Future Vision! Anyone else feel like it's cheating?
I mean, like when you're at
On the other hand, it would've taken me forever to figure out the puzzle at the
Anyone kinda feel like it's cheating some times?
I know I have the option to just not use it, but then I might miss out on a joke or two.
the pawn shop and you have to put the banana on the manhole cover, I would've figured that out eventually, but with Future Vision it only took me like 5 minutes... Then again you can't even get the banana with out using Future Vision first.... sooooo.
On the other hand, it would've taken me forever to figure out the puzzle at the
pizza shop
without it.... Soooooo.Anyone kinda feel like it's cheating some times?
I know I have the option to just not use it, but then I might miss out on a joke or two.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I don't think it's cheating, because many times you just couldn't do things without using future vision first. Although I worry that it's giving you too many hints, yes. I used it on everything for the fun of it, my thinking was that either it was necessary to keep moving or it would be a funny cutscene.
But if there are puzzles you can solve without using it, and using it beforehand helps you out, which might be the case, then I guess it counts as (possibly unwelcome) hints?
I wouldn't call it cheating though. I mean, I'm positive you can't finish the game without using them. And you still need to figure out what to do, seeing your future selves saying "I used item A and item B" isn't that different from having a guy tell you "I need you to get me item A and item B" like it usually goes in adventure games.
I liked when
In situations like that, I think that's when Future Vision truely shines. Other times it seems just a little too much like a gimme.
It's not misdirection... They show two possible futures and make it clear you want to avoid them. Then instead of figuring out how to reach that result, you need to figure out how to prevent it from happening.
I personally thought that future vision was used very well in some cases (there is no way in hell you can solve some puzzles without it, like how to revive Gordon), but maybe gave away a couple of hints too many in others. Still, the game is wonderfully designed and I'd say, objectively, is the best thing Telltale's done so far.
Still I think it could be toned down just a bit hintwise in certain areas...
Again, not complaining, just giving feedback.
Maybe Grandpa Stinky's puzzle needed a more subtle hint.
That's a better example.
I didn't figure it out right away. I was looking for a way that it would work tat wasn't the obvious one, like what happened with flint. So I tried
But yeah, all that only took seconds, then I did the obvious thing. But it was funny, I think they were just looking for excuses to spin this one like they did with Flint.
(player) Hmmm I need to get rid of ape.... Oh I'll try this... Here we go. Ooooh a cutscene hurray I did it! Oh wait.... LOL
Future Vision just points you in the right direction is all. I could be wrong
but then why would Sam pick up an old banana... I know I know I'm just sayin
Not really, because you miss out on seeing the last part of scene that sets up the joke.
I read in another thread that next episode won't have future vision anyway so this thread has become somewhat pointless...
Apparently much like my presence here.
And I repeat what I said about the banana "puzzle"; good gag, most horrible puzzle in the entirety of 301.
Don't feel that way. The point of a forum is to argue and debate, and while I get your frustration with the way some people on here respond (which ranges from aggressive sneering to random remarks), stay on if you enjoy it. I hope we haven't made you feel cheap or unwanted for arguing with you, and I'm sorry if I/anyone else have/has.
Like Kroms said, the point of the forum is to debate and argue opinions. As far as I can tell no one's being hostile towards you.
And besides, I agreed with you.
No, I agree with you
Most of the time I found the future vision to be pretty necessary, but in the few cases where it spoiled the solution to the puzzle, it also brought with it an excellent joke. (Sam apparently doing something, you try to set it up so he does that, then he actually does something which looks similar but isn't what you were expecting.)
I'm thinking very much along the same lines...
... although I do agree with this. Also, when it was used on the
It did show quite complete visions, actually. But, it won't be there in EP2, so there's not a lot to worry about.
oh and
And then the gag might have had an actual puzzle, even if it would still have been ridicilously easy...
Come on guys, think for chrissakes. Imagine how bad it would've been for the story.
It's an adventuregame. If an actual puzzle in an adventure game cannot be done "because of pacing" I have no idea what the hell it's called adventure for anymore.
Maybe they should make movies instead?
Now, you've finally reached the dramatic moment: LeChuck is on the floor, expecting to die, you click on the sword, use it on him and it doesn't work. It doesn't work again. And again. And again. You start experimenting. You still don't get it. Ten minutes later you're frustrated, any sense of urgency is gone and any *triumph* you feel as a result of defeating LeChuck feels hollow. It's exactly like watching a crime movie where you're about to find out who the killer is, and then the electricity goes off and you have to wait 8 hours. Who cares at that point? The urge is gone.
Now, the banana gag is sort of like that, but on a different plane. At this point, we're just trying to find the Toys of Power before Skunkape. Having you spend ten-twenty minutes on yet another one of his minions harms the pacing of the story, which is pretty much the reason you're playing an adventure game. We don't care about them; we care about Skunkape. It was the kind of problem people had with the jungle puzzle in The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood. Far too much time was spent on solving puzzles that were only marginally relevant, and it hurt the pacing. The Feast of the Senses isn't really tied up in the overall plot, and as thus should have been maybe a little shorter. If not shorter, then responsible for provoking little bits of plot. Otherwise, you have a large stretch of gameplay that isn't precisely related to what's going on in the overall scheme of things.
I personally never had a problem with that second act in Trial, but in retrospect, and a few hours of thought since about design, it could've been structured and designed tighter. Although I ended up getting little bits of the story due to the way I play, others didn't and it hurt the game. What Telltale did with The Penal Zone and Lair of the Leviathan was make sure we all played the game at the pace they set without it feeling contrived or planned. It's excellent design.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I've done a good job explaining it.
If it's "never explained why it doesn't work" that's just poor gamedesign.
Yeah, but with the other apes, at BoscoTech the puzzle is ACTUALLY INTERESTING. And darn, it doesn't hurt pacing, does it? So why should the banana be "get over with it ASAP"?
I have no problems with the jungle puzzle. Hell, an adventure game is *supposed* to include puzzles to obstruct the story. Doesn't mean it can't have a good story and good puzzles, as most LA adventures show us.
Also, seeing how most people think MI 104 is the best episode of the game, I hardly see most people going "PUZZLE = EVIL".
And they could have done so while providing a much better puzzle, which they themselves showed off at BoscoTech, or hell, any other puzzle in the game.
Not really, no. You're looking at it superficially. Maybe that was a bad example. My point is, any dramatic or climactic moment can be undermined by bad pacing, and bad pacing can be caused by badly placed puzzles. If Sherlock Holmes spent 1.5 hours reconstructing a fairly simple crime before dramatically revealing the killer, it would suck, right? The same is true in video games. If, as in adventure games, puzzles are the gameplay, and the game is driven by story, then the puzzles are the story. You can't screw with pacing for the hell of it.
That's contextual, but my point was that it affected the pacing in a bad way.
But it could've. The idea is that the minions don't affect the overall plot - they don't even have names (I think there was one called Jeff, but that's it). Getting it over with quickly for the sake of a gag was the right decision to make. They could've just as easily cut the whole bit out, but it made the game just a little more special.
I'm thinking, though, that people are wishing the hint was a little more subtle. In that sense, okay, maybe. That's definitely one of those things you can't learn by intuition, but only experience. I think the gag worked, but maybe you guys expected something that it never even promised, and that's worth keeping in mind.
Most of the great adventure games had puzzles that *were* the story, and those that didn't got notorious for it. Remember the monkey puzzle in MI2, the Petrified Forest in Grim Fandango, etc. Those could've been better games minus the difficult puzzles.
I personally never had a problem with the jungle puzzle, but a lot of people justifiably did. It's a lesson worth learning.
The way I see it, that puzzle depended on how you played games, and many people thought it was too much of a stretch between chunks of story. In other words, it's okay to have a large, difficult puzzle - it's more than okay. But you need to reward players with little bits of story in between, or at least give them something else to do. Instead of it being story -> gameplay -> story, make it story -> gameplay -> story -> gameplay -> story, or even better, story = gameplay -> story = gameplay -> etc. What many people didn't like was that they saw the Feast as being something marginal in the overall scheme of things, but something marginal that was given too much screentime.
Maybe having had little bits of story involved throughout would've been better. To compare, think of how the seahorse head and Bugeye's suspicion of Guybrush were introduced and implemented in Leviathan.
I assume by "better" you mean "more difficult"? If so, no. If not, then - well, I'll need you to clarify this comment.
That's my own impression though... There's a whole range of options between "keeping it as is" and "cutting it out". One like 'modify'. It would have been a shame indeed to cut out the gag. Or even remotely subtle... Yeah, a puzzle. As it was it kept me thinking for a wooping 0 minutes, since I already had the solution before even having the item needed for the solution, even though they already told me where to find it...
I suppose it's also a little asking for more options than 1 with hotspots, since selecting everything like a true adventurer does I obviously also already had the manhole open before going into visionmode.
I am sure that if the banana wasn't "locked" I would have 100% guaranteed solved it right before even using FV at all at said location... I just hope the wrong conclusion isn't made and all puzzles get steamlined into being no longer puzzles anymore at all...
I generally dislike "streamlining" anyway, see Deus Ex version Invisible War why complexity does indeed add a LOT to a game. Sure. But not do it like in Rise of the Pirate God where you have 50% of the items already when you start the puzzle. That's just taking it a bit too far, no? Ship, map, crew.
Sounds familiar
One thing that confused me... future vision is supposed to tell you what WILL happen in the future
But it was nice for a change, it did have interesting parts like the start and the end.