Why you should play "Gone Home"

[Raikas]

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"

Is that really where the praise is coming from though? Maybe that's the cause for some of the critical buzz, but when I hear people talking about the game (and as I said earlier, they mostly come from a demographic that's outside of the what we generally think of as the target audience for non-casual games), that's never been part of the praise. I hear a lot about the atmosphere, and a lot of happiness about a resurgence of adventure games.

And I realize that I'm coming a little close to saying "it's not important because of social justice, it's important because it appeals to middle aged women", and that would seriously patronizing of me (and obviously it doesn't exclusively appear to that market), but I do think it might be interesting to look at how this game succeeds/fails from the angle of that demographic difference.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I don't consider Gone Home and the like to be formal games, so I've been calling them walking simulators, virtual stories, and unlaborious games.

They have their niche, and it's not like I dislike them for "not being games." But I'm beginning to despise the trend because it's forwarding notions of development that I dislike, with A Machine for Pigs, the Chinese Room felt it would be fine to remove gameplay elements and still sell it as the successor to a game that was widely praised..

To me it shows failure to understand what sets games apart from other mediums. Videogames with stories CAN be very good, but they can't rely on their story as if it's the selling point.

Is that really where the praise is coming from though?

Depends what you read and who you talk to.

Every mainstream videogame journal that I've seen praise the game (with one exception) has been on the SJW train in the past. Not to mention that there's some sneaking suspicion of some of those reviewers being friends with the creators of the game.

Otherwise I've seen the praise come from people who don't usually play videogames.

 

[Raikas]

Otherwise I've seen the praise come from people who don't usually play videogames.

That's what I think is so interesting. Most of the people I've heard about it from are in that group, although many (if not most) are people who played point-and-click games in the 90s and are using Gone Home (and games in that style) to get back into that.

I don't consider Gone Home and the like to be formal games, so I've been calling them walking simulators, virtual stories, and unlaborious games.

They have their niche, and it's not like I dislike them for "not being games." But I'm beginning to despise the trend because it's forwarding notions of development that I dislike, with A Machine for Pigs, the Chinese Room felt it would be fine to remove gameplay elements and still sell it as the successor to a game that was widely praised...

Whether you call it an informal game or not, I think there's something to be said for a game that has the power to appeal to people who aren't drawn to other games (or who gave up on gaming 20 years ago and are now being brought back into it). Because fair enough if you are I aren't a fan of that style, but if anything I'd take this trend to mean that it does work for that untapped market, and I hope that that's a trend that continues.

That's what I don't get about the negativity - I may not be a fan, but I totally think it's awesome that it's bringing in new blood/bringing people back. I don't think we're in danger of seeing the market flooded with nothing but basic point-and-click games, so why wouldn't we want to see more of that?

 

[Full]

I've already made a decision to pick it up at some point. Looks neat-o, kind of unique (as far as I know) for the realm of not-necessarily-adventure games type-games.

Kind of off-topic but seriously though are we calling this type of game "a game" yet or do we need to call them "interactive movies" or whatever? Because that's kind of a mouthful and I'd prefer to just call it a game.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I've already made a decision to pick it up at some point. Looks neat-o, kind of unique (as far as I know) for the realm of not-necessarily-adventure games type-games.

Kind of off-topic but seriously though are we calling this type of game "a game" yet or do we need to call them "interactive movies" or whatever? Because that's kind of a mouthful and I'd prefer to just call it a game.

We could call them Interactive Cutscene Games, or ICG's. It would be a label that covers things like Gone Home and things like Indigo Prophesy.

 

[Jason Rayes]

Well, I'm not going to get involved in some of the arguments that have broken out, enough has been said about that, here are some different things I liked:

Wait, how do I do the spoiler tag things? Wahhh, I need to use forums more.

 

[APersonHere]

Again, show me where you've seen this story told before.

It's the boy-meets-girl (sort of) trope mixed in with the coming of age trope mixed with Romeo and Juliet-style forbidden love trope. You can see this sort of plot line in all manners of movies and drama/family television shows. Maybe it's a first for video games, but it's still essentially a form of juvenile teenage drama that might be considered trashy in other mediums. Just think of the endless torrent of movies where highschoolers are played b 30-something year olds.

A lot of it does come down to whether or not you like that genre in the first place. I definitely admit this story has its cute moments, but I've already seen all this play out amongst my own real life high school friends. One of my oldest friends is a girl in the navy... and getting married to another girl next month. Sound familiar? And as others have pointed out, there's nothing that makes a first-time homosexual relationship any more meaningful than a heterosexual one--it'll probably be as rocky and unstable as any other (perhaps more due to extra external pressures).

I suppose many of us older and not-so-sentimental players view the game as overly romanticizing something that, really, shouldn't be. There's only one real reference of doubt in the story that I remember:

Spoiler

"I don't think Lonnie even knows who Lonnie is." But then that's it.

In the end, all we see is another starry-eyed teenage love story. Dear Esther at least gave you backgrounds on multiple characters and created a believable and immersive environment. Gone Home, on the other hand, is an awkward mishmash of the creepy-mansion-in-the-woods trope that suddenly forgets what it is and becomes a string-along love tale. The game is beautifully made, but that transition feels unintentionally gimmicky and cheap.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

That's what I think is so interesting. Most of the people I've heard about it from are in that group, although many (if not most) are people who played point-and-click games in the 90s and are using Gone Home (and games in that style) to get back into that.

Well it signifies a different audience. But I don't know if it means anything special about the game.

Whether you call it an informal game or not, I think there's something to be said for a game that has the power to appeal to people who aren't drawn to other games (or who gave up on gaming 20 years ago and are now being brought back into it).

To me it says that they have very low standards for storytelling, but will glamor if it is presented merely differently.

If Gone Home was a movie or book, I don't think people would have turned heads.

If Gone Home's main story was about a heterosexual couple, I don't think it would have turned heads at all. After all TheChineseRoom did their narrative experiences and Dear Esther didn't garner anywhere near this sort of acclaim.

Because fair enough if you are I aren't a fan of that style, but if anything I'd take this trend to mean that it does work for that untapped market, and I hope that that's a trend that continues.

Sure, as I said, it has it's niche.

That's what I don't get about the negativity - I may not be a fan, but I totally think it's awesome that it's bringing in new blood/bringing people back. I don't think we're in danger of seeing the market flooded with nothing but basic point-and-click games, so why wouldn't we want to see more of that?

The negativity is mostly based on what it means for videogames in the industry in relation to mainstream critics.

Ducktales Remastered gets criticized for being too oldschool difficult.
Wonderful 101 gets criticized for being hard to master.
Dragon's Crown gets flack for its character design.

Here we have a "game" that barely has gameplay other than walking around and looking at things, and it gets praised because it has a mediocre love story.

Now, you can argue that reviews don't matter in the long run. But it's what these reviews reflect: we have people in the industry who don't see gameplay as important and would rather jump on the social justice train than be objective. Things have already been bad enough with nefarious paid reviews and doritogate.

Despite what I'm saying, I'm a person who very much values story in videogames. I'm critical of when story is sacrificed for gameplay and I'm just as critical when gameplay is sacrificed for story.

 

[LAGG]

Yeah, I know exactly what you meant. But just because the story would not make it as it is in other mediums doesn't make it a bad story. If your translate any videogame story to film, television, book, what have you, they'd all be terrible.

There are lots of great stories in games, you must be only playing the bad ones.

 

[LAGG]

I've already made a decision to pick it up at some point. Looks neat-o, kind of unique (as far as I know) for the realm of not-necessarily-adventure games type-games.

Kind of off-topic but seriously though are we calling this type of game "a game" yet or do we need to call them "interactive movies" or whatever? Because that's kind of a mouthful and I'd prefer to just call it a game.

I think "Click Flick" sounds pretty short...

But Gone Home is not one of those, it's a Point-and-Click Adventure / Hidden Object game.

 

[TehCookie]

So there's no gameplay so it all hinges on the story, which from what I heard sounds like a snoozefest. Which admittedly isn't much because the little I heard was enough to make me lose interest. It sounds like a story you'd see on some crappy TV drama with a mix of those suspense movies which I'm too impatient for.

 

[Weaver]

I wouldn't pay more than $3 for it. You walk around and it tells you a story and you'll finish it in 2 hours max.

The $20 is ludicrous.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It's a subpar faimly drama story. I'm not knocking the interactive story/walking and exploring games but those games have to have a good story (The Walking Dead -ya it's a bit more but you get my point)

The Walking Dead? Sorry but no, the old zombie apocalypse story is not better than the story in Gone Home. The other difference is the story in Gone Home is about YOU - not some dude you see on the screen and control some parts of and not others. That's what makes it better, as a story and as a game.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The other difference is the story in Gone Home is about YOU - not some dude you see on the screen and control some parts of and not others.

But it's not about you... You're controlling a pre-existing character and learning about other pre-existing characters.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

The other difference is the story in Gone Home is about YOU - not some dude you see on the screen and control some parts of and not others.

But it's not about you... You're controlling a pre-existing character and learning about other pre-existing characters.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, by "you" I meant someone you can assume the role of, fully. You can put yourself in the position of the sister and given her circumstances, pretend you're experiencing what you do playing the game.

 

[wulf3n]

The other difference is the story in Gone Home is about YOU - not some dude you see on the screen and control some parts of and not others.

But it's not about you... You're controlling a pre-existing character and learning about other pre-existing characters.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, by "you" I meant someone you can assume the role of, fully. You can put yourself in the position of the sister and given her circumstances, pretend you're experiencing what you do playing the game.

And you can't do that with The walking dead?

In gone home the player isn't afforded any means to determine how the player controlled character affects or is affected by the story, unlike The walking dead which allows you to shape Lee, his reactions, his motivations etc.