The program crashes immediately when I try to launch it again after completion.

Looks interesting, but I'll wait for a review. Probably pick it up if the price goes down regardless.

I haven't seen so much bugs in a game since I playtested Alpha builds for money. Looks very beautiful, yes, but 7 dollars seems a bit too much for an unfinished project. My guess is: wait until it's finished before buying it.

They badly use program like QUEST3D to build their games.
That's why they often can't fix errors or create true games.
Sorry but it's mainly a tool for 3D presentations.

Yes, indeed, I agree. This tool is not good enough to build games. You can see that there are several inconsistencies all around that make the experience difficult to enjoy.

I'm all for supporting indie studios but releasing an unfinished project for a price seems like asking a little too much from us players. I hope they fix the bugs and let me download a better copy otherwise it's 7 bucks down the drain.

In our experience, FATALE is technically fairly flawless. Thanks to the excellent performance of the Unity engine (not Quest3D this time).

But please email us descriptions of any bugs you might find (reception at tale-of-tales.com). So we can fix them.

I, too, can assure that most bugs were fixed during testing stage; the game is near perfect as it is. To tell the truth I’m surprised by the amount of detail this new engine can handle, especially if we bear in mind the budget and time frame allowed for the completion of the project.

In fact, all this focus on technical issues seems rather shallow to me, given the fact that Fatale is one of those few games in recent memory that strongly appeals for some reflection and contemplation of its design philosophy and, most of all, its stimulating choice of themes. So why not have a little more of that instead of the usual small talk?

I still have yet to be impressed by a tale of tales game. Everything they've done has been done better by the interactive fiction medium, for free, in a cleaner and less buggy format.

and dieubussy, if people can't get it to run well they're going to talk about that, not about whatever else

I agree that Interactive fiction is still a very interesting form of videogame design; however I don't see the point of your claim given the disparity between expressive methods. Tale of Tales works mostly with real time images and sounds, reducing the use of texts and often emphasizing the significance of symbols instead.

As for the complaints, I believe Tale of Tales has a dedicated website and a support service available for all those who are experiencing difficulties.

I tried the game using my office's computer and it works just great. I wasn't aware that Fatale needed this much hardware... so that's why it was slow and lacked details. Very beautiful indeed.

dieubussy, a theme is great, as is philosophical depth.

I'm not going to pay $7 to try this game, but I can comment intelligently on some of your other work.

A theme or art direction is not enough to call something a game, and is definitely not enough to call something a good game. If you wish to call your works virtual environments or something else, that's fine, but they lack interactivity, which is what characterizes games from books or screensavers or animated movies.

Take the Endless Forest, for example. In it, you can walk around as an animal, and you can make emotes. That's great, and the experience is very soothing. However, there's no real mechanic. Games have a central mechanic for a few reasons. One is to make it challenging to complete, which can be rewarding. Another (probably the most common) is that mechanics are fun. Exploring a game's built-in possibilities can be a lot of fun (Take Valve's Portal, for example). I'd like to note that it's not justified to think that a mechanic has to be fun. A few players will undoubtedly play games just for the challenge, while many will find something deeper in the mechanics of the game than mere fun. For example, the 'masocore' genre/group of games generally uses the mechanic of character death to make the player more aware of the consequences of their actions, or to subtly criticize them. Psychosomnium (by cactus) pits the player against the characters, ultimately identifying with the harsh obstacles of the virtual within the game.
My point here is that interactivity is ripe for artistic exploration, which means that you don't have to abandon it in order to have a game with a new direction and a comparatively fresh theme. (You don't have to abandon fun, either, but I think it's less central to being a game)

Another game of yours that's been seen around here is The Path. Basically free, this game consists of walking a very slow old lady down a graveyard path, sitting at a bench for a cutscene, and walking out of the graveyard. There's been some hefty criticism of the game around here, but I'll just say that a more challenging and rewarding approach may have been to let the player actually play through the remembered interactions once she got to the bench. Even if there's still virtually no choice, you make the game deeper and the emotions more intense because the player identifies much more strongly with a situation they play through than one they witness. (For an example of this general principle, players of the game Second Life, when asked where they are, will often indicate their virtual body even when in a free-viewing mode very far from it. In short, they identify with their avatar.)

An issue that seems to come up repeatedly is movement speed. People are used to moving very, very fast in video-games. Possibly nauseatingly fast, as you point out. I think it's possible (consider this a challenge for you as a game designer) to design a game wherein you move at a rational rate, but it doesn't feel like the game takes forever to do each interesting thing. One possible way to do this is to make the maps/world relatively compact, so that not much movement is necessary to get from place to place. Another way to do it is to have instant transit to and from each relevant area, but move slowly once you get there. If I move slowly through a number of interesting things, that's fine (see Myst, sometimes), but moving slowly through empty landscape is not fine with most players (or most designers). A possible example of compact, interesting environments if the first level of Blendo's Gravity Bone. The movement speed isn't a crawl, but my point is that the environment is both full of interesting things and relatively compact.

Gravity Bone is a good game to achieve a little more depth on if we want to understand why people are so willing to criticize some of Tale of Tales work. The game offers virtually no choice (if you wish to complete it) and ends with a long cutscene. The main draw of the game is the art direction, from the overall noir feel to the cleverly unrealistic models for the people. Why would this game ever be better received than a Tale of Tales game?

Answers:
1) Movement speed: Players care a lot about this because it means they spend more time doing/thinking about interesting things and less time navigating.
2) Interactivity: The game's items provide most of the interactivity, and they're managed simply. Also the game has something resembling puzzles that need to be solved. (Even if they are simple). The game also has a section with a hazardous chase, and a section with very perilous jumps that need to be done. Players enjoy this challenge. Knowing that they can affect the outcome (and ultimately doing so positively when they eventually win) is very rewarding.
3) Controlled non-realism: the funny heads, the funny voices, and the general premise of the game allow the developer to push the game in whatever direction he wants while still not overstepping suspension of disbelief (because it's really big to begin with).
4) Style: People like the noir atmosphere. This is something Tale of Tales competes well at, but it's not enough to carry a game.

Thanks for the comment Firecracker. I would like to clarify some facts regarding your comment: first, I'm not the author of Fatale. I don't work at Tale of Tales, I'm a friendly supporter at best!; secondly, the game you refer to as "The Path" is called "The Graveyard"; lastly, Gravity Bone does not have noir aesthetics at all - on the contrary, they are quite cheerful and naive, like a page out of a Lego World story book.

Regarding your comment I would like to state that it is very dangerous to hold such an obsession for conventions. Because those arguments you presented are pure conventions of what you - and most, I'm afraid - believe a videogame should be. And, in the case of Tale of Tales, I use the term "videogame" in its broadest possible sense, as the studio has worked for several years in the creation of titles that defy those common rules you perceive as optimal or essential. I suggest that you take a look at their Real Time Art manifesto if you have the time.

http://www.tale-of-tales.com/tales/RAM.html

I'm sure you will realize that this particular studio is not interested in abiding by the rules of ludism, industrial entertainment, juvenile conceptions of “fun”, “healthy addiction” or any of such preferences you listed as the key to a positive reception from the great public. On the contrary: they're waging an intellectual battle against such impositions as a part of a non-organized movement that seeks to widen the field digital entertainment and art. Apart from that, all your notions about game design and interactivity seemed a little infantile and I suggest that you should continue learning and researching. Forget about the rules; question the very use of the word “videogame” because when it comes to Fatale, The Path or so many others, the employment of the word “game” is an agreement and not a precise definition in any way. Also, avoid mistaking the concept of interactivity for “gameplay” or “game mechanics” – they’re very different things. Again, thanks for the comment :)

C'mon dieubussy, don't be so hard on Firecracker ;)

That's the first time I see a firecracker explode in someone's own face.

dieubussy, do you even read the things you type? your snarling defense of Tale of Tales doesn't do much to actually define or legitimize what they're claiming to do, and your tone and language are extremely stilted. "ludism" indeed.

as an aside, if you can make it all the way through their "real-time art manifesto" without rolling your eyes at least once, you have a much greater tolerance for bullshit than I do.

Ludism, yes. What's wrong with it?

I do have a tolerance for bullshit and to prove it I'm willing to read more of your comments. This time try writing a single comment instead of two, please.

"Apart from that, all your notions about game design and interactivity seemed a little infantile and I suggest that you should continue learning and researching."

actually diebussy, the previous commenter comes off a lot more competent on the subject than you do.

the 'Real Time Art Manifesto' may be noble in purpose, but it's far too hopelessly riddled with confusion and self-contradiction to be worth any person's attention. of special note is a quote from fumito ueda, whose design philosophy is basically the antithesis of Tale of Tales'.

according to their claims, Tale of Tales are attempting some sort of hybrid between the aims of the Demoscene and Interactive Fiction, both of which already produce much more mature and fulfilling works of art by comparison.

despite this it'd be easy to resign these complaints to a matter of taste, if Tale of Tales didn't continue to market their work as 'games', and then generally reply to criticism by sneering at their audience when their work is not well received.

And may I just add that Fatale is never labeled as a game by its authors, but rather as an "interactive vignette".

Don't worry, Tale of Tales will protect us from the bugs in their game by reminding us that they don't exist.

We will protect ourselves from the game in their bugs by playing something else.

HINT: Explaining to us that we're not indiecore enough to understand their works isn't going to endear them to anyone.

"actually diebussy, the previous commenter comes off a lot more competent on the subject than you do."

Well that does it for me, Mr Anonymous expert on Fumito Ueda.

OK gentlemen, I think this calls for a time-out! Can we please stick to discussion about the game in question please, rather than girating "knowledge" all over each other's faces. Thanks :)

Yeah, I guess we do have a Fumito Ueda expert in the house. I guess it's best to simply ignore all the prejudice here dieubussy. You can easily tell what sort of videogame players you're debating with. Stop trying to "save the world" and wake up to the reality will you? Go fly a kite instead. Nothing can be done here to change these formatted minds.

Also I'm sure we all have far better things to do with our spare time than to knock heads with people who probably never read a Manifesto before in their life and, somehow, are convinced that it needs to be rigorous or non-contradictory for some reason.

I'm disappointed again.

Holy crap, my omphalos is utterly captivating!

Firecracker's long post was interesting up to the point I stumbled on the word "fun". Games don't have to be fun.

Fun is completly subjective. Whether or not you have fun playing Monopoly, football, poker, cops and robbers or Pong doesn't change the fact that they're games.

Games must have rules, goals, choices and a bucketload of other elements I cannot list here because I am simply not knowledgable enough on the subject. Fun is a derived product of making decisions and accomplishing goals through the game's set of rules, it's not a requirement.

"And may I just add that Fatale is never labeled as a game by its authors, but rather as an "interactive vignette"."

That's the problem. Many art gamers are too quick to label anything remotely interactive and artistic as "art game" without asking themselves if said "art games" are actually games in the first place, with rules, goals, decisions, etc. (Interactivity alone is not enough)

Then they wonder why so many people don't like art games, but the problem is a whole lot of people have been burned too often with "art games" that aren't games but interactive stories or vignettes.

Passage, Blueberry Garden, Braid are art games. Anyone claiming the opposite is either stupid or never discovered you could move up and down in Passage.

Graveyard and Dear Esther are not games. They're certainly artistic, but they're not games.

So I beg you all, before you label something as "art game", please, stop for a minute and ask yourself if what you just experienced was a game in the first place.

i certainly agree with you, blue, that 'fun' is irrelevant. nonetheless ToT has yet to do anything that is in any way compelling. do mind that i have a bent for artistic appreciation, and not only entertained the concepts of the graveyard, but willingly purchased the path. the interaction involved in ToT's work is absolutely meaningless to the experience, as if to ignore, (and quite frequently spite) the player/observor.

"Mr Anonymous expert on Fumito Ueda"

since i certainly did claim to be an expert! LOL!

this coming from the person who previously wrote:
'your notions about game design and interactivity seemed a little infantile, [...] you should continue learning and researching.'
and who posts on the internet under the name 'dieubussy'!

here is my personal guide written just for you, on how to be qualified to Have An Opinion On The Internet about fumito ueda:

play his games
read interviews in which he talks about things

from there simply read the quote ToT references and consider it within context of their manifesto. it's a simple obvservation. that aside, the manifesto is still a senseless mess.

i can't take credit for that second anonymous user post, although it was pretty sharp! ToT truly do provide excellent public support as far as generally telling reviewers that they have the wrong opinions, or pretending that their releases are anything other than consistently buggy.

for the record i generally post and comment on the internet under the name 'plvhx', but it keeps coming out as anonymous here. sorry i don't have a personal blog to relentlessly plug, dieubussy. =(

You know who else had a manifesto? The Unabomber.

I'm not obsessed with fun, as I point out in my lengthy post above. I am obsessed with interactivity, at least when it comes to games or "interactive" vignettes. To understand this point, you might read the lengthy section in which I talk about interactivity being (possibly) rewarding but not (necessarily) fun. Consider also that in my post-mortem recommendation to make The Graveyard more interactive, I say nothing about fun, entertainment, or any sort of ludism.

I do think that if you (one) fail(s) to explore interactivity you might as well be making a movie, especially from an artistic sense. Why would you choose to work in a particular medium, then neglect the fundamental characteristics that make the medium unique? (I consider this to be by far the most important point I've raised, and largely the point of my lengthy post above)

And a "mechanic" I use as shorthand to denote the central, built-in element by which interactivity is explored. In Tetris, this is the ruleset governing the movement and deletion of blocks. Both in my general definition and this example, the mechanic is deeply related to interactivity, although not synonymous.

I feel fully justified in saying that Tetris explores its unique medium more powerfully and artistically than The Endless Forest or The Graveyard, even though it was never intended as an art game.

For a more thoroughly thought-out argument of essentially the same position, you might consider reading some of Maya Derren's writing about what makes film good art.

Sorry for the double post.

After reading the Realtime Art Manifesto, I can boil down my criticism to this:

ToT games so far have been very determined not to be the same thing as commercial games. This is excellent. As a result, however, ToT games so far have failed terribly at #4 and #6 on the manifesto (embed the user in the environment and interactivity wants to be free), and the RAM also addresses walk speed directly (in a way that corresponds directly and positively to my criticism)

"If it takes a long time to walk between puzzles, the walk should be more interesting than the puzzles."
--RAM

I have not read the Realtime Art Manifesto yet, but my impression of it so far is that it is flawed. If artistic games need to follow rule #4 that would rule out all games that attempt to break the fourth wall, which I think would be an incredibly confining limitation in what can be done with the medium. Rule #6 is what really gets to me though, because it sounds like the same "unlinear is always better" philosophy that nearly all of commercial western game design stubbornly adheres to without the consideration of any alternative. These are all tools and ideas that developers should have at their disposal if they so choose to use them, but to suggest that these are requirements for submission into artistic relevence seems like far too much.

My point wasn't that RAM points 4 and 6 are essential to make a great game, but rather that they seem to point strongly in the direction of exploring interactivity, something ToT's games and dieubussy seem to shrink from.

i don't know, i think if fatales succeeds at anything, it's at both embedding the player in the environment and using freeform interaction. the most interesting thing you do in the game is look around and enjoy the atmosphere, and that IS what you do the most.

Anonymous has a point about The Path, though. The slow-moving and occasionally awkward avatars did create immersion problems for me.