Seriously? You can almost win an award for THIS?!

[XzarTheMad]

Oh, yeah, found this game a good six months ago. Showed it to my friends, played the demo. I have the full game, actually. A friend bought it for me and the rest of our Steam group of friends. The Graveyard has become a sort of internal joke between us - The best game ever made, and so exciting that it'll pop your top.

The song is pretty cool, too.

CAPTCHA: The youpple. What the hell is a youpple?!

 

[dogenzakaminion]

Reminds me of Passage. Which actually was a beautiful artistic statement in game form. This seems...dull...and I don't really get what their trying to say.

 

[losturtle]

I've never really felt the need to post anything until now, i just had to throw my two cents in. Working in a creative medium, i generally get the impression that most respectable artists, whether they're painters, designers, actors, writers etc. intend to pose their audience with a question rather than provide you with an answer. They (or i/we perhaps) want to encourage insight and critical and creative thinking and i think the length of this thread is a testament to that. Whether you liked it or not, agree or disagree; everyone's talking.

Personally, i feel that for gaming to take it's next logical step toward legitimacy, it needs to broaden its horizons to new possibilities. When the AUDIENCE watches No Country For Old Men, they don't say "WHAT THE SHIT THE ENDING SUCKED!", they ponder why the writer made the choices they did and try to find the question it poses. Just because you don't understand why, doesn't mean it's "artsy crap", it might just not be for you but honestly, does it really hurt THAT MUCH to open your mind a little and look closer? I mean if everyone always wanted romance and action in the movies they wouldn't have come so far. Just leave a little room for developers to experiment and enjoy the games you like. Even now, we wouldn't have the games we do if SOMEONE didn't try something ridiculous and stupid for its time.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

games, by definition, are supposed to be fun. so if a game is not fun then it fails as a game

Whose definition?

And why should either myself as a game player or the industry as game makers stick to such a narrow and limiting definition?

I'd go with this and also suggest, that ok, it's nearer 'interactive entertainment' than art, but the very word 'game' is partly why we're having to defend games' right to freedom of speech when movies and books get a free pass, because the word 'game' says 'kids toy' to too many people.

Part of me thinks it's pretentious to try to rename games as anything but, but part of me wants to show the entire medium as something other than Mario Bros, which is what so many non gamers seem to think we're still playing, and why they're always so shocked to hear that there might be killing of virtual people.

Killing is fine in movies, but violent gratuitous death isn't exactly Disney friendly, and that's where we're stuck at the moment, with most non gamers still seeing gaming as a distraction for under 16s and nerds.

Maybe 'Graveyard' isn't the greatest piece of art ever, it sure isn't an amazing 'game', but if we can produce more stuff like Heavy Rain for example, it might just chip away at the stereotypes. Sadly, as much as many of us revere Ico, it's just a platform game to the eyes of a non gamer, whereas something like Heavy Rain they can really relate to as 'like that show on TV'.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Stupid pretentious bullshit. A game is for entertainment, and this is not a game.

 

[veloper]

Pretentious and bad.

It's untouchable in the eyes of some here, because it's "art". If this gets bigger, the quality of games will suffer.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

This thread is very depressing. Are some people really so narrowminded that they can't accept that a game exists if the don't like it.

The game in question is probably not to everyones taste. But it doesn't have to be. If you don't like it then don't play it. Do you really have to have every single game in existence cater to your taste? Sheesh, what a sense of self worth.

I detest Saints Row 2 and the new Call of Duty games with every fiber of my being, but I don't go all insane and call for it to be removed from existence. If people like that kind of mind numbing drivel, then who am I to argue. I have higher standards but that is not the same as saying that everyone should agree.

I like it quite a lot to tell the truth. It's perhaps not mind blowing but that's alright. It's different enough that I bought it. Same as I have with most of the games Tale of Tales have made. They tend to push at the limits of what games as a medium can do. It's not always success-full, but I laud every attempt to expand and evolve games. At some point it will happen. But only if people keep trying.

People like you lot on this thread, had you been alive when movies were young would have rantet to keep them silent slapstick Charlie Chaplin flicks, screaming that more complex metaphors, symbolism, interpretations and narrative experiments were pretentious bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_kane

EDIT: I guess all of this brings about a more glaring question... do you watch movies for yourself or for the director? Because this seems like a movie the director really made for themselves and we are supposed to interpret it and feel EXACTLY how they want us to. I watch movies to have fun and escape from reality for a while, i don't watch movies to feel emotions, that's what movies and books are for.

i could make that movie in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making a movie about an old guy who dies?!

are the standards for movies so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.

Besides: the thread was over at this point:

As for Root's suggestions, they are for the most part pretty weak.

From someone called Halo Fanboy, I can only take that as the highest compliment.

 

[jamez525]

I once saw a painting that was a single red stripe (one brush stroke) on a solid blue background. Its name? Red Stripe. It was being sold for $15000.

It's called modern art, and it doesn't make any sense.

You know that is incredibly cheap.
I would like you to meet it's big brother, Voice of Fire, and it's $1.8 million price tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

 

[saluraropicrusa]

excuse me, Ultratwinkie, but i'd like to point you in the direction of Valve. they are definitely not (or, not anymore, no company starts with a AAA budget) an indie developer, but would you honestly tell me that Portal is "more processed cheese based on an established series"? your view on the AAA industry makes me think you're looking exclusively at games like CoD. yes, these games sell a lot, because people ENJOY them. to say that gamers only want what's familiar is severely limiting, especially to the more mature of us. i would consider almost all of my favorite games to be at least as innovative as people think indie games are (Portal, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus... hell, when it first came out, Halo was doing things that people hadn't seen before). just because a game is made by a company with a big enough budget to make it look pretty does NOT mean it doesn't have room to be innovative, engaging, immersive, and any other word you want to use to describe it as excellent. an industry that can produce games like Portal and Mirror's Edge, and then give them enough to make a sequel, is hardly worthy of being completely overlooked as stale and cookie-cutter. oh, and series' like Mario and Zelda didn't start as AAA franchises. they survived to become this because they were good enough to gain a serious fan base.

also, why do indie games need to appeal to a limited demographic? how is it not possible for an artistic game to attract a broad audience? i honestly have no idea how you people could consider it a bad thing for a truly excellent, artsy game to reach an audience broader than the art snobs.

Well, as I mentioned before, Tale of Tales pretty much are snobs and I guess their audience follows suit. And to be fair Halo didn't do anything new at all at the time, Goldeneye proved console shooters could work, several shooters going as far back as the original Team Fortress mod for Quake 1 in the mid/late 90s had introduced us to team based gameplay, and Tribes introduced us to team based, open terrain combat with some vehicle action as far back as 1998. So... not really.

Ehem, but disregarding that, I do agree with your post. True and good art can touch almost anyone, as opposed to a bunch of beret wearing snobs who are in fact praising it for being absurd or abstract rather than genuinely artistic. Not that I'm saying that art can't be absurd or abstract, but there's a difference between doing so because it's part of the message or feeling you're trying to convey, or just because you want to be artsy and alienate as many people as possible besides the aforementioned snobs who probably wouldn't have gotten the message anyway unless the artist had elaborated on it for several paragraphs like in the previous green picture with the orange line.

were any games using regenerating health the way Halo was before it came out? (this is an honest question, by the way, i'm not entirely caught up on my video game history) i'm not going to tout about how super-original Halo is since i know it's not, not really, but as far as i understand it did one or two new things in terms of game play. i could be wrong of course, and please do correct me if i am. anyway i don't think the series warrants as much hate as it gets, as it's a genuinely fun shooter especially with friends/in multiplayer, and Bungie put a ton of hard work into it.

 

[Axolotl]

How is it innovative?

How isn't it? Can you name any other games like it?

Yes, Big Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

 

[imnot]

Because this seems like a game the developers really made for themselves and we are supposed to interact with it and feel EXACTLY how they want us to. I play games to have fun and escape from reality for a while, i don't play games to feel emotions, that's what movies and books are for.

That's nice, but the rest of us play it for both. Just like we watch movies, listen to music, and read books for both. Just like we do FUCKING ANY FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT for both. You may only want it to escape from reality, and that's great, because you don't speak for everyone.

are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene. it seems to be just a bunch of sidescrollers and mario knockoffs.

i have yet to play a GOOD 3d indie game, or at least one that i would indeed enjoy for more than 2 minutes before i got bored and went back to Red Dead Redemption or Saints Row 2.

i really want to know if there are any 3D 3rd-person indie sandbox games out there... it seems like they are incapable of that (or even just good 3rd person in general).

and before you all go "SUPER MEAT BOY AND LIMBO!" on me, i played (and hated) both those games because i have no degree of patience for platformers, which it seems like every indie game is a variation thereof (or a Contra/Asteroids knockoff)

EDIT: Forgot about Minecraft and Mods. Because Minecraft is the only exception and everything else that's not a 2d sidescroller, run-n-gun, space shooter game is a mod. Oh, and please stop bringing up "Amnesia: Dark Descent" and Minecraft. I think we ALL know those are the VERY rare exceptions to the indie development scene, whereas the list of AAA games that nail fun on the head can go on longer than my arms. Say what you will about Gears of War and Halo for the trends they started and not being "artistic", but at least they know how to get that fun replay value there.

Sure, I guess you can say that. You could also say Red Dead Redemption and Saints Row 2 are GTA knockoffs, and Halo and Gears of War are all the same bland shooter games that haven't evolved since Doom. I can therefore conclude that any original AAA game is an incredibly rare exception and that there are no original games. What's that, you say? I'm missing the forest for the trees? Well, you are too, so...

Wait why Have you qouted me, Ididnt right either of them!

 

[drummond13]

Dude, calm down. Seriously. Some of us DO play games to feel emotions, and are grateful for experimental titles. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't make it a bad thing. Some of us rather liked Limbo, for example. The industry doesn't exist just to churn out games that YOU like.

 

[GiantRaven]

Yes, Bigr Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

Explain your choice.

 

[Axolotl]

Yes, Bigr Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

Explain your choice.

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

 

[GiantRaven]

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

Ignoring, of course, all the key differences between the two. Such as Big Rigs not featuring Old Women, Benches or Grave yards and The Graveyard not featuring Big Rigs. Also, Big Rigs is a game that completely fails at what it sets out to do (being a buggy incomprehensible) mess, whilst I imagine The Graveyard achieves exactly what it sets out to do (be an interactive experience akin to viewing such surrealist experimental art).

Tell me, how is The Graveyard worthless and devoid of merit because it doesn't fall into the notion of what you enjoy or want to experience? I don't enjoy the majority of, say, Real-time Strategy but you don't see me labelling it as 'worthless'. Just because a piece of interactive media does not conform to the standards of what we expect, does not mean it has no value. Perhaps there is a group of people out there who want to experience what is given with The Graveyard (I'm assuming there is, since the game was nominated for an award and all). Why do we have the right to label it as 'worthless' and deny that niche market what they enjoy?

 

[Axolotl]

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

Ignoring, of course, all the key differences between the two.

I never said they were exatly the same, I simply said thjey were similar.

Such as Big Rigs not featuring Old Women, Benches or Grave yards and The Graveyard not featuring Big Rigs.

That's like saying Doom and Wolfenstein were totally different because Doom has demons and no Nazis, whereas Wolfenstein has Nazis and no Demons.

Also, Big Rigs is a game that completely fails at what it sets out to do (being a buggy incomprehensible) mess, whilst I imagine The Graveyard achieves exactly what it sets out to do (be an interactive experience akin to viewing such surrealist experimental art).

How is The Graveyard interactive?

Tell me, how is The Graveyard worthless and devoid of merit because it doesn't fall into the notion of what you enjoy or want to experience?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't enjoy the majority of, say, Real-time Strategy but you don't see me labelling it as 'worthless'.

No, but a RTS fan is likely to label something like say Stalin vs. Martians as worthless.

Just because a piece of interactive media does not conform to the standards of what we expect, does not mean it has no value.

Of course not. That it's derivative, lazy and uninspired means that it has no value.

Perhaps there is a group of people out there who want to experience what is given with The Graveyard (I'm assuming there is, since the game was nominated for an award and all).

There are people out there who enjoy being beaten with sticks, that doesn't the fact that being beaten with sticks is unpleasent.

Why do we have the right to label it as 'worthless' and deny that niche market what they enjoy?

I'm not trying to stop them doing anything. But why shold some people enjoying it prevent me from pointing out its low quality?

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

EDIT: For clarity, the idea of The Graveyard is to be experimental. It's meant to be an interactive experience, rather than a game.

Isn't a game an experience that you interact with? I get what they're trying to do but in my opinion it seems like they sort of have an inflated opinion of themselves.

I can't argue about their opinion of themselves, I've not looked into it. It wouldn't surprise me though.

But while a game is an experience you interact with, not every experience you interact with is a game. Like how a book is something you read, but not everything you read is a book. It's debatable whether this counts as a 'game' or just something interacted with in a similar way. I'm more the latter, but both are legitimate judgements I'd say. Hell, even the industry itself can't come to an absolute definition of 'what is a game?'

I see what you mean. Although in your analogy interactive experience is equivalent to thing you read so maybe we need a new term for this sort of thing. I'm drawing a blank for what else you could call it though. Book and pamphlet both fit into the things you read catagory and we would never say "It's meant to be more of a thing you read, rather than a book."