yup, don't remember where I first picked up on it but was pretty sure that my observation was correct when I got to the swamp (then again, I've been fascinated by the stages of grief concept ever since watching All That Jazz). I don't think it spoiled anything though - it was pretty clear that Amber would come to some kind of insight and learn to cope with her loss, but until I saw the gravestone in the final screen I wasn't sure if Fio was dead or it was just a (somewhat melodramatic) reaction to a simple breakup.

Whether it's predictable or not, this isn't an M. Night Shyamalan movie (thank god!). It's perfectly enjoyable even if you've guessed the "twist" - possibly even more so. In fact you probably get much more emotionally involved with Amber if you realize it early on (or when replaying the game), than you would experiencing it as a pure fantasy story about a love interest spirited away by supernatural beings.

My only point of criticism is the final labeling of the stages which (besides robbing me of the opportunity to show off my cleverness on the forums :)) I feel lessens the emotional impact of the game. By revealing the underlying structural concept, in the middle of the grand climax nonetheless, you also turn everything we've felt intuitively so far into a clear intellectual construct. Instead of letting the final moments sink in and allowing us to reflect upon Amber's spiritual journey, we're given the answer sheet and spend the credit sequence mentally backtracking through the game thinking "oh, I see, yeah that was pretty clever" rather than pondering how this emotional roller coaster ride affected us and what we'll be taking with you from the experience.

it was never supposed to be a huge secret.. It was supposed to be hinted at along the way and I kinda thought people would appreciated that Fio was dead by about the 3rd room.

The reason I included the explicit labels was to increase the smug factor for the player. If it were a book or a play I would probably not have been so forthcoming but games are different and giving  sense of achievement to the player is very important.

The player didnt 'win' this game by getting to the end.

Allow me to explain.  From least irksome to me, to most irksome.

Least irksome: Puzzles.
Why do I find them irksome at all?: I'll be honest.  There is a clever one or two.  The squirrel and the acorn?  I found that to be clever.  Most of the others?  Well, they fit the scenes well enough.  However there was one that I feel was wasted potential, and leads into one of the things that I found most irksome about the game.

The bird feeding puzzle.

Likely not surprising to some people, although my reasoning may differ.   MY reasons for finding the bird feeding puzzle irksome are two fold.  The first of these, regards the 'puzzle' itself.  Why is it irksome?  Well, because it's kind of unnecessary.  What do I mean?  I mean there's 4 options, only 2 are valid, and unlike any of the other puzzles in the game, it doesn't quite relate to the scene.  It becomes a puzzle that some people may struggle on, if they don't realize the crumbs need to be tossed at the path, but beyond that there is only one solution, and it doesn't further the character development of Amber and Fio.  I find a puzzle of trial and error, where you have A, B, C, and D, but C and D have no use whatsoever, and any combination of A, C, D or B, C, D will not yield results, doesn't help anything.  Granted, that's a puzzle design irk.  And my views on puzzle design are likely different than others.  So, that's likely REALLY personal opinion.  Still, to me there's an even greater reason I found it irksome/bothersome...

And that reason also ties into what I found most irksome about the entire experience.

Most irksome: Lack of character development/attachment/emotional tying to characters.

What's that AC?  No character development?  No emotional ties?  What are you talking about AC?  That's crazy talk.

You know, you're all right.  I am crazy.  I'm the sort of crazy that happens to enjoy a well told story.  In my opinion, I feel the authors were aiming to create a story that takes the spectator on a emotional journey through the stages of loss.  Where the player starts thinking they have something or someone they care about, and then working through the various stages of loss until they find acceptance.  In turn, they wanted to add the twist, of having the player wonder what exactly they had lost, thusly revealing in all its glory, that Fio had in fact died, and had been dead the entire time.  Most player likely realized Fio was dead well before the end, but Fio's death wasn't the focus.  The journey of loss ending in acceptance was.

Now, while I applaud what they were aiming to do, I feel it fell short of their goal.  Again, as I've just established with my 'crazy talk', you all likely disagree.  I understand.  It's fine.  You don't need to remind me, or even explain your point of view.  I can clearly see your point of view, however I don't share it.

So, how did it fail?  Why would I say that it failed to do what it set out to do?  Now, I could be wrong in so far as what they were trying to do.  I could be.  Based upon everyone's reactions however, I'm thinking I'm not.  That said, and out of the way, we fail to have any sort of insight into either Amber or Fio before the wonderful journey begins.  The most we learn before the 'game' or journey, or emotional rollercoaster, or whatever you want to call it starts, is that, unless I'm remembering this wrong, Fio likes the smell of cut grass.  I also, unless mistaken, got the impression that Fio had some degree of compassion for small animals.  That's about it.  Oh, and the vague impression that Fio and Amber knew each other.  Whether they were long time friends, lovers, enemies, rivals, sisters, mother/daughter, aliens from the planet Wazoo, neighbours, cousins, what have you, we never really get a full impression of until the end.  But I'm not at the end yet.  I'm still at the beginning, so bear with me here.

Let's back up a moment, faithful reader.  Remember when I spoke about how the bird puzzle bothered me?  Well, it also bothered me because it was a perfect, prime, ripe opportunity for us to learn more about Amber and Fio.  To get to know them.  To learn what makes them so close.  Two things that would have 'helped that' here.  One?  Maybe having three or four 'similar' scenes of them in the park, talking to each other.  Maybe some dialogue options.  Let us get used to the characters, then toss her being gone at us.  We'll have been attached by that point.  Emotionally invested.

Two?  Okay, don't do those scenes, but why can't Fio and Amber talk while Amber is throwing around the bread crumbs?  I think that would've been a great way for us to become more emotionally invested in the characters.  Maybe they just reminisce.  Maybe they talk about any number of things.  It'd still make us more involved.  The longer you'd try to solve the bread crumb puzzle, the more you'd learn about the characters, almost as if trying to spend more time to Fio.  To hold on to her as long as you can.

To me, that first scene was almost a wasted opportunity to get the player/viewer/reader REALLY attached/involved/tied to the characters on some level, be it emotional or not.  In fact, had the writing merely lent itself to providing us a better glimpse into the deep relationship between Fio and Amber PRIOR to Fio disappearing, I feel that (at least for me) I would have been more emotionally invested throughout the journey, and may have felt something for the characters, as opposed to, well, nothing.

Other wasted opportunities for furthering the ties, came in each scene.  In no scene are we treated to any reasoning for Amber to search after Fio, except that they were close.  Or something like that.  In fact, nothing is really mentioned about their relationship or why they were so close - even the snippet we get of their relationship at the end doesn't serve enough information to us.  The information we get is too little, too late, even if nice.  I mean, sure, nice to know they had a sleepover, and there was a star shaped flashlight.  It didn't bring me any closer to caring about either character though.  

In every scene, Amber seems to fight so hard after Fio, one way or another, but, again...no dialogue explaining it.  No, "I have to find Fio!  We grew up together!  Etc. etc. etc."  Just, "Need to find her, where is she?  Help me find her."

Which brings me to a minor thing.  The whole 'non-interactive' Amber going through the door and following what I assume was the character 'Hurt'.  After thinking it through, I find that it was only necessary for it to be non-interactive because the player, at that point, has no reason to follow.

Hear me out.  We know nothing of Fio.  Or much of Amber.  There's an open door.  As a game player, we might follow due to it being the only exit.  Otherwise?  Not really.  There's no reason or context to 'follow 'Hurt'.  There's not reason or context to travel in the random door from thin air.  At least to me.  If there was more to attach the viewer to the characters, then going through that door would feel natural.  If there was more character development/progression in each scene, learning about why Amber would CARE so much about Fio, and why we the player should care about Amber and her plight.  Not to mention her ever increasing journey.

Is some of the dialogue pretentious, flowery, over-wordy?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It doesn't bother me.  I know what the writer is going for.  Problem is, it almost seems like the author is trying TOO hard to let us know that they're smart.  That they know how to write something.  What this does in the case of Eternally Us, is it robs the spotlight from time that could be used to show us more of the characters.  Instead, it highlights the situation.  The situation has little weight without insight into the characters.  We (and I guess I mean I) don't feel involved with the characters, so working through the stages is like looking at a series of postcards.  Overly pretty, interesting to interact with, but it's like the backs are blank and waiting to be filled with personality.  

I could keep typing, and could keep providing ideas for alternate ways of going about things, but I don't want to make this long post EVEN longer.

A journey of emotions represented by different scenes within a single room

The stages of loss

when you grab the pipe it was automatically in your hands to use on the crate. When I grabbed the glowworms I was wondering why they weren't in hand to use on the lanterns.  (Only after I played did I look at the read me file--sad i know lol). The game could actually  probably work without an inventory stock, except for the final scene I guess.

-Having to put three stones in the bucket
-Having to collect three light worms and put in the lamps
-Having to break the box three times
-And the worst of all, was the puzzle with holding the hand of the tree again and again, which was really irritating!

girl coping with her friend's death

girl is having a hard time coping with her friend's death. She goes into a metaphoric journey which symbolizes the five steps of denial, anger ... acceptance. The reader will go the journey along with the girl, but will reveal the meaning of the journey only in the end.

in the swamp ... the tree branch that pops out of the ... swamp stuff. i grab it ... i let it go ... i grab it ... i let it go ... ive pixel hunted the shiznit out of this room and i find nothing but a tree branch i can grab ... and let go .... ... guess i didn't grab and let go enough times. figured it out. lol

the story at the end about how the girls has sleep overs when they were younger and they used to shine flash lights on the ceiling

The way I understood it, Fiona was dead before the game started - Amber only imagines her sitting on the bench in the park because she hasn't come to terms with Fiona's death yet, and they used to come there together.

Amber is not trying to rescue Fio.

Amber doesnt *go* anywhere and it is assumed Fio has been dead long before the game starts