OK, time to kick off discussion number two for Mr. Robot. Hit up the link below to join in the campfire. Remember this time around we are discussing the game up to the end of the cryo room. MTV's Stephen Totilo was kind enough to drop by to help in the discussion. So get your questions ready and hop on the link. If the room is full please follow along here, I'll be keeping an eye on the discussion and trying to post questions from here into the room.

Campfire

The Discussion

Brian C.
Let's start things off with Stephen Totilo, who missed the first meeting, but has been striving to catch up.

stephentotilo
So I've been trying to catch up to where you guys are, and, honestly, I'm not there. The clock says I'm 9 hours in. I didn't start the game until this past weekend, but I was committed to plunge in. I knew nothing about Mr. Robot. I was all eager. I downloaded, installed, was good to go, started playing and... 30 seconds in, I'm thinking: "You guys are making me play a game full of block puzzles?" I can be something of a video game snob, and I believe that, like all mediums, games have their cliches. And I'm very much of a mindset that cliches should be eliminated or kept to a minimum. Block puzzles? That to me is a game design cliche. It feels old-fashioned. And I think they should be left behind. The counter-argument is that block-puzzles and other old-school design elements are classic staples and should continue. What do you guys think? Kill off the cliches? Or cherish the old staples?

Brian C.
While that's a good point, I don't think cliches are necessarily a bad thing. Take for instance Everyday Shooter. It takes a very cliched genre, if you will, and turns into something spectacular. I think sometimes cliches can work to your advantage in sending a message if you're aware of it to begin with.

FloatingWorld
Although I think they are somewhat cliche, I would also say that they aren't often visited in more modern iterations of gaming, or even puzzle titles. It's nice to revisit these old staples in a new light. I also think Mr. Robot genuinely does some things with blocks that have never been done.

On top of that, the mix of jrpg elements is something I hadn't seen, and I've really come to appreciate the things the devs tried to do with this title.

DaveKap
Like all good things, I believe games require balance. Like you said, what a cliche is to you could be a classic staple to someone else. If a game is consisting only of new gameplay elements, a player may feel completely lost and have no connection to previous games they've played. If it's just all cliches, it can feel stale and uninnovative.

Mr. Robot does an odd job of this and more or less mixes 2 stale concepts, RPG play and block puzzles, to create a hybrid... stale game.

I think if it added its own little innovation into the game to counter-act the stale cliche pieces, then it may have achieved a better rating from me. ;)

Atomicvege
I felt that the game was reminiscent of old puzzle games like The Adventures of Lolo, and like it, there's a mix of block pushing and enemy evasion. Add in the isometric platforming and the RPG segments and you've got an original game based on conventional gaming roots

jpnance
I think it's too easy to trivialize a game down to "block puzzles" and overlook it as a tired paradigm. Anything could be done this way ("first-person shooters", anyone?). You could have a million different sudoku games on the market but there would be a few which were clearly better than the others, thanks to presentation and design. Cliches aren't really a problem, in my opinion; it's the presentation — and, along with that, the story — which allows a game to transcend those labels.

NYLatenite
I think it all depends on how it's done. If a game isn't adding anything to a genre - especially one that is growing stale, then there really isn't much room for it. But when you look at something like Mr. Robot where it's taking that one genre and combining it with others (JRPGs and Platformers in this case) then even an old genre can work out, because each of the genres can be used to give the player a change of pace before they get that "been there, done that" feeling. In my case, I absolutely cannot stand platformers, so it was almost a relief each time one of the box puzzle aspects or JRPG style battles took precedence.

Atomicvege
i'm just wondering if story and presentation really are the only mechanic that can transcend a cliche gameplay convention

Brian C.
I don't think so. I think a game can just be a polisher, very polished form of its particular type of game. Take, for instance, first-person shooters. That has got to be the most cliched gaming genre around. But games still come out almost annually that are either the best of that type or so good they transcend their genre.

stephentotilo
The reason I started off with this is because I was surprised at how much you guys discussed story and plot in the first exchange, much more than you talked about gameplay. As I played the game, I couldn't stop thinking about the gameplay, because it was front and center and it was, very often, driving me up the wall. I felt like what I was doing in this game was all stuff I had done before, and that much of my failure at these puzzles would be due to control issues that I've seen rectified in other games. I tried to temper my reaction with the notion that this is an indie game and I should cut the team some slack, but I really couldn't get around my problems with the gameplay. I liked the setting. I liked the aesthetics. But the gameplay felt like it was too full of old problems and only succeeded in old ways. That's why it felt cliche. It was all so familiar. I wondered if the gameplay struck you guys differently, if it sparkled to you in some way that I either overlooked or haven't experienced yet.

Dilan M.
In response to NYLatenite, I believe mixtures can be just as good as they can be bad. For me, the inclusion of both, led to neither aspect being truly great. It was a segment of boring block moving, to a segment of boring JRPG, where nothing is truly challenging in the end. Either I am moving a block, or I am attacking some program. In the end, I am not having much fun doing either since it is the same old, same old. A part of me feels that if one were more focused than the other, I would have had fun with some brilliant block puzzles, or just with some great JRPG.

Brian C.
One thing I raised in the first discussion was the possibility that the forced perspective, the harsh saves and the touchy controls could all be deliberate attempts by the developer to reinforce the game's theme of control.

FloatingWorld
Stephen just touched on it some, but I wanted to ask whether we should be more lenient regarding the shortcomings of the game because it is an indie game. Aren't some of the things they were able to pull off as an indie studio pretty amazing, considering? I would have to agree that some of the control issues are frustrating, but it may have been an issue that later in development, an indie studio doesn't have the means to go back and rectify, in hindsight. I think the look, and general mechanics are pretty robust when considering the limitations a smaller studio has to deal with.

jpnance
I'd say Stephen's experience so far was my own. The downfall to the Game Club concept is that I don't any of us can really be sure if we'd have bothered to persist through the game were it not the object of a later discussion. That said, although I encountered a lot of frustration in the first assignment, once I got the hang of the (admittedly spotty) controls and platforming, I found that it really wasn't a huge hindrance and that I was having fun going from room to room. I agree that it's not the most challenging game around — and especially that frustration in the early segments seemed to serve AS the challenge — but it's no longer a huge chore to progress.

MTVERNON
Personally, I found Mr. Robot's block puzzles to be pretty different from most of the ones I'd experienced before. Thing is, you've got your isometric grid, but Asimov has pretty much total freedom of movement; he never "locks in" to his surroundings. The blocks do snap to certain spots, but they aren't so bound as in most block-oriented game environments. As a result, I kept coming up with what felt like weird, unnatural solutions that I hadn't originally envisioned, and that wouldn't have worked in a game with more rigid constraints. It kept me guessing, and I surprised myself more than once. It definitely lent to the fun and breathed some life into an extremely tired play mechanic.

Luke P.
Touching on Stephen's question...well, 99% of games are cliched. Think that's why we discussed the story so much. When a game presents so many rudimentary elements, like sliding blocks around, it's not so much the puzzles themselves as the context they're placed in that can push someone on.

tyler-LORDofDANCE
I agree with stephentotilo to a certain extent. A lot of times I would get extremely frustrated by the simplest jumps. However, I would have a great sense of accomplishment after I completed a particular puzzle. It was a real love/hate relationship. I did enjoy the Lemmings ripoff. It mixed up the gameplay and I wasn't nearly as frustrated with this week's assignment. I wish the developer's mixed it up more from the start.

jpnance
I completely agree with MTVERNON. There's something about that feeling that you came up with a somewhat unique solution that makes the game more appealing. Certainly the fundamental solutions to nearly all of the puzzles are identical but just a few pixels of difference between my solution and yours goes a long way.

stephentotilo
Luke, hang on a sec. Are you saying that you're willing to tolerate redundant gameplay in an FPS, RPG, whatever, just because you feel redundant gameplay is a given? Really? Maybe we're all just too forgiving of being given the same-old, same-old to do in FPS after FPS or RPG after RPG. I'm sick of getting the boomerang in Zelda. I'm sick of fighting giant heads and hands as bosses. I'm sick of so many cliches. But you sound like your settling. Say it ain't so! Don't let developers off the hook

FloatingWorld
Well you all saw my out of turn question earlier, and I just wanted to see if anyone had a word or two to say about it. Basically I was wondering if we should be more lenient regarding the shortcomings of the game because it is an indie game. Aren't some of the things they were able to pull off as an indie studio pretty amazing, considering? I would have to agree that some of the control issues are frustrating, but it may have been an issue that later in development, an indie studio doesn't have the means to go back and rectify, in hindsight. So again, is this something we should take into consideration when looking at the game?

Atomicvege
Stephen: But isn't the very idea of games from their start to complete similar tasks over and over again till the end? I mean story is there to drive you through but i've really not seen many examples of games ever breaking out of this cycle

Luke P.
Oh, I'm not letting developers off the hook. Just saying that at their very core, stripping away the visceral pleasures of playing a game (sound, rumble, graphics) the challenges presented to us as gamers are often quite rudimentary. A test of reflexes, a puzzle, a test of concentration, of endurance...very simple tests. It's often what those tasks are dressed in that makes them great. Half-Life 2, Ico, Zelda...you remember the world as much as the actual challenges presented to you, and it's that world and their characters that drive you to complete the tasks.

nic
stephen... what if they took the boomerang out of zelda? would the players not be upset because it set a standard for that series? Players have come to expect certain things within certain genres or series. Yes we maybe tired of the cliche's but as playerts we do ahve expectations. ANother thing that developers are facing is that, "what makes money?" If players find a game similar ot gears of war, bingo instant money

Dilan M.
I have to agree with Luke. Most games can be stripped down to the same ideas. We can't expect developers to come up with a brilliant new gameplay mechanic in every game. If we did, we probably wouldn't get the same number of games as we do (which could be good or bad). But the story itself is what pushes us through the puzzles. We want to know what happens next. That is why I have a problem with Mr. Robot at first. In the beginning, I was actively interested in what is going on, and what will happen to Asimov. Now, I am utterly confused at the plotline, and have no idea what I am trying to do, or who I am trying to save. I have no active investment in seeing Asimov win, which makes these puzzles every bit more monotonous. If I did understand and actually cared for Asimov, I might enjoy the puzzles a lot more.

Brian C.
I think Luke has a very good point. Cliches aren't really about the mechanics as much as they are about the things that hide those mechanics. Gaming is about play, and the way we play, at its most basic form, is pretty set in stone. I had a friend, a literary friend, who once told me that she believe all authors only had one good book in them, that everything they wrote was either that good book or their attempts at creating it or recreating it. I believe the same could be said of games. There are only so many ways to tell a story or present fun or play.

FloatingWorld
I think that's a great point Brian. I'd say Dostoyevsky (sp) wrote Crime & Punishment four times over, and its certainly seen in the gaming world as well. Sure play mechanics will improve and we'll see things that we "think" are new to the gaming world, but they're just old, tired play mechanics with a flashy facade. To quote the Bible, "There is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes)

tyler-LORDofDANCE
Crecente makes a great point. One of my old English teachers used to say that there are only a few stories in the world. Authors just disguise and retell them. Games may be like this gameplay wise, but I think they have one advantage: they are active entertainment and they combine storytelling with other elements.

NYLatenite
For me, the game has gotten infinitely more interesting following the plot twist towards the end of the first act and the start of the second. I like the fact that as Asimov begins to realize that he is sentient, his worldview is changing. When Zemanova reveals herself and states that Zelda was deleted, he responds by stating "She wasn't deleted, she's dead" - an affirmation that he now believes he and his fellow robots are truly alive. You can almost call it his growing up, even evidenced by teenage angst as he begins to project his feelings of both loss and confusion by lashing out (as evidenced when he remarks to Zemanova/Zelda that "we're just robots to you, right?" (or something to that extent). As this second act ended, I now wonder just what EVE will do when power is transferred to her - will the freedom from HEL cause her corruption as well? What I'm saying in a roundabout way, is that in these shorter segments where the plot moves at the same pace as the game, the games strength in making you think begins to shine, and really does outstrip some of the tiredness and frustrations of it's gameplay.

Naerbnic
Considering FloatingWorld's last comment, it's true that it's rare to see a genuinely new gameplay element, but we very often see the evolution of existing ones. They join up, merge, and split apart into new genres and approaches.

tyler-LORDofDANCE
NYLatenite touches on something I noticed. I found it extremely interesting that Asimov stated that HEL had just committed murder. It just stuck in my mind as something you wouldn't normally see.

Merus
I don't think block puzzles in and of themselves are cliche - but block puzzles usually end up meaning only a couple of interactions without any variation: push the block one/many squares in one direction, and if it gets stuck on a wall then you can't push it back. Even when the game's 3D and the character can move diagonally, and can get their virtual hands in the tiniest of cracks, they can't PUSH diagonally, and they can't wedge the blocks off walls.

There's also the problem that block puzzles are rarely used for anything other than Sokoban: push the block to this pre-defined position. They're almost perfect, movable cover (which gets explored a bit earlier in the game with those killbots that beeline towards you) and they're almost never used like that.

FloatingWorld
I agree Naer, but even the most primitive gaming idea, pong, is easily taken from real-life tennis. Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I think it's interesting that gaming situations have now entered real-life via ridiculous Japanese game shows...like Banzai. hah.

Dilan M.
Going along with Merus, I think he brings up a very good point in games. While every game requires a certain suspension of belief, there always still a certain amount of logical rules that you expect the world to follow. Like Merus said, you would expect these robots to push diagonally. For me, I also noticed that you couldn't get the nanobots to turn left by putting yourself in the path. Another one most of us can relate to, is why can't this character jump to that ledge. Should we just expect these facts that our characters can't do simple things, or should we push developers to account for their laziness?

Brian C.
I want to ask a question. I happened to save Samson earlier on in the game, so he was around in the Cryo chapter to sacrifice his.. life? for me. But did anyone not save him? If so what happened for you during that early level, the one with the wall of spikes?

It's interesting also, because it's this scene, when Samson dies, that Asimov questions Zelda's statement about life and death.

Dilan M.
I saved Samson, but I decided to see what would happen if I turned back. Essentially, there is a little cabinet where you get some pass key. I figure it opens some door that lets you come from where Samson came.

You can go back and get it, and explore around, but I didn't really have the time to.

Atomicvege
In regards to that, a friend of mine believes that it is possible to save Samson from the compactor... though this is unsubstantiated =/

Brian C.
It raises an interesting problem that only games face. The plot is directly effected by the choices the gamers make. Do you save Samson? If not are you missing out on an important point of the game?

NYLatenite
I'm not sure if it is possible to not save Samson as he's needed to get through the very next door. I think leaving him behind just isn't an option - however, you do have the option of choosing whether or not to save Brutus (saving him gives you his Ghost) and I am interested to see if that choice will have any bearing on the end of the game.

tyler-LORDofDANCE
I feel like I'm bound to be disappointed by this story. I've analyzed it and I'm sure that it could have a great ending, but it just seems too loose for me. The references to God could lead to a great story, but it doesn't seem like it's headed that way.

jpnance
In this particular game, I'm not sure there really are multiple threads of play. In general, though, I tend to think that sort of game design sort of flawed. Yes, you afford the gamer a fuller illusion that they exist truly as a part of the game, but is such a thing really worth it if it happens just once or twice for minor plot points in the game? I'm thinking of the Fire Emblem games which really make the whole experience about preserving your party and always understanding the risk in losing one of them — for those games, it's not simply a gimmick but rather The Point.

Naerbnic
Generally branching in games is one of three types: Either you have a branch towards the end which changes the precise ending you get, a change earlier in the game which has no ultimate effect (e.g. Farenhiet/Indigo Prophecy), or one "true" ending and a bunch of poorly thought out alternatives. Sometimes a combination of two of these. The question is, do any of these have any interesting narrative abilities on top of other forms of media, or are there other forms which I'm not thinking of?

FloatingWorld
I tend to agree with you Tyler. I think there were too many lost opportunities for story advancement in the portion after the intro. It really muddied the story, and I think soured it for a lot of players. At this rate, I don't think there's enough playtime left to do the story the justice that could've been done. A missed opportunity, but perhaps even the fact that we want to see the story reach its potential IS a success on Moonpod's part.

nic
There is an interesting article/presentation by Brian Moriarty titled "Listen: The Potential of Shared Hallucinations". In this he talks about a game's harmony and how easy it can break vs how hard it is to build. It relates to a few user's comments because we expect a certain action out of a robot but are not able to get it. How would it have changed the game if we were able to move in certain movements or have nano-machines follow our every movements?

Jackal888
This game has too many jumping puzzles to be an isometric game.Add in the fact that you are very fragile, this game gets a bad design score from me.

Brian C.
OK, that's it folks, thanks a ton for joining us

Contact information for this author is not available.