Just wanted to say thanks to Gladguy for Syberia 2. Gorgeous game and a completely successful (in the sense of being “fun” and “art”) sequel to the first. Pass that on to the Dreamcatcher team.
Actually, Syberia 2 was published by XS Games, not by Dreamcatcher.
- Alan
Nor was it completely successful, IMHO. The ending was pretty disappointing, in that it was very brief and left an awful lot of unanswered questions (like, pretty much all of them). Up until that point, however, it’s a solid game.
Thanks for the kudos, but we can’t take any credit (or blame, as it were) for Syberia 2. As Alan points out, Microids chose a different route for the sequel… although they did steal our packaging design from the first one, which may explain why you thought it was ours. :roll:
You’re wrong. And a dumb doodie head to boot. I mean given the suspension of disbelief in a mystical island of mammoths, I thought it wrapped up nicely. The pedantic could being up questions like “who built the railroad there in the first place” but I don’t care. It’s a game.
It’s a game.
Not to pick on shift6, but can we please stop using this catchphrase as if it means anything?
There’s nothing quite so condescending and self-evident as the observation that we’re talking about games here. Pointing out that fact doesn’t do anything other than demonstrate that you don’t care enough about the subject that you can’t dismiss it with a simple tautology.
-TomSome spoilers follow…
Guilty as charged, on the second count.
I mean given the suspension of disbelief in a mystical island of mammoths, I thought it wrapped up nicely. The pedantic could being up questions like “who built the railroad there in the first place” but I don’t care. It’s a game.
It’s a game (two games, actually) that creates this elaborate mythic history full of tantalizing holes, and makes you want to find Syberia so that you can fill in all those blanks. But then when you find it, the game says “Here’s mammoths! Roll credits!” I mean, yeah–Hans gets to see his mammoths. That’s emotionally satisfying. But I could have told you that was going to happen before I even left Valadilene in the first game. And that’s essentially all the happens at the end, and I found that disappointing. I don’t think it’s pendantic to want to know what happened to the Youkal on Syberia–I mean, a huge chunk of the game is about them, discovering their culture, and the mystery of why the ships stopped coming (which remains a mystery). And how about some sort of closure on Kate’s story–she’s the protagonist, after all! Is she stranded on Syberia now? Is there even food there? I envision the unmade scene that follows the one where Hans rides off into the sunset, where Kate wipes the tears from her eyes, looks around at the barren landscape, and then says “Oh, shit.” I just feel like the game wrote all these checks that it just couldn’t cash in the end. And I hated what happened to Oscar, and the way Kate is apparently just like “Oh, well. I liked him, but his sacrifice is for the greater good of feeding Hans’ obsession.” That seemed way out of character for her.
Tom: I didn’t mean it as a “ho ho, we shall recline in wood-panelled rooms with our brandy snifters in hand and discuss ART” sense, I meant it the way one might say to Koontz: “hey dude, it’s just a forum” or to a hardcore Tolkein fan: “hey dude, its just a novel”. Damnable text-based communication!
Ben: I’ll give you the “out of character” bit for Kate. And perhaps a sequel is in order to satisfy the urge to learn about why the ships stopped coming back and what happened to the Youkal (conspicuously close to “yokels” I may add) and Kate afterwards. But for me, I don’t really think about it.
I didn’t mean it as a “ho ho, we shall recline in wood-panelled rooms with our brandy snifters in hand and discuss ART” sense
Oh, I know, shift. I just hate seeing ‘it’s just a game’ as a sort of disclaimer to excuse something’s flaws or dismiss someone’s concerns.
Ben thinks there are gaps with how the characters’ stories are resolved. That it’s a game doesn’t excuse this. It’s cool that it doesn’t bother you, but for Ben – and for me, BTW – it doesn’t get a pass on this just because it’s a game.
-TomYeah. And don’t get me wrong–up until the end, I liked the game quite a bit. Well, except for the airplane puzzle, maybe. And the habitrail puzzle was a little goofy. But most of the puzzles were interesting, and the story was intriguing, which is why I found the end so disappointing. I was hoping to find out what happened to the civilization on Syberia, bt in the end you don’t find out anything about Syberia at all, except that there are mammoths there (which you already knew).
Yeah. And don’t get me wrong–up until the end, I liked the game quite a bit. Well, except for the airplane puzzle, maybe. And the habitrail puzzle was a little goofy. But most of the puzzles were interesting, and the story was intriguing, which is why I found the end so disappointing. I was hoping to find out what happened to the civilization on Syberia, bt in the end you don’t find out anything about Syberia at all, except that there are mammoths there (which you already knew).[/quote]
Maybe not knowing how they got there makes the the story more intriguing. I say enjoy the ride and don’t try to understand everything. This reminds me of somewhat of an inverse of the Phantom Menace situation where the nature of the force was revealed… to the chagrin of almost everyone. Anyway, I haven’t played Syberia 2 yet, so take this with a grain or two of salt.
Except in this case, it didn’t. It made the story like a mystery with no resolution. If you spent a whole game (or two games!) interviewing witnesses and investigating clues, wouldn’t you be a little disappointed if you never got to discover how the crime was committed–or even who done it–in the end?
I say enjoy the ride and don’t try to understand everything.
Or in this case, don’t try to understand anything, because the game explains exactly none of its mysteries in the end. I don’t mind some unresolved mystery in a story–your Phantom Menace analogy is a great example–but there’s such a thing as taking it too far.
Except in this case, it didn’t. It made the story like a mystery with no resolution. If you spent a whole game (or two games!) interviewing witnesses and investigating clues, wouldn’t you be a little disappointed if you never got to discover how the crime was committed–or even who done it–in the end?[/quote]
First off, I wanna apologize for coming across as though I were trying to force my opinion on you. I didn’t mean it that way.
To answer your question; in some cases, I just might not care if the mystery were never solved, so long as the mystery itself were truly fascinating. I do think that an unsolved mystery can make for an engaging work of (non) fiction. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that just about every mystery solved seems to end up a bit of a disappointment. It’s as if the solution has almost no hope of living up to the mystery itself. Maybe I’m just a weirdo though. :)
Thread Resurrection!
Now that they’ve announced a Syberia 3, I have to admit, that I’m actually curious about what happens in Syberia 2 for the first time.
Let me back up:
I bought Syberia 1 and 2 in a single package right after Syberia 2 came out.
I finished Syberia 1.
Syberia 1 has one of the most satisfying endings I can remember in a game.
I lost all motivation to play Syberia 2.
The fact of the matter is, that Syberia 1 completely resolves the emotional core of the story, so I have no idea where Syberia 2 could possibly go with that story except to keep going with the mechanical sequence of events, since the real story is sort of finished after the first game.
But now that I know that there’s going to be a Syberia 3… well maybe they introduced some new elements to the story in Syberia 2 that make the story interesting again somehow? Hmmmm. I’ll have to check it out. Unfortunately it means re-installing the Starforced game on my computer.
I also saw some news about Syberia 3. I wonder what it could mean? As for Syberia 2, many of those who found the first game satisfying were equally impressed with the second. The story is not resolved after the first one but is resolved after the second. That is why I wonder what the third could be about. Allow me to reiterate. Syberia 1 and 2 together tell a complete story that would be incompete with either game alone. The second game is not some cash in tacked on sequel. It is a genuine and natural continuation and completion of the story. Okay, I think I said the same thing enough times already.
Who in the what now? Can a brotha get a link or something? I loved the first game and… enjoyed the second. There were some problems but I’d gladly play a third installment.
Well, according to Ben Sones, upthread, Syberia 2 left a lot of unanswered questions, so perhaps there is room for a Syberia 3 for that reason. I personally didn’t feel that even the first game left many questions. Maybe that’s their secret. Every game feels so complete, people balk at the thought of a sequel.
Syberia 3 announced along with a long complicated cry for help from the fans to rally support and tell Sony that they shouldn’t charge so much in royalties and fees, so that Microids can port the game to the PS3. As the Joystiq post on this topic asks: are Microids not aware of the Wii and 360? Why the obsession with the PS3?
I didn’t like Syberia too much, although I suppose I ought to give it (and the sequels) another go. It just always felt so dead and empty to me.
I think Microids are still living in 2005, when Sony PR was at an all-time high.
It was clearly meant to feel dead and empty. That’s partially what the story is all about. It deals with that very directly.