Support NeoGAF

[HanktheAwesome]

Zoe Quinn just mentioned on twitter that The Amazing Atheist made a video about her and Gamergate. It's spouting the same stupid accusations that she paid for good reviews with sex, plus a whole bunch of other nonsense.

Haven't watched the video, don't want to, I'm sure he has nothing constructive to say, and it's not helping anyone. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Hate to be that guy, I'm sure this is what the kids are calling "victim blaming" now-a-days but... how hard is it for Zoe not to point people towards that video? The guy already has a bad reputation, I'm certain many of her supporters already don't like him. And if they didn't know of his existence, they do now. And now they'll attack him, and he'll make more videos about "those crazy SJWs!" and we've just created another toxic loop. What does she gain by acknowledging the existence an act that I'm sure brought Mr. AA and the extreme members the GG some form of satisfaction?

I'm not saying she should always ignore stuff like that but in this specific situation, with everything "dying down" so to speak. Why would you stoke that flame?

How hard is it not to Twitter!? Am I crazy!? I feel like I'm crazy.

I'm not saying she's wrote that for some insidious reason I just don't understand what the point of that is! She has friends she can talk to, right? On the phone? A more private medium?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'd almost suggest prefacing almost any amazing atheist quote with a trigger warning tbh, I can't imagine running into language like his when you don't expect it & suffer from a trauma.

@the above poster

There's plenty of reasons someone might do that. For some people it's simply empowering to publicly dismiss vocal abusers. (Keep in mind that when Anita *doesn't* react to abusers/detractors that is somehow seen as a bad thing as well by many people, so it's not like not reacting will somehow come across better.)

 

[aeolist]

How can Amazing Atheist be so dumb as to not know about PTSD?

misogynists tend to downplay the traumatic effects of rape. it's just unwanted sex, right? minor annoyance at most.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

I don't get the problem with people that don't like Musou games reviewing them. Musou fans aren't the only audiences for the reviews. Many people are very likely going to be more interested in Hyrule Warriors that aren't into the genre and thus could use a review from someone in a similar position. If anything, there needs to be a decent amount of these reviewers.

Wonder if you'd feel the same way if someone who hated action RPGs reviewed the latest Zelda, or someone who'd never played a PC game reviewed the newest Civilization.

*rolles eyes*

 

[partyphone]

misogynists tend to downplay the traumatic effects of rape. it's just unwanted sex, right? minor annoyance at most.

anything to maintain the status quo where we don't do anything that helps people who aren't them. it's a lot of what gamergate is about, actually.

 

[Oersted]

He's too busy accusing Anita of somehow being personally resposible for his twitter suspension to talk about gamergate it seems.

Just looked it up. This is nothing but selfparody at this point.

 

[Corpekata]

Wonder if you'd feel the same way if someone who hated action RPGs reviewed the latest Zelda, or someone who'd never played a PC game reviewed the newest Civilization.

*rolles eyes*

So only extreme fanboys like Sterling are able to review the genre? What benefit does that get you, or anyone? Spoiler alert: He's going to like it, and every single other one that comes out, which is what nearly every Musou fan does too.

Yes, people that aren't adoring fanboys of a genre would be fine for reviews. It'd certainly be more helpful to more people than Sterling reviewing it.

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

Wonder if you'd feel the same way if someone who hated action RPGs reviewed the latest Zelda, or someone who'd never played a PC game reviewed the newest Civilization.

*rolles eyes*

I would actually love to read someone new to Civ write about their experience. That would be pretty cool.

 

[aeolist]

So only extreme fanboys like Sterling are able to review the genre? What benefit does that get you, or anyone? Spoiler alert: He's going to like it, and every single other one that comes out, which is what nearly every Musou fan does too.

both types of reviews are useful and valid. they're writing for different audiences.

 

[Oersted]

both types of reviews are useful and valid. they're writing for different audiences.

And we do get both sides of the spectrum. What is the problem?

 

[tonysidaway]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible.

Yes, he's like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason without the charm and sensitivity.

Presumably he's gone for Zoe Quinn because Phil has cornered the Anita Sarkeesian segment of the "guys who think they're rationalists go utsnay over feminism" market.

Ignore. You can't be an active atheist and avoid coming up against the fact that, outside Freethought blogs, Skepchick and occasionally CFI, it can be a rather dreary and hateful movement.

 

[Zeth]

Amazing Atheist is a vile and disgusting human being but to be fair, I think it's a guest video on his channel. Maybe he's just as bad, but I'm not familiar.

 

[Riposte]

Add a {{citations-needed}} tag at the top and strip out the repetition, and that would work as a pretty acceptable Wikipedia article stub. That's not a good way to review a video game. It's not how films, books, visual art, or music are reviewed.

Are video game players really do undemanding that they don't want to know what the reviewer actually thinks of the game? As I've suggested before, the "objective" stuff could just be posted as a QR code on the website and somebody can write an app to order the game from Amazon or somewhere. Hello PS4, which game has passed my objective parameters for ideal play today?

"Objective" in this case is a misnomer (not to get into why objectivity doesn't really exist). Some people really like the idea of sticking to that word and feeling proud about it, but what a lot of people are really asking for is deeper analysis and less arbitrary, shallow judgments that derive from a lack of expertise (which, in theory, leads to certain games/genres suffering in that area). I think in one sense, the debate on "objective" reviews is strawmen fighting each other, further enabled by poor language. On the flip side, here is an intelligent enthusiast (a Super Smash Bros player) commenting on game reviews. He even mentions Jim Sterling's "objective review" under the section of "The Fault of Game Reviews". While he harps on about "objectivity", what he means and his conclusion is a lot about reviewers being unable to properly break down a game's mechanics. (For some reason mechanics and judgments on them are thought as more "objective".)

What makes this further complicated is that many people don't want to see games (or, if it comes to it, genres) they like get poor reviews; some of these people are not even at the level of understanding that makes them any better than the careless, arbitrary reviewers. That sentiment can also mean they would be more receptive to sloppy, careless reviews that are positive (I mean, praising Jim Sterling's reviews... I don't know about that, bro). This argument isn't always invoked with the best intentions. I think it's better to focus on how pervasive a problem is, as someone deeply dissatisfied with game reviews (I can relate strongly with what the blog post I linked above says, although not exactly).

 

[Corpekata]

both types of reviews are useful and valid. they're writing for different audiences.

I agree, though I think in certain cases one is more helpful than the other. In this case, it's a game in a genre that a lot of people find kind of mediocre, and it's going to get a lot more attention because of the brand attached to it. So Jim Sterling freaking out over the latest entry doesn't really help anyone that's ignored the last 3 or 4 years of the Dynasty Warrior franchise, which is going to account for a sizeable amount of people looking at reviews.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

So only extreme fanboys like Sterling are able to review the genre? What benefit does that get you, or anyone? Spoiler alert: He's going to like it, and every single other one that comes out, which is what nearly every Musou fan does too..

That's bullshit. Sterling panned Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2, and rightly so, as it was a terrible game compared to its predecessor. The idea that because one likes a series, one is able and willing to accept any piece of crap as long as it has the 'Warriors' label is ridiculous and condescending.

 

[tonysidaway]

How can Amazing Atheist be so dumb as to not know about PTSD?

Don't mention PTSD in those fedora-wearing circles. Only front line soldiers ever get PTSD, dontcha know.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

And we do get both sides of the spectrum. What is the problem?

No, we don't. Look at the Metacritic reviews for Warriors games. They're always in the fifties and sixties.

It's pathetic.

 

[Riposte]

That's bullshit. Sterling panned Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2, and rightly so, as it was a terrible game compared to its predecessor. The idea that because one likes a series, one is able and willing to accept any piece of crap as long as it has the 'Warriors' label is ridiculous and condescending.

I actually forgot to mention this exact point. There is this common notion that an expert, or at least someone highly invested in a genre, can't go from high/complex to low/simple, when it is only the opposite that is impossible. Moreover, even if they will praise a game most individuals won't "get" because of its demanding or obtuse concept, a good review is helpful even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Oersted]

No, we don't. Look at the Metacritic reviews for Warriors games. They're always in the fifties and sixties.

It's pathetic.

Erm, fanboys like Sterling review Warriors games. Which was the point I was referring to.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

I actually forgot to mention this exact point. There is this common notion that an expert, or at least someone highly invested in a genre, can't go from high/complex to low/simple, when it is only the opposite that is impossible. Moreover, even if they will praise a game most individuals won't "get" because of its demanding or obtuse concept, a good review is helpful even if you don't agree with it.

I myself warned people away from the new Dynasty Warriors Gundam Reborn game, because I think it's a terrible rehash. I made a thread about Legends of Troy recently as well, which was basically "it's a bad game but has excellent cinematics," and one of the guys who worked on it actually posted there explaining the reasons behind why it turned out so mediocre.

But hey, I'm apparently a Musou fanboy so I can't tell the difference between a good iteration and a bad one. *rolls eyes yet again*

Erm, fanboys like Sterling review Warriors games. Which was the point I was referring to.

Except that's the exception, not the rule. Hence the low Metacritic scores for the entries in the series which fans consider to be excellent.

 

[tonysidaway]

I'm not saying she should always ignore stuff like that but in this specific situation, with everything "dying down" so to speak. Why would you stoke that flame?

How hard is it not to Twitter!? Am I crazy!? I feel like I'm crazy.

I'm not saying she's wrote that for some insidious reason I just don't understand what the point of that is! She has friends she can talk to, right? On the phone? A more private medium?

I don't really understand the argument here. The guy is already attacking her. It's okay to be outraged at that. She isn't responsible for his actions, so why should she pretend it isn't happening? How exactly would that make it any better?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

The atheist community, at least the vocal part, has made self-victimization and persecution their daily routine. It's not at all dissimilar from the gamergate nonsense.

 

[Nanashrew]

"Objective" in this case is a misnomer (not to get into why objectivity doesn't really exist). Some people really like the idea of sticking to that word and feeling proud about it, but what a lot of people are really asking for is deeper analysis and less arbitrary, shallow judgments that derive from a lack of expertise (which, in theory, leads to certain games/genres suffering in that area). I think in one sense, the debate on "objective" reviews is strawmen fighting each other, further enabled by poor language. On the flip side, here is an intelligent enthusiast (a Super Smash Bros player) commenting on game reviews. He even mentions Jim Sterling's "objective review" under the section of "The Fault of Game Reviews". While he harps on about "objectivity", what he means and his conclusion is a lot about reviewers being unable to properly break down a game's mechanics. (For some reason mechanics and judgments on them are thought as more "objective".)

What makes this further complicated is that many people don't want to see games (or, if it comes to it, genres) they like get poor reviews; some of these people are not even at the level of understanding that makes them any better than the careless, arbitrary reviewers. That sentiment can also mean they would be more receptive to sloppy, careless reviews that are positive (I mean, praising Jim Sterling's reviews... I don't know about that, bro). This argument isn't always invoked with the best intentions. I think it's better to focus on how pervasive a problem is, as someone deeply dissatisfied with game reviews (I can relate strongly with what the blog post I linked above, although not exactly).

I agree. I have come to loathe places like Metacritic and the whole scoring system in general because of the things like you described. I would love to see more depth in reviews and analysis on games and I think that is something this industry does need more of.

There will be however the issue of time. Not everyone has it or is given it. I think reviewers do need to be given more time to review but most of this comes down to publishers or if the game is ready or not. Genre's like J/RPGs are really long, something like Wonderful 101 is tricky to get at first because of these new kinds of mechanics.

Maybe a second opinion section could work. Like several months or more after release where the person has far more time to really dig in deep to understand all the pros and cons of the game.

 

[tonysidaway]

The atheist community, at least the vocal part, has made self-victimization and persecution their daily routine. It's not at all dissimilar from the gamergate nonsense.

I don't think that's the way it is, really. I read a huge amount of secularist stuff daily and mainly I detect a fairly strong feeling of smug. At the more activist end they're doing great work in fighting against discriminatory policies, and even the bloggers tend to be more interested in fun. There are also huge schisms in the atheist/skeptic end of the movement, such as the feminism war between (largely) the old guard and the younger generation. This is mirrored also in non-secularist organisations such as SFWA and seems to reflect a genuine cohort effect. Until recently although I was aware of similar battles in gaming I wasn't following them closely.

But the gamergate affair seems to be unique in its scale. No SFWA or secularist internal battle has ever reached this scale or (which scares me a little, given what I've seen) this level of violence. Milo got a syringe the other day, and Anita's award ceremony was marred by a terrorist bomb threat. Nasty stuff.

 

[Htown]

So only extreme fanboys like Sterling are able to review the genre? What benefit does that get you, or anyone? Spoiler alert: He's going to like it, and every single other one that comes out, which is what nearly every Musou fan does too.

Yes, people that aren't adoring fanboys of a genre would be fine for reviews. It'd certainly be more helpful to more people than Sterling reviewing it.

This is exactly the problem with most Musou type game reviews. Most everyone goes around assuming every game in the genre is the exact same thing: and if you like that kind of game you're going to like them all, and if you hate that kind of thing you're going to hate them all.

Which is entirely bullshit. It took me playing a grand total of 2 Musou-type games to realize there can be a world of difference between them, and if all you have to offer is "it's basically just the same thing as Dynasty Warriors," you're being about as useful as a person who reviews all first person shooters by going "it's basically Call of Duty, and people who like that sort of game will like this, and if you don't you won't."

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Except that's the exception, not the rule. Hence the low Metacritic scores for the entries in the series which fans consider to be excellent.

I agree, looking at Metacritic scores to decide which games to play is a terrible idea.

Spoiler

Yeah, I know this wasn't the point you were trying to make.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

This is exactly the problem with most Musou type game reviews. Most everyone goes around assuming every game in the genre is the exact same thing: and if you like that kind of game you're going to like them all, and if you hate that kind of thing you're going to hate them all.

Which is entirely bullshit. It took me playing a grand total of 2 Musou-type games to realize there can be a world of difference between them, and if all you have to offer is "it's basically just the same thing as Dynasty Warriors," you're being about as useful as a person who reviews all first person shooters by going "it's basically Call of Duty, and people who like that sort of game will like this, and if you don't you won't."

THANK YOU. This is exactly why someone who knows about Musou games should review games in the genre, and someone who's never played one should familiarize him or herself before posting a review saying generic, meaningless pablum.

 

[devilhawk]

I'd almost suggest prefacing almost any amazing atheist quote with a trigger warning tbh, I can't imagine running into language like his when you don't expect it & suffer from a trauma.

@the above poster

There's plenty of reasons someone might do that. For some people it's simply empowering to publicly dismiss vocal abusers. (Keep in mind that when Anita *doesn't* react to abusers/detractors that is somehow seen as a bad thing as well by many people, so it's not like not reacting will somehow come across better.)

The Streisand effect exists even when you are in the right to complain. It's something that public figures need to consider even though they may be justified in their complaints against the initial event.

 

[Rubius]

The atheist community, at least the vocal part, has made self-victimization and persecution their daily routine. It's not at all dissimilar from the gamergate nonsense.

It's not really self-victimization when pools in the USA show that Atheists are the most hated group currently. And isnt Journalist integrity something? Treating it as non sense is kind of bad for the hobby.

 

[Dryk]

Amazing Atheist is a vile and disgusting human being but to be fair, I think it's a guest video on his channel. Maybe he's just as bad, but I'm not familiar.

Yeah it's a guest video by the Investigamer. My eyes glaze over whenever I see a feminism related video by the guy because he never has anything worthwhile to say. He should really just stick to dredging up dumb news stories from the Deep South. (Full disclosure: I'm subscribed to his channel but a lot of the videos he releases make me wonder why).

 

[Orayn]

It's not really self-victimization when pools in the USA show that Atheists are the most hated group currently. And isnt Journalist integrity something? Treating it as non sense is kind of bad for the hobby.

GG's "concerns" over journalistic integrity have amounted to very little of substance. They're throwing out a lot of wild accusations with very little evidence or coherent reasoning to back them up.

 

[Rubius]

Yeah it's a guest video by the Investigamer. My eyes glaze over whenever I see a feminism related video by the guy because he never has anything worthwhile to say. He should really just stick to dredging up dumb news stories from the Deep South. (Full disclosure: I'm subscribed to his channel but a lot of the videos he releases make me wonder why).

I actually think that he have a good viewpoint of feminism and he consider himself a equalist. Most of his friends do too. They simply do not like the word feminist because it's biased toward women, which is bad in a fight for equality. Just because he's a bisexual white guy, does not make him unable to talk about feminism. He's crude, and he's rough. But he's mostly right. I dont mind dry and dark humor myself.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I have been in various atheistic and skeptical communities, and Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheists are not exactly looked upon fondly. I don't know which communities endorse these two assholes, but I hope people don't count Reddit/subreddits (or whatever the hell these are) or Youtube as "atheist communities". :\

 

[Rubius]

GG's "concerns" over journalistic integrity have amounted to very little of substance. They're throwing out a lot of wild accusations with very little evidence or coherent reasoning to back them up.

Not really. Journalists backing up project and then writing positive articles about them without saying that they actually backed the project or will gain from the project, is actually bad. Hell, might even be illegal from the FCC standpoint.

Having amateurs Journalist who never went to school or never learned about the legal side of journalism, and having amateurs devs who never went to school and learned the legal side too, make for a bad cocktail. A dev should not be friend/lover with a game journalist, even less if he write for the game of the dev. It's just not right.

That's Gamer gate. People wanting truth and honesty and the law to be upholded. Having some people try to turn this in a anti feminist movement is wrong too. Just because the dev is female, does not change the fact that it's wrong and we should have the possibility to say "Hey that's wrong" without being casted out as Women hater.

 

[Orayn]

Rubius, I made a mistake by trying to engage with you about this when you're approximately a month behind and choose to make a stand about "principles" while ignoring all the fatuous garbage and harassment this movement has generated. I hope someone with more patience than me can give you an overview of the situation in a way that makes it clear that GG isn't a group of righteous crusaders being attacked by some EEVUL FEMINAZI CABAL for no reason.

 

[Rubius]

Rubius, I made a mistake by trying to engage with you about this when you're approximately a month behind and choose to make a stand about "principles" while ignoring all the fatuous garbage and harassment this movement has generated. I hope someone with more patience than me can give you an overview of the situation in a way that makes it clear that GG isn't a group of righteous crusaders being attacked by some EEVUL FEMINAZI CABAL for no reason.

Extremists are everywhere and in all camps. Most people seem to forget that. There is no "Group" hivemind what ever the group is. People act as individuals, and those individuals say they belong to a group. I would consider myself to be in the Gamer Gate clan, since I want more transparency. Journalists working together in a private group to protect Zoey Quinn is pretty bad from a journalist stand point, no matter the issue.

I really dont care for the drama, I just wanted to give my opinion after seeing this thread for so long, but always seeing posts about how this side is wrong, and this side is right. This is not Feminists versus Gamers from what I can see. It's a specific group of Devs and Journalists trying to save face in front of everybody else.

 

[FartOfWar]

misogynists tend to downplay the traumatic effects of rape. it's just unwanted sex, right? minor annoyance at most.

Amazing atheist. Holy shit him? Uh, you guys aware of the video of him shoving a banana up his butt while wagging his haunted pinkie?

 

[Rubius]

Amazing atheist. Holy shit him? Uh, you guys aware of the video of him shoving a banana up his butt while wagging his haunted pinkie?

You mean the Banana gate? What does this have to do with is opinions on Gamer Gate? Hell if anything, it make is side better, since he had a leaked sex tape and had to deal with the trolls and griefers too.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Rubius, you are... incredibly misinformed about everything here. Journalists did not do anything illegal. The Guardian, a celebrated newspaper that has existed for nearly 200 years, took out a writer's disclaimer about her Patreon because they honestly did not see it as something that counted as a conflict of interest for a journalist. Journalists did not "work together in a private group" to "protect Zoey Quinn."

 

[nynt9]

Amazing atheist. Holy shit him? Uh, you guys aware of the video of him shoving a banana up his butt while wagging his haunted pinkie?

You mean the Banana gate? What does this have to do with is opinions on Gamer Gate? Hell if anything, it make is side better, since he had a leaked sex tape and had to deal with the trolls and griefers too.

Yeah I don't think why a thing he does in his private life should affect his opinion on this matter here.

That being said, I almost never agree with this opinion.

 

[benicillin]

Not really. Journalists backing up project and then writing positive articles about them without saying that they actually backed the project or will gain from the project, is actually bad. Hell, might even be illegal from the FCC standpoint.

Having amateurs Journalist who never went to school or never learned about the legal side of journalism, and having amateurs devs who never went to school and learned the legal side too, make for a bad cocktail. A dev should not be friend/lover with a game journalist, even less if he write for the game of the dev. It's just not right.

That's Gamer gate. People wanting truth and honesty and the law to be upholded. Having some people try to turn this in a anti feminist movement is wrong too. Just because the dev is female, does not change the fact that it's wrong and we should have the possibility to say "Hey that's wrong" without being casted out as Women hater.

I don't think you understand the legal side of journalism either, because none of what anyone is accused of would be considered illegal. Bad for their reputation at the VERY most, and even that is stretching it because nearly every accusation has just been a game of telephone leading to no actual connections - more like Glenn Beck-style conspiracies.

 

[Rubius]

Rubius, you are... incredibly misinformed about everything here. Journalists did not do anything illegal. The Guardian, a celebrated newspaper that has existed for nearly 200 years, took out a writer's disclaimer about her Patreon because they honestly did not see it as something that counted as a conflict of interest for a journalist. Journalists did not "work together in a private group" to "protect Zoey Quinn."

I do agree that I did not follow the whole story and the giant drama. I work 10 hours a day and everything move really fast. The whole Zoey group thing came from this video that was posted today on The Amazing Atheist channel.

Like I said, I am on the issue of truth here. I didnt mean literally illegal, and mispoke here. I know that in the US for example, if you are paid or receive compensation for a review, you need to advise people for it, since it would be false representation as you work more as an Ad for the person and is not neutral. Being friend, and not simply professional contact, with people do lead to problems when you are in politic or in journalism.

 

[Corpekata]

I do agree that I did not follow the whole story and the giant drama. I work 10 hours a day and everything move really fast. The whole Zoey group thing came from this video that was posted today on The Amazing Atheist channel.

Like I said, I am on the issue of truth here. I didnt mean literally illegal, and mispoke here. I know that in the US for example, if you are paid or receive compensation for a review, you need to advise people for it, since it would be false representation as you work more as an Ad for the person and is not neutral. Being friend, and not simply professional contact, with people do lead to problems when you are in politic or in journalism.

Pretty much everything in that video has been debunked weeks ago. It's the Slowpoke version of angry MRA rants about the subject.

 

[Firestorm]

THANK YOU. This is exactly why someone who knows about Musou games should review games in the genre, and someone who's never played one should familiarize him or herself before posting a review saying generic, meaningless pablum.

For the most part, the people reading reviews on Polygon or Eurogamer are Zelda fans who want to know if Hyrule Warriors will be worth their money. The right people are reviewing the game for those people.

 

[A Link to the Past]

People say that Gone Home shouldn't be called Game of the Year, but at the same time, why not? The only reason it shouldn't be GotY is if it's not a game, but it clearly is.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

People say that Gone Home shouldn't be called Game of the Year, but at the same time, why not? The only reason it shouldn't be GotY is if it's not a game, but it clearly is.

It was my #2 last year. I think 3D World beat it overall.

 

[etrain911]

People say that Gone Home shouldn't be called Game of the Year, but at the same time, why not? The only reason it shouldn't be GotY is if it's not a game, but it clearly is.

See, I really enjoyed it as well. I don't know if I'd consider it a "game" or an "interactive art piece" or something (the mechanics of what makes a game a game in a person's eyes could be a very interesting thread), but I definitely don't see the hatred it has garnered from people as being rational. There are elements of some well-thought out puzzles and a lot of optional observation and exploration there that warrant more than one play through. I didn't feel "ripped off" by it, although, full disclosure, I traded a copy of Splinter Cell that came with my GFX card for it.

 

[Rubius]

People say that Gone Home shouldn't be called Game of the Year, but at the same time, why not? The only reason it shouldn't be GotY is if it's not a game, but it clearly is.

Lack of content, lack of replayability, lack of gameplay, did nothing really special on the story telling front, Money/value (20$ for a 3 hour game without any replayability).

I enjoyed the game (got on sale for 5$), but compared to a game like Stanley Parable, Gone home is really not GOTY material. It was mostly going room to room and listen and read everything and the pay out was not that good. They did a good job on the creepyness factor, where you expect seeing a corpse in every room you go in with the suble clues, but outside of that, I really do not see how somebody can consider it a GOTY.

 

[ibyea]

Amazing Atheist, ugh. These people are making all of us atheists look bad.

 

[Nephrahim]

See, I really enjoyed it as well. I don't know if I'd consider it a "game" or an "interactive art piece" or something, the mechanics of what makes a game a game in a person's eyes could be a very interesting thread, but I definitely don't see the hatred it has garnered from people as being rational.

But what's really the difference between a game an an interactive art piece? Win/loss states? A score? Killing enemies?

Really, the problem is that gaming isn't used to highly artistic games. In the movie industry it's a given that there are two types of movies, the Oscar bait that some people enjoy, and the mass-market movies that go for the broadest demographic. The problem is the critics in the game industry have always given their praise to the mass-market broad games, but now there's the split developing.