POP dev expected "pats on the back" Comments by Robert Purchese

I enjoyed the game, but have to say it was easy - not due to the lack of dying at all though as that is no different to a game over screen in the way it was done, but simply because it felt like a QTE turned into a full game.

I must admit I was one of those people who shyed away from this new pop game because it was entirely hand drawn animation, I still shudder at the thought of the number of 10p pieces I shoved into 'The Sword in the Stone' arcade game which as far as I could tell the controls of which had no bearing as to what was happening on the screen.

@ Penhalion:

Before I get going, I should point out that this is written in the tone of pleasent discussion of ideas, not ranting at you. I'm geniunely interested in this discussion. It's hard to disagree and suggest a genial tone of voice on the internet!

Your comments tell me that you don't work in the design bit of the industry, and so there's an aspect of the typical art v.s design v.s code v.s art (somehow audio usually get away without arguing with anyone, lucky blighters!).

Believe me, when you're a junior designer, no matter what the studio says it still won't listen to your ideas, so other departments' suggestions don't stand a chance. Yes, there are some (many) incredibly prissy lead designers who don't listen and that's to the detriment of the whole industry... However, it's not always like that. In some companies a good suggestion gets a fair airing.

I've seen titles where the restrictions of art hamsting the designers entirely, the limitations on the animation budget mean that the designers constantly have to narrow their focus, and the coders can't get the more innovative ideas from the designers to work because 'no-one does it that way'... And then you have expectations that extra ideas from other departments are going to be taken on board when the ones from the design department can't even be implemented? Sorry, I do understand the frustration you feel about good ideas being dismissed, I had that exact experience in one of the Readers' Top 50 list games, but I don't think you can boil it down to simply being designers not listening, because a whole project team needs to work together and the designer's job is to sychronise all those things.

Anyway:

Innovations:
Making complex platforming easy

That is an oxymoron platforming is either complex or easy it can't actually be both
Yep, that's why I didn't say that. The platforming is very complex: running up walls, across walls, hanging on pillars, sliding, jumping, various types of triggers, ceiling runs, and ring runs. That's a hell of a lot for any platform game, and POP makes all those things possible without complicated button combinations. So, in other words, it makes complex platforming easy. Which is what I said.

Every fight can be won with the same sword, throw, Elika air combo for stupidly massive damage.
Yep, except for those ones where you have to start with magic. Or the ones where you have to start with a gauntlet attack. In fact, it forces you to change your combo choice based on the visual elements on-screen. You know, I think that's pretty cool. There are loads of different combos, and I'm enjoying finding different combos for different visual results. Maybe that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't actually use the same moves all the time, you need to use different openers, which then change what you can do next.

The fights in assasins creed were more inovative and exciting that the fights in POP.
True enough in some ways - by the end of AC the fights were really good, but they were only good because there were nine people attacking you, and in those you really could use exactly the same move time after time (the parry attack worked again, and again, and again). It was still fun because of the timing, but it was very repetitive. What POP has achieved with solo battles is more than anyone has done outside of beat-'em-ups for many years. That, I reckon, is pretty innovative.

As a result of the optional plot, the game's ending doesn't work at all. In fact , due to this design choice, the ending is leaving a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths. It litterally makes playing the game pointless.
Literally? Then it must be true ;)

I've not finished it yet, but I've been enjoying it a lot. So far I'm really enjoying the charcterisation in the optional dialogue bits. If you skipped all of them then you clearly aren't a person who cares about plot, so why bother getting your knickers in a twist about the ending? It's not like you didn't have the choice to engage with the story. If you choose not to bother with it then I really don't think you can complain about it not pandering to you. That's like not voting but complaining about the government.

BTW, I really enjoy your comments in the posts. I don't always agree with you, but I do always enjoy reading your opinions. Merry Christmas chap/chapette.

@Doctor_what

Your comments tell me that you don't work in the design bit of the industry, and so there's an aspect of the typical art v.s design v.s code v.s art (somehow audio usually get away without arguing with anyone, lucky blighters!).

Actually I have worked in the design side. I haven't been a lead designer yet though. In the case of POP, the designer (guy complaining in the article) was told way before things were finalised, that certain elements didn't work. He choose to ignore those comments and adopt an I am god attitude.

That is an oxymoron platforming is either complex or easy it can't actually be both
Yep, that's why I didn't say that. The platforming is very complex: running up walls, across walls, hanging on pillars, sliding, jumping, various types of triggers, ceiling runs, and ring runs. That's a hell of a lot for any platform game, and POP makes all those things possible without complicated button combinations. So, in other words, it makes complex platforming easy. Which is what I said.

As most people have pointed out. The platforming is nothing more than hitting the right button. You don't even really have to do it at a set time because the input ick-up is so generous. There isn't any complexity to the platforming at all. It's all automatic. This means that you DON'T wall run, roof run etc. etc. The computer does it for you after you press the A or X button depending on the console. You say it yourself that the game allows you to do the acrobatics without any complex button combinations. That's because thew game actually does the work for you. Your own description shows that the platforming is anything but complex. One of the trohies/achievements is actually to run from one end of a level to the other in a short time. This would be very difficult if the controls and timing were like those in sands of time. As it stands it's one of the easiest achievements to get after purifying the level. Once you start the run, you only need to resort to the analogue sticks on three or four occasions. the rest of the run is purely hitting A/X and B/O in the general timeframe to trigger the pre-canned animations.

Every fight can be won with the same sword, throw, Elika air combo for stupidly massive damage.
Yep, except for those ones where you have to start with magic. Or the ones where you have to start with a gauntlet attack. In fact, it forces you to change your combo choice based on the visual elements on-screen. You know, I think that's pretty cool. There are loads of different combos, and I'm enjoying finding different combos for different visual results. Maybe that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't actually use the same moves all the time, you need to use different openers, which then change what you can do next.

Nope all the fights can be won this way. Even if the initial sword attack does no damage, the throw or the elika part will still start the combo and as it's just a matter of doing the air combo once the creature is eventually thrown. You don't have to pay any attention to the starting state of the enemy. It's a very broken combo system.

I've not finished it yet, but I've been enjoying it a lot. So far I'm really enjoying the charcterisation in the optional dialogue bits. If you skipped all of them then you clearly aren't a person who cares about plot, so why bother getting your knickers in a twist about the ending? It's not like you didn't have the choice to engage with the story. If you choose not to bother with it then I really don't think you can complain about it not pandering to you. That's like not voting but complaining about the government.

The story doesn't work even when you try to follow it. My achievements on the 360 version show all the story elements go take a look! You should already have discovered this if you have been following it as you say. For instance, the conversations become out of sequence depending on which levels you choose to do first. This tells me that there was only ever supposed to be one route through the story. Also, because Elika is effectively a talking weapon with almost zero personality, you never get attached to her. By the end of the game she becomes little more than an accessory you use with the Y button. She doesn't do anything for herself and in some instances (during the trigger tile sequences) can actually get in your way and get you killed!

If you liked the game then fair play to you. It should however, be obvious from the majority oppinion on even this forum, that most people saw the game for what it was. A pretty looking but, ultimately broken game.

I'm giving a pat on the back for POP for one thing: no DRM at all.
As for innovations, no way I'm going to do that. Sure, I'll buy the game to support the decision they took when they've removed the DRM. But, I'm not going to buy the game because of the "innovations" Because from my point of view, there are none notable.

@ Penhalion & Doctor_What

I kinda agree with both of you.

My opinion on the game is currently 50/50 It started out a little more biased towards liking the game, but the longer I play the less I'm enjoying it. I understand what they set out to achieve and in a lot of ways they do deserve that pat on the back, but they should have at least tried to cater for their original fan base and had a classic control option.

Thanks Login_Name :)

@Penhalion:

Mattes is a producer, not a designer. Most producers do talk a lot of nonsense and listen badly to feedback. It seems to be partially their job as vision holders, but that's just the nature of them. They have to be a bit blinkered to keep a project on track.

I still maintain that the platforming is complex, because the actions performed are complex. I think you are arguing that the controls are over-simplified, which may be true, but I think that's a matter of personal taste. I know that if I don't press the O button then I won't catch that ring and I'll fall. Yes, there's a very generous amount of time to press it in, but what's wrong with that? It's still me seeing what I want to do and then doing it.

I'm not saying that it is a brilliant game, but I do think that there are some innovations or interesting experiments in there.

As for the story - so far it's a pretty bland tale lacking in form (and they don't seem to have a clue what their catalyst was for the characters, but that's a whole long other discussion), but I admire the attempt at making it optional for people who weren't interested. Did it work? Not very well this time, but it could do if they tried again. That's what innovating is about!

"I think we could have done a better job in giving more challenge to those gamers who play a game to accomplish and achieve, rather than experience," he said

Maybe they also could move all actions to one button and mark that button with a little triangle pointing right. Oh wait...

I realize what he is trying to say but that is a load of bullshit, innovation means shit if the game is crap on top of that POP was anything but innovative it was as mainstream as you can make a game, practically developed for 2 year olds and they are the only ones that enjoyed playing it, difficulty ridiculously easy, very repetitive like all Ubi games (AC), the past POP's were innovative this one isn't, also no mention that the game was pirated less thanks to no DRM.

And why is the prince a fagot backstreet boy, oh Ubi you just don't get it.

The character of the Prince aside, the new PoP is such a good game. It (sadly) takes a brave developer to remove death as a punishment from a game, but I'm glad Ubi are part of the growing group that are doing so. Being punished for dying is such a ridiculous inclusion in a piece of 'entertainment', and has been ever since games started offering more than just some purile coin-op challenge.

*pats Ubi on the back*

The guy is right.

Never happy.

I've just been playing this now...

One thing I could absolutey bloody do without is all those bloody camera acrobatics...It's making me feel really sick! It is really necessary to have the camera go swooping right in every five seconds and then zoom right out again? It's seriously off putting.

New ideas need to be tried. Of course it's important to make them "fun", but that's pretty difficult to know unless you've tried them. I appreciate games that try new things. Even if they're shit, and no fun at all. Other developers can then take and develop those ideas, and learn from their mistakes. This is how progress is made.

POP hasn't failed. According to Vgchartz.com it has shifted 550k from launch until des.20'th.

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?i...

Another week has passed and it will be closed to 700k when the next numbers are out.
Most likely it will be a million seller worldwide eventually.

In my opinion that's a sucess.

/pats developer

/then gives him my peace of mind (feedback)

/gives him a cookie too

@liam64
"The character of the Prince aside, the new PoP is such a good game. It (sadly) takes a brave developer to remove death as a punishment from a game, but I'm glad Ubi are part of the growing group that are doing so. Being punished for dying is such a ridiculous inclusion in a piece of 'entertainment', and has been ever since games started offering more than just some purile coin-op challenge.

*pats Ubi on the back* "

You're looking at death from the wrong angle, as a punishment instead of encouragement: encouragement to evaluate the reason behind your death and encouragement to improve. Most games doesn't use this to it's full capacity but instead puts you back a few rooms to your last quicksave and don't challenge you enough to need to improve as a player, but there are those that do: among them Ninja Gaiden and Shiren the Wanderer.

Removing death from them, and many other games, would hamper the experiences. Don't be too quick in thinking that death is some leftover from those days when computers were powered by lit candles just because some-to-most games don't need it.

Of course, this new PoP game doesn't seem to need a death system as much as a completely reworked challenge model.

Having now finished the game, I can confirm that it's got some nice characters but a completely useless control of the narrative. What is it with Ubisoft Montreal that means they do this? Assassin's Creed did the same thing: a fairly interesting set-up, then no significant plot advancement until the last twenty minutes of the game - the middle of the game is pretty much a void of narrative development. They really need to get some help on this, because whoever they've got working on these things at the moment really don't seem to know what they're doing.

Still: I enjoyed the platforming and I enjoyed the fighting. I can see that they were trying some new things, and I did like them, but the story... Oh the story... Sands Of Time got it so right, how can they now be getting it so wrong?

hmmm... well i thought it was difficult enough and loved every minute. The vistas and art are just staggering.

I'll give the developer a pat on the back, and if it helps my copy now sits lovingly next to ICO and SoTC as games that are keepers. And there are only a few games that ever reach that shelf as every thing else usually just gets traded in...

Sure i was very verbal about EGs contraversal 6, but they're still entitled to their opinion, just like i'm entitled to mine.

oh and to those complaining about the lack of death in the game - didn't it make you think "hmm maybe death isn't supposed to mean anything in this game" when they put pick ups out over abyss' that once you jumped would be impossible to recover from bar Elika's help?

Sure bad design maybe, and i wouldnt have done that - but they did at least try to show you that death wasnt a bad thing...

Maybe as gamers we're just too used to the harsh death-retry-wash and repeat syndrome of games of yore to appreicate when a developer tries to make a game fun without making it frustrating?

I only played Sands Of Time, but that was pretty much death proof. Either you rewound time and retackled what you were doing, or you 'died' to have the Prince re-start the scene again. No issues with that really. Something like Fallout needs a death mechanic where you really need to fear encountering something nasty.

The Zero Punctuation review of the game was quite good, now he's usually scathing on any gameplay mechanic that is dire and he had no issue with the deaths. Where it seems the game has fallen down is gradual diluting of image to be generic and American while tying this to an uninvolving level design, poor plot/script and combat mechanic.

"...people keep moaning about the need for innovation..."

No they don't. Forumites do.

And I'm not saying that's bad, or that forumites are knobs - I'm just saying there's a difference. And one that most "people" are seemingly completely unaware of.

I do love you all though.
xxxx

I'm not going to give the POP team a pat on the back, but daz john smith deserves one for making me laugh out loud " I was expecting a better game. Swings and roundabouts innit". : )

I only started playing the game yesterday, so I won't comment on most of the things you guys are talking about here. I dislike the camera movement, it's really stiff and unpleasant to my eyes.

Also, I got two of the three (IIRC) story-related trophies immediately in the big plain with the tree. I just talked to elika a few times and I already "got to know her". This is pretty ridiculous. These conversations should be definitely more drawn out. Ideally, they would be triggered automatically at certain points, if not she should "say no more" until the player progresses further into the game. The constantly flashing "press L2 to talk to Elika" icon is also really annoying. It seems to expect me to stop and talk to her constantly when I just want to get on with saving the world.

Other than that, I love the art design. Combat seems on the easy side. Also, there's a trophy for "killing 10 enemies before they spawn". I got that after killing the 1st one...

Oh, and I worked as a game designer at one point. The "it's not my idea" resentment is certainly there, but one who lets personal failings get in the way of good design should not be a designer in the first place. Also, producers will often demand silly things for no reason and you will have to comply. As for ignoring good ideas - when push comes to shove, it may turn out that a good idea will not be so good after you start implementing it in practice and also it may just happen that implementing a certain good idea might break a lot of things which are already done, so changing one thing may necessitate changing many other things, which will delay production and make you redo a lot of testing.

AT the nd of the day the sands of time effectively removed death from the game with the rewind button. the new game does the rewind for you straight way keeping you in the game and makking it flow great.

What the developers needed to do was have the ability to turn it off in the option menu.

Having played more of PoP today I must say I really like the no-death mechanic. Perhaps the penalty for dying in combat could be bigger (enemy getting back all health?).

Certainly beats playing Dead Space on Impossible, dying every 5 seconds and looking at the loading screen for another 20.

Not saying I don't like Dead Space ;-) Although I AM just doing that for the trophy.

I am a bit late to this thread development, which is a shame as the discussion seems to have been a good one.

I'll chuck my 2p on the pile.

"often on a project, you will hear precisely these kinds of genuinely inovative suggestions and the designer will shoot them down. Not because they are no good but, because the idea didn't come from them"

That is simply a poor designer. I hope the use of the word "often" is for drama, but tbh I think you might be right. One of the most important parts of design is review of ideas; opening your mind to everything regardless of its origins and ALSO being prepared to chuck ideas out ifthey don't work (even if they were your own favourites).

I would say however that we don't really know that much about what went on behind the scenes. It has been mentioned that the guy being quoted is a producer rather than a designer, but the meanin of that role varies from company to company. Was he in fact theholder of the vision, or did he just meddle in design, or did he in fact stand back and let people work but we have got the wrong information? Was it actually too late to change the things that were found to not work (if so, poor project management is what I would unfortunately call it)?

Maybe we simply aren't the target audience anymore. We, the vocal minority of hardcore gamers, might simply not be the best people to judge the game because it wasn't made JUST for us.

We talk about the scourge of the mainstream, and how it is ruining all our games. Personally I don't buy into that school of thought, but thats not really relevant. My point is that if the team were told to make the game more accessible and less hardcore, we can't blame them for doing exactly that. We might complain that they were given that brief in the first place, but in carrying out the brief they were set (assuming hyperthetically that is what happened) they were simply acting professionally.

Is this a case of don't shot the messenger (or maybe don't shoot the guy that made a cart with three wheels, because he was just doing what he was told)?

I always considered myself a hardcore gamer, but I guess I am not. Or at least not any more.

I actually hate trophies or achievements, as they are called in green-land ;-) They make me replay games I'd already completed. I played Drake's 5 times, first three to get all medals (even though they were just between me and drake, with no way to brag about them), then after the trophy patch came out another two times to get all the trophies. I enjoyed it, of course, but it was time I could have spent playing other games, like Silmeria, Persona 3, MGS4. They are all, and more, on my waiting list. Or maybe trying to get all the trophies actually MAKES me a hardcore gamer?

Problem is, I like the new PoP. Maybe not as much as I liked PoPWW (yeah, yeah, no accounting for taste), but I still do. Does that make me a mainstream gamer? Of course, I'll probably replay it to get all the trophies, especially as it's easy. Am I a hardcore gamer now?

I need to listen to my mum and to start seeing a shrink, I think...

Can they also have a kick in the nuts, too?