Why you should play "Gone Home"

[Amaror]

What? How? How exactly is this game a "pinacle of interactive storytelling"? Don't get me wrong, i played the game and the story, while you can see the "twist" from a few lightyears away, is quite nice. But it's not really interactive storytelling. It's just storytelling. It's nothing a book or a movie couldn't have done just as good.

Another game: The Stanley Parable. Now THATS a "pinacle of interactive storytelling". Because, you know, it actually IS interactive storytelling. It tells it's story and it's narration in a way a book or a movie never could.

 

[Amaror]

NO! STOP! I am not falling for this bullshit again! I am not getting suckered into buying another shitty 2deep4u walking simulator! This is the laziest form of game design there is. They just make environments, write and record some shitty monologues, set up some triggers and slap a price tag on it. Next thing you know every gaming website feels the need to shower this turd with praise, because failing to do so would suggest that they don't understand the game; that they're not smart enough to appreciate it's finer nuances.

There's just one problem. The Emperor is naked.

Ohohohoho you can call The Stanley Parable whatever you want, but you can't call it lazy.
You can not like it but you can't call it lazy.
One of the big advantages of the game is that it seems to react to nearly everything you do. So much stuff you can do, even when there is not indication that you can do it, triggers a specific, and often hilarious, comment of the narrator.
Often the comments of the narrator are different on subsequent playthroughs and even the levels itself can change kindof randomly, without seeming to serve any purpose other than add a bit of variety to the game.
What i would describe The Stanley Parable as would be a Comedy game. Not an adventure game that had humor in it, but a game that is mostly about the comedy. And it doesn't do it's comedy like a movie would or a book, but through the gameplay. It's the first of it's kind really and that's what makes it so special.
I really advice you to just try the demo. It gives you a pretty good impression of what the game is. Although it lacks the choices that make the main game great. But still, just try the demo, it's free after all and doesn't take much time.

 

[T_ConX]

Ohohohoho you can call The Stanley Parable whatever you want, but you can't call it lazy.
You can not like it but you can't call it lazy.

I can call it lazy, and I did.

One of the big advantages of the game is that it seems to react to nearly everything you do. So much stuff you can do, even when there is not indication that you can do it, triggers a specific, and often hilarious, comment of the narrator.

OH MAN there are these parts where the game tells you do one thing, but you can totally do... get this... THE OTHER THING! The game actually responds to you DOING THE OTHER THING! And the British dude is all like "I say sir, why are you doing THE OTHER THING?"

What i would describe The Stanley Parable as would be a Comedy game.

The joke is how people are paying money for it.

I really advice you to just try the demo. It gives you a pretty good impression of what the game is.

It gave me a good impression alright.

It's shit.

Although, I do fell as though I owe it one nice thing.

The demo lasted longer than the full game of Gone Home. So there's that...

The Stanley Parable: Not as shitty as Gone Home!

 

[Crash486]

The Stanley Parable: Not as shitty as Gone Home!

Sounds about right.

 

[Crash486]

I really don't think anyone who said "I read the synopsis" or "watched a playthrough" really should not be commenting on whether or not it's a good game.

The experience was looking through the environment and finding the narrative through exploration. It sort of wasn't about the core story than it was how it told its story.

To those that say "its just boring, I don't get it." Then you need to wake the fuck up and accept that people want to do other things with the medium rather than shoot shit at other shit.

You mean... walking around on a linear path through an empty house, visiting waypoints on a map for the next audio cue? I'm sorry, but there wasn't much of an experience to that. Though only thing that made the story telling unique were the 90's pop-culture easter eggs scattered throughout the house.

At least the Stanley Parable lets you customize the narrative by giving you the freedom to choose your own path. It also helps that it's accompanied with a heavy dose of British wit, instead of 90's after school special.

I never said anything about stanely parable. I enjoy both games.

but as for easily dismissing a game because you talk about the core mechanics in a mundane way...

Hold on this seems like a fun game...

You mean Portal is just hovering an icon over a wall then I get to go over to that wall? Snore
You mean Mario is just pressing a button to jump on blocks so I can jump on more blocks? yawn.
You mean Zelda is just where i hit things with a sword over and over again? What a bore.
You mean Call of Duty is where I point a gun at bad things and the bad things go away? Next.

It's actually funny, because even though you trying to prove a point with a straw man argument, which is inherently a flawed, all of you proposed examples sound more fun than what Gone Home actually is.

You mean Gone Home is just walking around an empty house reading things? SUZAPHONE

Why is it a strawman argument?
1. You're misrepresenting my argument, which is, it's a mediocre story about teenage romance, told in an uninteresting way. In that, you walk around an empty house following a map with X's on it to find audio clues, bumping into 90's pop culture references along the way.

2. You're misrepresenting what you actually do in all of your other examples.

a. Portal - You create 2-point paths around otherwise impassible terrain in a 3 dimensional space in order to solve puzzles.
b. Mario - you jump around a colorful world avoiding bad guys and pitfalls attempting to reach the end of progressively more challenging stages.
c. Zelda - you explore dungeons full of bad guys with a sword (which fires lightning bolts) collecting items which make you stronger.
d. CoD - this one you pretty much got correct.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I really don't think anyone who said "I read the synopsis" or "watched a playthrough" really should not be commenting on whether or not it's a good game.

The experience was looking through the environment and finding the narrative through exploration. It sort of wasn't about the core story than it was how it told its story.

To those that say "its just boring, I don't get it." Then you need to wake the fuck up and accept that people want to do other things with the medium rather than shoot shit at other shit.

You mean... walking around on a linear path through an empty house, visiting waypoints on a map for the next audio cue? I'm sorry, but there wasn't much of an experience to that. Though only thing that made the story telling unique were the 90's pop-culture easter eggs scattered throughout the house.

At least the Stanley Parable lets you customize the narrative by giving you the freedom to choose your own path. It also helps that it's accompanied with a heavy dose of British wit, instead of 90's after school special.

I never said anything about stanely parable. I enjoy both games.

but as for easily dismissing a game because you talk about the core mechanics in a mundane way...

Hold on this seems like a fun game...

You mean Portal is just hovering an icon over a wall then I get to go over to that wall? Snore
You mean Mario is just pressing a button to jump on blocks so I can jump on more blocks? yawn.
You mean Zelda is just where i hit things with a sword over and over again? What a bore.
You mean Call of Duty is where I point a gun at bad things and the bad things go away? Next.

It's actually funny, because even though you trying to prove a point with a straw man argument, which is inherently a flawed, all of you proposed examples sound more fun than what Gone Home actually is.

You mean Gone Home is just walking around an empty house reading things? SUZAPHONE

Why is it a strawman argument?
1. You're misrepresenting my argument, which is, it's a mediocre story about teenage romance, told in an uninteresting way. In that, you walk around an empty house following a map with X's on it to find audio clues, bumping into 90's pop culture references along the way.

2. You're misrepresenting what you actually do in all of your other examples.

a. Portal - You create 2-point paths around otherwise impassible terrain in a 3 dimensional space in order to solve puzzles.
b. Mario - you jump around a colorful world avoiding bad guys and pitfalls attempting to reach the end of progressively more challenging stages.
c. Zelda - you explore dungeons full of bad guys with a sword (which fires lightning bolts) collecting items which make you stronger.
d. CoD - this one you pretty much got correct.

You say that as if you aren't misrepresenting Gone Home (or Stanley Parable). Also, you make the assumption that the observable gameplay of the listed games is somehow the key to their success or longevity.

Portal isn't regarded so highly just because you can make portals in 3D. It broke ground by forcing lateral thinking to solving puzzles, something the game industry sorely lacked at that point, especially in first person titles, where a typical "puzzle" was finding an appropriate key for a specific door.

Mario is the pinnacle of platforming and at this point a cultural icon. No other franchise has matched the quality of Marios 2D platformers and the series that spawned from it has yet to even surpass itself. It was also the first franchise to properly spearhead 3D paltforming.

Zelda is one of the earliest and most successful action adventure series AND also a culturally significant Icon like mario. Though it wasn't the first to try, it definitely had a significant influence on all future action adventure titles. Again it's a franchise that suffers as a result of peaking the formula and being unable to surpass (or some cases even emulate) the successes of its past.

CoD, despite your ludicrously misguided view on it, revolutionised console multiplayer. Ease of Access with decent scaling for veterans, huge variety of possible and valid play styles and dynamic, player operated events that makes a CoD match far more thrilling then most other FPSs. Is it a tired formula? Yeah, but having hit their stride in MW 1 the only thing they could to was tweak. It was, at first, incredibly important for completely changing perceptions on how FPS mp can operate and the industry is still trying to find a way to ape that one games success. The franchise is built on the back of that formula it is THAT good. Your personal taste does not withstand it's very real and very prominent influence.

Is Gone Home as significant as any of those? No. Is it significant in any way? Yes, by means of a trend. The medium still has its narrative training wheels on, still unable to grasp the mediums strenghts and seperate itself from its usage of methods from Film. Games like this, Dear Esther, the Stanley Parable and so on, do more then just offer an amusing distraction. They challenge both the industry AND the gamers about what can be done within the medium. It's exploring something that no other mediums can do.

Are they perfect executions? No. Training wheels are still on after all. But they are more valuable to the progress of the industry then slapping another B-grade plot onto a flashy action game and calling it EPIC!

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I'll split this up into two aspects as to why I personally think Gone Home is a) overrated, and b) kind of terrible if you think of it as a game, which coincidentally falls into their own separate categories of story and gameplay:

Story (spoiler heavy if that isn't obvious):

Spoiler

Here's my issue with Gone Home's story, which is what seems to have garnered the praise that it did: everyone talks about how brave or amazing the story is because of the whole lesbian twist, but I'd contend that were this in another piece of media, whether a film, a novel, a TV show, whatever, that it would be considered trite. Not because it involves lesbianism as a story point, but rather the story itself is trite. It follows a rather cliche tone we've seen done to death in teen entertainment, and even the whole lesbian twist is kind of old-hat at this point. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the sister was a lesbian and had instead fallen for a boy on the rough side of the tracks, no one would have given a shit, and rightfully so, seeing as how that on its own isn't a compelling narrative. Why would this be any different then? Because it's new? Again, we've seen plots like this before done a dozen times, so it's not even like it's a unique experience on its own. Is it because it's a game? Even still that doesn't justify how banal the story really is. I want you to think about this for a second: is the game's story at all brave? Teenage girl realizes that she is a lesbian and her parents don't approve, so she runs away with the first and only girl she has actually fallen in love with? How is that brave? A brave narrative would've had a similar first half, but explore how such a relationship wasn't actually that great. It's a first relationship for one thing, how toothless is it that it doesn't explore the possibility that yes, you are attracted to women, but the first women you had fallen for doesn't turn out to be the one you'll spend forever with? This is what I'm talking about. The story treats this relationship as so hunky-dory that nothing can go wrong, when in reality all relationships, especially first ones, will inevitably face a major block that can have severe consequences (and no, parents not understanding the issue is not the type of block I'm talking about) It's not brave. It's a story that is only considered brave because it pushes just the right buttons for those who feel obligated to praise a game because it may have a tiny sliver of relation to social justice.

One other thing that bothers me to no end about the story: the game is biased as fuck, seeing as how only Sam's notes have dialogue. It severely undermines the whole "brave" aspect of the story. Since only Sam's stuff is narrated, we as the player are only meant to identify with her struggles and point of view because she's the closest to any human force in the game, in part because she's the only one with a voice. What would've been brave would be if major notes from all characters were narrated. When you get the parent's side of things, that would actually expand the story for me. I'm expected to believe that the parents don't approve of Sam's sexuality just because? No, fuck that. That's a cheap tactic. Do they have to be right and she has to be wrong? No, but I'd actually like to get their side of the issue and why they might have (or don't have, who knows) an issue with Sam's sexuality. To treat it as simply her inferring they just don't approve and that's that strikes me as a rather dishonest way of examining sexuality. And who knows, maybe they do actually hate Sam's sexuality because they're bigots, but I'd actually like to hear it from their point of view as opposed to the point of view of someone who is the default victim by virtue of being the only one with a voice.

Gameplay (no real spoilers here, but the tags do cut down on space)

Spoiler

This has been an issue for a bit now, and I think I've figured out why games like Dear Esther and Gone Home make me think of them as non-games while I'd consider The Stanley Parable a real game: you have no real purpose or presence in the world you explore. Think about it, in Dear Esther and Gone Home, all you are is an observer, nothing more. Nothing would change if you weren't there to experience the story. Everything that happens will happen without your presence, and your actions ultimately have no outcome to them. Now The Stanley Parable is also a walking simulator, but at least the events that happen in the game are relative to the choices (or non-choices) you make in the game. Even if it is predetermined, each story line kind of needs you the player for things to move forward either way. For Gone Home, your actions mean nothing in the grander scheme of things. You haven't changed anything, you haven't uncovered something no one else would be unable to uncover, and what's more, what little gameplay there is amounts to nothing more than pulling switches and picking up keys. And you know what? They could have kept everything as it is and actually make Gone Home a possible game had they only changed one aspect: don't make the game end on Sam's story, make it so the game ends when the player decides to complete ONE of the many characters' story. At least then there is a choice. Maybe I want to end the game trying to learn more about Terry and end it with how he came to live in the state he currently finds himself in. Maybe I want to know more about what led Oscar to do the depraved shit he did. Hell, maybe I want it to end seeing how Kaitlin thinks about the entire situation. But no. The fact the game can only end upon completing Sam's story tells me that the developers didn't really care about making a game with multiple mysteries: they created a game with one specific mystery they want you to solve with the rest there more to justify the existence of the major mystery than anything else. This isn't a game so much as it is a short story with teases of gameplay to justify a $20 purchase

I won't argue with someone if they really believe it is the best game of the year. If you're one of those people and you honestly feel that way, nothing I can say would sway you otherwise, and honestly, I'm not really looking to do so. The only thing I'm doing here is contending that it is not the greatest game of this year, it is not amazing in it's storytelling, and that it's story is absolute trite that would be ignored were it not for one element that is utterly pointless by all accounts.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

snip

SNIP

The "brave" assertion is mostly in contrast to how people call the game brave. You may think it's because these people like how it isn't bombastic (in which case it definitely is not a brave game by any stretch of imagination; a good number of indie games are very minimalist or non-bombastic, and while most major releases are bombastic, there are a few that are a bit more subtle) but most of the time when I see people calling the story brave, it is in relation to the spoiler points I bring up. Maybe we've run into different people, but I don't think I've seen anyone describe the subtle aspect as the game's "brave" point.

As for the other points, I'll deal with it be paragraph for the sake of spoilers:

1)

Spoiler

My issue is that I can't take her opinion seriously if it's the only one available. I feel it would be more intriguing if even after getting the story from the other characters point of view we still trend towards Sam's PoV, because at least that way I feel as if I can compare her PoV to the other ones available and can actually determine why her PoV resonates well with me. When there is only her PoV, all I can bring in are doubts, because I can't really determine why I should value her PoV so highly when it's the only one available. I'll always have to ask "What do the others think?" or "Why did the developers choose not to explore the other side?" That to me shows a great strength in a developer; that they are able to look and perfectly show both sides of a given situation and still fall to one knowing the implications of the other. When a developer doesn't do that, I feel that they aren't confident enough about their story or their own PoV to explore the dissenting opinions or why they would exist. Once I feel that insecurity, I can't take the story seriously, because I see it less as a heartfelt attempt to tell a compelling narrative so much as someone trying to make a feel-good piece for the sake of making a feel-good piece.

2)

Spoiler

That feels like a cop-out to me. I feel negatively about a story element, so therefore that must have been their intention? Nothing about the game's tone suggests that. Everything feels set-up to make you feel for Sam's situation and ultimately come to the conclusion she did and run away from home. Had there been a different tone that suggested something a bit more sinister or disastrous, I could see your point and maybe even give the game some credit, but I know the tone they were going for, and that tone definitely isn't meant to convey the uncertainty and dread that will inevitably occur in this relationship

3)

Spoiler

I focus on the lesbian aspect for two reasons. First, it is the element that a good portion of critics and users praise the game for. If I'm to discuss this game, it would be foolish to not put in the same amount of attention into the lesbian aspect that they clearly did. Second, it is because the game itself ultimately focuses on the lesbian aspect. Again, the only dialogue we get is from Sam, whose story is very much tied solely to the lesbians aspect. Further, the game only ends when you complete that story line. The assumption therefore is that the game wants you to leave off with the lesbian aspect fresh in your mind and as the aspect that ultimately ends the story. Everything else is merely decoration. If the game ended with every note and facet coming together then yes, it would be a bit silly to focus on just that one aspect. However, since that isn't the case, and since you can complete the game without reading any of the non-Sam related material, the impression of course her story and her sexuality are the focal points that are meant to be taken away from this game.

4)

Spoiler

The problem is that all of their PoV is surface level stuff. For instance, a good portion of Sam's dialogue in the notes you find are all of her inner-monologues, not the actual content on the note or memento. Yes, there is obvious reference to the content, but most of the dialogue, and therefore most of her PoV, comes from outside the notes. The same can't be said for her parents. All of it is surface level material, material that doesn't really tell the whole truth. Because of that, the only thing I know about their PoV on Sam's sexuality is all the things they are willing to write down, not the things they feel deep down but don't explicitly express. That's my issue. There is an obvious imbalance of power that takes away whatever insightful or deep elements the story had going for it by streamlining the story to fit a fairly one sided view of what is ultimately a highly complex issue.

5)

Spoiler

The thing is though is that it's too simple considering what ends up happening. It's as simple as many teen dramas or romance stories, which usually don't contain strong or even remotely interesting narratives. I stand that were this story told in another medium, it wouldn't have gotten the attention that it did. If it worked for you, great, you got something out of it more than I did, something I kind of envy. For me, I got nothing out of this. I'll only remember this game because of the overrated hype it received, and not because of anything it did to warrant being remembered in the first place.

6)

Spoiler

This one I'm unsure about. Yes, I criticize elements of the story outside the game, specifically in relation to how people treat it, but I gave attention to how the story itself was rather bland overall. I'm confused as to what more you wanted from me in this regard. If you want specifics, I already said how the whole "first lover will by my only lover" element was rather jarring overall. I said how I felt the story feels lacking by only focusing on one point of a rather complex issue. I'm really curious, what more do you want me to give attention to?

 

[Dalisclock]

Can I use this rest of this post to say how good To The Moon and Thomas Was Alone are? Because both games are unrivaled in storytelling. Thomas Was Alone, I have no idea how it did it, created incredibly memorable and distinctive characters using only a few lines of dialogue. To The Moon is an absolute showstopper because the situation was the right amount of make-believe and science fiction, each little subplot was interwoven in the entire story so well, the game's completely unorthodox storytelling element of telling someone's life backwards was a fresh breath of air, and the characters were great. Nothing like the characters in Thomas Was Alone, but they were fun.

I'm just going to add to this how much I liked To the Moon, and the fact I nearly started crying at one point(those who have played the game know which point I'm talking about).

 

[Amaror]

EDIT:

Look out guys, T_ConX the grand puba of all things Fun and Interactive is here to tell us what we are and aren't allowed to enjoy in video games. All hail his great wisdom! Tell us, o grand master, what video games shall thee decree us allowed to enjoy upon this day? I purchased the Stanley Parable and genuinely enjoyed it. Shall I drip this burning candle's wax upon my eyeballs for enjoy a game with a tight environmental design and a minimalistic, nearly parodic plot and a well-written narration?
In what ways shall we punish ourselves for having preferences different than your own?

I was actually coming here to respond to his comment myself, but you have said it better than i would have. Thank you.

 

[Nurb]

It isn't worth the money at all; you figure out the dull story minutes into the "game", there's really not much detail or interaction with environment beyond the notes, and I don't imagine this would have gotten nearly the same amount of attention, ratings, and praise if it was...

Spoiler

...A gay son. There wouldn't have been the "Ohhh such a woooonderful story in such an imooortant game" if it was a an effeminate gay son that fell for a would-be army dude.

The very fact if you learn about the story before hand, you have no reason to play it tells you it's not a very solid game to begin with. You might as well read a book because the same story has been told better dozens of times in books.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Gone Home doesn't really do anything new with storytelling. All it really is is those virtual museum games libraries used to rent out a decade ago, but with fiction instead of dinosaurs or anatomy. The story it tells is decent, but I don't think it really gained anything from being in a video game; in fact, I think it's an example of the kind of storytelling that might be better served in film and or literature. The catch, of course, is that film and literature already have stories like it, so it would have been utterly unremarkable and soon forgotten. In purely economic terms, other media already offer a comparable experience at a comparable length for a fraction of the cost.

As if all that wasn't enough of a reason not to spend money on Gone Home unless you have enough of it that buying a game of that price is a genuinely trivial expense to you, the game is buggy as hell. I experienced a game-breaking glitch on my first playthrough, and so did six of the seven other people with the game I know personally. I have since seen enough complaints online to feel confident that this is no freak of coincidence. For a game that relies so heavily (one might even say exclusively) on immersion to deliver its experience, that level of buggy-ness is inexcusable and must be considered to detract considerably from the game's overall quality.

I can see spending $10 on Gone Home, but more than that would be hard to justify in my book.

 

[Genocidicles]

Boring gameplay with an overly 'heartfelt' story about the social issue that's 'in' right now.

Yeah, no thanks.

 

[LAGG]

Gone Home doesn't really do anything new with storytelling. All it really is is those virtual museum games libraries used to rent out a decade ago, but with fiction instead of dinosaurs or anatomy. The story it tells is decent, but I don't think it really gained anything from being in a video game; in fact, I think it's an example of the kind of storytelling that might be better served in film and or literature. The catch, of course, is that film and literature already have stories like it, so it would have been utterly unremarkable and soon forgotten. In purely economic terms, other media already offer a comparable experience at a comparable length for a fraction of the cost.

This sums up everything.

 

[Crash486]

It's actually funny, because even though you trying to prove a point with a straw man argument, which is inherently a flawed, all of you proposed examples sound more fun than what Gone Home actually is.

You mean Gone Home is just walking around an empty house reading things? SUZAPHONE

Why is it a strawman argument?
1. You're misrepresenting my argument, which is, it's a mediocre story about teenage romance, told in an uninteresting way. In that, you walk around an empty house following a map with X's on it to find audio clues, bumping into 90's pop culture references along the way.

2. You're misrepresenting what you actually do in all of your other examples.

a. Portal - You create 2-point paths around otherwise impassible terrain in a 3 dimensional space in order to solve puzzles.
b. Mario - you jump around a colorful world avoiding bad guys and pitfalls attempting to reach the end of progressively more challenging stages.
c. Zelda - you explore dungeons full of bad guys with a sword (which fires lightning bolts) collecting items which make you stronger.
d. CoD - this one you pretty much got correct.

Can we all agree to stop saying the word 'strawman' since no one knows what that actually means? It's like everyone suddenly learned the word exists and that it's a magical shield that wins all arguments.

You can disagree on the interpretation of your argument but that doesn't mean I made a strawman out of you. If I said that you were part of an organization or inherent position and attacked that position or idea of you instead of dealing with what you said, that would be a strawman.

Seriously people, I know words like 'straw man' and 'inherently flawed' make you feel smart but they're just meaningless.

And you're misrepresenting Gone Home which can be describes as: an environmental driven narrative in which you learn about what it means to grow as a person through the simple artifacts people leave behind. The mechanics involve exploring the home which will lead to clues to who these people were, what happened, and finding secrets within the house its self.

And yes, I know I was misrepresenting what you do in those games, that was my point. If you boil down the basic mechanics of anything, any story or activity you can make it sound as benign as you want. It's not a good critique.

My point was simply describing the mechanics and saying it's boring is the same as saying "I don't like it because it's bad." It's not a good argument.

If you're going to critique a game, do it by examining what the game sets out to do and find flaws in which it does not accomplish it. Is the narrative of the family not compelling enough to search through the home? Could the story be better presented to player and be more meaningful? Do the journal entries hurt the immersion?

Or wait, is it just a boring game because it's boring and it sucks.

It's actually the very definition of a strawman argument verbatim, as you misrepresented my argument by comparing it to your intentionally misrepresented game synopses. My argument has always been that the story is cliche, and the way it told is not really compelling, unique, or immersive. While that's a subjective opinion, the fact remains that the story has been told before in many different mediums, and there was really nothing too unique about it's retelling here. The fact that you believe that there is really tells more about your inexperience with this genre of video game, or with immersive video game narrative in general. I can easily think of at least 5 titles with far more immersive story telling than this game accomplished with it's linear, creaky house scavenger hunt, and one of them is a Metal Gear Solid game. I honestly feel the only reason it's acclaimed as highly as it is has more to do with the subject matter of the story or the manner in which it was told. It's overpriced and highly overrated. That's why gone home is bad or at the very least, not worth your money.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

In terms of this story not working in any other media, yeah, you're right. Also no game would work in any other media. This is the only game to even try to deal with a close personal story like this. So it deserves some credit rather being dismissed as a 'teen drama.'

I'm dealing with this topic because I think the other points you brought up are just going to be a difference of opinion at this point.

I think you may have misunderstood by what I meant about "the story not working in any other media." I didn't mean it as a story that can only be told in a video game, rather, I meant a story that were it in any other media would not be praised the way it is here. The point of course being is that there is such a glut of stories like this in all other media, that nothing about this story is necessarily "special." Further, seeing as how the main topic of the game is a fairly hot button issue within the games industry, I can't help but feel that the only reason the story was praised was because of it's subject matter, not because it was a good story or was even remotely compelling. I feel it is indicative of that "social justice" relation I mentioned in my earlier post; something whose story gets by and is praised simply because it's a hot button issue relating to social justice, and therefore must hold some importance. That's what I meant about it not working in other media. It's mostly an issue of critics, because the critics of other media would be smart enough to realize that past the hot button topic there is very little to praise this story for. Further, they wouldn't be compelled to give the game a pass simply for some ideological goal in an attempt to "better an industry"