I think this is too "analogue" to be fun and has too many degrees of freedom. I found that the more "discrete" and clear a puzzler is, the more I enjoy it. Is there a proper word for what I'm trying to say? Think a chess board with clearly defined squares and moves, vs. a WarHammer-style world where you can freely move anywhere within 5cm. Fez is the former, this is the latter.
I strongly agree with this and mentioned it in my Shadow Physics failure workshop talk (even though it might not have come across as strongly as I wanted it to). It was, I think, one of the strongest shortcomings of the game, and if I was to revisit it I'd make everything (projection, lighting, physics), far more discreet so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error.
> so player's can predict the consequences of their actions instead of guessing through trial and error.
Is this really what people want? Serious question. I am surprised to see it, because personally I always prefer more freedom and "trial and error" to discreet options and predictability. I hate when there's only "one right way" to do things, enforced by design. But right now I feel like minority.
I think that Angry Birds and World of Goo only work because of their freedom. Chess, Tetris and DROD work because they are beautifully simple and discrete. Minecraft took a "mathy" world to the extreme while AAA games seem to explode in organic freedom. Cut the Rope uses a physics engine but enforces "one right way" through its level design.
Maybe it's not so black and white, but rather designers make parts of a game discrete until it becomes simple enough to be fun. Whatever it is, the complexity of this game concept feels overwhelming to me. It's a bit like this physics-based Tetris, I would try it for fun but only for free and for five minutes.
