Why you should play "Gone Home"

[wulf3n]

What I've always found interesting with the discussion surrounding games like this or Dear Esther or The Stanley Parable is how many people seem to get offended by the classification game. As if calling this a game somehow diminishes "games" in general. That the mere association with Gone Home is damaging to the industry.


OT:

Best game ever made? not a chance.
Game of the year material. No!

What it is is a somewhat unique attempt at exploring narrative within games, but it has some serious flaws.

The most glaring is how easy the information is dished out. There's no challenge to it, if you're attentive. As such the story is played it in a very linear fashion to the point where the interactive nature of the medium it's being presented in is rendered moot. This could have been done in a movie or book and would have felt exactly the same.

As has been said before the story itself comes off as an attempt to capitalize on the diversity in games issues that have been so prevalent lately. Maybe I'm just jaded. Maybe the developers really did want to tell this story, but it didn't come across that way to me.

 

[Raikas]

As has been said before the story itself comes off as an attempt to capitalize on the diversity in games issues that have been so prevalent lately. Maybe I'm just jaded. Maybe the developers really did want to tell this story, but it didn't come across that way to me.

What's funny to me is that there seems to be quite a disconnect about the overall importance of that element. Because while I've read this comment from plenty of people here (and on other gaming sites), the people who recommended it to me IRL and on a non-related board both talked glowingly about the atmosphere and said zero about that "diversity" piece that apparently so many people think is central to it.

 

[wulf3n]

What's funny to me is that there seems to be quite a disconnect about the overall importance of that element. Because while I've read this comment from plenty of people here (and on other gaming sites), the people who recommended it to me IRL and on a non-related board both talked glowingly about the atmosphere and said zero about that "diversity" piece that apparently so many people think is central to it.

I would assume they didn't talk about it much because it's supposed to be a reveal. Though I'm just guessing.

There's also how one would define "central" to the story. To me central is anything that affects how the story plays out.

 

[Crash486]

What's funny to me is that there seems to be quite a disconnect about the overall importance of that element. Because while I've read this comment from plenty of people here (and on other gaming sites), the people who recommended it to me IRL and on a non-related board both talked glowingly about the atmosphere and said zero about that "diversity" piece that apparently so many people think is central to it.

I would assume they didn't talk about it much because it's supposed to be a reveal. Though I'm just guessing.

There's also how one would define "central" to the story. To me central is anything that affects how the story plays out.

That's because said diversity piece is controversial to be critical about lest people start labeling you this way or that. I'll say this, they did a good job of capturing the atmosphere of the 90's. I'd nearly forgotten about recording VHS tapes of my favorite TV series, and it was a nice bite of nostalgia to see those things strewn about in much the same manner they are at my parents house. That being said, those "easter eggs" don't account for much substance.

The meat and potatoes behind the game is the main storyline, everything else is just gravy. Honestly, if you remove the fact that

Spoiler

your sister is a lesbian

from the equation, the story becomes a rather cliche reiteration of the same tale of teenage angst that's been told 1000 times before, through sitcoms and after school specials. Im pretty sure even this particular scenario has been told at least 100 times before.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Spare yourself the money that could buy an actual game and play the short Freeware version of it: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28073528/GoHo/GoHo.html

Oh man, I'm going to hell for laughing at this. Seriously, thanks for making my day.

OT: Nope, not gonna buy the game. Saw a playthrough on YouTube, and honestly don't feel like I'm missing out by not "playing" it. It's barely interactive. It's like you're listening to an audio book, but need to press w every 30-40 seconds. That's exactly the sort of thing that YouTube is good for.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Okay, wow.
I'm sorry for saying that the game could be one finest games ever made, claiming absolutes apprently doesn't turn out that well, heh. It was (and is) my opinion, and I honestly thought people would see eye to eye with me, but a lot of good points have been raised about the game, and I'd like to elaborate.

I don't think so. I just read the entire plot of the game on the Wikipedia article. sooo....

Ok, well you just missed the entire point.

HOWEVER, the game isn't worth buying. Not at the original $20 that Steam wants.

I agree with this. I only picked it up on steam when it was on discount. I was aware of the game before, but didn't feel like coughing up 20? for it. They should definitely cut the price in half.

I've played tons and tons of games with depth that comes about through effort and style. I take insult to someone saying that this game, somehow is better than those just because it deals with a hot topic issue in it. Gone Home at least got a bunch of media buzz, the games that do so much more usually never even sniff that much. It's something destined to generate that buzz, be hailed as amazing, and then be forgotten.

"I take insult to someone saying that this game, somehow is better than those just because it it deals with a hot topic issue in it." Because no great work of fiction ever did that.

I take insult in you taking insult in my taste of stories. Okay, I might have been a bit quick on the gun decalring it one of the best games ever made, though it is how I honestly feel.

Did you play the game? It's in no way trying to be "cheap attention getting game" or a preachy story on how [SPOILERS] "there's nothing wrong with being gay". It's a love stroy that just happens to be about two young women, there's nothing ham-handed or forced about it. I actually feel it's more about teenage insecurity, confusion and naiveté than it is about homosexuality. [SPOILERS]

And I say no to that. Games are already in many ways seen as an artform by some people, but in order for even more to do so, it doesn't need cheap attention getting games like Gone Home. I prefer games that are like The Beatles or Queen, ones that are seen as classics. Gone Home is the equivalent of a boy band.

I in no way meant that every game from now on should be like Gone Home. What I'm trying to say is: There are a lot of people who would greatly enjoy games like gone home, but are drawn away from games by the current image that video games have in the general public. Games are mostly known for war and murder and not for intricate storytelling.

On the flip side, if the player can't relate to the setting and story personally, I'm not sure Gone Home does enough in terms of raw narrative structure and play mechanics to warrant the excessive merit. It's essentially a big ball of references that either matter to you or don't. If it's the former, you probably enjoyed the hell out of the experience and gave it a 9 or a 10. If it's the latter, you probably feel like you're taking crazy pills because you don't understand why the hell people are talking about this game.

Well, I'm a 20 year old straight male from Finland and don't listen to Punk. I didn't grow up in America in the 90's, so there's absolutely nothing nostalgic to me about the game. The only thing I could relate to was that I've also been in love, and I believe alot of other people have been too. Of course I could be just a small minority of "outsiders" being drawn to a story that doesn't really concern me, but I honestly feel like Gone Home is a universal tale of love.

Edit: just realized OP invoked Edward Scissorhands in a Gone Home thread. We are now sworn enemies.

But I love you... D:

If I can get EVERYTHING out of a game just through reading the Wikipedia plot and not actually playing it? It shouldn't be a game.

Hotline Miami is a game. This is merely reading, then tossing the book across the room until you decide to walk over and pick it up again. That does not a game make.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh I still haven't played it, maybe I will at 5 bucks but since it came out the main push of this game has been "It's got LGBT stuff!" makes it as compelling to play as playing a game cause "It's got boobs!"

Being said playing a game like this is more playing and not watching it, But come on this game looks like root through your parents junk drawers and sister's diary and make up a story >.>

 

[T_ConX]

Dear Esther is so deep. It has such a moving story and the environments are so beautiful! It's totally worth a buy!

Fuck no. I walked around an empty island for an hour, listening to some guy whine about his dead wife. Emphasis on walked. The one thing I remember most about this game is the player characters glacial walking speed. The graphics were pretty good, but you're never given the chance to interact with the environments. 'Look, but don't touch' seems to be the design mantra here, and that's what lost me. Good thing I only paid $3 for it...

Gone Home is so deep. It has such a moving story and the environments are so beautiful! Definate GotY. It's totally worth a buy!

Fuck no. I walked around an empty house for an hour (and on my second play, two full minutes), listing to some girl whine about typical teenage bullshit. Also, the graphics weren't anywhere near as good as Dear Esther. Oh, but I can pick up nearly every object in the house and look at it before either putting it down or chucking across the room. I'd love to get that $20 back.

And Katie walks too slow. Is that a going to be a regular theme for these games? It's like the developers reach the end of production and realize that their game is only half an hour long, so they shoot the main character in the foot to slow him or her down.

The Stanley Parable is so dee...

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.

 

[Eve Charm]

The Stanley Parable is so dee...

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.

Nah really play the free demo or the old stanley parable mod.

 

[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.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I thoroughly enjoyed Gone Home and I'm very glad I experienced it. However I will not start professing it to be the best game this year. It was a touching interactive experience but if you're as through as me on first playthroughs you'll soon realise that there's little to no replay value as there's nothing left to explore or discover.

I've actually played Dear Esther more times over because I feel it generates an amazing sense of atmosphere and there's some variation which can lead to multiple interpretations.

I'm happy these games exist but there needs to be a suitable barrier between them and longer, more interactive mediums which arguably deserve more praise within the category of "video game."

 

[Erttheking]

With all the masterpieces that this medium has spawned taken into consideration, I frankly find the notion that Gone Home is even CLOSE to being "a solid contender for the best game ever made" to be downright fucking offensive.

Not to speak of the fact that the devs should frankly be fucking ashamed of charging 20 fucking dollars for a 1½ hour game, for that amount of money I could get HUNDREDS of ours of quality entertainment on Steam or GoG.

Hell, you can get some of the best games EVER made for a dime these days, there is no excuse for wasting money on and encouraging trash like Gone Home.

The only thing about the game that could possibly be considered a merit is the subject matter, and that has been done INFINITELY better in a dozen movies.

If you want a recent piece of entertainment that deals with LGBT issues, you could try watching Blue is the Warmest Colour, a french movie that was released not too long ago, hell Moviebob even did a column about it. That movie handles the subject matter INFINTELY better, and you won't get a cramp in your find from holding down the W button.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but if you actually found Gone Home to be in any way insightful, provocative or original, then you BADLY need to expand your cultural horizons and watch some movies. Gone Home's hamfisted and bumbling approach would maybe have raised an eye-brow in fucking 1990, but that isn't where we are and it doesn't get a free card for being "progressive" just because it's (barely) a video game.

Gone Home is not just a bad game, it doesn't even have a reason to exists.

It really shouldn't. Seriously, why? If people like it more than they liked other things that came out this year, then why should that matter?

You know, quantity =/= quality. I think demanding that they should be ashamed is going a little far.

Ignoring the hyperbole, even classics like System Shock 2 and the original Fallouts still go for around ten bucks each. Gone Home is twenty bucks, not that much more than a game that's been out for two decades. Not to mention your argument seems kind of loaded with the whole "wasting money" segment. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that other people are throwing their money away.

Fair enough, maybe those movies did an infinitely better job at addressing the troubles at coming out of the closet. That doesn't change at the fact that Gone Home may not be the best thing in the world, but I found it to be a pretty cute story that while I'm probably not gonna replay for awhile if ever, I'm still glad that I played it. That kind of argument is kind of like saying that that Babalyon 5 shouldn't exist because Star Trek is infinitely better.

Saying that you don't mean to insult anyone doesn't mean much when you proceed to do just that. I enjoyed the game, I wouldn't put it on my top five list of the year, maybe top ten at the very bottom, maybe not, but I did enjoy it. Personally I feel no need to expand my horizons and find myself to be rather insulted that you view my enjoyment of the game with such spite.

It doesn't have a reason to exist? Yes it does. Because someone out there wanted to tell a story, spent hours upon hours of their time putting together this game, and finally released it. If that isn't reason enough for something to exist, I don't know what is.

In summary? It's ok to not like something, but hating it to the level you do when it hasn't really done anything is just going too far. Not to mention anger directed at someone for liking something you don't like just isn't fair

 

[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?