I don't get why people complain about getting wet in the rain, after all water is supposed to be wet.
Considering only a 10% failure rate for each of the 5 cases (if I recall the number of cases correctly right now), the success rate over all cases comes out to be roughly these 60%. While the cases aren't completely independet (Linda Walker's trial), that gives a rough estimate of how difficult the individual cases are. For a game touting the features of 'failing is ok, the game still goes on' and 'players will solve the cases themselves', I would call that easy to pisseasy. Not to mention a sizable proportion of players might have gotten the cases wrong on purpose (as is likely the case) to see how the game handles these failures going forward.I notice that on Steam only 3/5 of all players who completed the game solved every case correctly. So we may complain that it seemed too easy but that is not a very high clearance rate.
I'm skeptical that a "sizable proportion" deliberately failed, but even if they did that means that the system worked - different players played through the game seeing different branches. It's OK for CYOAs to have obviously wrong choices that lead to bad endings.Not to mention a sizable proportion of players might have gotten the cases wrong on purpose (as is likely the case) to see how the game handles these failures going forward.
Shrug. The game didn't tout the feature that "cases are brutally difficult and only a genius can solve them all". Failing is ok, the game does go on, and players do solve the cases themselves (and often fail them, whether by choice or by incompetence, we don't know). As far as I can see, it lives up to its intent and every promise.Considering only a 10% failure rate for each of the 5 cases (if I recall the number of cases correctly right now), the success rate over all cases comes out to be roughly these 60%. While the cases aren't completely independet (Linda Walker's trial), that gives a rough estimate of how difficult the individual cases are. For a game touting the features of 'failing is ok, the game still goes on' and 'players will solve the cases themselves', I would call that easy to pisseasy.
Agreed, nothing wrong with that, but you are missing the point. People intentionally solving cases the wrong way lowers 'perfect' completion rate without this being caused by the difficulty. Nothing conclusive, if noone did it, the rest of my argument still stands, but the larger the proportion of people knowingly taking wrong solutions, the stronger the argument for the game being pisseasy.I'm skeptical that a "sizable proportion" deliberately failed, but even if they did that means that the system worked - different players played through the game seeing different branches. It's OK for CYOAs to have obviously wrong choices that lead to bad endings.
There are approaches to difficulty between 'only geniuses can solve this' and 'Should I put the round, the rectangular or the triangular peg in the round hole?' I think the game falls squarely into the latter for reasons stated earlier in the thread and would have hoped for something more difficult when it comes to solving the cases myself. Since failure doesn't equate to a dead end it wouldn't even mean locking those unable to correctly solve the cases out of completing the game, so I would have expected the game to be a little more difficult on average than less. As it is, you solve the cases yourself in the meaning that you the player do the clicking. So no, I don't see this promise fulfilled except in the barest, most literal interpretation possible.Shrug. The game didn't tout the feature that "cases are brutally difficult and only a genius can solve them all". Failing is ok, the game does go on, and players do solve the cases themselves (and often fail them, whether by choice or by incompetence, we don't know). As far as I can see, it lives up to its intent and every promise.