These all sounds awesome, thanks.Originally Posted by More_Badass
Let's see...
Lacuna Passage is an exploration/survival game set on an accurate Mars. Not releasing till the end of 2014 though
Spice Road is a "strategy trade empire building on the old Silk Road. Town building, social and ecomomic simulation game." Beta out now
Wander is a multiplayer game focused 100% on exploration. No combat, just working together to explore and map out the world. Beta out now
There are probably a ton of others. I'll keep looking.
7 Towers looks sweet.
Papo & Yo Impression
I've been reluctant about this game but with IndieGameStand selling it for a minimum of $1 there was no way I could put it off anymore. I've played through it twice now, once a regular run and once a completionist run, getting everything.
The reason I've been reluctant is the same reason I've been interested: the theme. For those who don't know, the game is about a young boy and his relationship to Monster, a huge but friendly beast. Using Monster, you solve various puzzles in order to progress. However, Monster is also your only enemy, as when he consumes a certain kind of frog, he gets violent and uncontrollable. You can calm him down by feeding him a rotten fruit. The game has been pretty clear, already in the marketing, what it's really about. Monster is the boy's father and the frogs are really alcohol. I'm not so sure what the rotten fruit is...
A game that wants to take a serious look at alcoholism is of course very interesting, but it also opens up for quite a lot of problems. It wants to be both a serious narrative and a compelling traditional game at the same time. These ideals often clash. We see it in blockbuster games all the time: the supposedly good guys are ruthlessly murdering hundreds upon hundreds in between cutscenes, but they're still supposed to be the good guys. This kind of dissonance is by no means limited to video games, Hollywood movies are ripe with the same tropes, but video games is still the medium with the most focus on everything being fun, even a game about alcoholism, or poverty, or any serious topic.
It's not hard to see why a game designer would want to make the most gameplay out of the duality of Monster and its gameplay implication, but she musn't. I can see many interesting mechanics coming out of simultaneously using Monster but having to avoid him, but they would often involve deliberately feeding Monster frogs, that is: making a game where you deliberately fuel your father's alcohol addiction. Needless to say, this would be quite problematic.
During the course of the game, there were a few instances where I would deliberately walk into Monster so that he would throw me around violently or feed him frogs. The good news is that this never gave me a gameplay advantage, it was never a positive thing. Why did I do it then? Because it was inevitable. Monster was going to eat a frog either way, so I would feed him in order to calm him down more easily. Monster was going to catch up to me and assault me, so I made sure he did so in a way that ensured I would then have an easier time getting away, to minimize the amount of abuse. This is still problematic. It's still getting your father drunk on purpose. But it's a lot better than what I expected, it was rather rare and it seems like the designers had thought about this problem extensively and tried to avoid it as much as possible.
So, what does the game actually say about alcoholism then? What insight does it give? Is it the simplistic "alcoholism is bad and growing up with an alcoholic father is really tough"? No, it's not that simple. It's a game about letting go of someone who doesn't want to better themself, no matter how much you may love them. I'd say that's a message worth telling, and it's not a message that's already been done to death (at least in my experience).
Some have been saying the game is very much in your face with its meaning. It's not subtle about its intentions and reveals the metaphors it uses without the player really having to think about what they could mean.
And they're right. And that's a good thing. I'm of the opinion that if you want to talk about something, you talk about it. You don't cloud your message with metaphors and symbolism that just make it more difficult to understand what you're really saying. David Lynch says there are still things in Mulholland Drive that no one has yet gotten. Well, that means he's a failure as a filmmaker. You may call it preachy, but I'd rather have a preachy game than one with nothing to say, and if the meaning is indecipherable, it might as well not have been there to begin with.
I've been reluctant about this game but with IndieGameStand selling it for a minimum of $1 there was no way I could put it off anymore. I've played through it twice now, once a regular run and once a completionist run, getting everything.
The reason I've been reluctant is the same reason I've been interested: the theme. For those who don't know, the game is about a young boy and his relationship to Monster, a huge but friendly beast. Using Monster, you solve various puzzles in order to progress. However, Monster is also your only enemy, as when he consumes a certain kind of frog, he gets violent and uncontrollable. You can calm him down by feeding him a rotten fruit. The game has been pretty clear, already in the marketing, what it's really about. Monster is the boy's father and the frogs are really alcohol. I'm not so sure what the rotten fruit is...
A game that wants to take a serious look at alcoholism is of course very interesting, but it also opens up for quite a lot of problems. It wants to be both a serious narrative and a compelling traditional game at the same time. These ideals often clash. We see it in blockbuster games all the time: the supposedly good guys are ruthlessly murdering hundreds upon hundreds in between cutscenes, but they're still supposed to be the good guys. This kind of dissonance is by no means limited to video games, Hollywood movies are ripe with the same tropes, but video games is still the medium with the most focus on everything being fun, even a game about alcoholism, or poverty, or any serious topic.
It's not hard to see why a game designer would want to make the most gameplay out of the duality of Monster and its gameplay implication, but she musn't. I can see many interesting mechanics coming out of simultaneously using Monster but having to avoid him, but they would often involve deliberately feeding Monster frogs, that is: making a game where you deliberately fuel your father's alcohol addiction. Needless to say, this would be quite problematic.
During the course of the game, there were a few instances where I would deliberately walk into Monster so that he would throw me around violently or feed him frogs. The good news is that this never gave me a gameplay advantage, it was never a positive thing. Why did I do it then? Because it was inevitable. Monster was going to eat a frog either way, so I would feed him in order to calm him down more easily. Monster was going to catch up to me and assault me, so I made sure he did so in a way that ensured I would then have an easier time getting away, to minimize the amount of abuse. This is still problematic. It's still getting your father drunk on purpose. But it's a lot better than what I expected, it was rather rare and it seems like the designers had thought about this problem extensively and tried to avoid it as much as possible.
So, what does the game actually say about alcoholism then? What insight does it give? Is it the simplistic "alcoholism is bad and growing up with an alcoholic father is really tough"? No, it's not that simple. It's a game about letting go of someone who doesn't want to better themself, no matter how much you may love them. I'd say that's a message worth telling, and it's not a message that's already been done to death (at least in my experience).
Some have been saying the game is very much in your face with its meaning. It's not subtle about its intentions and reveals the metaphors it uses without the player really having to think about what they could mean.
And they're right. And that's a good thing. I'm of the opinion that if you want to talk about something, you talk about it. You don't cloud your message with metaphors and symbolism that just make it more difficult to understand what you're really saying. David Lynch says there are still things in Mulholland Drive that no one has yet gotten. Well, that means he's a failure as a filmmaker. You may call it preachy, but I'd rather have a preachy game than one with nothing to say, and if the meaning is indecipherable, it might as well not have been there to begin with.
Very good comment on the metaphorical nature of the game. I couldnt put that into words and largely focussed on the gameplay aspects when praising the game.Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
Papo & Yo Impression
I've been reluctant about this game but with IndieGameStand selling it for a minimum of $1 there was no way I could put it off anymore. I've played through it twice now, once a regular run and once a completionist run, getting everything.
The reason I've been reluctant is the same reason I've been interested: the theme. For those who don't know, the game is about a young boy and his relationship to Monster, a huge but friendly beast. Using Monster, you solve various puzzles in order to progress. However, Monster is also your only enemy, as when he consumes a certain kind of frog, he gets violent and uncontrollable. You can calm him down by feeding him a rotten fruit. The game has been pretty clear, already in the marketing, what it's really about. Monster is the boy's father and the frogs are really alcohol. I'm not so sure what the rotten fruit is...
A game that wants to take a serious look at alcoholism is of course very interesting, but it also opens up for quite a lot of problems. It wants to be both a serious narrative and a compelling traditional game at the same time. These ideals often clash. We see it in blockbuster games all the time: the supposedly good guys are ruthlessly murdering hundreds upon hundreds in between cutscenes, but they're still supposed to be the good guys. This kind of dissonance is by no means limited to video games, Hollywood movies are ripe with the same tropes, but video games is still the medium with the most focus on everything being fun, even a game about alcoholism, or poverty, or any serious topic.
It's not hard to see why a game designer would want to make the most gameplay out of the duality of Monster and its gameplay implication, but she musn't. I can see many interesting mechanics coming out of simultaneously using Monster but having to avoid him, but they would often involve deliberately feeding Monster frogs, that is: making a game where you deliberately fuel your father's alcohol addiction. Needless to say, this would be quite problematic.
During the course of the game, there were a few instances where I would deliberately walk into Monster so that he would throw me around violently or feed him frogs. The good news is that this never gave me a gameplay advantage, it was never a positive thing. Why did I do it then? Because it was inevitable. Monster was going to eat a frog either way, so I would feed him in order to calm him down more easily. Monster was going to catch up to me and assault me, so I made sure he did so in a way that ensured I would then have an easier time getting away, to minimize the amount of abuse. This is still problematic. It's still getting your father drunk on purpose. But it's a lot better than what I expected, it was rather rare and it seems like the designers had thought about this problem extensively and tried to avoid it as much as possible.
So, what does the game actually say about alcoholism then? What insight does it give? Is it the simplistic "alcoholism is bad and growing up with an alcoholic father is really tough"? No, it's not that simple. It's a game about letting go of someone who doesn't want to better themself, no matter how much you may love them. I'd say that's a message worth telling, and it's not a message that's already been done to death (at least in my experience).
Some have been saying the game is very much in your face with its meaning. It's not subtle about its intentions and reveals the metaphors it uses without the player really having to think about what they could mean.
And they're right. And that's a good thing. I'm of the opinion that if you want to talk about something, you talk about it. You don't cloud your message with metaphors and symbolism that just make it more difficult to understand what you're really saying. David Lynch says there are still things in Mulholland Drive that no one has yet gotten. Well, that means he's a failure as a filmmaker. You may call it preachy, but I'd rather have a preachy game than one with nothing to say, and if the meaning is indecipherable, it might as well not have been there to begin with.
That last shot is so perfect.Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
Papo & Yo Impression
So, what does the game actually say about alcoholism then? What insight does it give? Is it the simplistic "alcoholism is bad and growing up with an alcoholic father is really tough"? No, it's not that simple. It's a game about letting go of someone who doesn't want to better themself, no matter how much you may love them. I'd say that's a message worth telling, and it's not a message that's already been done to death (at least in my experience).
I think It's more people have an issue with the execution. I expected such a game to be more heavy-handed but it wasn't because of mostly the presentation: there was no dialogue, no overly long MGS-style cutscene exposition dump, and much like Brothers the storytelling was more environmental (the statues at the end) and mechanic-based.Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
Some have been saying the game is very much in your face with its meaning. It's not subtle about its intentions and reveals the metaphors it uses without the player really having to think about what they could mean.
And they're right. And that's a good thing. I'm of the opinion that if you want to talk about something, you talk about it. You don't cloud your message with metaphors and symbolism that just make it more difficult to understand what you're really saying. David Lynch says there are still things in Mulholland Drive that no one has yet gotten. Well, that means he's a failure as a filmmaker. You may call it preachy, but I'd rather have a preachy game than one with nothing to say, and if the meaning is indecipherable, it might as well not have been there to begin with.
| Thread Tools | |