Another thing I thought was bad about the game is that it becomes way too boring as you progress through the game. Sure, the first few minutes of the game were amazing and fun, but when you end up just doing the same stuff over and over again… It really picks off some rating points.

Then there was the issue about the story. I’ve played hundreds of games, of all genres, and I can honestly say, if you don’t have a compelling storyline, then you’ve got no game at all. For me, the story is the backbone of the entire game. Sometimes, I can honestly not care if you’ve got a game that runs 2D or OpenGL hardware graphics, and shader modelling 1.0, if it’s got just a half-way decent storyline…
Take for example the old old old game “Sacrifice” from Shiny Entertainments. Shiny is/was a very small company when they made Sacrifice, but it doesn’t affect my review. However, at the time Sacrifice was released, the stores were filled with all kinds of amazing games. I had NEVER heard of Sacrifice, maybe to blame Shiny for this, because of bad marketing… But whatever. My friend introduced me to the game.

Sacrifice wasn’t using any amazing technology, but the storyline had you at the edge of your seat all the time. Not because it was action-filled fast-paced AT ALL… But because you felt connected to the world the game was set in… While you were battling an army, some giant green dragon would come flying over you and generate a cutscene (caught me completely off guard) where the dragon would scream something (can’t remember what).
These were the special little moments that really just made me give 11/10′s away for free. Sacrifice was based on it’s own engine as well, so far I know.

So bottom-line is to all game developers; If you want to make a good game… You set a priority on what to focus on first:
1. Mechanics.
2. Storyline.
3. Graphics.
Graphics are important to appeal to a larger audience and make people talk about the game… BUT NOTHING MORE. Graphics don’t make the game.
Storyline is what will make your game be remembered, and still be replayed after years and years.
And at last; Mechanics is what will make players stay… If you keep the mechanics bearable, fun and implement consistent relevance between controls and the “overall concept of the game” (with this I mean; If you can make a game where you can just use the mouse to control you dude, then don’t put in keyboard controls… It will irritate the player), then you’ve got yourself one hell of a game.

I give Zeno Clash 5/10

People seem to have a problem realizing that so much of experience really is subjective. It’s all to common for someone to play a game (or watch a movie or read a book or hear a band) which has received high praise from many others, and when they don’t like it themselves, assume that it is “overrated” – in other words, that those who like it are somehow biased or lying to themselves. It never seems to occur to them that other people might genuinely enjoy something that they themselves do not.

Such ranting becomes especially shrill when there is a conspicuous perceived cause for such bias, as in the case of indie games such as Zeno Clash. So ask yourself this, Tom: Is it possible that the flaws which you view as objective might not actually impact the enjoyment of other players? Is it possible that they might even enhance the enjoyment of other players? Is it possible that some of these players might be reviewers? Is it possible, in other words, that most people actually do enjoy the game more than you?

Oh yeah, and better voice acting. I can overlook that but at some places its truly horrible and at best it’s OK to average. Seriously, that horn-girl must have been the worst voice acting I’ve ever heard in a game that is otherwise made out of quality.

It is, of course, a spectacularly dificult thing to prove either way. All I would say is that there’s sufficient evidence (such as reviews openly citing games’ indie origins as positive features, plus plain old human psychology) to necessitate the discussion.

“Are indie games scored higher because the teams are perceived to have fought adversity?”

Pretty much never, from where I’m sitting. I’d like to see some concrete examples of where this is irrefutably the case before I believed that. One of the first things that struck me about Zeno Clash was how it in no way felt like I was playing a low-budget game. It’s spectacularly polished in every way that matters. Penumbra? Impressively frightening, but often a little clumsy. Pretty much every review of note mentions this. It’s weird that you’re latching onto these two games, as they’re both examples of games that have largely received good reviews, but not /excellent/ ones. And I’d say that’s probably where both games lie.

Which renders the next question moot, but to tackle it anyway: probably would be a bad thing, yes. If we assume that reviews are primarily consumer advice, then it’s silly to advise people consume a product just because of its origins. There’ll be praise because of these, of course, but it has to be balanced. Overall, though, I’d pretty much say it is.

What do you want out of your games? Do you want inch-perfect mechanics, or an /experience/? If you’re after the former, then to be honest, I’d still say Zeno Clash fares pretty well. If it’s the latter, I think it’s just lovely. It has its problems, but I don’t think they’re necessarily relevant to the joy of actually ploughing on further into the game. A more troublesome problem with Zeno Clash is the entirely lacklustre ending, which is what knocked it down to the low-80s mark I ended up awarding it for Resolution. Combat mechanics? Usually good, sometimes a bit frustrating, but never game-ruining, and never that relevant.

The difference is, I think that’s a bad thing, for the reasons stated above: we shouldn’t be punishing AAAs for taking risks, and we shouldn’t be demeaning indies by giving them an easy ride. When I was working on the Penumbra games there were so many 80% – 85% reviews which mitigated their scores with the words ‘and it’s come from such a small team’ that I began to feel I’d rather we got the scores we deserved than ones inflated by our situation.

I can see myself in danger of getting slightly villainised here. To be clear: I enjoyed big parts of Zeno Clash, and I’m massively passionate about innovative indie games. Regardless of the objective qualities of that game, it’s for this reason that I object to the sort of underdog scoring I believe is rampant.

There’s two topics for discussion here:

- Are indie games scored higher because the teams are perceived to have fought adversity?

- And if so, is that a bad thing?

Also, I disagree about Zeno Clash being bad, it’s the most fun I’ve had in ages, and kneeing people in the face then shooting them with fish guns never gets old.