I think Trine 2 was longer, and there was no sidequest-style distractions, it was all killer. I guess I'll have to see for myself.

I don't defend anyone and I don't care if they are disappointed. I am stating my opinion. Feel free to agree/disagree, but don't tell me what I have to do.

The short length concerns me a bit as well. But am I the only one who thinks the graphics looks fairly nice, about par with Trine 2, with some things potentially more impressive.

As for the going 3D gameplay. Watching the WTF Is of it made me think of the old game Agent Armstrong which I recall having had quite a deal of fun with. I'd imagine the issues show up when you start trying to manipulate stuff with the mouse. Likely would've made it a lot less frustrating if they'd gone with several parallel 2D planes you could move between, like Guardian Heroes (and didn't Duke Nukem Manhattan Project have one or two levels with two or more planes you could walk along).

Would not so easily allow you to run into the screen and would be a bit less fluid, but handling physics and platforming would've been a lot less tricky.

It looks like a lot of the complaints from the game stem from the oddly-fixed camera. Could the devs modify the engine to allow more camera control?

You think a 3-hour game is acceptable? When are you gonna give up the "private companies can do no wrong and gamers are entitled" shtick? It's getting a bit old.

Why wouldn't it be? Where exactly in the rule book of the universe says that 3 hour game is not acceptable?

Brothers a tale of two sons is highly praised, yet it was a 2 hour game. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

For £15ish, as long as there are no bugs in game (which there are alas), that`s good for a game.
But this is just more proof that pre-ordering isn`t a good idea at all. Glad I didn`t & perhaps I`ll buy this, at some point, on a sale as it appears it won`t get anything altered, which is a shame.

Ah well, hope they learn from this & spend better next time :)

There's no rule, but it's terrible value for money when you can get good games with up to 80+ hours of gameplay for that price. Heck you can get free games like NetHack which have almost limitless playability. Praised by whom? Journalists who slobber over any indie garbage they think is "innovative" while ignoring decent games. It's extremely lazy.

Read the dev's post, and what a cop-out! $5.4M gone before a full story-line implementation? Sounds like they had poor planning and budgeting skills. So now fans are left with a $22 choice for a 6-hour game/story that leaves the player with an unresolved cliffhanger? Sorry, but I don't buy PC games for the graphics.

I do get your point, but in the end, that is all subjective.

deleted

Reminds me of that other platformer where the devs ran out of money and it got removed from gog

Indeed, this is the real issue for me as well and definitely merits an apology from the devs as they should have mentioned the small detail when the game preview/Early access was released. I absolutely despise cliffhanger endings in any forms of media.

I don't even watch shows that have been cancelled after a couple of Seasons no matter how great they might be like Firefly for example. I definitely won't buy a game that does not have a definitive end to the story arc no matter how short or long the play time actually may be regardless of price.

Sorry, but can you please help me to find the passage where I was mentioning bugs? I must have missed that...