I really enjoy games that explore the genre and make art out of themselves. Most games feel like the equivalent of an action movie, and yes, that's fun for a little while, but there's nothing there to stick with me, or to make me think/reflect. I try to fill my life with things that I enjoy, and that make me think. Books, artful movies, nature, etc. Games like Amnesia, Dear Esther, Gone Home, Ethan Carter, and a few others, are the ones that do that, and really stay with me, and the ones I enjoy the most, because they go for something other than the standard, and (to me) uninteresting, action.
I can understand why some wouldn't like that, but the Astronauts have been super vocal about how this game would be, so you had ample warning to opt out.
Adding zombies would take all interest out of this game, for me.
I really enjoy games that explore the genre and make art out of themselves. Most games feel like the equivalent of an action movie, and yes, that's fun for a little while, but there's nothing there to stick with me, or to make me think/reflect. I try to fill my life with things that I enjoy, and that make me think. Books, artful movies, nature, etc. Games like Amnesia, Dear Esther, Gone Home, Ethan Carter, and a few others, are the ones that do that, and really stay with me, and the ones I enjoy the most, because they go for something other than the standard, and (to me) uninteresting, action.
I can understand why some wouldn't like that, but the Astronauts have been super vocal about how this game would be, so you had ample warning to opt out.
Adding zombies would take all interest out of this game, for me.
There are super great stories in games that also have very good gameplay. So it's not like a story requires to sacrifice gameplay for its sake
I think there's probably a misunderstanding regarding what this and other similar games are actually about.
They're experience simulators. They don't fit into traditional definitions of a "game" because they don't really try to do any of the things that normal games do. Win/loss states are beside the point, they don't put any emphasis on your score, and the fact that they're interactive is just because of the way they're made to be enjoyed.
Experience simulators are to normal video games as road trips are to car racing. Neither one is "wrong" or "right," but they exist for fundamentally different purposes even if they use the same medium.
I happen to enjoy taking car rides to places I've never been, but I have very little interest in racing cars. Same thing.
Something else I think needs to be taken into consideration, the game is $19.99 on Steam. If the game is more akin to books or movies than games, it's even priced closer to them than many of the $40-60 games you would otherwise get.
I'm not sure why, but I find the textures to be...odd sometimes. No doubt it's a beautiful game and overall I love the look that was achieved. Sometimes though, it looks odd to me.
There are super great stories in games that also have very good gameplay. So it's not like a story requires to sacrifice gameplay for its sake
I mean, if I were to make a comparison to other mediums of art - There are lots of orchestras which have great guitar parts and also strings and woodwind and lots of other instruments, but that doesn't mean that a band with just a guitar should be criticized for not having 'enough' or 'a worthwhile amount' of instruments. They are different genres aimed at different people.
likewise, lots of paintings have cubes in them, but that doesn't mean that a minimalist piece consisting of only a cube should be criticized for not having enough other elements in the piece.
likewise, games like Dear Esther, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Gone Home, and Proteus have all purposefully omitted traditional gameplay features to bring extra emphasis on traditionally sidelined elements (that doesn't mean they've invented anything 'new' neccecarily, just that they've chosen to focus on something else in a way that is novel). That doesn't mean that they weren't able to create good gameplay and have left it out as a fault - it was done with intention to make a statement.
The statement of stripping out certain elements can be appreciated by some, but not all, but to bring down a worth of a game purely by the fact that it doesn't have as many elements as other games would imply that more is always better, and this is clearly not the case: otherwise video game reviews would just be a contest of having the longest feature list.
Replies
I can understand why some wouldn't like that, but the Astronauts have been super vocal about how this game would be, so you had ample warning to opt out.
Adding zombies would take all interest out of this game, for me.
There are super great stories in games that also have very good gameplay. So it's not like a story requires to sacrifice gameplay for its sake
They're experience simulators. They don't fit into traditional definitions of a "game" because they don't really try to do any of the things that normal games do. Win/loss states are beside the point, they don't put any emphasis on your score, and the fact that they're interactive is just because of the way they're made to be enjoyed.
Experience simulators are to normal video games as road trips are to car racing. Neither one is "wrong" or "right," but they exist for fundamentally different purposes even if they use the same medium.
I happen to enjoy taking car rides to places I've never been, but I have very little interest in racing cars. Same thing.
And, I haven't noticed any sacrifices to gameplay, it just has different gameplay. And it isn't for you. Which is fine.
Enjoying the game!
I mean, if I were to make a comparison to other mediums of art - There are lots of orchestras which have great guitar parts and also strings and woodwind and lots of other instruments, but that doesn't mean that a band with just a guitar should be criticized for not having 'enough' or 'a worthwhile amount' of instruments. They are different genres aimed at different people.
likewise, lots of paintings have cubes in them, but that doesn't mean that a minimalist piece consisting of only a cube should be criticized for not having enough other elements in the piece.
likewise, games like Dear Esther, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Gone Home, and Proteus have all purposefully omitted traditional gameplay features to bring extra emphasis on traditionally sidelined elements (that doesn't mean they've invented anything 'new' neccecarily, just that they've chosen to focus on something else in a way that is novel). That doesn't mean that they weren't able to create good gameplay and have left it out as a fault - it was done with intention to make a statement.
The statement of stripping out certain elements can be appreciated by some, but not all, but to bring down a worth of a game purely by the fact that it doesn't have as many elements as other games would imply that more is always better, and this is clearly not the case: otherwise video game reviews would just be a contest of having the longest feature list.
hope this helps