Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. We do indeed listen to it and take it into consideration--something that we have shown throughout the development of this game. A lot of things have been added to episodes based on feedback, or adjusted and changed or even taken out for the same reasons. It really is very helpful, and yes, we have the advantage of learning some of our lessons in a freeware game as opposed to a commercial one.
Things like the feedback on puzzles like the box and the fight in particular are helpful, especially when they're specific, because these were our first tries at things like this (mini-game, boss fight). So, Damar, and everyone else who experienced frustration with these, thank you for your feedback, and thank you for making it constructive and specific so that we can take into account not only for Episode 5 but for games like Cognition as well.
POS has definitely made great strides... don't get me wrong. A lot of changes that have been made have been based on the feedback of the players, just like you said, and these changes are good. However, POS shouldn't wait to hear feedback from end-users once the game has launched to take feedback into consideration. When you launch an episode, you are letting the genie out of the bottle, so to speak. And that's where my feedback is addressed. Surely your beta testers brought up the very things that we, the end users, are discussing now. After all, that is what lead to the implementation of the "Easy" setting, which was to address the problems that must have been brought up by the beta testers.
Obviously I'm not privy to the internal development of the game, so what I am about to suggest is probably going to be grossly off-mark... but I have seen this same scenario play out before from my days at Westwood Studios. Game designers tend to get attached to their designs and ideas. Different designs and ideas have different degrees of attachment and it generally boils down to how quickly the designer in question came up with the design or idea. If it was a quickly conceived design or idea, the designer tends to accept feedback and critique willingly. However, the more time the designer spends developing a design or idea, the more attached the designer becomes with it. Much like a parent and their child, a designer nurtures a design or idea, molding it over time until it reaches maturity. And just like a parent, a designer can become very protective of their design or idea, going to bat to defend it and protect it from divisive influences. I would imagine with the box puzzle, it was the culmination of a great deal of work and the person or people who designed that puzzle felt very much attached to it.. it was their child after all. Any feedback that the beta testers may have given regarding this puzzle would have fallen on deaf ears when said feedback reached the person or people who designed the box puzzle. This person or people would feel that the beta testers weren't quite understanding the pretext of the puzzle and how it works in the grand scheme of things. But, since a game, be it commercial or otherwise, is a group effort, the more people that give the same feedback, the harder it becomes to defend the puzzle. This probably is what lead to the inclusion of the easy mode, which toned down some of the added mechanics of the puzzle in an attempt to appease the growing majority. When the easy mode made its way down the pipe to the beta testers to test, they were already well aware of the puzzle and how to solve it, and probably checked off on the implementation because they did indeed get through the puzzle in a much easier fashion. The beta testers appeased because their feedback was taken seriously, they continue about their work... and the person or people who designed the box puzzle are happy because they have quelled the criticism leveled against their work.
However, the key here is that the implementation of the easy mode didn't address the feedback from the beta testers, which probably raised each and every point that the end-users are now raising. The beta testers probably didn't catch this because they had already been exposed to the puzzle as it was originally intended and were able to breeze through the easy mode without issue. I myself just went through that puzzle sequence again, choosing the easy mode option and was able to complete the puzzle in relatively short order, having already been exposed to the normal mode and knowing exactly what to do. The added mechanics were no longer an issue because I already knew how to compensate for their presence, and by toning them down, the added mechanics were easier to compensate for.
Having been able to complete the box puzzle in a markedly easier fashion, the beta testers were probably more than happy to sign off on it, because after all, if the puzzle is indeed easier now than it was before, then surely it must be fixed and all is well. The base feedback, which probably addressed the added mechanics, UI design, and frustration factor were not addressed at any point. The illusion of addressing the base feedback was presented and accepted. This is no one's fault per se, and I certainly don't mean to call attention to the designers on this one, as what I have described is pretty much the creative process and is perfectly normal.
However, that being said, the problem is getting too attached to one's own ideas. Sometimes this is a good thing... as there are many instances where following one's gut is a good thing. I myself made the critique that the hedge maze was ambiguous and difficult to navigate due to the position of the camera way back when (gosh, has it really been more than a year since I played through the internal dev build?!?!?). I suggested adjusting the position of the camera to give players a better view of Graham would help make traveling through the hedge maze a bit easier. That was my original critique and you know what? I was wrong. The designers explained their rationale behind the camera placement and it works. They followed their gut on that one and it works rather well, especially given the context of the puzzles in the maze (which weren't implemented in the build I got a chance to look at). But just as the designers followed their gut with the hedge maze, they followed their gut when it came to the box puzzle. They made token changes with the easy mode, but didn't really address the core problem with the puzzle, which is the added mechanics, poor UI design, narrator triggers, and frustration factor. The puzzle would have worked quite well without having the 3 strike rule implemented on the 4th piece of a glyph. The puzzle would have worked quite well without having the wheels fade in and out at random intervals, but maintained the rotating element. Heck, the puzzle would have worked quite well if the narrator triggers had been disabled for the area around the wheels. The omission of one or more of these elements would have had the dual effect of addressing a specific issue AND addressing the frustration factor.
Now like I said, I'm probably grossly off-mark here.. and I certainly don't mean to call anyone out or anything. I simply want to call attention to the need of taking beta tester feedback seriously. If you make a car that happens to be uncomfortable to sit in, you don't wait to fix it until people buy the car and complain that the car is uncomfortable to sit in. You don't do this because you have a focus group sit in the car prior to release and they tell you it's not comfortable to sit in and you address the problem prior to release. As I said, the genie is out of the bottle now when it comes to the puzzles that are being discussed. All that can be done now is either ignore the feedback and leave the puzzles as is... or fix them via a post-release patch or bundle it into the next episode release. Either solution would be acceptable... but neither solution would have been needed if the beta tester feedback had been addressed wholeheartedly rather than piecemeal. To continue the car analogy, you have released a car that is great to drive and has great fuel economy... but it isn't very comfortable to sit in. The question is... what can be done for the next car on the design table? Will that car also be uncomfortable to sit in? Or will the seats be redesigned so as to be a bit more comfortable?
Sorry for the wall-o-text.
