Judith
Posted by Derek Yu Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:55:00 GMT
Judith is a new game collaboration between Terry Cavanagh (Don’t Look Back, Pathways) and Stephen “increpare” Lavelle (Rara Racer, Opera Omnia). If the above screenshot makes you want to play, then you should play, by God! It’s good.
TIGdb: Entry for Judith
I played it, and I have no fucking idea what was happening in it. It didn’t define what was what well enough.
Good though.
that is an exciting combination of names
meh.
No gameplay, obvious plot and poor visuals.
But im sure the indie-scene will praise it anyway since it’s so “artsy” and “deep”.
That was… Interesting. I’m not sure whether I’m too thick to figure out the logical connection between the two game worlds or if the game just isn’t supposed to make a lot of sense.
I’m gonna have to play this again.
I enjoyed it. It really created a mounting sense of dread. I didn’t feel any payoff for that, but it created that feeling very well. Maybe I’m just thick.
It needs WASD and mouse look. Being desktop game (which doesn’t have any input limitations - like Flash or Java web games for example) there isn’t any reason to not have this. I don’t mind exploring the game, but it was a while since i used a keyboard only setup and it isn’t as natural to me as it used to be after playing hundreds of first person games with a WASD and mouse setup (for those who dont play imagine playing a platform game with O/P for left and right, Q/W for up and down and space to shoot - it isn’t impossible but your brain isn’t wired to play like this).
I guess expecting something “artsy”” is valid given the authors, but maybe misplaced as it seems more like something they just wanted to throw together for fun.
It borrows heavily from the story of Bluebeard, and my only real complaint is that the non-interactive sequences are jarring and irritating. Linear narrative is the bane of unique game design.
Great idea, cool simplistic visuals, lonesome atmosphere. It gave me the spooks, but it ended feeling so un-finished. I guess if you stretch really hard you can connect the dots, but it still doesn’t add up.
I hope they try another one like this though, it was a fun experience!
I thought the music was fantastic, it created a very spooky atmosphere. But I also couldn’t really connect the dots at the end.
I thought it was brilliant. Didn’t have problems understanding the story, though I sometimes lost track of who was saying what.
Bad Sector, it uses a raycasting engine.
I think the keyboard turning is intentional, you’re filled with dread every time you turn a corner, thinking that someone or something horrible will appear in your vision.
Similarly, the linearity (and the sections where you lose control) just increase the “oh no” factor. You want to do something else but the game only gives you one option.
The Story was easy enough to understand and it was okay for a concept. Linear games are fine, in fact they’re superior to those boring “free world/nothing to do” type of games. But in this game, the linear nature was annoying me, it didn’t feel like an enjoyable experience. For example, without spoilers: “I can’t take that with me, I must put it back first!” - Why not? It’s like one of those old interactive movies, that basically asked you every couple of minutes which path to take, and the wrong path always ended in a deadend, forcing you to go back. That’s a genre I don’t miss, I much prefer the modern approach of letting people go and explore those paths and then lead them back onto the mainpath.
Are you for real Jay?
Anyone who is “filled with dread” when playing this game should see a doctor.
Did a single horrifying thing appear in your vision during the whole game? Oh-noes, a crudely drawn sprite of a humanoid with some red pixels + cheesy sound effects! IM NOW FILLED WITH DREAD!
And what do you mean by “oh no”-factor?
Seriosuly, i hear alot of praise but no real arguments!
The game has a vague and not very well written story. Clumsy controls with no gameplay at all. No puzzles. The art is poorly done (I don’t mean it’s poor because it’s lo-fi, it’s just badly designed/pixeled).
So what’s left?
I really agree with jay. Maybe you just didn’t pick up on it?
The visuals don’t have to be top-notch to relay some emotion anyway. I’ve played lots of dread-inducing IF.
Could anyone that understood that story connect the dots for me? I’m seriously lost.
“Seriosuly, i hear alot of praise but no real arguments!”
I may well be completely missing the mark, here, but that may well be due to the fact that nobody was actually arguing anything.
It’s worth noting that you, yourself, did not make any arguments, real or otherwise, in the second paragraph of your comment. It’s obvious that you were implying that crudely-drawn sprites and cheesy sound effects could never fill you/anyone with dread, but I’m quite in the dark as far as your reasoning goes.
I wonder, do you have any imagination? Have you ever used it before? It isn’t looking that way, unfortunately.
Further points:
The story had me going for a while, but I thought the ending was really weak.
If nothing else, I have to hand it to the authors, this game must have been a ton of fun to make. I’m a bit jealous on that count.
The game was, interesting, the theme was very unsettling. The bit at the end when you found Emily and she just acted as if everything was fine was very odd, how the hell did she get so lost that she ended up there. I felt very weirded out then, and expected something to happen, but the game just ended. Very weird.
Obviously if you go into this expecting a game you’re going to be disappointed - it isn’t one, and it’s probably unfair to judge it as such (there is no real choice involved, and the only way you can actually ‘lose’ is by getting bored enough to quit). As an experimental story-delivery system, on the other hand, it’s interesting. But, only interesting; without any attempt at gameplay the whole thing rides on the story, which is sadly no masterpiece and to be honest is not really helped by the delivery format, and once you figure out the way it works (trudge into secret passage, look behind newly unlocked door, press space, trudge out, repeat) any atmosphere it might have quickly evaporates.
I found it quite good. Like it was said before, the fact that you guide Judith’s choices, even though there’s only one valid, makes you enter on her mind and, in my case, it did trigger some sense of guilt. I must admit though that either I don’t understand the ending or it’s really leaving the player on its hunger. Anyone who expects a traditional game is bound to be disappointed - it’s more of an interactive short story.
I felt very uneasy playing this game, really made me feel uncomfortable for some reason. Which is reason enough to play it if you ask me ^_^
@Corpus: “Bad Sector, it uses a raycasting engine.”
So? I’m not talking about vertical mouse look (altough somewhat possible), but horizontal. Just check the mouse X’s difference between game updates (not frame updates) and add it to the “rotate” (or “turning” or “cameraangle” or whatever is used) and make sure that the mouse doesn’t get stuck at the edges of the screen (an easy method to do that is to keep the mouse at the center of the screen once you use the delta). SDL even has support for this without the need to keep track of the mouse coordinates: just use xdelta (or whatever is called - check the mouse structures).
I’ve made it at the past with a raycasting engine and i know its possible and works much better than plain keyboard controls.
I am going to spoil it, since people have already spoiled a bit.
I liked the atmosphere, it was definitly disturbing and sad. However, I thought it would be cool if the action of one character, would determine which one of the two characters would live. That is what I thought the game is about, but I guess it was just linear.
25th
Okay.
I didn’t get the story at all. There was a lot of repetition, but at least it didn’t get too boring.
Why did he simply not make the player able to examine locked doors at first (which I like) but then went the old, annoying way of making the player check every single one every time?
The engine itself is nice, I liked the textures, the music and the sounds. (Especially the door opening one, that one is gold.)
What I didn’t like were the sprites. They just looked out of place in that environment.
In the beginning I was able to bug the camera by walking alongside the wall. http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6587/judithu.jpg
All in all a good experience, but I can’t see anything special about it.
I thought the game was creepy enough. I like to imagine there’s more to the story then I think but I think maybe the back story there is just to lend suspense to the fore story.
The detraction of control is amusing and certainly the last point where you have only one choice is poignant. Especially from a player’s perspective one more or less knows what will happen.
Side note: Aren’t we all a sizable chunk of the indie community? Talking about how the indie community will accept it as if it excludes us is a little odd…
Bad Sector: you want WASD? Why would that make this a better experience? I think you missed the point.
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD
@Pizzaboy:
There are three concurrent storylines in this game:
1: The story of Emily and Jeff, the present-day(ish) couple who are cheating on their spouses to come to the castle.
2: The story of Judith and her unnamed husband, set in the past.
3: The dream Judith has.
Emily and Jeff are looking to keep their secret love in the castle, Jeff loses Emily somewhere in the castle, and eventually finds her.
Judith keeps looking through her husband’s dirty laundry in the castle, and is eventually locked away in the room Jeff finds Emily in.
The dream Judith has is of a man mourning the loss of his dead wife.
The tagline says that this game is about control, and it is 100% correct. Secrets and control (and what is a secret but an attempt to control information) are what the two major plotlines have in common. Jeff and Emily go into the castle to keep their love a secret, and Judith tries to find out her husband’s secrets. As we control Judith, we are given less and less control over what she does in the much-maligned sections where we watch what she does, because the guilt of her actions drives her forwards. We lose control of her as she loses control of herself. Her husband also feels out of control, he cannot allow himself to trust her with all of his secrets, and locks her away forever. (This comes from Judith’s dreams, which are about her husband.)
Emily and Jeff are doing this in a sense to each other by both staying in the castle. They have locked eachother away in secrecy.
tl;dr All of the game’s storylines feed into each other as a commentary on secrecy as a trap which progressively limits our control over what we do.
@Alex May: How is having more intuitive controls “missing the point”? I didn’t commented on the game itself (which seems nice, although i’m in constant struggle with the controls to enjoy it). I’m commenting on the controls which are plainly bad.
By the way, doom didn’t have a mouse and it was just fine without it.
It’s like 5 minutes long dude. You don’t need to be in your FPS comfort zone.
this game sucks big time
@Guy: Doom did have a mouse, and Wolfenstein 3D too! In Doom (not in wolf though) you can even configure it to use WASD (in fact this is how the version that comes with Steam is preconfigured).
@Alex May: How is the game’s length relevant to the controls? Anyway i tried to play the game and it took me more than five minutes (not finished it).
You know its not like this is the only game around and i don’t have to comment on it. I’m just /contributing/ my opinions and suggestions on the game so it can be a little better because otherwise the game seems to be interesting.
I could just download the game, see that the controls are bad and move on without saying anything. But how that would help the developer? Instead i’m trying to make a strong point about the controls so the next game the developers make which uses a similar environment (first person /something/) will have better controls, if not fix this game. And beyond that, others who might make something similar will see that there /is/ someone complaining about the controls, so it /does/ matter.
If nobody pointed out the negative aspects of games, then it is possible that the people who made the games wouldn’t realize these aspects and continue including them in future games.
When i read my posts again i have to apologize for being a bit annoyed/hostile.
Mview of the game remains the same. I respect the fact that other people might enjoy it for reasons i can’t understand.
I just feel that games like these get hyped way to much by indie-blogs and forums.
I think this is a case where the controls really fit the game. Not only is using the arrow keys kinda retro like the art of the game, they’re also a little clumsy because you can’t look in all directions or turn around quickly etc. which really aids in creating atmosphere. Trying to achieve that effect with a mouse would just be friggin’ annoying.
Anyway, the game is much more than the sum of its parts. The controls are nearly irrelevent because there’s no gameplay that requires the razor-sharp movements of a mouse or anything and the arrow keys do what they’re supposed to.
I liked it. I was confused initially, but I figured out the story. It was an enjoyable way to spend half an hour.
Having liked it, however, doesn’t mean I think it’s worth wasting time arguing with other people over whether my whole basis for liking it was because it was “artsy” (an offensive enough assertion as it is a poorly based one). Reading this thread has shown that the people who are making accusations about the poorness of this game are by far using worse argumentative methods than those who are defending the basis of their enjoyment of the game using reasons, neverminding the fact that it’s a matter of taste and telling the people that liked it why their taste is wrong is a frivolous and stupid argument in the first place.
I feel like this game would have been better if my hand was further west on the keyboard. Pls fix. Thanks
@Bad Sector IIRC, doom originally didn’t have a mouse. You also couldn’t look up or down. Though I remember that on some remake version you could look up and down. So, perhaps on some remake version for windows XP, they added the mouse support. Besides, even if there was a mouse support, you didn’t need the mouse to play the game. It might have been better playing without the mouse.
The music was nice.
40th
@Bad Sector
Shut up about your mouse and WASD FFS!
Nice game, but I think the two different stories should have different textures, so the later castle looks more run down, I got a bit confused as to who I was at some points
@dog partae, I didn’t think the story had a past/present relation. Because after judith opened the door to the prisoner, it became open to that married guy. Or I didn’t understand that bit?
“I just feel that games like these get hyped way to much by indie-blogs and forums.”
“No gameplay, obvious plot and poor visuals.”
“But im sure the indie-scene will praise it anyway since it’s so “artsy” and “deep”.”
Maybe because indie games are largely about doing things that the mainstream industry doesn’t? It sounds like you enjoy mainstream games. Why not play those instead? Games like these are for people who are kind of tired of mainstream games and want something different.
It just doesn’t make much sense to me to play games that you know you won’t like and then complain about them. You’ve probably played games by increpare and terry previously, right? So why keep playing them if they’re not your thing? If it looks like a game you won’t enjoy, just pass on by.
Maybe it’s really time games moved past the requirement of being “fun.” Not to say that I didn’t enjoy Judith - after a second playthrough, the depth of the narrative floored me - but as far as interactivity goes, it *is* practically nonexistent.
But somewhere in this medium’s history, we got it into our heads that a game HAS to be entertaining, and that ignores the medium’s greatest strength.
It’s greatest strength is allowing you to be something else. Or to do something you can’t. And sometimes those things are things you don’t want to be or do. But isn’t your experience furthered all the more for it?
also asking for mouselook in this game is like asking why in gran turismo i can’t get out of my car
Game’s have always been about entertainment, perhaps that’s why people are kinda expecting entertainment from it. Don’t be as arrogant to think you could redefine the century old definition of game. And for no valid reason either.
Just call it Visual Novel and no one would comment on the lack of interactivity. Hell, pick a new term like “Art Experience”, that would fit a lot better than trying to label it game - something it doesn’t excel in or even fits into.
@jimmythechang Asking for mouselook in this “game” is like asking why there is no manual gearshifting in gran turismo (I guess there is). It can do without, but it would be finer with.
The keyboard control scheme is fine in my opinion. I can’t see why one would cry for ASDW+mouse when you use it only to move around in two dimensions. It’s easy to adapt to it also. So no real reason to change to ASDW+mouse.
The game took me longer than five minutes, but I see that as a very good thing. It did immerse me into the story but I agree that better ending could strengthen whole experience. But, oh, well, nothing is perfect.
The strongest point of this game, in my opinion, is cinematic gameplay set in a game using raycasting renderer. That isn’t something I have seen before and it works quite well.
I did notice several minor issues such as frameskipping in garden, but it wasn’t nothing serious.
This is my favorite game of terry/increpares so far! Arguing over it is stupid. You either like it or you didnt. What’s the big deal?
Maskfield, very good explination.
That game was fantastic.
Despite the lo-fi, gritty graphics, I have to say that this little piece definitely made my night.
A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD!
@Bad Sector, this isn’t an FPS, and I think being forced to turn around slowly really adds to the gameplay, as when I first heard the moans of the prisoner, I was seriously terrified of turning around. Since I finished it on one stand, I couldn’t possibly know if there was something behind me or not, just waiting to bring a huge “GAME OVER” to my face.
The game had a very, very unnerving atmosphere and I played it just now, in my dark room, head phones on before I’m going to bed. I had a sense of dread through out the experience. I have a feeling that I’ll dream about this, so congratulations on that; the game gets full score on the atmoshpere in my book.
And for the record, I’m not the type to get scared watching scary movies, but games such as Silent Hill really disturb me, in the finest sense of the word.
The sound design and audio in general was pretty much perfectly executed, so a big cheers for that.
The story was at first quite confusing but it ties up nicely in the end, although, the ending was a bit predictable.
All in all, and for the tl;dr folk: it’s a really good interactive story to waltz through.
Not an interactive story. The story never branches.
Though I did enjoy it and experienced a subtle and enjoyable sense of dread. So well done to the authors.
However I was a bit disappointed by the completely wrong “interactive fiction” tag. This was as interactive as a paperback novel. In the sense of, “hey I can interact with this page all I want before reading the next one!”
@mirosurabu: Orcs & Elves on mobile phones use a raycasting engine and has such “cinematic” moments. Yes its not made by a couple of indies, but that doesn’t invalidate the precedence. Not that it matters anyway.
@Lynchpin: WHEN did i say that i expected this to be a FPS? I never did. In fact i had a non-shooter idea for a first person game, for which i wrote the RayFaster engine although i decided to make a more action oriented game later (i still plan to make the original game at some point though). Its not like i think that first person perspective = FPS.
Now if you check the above link, you’ll notice that i don’t use mouse look. But this is because of Flash limitations - i would (nearly) kill to have mouse look in there. I do use mouse though, although i doubt my use makes any sense with Judith. However as i said, there isn’t any technical reason (unlike my case) to not use mouse look and i don’t really buy into “adds to the gameplay” stuff. If a game has crippled controls by design, then the design is bad. However i don’t believe that because otherwise the game seems good.
Of course its always possible that my frustration stems from my inability to add mouse look in Flash, but i really really believe that any first person game feels better with mouse look because the mouse is currently the best analog input device every PC has. In the example you gave about the sound, i would move the mouse to turn around quickly by instinct, knowing exactly how much to move the mouse to stop there - analog input (incidentally, to make up for the lag of mouse look in Rombo i used Shift as a “quick turn” key that turn 180 degrees - some people told me that this actually saved them a couple of times).
I appreciated the atmosphere, very nice music. However I am unpleased with what many have complained about already, that we’re powerless to do anything not pre-arranged by the author. There isn’t even an opportunity to get lost in the tiny castle and set path. It takes me out of the story knowing that every time I woke up “ok this is where I have to go.”
@AmmEn: Well it wouldn’t be a redefinition - there’s always going to be a place in games (and in my heart) for God Hand and other things where you just whoop ass. I just don’t feel the urge to put everything into a labeled can and say “this is an art game” and “this is a commentary on such-and-such.” Plus, take movies for instance: as a medium that originated as pure entertainment, with flipbooks and nickelodeons and silent films, look where it ended up.
And yes, mouselook, savestates, and a run button would make the game that much more accessible, but we’re in a unique position where we can impose conscious constraints on the player. I think this is one of them.
@Annabelle: yes yes you’re absolutely right but it’s nice to stand up on the internet once in awhile
A lot of things are called a “game” which are deterministic. For instance, ever play that card game called “war” or “I declare war”? There are no choices involved, it’s fairly deterministic, but it’s still a game.
A lot of things are called a “game” which are deterministic. For instance, ever play that card game called “war” or “I declare war”? There are no choices involved, it’s fairly deterministic, but it’s still a game.
Sorry, didn’t mean to W-post.
Seriously, you don’t realize it until you’re older, but the outcome of that game’s established even before you start.
“However I am unpleased with what many have complained about already, that we’re powerless to do anything not pre-arranged by the author.”
Spoiler: “This is a game about control”
It worked. Very well. For me, at least, anyway.
Quite unnerving the way it gradually reduces your choices, the way the deeper you become involved, the less choice you find yourself with on how to progress.
I didn’t want to finish it. I’m still unsure as to whether that was because the outcome is evidently set in stone and you just know it’s not going to end well, or that I just wanted to kick back at the bastard thing for making me complicit in everything. The sort of weary resignation that I was going to have to do what the game tells me to to get some sort of closure on the story was incredibly well played out.
All in all, great stuff. Thanks Terry and Stephen for making 15 or so minutes in the early hours of the morning a whole lot more creepy.
@Bad Sector
The controls are about slowly turning a corner or turning around not knowing if you’re going to see your husband around the corner or behind you.
@whoever called me crazy.
dread was probably overstating it but the feeling of inevitability when you realize Judith is the wife in a Bluebeard style story is effective. It’s like watching characters in a horror story making stupid decisions except you’re pushing the character forward.
like RobF’s post mentions resignation.
It’s about the disparity between what you want to do (leave the house, run away) and what the game forces you to do.
See also: human campaign in warcraft 3, the path.
I liked that the husband seemed to be sad.
WASD is for homosexuals.
STORY: I’m going to explain it because obviously a lot of you didn’t get it
SPOILERS
The whole story is a metaphor for the rise of USSR in the early 20s. Emily is an obvious stand up for Stalin and Judith is the people struggling against evil forces (the black lake is my favorite, it is a metaphor for Beria’s secret police and at the same time an ominous foreboding for Chernobyl, as a glimpse into (an alternate?) future). As for the player, you are noone else than Hitler, and your illegal love affair with Amily can only lead to bad things (i.e 11 million dead mujiks)
Good sector, no. It is a fairy tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard
(Mooched this info off someone at indiegames, to lazy to find out who the commenter was)
Slightly entertaining,. almost thought provolking, in the end though, left me dissatisfied. :( Why not just be machinima? or a story made from plan old words?? I didn’t feel any ‘loss of control’ when it was essentialy on rails from the start, and therefor never really seemed to have much ‘control’. I tend to agree with AmnEn, to me ‘game’ implies some ‘play’,. not just; do what you must to reach the only end to the story,. I know on some level most games require some form of this mechanic, however a ‘game’ is less about the ends and more about the PROCESS of getting to these ends (save the princess,.etc.) to remove the process and ONLY provide the ends while requireing the drudgery of movements to get there,. is it still a game?? In the old card game the process is the random unfolding and interaction between the human players,.
and technecly- 11mb? come on! that is needless blot, no need for that! One note sample and a list of notes and timing would have sufficed for the 10mb of nearly identical music stabs,.
This game was fun. I enjoyed discovering the story FPS style. It was creepy. Reminded me of playing Wolfenstein 3D.
Giving the player options that affect the ending of the story would be fun too, but that would be a different game. You wouldn’t be able to achieve quite the same effect as the strictly linear play chosen.
One word: Boring.
Just felt like a pretentious display of “look how deep we are” instead of a game. I can’t even call this a game really, it’s a BARELY interactive short story. Come on kids, get your shit together and stop being pretentious twats.
Makes me wonder if the indie game scene is going to end up like the indie music scene: “We’re so meaningful and deep. It doesn’t matter that we don’t have any clue as to what we’re doing”?
If so I fear the worst for gaming.
so wat should we do then
Bor: kill yourself
As long as it’s free and interesting, that’s all I care about.
I agree with other posters on the creep-factor of this game. I was expecting this to be an interactive cheap scare when Judith started ignoring obvious signs that her husband was most likely a psychopath, but instead I got Bluebeard as a first-person pseudoadventure. I like it. It was different. Certainly not the sort of game I’d like to play all the time, but a fun little diversion.
Also, casual troll is caaaasual.
To enjoy this game you have to leave your cynicism and preconceptions at the door. Silence and a dark room also highly recommended.
@Bor
The kind of unnecessarily hateful shit you just wrote is what makes me fear the worst for gaming and humanity in general :)
Go and look in the mirror and read that post out to yourself, and see if you can look yourself in the eye while you do it.
http://tinyurl.com/crwvyu D:
Ah, look at the fanboys jumping out to save the day. If you kids can’t take criticism or more to the point: if you can’t take criticism without it being sugar coated then you really need to turn off your computer and hide under your bed. The world’s full of scary monsters that might dare to have an opposing opinion.
Let me just sum it for you: If it’s indie, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s good. Conversely if it’s mainstream-commercial, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s bad.
@jimmythechang: That’s the $1,000,000 question isn’t it?But at least you’re asking.
@Person: This casual troll is all about being casual. Thanks for noticing.
@Alex: I took your advice. Honestly I fell to the floor wept like a baby after reading it aloud. I realized what a horrible monster I am. Thank you for saving my soul. I’M A BELIEVER NOW!!! HALLELUJAH!! Actually, on second thought I still think the game is shit.
@sinoth (you’re my favorite): Aww poor baby. Did I hurt your tender feelings? Are you going to emo-cry now? Maybe if you cut yourself while listening to some my chemical romance you’ll feel better.
Spoilers ahead. I enjoyed the “game.” Maskfield’s analysis is spot on.
When the game gets to the one option it’s a real, “no! Don’t do it!” shouting at the screen moment for me. The story wasn’t all that deep. It could have used one more twist near the end - maybe one that’s less of a cliche than a happily ever after. But, for what it was, the delivery worked for the story. Crappy controls and all.
I’m glad TIGsource posted this. Maybe this isn’t the greatest game ever made and maybe you have an IQ above 80 and saw the game’s twist coming a mile away but if TIGsource didn’t give this game a shoutout I would not be up at three in the morning playing an experimental “game.” Isn’t that what indie gaming is all about?
Thanks TIGsource for covering a quirky experimental game. Maybe it wasn’t fun, but it was entertaining.
Bor, I know you appreciate un-sugary honesty, so here you go:
You barely had an argument. You made two points: 1. that games should have a certain level of interactivity to be considered a good game, and 2. that the indie games scene was in danger of becoming overly self-important, like the indie music scene. Both points are valid, if slightly shaky, and you may have actually convinced someone if you had spent some time elaborating on them instead of being scurrilous.
Your reply to your detractors, though, was unequivocably twattish. The “fanboys” defense is played out, it’s a cop-out, and it reflects poorly on you that you have to pretend like you’re being ganged up on because you don’t have any real answers. Seriously, man (or woman) up.
@Bor: A bad indie game, IMO? Eternity’s Child. Ijji. This really isn’t a game. More or less an experiment, it seems.
I think there’s a place for games, indie or not, that simply tell a story, convey a feeling, or a certain atmosphere. So long as there is a reason for the interaction, and it’s not simply “something for the player to do” in between the narrative. In Judith’s case, the mechanics feel thought-out and relevant to the storytelling, and the controls feel very deliberate to create a certain mood. One metric I like to use to valuate something is whether it would be more engaging or interesting in another medium, e.g. as a book, comic, movie, or whatever. In Judith’s case, I don’t think it would have made the transition intact.
What I DON’T like are games that dilute the interaction with truly non-interactive, meaningless exercises, like tutorials, long dialogues, and cutscenes that are put in place simply as a lazy way of conveying the narrative or preventing the player from becoming frustrated. Judith employs non-interaction with a purpose, however (see Maskfield’s interpretation). It’s also a relatively cohesive and “pure” experience with very little filler, IMHO.
What if Bor is a member of an alien species that reproduces via parthogenesis? What do we call Bor then?
I’m totally with Bor on this one. I feel like whichever drooling nerdsteins made this game were, like, trying to be clever, or something. Yeah, whatever, geeks. Why don’t you go and swot out an essay or two? I’ll just be on the field, playing football, kissing cheerleaders and being awesome. Let me know when you grow a pair, right?
Nerdsteins.
I’m not only indie, but also postmodern.
This “game” really, really sucks.
The uninteresting mechanics, dull environs, and trite storyline all make for the most jive, time-wasting game experience I’ve had in months. A game’s quality is not inversely proportional to its simplicity.
I don’t mean to insult the authors, as both have done far better before.
Interactive story is not same as branching story or high-agency fiction. Judith is clearly interactive - you move around, you have limited sense of exploration and so on.
@Bad Sector: Haven’t played the game you mention, so you may actually be right that this is not something new.
I really enjoyed this game, kept me going till the end. Didn’t have to do any dull missions to get use to the game, just went straight in there and kept it interesting!
Games should not be about interactivity or fun. Look at the utterly despicable “mainsteam” games scene.
All the games there are focused on the lowest common denominator. They are all geared to cater to cheap thrills like “fun” or “interactivity” or “nice graphics.” How far has that got them?
We must challenge the very meaning of a game, the unspeakable atrocity of a definition brought out by that goddamned mainsteam/commerical gaming (which I hate with every single living breath). If we become anything like them, we will have failed in our mission.
Personally, I think games that try to only cater to how interactive or fun they can be are the bane of our existence. We should not be making simple platform games with “fun” controls or games that are blatant clones of already existing games. We must completely challenge the meaning of a game and make a game that resembles nothing of what our preconceived notion of a game is, even if it means that some people won’t find it fun, interesting, or even playable.
That’s what I think the purpose of the indie gaming scene should be. And I am glad to see that more and more people are beginning to make games that fit the definition I just stated right now.
Also if you think that is pretentious, stop projecting. You’re the pretentious ones with a narrow incomplete view of the potential of what a game could be. Whether you like it or not, games are art. And personally it’s about time people started making more games that prove this.
I thought it was creepy, atmospheric, and fun. The ending was a let-down, though.
ohhh nooo its a straaawmaaan
voiceoftheyoureadick: Ha, strawman? Is that the best you’ve got? What part of anything I just said is NOT true? Tell me. Don’t just try to dismiss it as rubbish because it’s too much for you to understand or comprehend.
But why not make fun games AND games that aren’t necessarily fun or interactive? There’s enough room in the world for both.
My impression is the gaming community cares too much about cultural validation. Why should it make any difference to you whether or not someone considers gaming highbrow? It shouldn’t change how you enjoy it.
“Personally, I think games that try to only cater to how interactive or fun they can be are the bane of our existence.”
Yeah, forget disease, famine, war, prejudice and the ultimate futility of our lives in an uncaring universe, it’s games that try to be fun that are really the bane of our existence. Those things are worse than AIDS.
voiceoftheindiemovement:
Thanks a lot for completely and totally validating Bor’s argument…
The people who didn’t understand what was going on are morons.
It’s a strawman, and a pretty obvious one at that.
But it makes a great point about the tragedy of a lot of “indie” gamers on the internet, weaving around some serious E-peen about how obscure, incomprehensible, or foreign games are, instead of just trying to be fun. When did indie games become indie film? As far as I know, games are about fun. You can be arty all you want, and I’ll praise you for it, but try to be entertaining at the same time.
^ That’s not fair- I’ve seen plenty of intentionally fun indie films. But yes, the anti-interactivity argument (related to the anti-fun one) has come up many times before, and I find it ridiculous because interactivity is precisely what separates gaming from other media.
indiemovement’s post was pretty hilarious. But what’s really funny is that if it wasn’t pointed out that the author was being facetious, plenty of people would seriously agree with him.
this was pretty cool, but a game this is not! at least admit that…
Games are about enjoyment. Fun and enjoyment are not the same thing.
If games were just about fun, “hardcore gamerz” wouldn’t spend all their time looking down on “casual housewivez.” There’s an element of the masochistic enjoyment of challenge and, in the case of some games (I Wanna Be The Guy, for example), sheer frustration into which fun simply does not factor.
Don’t try to respond to this by debating the definition of fun, by the way. Everyone will jeer and mock and feel horribly embarrassed for you, and it’ll be a really awful experience. Nobody wants that.
That was @TCM, by the way. Also, it’s clearly a game. quitcher rabbittin
I consider the game fun because I like the feeling of being immersed in the atmosphere. I consider that fun. Maybe it won’t end up pulling you in but it at least succeeded for me. And, in my eyes, the element that makes it interactive is not necessarily the ability to change the course of the storyline, but simply playing a role. You see the game through the characters’ eyes, control his/her movements etc. You’re still limited by the character’s motives and the environment and stuff but for 10, you are that character.
I think it’s pretty easy to make a fun platformer. I could do it no problem. Tweaking jump mechanics so that they’re fun is child’s play. Creating an emotional story through interaction, however weak the story or the interaction, is something I have a lot of respect for because it’s something I don’t consider to be easy. I couldn’t make a work like Judith, I think.
I also don’t think that people who like this sort of thing are somehow wanting all indie games to be like this. That’s a straw man argument.
I think it’s pretty disgusting to post this kind of unpleasant vitriol. The fact that these games bother people so much is pretty funny really. Your tiny minds are having so much trouble coping with the coexistence of games like Judith and ‘fun’ games, so much so that you have to put down everyone who can appreciate both types of work, and try to devalue things. I feel sorry for you guys :)
Maimed Fox, just to be clear, I was arguing against the people claiming that games absolutely have to be fun. I really enjoyed Judith.
I can appreciate that it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, by the way. Most of the arguments made by its detractors have been pretty awful so far, but a few people have made fair comments.
It’s interesting that this game has generated so much discussion and/or flaming! I’m too tired to work out what that means, exactly, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
err, 10 minutes :o
I never said games HAVE to be fun, by the way. It’s better that they are, but above all else, they should be entertaining. That is the point of entertainment.
I haven’t played Judith, so I’m not arguing either way in that, I just saw this as an interesting discussion that had gone its own way.
(spoilers. Also 3rd try at postin this) Interesting game. In the end I was totally expecting to find a skeleton in the last room, but instead it’s “WAT.. Oh hai Emily, totally forgot you were in this game”, cue happy ending :)
The game’s underlying theme only became apparent to me after reading Maskfield’s post, which I can say has raised my appreciation of the game. It would have been great if you left something like this at the end of the game. Really, leaving players with a sense of understanding is a good way to conclude a game.
I kinda felt railroaded when you couldn’t take the necklace back, or run off with the knife. I played the game twice just to see if it was possible (Call this unintended replay value :o) This would have been a good chance to have multiple story branches, but only now I see having these would interfere with the theme of control. Even so, the storyline is the game’s true strength lies, so adding more to it would make the game much better.
Oh, one more thing:
Art value, entertainment value, fun value, and the like are not at all mutually exclusive. World of Goo is probably the best example of every great quality of indie gaming melting together into pure awesome.
I’m probably just adding fuel to the fire here, but I don’t get the need to loudly declare that little sketches like this are not games because there are no ‘choices.’
It seems, I don’t know, snooty? Most FPS style games do not present the player with significant choices, nor do rhythm games or old school track and field games, and people don’t seem to wander around saying “I like them, but they sure ain’t games!”
It seems a bit like, I don’t know, like people have a definition they like, and they’re just strongly resisting the push to expand that definition to incorporate things which many others feel it should encompass. It’s hard to have a shared dialogue when people are stubborn, is what I’m saying, and I think it doesn’t help when a bunch of people are hogging a word.
I mean, if you take out the pretend risk of dying (which quick saving has eliminated anyway, really), this is just as much a game as any first person shooter. It isn’t like Marcel Duchamp has thrust a bar of soap into your face and is asking you to call it a game.
Ok, so how did Emily manage to lock herself in room when the key was buried in a dead guy untold years ago?
I think Jeff should murdered Emily when he found her. (After all, he takes the dagger when you examine it). First off, she would be punished for being the world’s biggest idiot, and secondarily, the plot of the two stories would fit together and we wouldn’t have that nasty happy ending crap.
This honestly just wasn’t very good to me. I didn’t see the whole creepy atmosphere everyone is talking about. I thought the narrative was rather pretentious. And giving the illusions of control was just more of an annoyance than a feature.
I think this would have been better served as a simple noninteractive narrative, or an animation.
Just so there is no confusion, I think that Cavanagh and Lavelle are badasses of the highest order for making a game like Judith. But…
As a “game” Judith is pretty bland. As “art” it lacks subtlety or any sort of depth. Seriously, if games are to be judged as art then close to 100% of games, indie included, are really bad. Despite this, I am excited to see developers experimenting with our conceptions of what games can and can’t be. Within the medium of “games” Judith is very innovative. It uses a familiar aesthetic to present a decidedly “non-gamesey” story and I think this is a very good thing. Unfortunately, I just don’t think it does a very good job of it. Other than innovativeness, Judith doesn’t really have much going for it. There is a lot of potential in games like Judith, but that potential has yet to be lived up to. Games are still primarily a means of entertainment and nearly all attempts to use them as anything but else end up being kind of crappy.
@voiceoftheindiemovement - Keep on raging you self-righteous prick.
It’s not a great game but I must admit that I played it just to know the story.
SOME SPOILERS @Maskfield I believe that Judith’s dream is that Emily’s husband is going to kill her. He has some piece of jewlery in his hand a present from John to Emily.
@Corpus: I wasn’t really directing it at you, just giving my 2 cents :)
@Jimmy Curbstomp: (spoilarz) I think the present/future/whatever is supposed to be haunted by the past/whatever world, or they are somehow alternate dimensions or something like that. It’d also explain the doors opening.
I enjoyed the game a lot :) Good work Terry and Stephen
I really like how many people defend this game due to the simple fact that its indie, responding to critisms by telling that they lack reason or that the critics are foaming-in-the-mouth-mainsteam-players who can’t appreciate ART.
Really people, just because its indie, it doesn’t mean that its beyond criticism. Just because its different, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to meet certain expectations. Just because it strives for a different experience, doesn’t mean that we are not allowed to complain if we found that experience uninteresting or unfulfilling. Just because its indie, doesn’t mean that its necessarily deeply artistic or artistic at all.
Nevermind that the story was confusing and unfocused. You can tell that it was transcribed from a written story and more could have been done to translate the story from written text to video game. Different textures could have been used and the speaker’s could have been identified. Differences in time could have been shown by giving slight changes in texture.
Also, the modern game is set in a CASTLE. But when you start the game, you are told that the place is abandoned by years by a company. Anachronism or just plain, confused, I-want-to-be-subtle ending?
Also, the bloody treasury and armoury was just hilarious. Why on earth would you keep treasure bloodied if you have a choice? Any competent weapon user also doesn’t leave his weapon bloody. You take care of your own weapons and someone who is likely to have a complete armoury, the more likely. Also, why keep a SECRET armoury? How the hell is there a SECRET garden?
The more you think about the less sense it makes.
The story sinks of the “oh look how clever I am by leaving plot holes and dodge criticism for it by telling that its open for interpretation” attitude prevalent among indie games. Leaving something to speculation is fine, but only when there is basis for that speculation. Purposely ignoring plot holes is not giving basis for anything but criticism for bad story-writing
The controls are unnecessarily laggy (I don’t need WASD and mouse, I just want to walk faster and turn faster) and the graphics deeply poor (we’re not living in the DOS age anymore, you can use enough pixels or polygons or whatever to make a FACE). Minimalistic graphics and poor graphics are not the same thing.
Also, the game just goes trough the same motions again and again. You go trough the secret passage and go trough the mysteriously-unlocked door.
As an experiment it is interesting, but that’s it. It’s an experiment. As an experiment, it can be forgiven much. But as a full game, it simply fails.
Just because its an experiment doesn’t mean that its holy or greater than anything mainstream. Its just an experiment and I think the authors would be more interested in honest opinions about their new mechanics rather than uncritical praise.
Zixinus: It’s not that we want to disregard any criticism of indie games, it’s that rabble rabblerabblerabble rabble BANG vraaawwwmmmZZZZZT CLICKhisssssssh … silence
“experiment” People keep mischaracterizing this as something novel. I had my first suspicion of its highly derivative nature when I read the tagline “game about control” (or, lack thereof), and it was well-founded.
In fact, to reduce the player’s control to near-zero is utterly typical of games. Judith simply follows the classic go to A, go to B, go to C format. If you enjoyed it, good for you! But recognize that this is not a vision of the future of game design, rather it’s a slightly strange rehash of its past. The uniplanar (I did just make that word up) square tile world should’ve made that truth obvious.
Gotta say… felt like a cheap cave story rip-off to me :-/
Zinxinus: actually the only people talking about this being art are sarcastic detractors. The people who like the game didn’t even mention the word art. So “I really like how many people defend this game due to the simple fact that its indie, responding to critisms by telling that they lack reason or that the critics are foaming-in-the-mouth-mainsteam-players who can’t appreciate ART.” is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read in this thread.
I think by virtue of creating so much discussion and polarized opinions, the game has succeeded.
Succeeded in being what? A game? A work of art? I don’t think controversy is a fundamental part of either of those things. I also don’t think the game was designed to polarise opinion or to reach a wide audience, so I don’t think suggesting that success as measured by marketing is valid at all. That’s the kind of thing Bruce Everiss might say and we don’t want to be like him do we? :)
Blame it on the bossa nova.
Even as a long-time fan of Indie gaming, I still have many difficulties in getting into these “art games” (I understand it’a an incorrect term, and you don’t like it, but bear with me). For example, one of the few I liked was Passage, for how it rendered the passing of life, while I found Seven Minutes poor and pretentious.
Of Judith, I loved the graphics, the use of sound, and the flow of the two parallel storylines. Controls were perfectly fine. However, even with such short lenght, I found the atmosphere waning after some minutes, because I was forced to follow a completely predefined path. That was the authors’ intention, but a couple of comments here also recommend that you should approach Judith not expecting much from it as a game, but as sort of an “interactive” story. But then, if it’s not a game, why is it discussed here, on an Indie gaming site?
Take this consideration as it comes, maybe I’m still too much of a “mainstream” gamer to be objective about these works; however, sometimes they make me wonder if the videogame medium is really good to convey some types of messages or narrations - maybe it’s not “universal” as hoped?