I played Fez for about 2 hours. I mostly enjoyed the two hours then felt entirely unmotivated to continue. Here’s my experience of it (full spoilers for the first 2 hours):
It seems there’s a simple rule, whereby when you rotate from one 2d axis to another 2d axis, the things that look like they should hold do (e.g. things being on top of each other / next to each other), and whatever 3d movements that need to happen to ensure that, do. Once I got this, most of the game felt very repetitive, and like there was a lot of noise (talking to people, learning how the map worked, etc) that I wasn’t invested in, to get to more puzzles.
Once I got to a really difficult puzzle, and mapped it out in 3d with things on my desk. I spent over an hour solving it. Then, when I was done, I felt like I’d gotten all out of this mechanic, and wasn’t interested to keep going. I did not expect the game would get much more out of the mechanic, unlike what is represented in the Tier 1 games that Scott wrote about, so I didn’t play any more.
The game changes the nature of its puzzles abruptly. The players come for a kind of puzzle, the one they see on the trailers. They (and I) are not prepared or interested in the second kind. That’s bad game design.
I don’t remember there being an abrupt change; it felt like there were secrets under the surface. I didn’t have to read around to figure out that the game brims with coded messages, it felt like a natural part of exploring the world and understanding what happened to it. But perhaps it’s in the eye of the beholder.
I played Fez for about 2 hours. I mostly enjoyed the two hours then felt entirely unmotivated to continue. Here’s my experience of it (full spoilers for the first 2 hours):
It seems there’s a simple rule, whereby when you rotate from one 2d axis to another 2d axis, the things that look like they should hold do (e.g. things being on top of each other / next to each other), and whatever 3d movements that need to happen to ensure that, do. Once I got this, most of the game felt very repetitive, and like there was a lot of noise (talking to people, learning how the map worked, etc) that I wasn’t invested in, to get to more puzzles.
Once I got to a really difficult puzzle, and mapped it out in 3d with things on my desk. I spent over an hour solving it. Then, when I was done, I felt like I’d gotten all out of this mechanic, and wasn’t interested to keep going. I did not expect the game would get much more out of the mechanic, unlike what is represented in the Tier 1 games that Scott wrote about, so I didn’t play any more.
I am interested to know if I was wrong...
I think you missed out on most of the game. (Spoilers as to the nature of the game’s deeper puzzles)
“Fez is more about cryptography than it is platforming.”
That’s the reason I don’t like it.
The game changes the nature of its puzzles abruptly. The players come for a kind of puzzle, the one they see on the trailers. They (and I) are not prepared or interested in the second kind. That’s bad game design.
(Vague spoilers about non-obvious puzzles in Fez)
I don’t remember there being an abrupt change; it felt like there were secrets under the surface. I didn’t have to read around to figure out that the game brims with coded messages, it felt like a natural part of exploring the world and understanding what happened to it. But perhaps it’s in the eye of the beholder.
FWIW I am now much more excited to play it!
Thx, will look into it some more.