Why you should play "Gone Home"

[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.

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

No. The PC doesn't look like me, says things I don't want him to say, doesn't go where I want him to go. To the extent I'm controlling him, I'm controlling him as another person, not as me.

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.

Exactly. That's because it's "Lee" as the main character (someone else). In Gone Home it's myself. The reactions and motivations are those of the person sitting in front of the computer.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

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?

No. The PC doesn't look like me, says things I don't want him to say, doesn't go where I want him to go. To the extent I'm controlling him, I'm controlling him as another person, not as me.

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.

Exactly. That's because it's "Lee" as the main character (someone else). In Gone Home it's myself. The reactions and motivations are those of the person sitting in front of the computer.

But... you react to what happens in any game... even if you're playing as a pre-existing character with a face and personality... My reactions and motivations for playing The Binding of Isaac are those of the person sitting in front of the computer too... you're not making much sense here.

 

[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.

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

No. The PC doesn't look like me, says things I don't want him to say, doesn't go where I want him to go. To the extent I'm controlling him, I'm controlling him as another person, not as me.

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.

Exactly. That's because it's "Lee" as the main character (someone else). In Gone Home it's myself. The reactions and motivations are those of the person sitting in front of the computer.

But... you react to what happens in any game... even if you're playing as a pre-existing character with a face and personality... My reactions and motivations for playing The Binding of Isaac are those of the person sitting in front of the computer too... you're not making much sense here.

That's true. It's difficult to get across. It's more to do with where the focus of the game lies. In The Walking Dead wulf3n feels his emotions matter only insofar as he is allowed the opportunity to input them into Lee to express. While Gone Home, it's the being affected that matters. It's a subtle difference but I feel important, more important than the difference between the purely visual 1st and 3rd person perspectives.

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

Matter of opinion I guess. I've played both and while The Walking Dead wasn't so much of a game as it was an interactive movie mostly, IMO it told a much better story than Gone Home.

 

[wulf3n]

No. The PC doesn't look like me, says things I don't want him to say, doesn't go where I want him to go. To the extent I'm controlling him, I'm controlling him as another person, not as me.

In neither game is it "you". you're playing a pre-defined character. Unless you really lucked out and Kaitlin Greenbriar is exactly like you in appearance, voice and reaction to specific events.

Exactly. That's because it's "Lee" as the main character (someone else). In Gone Home it's myself. The reactions and motivations are those of the person sitting in front of the computer.

In gone home it's Kaitlin Greenbriar (someone else) as the playable character. I wouldn't call them the main character. The reactions and motivation are that of Kaitlin. Sure you'll have your own, but like Specter Von Baren said, that is true of any game.

That's true. It's difficult to get across. It's more to do with where the focus of the game lies. In The Walking Dead wulf3n feels his emotions matter only insofar as he is allowed the opportunity to input them into Lee to express. While Gone Home, it's the being affected that matters. It's a subtle difference but I feel important, more important than the difference between the purely visual 1st and 3rd person perspectives.

I'm not saying emotions only matter as long as they can be reflected in the story. I'm saying a story is only about "you" if "you" have a role in shaping how it plays out.

It seems to me that your ability to "become" Kaitlin Greenbriar is influenced solely by the fact that the games is played in the First Person Perspective, but that has nothing to do with the story being about "you"

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread.

Personally, I wasn't a fan - it's too short for my tastes, and the references were mostly not things that grabbed me. But I know a good number of people (mostly women 30-45) who haven't played a serious game (meaning something that's not just a phone-based time-killer) for ten years or more - and they all raved about it. And if that's not success, I don't know what is - I wish more games were made for more specific audiences and I hate the idea that if they do so that that's a degree of failure. I know you said that doesn't make it a bad game, but I'm baffled by the idea that we'd call a game a failure for not doing things that I don't think it's clearly not designed to do.

I tried to be very careful with my language, which is why I said a degree of failure. The game is obviously wildly successful at what it does, and there's nothing wrong with achieving that much (and nothing more) on a limited budget. But I don't believe Gone Home has universal appeal, and I don't think this is only because of a narrow focus in demographics. Rather, the game doesn't do anything new or exciting or particularly well with regard to play mechanics or narrative. That's why I think the 9s and 10s are insane.

I guess that I see it the same way you do, but the reaction that bugs you is exactly what I love. I like it when people give their "best" or top 10 and don't pretend to be objective about it - and if people love this game, I'm totally okay with them thinking it's the pinnacle of modern adventure games if that's their honest reaction to it, y'know?

Well I'm not the thought police, so if someone wants to love Gone Home and think it the best game ever made, feel free. I think any professional reviewer worth his/her salt wouldn't allow that kind of raw emotional reaction to cloud some of the more objective limitations present in the game.

It's all very subjective, though, including these debates here. A lot of people are essentially defending Beyond: Two Souls on the basis that it's a David Gage game and would, naturally, be exactly as it is. When people begin resorting to that kind of self-insulating analysis, I instantly tune out.

 

[Raikas]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread.

Personally, I wasn't a fan - it's too short for my tastes, and the references were mostly not things that grabbed me. But I know a good number of people (mostly women 30-45) who haven't played a serious game (meaning something that's not just a phone-based time-killer) for ten years or more - and they all raved about it. And if that's not success, I don't know what is - I wish more games were made for more specific audiences and I hate the idea that if they do so that that's a degree of failure. I know you said that doesn't make it a bad game, but I'm baffled by the idea that we'd call a game a failure for not doing things that I don't think it's clearly not designed to do.

I tried to be very careful with my language, which is why I said a degree of failure. The game is obviously wildly successful at what it does, and there's nothing wrong with achieving that much (and nothing more) on a limited budget. But I don't believe Gone Home has universal appeal, and I don't think this is only because of a narrow focus in demographics. Rather, the game doesn't do anything new or exciting or particularly well with regard to play mechanics or narrative. That's why I think the 9s and 10s are insane.

I guess what I'm questioning is the idea that a game need universal appeal in order to be worthy of a 9 or 10. Because the those untapped demographics that are enjoying this game (in general, not saying they're the only ones who do, or that none of them are playing AAA titles) don't buy/play/enjoy most of the big budget titles or well-reviewed mainstream ones. In that sense, how universal is the appeal of any game?

Well I'm not the thought police, so if someone wants to love Gone Home and think it the best game ever made, feel free. I think any professional reviewer worth his/her salt wouldn't allow that kind of raw emotional reaction to cloud some of the more objective limitations present in the game.

It's all very subjective, though, including these debates here. A lot of people are essentially defending Beyond: Two Souls on the basis that it's a David Gage game and would, naturally, be exactly as it is. When people begin resorting to that kind of self-insulating analysis, I instantly tune out.

Fair enough. Although on the point about reviewers and emotion, I do think there's a fine tradition across media of the "I laughed, I cried"-type review. Still, I'm certainly not saying that just because a game follows a formula correctly that one shouldn't expect anything else, so I'm with you on that one.

 

[PinkiePyro]

looks interesting but so totally not worth throwing down 20 for exploration is fun and all but if I am going to pay 20 buck I would want more than just an empty house to explore

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I guess what I'm questioning is the idea that a game need universal appeal in order to be worthy of a 9 or 10.

That was poorly worded on my part. I don't believe universal appeal is exactly a prereq for a 9 or a 10, but a video game garnering that level of acclaim should be universally defensible in its accomplishments with respect to play mechanics and or narrative. Gone Home is well executed, but it's very straight forward, painfully "linear" in a way that limits player agency far more than even the most linear AAA games, and ultimately tells a fairly cliche story. It doesn't knock the gameplay ball out of the park, and I don't think the narrative is enough to drag it to that 9-10 range - at least not among traditional gaming critics.

Because the those untapped demographics that are enjoying this game (in general, not saying they're the only ones who do, or that none of them are playing AAA titles) don't buy/play/enjoy most of the big budget titles or well-reviewed mainstream ones. In that sense, how universal is the appeal of any game?

This is where things are starting to get tricky, for sure. I mean a less mainstream outlet, like Polygon, with a pretty clear mandate to expand gaming demographics at all costs, sure. Go ahead and give the indie game with the faux controversial subject matter and unique package of referential material a grand perfect score. But a more traditional outlet, like IGN? A place were gamers are going for useful reviews viewed through the lens of actual gaming versus "interactive storytelling walking tours"? That's where all of the excessive praise seemed extremely... motivated.

Fair enough. Although on the point about reviewers and emotion, I do think there's a fine tradition across media of the "I laughed, I cried"-type review. Still, I'm certainly not saying that just because a game follows a formula correctly that one shouldn't expect anything else, so I'm with you on that one.

I suppose it's just a sign of growth for the industry, which is typically a good thing in the end. We just might have some awkward mix ups in terms of who is reviewing what for who, for a while anyways. This kind of reminds me of the "Dragon's Crown" kerfuffle over at Polygon, wherein they assigned the review to someone who seemed biased against the product from the outset even though it succeeded at doing everything the devs wanted it to do. Gone Home was, oddly enough, not so badly mishandled anywhere that I've seen.

I guess I'm a little guarded when it comes to heaping big-time acclaim on "new and creative" endeavors. Things aren't automatically good because they're different or unique. I could probably chill out on it, though.