IGN uses 7.8 rating! It's super effective! (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
129 ups - 0 downs = 129 votes
207 comments submitted at 21:45:28 on Nov 18, 2014 by NovaDeez
IGN uses 7.8 rating! It's super effective! (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
129 ups - 0 downs = 129 votes
207 comments submitted at 21:45:28 on Nov 18, 2014 by NovaDeez
And now we wait for someone to mention "this isn't fair and accurate journalism!"
They brought up Gone Home so I think that was a subtle nod.
People will be mad about that "game" until the end of time. We all know that.
I keep hearing about that game. What was wrong with it and why wee people mad?
Because some very angry folks on the internet have very strict and arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't a video game, and Gone Home is a lot like a first person visual novel or something. "Walking simulator" etc. You don't shoot dudes or fight dragons, you explore your family's house and get the story from notes and knick-knacks around the house. Also considered one of the better examples of same-sex relationships in video games, so it has that drama magnet to it as well.
> Also considered one of the better examples of same-sex relationships in video games
[Spoilers]
I disagree with this statement. It doesn't have much to do with the same-sex angle, but how it falls into typical bullshit idealistic teen romance tropes.
It falls in the trap in which once the romance is introduced, their actually interesting characteristics (such as Sam's creative writing and Lonnie's anti-authoritarianism) become overwhelmed by their relationship. They stop being people and are just girlfriends.
Plus, they both did some stuff that killed pretty much any sympathy I could've had for these characters. In particular, Sam steals the family's electronics to fund her life with Lonnie. Lonnie herself is pretty much also going to be prosecuted for being AWOL at her boot camp.
It's worth noting Sam hadn't graduated yet either and ran away from her creative writing course that she was excited to be in. All to pursue a teenage romance that could be just as prone to burning out after a time of fiery passion as most teenage romances are wont to do.
Essentially, Sam and Lonnie do stupid things to put thing that screwed her family and will eventually screw herself too. But that's okay, because it's in the name of love.
Unless it isn't supposed to be okay and that's the point of the whole thing, in which case disregard this post.
That's a totally valid interpretation, I don't really have a strong opinion on it so I can't really discuss it too well. I'm just kind of throwing out some of the general talking points around the game.
Although I myself disliked the game because of several unexamined conclusions it makes, I find myself enraged by how stupid the backlash against it is. I mean, make an actual critique for fuck's sake.
I think this was the first negative opinion of the game I've enjoyed and it came with an interpretation Id never considered. The backlash was just so pretentious and smug I get a bit defensive when people talk smack about it but I completely see where you're coming from.
There's also the fact that it got stupidly inflated scores including 10s.
I can't believe I have to actually write this: Reviewers are allowed to give a game whatever score they like. You are also allowed to disagree with their assessment. But it is still their assessment.
Have you played Gone Home?
I watched a friend play it, so more or less, considering the mechanics. The nostalgia aspect of it didn't really do it for me and I am not usually one for that kind of story, but it seemed sweet and well made for that kind of game if that's your thing.
I'm not sure what that has to do with you having this bizarre idea that review scores are some kind of objective bar of quality. It just is a written/verbal description of how much and why someone liked a thing.
I never said review scores are an objective bar of quality. In fact, I'm criticizing the reviews of a certain game. Where did you get that idea?
That said, if you have played the game and have played enough other video games, you will realized that it does basically nothing new or particularly well. It's a dime a dozen in the indie world, but it got very inflated scores.v
edit: It's pretty ironic how much I'm being downvoted considering I'm being told all opinions are equally valid and correct.
More Comments - Click Here
I played it and if i had to give it a score it would differently be a 10. Its a game that stuck with me i spent alot of time thinking about it afterwords.
Some people don't like that game and want you to know it. It also has some feminist undertones from what I gathered, so of course drama is guaranteed.
I myself didn't like it, but holy shit the backlash is stupid.
Its Bioshock without guns, without any real thought put into it. It just looks pretty but its just there to look at kind of like the museum ending in the Stanley Parable.
Kind of like all of the Stanley Parable.
That's the thing that eats me the most. You never see the same kind of criticism leveled towards The Stanley Parable as Gone Home, when they both have the same amount of gameplay
And I say this as a fan of TSP from back when it was a kinda-ugly free HL2 mod
Well the Stanley Parable is all about commentary on video game making and junk. Gone Home is just all art.
While I have never played Gone Home or anything, I have heard it being called Oscar bait. Is that a good analogy?
Yeah, that's an apt comparison.
If you want a good tearjerker over some ice cream then this is totally for you.
>without any real thought put into it
How so?
I apologize in advance if my thoughts seem all jumbled together because this is a difficult topic.
Because it doesn't meet the requirements to be categorized as a game. There is no win or lose conditions from what I have seen. Its just an interactive storybook I guess, which is fine if you really want to be extreme and turn games into art.
Games are a special medium because no one two people can have the same experience playing them. I guess we need to get into the weird conversation of game theory and what makes a game, a game.
The Mountain is another example of recent outcry because it just sits there and does things itself, its not even a game at all. You don't interact with it you just sit there and say "how pretty this is for .99" and yet it has the label of game on steam and that makes these kinds of things misleading also.
Plenty of traditional adventure games have no won or lose. You simply finish the storyline.
Had the GH developers thrown in a few more puzzles...the game would have been no different than Myst or The Seventh Guest.
But you had win/lose conditions in those games. Point and click adventures are fine, cinematic stories are fine but I think we need to redefine what really makes a game a game.
> I think we need to redefine what really makes a game a game.
Do you mean that we need to not redefine what a game is? Because adhering to a strict definition is how you exclude GH.
>Because it doesn't meet the requirements to be categorized as a game. There is no win or lose conditions from what I have seen. Its just an interactive storybook I guess,
The same could be said for Dungeons and Dragons. Individual modules might have win/loss conditions, but generally speaking you don't win or lose D&D, even if your character dies: You just roll another one and jump back in. I don't think you'd say that D&D is not a game because of this trait.
>which is fine if you really want to be extreme and turn games into art
That's not an extreme position to hold and hasn't been for a while. Some games are "art," just like some movies are "art." One does not preclude the other.
>Games are a special medium because no one two people can have the same experience playing them.
There is nothing special about that. No two people have the same experience watching a film, reading a book, or viewing a painting. Consuming entertainment in any medium is a subjective experience.
>I guess we need to get into the weird conversation of game theory and what makes a game, a game.
Stimulating that conversation is exactly what some "Art Games" set out to accomplish. By going against your expectations of what a game should be, they bring them into question.
>The Mountain is another example of recent outcry because it just sits there and does things itself, its not even a game at all.... and yet it has the label of game on steam and that makes these kinds of things misleading also.
There's nothing misleading about it. It's a simulation game. Hell, you could say it's an extremely accurate simulation game: Things grow, things change, things die, and you have no real control over any of it, much like real life. There is nothing deceptive about the way the game is advertised, either. If you read the description and buy the game anyway, I don't know why you'd expect anything other than exactly what the packaging says it will be. It would be like buying a Pet Rock and feeling cheated. The issue is with your expectations, not the product.