New Review Posted: Myst 4

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Mike Doolittle reviews Myst 4, and enjoys it, up to a point:

"In a sense, I wish more games were like Myst. To me, it seems like hardly a videogame is released these days without involving guns, fighting, explosions, race cars, ninjas, girls in impossibly skimpy costumes, or power-ups. The Myst series has long been a beacon of sorts, proof that a game need not be like a B-grade action movie to be compelling. It relies on more subtle qualities like storytelling, puzzles and the simple wonder of adventure to captivate its players."

Should you care to continue reading, you may do so here.

[shun]

you might want to check the link again for the three new reviews, as none of them seem to be working.

[Daniel Weissenberger]

The site is generally updated very early wednesday morning - and for reasons too complicated to go into here, the first thing updated are the forum links. You generally have to wait about twenty minutes for them to be live.

[shun]

Originally Posted by GC_Danny

The site is generally updated very early wednesday morning - and for reasons too complicated to go into here, the first thing updated are the forum links. You generally have to wait about twenty minutes for them to be live.

Okay, I understand... That's cool. Thanks for the info. I'll just have to wait then...

It's 3:13 PM in the Philippines while I'm replying to the previous post, which isn't exactly "very early wednesday morning".

Wait, what am I doing here? Isn't 3:00 PM supposed to be included in normal working hours?

EDIT: The links are working now. Great! Now I can prolong my slacking!

[MoriartyL]

Myst IV is one of the three best games I have ever had the privilege to play, and you give it a 6?

Blasphemy!


Whatever, I guess it just goes to show that Mike Doolittle has no appreciation for the fine arts.

[shun]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Myst IV is one of the three best games I have ever had the privilege to play, and you give it a 6?

Blasphemy!


Whatever, I guess it just goes to show that Mike Doolittle has no appreciation for the fine arts.

And, well, I guess the previous post only goes to show that you have no appreciation for personal opinion.

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Myst IV is one of the three best games I have ever had the privilege to play, and you give it a 6?

Hey, it doesn't count when you've only played 4 games

Actually what I was really surprised at was how hard I was on the previous installment. I really hated it. But, I think a 6 is perfectly fair for a game that has great storytelling and good puzzles wrapped in some truly archaic game designs.

Of course you're free to write a user review to rip my review to shreds... or do it here, whatever suits you. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the game though.

[MoriartyL]

Here's a review I wrote after playing it for the first time:

The original "Myst" was released in 1993. The concept was simple: give the player various different worlds (called "Ages"), with challenging puzzles and a complex backstory, and set him loose. Some people revelled in exploring these worlds, solving puzzles and uncovering the story at their leisure, while others disliked the game for its slow pace and difficulty.

A decade, three sequels, and many imitations later, we have "Myst IV: Revelation", which is in many ways a return to the basic premises of that game. Sure, things have changed. The graphics are no longer static images but 360-degree views overflowing with movement- birds flying, leaves blowing, clouds overhead (which cause subtle changes in lighting); but still the player is restricted to standing in certain key spots and can only move between them. The player can now take in-game pictures of any clues he comes across instead of having to use a pen and paper, but he will still have to take very detailed notes in order to solve some of the more devious puzzles. The backstory is now not only learned through journals lying around, but also through video and audio clips; but it is still all in hindsight. Even the story is in a sense a return to the beginning, because it revolves around the two antagonists from that game, shedding new light on what happened then.

Revelation takes the player to four Ages, all of them clever twists on the established formula. For instance, one Age revolves around various fantastic animal species, while the Age you start in is a believable home. The puzzles are complex and confusing, but they always make perfect sense once you get used to them. That is, if you get used to them. They are very challenging, sometimes requiring the player to search an entire Age carefully for clues. The developers tried to help out by including an in-game hint system, but the hints aren't particularly useful.

Like its predecessors, Myst IV: Revelation tries hard through graphics, sound, story, and gameplay to make the experience of exploring its Ages amazingly believable. Unfortunately, it also follows series tradition by featuring live performances which are all either stiff or overacted, which tends to ruin the illusion.

All in all, though, the game's minor flaws are overwhelmed by what it gets right. If you can tolerate the slow pacing and mental stimulation, you'll love Myst IV: Revelation.

Note: The game requires a very good computer to run properly- on my PC there was a significant pause when moving. It also takes a tremendous amount of hard drive space: 3.5 Gigabytes is the minimum! Finally, the game comes ONLY on DVD-ROMs, so if you don't have a DVD-ROM drive you won't be able to play it.

Like all good exploration games (such as Metroid Prime), though, it grows on you more and more with each playthrough. By the second or third time, you know where everything is and why, and how to progress, so you can better appreciate the nuances of the world design (which in any exploration game is the main attraction).

And Revelation's world design is second to none. Spire is in my opinion the most phenomenal world design in the history of games, expressing so much isolation and misery, and at the same time so fascinating, beautiful and mysterious. Tomahna brilliantly manages to make a fantasy world seem like an ordinary home that you can easily picture living in. Haven twisted the formula by throwing in an entire ecosystem containing many bizarre, yet believable animal species. And Serenia- what a finale. I've never seen any more beautiful depiction of paradise. And all these worlds are constantly fresh, throwing new twists on their central themes.

And then there's the icing on the cake- the puzzles and storytelling. The puzzles are for the most part (read: "with the exception of the water puzzle") ingenious. This is one of the very few cases in which I can say that the puzzles enhance the game world rather than distract from it. Puzzles are never thrown in simply for the sake of having puzzles- there's a very clear internal logic behind all of them. The story is satisfying, and the characters are well developed.

How can you call a game design so perfect that it can hold a great work such as Revelation "archaic"? Revelation is nothing less than great art, a concert for the eyes, the ears, and the mind. It is worthy of standing side-by-side with great paintings and musical compositions. Oh, but I suppose those are archaic too by your standards, aren't they? I mean, oil on a canvas- how old is that!

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

How can you call a game design so perfect that it can hold a great work such as Revelation "archaic"? Revelation is nothing less than great art, a concert for the eyes, the ears, and the mind. It is worthy of standing side-by-side with great paintings and musical compositions. Oh, but I suppose those are archaic too by your standards, aren't they? I mean, oil on a canvas- how old is that!

Haha. If by "perfect" you mean "totally lacking in forward thinking" I would agree.

I appreciated it for its story and the imaginative look of the worlds. But they were lifeless and inaccessible. The inability to move about the worlds naturally and interact with the environment in a more lifelike way (as opposed to the obvious and restrictive ways players are confined to) brought the game's fun factor down tenfold for me.

Unlike paintings, videogames have to evolve. Revelation, save for some minor cosmetic changes, is basically the same as all the other Myst games. I'll grant you that the art direction is phenomenal, which it has always been, but good looks do not a good game make.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by littledoc

Haha. If by "perfect" you mean "totally lacking in forward thinking" I would agree.

I appreciated it for its story and the imaginative look of the worlds. But they were lifeless and inaccessible. The inability to move about the worlds naturally and interact with the environment in a more lifelike way (as opposed to the obvious and restrictive ways players are confined to) brought the game's fun factor down tenfold for me.

Unlike paintings, videogames have to evolve. Revelation, save for some minor cosmetic changes, is basically the same as all the other Myst games. I'll grant you that the art direction is phenomenal, which it has always been, but good looks do not a good game make.

Bullshit. Did God himself write in stone: " Thou shalt not build thy games on the foundations of thy fathers"? Where do you get the absurd idea from, that we should demand of a game to reinvent the wheel, rather than use it to get somewhere? The design of the foundation Myst IV is built on comes from the very first Myst game, yes. A foundation exists only to hold the building up.

When I say the foundation is "perfect", I mean that the foundation is perfect. The puzzles allow the artists to present the nonlinear world design in a particular order. The story gives a sense of purpose, so that the player will immediately grasp -even if he has never played an exploration game- that he is meant to explore. The node-based movement allows the artists to frame their creation well despite its enormity. These pieces together form a very stable all-purpose environment for the appreciation of virtual worlds. If it had any flaws, then I would accept the necessity of changes incorporated to fix them. It does not.

If you demand "forward thinking", it is in Revelation in abundance. That is, once you realize that the building is in front of you, and not beneath your feet. Tomahna and Serenia hint at societies without breaking the personal tone of the series- this is a bold first step toward the full-scale implementation of static societies in an exploration context. Haven's animal kingdom is not similar to anything that has ever been attempted before in an exploration context. Dream breaks out of the conventional mold entirely into the realm of thought. All these examples demonstrate a successful effort to push the art form in new directions. The only section which does not is Spire, and if we can't appreciate Spire then what the hell is the point of that decade of evolution?!

I can't comprehend how any game worlds could be less lifeless. This is a game where the subtle movements of the world are so glorified that every blade of grass moves in the wind; animals have such detailed lives that there is an entire food chain depicted; water can be disturbed; every surface can be tapped. Not because any of these serve any practical purpose, but precisely because they don't. The unshakable impression is that these worlds have been full of life for years, and will continue to live on when you're not watching them.

I am disturbed by many aspects of the way you treat this game, but one which strikes out at me as being particularly strange is that you accuse the game of not being fun, as if providing a "fix" of unprecedented and exciting fun is the highest ideal to which any game should strive. I have played countless games which are more fun than listening to a classical concert, or reading great literature, or looking at a sculpture, or playing Myst IV, but none are as satisfying. Fun is a commodity; you play it, you get bored with it. It has no value beyond the simple thrill you get the first time. It sickens me to think that anyone would refuse to accept a videogame that aims higher.

[David Stone]

I'm confused how one can relate any Myst title to a Metroid title. The core mechanics and gameplay are so radically different. Other than you"explore" the worlds, the motivations for doing so are completely at odds.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by bassbeast

I'm confused how one can relate any Myst title to a Metroid title. The core mechanics and gameplay are so radically different. Other than you"explore" the worlds, the motivations for doing so are completely at odds.

The main content of a Myst game is the world design. The main content of a Metroid game is the world design. They are two formats designed to accomplish the same thing. Their techniques are similar, their philosophies are similar. Why shouldn't I deal with them as one art form?

[David Stone]

I think it's more a question of mechanics for me than anything else. The means (not to mention the ends) of both games are quite different. Metroid deals with the "how" of exploration, but Myst tends to deal with the "why". I think that's why I disagree with their comparison in this regard.

(Also, please know that I completely respect your viewpoint, and don't mean to seem like a flamer at all. One of the things I love about this place is a good debate, and your viewpoint piqued my interest. )

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by bassbeast

I think it's more a question of mechanics for me than anything else. The means (not to mention the ends) of both games are quite different. Metroid deals with the "how" of exploration, but Myst tends to deal with the "why". I think that's why I disagree with their comparison in this regard.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. In any case, I think Myst's usage of puzzles is very similar to Metroid's usage of action. It allows the developers to present a nonlinear world in a particular order, by saying "You can't continue from point A until you've solved a puzzle/defeated a boss at point B". Some of the difference in formulas is only because of the difference in secondary gameplay- nodes won't work for action, for instance.

In all other respects, Metroid and Myst have become nearly identical. Observe the way Metroid Prime deals with story- it's exactly like the journals of Myst. Or the scan visor- is this not like the magnifying glass in Myst which gives more detail? Both revolve around completely solitary exploration. Both separate the game into distinct environments, although the method of linking between them is different.

Edit: Just to clarify the similarity between Metroid's action and Myst's puzzles: In both games, you always pass many entrances you can't get at at first. In Myst, you will find a clue later on, often from solving a puzzle, and write it down. Then you can backtrack to the earlier location and use the clue to move in. In Metroid, you find a power-up later on, usually from beating a boss. Then you can backtrack to the earlier location and use the powerup to move in.

The difference between the two is that Metroid's action is speckled all over the place, whereas Myst's puzzles are few and far between. It's obvious why this is.

[David Stone]

Touche on a number of points, particularly the visor!

I guess it become a question of genrification. I agree with you (mostly...) about Prime being similar, but how would you describe something like Super Metroid, which doesn't have the scanning (or plot, for that matter)? Or even Metroid Fusion, which used cimantics to bluntly state its "plot"? Using your argument, one could make the same statement about Super Mario 64 in having to collect a certain number of stars before a door will open. That's a staple structure in most videogames - you must do A before you can get to B.

Just to clarify my points about "how and why": Metroid Prime deals with the sheer mechanics of exploration ("I need the Grappling Beam to access this platform") as opposed to Myst's plot revelations with each puzzle solve. Again, it goes back to genrification.