I really agree with number 1, even Ign was having performance drops, and their computers should be very high-end.

1) and 2) - totally agree!

/signed

I'm sure American will be reading this and will respond on his own, but let me jump in briefly:

One of the most common issues that is pointed out to us is the perception that Grimm is somehow inaccessible to "casual gamers" and that GameTap is only for "hardcore players". I suspect that this is a matter of perspective because when we talk directly to casual gamers, they find the game easy to get into and attractive, and moreover they have no problem playing inside of GameTap. GameTap is also not "predominantly" hardcore gamers, but the players of that ilk are more likely to enter into conversation on the forums and let themselves be known. People who play Hoyle don't need to talk shop with other Hoyle players, but people trying to get through a longer game do.

Computer technology marches ever onward, and rather than focusing on the lowest common denominator, we went for a middle-ground configuration. "Casual" gamers often have machines that are newer and support other programs since the purpose of their machine is more for business or personal media than gaming. Eventually, older machines simply will not be supported as their hardware fails, and the cost of upgrading or replacing old machines is constantly going down. What is the logic of making a low-requirement game when machines are getting [b]more[/b] complex?

All that having been said, we always appreciate input and perspective from our players, even if we don't agree. It definitely helps us make a better game. Thank you so much!

Hmm.... perhaps Steam distribution in addition to gametap would help the cause? Steam has a lot of "Casual" games

I'm one of these "casual gamers" I think they're targeting. I'm a female in my mid 20s who finds FPSs too frustrating, and most games too time-consuming.

I like Grimm. But my first thought when I played this was "this is easy enough for a small child to play" - and yet, there are things in the game I don't think a small child should see.

I think the gameplay could be just a little more challenging, and still enjoyable. I do like that you can't run out of lives, and I like that these are episodic and only take me an hour max to exhaust the game.

1) yes
2) gt is not hardcore. It's a hybrid.
3) no

And to the poster above me, agreed.

> {quote:title=Lilith77 wrote:}{quote}
>
> Computer technology marches ever onward, and rather than focusing on the lowest common denominator, we went for a middle-ground configuration. "Casual" gamers often have machines that are newer and support other programs since the purpose of their machine is more for business or personal media than gaming. Eventually, older machines simply will not be supported as their hardware fails, and the cost of upgrading or replacing old machines is constantly going down. What is the logic of making a low-requirement game when machines are getting [b]more[/b] complex?
>

It's not really that, it's just that, if you can lower the requirements without changing anything asthetically, it's a good thing. It also helps with little optimization things. It's basically like.... uh....hmm.... can't think of an analogy.... American?

> {quote:title=tapoxi wrote:}{quote}
> 1) The system requirements are too steep, and Unreal Engine 3 is absolute overkill for what you claim to be a casual title.

Would it help if we called it a "next gen casual game"? That is in fact what we were aiming to create. And no one ever made claims that Grimm should be placed alongside 2D casual games like Peggle. Obviously, Grimm is a 3D game and has system requirements clearly indicating the minimum spec machine needed to run it (and enjoy it). It was understood from the start this would segment the potential audience. And the technology decision was made because Unreal 3 +can+ run on a fairly low-spec machine and because the excellent toolset would allow us to create lots of Grimm content rapidly and efficiently. The latter consideration is of course uninteresting to the final user - but were we to use a lesser engine (with less capable tools) the game known as "Grimm" could not have been created. So, we pushed the envelope. It would not be the first time game creators pushed in front of market expectation or readiness. Much of the advancement in the industry comes from pushing out further than previous offerings in terms of technology, presentation, format, and delivery.

In any case, I recognize your point here, and agree with you that Grimm as a casual game is not as hardware accessible as something like Peggle. That degree of accessibility would obviously be beneficial. Not much we can do to scale-down the Grimm offering at this point. We do hope that the potential audience out there will find a way to play the game - if not on PC, then eventually on console.

> {quote:title=tapoxi wrote:}{quote}
>2) You're carving yourself into a greater and greater niche. Even with all of the hardware requirements met, you're deploying this game on a service that people pay monthly to use, and is predominantly hardcore. In an attempt to broaden the game's reach, you've oversimplified Grimm for an audience that isn't yet using this service, and disappointed the hardcore. A game can be simple yet still challenging, and appeal to the hardcore and casual gamer alike. See Geometry Wars, Super Mario Bros, Pac Man, Portal, Braid.

You're making a couple of separate points here, which I'll speak to one by one... First, you are correct that each limited platform, decision in design, or limit on distribution creates a smaller and smaller niche. A lot of this niche-ing (is that a word?) can and will be eliminated as Grimm is offered on a wider range of platforms and through wider distribution channels. That will be happening in the future. Next, I think you're making a point about the hard-coreness of the GameTap audience and their response (disappointed) to Grimm - something I've heard before. It seems users like yourself have greater access to GameTap user reports and Grimm statistics than even I do! Can you please email those reports to me? What I'm hearing is that Grimm is being very well received by the GameTap audience, is ranking #1 across a number of tracking metrics (most played, most re-played, etc). If we're already #1 on GameTap... I'm not sure how much more # something we could get... #0?

And yes, a game can be simple yet still challenging. You list some pretty great titles. The big difference between Grimm today and those titles that you mention - is that Grimm is still evolving. Those games are done, released, and have reached their full potential. Grimm still has almost 20 episodes to go, evolve, and improve inside of. Maybe we can achieve #0 after all!?

> {quote:title=tapoxi wrote:}{quote}
>3) For the casual player, the Gametap software itself is enough of an obstacle to dissuade those who are merely interested in it. If Grimm could be played in a web browser with a small plugin or no additional software, people would be more willing to try the game. But as it stands, few people I know would be willing to download and install a 30 MB executable, then let it update, then let it download. I know that this is Gametap's responsibility, but a minigame in flash to introduce people to the series, or use of another engine (such as Unity) could have allowed you to avoid this problem.

Hmmm... OK, now you're starting to lose me. Web browser Grimm? Small plug-in? I think you're still complaining about Grimm - but I sense you've also now started to complain about GameTap. I think that thread's going on in a different channel. Maybe take those complaints there? And remember, Grimm will be heading to alternate download portals (in fact, it is already on a few). But other portals (take Steam for example) pose the same "hurdle" in downloading a client, updating it, and downloading games - have you written to Valve to tell them how broken +their+ model and service are? Or to ask for a version of HL2 built using the Unity engine? Hmmm... What are we talking about here? Grimm overly simple. GameTap overly complicated.

Well, I'm overly confused now. But I appreciate your comments. And I appreciate that you are (despite all those "overly" problems) still playing Grimm and enjoying the cool service known as GameTap. Ultimately, I sense you're losing the forest for a single tree. GameTap is a cool service, offering tons of games across a huge swath of genres. All that for a minor fee and some "overly hassle" of installing the service to start with (is it really that hard?) - I kinda forget what there is to complain about. But maybe that's just me.

Another new episode is set to release this week... Godfather Death! Would love to hear what you think of that one.

I agree with cjcarere. Though I wouldn't call myself a casual gamer, from my experience casual gamers do not like easy games anymore than other kinds of gamers do. In fact if anything I'd argue the opposite, casual gamers tend to like games that are easier to get into but harder to master. Games like Tetris and Pacman being good examples of this. RPGs, on the other hand, tend to be both a hardcore preference and overwhelmingly designed to be beaten by a strategically placed rubber band.

Grimm seems to have the easy to get into part down. Unfortunatly it seems from the getgo to be unable to fulfill the other one by design.

I agree with number 1. This game doesn't have all that great technical graphics and so I didnt think it would need such requirements.

I can understand number 2 and 3. I think he started with the design document before getting a publisher. It just so happens to be that gametap happened to be the only one willing to take the chance. Sometimes the ideal situation isn't possible in the world of business.

Oh my, i didn't mean to resurrect a dead topic. Sorry about that. I didn't realize that this board was so slow moving and was so far down the list. I don't usually respond to topics this old.

Oh well.

Ok,I think I can explain the problem.

UT3 engine: The problem here is that the engine is just too advanced for what they're using it for. The UT2 engine or even the UT1 engine could easily handle the graphics for this game with much lower system requirements. Why they went with UT3 is beyond me. Basically,it's like trying to squeeze a Ferrari engine into a Yugo. Sure,you can do it,but it's not going to be a good fit and it just doesn't make sense to do it. So this complaint should probably be filed under "planning ahead next time". You don't need a high end engine if you're not going to make high end graphics to go with it. Seriously,it looks like something from the N64. That's ok if you want to go with a more basic,pliable look,but you really need to get an engine that fits your needs.

Target audience: Honestly,I can't really figure out a target audience for this game. It's too simple for anyone over 12 and I can't imagine the soccer mom crowd going for the "disturbing images" in the game. It's not really much of a game,either. You just run around and around and occasionally butt stomp things. There's no enemies or real obstacles. The only way you can really fail is to give up. Also,the stories are kind of dull. Fractured Fairytales did a much better job lampooning these old stories and I probably shouldn't get into Red Hot Riding Hood. Grim running around making things "nasty" or Tex Avery at his finest? Not a tough call there. If you play this game cause you "lack skill",I'd suggest playing some of the adventure games like Sam and Max or the turn base strategy games. No reflexes required. So,yeah,I'm kind of at a loss.

On the whole,I'm not really impressed with Grim on any level. I'd much rather have seen more Sam and Max or getting some more classic games,like System Shock 2 or Dungeon Keeper.

Don't worry, Spicy Horse. I'm NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP and whatnot. Althouth I did give up on the golden goose.