Or it could be because, despite its obsessive cult of fan's beliefs, the game did have some legitimate flaws.C. Eleri Hamilton said:Because it is in the Seekrit Society Of Game Critics Rulebook- Thou Shalt Not Admit you liked Myst, or any of the sequels, because doing so makes you a Braniac Nerdling, and we Can't Have That.hurricanejbb said:Why the hell is he ragging on Myst?
Myst fandom is the secret shame of gamers everywhere... except for those of us who have come out of the library closet.
It was a fairly linear string of puzzles jacketed in a game-like veneer of travel consisting of a progression of (for the period good) CGI stills. Despite the puzzles themselves (which range from logicalc common-sense approaches to esoteric point and click pixel hunts and infuriating trial and error crapshoots) there isn't much actual gamePLAY compared to more adventure oriented puzzle games. Additionally, other than to soak in the nostalgia of low resolution early period Computer Generated Terrain graphics with edges so jagged they can be used to grate fine spices and zest citrus, there's no real replay value. The puzzles are static and merely require knowing the answer and where to find the pieces. Unless you're in it to relive the story, but at that point the puzzles are just tediously designed doors to let you progress through the rest of the game.
None of that makes Myst a bad game, but it was definitely a product of its time. One of the primary driving forces of the still newborn CD-Rom market, the immersion that drew people into it falls short in comparison with games released even a few years after it. Its cult status as "that game" for so many people hinges on that nostalgic feeling of playing it for the first time back then, not an evaluation of how it plays in comparison now.