This is one of the best existential horror games I've ever played. I love the design, dialogue, and detail that went into this.
I have to agree with Niven on the bad aspects when it comes to making a mistake.
I would say a happy medium would be to just send the player back to the beginning of the tutorial, rather than to close the entire game. You WANT people to play your game and stay in the game for as long as possible, and by kicking the player out completely, you lose immersion and disincentivize the player to continue.
When I started over, I noticed that the name would change in the tutorial menu, which is a great little hint at what's going on, which is why I think going straight to the tutorial would be better than having to re-open the game and sit through the credits. I end up spam clicking until I'm caught up to where I was anyway.
But that's my two cents, AMAZING game, otherwise! :D
We’re really glad you enjoyed it. Closing the game is a lot, it’s anti-player for sure. Not a decision we would make again, but we tried not restarting and not closing but none of it kept the same weight and tension. Thanks for playing and seriously thank you for the playthrough as well.
For me, this might have been the best "office horror" themed game with exceptional atmosphere, yet a specific choice for the game's direction just ruins the immersion for me.
Starting with the positives - the game has outstanding atmosphere. It reminded me of the TV-Show "Severance". The environment design is minimalistic, creepy, the shadow coworkers and the cubicles are really intriguing. This clearly has a dystopian Sci-Fi vibe to it and I was all in for it. Sound design, mechanics and all the rest were superb and perfectly executed.
Yet, sadly, one of the clear choices that the game takes about closing a game when the character makes a "mistake" ruins the entire atmosphere. Now, as a game developer myself, the main focus of any game (no matter the platform) is the level of immersion. Of course, many aspects are important, like game design, sound design, coding, performance, genre, that is true. But, if the game doesn't hook you and deliberately tries to take you out of the experience, that game is not a winner for me. If the game started over with the tutorial or if the game had the character transported somewhere else, a mysterious place, where you come out and start over, that would definitely be a better choice. There are many games built of "try and fail" mechanic, but those games never, ever break your immersion, because closing an application and forcing the player to start over the game program is a very poor design.
Again, fantastic premise, superb gameplay and just really intriguing plot, but very bad choice of closing the game for the player. Even the game's page mentions about it. It is not frustration, it is a loss of a player's interest. Good luck with the future projects!
We’re glad you enjoyed the world and tone. A major aspect of the design was a growing sense of self and sentience. When the character dies we wanted it to feel like something was lost so we used that immersion break as a cold snap out of the game, a shocking loss of existence. We didn’t want to soften this by keeping you ‘in the game.’ The player also gets a new name to try and support this. I can definitely understand how this maybe isn’t as supported as it should be and why it’d be a major problem for you. We really appreciate you playing and taking the time to comment.
I can fully understand the logic behind "reviving" the character and making the player aware that the actual in game character has something unique to it, but please understand that factually, closing the game entirely breaks the immersion. It's not simply my opinion, because it has fundamental truth to the game development. I've seen games, which have done the same and when the player re-opens the game something changes, sometimes an entire level changes, or the environment is randomly generated, I can get behind that, but just closing the game and having a placeholder for another name is a bad design and it's not about frustration at all. I would argue that more than 50% of the players won't replay the game. Again, the game can get more attention and popularity if there was some sort of a fail safe or maybe if you could execute the "reviving" aspect with more uniqueness. Closing the game is truly counter intuitive. Good luck.
I guess I have to buy a popcorn the way back home to watch your banger gameplay of this. Love to visually see how you managed to finish the game and maybe see you struggle while doing that 😁.
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
I have to agree with Niven on the bad aspects when it comes to making a mistake.
I would say a happy medium would be to just send the player back to the beginning of the tutorial, rather than to close the entire game. You WANT people to play your game and stay in the game for as long as possible, and by kicking the player out completely, you lose immersion and disincentivize the player to continue.
When I started over, I noticed that the name would change in the tutorial menu, which is a great little hint at what's going on, which is why I think going straight to the tutorial would be better than having to re-open the game and sit through the credits. I end up spam clicking until I'm caught up to where I was anyway.
But that's my two cents, AMAZING game, otherwise! :D
We’re really glad you enjoyed it. Closing the game is a lot, it’s anti-player for sure. Not a decision we would make again, but we tried not restarting and not closing but none of it kept the same weight and tension. Thanks for playing and seriously thank you for the playthrough as well.
For me, this might have been the best "office horror" themed game with exceptional atmosphere, yet a specific choice for the game's direction just ruins the immersion for me.
Starting with the positives - the game has outstanding atmosphere. It reminded me of the TV-Show "Severance". The environment design is minimalistic, creepy, the shadow coworkers and the cubicles are really intriguing. This clearly has a dystopian Sci-Fi vibe to it and I was all in for it. Sound design, mechanics and all the rest were superb and perfectly executed.
Yet, sadly, one of the clear choices that the game takes about closing a game when the character makes a "mistake" ruins the entire atmosphere. Now, as a game developer myself, the main focus of any game (no matter the platform) is the level of immersion. Of course, many aspects are important, like game design, sound design, coding, performance, genre, that is true. But, if the game doesn't hook you and deliberately tries to take you out of the experience, that game is not a winner for me. If the game started over with the tutorial or if the game had the character transported somewhere else, a mysterious place, where you come out and start over, that would definitely be a better choice. There are many games built of "try and fail" mechanic, but those games never, ever break your immersion, because closing an application and forcing the player to start over the game program is a very poor design.
Again, fantastic premise, superb gameplay and just really intriguing plot, but very bad choice of closing the game for the player. Even the game's page mentions about it. It is not frustration, it is a loss of a player's interest. Good luck with the future projects!
We’re glad you enjoyed the world and tone. A major aspect of the design was a growing sense of self and sentience. When the character dies we wanted it to feel like something was lost so we used that immersion break as a cold snap out of the game, a shocking loss of existence. We didn’t want to soften this by keeping you ‘in the game.’ The player also gets a new name to try and support this. I can definitely understand how this maybe isn’t as supported as it should be and why it’d be a major problem for you. We really appreciate you playing and taking the time to comment.
I can fully understand the logic behind "reviving" the character and making the player aware that the actual in game character has something unique to it, but please understand that factually, closing the game entirely breaks the immersion. It's not simply my opinion, because it has fundamental truth to the game development. I've seen games, which have done the same and when the player re-opens the game something changes, sometimes an entire level changes, or the environment is randomly generated, I can get behind that, but just closing the game and having a placeholder for another name is a bad design and it's not about frustration at all. I would argue that more than 50% of the players won't replay the game.
Again, the game can get more attention and popularity if there was some sort of a fail safe or maybe if you could execute the "reviving" aspect with more uniqueness. Closing the game is truly counter intuitive.
Good luck.
Very eloquently said :) My thoughts put into words
I guess I have to buy a popcorn the way back home to watch your banger gameplay of this. Love to visually see how you managed to finish the game and maybe see you struggle while doing that 😁.
Kudos to you friend 👏🏻