Poll: Inside now out on the PSN store.

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Much sooner than anticipated (at least in the UK anyway), the recent game by developers of Limbo, entitled Inside is now available for purchase. For those humble peasants like me who that have nary a gaming PC or Xbone, this may be good news as there was no hint of when or even if the game would be coming to the dark side.
I personally have yet to play it, but shall look forward to later this evening at least. Any opinions on this apparently critically acclaimed title? Ah screw it, I'll add a poll whilst I'm here!

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think it's better to wait for it to go on a hefty price cut, 20 dollars is highway robbery, I'd say it's worth something like 7 dollars tops, about 3 hours of pressing right should not have that high price.

^Utter nonsense.

"Inside" is an absolutely STELLAR game, leagues more compelling, interesting and finally MEMORABLE than 99.99% of the fodder out there at ANY price point. It kills me when people think length is indicative of worth! I've played plenty of shit 8-12 hour games I paid full retail for, but for a third the price, "Inside" nailed the gaming experience of a decade in under 4 hours. Best $20 I've spent on a game in YEARS, certainly this generation.

I own an Xbox and was thrilled when I learned "Inside" was going to the Playstation; I WANT the those owners to have a chance to experience it for themselves. I just hope it hasn't been spoiled in online forums too often already.

 

[RJ 17]

I think it's better to wait for it to go on a hefty price cut, 20 dollars is highway robbery, I'd say it's worth something like 7 dollars tops, about 3 hours of pressing right should not have that high price.

^Utter nonsense.

"Inside" is an absolutely STELLAR game, leagues more compelling, interesting and finally MEMORABLE than 99.99% of the fodder out there at ANY price point. It kills me when people think length is indicative of worth! I've played plenty of shit 8-12 hour games I paid full retail for, but for a third the price, "Inside" nailed the gaming experience of a decade in under 4 hours. Best $20 I've spent on a game in YEARS, certainly this generation.

I own an Xbox and was thrilled when I learned "Inside" was going to the Playstation; I WANT the those owners to have a chance to experience it for themselves. I just hope it hasn't been spoiled in online forums too often already.

The issue isn't the length, the issue is more that it's a 2d version of a walking simulator. Toss in a couple simplistic physics puzzles and a giant man-eating testicle and there's your game.

Eh, I wasn't all that impressed...certainly didn't think it was worth all the hype of "YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST PLAY THIS GAME!" That said, though, I've no issue with the price tag.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think it's better to wait for it to go on a hefty price cut, 20 dollars is highway robbery, I'd say it's worth something like 7 dollars tops, about 3 hours of pressing right should not have that high price.

^Utter nonsense.

"Inside" is an absolutely STELLAR game, leagues more compelling, interesting and finally MEMORABLE than 99.99% of the fodder out there at ANY price point. It kills me when people think length is indicative of worth! I've played plenty of shit 8-12 hour games I paid full retail for, but for a third the price, "Inside" nailed the gaming experience of a decade in under 4 hours. Best $20 I've spent on a game in YEARS, certainly this generation.

I own an Xbox and was thrilled when I learned "Inside" was going to the Playstation; I WANT the those owners to have a chance to experience it for themselves. I just hope it hasn't been spoiled in online forums too often already.

The issue isn't the length, the issue is more that it's a 2d version of a walking simulator. Toss in a couple simplistic physics puzzles and a giant man-eating testicle and there's your game.

Eh, I wasn't all that impressed...certainly didn't think it was worth all the hype of "YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST PLAY THIS GAME!" That said, though, I've no issue with the price tag.

Each is entitled to their own opinion, so I won't refute your imression, just please be cognizant that not everyone has played it yet and watch out potentially spoiling the game. Everyone deserves for the experience to unfold naturally for them. I can understand being underwhelmed, but seeing how NOT underwhelmed I personally was, I'd hate for someone to ruin my experience because of their own less-than-impressed take on the game. I understand it might be lost on some, but for those who'll "get it," let's let them "get it."

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Apologies, Singing Bear Avatar Dude/-ette, but I can't comment on Inside as I've not played it. I may've thus far given it the swerve because it looks like another tediously arty monochrome side-scroller indie darling because reasons...

I did want to give a hearty thunbs up to this post/point, though---

^Utter nonsense.

"Inside" is an absolutely STELLAR game, leagues more compelling, interesting and finally MEMORABLE than 99.99% of the fodder out there at ANY price point. It kills me when people think length is indicative of worth! I've played plenty of shit 8-12 hour games I paid full retail for, but for a third the price, "Inside" nailed the gaming experience of a decade in under 4 hours. Best $20 I've spent on a game in YEARS, certainly this generation.

'Value for money' is generally right up there with humour when it comes to subjectivity, but I do feel that's a lesson the games industry - or at least its punters - need to learn (ditto pricing expectations and brackets between indies and triple-A's).

 

[RJ 17]

I'd hate for someone to ruin my experience because of their own less-than-impressed take on the game. I understand it might be lost on some, but for those who'll "get it," let's let them "get it."

You're just mad because....

Spoiler: Actual Inside spoiler in here, do not click if you don't want a big part of the end of game spoiled.

...you'll never be able to see the blob that you eventually become as anything but a giant man-eating testicle from this point on.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Ok, I have finally got to the end, well the normal ending anyway. And it is a well crafted experience. I need to go through the game again to pick up all the fine details and the separate ending that takes a bit more work. It certainly sticks in the mind and mulls about, I appreciate these narratives that hold your imagination and thoughts long after playing. A lot of people prefer direct, unmistakable storytelling. But the idea of a story that respects the observer's imagination (dare i say intelligence? Though am personally more imaginative than clever) enough to fill in the gaps like a form of meta-challenge is quite appealing.
You may say that it can easily be abused by lazy writers who can't be arsed to flesh out their own stories, which is kind of true for some, but there is often a noticeable difference when that is attempted. Maybe with enough consideration, I could probably pin down the reasons why, but already in rambling territory here.

 

[Xerosch]

Nah, I'll pass. I didn't like Limbo very much aside from the beginning and the pricing for 1.5 to 3 hour long games has become far too ridiculous.

Can't all be 'Journey'.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Already saw the Grumps play through it. Got the gist of it (eh) and saved myself $20.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Hmm, weird... journey is far more a "walking simulator" than inside could ever hope to be. It doesn't have any fail states, puzzles or actual struggles to overcome. I enjoyed Journey still, but i would admit Inside impressed more, personally.
Every platformer from Mario to Rayman can technically be dismissed as a "press right until it ends" going by the requirements presented so far. It's baffling to see such statements as if people haven't actually played the game and are merely parroting what they heard or made a snap judgement from 5 minutes of a let's play. Even subjective exaggeration doesn't excuse such misinformation.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Hmm, weird... journey is far more a "walking simulator" than inside could ever hope to be. It doesn't have any fail states, puzzles or actual struggles to overcome. I enjoyed Journey still, but i would admit Inside impressed more, personally.
Every platformer from Mario to Rayman can technically be dismissed as a "press right until it ends" going by the requirements presented so far. It's baffling to see such statements as if people haven't actually played the game and are merely parroting what they heard or made a snap judgement from 5 minutes of a let's play. Even subjective exaggeration doesn't excuse such misinformation.

I think the difference between Journey and Inside (apart from one being more "walkie" than the other) is that the former is all about sweeping you up in its grandeur and spiritualism, and the latter is all about drawing you into a dark, intruiging world. For me Journey succeeded in what it tried to do more than Inside, since just as with Limbo I don't feel Inside stuck its landing. It's certainly better than Limbo, but it does suffer from the same issues, where it presents you with these excellent crafted moments, but then fails at properly stringing them together and having it really come together at the end in any meaningful way.

I didn't hate the ending to Inside, and the climax was one big mindmelting experience, but at the very end I was left with a feeling of 'Well... I guess that's that then.' I don't think there was much of anything to chew on.

Still, it was nice playing a great cinematic platformer again. It made my Oddworld heart slowly beat again.

 

[Xprimentyl]

...narratives that hold your imagination and thoughts long after playing. A lot of people prefer direct, unmistakable storytelling. But the idea of a story that respects the observer's imagination (dare i say intelligence? Though am personally more imaginative than clever) enough to fill in the gaps like a form of meta-challenge is quite appealing.

^Yes, exactly! Engaging my imagination and making me feel a part of the experience both during and after was so much more rewarding than a "cut and dry" story. I just think how much less of an impact Inside would have had with voiceovers or some trite exposition via collectible lab notes or something as any number of developers would have done and have done countless times in the past.

... I don't feel Inside stuck its landing. It's certainly better than Limbo, but it does suffer from the same issues, where it presents you with these excellent crafted moments, but then fails at properly stringing them together and having it really come together at the end in any meaningful way.

Kind of extending upon the point I quoted above, personally, that disjointedness adds to the appeal, the idea that all of this that makes NO sense actually does in some way in this world that's unfolding in front of me. Limbo was certainly more so simply because its premise was so vague. Until we got to the "girl" at the end, we NEVER had any idea what we were doing, who the boy was, whether or not he belonged there, what his motivation was; we just pressed forward through increasingly bizarre and vicious puzzles until... her. It came together uniquely in my mind and I LOVED it. It was just such a gift from a developer who wanted to offer something different from "you're the hero go save the princess/world/whales/etc., ad infinitum." Inside was a lot more jointed in that it was grounded in a surreal reality with clear and organized threats, but Playdead succeeded again and more so in engaging me in their world without holding my hand and allowing me to be a part of the story even as I walked blindly through it. It's as if Playdead works in "themes" and not "events," which is in and of itself an impressive feat, especially when done so well. At the very end of Inside, the theme was "freedom at last" and that feeling was palpable even while the concrete meaning/purpose behind it all was not.