By Jim Rossignol on July 15th, 2009 at 10:14 am.
Indie Finnish developers Frozenbyte last caught our attention with their top-down shooter, Shadowgrounds, which was a little Aliens-y. Their latest game could scarcely be further way from that gloom and gunfire: Trine (as in “fine”) is a side-scrolling, puzzle-led, fairy-tale platformer, built in the Swiss-Army-character-swap tradition of Lost Vikings. But is it any good? And what’s with the pricing? Here’s Wot I Think.
From the outset it’s clear that Frozenbyte are now drawing with the expensive crayons: the presentation of Trine is wonderful, and the side-scrolling world is resplendent – perhaps peerless – in its glittery, clattery detail. Mushrooms puff spores, dark crystals gleam and creak, old metals clank and clunk, wood splinters and shatters, magma boils, acid burps, hisses, and bubbles, the atmosphere shimmers and scintillates. The fantasy world depicted here could scarcely be more traditional, and yet here’s another art team showing us that the can nevertheless create something that we want to see more of, that we want to explore and record. It’s beautiful: especially when you deck a fire-breathing skeleton with a large hammer.
Of course the warmly spoken voiceover and general attitude of “bedtime story with jumping” helps with the framing of all that splendor. But secondary to the success of the game itself in actually keeping us playing. The conceit is this: three characters must save the land from undead evil, and they are trapped in the one being. Knight, wizard and thief can all manifest at the touch of a button unless, of course, you’re playing a multiplayer game, which I’ll come to in a minute. The result is that I played it through in just a couple of sittings, to the neglect of much more important, pressing tasks.
The knight is good at hitting things. Initially he gets a sword and shield, which he can use to smack stuff, and to protect himself from some attacks. The shield seems a little inconsistent, and I’d definitely like it to have added a greater level of resistance to attacks, and ultimately I didn’t use it a great deal. The knight is later able to pick stuff up and throw it (not all that useful) and to smack stuff with a hammer (very useful indeed). He is actually the least useful of the three characters, despite being handy against the hordes of undead that come pouring onto the screen to try and stop you. (The characters chat to each other as the game goes on, and raised a little smile when the knight said: “All this jumping around… it’s not for grown men.”)
The wizard’s powers are far more benign, but can nevertheless be used offensively. Initially he’s able to create a cube, then a plank, and then a floating platform, with a mouse gestures in the air. The cube and plank can – as a last resort – be dropped on an enemy, crushing them. Using the cubes, planks and platforms can often be the fastest way to get through any given puzzle, assuming you can’t just ninja your way through with the thief. The wizard also has a telekinetic ability, allowing you move various physics objects, including stone blocks or fixed mechanisms, around the screen. This way buttons can be pressed, chasms bridged, enemies blocked.
The thief has a bow, with which she can shoot arrows, and later multiple arrows and fire arrows, but she also has a grapple. The grapple, which can shoot off any piece of wood along the 2D plane of the game, is the most powerful tool early on. You can bypass entire puzzles at points in the proceedings, and also move very quickly out of dangerous situations. The speedy, very jump-capable thief is, therefore, a very powerful asset in the first two things of the game. The ranged attack of the bow is also extremely useful: spamming arrows means you often don’t have to risk melee combat at all. I spent quite a lot of time as the thief.
The puzzles generally consist of a number of platforms that are unreachable, with a series of problems through which you must navigate to reach the unreachable, or to unlock major gates. Blocks must be stacked telekinetically, barriers must be smashed, fireballs dodged, acid jumped, deep-dark waterways swum, all while fighting off the many skeleton enemies. The only puzzles that had me stumped for more than a couple of minutes were ones where the route wasn’t quite clear, or where I wasn’t thinking with my entire toolset. Generally the challenges the game sets you are all just-about-hard-enough, so that you smile as you get past them, rather than becoming stuck and enraged. In fact, it’s arguable the toolset provided by the game is actually too flexible in many cases. I found myself sidestep what seemed like entire puzzle sets with a clever use of the grapple, or a combination of bodged jumping and the wizard’s created items. You feel like you bodged or cheated your way past any number of situations.
Death is never too much of a problem either, as you’re only ever pushed back to the previous checkpoint, and possibly forced to change character. I was regular reduced to the wizard, having killed knight and thief, and still managed to hop, skip and bridge my way through to the next checkpoint, where my other aspects were resurrected (albeit with reduced health).
This is rather different in multiplayer. Having more than one character on screen is a fascinating difficulty multiplier. Every single puzzle must be approached differently, because you have to figure out how to get both people through the obstacle. As a solo player I could often rely on a collapsing structure or a deft sequence of continuous jumps, and these weren’t possible multiplayer, because the second player could get left behind. The entire process changes and slows: with the puzzles being entirely different prospects for the pair of us. I only managed to play through a chunk of the game with two of us (keyboard/mouse, 360 pad), but it rapidly became frustrating. I can’t even imagine how difficult it must be with three people: either impossible, or so hard that it no longer becomes enjoyable, I suspect. I’m certain some folks will get a kick out of it, but it’s not the kind of co-op that really appeals to me.
Other infuriations included the bats: swarming mobs that occasionally result in insta-death because you can’t get distance from them fast enough. And the final level, which is a bit of a silly difficulty spike.
For the most part, however, this is a splendid sideways romp through fairy-tale physics, ideal for the whimsical solo player, or a trio of highly co-operative chums. I can’t stress how charming the game world is: Frozenbyte have excelled themselves, and created something genuinely memorable. I took my time to explore and idle, and still made it through in six or so hours, with a couple more to get fed up of multiplayer. What this means is that Trine is, if you’ve the slightest whiff of interest in an exquisitely beautiful puzzle-platformer, definitely a game you should buy. But probably not at the current £20/$30 price points, unless you’re remarkably cash rich. When the price falls lower it’s going to a definite purchase, and we’ll keep an eye out for that happening, not least because I wouldn’t want Frozenbyte to suffer if this game wasn’t a commercial success. Creatively, it very definitely is.
For further ruminations, you can sample the demo for yourself.
15/07/2009 at 10:22 bitkari says:
But probably not at the current £20/$30 price points, unless you’re remarkably cash rich
Agreed. I’m amazed by how many publishers are getting the price points wrong.
I suppose a massive danger of going digital is that publishers can pretty much ignore retailers and do as they please…
15/07/2009 at 10:23 Dominic White says:
With three players, the game becomes The Lost Vikings again. Every room is a horrible deathtrap, and there are obstacles that one character can easily get past, but another will require help from their buddies to overcome.
With just one player you can largely just dash through everything and not worry too much about the specifics, but with three, it becomes a genuine puzzle game. You really have to get your thinking cap on, and that’s what makes it so good in multiplayer. You need to actually communicate and think, and shout at each other if needed.
15/07/2009 at 10:24 LewieP says:
I’m a few levels in so far, and really enjoying it so far. It is presented really nicely. I wish that there was more modern 2D platformers with this level of polish around.
Trine, PC – £14.99 delivered
15/07/2009 at 10:28 Heliocentric says:
Sounds good, bring on the weekend deal. :D
15/07/2009 at 10:29 Tyndareus says:
I’m afraid the price tag (along with some initial reports as to the brevity of the game in single-player mode) has also kept me away from Trine; it’s a shame, really, because it’s beautifully executed and even if it’s not entirely original it does seem very fresh.
15/07/2009 at 10:30 Dominic White says:
A lot of the characters abiltiies don’t really come into their own in multiplayer too – the Knights throwing ability, for instance, seems pretty useless if you’re by yourself, but it works in perfect synergy with the Wizards crates in co-op. The Wizard wants to get up to a high ledge, right? He makes a box and stands on it. The Knight picks up the box and throws it into the air, letting the wizard jump off mid-chuck and land safely. He then makes a platform below and levitates it with the Knight on, up to his level, and the two continue together.
In singleplayer, that’d almost certainly just be ‘Switch to Thief, grapple to platform, switch to Wizard/Knight and continue’.
15/07/2009 at 10:30 Dr.Danger says:
Truly beautiful world and fantastic voice from the narrator, much too short and a bit gimmicky but still must buy even at the current price.
15/07/2009 at 10:31 Dominic White says:
Don’t come into their own UNTIL you’re in multiplayer, even.
I miss you, Edit Function. Come back!
15/07/2009 at 10:34 roBurky says:
I bought this at release, but I’m still waiting until I can find a second controller so we can play it through the first time in three-player co-op.
15/07/2009 at 10:35 bansama says:
And the final level, which is a bit of a silly difficulty spike.
One of the recent patches actually addresses this issue for the first two difficulty levels but Frozenbyte decided to leave it as is for the higher ones, so if that level annoys too much, play it on one of the first two difficulty settings first then try again on the higher levels once you know the rough route and obstacle placement.
As far as pricing goes, I think it’s fairly well priced. Sure it’d sell more at $19.99 but for the quality of the game and the amount playability it has, $30 isn’t really too much to ask for. There are certainly far worse games you could get for the same price.
But then, it’s a Frozenbyte game so chances of a price drop after a few months is very good for those who don’t mind waiting a bit.
15/07/2009 at 10:35 SmallGods says:
I would like to say, that having got this game, loved it, and ploughed through it, I have become determined to get every Steam achievement, and aside from 4 levels where I can’t find that LAST DAMN BIT OF EXPERIENCE! GNAAAAAAARRRR!!!! it’s all going rather well.
Also, after days of careful route planning, frustration, and sheer pig-headedness, I have completed the last level on Very Hard, with no character deaths. The achievment is mine!! Envy me! Fear me! Pity me…
Totally worth the £20 for a collect-a-holic like myself. ^_^
(I’m currently unemployed and waiting for a new job to start in September. This is my only excuse..)
15/07/2009 at 10:37 matte_k says:
Love it. Very apt, how you describe the narration as warmly spoken, it is almost like having a bedtime story read to you :) My girlfriend loves it too, and she’s kicking my arse at it in terms of progress…
15/07/2009 at 10:39 Diogo Ribeiro says:
I’ve been meaning to do a write-up on Trine but I still haven’t finished it. My first comment will probably fly over the PC-centric crowd on RPS, but I’ll risk it anyway – the aesthetics and platforming are probably what all 2D Castlevanias should aim for. It’s ridiculously beautiful and detailed, giving off a good deal of depth to an otherwise two-dimensional romp, and the action alternates between fast-paced (in combat, general platforming and environmental maneuvering) and contemplative (in solving puzzles or other obstacles) that I think dwarfs much of what Igarashi and his crew have done in the past years with the vampire hunter series. This isn’t necessarily a heavy criticism of Iga’s design – this is not the time or place for such – but I get this strong CV vibe from Trine that I’ve been waiting to rediscover in modern CVs. It kinda reminds me of something between Lost Vikings (natch) and Rondo of Blood, an oft forgotten and neglected CV title. The Thief’s grappling swings are tight and enjoyable (why does that sound like I’m talking about body orifices? >_> ), harkening back to both CV and Metroid.
Now that the crazy talk is done with…
Last time I played wasn’t too far after the beginning (the Academy, maybe?). I agree with everything you’ve mentioned, but I have to point out a pet peeve of mine. Whether they’re terrible or I just wasn’t expecting them to work that way, I hate it when spikes on floors chip away health by just standing next to them. When I fall over them, the characters then land on a patch of ground where they can walk on but the game treats that entire area as hazardous. A flat 2D environment would probably be more effective in communicating this – from Castlevania (go away, crazy!) to Metrod (pitchforks!), you’d often have long lines of spikes where you knew you couldn’t get near; in Trine, possibly due to the perspective used, it gave me a wrong idea of just what was doable in these circumstances.
Other than that, no complaints. Grappling around took me some adjustment time but it’s all been good. Need to play more!
15/07/2009 at 10:57 Pavel says:
Once it hits 15 pounds I will buy it, but now I have shitloads of other games to play, and at 30 it is not instabuy yet.
15/07/2009 at 10:57 unclelou says:
I’ve only played the demo so far – I really loved the knight. Melee combat is so satisfying in this due to the animations and physics.
15/07/2009 at 10:59 LewieP says:
@Pavel
See my comment earlier on here, it is available for £14.99 right now.
15/07/2009 at 11:19 Simon says:
Is it just me or is it impossible to hit more than ONE bat at a time with the knight? The swords goes through a bunch of them, but only one dies… Quite annoying!
(See how minor that complain is? Yeah, thats how well-done this game is otherwise!)
15/07/2009 at 11:22 Andresito says:
Damn, I want to play this game!! I’ll wait for a less than 30€ price though…
15/07/2009 at 11:36 ZenArcade says:
Can you please change the title of this feature to “wot I fink” in the future? Not sure why I want it like that but I think it’d be bloody excellent.
15/07/2009 at 11:37 Totalbiscuit says:
Its astonishing how in almost any other market, we wouldn’t bat in eyelid at paying premium for an extremely high product from a smaller, independent manufacturer but try and apply that principle to games and its time to run for the hills until the bargain bin beckons. If 15 or even 20 quid is too much for 8 hours (or more if you enjoy the multiplayer) of mastercrafted entertainment then you are a big dumb baby that can’t appreciate awesome.
15/07/2009 at 11:41 Hoernchen says:
While it was a nice game, it is just too expensive, and the multiplayer part… no pc gamer would ever call something like this “multiplayer”.
15/07/2009 at 11:41 Lobotomist says:
One of best games 2009
15/07/2009 at 11:43 Xocrates says:
Quite frankly, I think 30$/€ is an entirely fair price for the game. While it’s true the game isn’t AAA, it isn’t really a “true” indie either. The game looks and plays great, is fairly lengthy (about 6-7 hours on the first run) and surprisingly replayable.
By the way, I believe that when playing co-op, you can teleport next to the other player when you fall too much behind. Although that feels a bit like cheating.
15/07/2009 at 11:44 Tei says:
Not my tea cup, but is a good game. A bit gamey and consoley (only a 11.14 %, main contributors: menu system, obituary solution system ) so theres not enough of a EPIC feel. In-betwen-maps lore/images helps a tons, so it ends well over 4/5 stars. But this one could have been a 5/5 and is not.
15/07/2009 at 11:54 Diogo Ribeiro says:
@Hoernchen:
It’s not multiplayer unless it features headshots or 64 players, amirite?
15/07/2009 at 12:02 Lilliput King says:
Played this with my two brothers, thief on mouse n keyboard, knight and wizard on 360 controllers.
First things first, this is the prettiest game I’ve played in a long time. For pure aesthetics and visual style, it may be the prettiest game I’ve ever played.
Price wasn’t too unfair as we split the cost to about £6.50 each, well worth it for several hours of gameplay.
The three player co-op is absurdly fun, though difficult at times. It can occasionally be challenging to get all three of your characters through a given puzzle, and my younger brother, playing thief, was pretty much capable of completing the game on his own due to the ridiculously powerful bow and the swingamajig rope.
The knight, on the other hand, has almost no useful powers, so I made my own fun by smashing the wizard’s increasingly complex contraptions at the precise moment it would catapult both my brothers into the water. Hehe.
The wizard did seem pretty cool – eventually he had the tools to build insane contraptions to carry him over the largest gaps, the fairly accurate physics making this more fun that it at first sounds. Often the knight and the thief would stand at the very edge of the first girder, along with a pile cubes, to counterbalance the line of girders precariously dangling over a gap. Once the wizard was over, we would jump on a block and he would levitate us to his side.
We did manage to reach the final level, which on arrival was something of a dissapointment – it wasn’t impossible to reach the top on 3 player co-op, but it was so close to impossible that it caused frustration, and eventually we disconnected the three player co-op to let the thief do it single-player style.
We never completed the game though, because once we reached the top the knight and wizard died in some lava, and whenever the thief tried to resurrect us, we would spawn in the lava again, and die instantly. The thief then mistimed a jump and cast himself into the lava, and put us back to the beginning of the level. Not cool.
Three player co-op could perhaps use a different ending though, one that all players, and not just the thief, could complete. Overall a good experience though, would certainly recommend it.
15/07/2009 at 12:05 diebroken says:
Reminds me of Nox, and that’s a good thing. :)
15/07/2009 at 12:09 Clovus says:
You feel like you bodged or cheated your way past any number of situations.
It is impossible to please gamers. We enjoy the idea of there being “more than one solution”, and gamers will complain when they are forced to use the “only solution.” However, we all feel like we are cheating a bit when we come up with our own solution that skips over the obvious developer approved solution. I even feel like I am cheating when I manually aim the sniper rifle in Fallout 3 (but then use VATS for up-close shotgun to head action).
Also, I think it is funny that they actually used bats as their goddamned bats.
15/07/2009 at 12:09 unwize says:
I also think the price point is fair. I’m often required to pay a lot more for a lot less.
15/07/2009 at 12:16 Lilliput King says:
“While it was a nice game, it is just too expensive, and the multiplayer part… no pc gamer would ever call something like this “multiplayer”.”
Why? Because it takes place on the same computer, or because it isn’t competitive?
Weighing in on the price, Totalbiscuit has a valid point. High quality products from an independent company usually come with a premium. Even so, reducing the cost by a mere £5 would have garnered Frozenbyte far more sales – people are funny like that. (reference; the enourmous amount of people complaining about the price)
Also I just realised I missed out on the weekend deal on Grid, curses.
15/07/2009 at 12:18 Nick says:
I loved this game very much, played it through (mostly) in about two sittings. Then I came to the dark tower and stopped. For such a lovely game that’s just full of the joy of movement, that last level is just evil.
Still, I spent a great deal of the game swinging around as the Thief, the mechanics of that felt so great that I felt doing the same thing as the Wizard was somehow ‘cheating’.
15/07/2009 at 12:18 suibhne says:
@Diogo: I think his point may have been – or at least mine is – that PC multiplayer really demands online play, not “plug-in-an-extra-controller-and-hunch-around-a-desk-with-a-19″-monitor” play. That’s still my biggest disappointment with Trine and it’s pushing me to wait for the console version where in-person multiplayer is far more practical.
15/07/2009 at 12:27 Martin E says:
@Hoernchen: No PC gamer under the age of 20, perhaps.
I still recall playing through Unreal with my friends in co-op and that was very much a multiplayer experience.
15/07/2009 at 12:31 Diogo Ribeiro says:
@suibhne: Less pratical, perhaps – having tested Street Fighter IV on PC where one player used the keyboard and I used the gamepad, I understand the concern – but it is multiplayer nonetheless.
15/07/2009 at 12:43 Andresito says:
I paid 15€ for Braid (and worth every penny). I think paying twice the price for a similar quality platformer (probably slightly worse) is just not good enough for me.
15/07/2009 at 12:50 Simon Jones says:
I got very excited when I reached the underwater bits. For some reason underwater stuff has always excited me in 2D games – I remember loving Another World and some random Dizzy game 20 years ago for that specific reason.
Surprised at the reactions to the multiplayer, as I’ve had enormous fun with it so far. I actually wish more PC games bothered to do ‘on the same computer’ multiplayer, as it’s highly amusing.
15/07/2009 at 12:52 Catastrophe says:
Does the Multiplayer work on LAN and does it require more copies of the game to say, play on two computers on a LAN?
15/07/2009 at 12:55 unclelou says:
If 15 or even 20 quid is too much for 8 hours (or more if you enjoy the multiplayer) of mastercrafted entertainment then you are a big dumb baby that can’t appreciate awesome.
While you have a point, what kept me from buying it (on Steam) yet was that it costs a third less on the Playstation Network.
15/07/2009 at 12:56 Dominic White says:
Multiplayer is local-only.
No LAN.
No Online.
Local. As in ‘Get a couple of beanbags and gamepads and actually interact with your mates for once’.
15/07/2009 at 12:56 Lilliput King says:
No LAN, catastophe.
15/07/2009 at 13:03 A says:
@Andresito : In term of duration and replayability, Trine provides much more than Braid.
I own both, finished both… And still, I can launch a level of Trine for fun, discover even new ways of solving things… when Braid is always the same. Braid is a meticulously calculated game, which is good, but all puzzles have only one way to solve, the one the developer thought about, and that’s all. Braid is an experience… Unfortunately you can’t really live it twice. Trine has the advantage of being “flexible” enough for you to replay levels several times and not feel like repeating.
15/07/2009 at 13:14 Jim Rossignol says:
I don’t think the game would have benefited particularly from LAN, it’s definitely a same-screen multiplayer game.
15/07/2009 at 13:18 Fat says:
Nice review Jim.
I got this practically upon release, and i agree about the annoying last level. It kind of spoiled the game for me, because i can’t stand games that resort to the ”you have to jump up faster than the lava/water/whatever moves” thing. The guy making obstacles appear was kind of annoying, but i wouldn’t of minded if he hadn’t made umpteen spikey balls appear.
I think i gave it about 5 tries and got near the end but just couldn’t be bothered after that. The game was fun and i’ll admit, quite easy before that.
As for the bats, use the Thief and run away from them while spamming arrows. Just spam your mouseclick cause they dont really need to have any power behind them. Helps if you upgrade her arrows to triple shot too, i’d say that should be her first upgrade because it makes half the fights easier than using the Knight.
As for replay value mentioned above. I don’t recall much where i could really do things differently? Unless you mean things like ”make the wizard create boxes and climb the ledge instead of using the Thief’s grappling rope”… in which case i don’t really count it, as it’s not exactly different enough to me.
15/07/2009 at 13:19 Gorgeras says:
I’ve played the demo and this is the first game that has tempted me into buying a 360 controller so I can play it with my two nieces.
PC games can do consoley multiplayer, we need more games doing it. People should buy Trine if only to keep the developer in bread; this is very special.
15/07/2009 at 13:49 Darkflight says:
Absolutely loved this, well worth the £20 in my view, gorgeous perfectly (bar the last level) paced little game.
I’m loving dipping back into the levels now my guys are more powered up and I know the layout to try and find the secrets and xp I missed.
I should try Shadowgrounds as I got it with the pre-order, but 1vs100 and Anno 1401 are stealing all my evening time.
15/07/2009 at 13:53 jalf says:
Because it is not AAA. €30 is well up into AAA territory. I could live with £15-20, or $30, but at €30 I start feeling ripped off. We’re up into AAA territory there. It’s about what I paid for Empire: Total War. And that was a lot more than 6-7 hours long.
Plus, arbitrarily charging europeans 30% more than both US and UK customers doesn’t increase my feeling of goodwill towards the game.
And of course, there’s one final detail. It’s an individual decision whether or not a price point is “fair. You can shout out at the top of your lungs that it’s a perfectly well justified price point until the cows come home, and I still won’t buy it, because the price is too high for me. If you feel the price is great, go ahead and buy the game and ship it to me. Some of you sound like it’s the bargain of your life, so surely you can afford to buy an extra copy. ;)
15/07/2009 at 13:56 autogunner says:
yeah the same screen gameplay gives a great retro style feeling to the game. I really enjoyed the 3 player co-op as it totally changes the way puzzles are approached, as the wizard can leviate platforms holding other players, and huge constructions made couterweighted by the knight. Its brilliant fun until the last level. (we made it to the top, but there is a respawn bug taht plonks players in the fire pit…)
15/07/2009 at 13:57 Diogo Ribeiro says:
@Simon Jones:
Dizzy \o/
15/07/2009 at 14:02 Xocrates says:
@jalf: Maybe it depends of where you live, but I’ll be lucky to get a AAA games for 30€ six months after launch. The standard price for a AAA game is 50€ in the PC and 60€ on a console.
Also, while I mentioned that (in my opinion at least) the price is fair, I never argued that a lot of people may not be able to afford it. What annoys me is that those are the people that act like the game they never played isn’t worth the asking price.
15/07/2009 at 14:07 Matt says:
I played the demo and was thoroughly impressed. But the $30 price is a sticking point for me, especially with games like BF1943 going for $15 these days. I’ll pick it up once it drops below $20.
15/07/2009 at 14:08 Cedge says:
Now I need to go through RPS articles and find any instances of editorial recommendations of games that are 6-8 hours or less, and cost $30 or more.
It’s half the cost of a typical “AAA” game, and certainly at least half the enjoyment. Oi.
15/07/2009 at 14:11 Totalbiscuit says:
Incidentally yes, the price in euros sucks, but welcome to Steameconomics. Buddy up with someone in the UK and have them gift it.
15/07/2009 at 14:24 unclelou says:
Because it is not AAA. €30 is well up into AAA territory. I could live with £15-20, or $30, but at €30 I start feeling ripped off. We’re up into AAA territory there. It’s about what I paid for Empire: Total War. And that was a lot more than 6-7 hours long.
There’s the problem with the weak pound and generally cheaper PC games in the UK coming into play here again. 30,- EUR is strictly indie/budget rerelease territory in continental Europe. Empire cost 50,- on Steam, and not much less in the shops.
15/07/2009 at 14:26 castle says:
FYI, the PS3 version is only going to be $20, which seems like a more appropriate price. It should be on PSN by the end of July, they said, so I’m waiting (more and more uncomfortably with each glowing review) for that.
15/07/2009 at 14:29 Arnulf says:
I think it’s worth the $30. For the artwork and the music alone. I’m still on my first playthrough.
I’m taking my sweet time with this. I don’t want this to end too early.
Also I went back to earlier levels to collect some hard-to-get experience flasks. I’m probably the proverbial whimsical solo-player here.
If you want to finish the game as quickly as possible it’s probably not more than some mere hours. But the real meat is in my opinion to get everything. Every green flask, and every secret treasure chest.
What Mr Rossignol forgot to tell is that on every level there are at least two chests. At least half of them are somehow hard to reach, or you have to bypass a trap. In these chests are abilities or extra items.
I’m especially pleased that this game is kind of relaxing. No puzzle is too hard. Sometimes you can wing it, but sometimes you will find a very clever solution.
It’s rewarding. It’s worth the $30. Wasn’t entertained like this since Braid.
15/07/2009 at 14:31 Gnoupi says:
About price, people took a bad habit with Steam (before 1dollar=1euro thing), to pay games cheaper, just because they are lucky to have to conversion work in their way.
Fact is, for Trine, they did the good thing. Frozenbyte is in Europe, the real price for their game is 30euros. For USA it should have been 42dollars, but they reduced it to 30.
So no reason to whine about “Steameconomics”
15/07/2009 at 14:35 jalf says:
@Unclelou: No, I’m in continental Europe too. I just don’t buy from Steam or shops. If you browse around a bit (hint: play.com), you could get ETW for just over €30, same as virtually every AAA game. I consider the fact that Steam and local shops try to rip you off at €50 completely irrrelevant. (Hell, new games often cost around €60 in shops here) I only look at the lowest prices I can find. And the lowest price I could find for ETW (or any other AAA game, for that matter at release) is pretty much what is charged for Trine at its lowest price point. That’s what I consider relevant.
The fact that the highest price I can find for ETW is about twice that is… well, not important to me. Why would I care?
15/07/2009 at 14:38 HEX says:
Interesting mechanic, kind of like Lost Vikings in one body. Performing the different functions without the advantage of the two other “bodies” does make a big difference, but hopefully fans of LV will understand what I mean. ;)
TB: You can’t escape your legion of snarky WoW fans. We follow you everywhere. Scary, no?
15/07/2009 at 14:43 jalf says:
@Gnoupi: Except Steam is not the issue. There are plenty of other places to buy at lower prices than €50/game. The problem about “steameconomics” if you want to bring that up, is that they charge far above what I could get the game for elsewhere. Steam has never been an attractive place to buy games. Before they added Euro prices, it was generally on par with what I’d pay elsewhere. Now, half their games added 40% to their prices.
I also fail to see how it is a “fact” that the developer did “the good thing” when judging by this thread, they seem to have lost quite a lot of sales.
Surely, the “good thing” is the one that nets them the most revenue. So calling it a “fact” is just ridiculous. Unless, of course, you’re able to prove that they’d have made less money if they lowered the price.
If the real price is €30, then the real price is too high. Steam, currency conversion rates or “facts” about “the good thing” are just not relevant. €30 is more than I am willing to pay for the game. They would have had me hooked if they’d set a more modest price, but they didn’t, so I’m not.
Like I said before, it’s up to the individual customer to decide if the price is acceptable or not. I don’t see why I should fork over €30 just because *you* like the price.
15/07/2009 at 14:53 Robin says:
Trine is very much in the tradition of the sort of games that demoscene teams (like Zyrinx) used to make. Extravagant production values over a slightly too traditional or simplistic framework.
15/07/2009 at 14:56 Gnoupi says:
Or maybe a price could sometimes depend on what the developers estimated :
1. Enough to cover fees of development and bring money for future devs ;
2. What their game was worth, according to its quality.
I’m always amazed how people judge “correct price”. Finally all games besides the blockbusters should be almost given ?
Trine is a quality game, but since it is closer to “game made by two people in a garage” than “200+ people working on it”, then people judge they can’t pay more than 10 euros.
Trine is on the top ten sales on steam since its release, so I fail to see how your point is more valuable than mine.
To me, and obviously to many others, Trine is worth 30euros.
The others, why you are even complaining, all games decrease in price, and LewieP already pointed how to buy it for 15gbp. So if you like it but you are sick because of the price, wait, and whine less.
15/07/2009 at 14:58 Diogo Ribeiro says:
@Robin:
Extravagant production values over a slightly too traditional or simplistic framework pretty much sums up the bulk of videogame development. At least Trine is honest about what it does.
15/07/2009 at 15:03 Lilliput King says:
jalf, no-one is making you, honestly.
People can have their own opinions as to whether the price is fair or not, as you say, it’s an individual choice.
So there is no need to act indignant whenever anyone says the price is fair for them :)
15/07/2009 at 15:07 Jim Rossignol says:
“a slightly too traditional or simplistic framework”
Neither of those things are true of Trine.
15/07/2009 at 15:12 Totalbiscuit says:
@HEX Considering the number of times myself and Chaossmurf talk about RPS that’s not surprising. Also I will take Trine over ETW any day of the week because Trine isn’t a buggy piece of shit that took several months to even half fix.
15/07/2009 at 15:14 suibhne says:
@Jim: I find your comment really curious. I don’t have a problem with same-screen multiplayer (aside from the fact that it’s not nearly as convenient on most PC setups as on a typical console), but your assertion that same-screen provides an innately superior Trine experience to LAN is just a little mind-boggling. How could it make a significant difference whether I was sitting next to my mate looking at the same screen, or sitting next to (or across from) my mate looking at different screens?
Even now, the Steam hardware survey suggests that most people are gaming with 19″ or smaller monitors attached to their PCs. (That’s my rough extrapolation from the fact that the two most common resolutions for Steam users are 1280×1024 and 1024×768. Resolutions of 1440×900 and lower account for about 70% of all users.) I’ve found same-screen multiplayer a bit of a pain to arrange on my setup, with a 24″ monitor, so I really can’t imagine things being easier at 19″ or 17″.
Console same-screen multiplayer works because of the living room setup and the relatively much larger screen sizes of TVs. Because of the desk-oriented setup frequently used for PCs, otoh, PC same-screen multiplayer is a nice bonus but not a replacement for LAN or online play.
I’ve set up my rig so that I can pipe Trine out to my TV, so I’m all good over here. But I have a lot of sympathy for people who feel like “same-screen only” = a lack of full PC multiplayer.
15/07/2009 at 15:21 Lilliput King says:
Hmm. I dunno why, suib, but I agree with Jim (though not entirely. An option for LAN/intarwebs multiplayer wouldn’t have gone amiss, although as the team has already explained, it would require significant rewriting of the game – same deal with shadowgrounds survivor).
I’ve always been a PC Gamer, so I haven’t had much experience with screen-sharing multiplayer games, but it just really seemed to work. It was easier to work together and more fun, too. Purely subjective of course.
15/07/2009 at 15:31 Xocrates says:
I just want to leave one final note regarding the price. I thought I’d leave here a link for Frozenbyte’s position regarding pricing: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10518601&postcount=149
15/07/2009 at 15:47 Jim Rossignol says:
“How could it make a significant difference whether I was sitting next to my mate looking at the same screen, or sitting next to (or across from) my mate looking at different screens?”
Being able to sit next to each other and point and shout does make a difference. But your question also answers itself.
15/07/2009 at 15:57 unclelou says:
@Unclelou: No, I’m in continental Europe too. I just don’t buy from Steam or shops. If you browse around a bit (hint: play.com), you could get ETW for just over €30
Stuff from play.com doesn’t really count – it can get stuck in the customs if sent to non-UK countries. Or, if you’re lucky, it doesn’t, in which case it’s cheaper because it’s basically tax evasion. Besides, it’s a UK site as well – like I said, PC games in the UK are cheaper, and now, with the weak pound, even more so. I dare you to find a “AAA”-PC release from any German online shop for less than 40-50 EUR.
Of course you can shop around, but judging Trine’s Steam price against the cheapest you could find Empire for doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Reality is, 30,- EUR is not the standard price for a new PC game in most countries unless you shop around relentlessly EU-wide.
15/07/2009 at 15:57 hahanoob says:
I have to chuckle at developers being able to set their own price points being considered a “massive danger.” The game is easily worth 30 dollars and nobody cares if you managed to get E:TW mailed to you for the same price from some bargain outlet. If you can’t swing the price just wait and stop whining.
15/07/2009 at 16:12 GRIMDARK says:
I don’t think this game is worth $30. It may have a short, brilliant singleplayer experience, but so did Portal and that never cost $30. (If it had online multiplayer, I could see the justification for even a full retail price)
And the fact that it is available on PSN for $20 cements the fact that it is not worth the $30. Frozenbyte made a half-decent game for once and so they are now trying to milk it for all it’s worth.
15/07/2009 at 16:15 SuperNashwan says:
I couldn’t resist buying this on launch for £20 and I’m normally loath to spend that on any game. I think the Thief is the both the best and worst element of the game; so satisfying to fling around and pepper everything with arrows, but so useful as to make the other characters and most of the environmental puzzles pretty redundant. It’s very definitely a straight up platformer for most of the time with options for how you progress, rather than being a puzzle action game taking full advantage of the characters’ various skill sets. Not that I mean that necessarily as a criticism, it just tickles the part of my brain labelled ‘Amiga nostalgia’ for whatever reason, maybe the bit that remembers Odyssey (which I think I must be the only person to ever play, because it was brilliant yet no one ever mentions it).
The presentation is just superb, I couldn’t really find anything to fault in the any of it, from the voice acting to the music to the dialogue to the graphical splendour.
I can only dream how excellent a metroidvania game built on this could be. I constantly wonder that there aren’t more people bringing old 2D gameplay up to date like this.
15/07/2009 at 16:19 linfosoma says:
I really want this game, but I agree that $30 is a bit too expensive for me considering what it is.
When the price drops, I´ll make sure I grab it.
15/07/2009 at 16:23 Xocrates says:
@GRIMDARK: Trine isn’t really shorter than many full priced AAA platformers.
I can beat Portal in about 1 hour without rushing through, I doubt I could do the same for Trine in less than 4-5. Even if we consider first runs only Portal took me 2-3 hours versus the 6-7 of Trine.
15/07/2009 at 16:24 vader says:
Loved the demo. I’m gonna wait for the price to drop before buying it though.
15/07/2009 at 16:30 Alaric says:
I played the demo and enjoyed it. Will very likely buy the game when the price drops a bit.
15/07/2009 at 16:55 Dominic White says:
I really like the bizarre dynamic that playing this in co-op brings. If you play singleplayer, it’s kinda like playing The Lost Vikings as just the fast one who could run through most levels without stopping, only switching to the more fighty characters when required.
Add two more people and it becomes a much slower, much more puzzle-oriented game, and probably with more replay value as there’s a greater range of tools available to your team at any given time.
It’s sad that a lot of people will overlook co-op because they assume that it’d make the game easier, and discover that they can’t just run through everything using the character-switching system.
15/07/2009 at 17:14 disperse says:
Step 1: Lure two friends to your flat with promises of beer.
Step 2: Split Trine 3 ways, only $10, not so bad, eh?
Step 3: Hook up your PC to your TV. Curse while trying to configure a third controller using the horrible setup screen.
Step 4: Gaming Nirvana.
I strongly believe that Trine is meant to be played with two other people. Fun occurs when:
– The Thief crouches behind the Knight’s shield and snipes skeleton archers.
– The Knight accidentally destroys the platform the Thief was standing on.
– The Wizard levitates (or attempts to levitate) his comrades over spiky pits of doom.
You will spend twice as long at every puzzle trying to figure out how to get all three characters to the next checkpoint. However, for a relatively short game, this is a plus. Also, you’ll have a blast doing it.
15/07/2009 at 17:35 Lilliput King says:
Hehe, yep disperse. You’ve got to love those moment when the wizard is lifting you and the box starts to spin in mid air, and the thief and knight have to keep jumping round to stand on the rapidly rotating top edge. It’s a particular type of mad energy which makes the three-people-sitting-round-a-screen thing work perfectly.
15/07/2009 at 17:51 MehEnthusiasm says:
$10 Steam weekend deal buy from me. No more.
I love my huge backlog of games I have yet to play….saves me money.
15/07/2009 at 17:52 Dominic White says:
Yeah, there’s a lot of little things about Trine co-op that wouldn’t work, even via LAN. There’s none of that wild shouting ‘To your left! No, the other left!’ or pointing at the screen to roughly ‘draw’ out plans that you know are going to fail horrendously and dump all three of you into a spike pit.
15/07/2009 at 18:05 Ginger Yellow says:
Maybe I ‘m doing it wrong, but the shield seems seriously screwed up to me. Half the time it points in the wrong direction when you bring it up.
15/07/2009 at 18:15 unclelou says:
Maybe I ‘m doing it wrong, but the shield seems seriously screwed up to me. Half the time it points in the wrong direction when you bring it up.
It points to where the mouse cursor is (or the direction in which you press the analogue stick). You can move the shield around while using it by moving the cursor around the knight.
15/07/2009 at 18:17 TotalBiscuit says:
@GRIMDARK Half decent? Heh. Shadowgrounds and Survivor were half decent. Trine? Fucking brilliant more like it. The hypocrisy of PC gamers is palpable. You bitch and whine that nobody brings out any original, innovative games anymore, particularly with emergent gameplay and when one does come out you cry it’s too expensive, regardless of the fact that you can buy it for half the price of a brand new release.
Portal was 3 fucking hours and a pack-in with the Orange Box, backed by a massive development house. Trine is 8 for the single-player alone (there’s no way you’re doing it in 6 unless you’re deliberately blitzing it), from a small independent development house, and you’re crying about having to pay £14.99 for it?
If there’s anything that can be said about PC gamers, it’s that they’re cheap, and will avoid paying money for things unless they absolutely have to. PC gamers are their own worst enemies.
15/07/2009 at 18:40 Taillefer says:
I don’t like it as much as I want to. I felt it somehow lacked a certain charm and, despite the fact I can see how beautifully presented it all is, seemed oddly bland to me. I’m not sure why, exactly. There weren’t really any awesome, memorable moments. Maybe I have no soul. It’s by no means a bad game though, I had fun with it.
15/07/2009 at 18:50 Zyrxil says:
@GRIMDARK Half decent? Heh. Shadowgrounds and Survivor were half decent. Trine? Fucking brilliant more like it. The hypocrisy of PC gamers is palpable. You bitch and whine that nobody brings out any original, innovative games anymore, particularly with emergent gameplay and when one does come out you cry it’s too expensive, regardless of the fact that you can buy it for half the price of a brand new release.
The problem is, it’s only vaguely</i brilliant, in the sense that it brings some sense of wonder, yet you're confused as to why. The "puzzles" are all completely obvious; the combat is excessive and extremely easy; the environments are detailed yet there are never any set pieces to truly make you gasp; the narrative is playful yet ultimately too cliched and not so satisfying.
I paid $30, but it should've been a $20 game.
15/07/2009 at 19:19 IcyBee says:
How come no-one’s mentioned this game’s remarkable similarity to the BBC Micro classic Imogen?
There’s a freeware PC remake here: http://imogen.ovine.net/
…it’s also quite a bit like Lego Star wars as well.
15/07/2009 at 19:27 suibhne says:
@Jim: “How could it make a significant difference whether I was sitting next to my mate looking at the same screen, or sitting next to (or across from) my mate looking at different screens?”
Being able to sit next to each other and point and shout does make a difference. But your question also answers itself.
I’m not seeing how my question answers itself. I suppose it helps that I have a lot of experience with LAN sitches, but the standard in LAN is yelling back and forth, calling out “left” and “right” directions, etc. – no different from you lads are talking about here. Dominic White makes a good point about the ability to trace tactics on a shared screen with your finger, but that’s the only point I’ve seen in this thread that would be superior for a shared screen versus two side-by-side or back-to-back screens on LAN.
15/07/2009 at 19:30 Jim Rossignol says:
You answer your question by pointing out that there’s no difference: you might as well play it on one screen.
15/07/2009 at 19:46 AiglosCelt says:
First of all, the game is fantastic. Beautiful and clever, and it gives me the sort of warm fuzzies that I haven’t felt since I was a little kid and my mom was reading me bedtime stories in the Arthurian vein. One thing I notice though is that which character is the least useful is a very debatable item. Another review I read pointed the finger at the thief, and I personally feel the wizard is a bit cumbersome when you can handle most of the puzzles more quickly with the other two (though the wizard is undoubtedly more accurate in his manipulations). I think that’s a good sign of how well balanced the characters are; everyone’s going to find one they like the most and stick with it more than any other.
Now I just need to get some xbox controllers so I can rock out with my friends >: Best game I’ve played in a good long time, even with the price point.
About the price point, whether or not it’s fair for THIS game, I find it odd that so many people think just because a game is “indie” it should be cheap. That may be true for most indie offerings, but there is the occasional one man or small team self published creation out there that deserves a AAA price tag.
(As a side note, I feel like some of the most memorable sections of the game are when your fighters can’t stand up to the tide of skeletons and you’re beaten down to your wizard alone…he jumps, dodges, and flings boxes until he staggers his way to the checkpoint with just a sliver of health left. Delicious.)
15/07/2009 at 20:00 Vinraith says:
It’s beautiful (I mean, stunningly so) and it’s very clever, I really can’t understand why I got bored with it during the course of the demo. Like several others here, I really WANTED to like it, but there’s just something missing…
15/07/2009 at 20:51 phat_chopps says:
It is utterly, utterly wonderful in so many ways. It’s made with a love that that makes you weep with joy – more games need this kind of attention lavished on them. However, it’s nowhere near the best game I’ve played in ages (I much prefer Braid, for a start).
I also don’t necessarily think the price is wrong either – I got about 7-8 hours out of this. The same as the £29.99 Call of Duty 4.
The sodding combat though! And not just the bats – the skeletons were infuriating as well. It really interrupted the flow of the game for me.
15/07/2009 at 21:07 bookwormat says:
Well, Call of Duty 4 also has a multiplayer mode, which (i hear) is very popular.
But then, CoD4 is still 43£ in €-land.
15/07/2009 at 21:08 suibhne says:
@Jim: Ah, I see. Yes, from a gameplay perspective I agree with you; it’s only for a convenience perspective that I wish LAN play were an option, so I could spread out a bit more rather than have two or three people crowded around one desk.
That’s leaving aside the question of internet play, of course. ;)
15/07/2009 at 22:23 Phil Armstrong says:
I have had a blast playing Trine, and am seriously considering picking up a 360 controller purely so I can play co-op with the small person.
Thanks to LewieP I picked it up for £15. I’ve got no problems paying that much for it whatsoever. Anyone comparing it to Portal is out to lunch: the Orange Box was an absolutely steal at £25; if Valve had tried to sell Portal as a standalone at £15 I suspect there would have been ructions.
16/07/2009 at 00:25 Thrawny says:
The game was awesome up until that punishing final level, it made me so angry i hurled my mouse at the cat, i missed fortunately. >.<
16/07/2009 at 00:48 Jad says:
Part of the issue with the price is that at $20 or lower it gets much more easy to just try out a new, unproven game.
For many months now I’ve been making a point of suggesting World of Goo and Braid and Portal to my “limited mainstream gamer” acquaintances: the Sims/Rock Band/nothing-but-WoW people. I find the phrase “and its only $10 or $15″ helps a great deal to get them past their initial reluctance (“What was its name again? Something of Goo? Hmmm…”). I won’t be recommending Trine, in large part because of that price.
@Phil Armstrong: But Valve did sell Portal as a stand-alone on Steam for $20. I’m not good at exchange rates, but that seems to be around £14. A good friend of mine who already had HL2 & the expansions and had no interest in TF2 bought Portal by itself. He thought it a worthwhile price for such a staggeringly good game.
16/07/2009 at 01:15 TariqOne says:
My coop partner lives about as far away from me as is possible for two people both on planet Earth. So it goes without saying that different-screen (LAN/internets) play would sure be handy for folks like us. That’s one argument I see for a more robust co-op functionality.
16/07/2009 at 03:39 Saul says:
I think the price is fair. I pre-ordered after playing the demo, and got shadowgrounds thrown in. I may or may not get all the way through the game (haven’t had much time to try yet), but honestly most so-called “AAA” games have much less charm and bore my within a few hours anyway.
16/07/2009 at 04:38 George Rohac says:
I bought this game the day it came out (didn’t preorder it for some stupid reason) and LOVED every second of it (the bats WERE annoying but I was quick to arrow spam the skies with the thief) EXCEPT for the last level.
I actually wrote a furious letter to them and they responded claiming the last level was a bit of a contention in the studio, but in the end they wanted to make a level that was an epic boss battle.
Which I can understand and after hearing it put that way puts the level into real perspective. So I made my apology and recommended a level gauge or some indication to the player that the level is nowhere NEAR as long as previous ones and that its incredibly special.
I had honestly given up for a night as I thought I had a long death race and THEN a horrible boss battle ahead of me which put me right off.
16/07/2009 at 04:39 Lighthouse says:
I have heard the developers keep saying that the price issue doesn’t really bother them and that the game is worth the $30 price tag. As someone who buys games – I disagree and think the game is overpriced and the whole platform pricing difference just highlights that.
I want to pick up this game, but I will only do it when Steam has one of it’s big 50-75% off sales. Had the game started out at $20 I may have been tempted to pick it up on release – now it’s just a matter of time before it hits the bargain bin.
16/07/2009 at 06:04 Melf_Himself says:
I can’t disagree more with your multiplayer assessment Jim. The puzzles were for the most part much easier to get through – for example you could often just make a plank and have the Wizard levitate it to get through some trickier areas.
I played through with my girlfriend on the weekend, and we found the multiplayer hilariously fun, not frustrating at all. If you can only get 1 person through the puzzle (eg grappling hook), you simply swap characters with each other.
16/07/2009 at 06:06 Melf_Himself says:
Oh, also, you know you can aim the shield right? The thing makes you invulnerable to physical attacks, although not so much with the fire I gather.
16/07/2009 at 16:03 bill says:
the multiplayer sounds kinda LittleBigPlanet
16/07/2009 at 20:54 radomaj says:
Will there ever be another RPS Verdict? Or is it Wot I Thinks all the way?
17/07/2009 at 18:18 Phil Armstrong says:
@Jad: They did? Oh well, there goes that argument!
Regardless, Trine at £15 is well worth the money. The Steam version gets you achievements if you like that sort of thing, but I’m not sure it’s worth the extra £5.
18/07/2009 at 05:26 Mike says:
Trine is great, apart from that bloody last level.
And from here on, what should happen in an ideal world is simple. Sega would license this engine and remake the original Sonic with it. Who’s with me here?
19/07/2009 at 03:19 TeeJay says:
Hurray for “traditional-style” reviews that let me get my head around what a game is like. Thanks Jim.
20/07/2009 at 10:20 Jim Rossignol says:
I’m sure we’ll get round to doing some more verdicts, we’ve just been busy with other stuff – tricky to get all four of us to play the same game at the same time.
30/11/2011 at 20:19 magnus says:
Late I know but I’ve completed it on cough ‘easy’ :) and I love it, it’s well worth going through again.