Knytt Stories preview and screenshots

by John Bardinelli { Jul 18th 2007 at 12:55AM }

Paul Eres recently published a short preview of the upcoming indie game Knytt Stories. The feature walks through a few of the major points of the game, comparing it with the previous Knytt release and the creator's other major game, Within a Deep Forest. Half a dozen new screenshots were also unveiled, shown in the gallery below. Paul's most interesting quote comes from his blog announcement of the preview: "... the more I play the best independent games, the more I don't want to play mainstream games ever again.".

This game along with Aquaria could go in our book as two of the best releases of 2007. Look for Knytt Stories on August 30.

Gallery: Knytt Stories

Tags: clickteam, independent, indie, knytt, knytt stories, KnyttStories, nifflas, withinadeepforest

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Shagittarius @ Jul 18th 2007 1:03AM

"... the more I play the best independent games, the more I don't want to play mainstream games ever again."

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Step away from the bong, relax, just beacuse gameplay is 20 years old doesn't make it any fresher.

Intellectualdiot @ Jul 18th 2007 1:10AM

Please. PLEASE, don't let the indie gaming scene degrade into the orgiastic, elitist samethink that the so-called "indie music" scene has become in my lifetime. I can't help but feel a bit alarmed when I read reactionary statements like that, though, in all fairness, this is largely the opinion of but one individual.

john @ Jul 18th 2007 2:40AM

I have to agree with his statement, though. For the most part, I'm more excited about XBLA and PSN games than I am about $60 games. Hopefully when the install base gets bigger, we'll get more variety.

t_m @ Jul 18th 2007 5:32AM

i loved knytt.. it was fresh in its feel. But I can't imagine that i'd want to keep playing games like that for too long.

Knytt stories sounds cool.. but i wonder if anything has been added in terms of gameplay or plot, or if its just new levels.

Paul @ Jul 18th 2007 5:32AM

I didn't mean the comment to be elitist, I was just stating my personal preference. If people like mainstream games, that's their preference.

I don't think the gameplay of Knytt or Knytt Stories is 20 years old though; name one 20 year old platformer which can deliver the emotion and atmosphere that Nifflas does with his games. Perhaps Out of This World / Another World, but that's about all I can think of.

Shagittarius @ Jul 18th 2007 11:19AM

While emotion and atmosphere go a long way to immersing a player in a game I feel they are far from the goal of interactive entertainment.

For me its all about gameplay, How do I feel about exploring the unique gameplay a title offers, does it make me feel good when I achieve something difficult in game. Does it allow me to feel clever and be creative within the context of those gameplay elements. Is it fun to play?

I'm not going to dis emotion and atmosphere at all I think its great when a game can provide that, however, I think holding that up as the be all end all of gaming is missing the point of gaming. Its truely the best interactive art form in the world and interactivity is the focus, not making an emotional experience that rivals other art forms (movies for example).

I'm equally disappointed in major publishers and indy developers alike. You'd be hard pressed to find a truely original title comming out of either camp, most of them are too derivative to give me the thrill i'm seeking.

They can still be enjoyable of course but when was the last time you played a game for 40 hours that wasn't just because it took 40 hours to complete?

For me that game was Oblivion, even after finishing the main quest I played on and on...I've never wanted to touch an indy game for longer than a couple hours.

Paul @ Jul 18th 2007 11:32AM

Nice reply Shagittarius. But I myself think games are more than gameplay. I agree that most games (indie or mainstream) lack original gameplay, but I don't mind derivative gameplay as long as it's innovative in other areas, and Knytt is innovative in the structure of the game: the game isn't about the platformer mechanics, but about exploring the areas, each with a unique feeling, and seeing small creatures mysteriously inhabiting the world. That's not exactly gameplay, but it's not story or music or graphics either, it's an innovative part of the play experience.

Also one thing to note is that this blog almost never mentions indie games, so you might have a bad impression about how varied the field is. A good list of the best of them is here: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=318.0 -- a lot of those do use traditional mechanics, but a lot of them don't too.

"when was the last time you played a game for 40 hours that wasn't just because it took 40 hours to complete"

Probably 'Shoot the Bullet'.

But, as an aside, I don't really think that games need to last 40 hours. Why would anyone want to use that much time on a single game? Movies gets things done in 2 hours, and even most novels take less than 40 hours to read. I'd prefer a shorter game that I'll remember for a long time (like Ico) over a game that addicts me into playing it for hundreds of hours (like Starcraft).

jay @ Jul 18th 2007 7:06AM

I thought Knytt was great but I think it should have ended there. It's like The Office, Gervais stopped it after 2 series because he didn't want to ruin them 12 episodes.
I'd rather have seen Nifflas work on something completely new since he's got bucket loads of talent.

Still! I've played Knytt and Alex Adventures (there's a link on my site somewhere) for longer than any of my 360 games.

Tony @ Jul 18th 2007 11:06AM

I really don't understand why there has to be a major differentiation between "indie" games and "mainstream" games anyway.

I mean, I do not want the indie scene to die because we see a lot of things that major publishers will never work with. Things that perhaps are works of passion moreso than works to get more money.

Indie isn't technically a genre of music; despite people constantly using it to refer to low-key, fuzz rock bands it can technically be applied as a qualifer to any genre.

Likewise, I don't think "indie" and "mainstream" should begin to be taken as genres for games. It's almost meaningless as a qualifier for quality or content. There's a ton of "indie" games that are completely and utterly derivative, but they'll automatically be liked by the "indie" crowd?

I get the impression that that's starting. Good games are good games and I'm more than willing to support them if they're indie or not.

Paul @ Jul 18th 2007 11:39AM

There isn't a major differentiation, except in how and why a game is produced. Mainstream games tend to be produced by a large group of people according to some plan which (usually) was designed to sell well. Independent games tend to be designed by a single person (or at most a small group) and tend to be designed based on that person's idiosyncratic nature and desires and personal tastes.

Both can be good or bad, but at least when an indie game is bad it's still interesting and personal (like, say, bad fan fiction). So that's really what I meant by them being more interesting to play: there's much more of the human element to them. They're also more likely to read the responses people have to their game and to be closer to the people who enjoy it and to respond to feedback directly. I may like Miyamoto's games, but I know that he'll probably never read any review I write of them or read any email I send him, he's very distant.