The Official Aldorlea Games Forum

Can i enter Deckersville later in the game? I can't make contact lenses now because i think i need 2 quartz speck for it, and i used all of them that i found in the ruins, ogre tower, in the volcano and in the caves. Now i can't finish Q5

Yes, that quest can only be solved much later.

If you are playing for the 1st time, you will most likely miss several quests. My advice is to enjoy the game and then play a second time to complete what you missed. I'm a "completionist" and it drove me nuts being "locked" out of a quest (or 2 or 3 or 4 ....).

You can enter Deckersville later if you bought a lottery ticket, but I don't remember that exact sequence.

Here are what my notes say:

You need to buy the frames the first time you enter Deckersville.

1. Talk with man in Pub to activate quest, 2. then read sign in general store, 3. then go find Tabatha in SE corner of fish market area and buy the frames.

When you return (with Genevieve), the sign will be gone, and Tabatha won't be selling the frames anymore.

Make contact lenses from recipe in witch's SR (t access, you need 1 of 2 choices for potions so there is some flexibility), then talk to the guy in Pub again. Unfortunately, I didn't write down the contact lense recipe.

I hope this helps a bit. Good Luck.

kimo wrote:My advice is to enjoy the game and then play a second time to complete what you missed.

The problem with this advice is that you can play the game 10 times and always miss the same things unless you know what to do, because many things simply cannot be figured out on your own.
Even though I'm looking up a lot here so I don't miss so much, I'm constantly anxious and stressed because whenever I do something, I'm afraid it's wrong. So enjoying it is probably the biggest challenge right now.

Personally as a player I always focus on the main quest especially on first playthrough.
There can't be lasting secrets if everything is easy, even fairly easy. The only secrets that last are the hard to figure ones, especially when the entire community is hunting them all down.

And here's where our opinions just totally clash.
You think that unfinished quests or unsolved secrets euqal replay value. For me it equals frustration, and it's very unlikely that I'll replay a game that left me so frustrated.
I think a game should be enjoyable, first and foremost. What I enjoy is solving and completing things. That's what I'm playing a game for, after all.
If I completed everything on my first playthrough and enjoyed doing so, I'd much rather replay that game, even though I already know everything.

It's pretty easy: If I'm thorough, I want to be able to solve quests. If I take the time to talk to people again and again and again, check all kinds of places out again and again, then I should, by all means, be able to solve them.
If not, then I know I also won't be able to do them on my own next time. So why would I even bother playing again?

just totally clash

Yep. But I've always done that, LP1 being a prime example of it.
If 60+ sidequests are solved in just the first playthrough, to me it means the secrets aren't that good.

No, that's just not true.
Again, I spend hours talking to people, exploring areas, talking to them again and exploring again. That in itself can get really tedious, but I do it, because I don't want to miss any change.
But if things depend on other things that just don't make any sense (see my other looooong post where I put examples), and if the quests are set up so even the most throrough exploration and trying out of (logical) things don't solve them, THEN they aren't good.
A good quest can be solved by being thorough and drawing logical conclusions. Or trying out logical things. Like maneuvering the cocka into the cage and then go hit the button. Hitting the button, knowing that he's actually outside - that in my humble opinion is not a good solution for a quest.

Answer is on the other topic. The cocka quest was really inventive IMHO. But yeah, it's not easy at all.

Oh the quest is cool. As I said, I got pretty excited about it because I really thought I could do that.
But sorry, the solution is just NOT good. Why can I trap a bird that's ouside of the cage? It will certainly not decide to walk in on it's own! So why would I, as the player who doesn't know what's going on in the dev's mind, think that it's enough to just chase it in front of the cage?
Maybe you could have added something like finding bird food and put it in the cage to lure it in. Just something to make it logical.

It will certainly not decide to walk in on it's own!

That's actually what happens. While you're "away" it wanders by inattention inside the cage and you trap it.
Thought the concept was real fun.

Cassiopeia wrote:Oh the quest is cool. As I said, I got pretty excited about it because I really thought I could do that.
But sorry, the solution is just NOT good. Why can I trap a bird that's ouside of the cage? It will certainly not decide to walk in on it's own! So why would I, as the player who doesn't know what's going on in the dev's mind, think that it's enough to just chase it in front of the cage?
Maybe you could have added something like finding bird food and put it in the cage to lure it in. Just something to make it logical.

@Cassiopeia
I noticed under another game topic that you mentioned my frustration with quests in this game when I first played it last fall. My frustration was typically a function of a lack of logic in solving the quests, similar to what you have said. Because of my science background, I typically require things to make sense for me to solve a problem.

I agree with you about the Cocka and Red Monkey quests not making sense. Especially when requiring a player to NOT verify the bird's presence in the cage. And the Red Monkey "puzzle" was just that ... a puzzle.

On the other hand, what came out of this game was an informal "support group" where virtually everyone was helping each other succeed by sharing their approach to solving quests and puzzles. However, the bottom line is that I agree with you that quests should be logical regardless of how "hard" they are to understand at first.

Especially when requiring a player to NOT verify the bird's presence in the cage.

It saves you the trouble of having to do it though. That makes the quest easier.
I disagree this quest makes no sense. It "just" requires to get the idea to close the cage when the bird is in that area.
Personally I particularly like this quest and I think having to "verify the bird is inside the cage" (so push it there manually) is useless hassle and does not make more sense than not having to do it - because by the time you reach the switch to lock the cage, what exactly guarantees the bird would have stayed there instead of getting out of the cage? Actually it could even become suspicious that you pushed it there in the first place. Whereas if you don't do anything, by the logic of the game it enters the cage out of curiosity, or at random if you prefer, feeling safe since you're not around, and bam, gets trapped the moment you switch the lever ON.

kimo wrote:On the other hand, what came out of this game was an informal "support group" where virtually everyone was helping each other succeed by sharing their approach to solving quests and puzzles.

I totally understand what you mean. I've been around here long enough for having played several games right when they came out and people come and talk about things, be it to help or just to exchange experiences.
However, that's always just in the beginning and not the case for people that play a game later on. So what's left is the frustration, you know?

Indinera wrote:It saves you the trouble of having to do it though. That makes the quest easier.
I disagree this quest makes no sense. It "just" requires to get the idea to close the cage when the bird is in that area.
Personally I particularly like this quest and I think having to "verify the bird is inside the cage" (so push it there manually) is useless hassle and does not make more sense than not having to do it - because by the time you reach the switch to lock the cage, what exactly guarantees the bird would have stayed there instead of getting out of the cage? Actually it could even become suspicious that you pushed it there in the first place. Whereas if you don't do anything, by the logic of the game it enters the cage out of curiosity, or at random if you prefer, feeling safe since you're not around, and bam, gets trapped the moment you switch the lever ON.

That's what I meant in an earlier game. You as the dev have the big picture in your mind because you came up with this. An explanation like that wouldn't even have occurred to me.
As I said before - luring it in with some bird food or whatever would have made more sense. And then it would also have been very likely to stay inside and eat.