Jump to content

Ihavenoname248

Moderator
  • Content Count

    719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

Blog Comments posted by Ihavenoname248


  1. As someone who rejoined the community shortly before the release of CCLP1 and played through it in its entirety the day after release, I guess I'll offer some counterpoints. As a result, I didn't really have any CCLP1 hype other than it was another community set with, presumably, some of the most fun levels out there. And to me, it was, and created its own hype!
     
    "I was hungry for a new puzzle game"
    I think this is the root of the issue. CCLP1 didn't set out to be brutally difficult with its puzzles, it set out to be a fitting introduction. Going in expecting to be stumped repeatedly was a setup for disappointment: a valid reason, sure, but if you wanted high solving difficulty the end of 60 Minutes or most of thinker's levels fit the bill.

     

    "(as opposed to the awful, buggy and somehow popular 5fps port)"

    I can see where the complaints come from but I like the discreteness of each move: I think it works well for a puzzle game.

     

    "CCLP1 presents a medley of about 80 levels which were all designed for the level 15 slot. No individual level was actually bad, however by level 100 I noticed that the set I was playing through hadn't reached Tossed Salad difficulty yet."

    Looking through the set, I wouldn't say the difficulty curve is quite that gentle, but it's definitely more gentle than it needs to be. The first somewhat tricky level comes halfway through at Funfair (which isn't to say there's nothing tricky before this, but they're more on the small scale. I got stuck at Double Diversion for much longer than I should have). Mughfe is definitely past Tossed Salad in difficulty, however, and I think if that's where the curve started picking up the difficulty issue wouldn't be one. I'd even put Chip Suey at around equivalent, and it's in the same slot!

     

    "I remembered back to the strategic dodging on Digger and Blobdance; the creative puzzles Four Square and Catacombs; and Blobdance and On The Rocks, which dared to be difficult. Due to an excessive focus on beginner-friendliness and "fair" design (can it be beaten it in 1 try), CCLP1 is simply boring."

    Given Blobdance being there twice, I assume that you meant Blobnet the second time. Digger has a counterpart in Dig and Dig which is far simpler, and I'll acknowledge it's inferior. Blobdance -> Blobs on a Plane, and Blobdance made the mistake of going too far. Blobnet and On the Rocks are some of the worst points in CC1's difficulty curve (along with Nuts and Bolts: a trial by fire is not a good introduction), so though they dared to be difficult, I'm not convinced that's a good thing, especially as their difficulty comes from tedium and inexperience.Four Square and Catacombs have no direct comparisons, but CCLP1 has quite a few creative concepts executed very well that to me, despite the easier difficulty, kept my interest throughout.

     

    "After the early-game snoozefest, however, the set becomes a lot better, and I enjoyed most of the triple digit levels. If only the set had reached this point sooner, and I see no reason why it didn't"

    Honestly, it kind of did! I'd say the that point stops at Colors for Extreme, and though there are a fair amount of breather levels interspersed throughout, it kept a variety of gameplay that CCLP3 lacked near the end. And I loved solving CCLP3!

     

    "One thing's for sure: if I ever play that Chips Challenge set, it's because I want a challenge. Something with a difficulty peak that puts CCLP3 to shame."

    There's not enough difficult levels out there for CCLP4 to surpass or even reach CCLP3's difficulty peak..but CCLP4 will probably end up a step above CCLP2 on the scale.

     

    "in the decade before it gets released."

    Decade? Have you no faith in the CCLP4 staff? I can't imagine CCLP4's release date coming later than the end of 2017 at this point.

     

    In closing...

    "I know I'm being harsh. But this is just how I personally felt about the set."

    And that's totally fair and I can see where some of your points come from, and they're definitely valid points in some cases. But I think there's some dissonance with actual and percieved difficulty of CC1/CCLP1 levels, along with expecting tougher levels than were presented giving a more jaded outlook on the set. Taking CCLP1 entirely as a puzzle, it's not very good. As a game, it's a ton of fun and had a lot of fresh concepts. As a puzzle game? Well, it tends more towards game than puzzle, but after all: so did CC1.

    • Upvote 2

  2. "Moving 2U to the fireboots immediately cooks the level"

     

    Tiny is still solvable if you take the fire boots first. [Actually, even the bold is still obtainable this way!]

    ...Well now I feel stupid since I didn't see the method until now. Still, my point stands since the trick to fireboots first is less obvious than leaving them until after drowning the fireball.

     

    I would agree with a few points you made about your review, but when judging an official set, I'd rather consider judgement along the lines of variety, transition, storyline, or anything else where the CCLP1 Staff had complete control over.

    It's varied with an emphasis on itemswappers, there's a storyline but it's there, and I don't really get the transition thing. Still, I've always believed that a game has to stand on its gameplay and level design, and as CC has already proven a fruitful ground with its mechanics, the levels chosen above all else are what make CCLP1 CCLP1 and not random set Q on the internet.

     

    The vast majority of the levels are fun to play, so CCLP1 succeeds. Just my mindset on game design.

×
×
  • Create New...