Co-op Adventure game?

[DeadPoolX]

Steam recently put up a game called Blue Toad Murder Files: The Mysteries of Little Riddle. I think it's an "indie" game since I've never heard of Relentless Software, which is both the developer and publisher.

I have no idea how good it is or how co-op multiplayer even works in an Adventure game. Unfortunately, there's no demo (at least right now), so you'd need to buy it at $17.99, which is 10% off the normal price.

Given how new the game is, I doubt anyone has played it. I'd like to see some reviews and if it's good (and co-op multiplayer works), I might consider buying it. Maia and I are always up for a co-op game.

[AndreaDraco]

Check this review out! Maybe it will help you decide!

[DeadPoolX]

Steam put up a demo and I'm glad it did: this game sucks. Big time. It's not enough that the dialogue is cheesy and the narrator is damn annoying, but the game consists of practically nothing but timed puzzles! That's not an Adventure game! Even most first-person Myst-like games don't involved timed puzzles!

Anyway... I'd definitely recommend AGAINST buying it. Try the demo if you want to see yourself, but I'm not going anywhere near it.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's hard to trust upcoming releases nowadays. Remember the simpler times when you knew a game would be great or not just by the reputation of the company, the previews of the game, and the level of quality surrounding its genre?

[Tawmis]

Difficult. The only gaming company I currently trust is BIOWARE.

[DeadPoolX]

Difficult. The only gaming company I currently trust is BIOWARE.

For me it'd be Valve (and possibly ArenaNet) in addition to BioWare.

But overall, MI is right. It's hard to gauge a game by the reputation of its developer. Even in the "old days" it wasn't easy. Not every Sierra game was great or even good. For a good example, look at KQ8 (aka MoE). It was made by Sierra and even used the "King's Quest" name and that didn't turn out well, did it?

[Tawmis]

But overall, MI is right. It's hard to gauge a game by the reputation of its developer. Even in the "old days" it wasn't easy. Not every Sierra game was great or even good. For a good example, look at KQ8 (aka MoE). It was made by Sierra and even used the "King's Quest" name and that didn't turn out well, did it?

Well I think in the days of KQ8... I am not even sure it was really the "Sierra" everyone knew before... Because until KQ8, I can't think of a Sierra game (any of the adventure games) that I purchased and came to regret. Even Codename: Iceman, which to this day, I have never beaten (I can't get past the sub sequence, where you dive beneath the cool patch of water or whatever) - up until the sub sequence, I didn't mind it. (Well, okay the dice game was a pain because of the limit to the save/restore thing).

[DeadPoolX]

But whether or not Sierra was really at the helm anymore isn't the issue. The concept is "can you trust a game based on the developer's or publisher's reputation alone?" And with that idea in mind, KQ8 is a good example of where Sierra flopped. As I said, it was made even worse by attaching the KQ title to it as well.

You can even make an argument for games like Thexder. Even though that wasn't developed by Sierra, it was still licensed to them and released under the Sierra banner.

So that's my point: it doesn't matter who did what so long as the company's name is on the box and associated with the product. That's where trusting a game, based on the developer/publisher's reputation, comes into effect.

[Tawmis]

I think what I am trying to say is - sometimes, you can until proven otherwise. Like SIERRA I trusted until KQ8.

BIOWARE, for example, I still trust. I worried when EA took over... but so far doesn't seem to be getting in the way of things.

Kind of like a person. You can typically trust them till they do something to ruin that trust.

[MusicallyInspired]

Indeed. Sierra was trustworthy up to a point because their reputation was good. And at that point their reputation changed. And that's about the time when gaming started to flop, IMO. I still think around 1984-1997 was the greatest years for gaming. There wasn't much that was disappointing. Not to me, anyway. After that, it was different. Though, that could be just attributed to age, taste, and experience.

So far I haven't been disappointed with anything Valve puts out. I dislike Bioware games because of their immense RPG stat systems. Though if you like that kind of thing that's great. I also like Bethesda quite a bit. They're not high on the list, but I haven't been really disappointed with any of their products. I've never honestly liked id Software's titles that much. They're all the same, when you think about it. I used to really enjoy games by Raven Software, but they're starting to decline now as well. And also games by Telltale are very enjoyable. They're not masterpieces but they don't really disappoint either.

[DeadPoolX]

I dislike Bioware games because of their immense RPG stat systems.

Try Mass Effect 2. There's no inventory and no stats to deal with. The most you have to do is allocate points towards powers, but that's it.

I also like Bethesda quite a bit. They're not high on the list, but I haven't been really disappointed with any of their products.

Fallout 3 has stats. True, it uses the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system (as opposed to the way stats are normally presented), but you still have to mess around with stats.

[MusicallyInspired]

I know but I've always liked how they've implemented stats. It never seemed too much. I have trouble playing things like KOTOR.

[Tawmis]

I know but I've always liked how they've implemented stats. It never seemed too much. I have trouble playing things like KOTOR.

Even if you don't minimax as they call it - you can still finish KOTOR or Dragon Age... (or Mass Effect, for that matter). I never really minimax (try to stack the stats to be the best thing possible). I put points on how I want my character to develop, like is he a buff dude? Or smart? That's how I always assign the points and still manage to beat the games. Though... I can't remember if it was KOTOR1 or 2, where I had to keep running in a circle during the last fight to avoid the guy, and do hit and run tactics with him... (but that's because I didn't realize, I believe, that you could destroy the Jedi whom he is feeding off of).

[AndreaDraco]

Though... I can't remember if it was KOTOR1 or 2, where I had to keep running in a circle during the last fight to avoid the guy, and do hit and run tactics with him... (but that's because I didn't realize, I believe, that you could destroy the Jedi whom he is feeding off of).

It's KotOR 1

I don't minimax either, but I like to plan carefully how I will develop my character. As such, BioWare games are just perfect for me (mostly because they have great characters and stories and that's what is really important to me in a game). I also like Bethesda's takes on RPG, because I like to explore vast worlds but their stories aren't usually outstanding like Bioware's.

[MusicallyInspired]

See with me I should be the kind of guy that takes to hardcore stat-grinding RPGs like it's nothing at all because I have such an obsessive attitude towards completing EVERYTHING in a game. You'd think RPGs would be my bread and butter. But I just can't stand all the excessiveness of it. It's like it's too much for even my obsessiveness to handle.

Or maybe I just need to man up or stop being lazy or something. I'll finish KOTOR eventually.