The Stanley Parable is a good game that only got better with the Deluxe release recently, which adds a bunch of new content to the game and it's all very good.
That isn't what I want to talk about here with this thread. As you may or may not know the Stanley Parable is a meta commentary walking sim game about the choices in video games and how htey don't matter at all. Any choice you can make in a game is limited to only what the core of the game allows and the player really has very little, if any, choice in the game as a whole. No matter what, you will complete the main objective, see the end of the story, and bada-bing-bada-boom you're done.
However I feel like this is a fairly shallow premise as SP often mocks players who get every collectible, rush through games, don't follow the path in order to do.....stuff, it's attempting to mock the way people play games by having them play a game that let's them do all the things they are mocking only to point it all out "see it doesn't really mean anything afterall hahaha." And it feels sort of undermining.
There are some choices in games are at obviously very mundane and one sided. Like moral choice systems that aren't really choices because you end up having to comit to one side or the other in order to get the best stuff those choices can yield, thus making the choice meaningless throughout the game. This aspect of choice in video games and how silly it really is is something that I can fully get behind because of the nature of the systems that devs put in place that hurt the meaning of any morality choices you could make.
And some games appear to have absolutely no choice at all. If you want to get through this Mario level you are going to have to jump eventually. Otherwise you'll run into an enemy or fall into a pit and die. However even in these games there are gameplay choices. When do you jump? Do you try to jump to on the top of the flagpole, or ignore it? Do you run under Bowser or jump over him or kill him with fireballs? There is no choice in that you have to get past bowser however there are always choices in how to play.
Today's games have even more choice than that. Do the side quests, don't do them. Get the collectible, ignore it? Fight in melee, range, stealth, x weapon or y weapon, and so on. To say that there isn't really choice in video games because there is always the ultimate destination is like saying there are no food choices because ultimately you have to shit it out.
Stanley Parable is very good and the commentary is meta-funny, but it isn't as clever as it thinks it is once you try looking at it's message in other games. So while the game gets all this praise about how clever and insightful it is, it really isn't. It's a joke game that plays it's joke very very well and it a fun trip while it lasts. But I don't think the "message" holds any real water.
What do you guys think?
That isn't what I want to talk about here with this thread. As you may or may not know the Stanley Parable is a meta commentary walking sim game about the choices in video games and how htey don't matter at all. Any choice you can make in a game is limited to only what the core of the game allows and the player really has very little, if any, choice in the game as a whole. No matter what, you will complete the main objective, see the end of the story, and bada-bing-bada-boom you're done.
However I feel like this is a fairly shallow premise as SP often mocks players who get every collectible, rush through games, don't follow the path in order to do.....stuff, it's attempting to mock the way people play games by having them play a game that let's them do all the things they are mocking only to point it all out "see it doesn't really mean anything afterall hahaha." And it feels sort of undermining.
There are some choices in games are at obviously very mundane and one sided. Like moral choice systems that aren't really choices because you end up having to comit to one side or the other in order to get the best stuff those choices can yield, thus making the choice meaningless throughout the game. This aspect of choice in video games and how silly it really is is something that I can fully get behind because of the nature of the systems that devs put in place that hurt the meaning of any morality choices you could make.
And some games appear to have absolutely no choice at all. If you want to get through this Mario level you are going to have to jump eventually. Otherwise you'll run into an enemy or fall into a pit and die. However even in these games there are gameplay choices. When do you jump? Do you try to jump to on the top of the flagpole, or ignore it? Do you run under Bowser or jump over him or kill him with fireballs? There is no choice in that you have to get past bowser however there are always choices in how to play.
Today's games have even more choice than that. Do the side quests, don't do them. Get the collectible, ignore it? Fight in melee, range, stealth, x weapon or y weapon, and so on. To say that there isn't really choice in video games because there is always the ultimate destination is like saying there are no food choices because ultimately you have to shit it out.
Stanley Parable is very good and the commentary is meta-funny, but it isn't as clever as it thinks it is once you try looking at it's message in other games. So while the game gets all this praise about how clever and insightful it is, it really isn't. It's a joke game that plays it's joke very very well and it a fun trip while it lasts. But I don't think the "message" holds any real water.
What do you guys think?
