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.
Related Stories:
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.
Incidentally yes, the price in euros sucks, but welcome to Steameconomics. Buddy up with someone in the UK and have them gift it.
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.
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.
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.
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”
@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?
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?
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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 :)
“a slightly too traditional or simplistic framework”
Neither of those things are true of Trine.
@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.
@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.
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.
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
“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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Loved the demo. I’m gonna wait for the price to drop before buying it though.
I played the demo and enjoyed it. Will very likely buy the game when the price drops a bit.
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.
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.
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.
$10 Steam weekend deal buy from me. No more.
I love my huge backlog of games I have yet to play….saves me money.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
You answer your question by pointing out that there’s no difference: you might as well play it on one screen.
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.)
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…
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.
Well, Call of Duty 4 also has a multiplayer mode, which (i hear) is very popular.
But then, CoD4 is still 43£ in €-land.
@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. ;)
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.
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. >.<
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.
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.
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.