Dead!

[Pillock]

Wow, the Aurora. It seems to be powering the electricity. Hmmm, I wonder if that radio works, then? I'll go and have a look. Now, where was it? Over there, I think, near the...
"Holy shit, that's hot!"
Affliction: Burns.
You Faded Into The Long Dark.

......

... What? What the hell just happened? I was on full health, wasn't I? Or was I? I can't remember if I checked my condition after passing out from the knock on the head. I definitely had checked my status when I woke up, because I knew I was a bit tired, and I'd also had to drink to top up my thirst. I would have noticed if my condition had got really low while I was passed out, wouldn't I? Anyway, to just suddenly die like that without warning? I don't even know what it was that burned me.

Well. I guess it does present a good opportunity for me to give some general feedback about what I think of Wintermute so far. I'd got some way in to the Luminance Fugue episode (I still don't really know what those words mean when put together like that) and had made a fairly thorough job of completing the previous chapter, I think. I don't feel like trying again from a earlier save because, well, I'm dead. I failed: that story is over. I'd rather start again and maybe try and do things a bit differently next time.

But to be honest, I'm not desperate to rush back into it to find out what happens. I may well park it for the time being and go and play Survivor Mode. The narrative hasn't succeeded in pulling me in and gripping me; I haven't experienced any particularly exciting or tense moments yet, nothing that's put me on edge or that's challenged me; I haven't been given any difficult moral choices to make, or any choices at all, really; I haven't managed to engage with or been compelled to care about any of the characters, playable or non-playable, who I've encountered; I never felt as though I was in any danger whatsoever from falling to any of the core survival problems - hunger, thirst, cold, rest. And then I suddenly died without warning to some unknown burny thing. Ah well.

My over-arching feeling so far has in fact been that I've been playing a rather extended tutorial: dutifully fulfilling a linear series of prescribed tasks so that I can get past the preamble and go on to the main course - the real substance of the game that's hopefully more interesting and engaging later. But an episode-and-a-half in, I still haven't found it yet. "How far will you go to survive?" the game's tagline asks you. Well, I don't know - as far as the game tells me to, I suppose. I haven't had the chance to answer this question for myself, because I haven't been presented with any form of meaningful dilemma.

I really, really don't want it sound like I'm rubbishing the whole project that Hinterland has spent years lovingly working their hearts out to bring to us. But I am going to concentrate mostly on highlighting where I see shortfalls in Wintermute's execution and delivery, where its potential hasn't been realised as far as I think it could have been, and hopefully making some suggestions that could improve the experience for future episodes. I love The Long Dark's premise, its scenario, setting and ambience; and I especially love the in-your-face contrast between beauty and brutality that confronts the player as they wander the wilderness. And while Wintermute does maintain that same atmosphere, the pacing of the narrative is frustratingly slow, aspects of the plot you have to follow are jarringly illogical and the dialogue is beset with continuity problems arising from any tiny deviation that the player might make from the intended order and method of completing tasks. Even some of the mechanics and the UI actually serve to detract from the feeling of involvement in a story.

The rest of this post is going to contain direct reference to events and missions in Episodes 1 and 2, so if you don't want it spoiled, you probably don't want to read any further. 

The thing that got me hooked into The Long Dark in the first place was the uncompromising lack of any hand-holding offered to the player: you're dumped into the middle of the a hostile environment with very little equipment and no prior instruction, and you have to survive. Nature is harsh: deal with it. You die, but you learn enough from your brief initial attempts to convince you that you can do better next time. You realise that you are too cold, so you look for solutions: fire, shelter, clothing. You're hungry so you look for food: animals, plants, maybe scavenged loot. A cursory glance around the menu when you light your first fire will teach you that you can melt snow in order to quench your thirst. Tiredness is obviously solved by rest, and your bedroll is a prominent part of your starting inventory. It's obvious and it's intuitive and it's simple to grasp the concept of survival, but it's difficult and takes practice to achieve a sustainable balance between these needs while avoiding the dangers all around you; and that's the appeal that creates replayability. And it's great.

Right from the start, Wintermute is the opposite of this. It tells you exactly what to do, even to the extent that if you try to improvise or use your own intuition you're bluntly told that it's not allowed. Do as you're told and don't try to be clever. This continues throughout Episode 1 and into Episode 2, well beyond the initial phase around the plane crash site where it can be passed off as a genuine tutorial. The player really doesn't need this level of schooling, and the game would be much more exciting if the player were left to find things out for themselves. And there are aspects of the UI that exacerbate this, as I mentioned before. The map is the prime candidate: where did you get it from in the first place? It tells you where everything is before you've had the chance to find it for yourself. It even tells you where to go for your mission objectives, which removes any need for real exploration, or for working things out through your own efforts. Then there's the journal screen: here you can find a list of prizes that you can win by bribing the local gameplay-instructor with easily-acquired treats. The 'Trust' mechanic is a fantastic idea with an incredible potential for creating thoughtful, dynamic moral choices that could change the direction and/or atmosphere of a play-through. But it doesn't do that; it's just a handful of largely unnecessary side-missions that don't affect anything else. In no way does spamming bandages out of the mountains of available cloth in the game so that you can get your hands on a fancy pair of mountaineering boots feel like you're genuinely winning the character's trust through your good deeds; nor does winning their trust (or losing it) seem to have any impact on how they interact with you or what they ask you to do in the main quest. I can't help feeling that it's a huge missed opportunity, and the fact that the requirements and rewards for each Trust mission are mapped out for you from the beginning makes it all feel shallow and false.

I also dislike that the "collectible" items do not form part of your main inventory. By the time I was killed, I was carrying a very large amount of this stuff, including several large, heavy, bulky items, which didn't affect me on my travels at all. If carrying Astrid's briefcase is essential to the story, there are better ways of reminding (or forcing) the player not to leave it behind when they transition between levels; while I'm carrying Jeremiah's rifle, it becomes a mysterious ghost item which I cannot use, even after I've repaired it (I have deliberately carried ammo along with me for the purpose of using it on my way back); the medical kit from the Dam doesn't exist either - what if I'd got seriously injured on my back to the Trapper's homestead and not had anything else? Would I not have maybe wanted to use the supplies on myself?

As it happened, I had loads of medical supplies already, so the trip to the dam was unnecessary in the first place.
"Get to the Dam. Need Meds. Aaarrrgghh."
"It's OK, mate, I've got 4 bottles of painkillers, 5 bottles of antibiotics, enough antiseptic to drown a deer, a whole bunch of bandages and 4 emergency stims right here. You'll be fine."
"Don't argue with me boy. I need you to fetch me the morphine that I'll refuse to use anyway."

In a similar vein:
"You'll need a knife and a hatchet to survive out here."
"I'm still on the look-out for them... ...Oh, no sorry, I must have forgotten: I've got two hatchets already, and I just found a brand new hunting knife in one of those fishing huts. I'm set."
"Go to the old farmstead. There is a forge there with blueprints for making them."
"Yeah, but I don't need to because I just said... nevermind."

Or:
"The farmer is... dead. I think the wolves got him."
Really? How did Will know that? I didn't see any dead farmer. Oh, maybe that's what the wolf in the barn was munching on? But I didn't go in there so couldn't possibly have known that.

There are numerous other instances where I found myself questioning the logic of the dialogue and the tasks I was being asked to carry out; questioning why I couldn't use this or that item; why I'm not allowed to go in here yet; why this character only eats MREs and that one only eats pork and beans; why Will trips over a corpse and bangs his head while he's stumbling about in the dark and didn't see it, when in fact I was using a lantern at the time and was deliberately approaching the body in order to search it. It felt as though I was battling with the storyline rather than participating in it, tiptoeing around the maps and trying to obey all the rules and instructions to the letter, for fear that any tiny deviation or error would upset the plot and cause it not to make sense. On top of that, there is no urgency or tension at all. Even when the mission instructions tell you must quickly collect firewood before Old Bag's fire goes out, or get Jeremiah's medication before he dies, you know in the back of your mind that it really doesn't matter how long you take: they'll still be there even if you leave them for a month.

I've already written far more than I was intending to here, and apologies if it began to descend into a bit of a rant. I haven't completed Episode 2, so perhaps something was about to happen that would have changed my perception of the game, had I not succumbed to Sudden Violent Inadvertent Treading On The Wrong Bit Of Scenery syndrome - I don't know. If the game was about to come alive and become engaging and challenging and I should have had more patience, then I'm sorry. But I can only respond to what I've experienced, and I think I've seen a good 2 thirds of what's available to us. I'll sum up with some general suggestions - pleas of sorts - to the developers:
Please, please, please just trust your player base a bit more. We are not idiots: we can handle a little bit of difficulty. We can accept failure. Would it be possible to allow some missions to be failed and for the quest to take a different turn as a result? To make the dialogue and plot just a tiny bit more dynamic so that it can cope with our own individual decisions? Let us improvise. Give us some puzzles to solve. We don't need to be shown in advance how to do everything and where - a bit of trial and error, searching for answers, exploring by ourselves, using our noggin to complete objectives: this would make the game much, much more fun. The narrative is so fixed and inflexible that I don't feel like I'm even involved in it. I don't feel that the decisions I take or the successes I achieve or the mistakes I make are having any consequence whatever to Will's fate or to Astrid's. And that's leading me not to care about seeing what happens to them. Which is a big shame.

[LucidFugue]

I had much the same experience. I could feel the author's attempts to guide the experience, but they are wrestling with a survival simulation. I feel like it's out of their control and that hasn't been reconciled. The attempts to drive tension or urgency come off as disingenuous and manufactured. They run against the day by day survival that is the basic rhythm of the game. 

It's weird. I went back and looked at the original pitch and it's all there. They always wanted a survival simulation just like what they have built. They always wanted to tell a compelling story within that world. 

The success of the game has allowed their vision to expand through its development... But I'm wondering what aspects expanded and what hasn't kept pace. Raphael was always so keen that the story was the goal and the sandbox was originally a test bed for mechanics. 

But the story just doesn't feel like it works with the game they have built. The world building works. The lore, the story lines that are about the island itself and its inhabitants. But the main plot line feels like it belongs in a 2 hour movie, not a 15 hour slow, epic journey. 

[Pablo the Argentinian]

i like your suggestions mate.and i am part of that feeling (i did finished the 2 chapters)for the most part i think the game needs a little pulish and bug cleaning..but i also found people having some serius problems  for totally opposed reasons...check this out...

so i understand why they are aiming so low on tutorials and basic gameplay (newcomers aside experience players)

dont getme wrong .im not trying to disregard your well explained post,just point out why the studio has to do some things like this...as i said i am part of the people who felt like you at first 

[Pillock]

1 hour ago, Pablo the Argentinian said:

so i understand why they are aiming so low on tutorials

I understand the reasoning, but I don't agree with it. I don't see why you need two whole episodes out of 5 to act as tutorials for new players.

The majority of the playerbase has been playing the game pre-launch, and knows all this stuff already. Besides, even if you are new, the survival mechanics are intuitive enough for you to figure them out with a bit of trial and error and common sense. There's nothing wrong with a bit of failure, dying and restarting if you're a new player. That, as I said, is what appealed to me about the game in the first place.

It's too guided, too rigid. There's no room for the player to experiment and enjoy the feeling of freedom and exploration of the environment that you get from Survivor Mode.

I also get that the main narrative has to be fixed, and certain requirements have to be set so that the player fulfils them to make progress. But there's no room for manoeuvre at all. It needs more flexibility and options within that narrative so that the player feels like they're actually affecting what happens. It doesn't feel interactive; it doesn't feel like a game:

1 hour ago, LucidFugue said:

But the main plot line feels like it belongs in a 2 hour movie, not a 15 hour slow, epic journey. 

[Dougie]

The Survivor Sandbox is what perked my interest, and addicted me to the game. It is not linear, so you do what you do to survive.  That's what I thought would be brought into the storyline.   Sure, you need a plot, a beginning and an end to the story, but it should have been played out like the Sandbox.  I can say that I will still spend more time in the Sandbox than in the story.

[RossBondReturns]

Hmm sound to me like you just stopped before a major "acceleration" danger was introduced in the story arc. It also sounds like you electrocuted yourself by accident on sparking cables.

What needs to be understood here is how a story generally unfolds as a screenwriter I use this all the time.

Generally there is a "Time Before" aka now where things are normal and working... or in the Game the flashback/Cut sceens.

The world now: The game we are experiencing along with Will et all. (More on that later).

The World After: The world that Will (and presumably Astrid) inhabit after the end game.

 

The world now if told correctly will feature a series of Accelerated Challenge Scenarios featuring the Antagonist (Mother Nature) that both build a knowledge set and challenge and potentially bring to near defeat our protagonist (Will in Episodes 1 and 2 etc the rest of the game).

Each of these Accelerated Challenge Scenarios will build or change our character by teaching them something new. Even rudimentary ones like those before Milton teach new players something new.

Then we have compounded acceleration problems, including situational ones, natural ones, or combinations thereof. These are designed to challenge and stimulate the player but most importantly (in film) to change the protagonist.

Will's skills unlock as he learns, as he gains the trust of others and receives better equipment etc.

As we tackle the remaining 3 Episodes I can flat out guarantee you that we'll get to a point where the outlook looks so darned bleak that the Protagonist has a very slim chance of survival. This is storytelling.

As it is I feel that Hinterland has done an outstanding job of marrying the survival aspect with the accelerating rise of tension and action within a three act story structure. In fact I am quite astonished by it in all respects so far.

 

[Pillock]

1 hour ago, RossBondReturns said:

Hmm sound to me like you just stopped before a major "acceleration" danger was introduced in the story arc.

I am more than happy if you are right about that. At the point when I died, I was nervous about the prospect of a dangerous escaped convict on the loose in the immediate area, and pretty suspicious about the wisdom of heading over to the Lodge to investigate the Forest Talkers at that point. But this only served to increase my frustration at the fact that I wasn't allowed to use the rifle which I'd just successfully repaired. And the fact that the aurora event was so clumsily introduced. (Obviously, instant death from electrocution is little aggravating as well.)

I'm not criticising the actual content of the story's plot, really: I simply don't know enough about it yet. But I do think that the way it connects to what we as players are asked to do is a bit dissatisfying, and feels clunky. An episode-and-a-half to get to the exciting bit is too long for me when you've only got 2 to play with right now, and only 5 in total. "Do Not Go Gentle" is just flat-out boring: it's lacking challenge and decision-making opportunities and it's riddled with continuity problems and questionable logic. What's more, it's supposed to be one fifth of the entire game, and because "Luminance Fugue" starts off in the same vein, I don't think it encourages players to persevere if they reach a stumbling block, as I did.

I think it needs to get moving much more quickly, as well as allow for much greater flexibility in the way the relatively unpredictable actions of the player rub up against the completely set-in-stone nature of the cutscenes. As a 3-act story (not that I know anything about that!) it may be working very well, as you say, but this is not a movie. I don't think what I've seen of it so far works terribly well as an exciting and challenging game experience.

Yet. I'm not writing it off. I'm still optimistic that it will get better.

 

Edit:

The main jist of the problem as I see it is that all the events in the story are inevitable; therefore everything that I contribute is irrelevant. I cannot plan ahead and take sensible precautions to improve my survival chances, because things that will happen will happen regardless. It doesn't matter whether I treat the NPCs kindly or unkindly because the results are the same. Why did I bother searching high and low for the hidden cache with the flaregun in it, when you don't need it in Milton and you are presented with another one at the start of Episode 2 anyway? I probably cannot avoid the escaped convict, no matter how careful I am, if he's scripted to attack me out of the blue at some predestined point. I am almost certainly going to get into a fight with a bear later on: I'm not nervous about that because I know already that I can't do anything to avoid it or to change the outcome. Because it's all in the script.

The game has taught me not to care what I do or how I behave or "how far I will go to survive", because it has also taught me that, so far at least, it won't make any difference.

[RossBondReturns]

You can't use the rifle you fixed because it's Jeremiahs...but the lodge is your destination.

 

[Pillock]

36 minutes ago, RossBondReturns said:

You can't use the rifle you fixed because it's Jeremiahs...but the lodge is your destination.

 

Why not? The ammo was mine. That's not a good reason!

I was planning to go back and see Jezza without visiting the lodge this time, because, and I quote Will here, "I must stick to the task in hand."

Anyway, I'm going to start again and see if I can cause trouble for the Old Grouch before I do that bit.

[Dougie]

What would've been wrong to give the gist of the story at the beginning, as they did, but only after you found the case, then had you go on the little or non-linear search for Astrid, encountering other random survivors that were searching for their own truths and survival. Some would be good, some bad, but you would still be a solitary person, in an open world, just encountering things with no strings attached. Eventually the storyline would need to come to an end, so the real linear bit would be near the conclusion, not throughout. 

I was attracted to the concept of the Sandbox because it was harsh and non-linear. I really hate linear games because the thinking is done for you and you must follow the bread crumbs as they are laid out. I really had higher hopes for the storyline. I will play it "just to see", but will also continue my exciting treks in the Sandbox more.

[RossBondReturns]

1 hour ago, Pillock said:

Why not? The ammo was mine. That's not a good reason!

I was planning to go back and see Jezza without visiting the lodge this time, because, and I quote Will here, "I must stick to the task in hand."

Anyway, I'm going to start again and see if I can cause trouble for the Old Grouch before I do that bit.

Sure it is. You were sent to fix Jeremiah's rifle.

At this point of the game in the night you have to use the light to make it to the lodge. At the lodge you will find your own rifle.

You will also find and learn to use the most unconventional weapon. You are flat out told to go in a certain direction bucking that direction only makes the game harder...and is logically going against all the directional, audio and lighting cues.

The survival elements are used to fit the story, they fit around the story, if you play the story mode like the sandbox against all the cues and directions, then you've the one playing against the story.

Amazingly enough the game will let you do this, you can choose to go away from the main plot line if you want...however if you do that now, by going away from the lodge (which is actually the next part of the main plotline)- since you have seen the lights (And not getting the very needed now) unconventional weapon you will make your survival much less likely.

I just cannot understand why anyone would fight the storytelling.

[Pillock]

Just now, RossBondReturns said:

Sure it is. You were sent to fix Jeremiah's rifle.

At this point of the game in the night you have to use the light to make it to the lodge. At the lodge you will find your own

rifle.

You will also find and learn to use the most unconventional. You are flat out told to go in a certain direction bucking that direction only make the game harder...and is logically going against all the directional, audio and lighting cues.

The survival elements are used to fit the story, they fit around the story, if you play the story mode like the sandbox against all the cues and directions, then you've the one playing against the story.

Amazingly enough the game will let you do this, you can choose to go away from the main plotline if you want...however if you do that now, by going away from the lodge- since you have seen the lights (And not getting the very needed now) unconventional weapon you will make your survival much less likely.

I just cannot understand why anyone would fight the storytelling.

Lalalala, I don't want to know that yet, sorry! I'll get back to you when I reach that part again.

2 minutes ago, RossBondReturns said:

I just cannot understand why anyone would fight the storytelling.

I wasn't deliberately trying to fight the storytelling in order to undermine it and pick holes. I was genuinely trying to follow it as I thought it was intended to be followed. The 'battle' I mentioned was a result of a few occasions where the dialogue didn't match what I'd previously done, or the mission didn't make sense in relation to my inventory, for example. These things lead me into the mindset that I there was a fight going on between what I interpreted as the most sensible way of completing a mission and how the game's author wanted me to do it, and this caused me to try and second guess the author in order not to disrupt the continuity. I didn't always succeed, and I definitely didn't enjoy the fact that I felt that I had to do this at all.

ie. The flexibility afforded the player in their movement around the world and order of completing tasks is not matched by the total rigidity of the script, plot and dialogue. This causes the two to clash. And when it does, it utterly breaks your suspension of disbelief and buggers up the experience.
A videogame is supposed to be an interactive experience, not a passive storytelling. 

[LucidFugue]

3 hours ago, RossBondReturns said:

As it is I feel that Hinterland has done an outstanding job of marrying the survival aspect with the accelerating rise of tension and action within a three act story structure. In fact I am quite astonished by it in all respects so far.

 

I agree that this is happening, but I'm not so sure it's a huge success.  In my write up. I talk about the conflict between the two. Ludonarrative dissonance isn't unique to TLD. There are many ways other games have sought to make their way around it. But I can't help feeling that tension between the mechanics of the world that Hinterland has built and the story they are trying to tell within it. Still really enjoying myself, but I'm not invested in the main plot line. That seems like an issue. 

[RossBondReturns]

Not meaning to spoil anything for you Pillock.

Personally I've at not time felt like banging up against the plot...it's felt like a natural flow.

In fact the only time I banged up against the plot was at this moment...heading to the lodge....because I was too dumb to lighten my load...even though I knew I would be coming back through the Maintenance Yard.

So I tried to move between the pools of light at night overloaded...and died.

I lost the tension of doing it at night as designed to learn the secret use of light.

Anyhow...good luck.

 

 

[RossBondReturns]

1 minute ago, LucidFugue said:

I agree that this is happening, but I'm not so sure it's a huge success.  In my write up. I talk about the conflict between the two. Ludonarrative dissonance isn't unique to TLD. There are many ways other games have sought to make their way around it. But I can't help feeling that tension between the mechanics of the world that Hinterland has built and the story they are trying to tell within it. Still really enjoying myself, but I'm not invested in the main plot line. That seems like an issue. 

I guess it doesn't work for everyone.

It is working for me in spades.

[Pablo the Argentinian]

i think the most simplier answer is  IT IS WHAT IT IS...maybe you are trying so hard to manipule the story telling at you will..but the story is presented this way and we got to embrace or play survival (that way you can make   your own story in the journal)..i know many players also feels like this ,but maybe this generation is used to another narrative type,another tools for story telling and maybe i dont know somehow more generic,i think its like a book,you can compare or give your toughts about it but at the end.the story is presented one way and thats it. also  i dnt know if is just luck or not but i had 2 burns from electric wires the same day iin game and didnt died,but i read another people complainng about isntant kill about it...i can say about the burns that are twice hard to cure than others injures and surely more damaging than others...as for the tutorials well i get what you mean but i do believe newcomers have a hard time trying to figure out what you suppose to do (not everyone is intuitive or used to punishing survival games) or get stressed quickly about not reacting fast enough to prevent the healt bar to drop a few numbers,.but yes i find annoying the first hours of game(and also agree about the game not teaching you where to sleep whitout a bedroll-this could get some new to the game folks really confused)maybe the game should have an option turning tutorials on and off.

finally i dont believe hinterland launched something totally diferent that they told us previously,so i dont see a reason to get anoyed or disgusted ,

just remember and never forgetti

ok sorry about that .its just the harmonic..so freaking hilarius