Miggytronz
Member
Your not helping the industry grow in that aspect man. Dont be so closed minded.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Journey Reviews Thread
- Thread starter kassatsu
- Start date
Your not helping the industry grow in that aspect man. Dont be so closed minded.
I hate short games as well, but this is not some rehashed Call of Duty campaign we are talking about here. I think given that this is a sort of mood game that is all about the 'journey,' it is just long enough to get it's point across and provide a nice change of pace from all the killing and conflict that is the usual fare. In which case, the replayability will be quite high for me.
I doubt you will find it more "challenging" than Flower. It seems to me that it won't necessarily only appeal to people who enjoyed Flower, because in some ways it is more game-y, but if its audiovisual presentation, or the idea of anonymous co-op isn't enough to move you, you will likely find Journey as dull. It certainly won't win anyone over on mechanics alone, although its mechanics are probably more widely appealing than Flower's.
His posts, and responses to them, are almost always enjoyable for me to read, because they engender actual discussions about games. I only become disinterested when the exchanges inevitably cycle around to Amir0x bashing "circle jerking" and his detractors attempting to psychoanalyze him.
More on topic, I'm really disappointed that my Playstation 3 broke down recently. This game certainly looks gorgeous, and I often enjoy more mellow experiences as a break from time with more mechanically dense games. I'm also thrilled to see games like this that utilize the medium's storytelling strengths (atmosphere, exploration, discovery) instead of rolling out a bunch of cutscenes with terrible writing. How cool would it be to see, say, a Zelda game with this approach to narrative?
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1219878p1.html
Looks like the rumor was true.
PS+ subscribers can get Journey next week
Looks like the rumor was true.
PS+ subscribers can get Journey next week
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1219878p1.html
Looks like the rumor was true.
PS+ subscribers can get Journey next week
We're going to be doing a lot (A LOT) with Plus this upcoming year; moreso than what we did last year for sure. But definitely curious to see the overall reaction to Plus subscribers getting it one week early.
Last time I checked I only saw a 3 months package available :/
3 months or 1 year at this time.
pharmboy044
Member
Oh yes!! Definitely be picking this up next week.
A little OT but hopefully you guys will include the Vita in your Playstation Plus plans.
Damn, Journey is basically £22 now. Maybe + will prove it's worth over those three months.
They're free as long as you have PSN+ or they're free forever?
Miggytronz
Member
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1219878p1.html
Looks like the rumor was true.
PS+ subscribers can get Journey next week
AH! looks like i know what im doing when i get home tonight!
Well, UK + people currently have both resident evil 2 and 3 for free, so you'll get those as soon as you subscribe. Along with whatever march stuff they have in store for us
I'd read you don't get to keep the + PS1 games though.Well, UK + people currently have both resident evil 2 and 3 for free, so you'll get those as soon as you subscribe. Along with whatever march stuff they have in store for us
I'm assuming it will be a week early in the UK too, but is there any confirmation of that? There was Journey blog today on the EuroPSBlog and no mention of being early on +.
They haven't said anything yet, but what's this on the end of their Journey post today..
Hmm, I wonder what that could be
(Free games you don't keep, but games you buy with the discounts you keep. That's the simplified version
)yep; Vita will be getting it's Plus on a bit later.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
StuBurns said:
Everything but free games you get to keep. And I presume even if you let your sub lapse they reactivate if you sub again.
To be honest I could justify this month's sub just on the basis that you get a couple of rentals and a buttload of dynamic themes.
How are you keeping it if you have to keep paying the subscription?
Any free content you lose after those three months are worthless to me.
I can't speak for PS+ over there, but in NA it's been fantastic with the amount of the free stuff they've given away for the last 3 months or so. It's actually gotten to the point where I'm now excited to find out what's coming in the next month.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Not saying that Journey is worth the money, but if it was an engaging and memorable experience then why would it be any different than paying $15 for a 3 hour movie?
Miggytronz
Member
Exactly this.
I'm totally hyped for this game. I didn't really like Flow, but I loved Flower. If this is another Flower like experience, I'll love it.
After seeing some of the discussion here, I have to say I kind of agree with both sides. This game doesn't look "fun" to me and if one's concept of good game development is based on how fun it is, then I can see why this game would be seen as bad.
For me though, I treat games just like any other media. I don't always read books that are "fun" and I don't always watch movies that are "fun". To me, Flower wasn't fun at all, but the message in the game, the experience, and of course the visuals left me with that tingling feeling people feel when they see a movie, read a book, or even view a picture that is particularly touching or moving.
If Journey achieves that, to me that's great game design. Before anyone responds with, "well why didn't they go and make a movie or write a book then?" Ask yourself if you ever ask that of authors, artists, or directors. Whatever medium they choose is what they feel comfortable working in, and who are we to question that?
After seeing some of the discussion here, I have to say I kind of agree with both sides. This game doesn't look "fun" to me and if one's concept of good game development is based on how fun it is, then I can see why this game would be seen as bad.
For me though, I treat games just like any other media. I don't always read books that are "fun" and I don't always watch movies that are "fun". To me, Flower wasn't fun at all, but the message in the game, the experience, and of course the visuals left me with that tingling feeling people feel when they see a movie, read a book, or even view a picture that is particularly touching or moving.
If Journey achieves that, to me that's great game design. Before anyone responds with, "well why didn't they go and make a movie or write a book then?" Ask yourself if you ever ask that of authors, artists, or directors. Whatever medium they choose is what they feel comfortable working in, and who are we to question that?
Snarfington
Member
Not to say I don't think the game is worth the money, but the price for Journey was already quite high for me as a downloadable title, and there's no way I can reasonably buy a 3-month PS+ subscription just to play it a week earlier, and I don't really play enough games what with my college studies nowadays to justify paying the price of a regular subscription (I wouldn't have time to play everything!).
It's a real shame, too, because now I'm gonna have to be careful where I tread and be very wary of spoilers for a game that sounds like such a unique experience.
That said, I want a dynamic theme for this so hard and I hope that comes to the UK, too.
It's a real shame, too, because now I'm gonna have to be careful where I tread and be very wary of spoilers for a game that sounds like such a unique experience.
That said, I want a dynamic theme for this so hard and I hope that comes to the UK, too.
ThisWreckage
Banned
This team needs to expand. The game might be great, but it took them forever to make a game that is an hour and a half to two hours. And that's after they were getting help from Santa Monica. I still think Sony should outright buy this company.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
It might not be any different, but I would never pay $15 to see a movie.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
I still don't really understand some of the features of this game and am afraid of reading reviews cause of spoilers...
What is the point of co-op? Is it required to get to certain areas/discover certain things? If not, why would you follow anyone? If the game is short, what is the incentive to follow someone when you can just come across the same thing relatively quickly?
What is the point of co-op? Is it required to get to certain areas/discover certain things? If not, why would you follow anyone? If the game is short, what is the incentive to follow someone when you can just come across the same thing relatively quickly?
There is no "point" in terms of gameplay. Apparently you can jump higher with a partner in tow, but that's about it, and isn't integral to completing the game.
The idea is really whatever you make of it. The interactions you will make in this game are unlike anything anywhere else. You're free to ignore the co-op aspect as you please, but you would be missing out on an important part of what makes Journey unique.
Nobody is denying you or anyone else's right to like the game. But I already responded to StuBurns who had this same complaint earlier:
Amir0x said:
You may indeed still disagree with my assessment, but calling what I'm saying reductive is disingenuous I feel. The whole point of Journey is to be reductive. It's a minimalist experience in every sense of the word. It's near impossible to reduce it any further than what it has already actually reduced itself to.
Circle and around we go: I don't hold opinions I don't think are "right." If I don't feel an opinion I hold is right and worth defending, then I don't have that opinion. To me, the only opinions worth having are those you believe in. Anything else is a waste of time. This is substantively different from saying my opinion is a fact. My opinion is not a fact. It's very clearly the right opinion to me, just as yours is very clearly the right opinion to you.
The rest of your post actually says a lot of what you really mean between the lines. What does a game getting "near unanimous praise" have to do with criticizing said game? Nothing. If anything, one should always be skeptical of products that get unanimous praise in the press. If you haven't learned that by now, then I can't teach you anything. But I'm not even arguing that there is some deceptiveness going on with the game reviews. I believe people genuinely like it. The thing that sparked this conversation was someone asking how long the game was, me responding with the factual information in the Eurogamer review, and saying that finally helped solidify which aspect of me was going to win in determining whether I purchased this game: my graphics whore side or my gameplay whore side. I decided against purchasing it ultimately because of the game length. This sparked a response from someone about the nature of judging such a product on time spent, and the result was - for a moment anyway, before the whiners came - a rather interesting back and forth exchange over the value of Journey. This is what is causing all the whining here. A discussion about the merits of Journey in a Journey review thread. Because that discussion happens to contain some negativity. We were having a find discussion before people who didn't even actually want to participate decided to drop their two sense.
STUBURNS wanted to participate. ZELIARD wanted to participate. CLEAR wanted to participate. timetokill, VIRE - these people wanted to actually participate and responded with intellectual points of view that were or were not in counter to my own. The ones complaining are unanimously the ones who decided that instead of engaging in measured back and forth discussion about real, genuine criticisms, they would whine about the negativity. THAT is what derails topics.
The rest of your post continues the trend. "Why am I so upset...?" I'm not upset. I'm thoroughly engaged and enjoying myself. Yet again, it needs repeating. The reason I participate in topics more often where I'm disagreeing with people is because those are the conversations that are actually interesting. I am fascinated by people with different perspectives and opinions than me. If I wanted people to just parrot back what I already feel, I'd go into this topics and participate in the circle jerks more often. But I don't want that. I love more games than most people know, but if you compare the posts I make in OTs on games I love versus posts I make in OTs of games I ended up not liking, it's hugely disproportionate. The reason is because I enjoy critiquing games and how people relate to these criticisms as individuals with different perspectives than I. I also believe that game criticism is extremely important and that there has been a consistent drive to be lenient with the game development community on their myriad of poor development habits.
I don't like this particular game; I do like this particular discussion. It is the discussion I find engaging. It is not about anyone owing anybody anything. It's about going in among people who may feel differently than you and trying to understand their perspective.
This is also not the same as trying to change people's opinions (or my own, even). The goal here is to learn, not necessarily to change one's view. I love these discussions. If you don't, then skip my posts.
LevelNth said:
We've been down this road before The end result is always the same, and never changes: a core group of GAFers simply cannot for the life of them stay on topic. They will take a comment they don't like - say, if I say something has the worst story of a generation - and immediately claim that it is somehow me asserting my authoritative opinion over the realm of others. We will then have to suffer eighty or more agonizing posts about how I need to 'rest' my negativity, even though nobody else has such limitations of their 'positivity.'
My posts consistently contain extremely detailed analysis of my positions (in this topic as well) - once I counted in a topic that my posts contain somewhere in the order of four to five times the amount of measured, detailed analysis as the people complaining in emptiness about how bad it is that I'm actually taking the time to put effort into my posts - and the ones complaining about it generally do nothing but take a line, get threatened that I'm stating it with authority (You can immediately tell how dumb someone is when the first thing they say is "your opinion isn't FACT Amir0x, stop acting like it!" Derp) and being so clearly incapable of defending their own positions, intentionally derail the discussion by getting stuck on such a non-issue. It's very Republican-esque: instead of discussing the substance, they'll try to bog down the conversation about perceived slights in "tone" or some other some such nonsense. You just used one such tactic: in a topic that has nothing to do with any of the mistakes I've made, you tried to attempt to say this by necessity must cloud all responses to the person. If you are so fucking stuck that you cannot move on from a completely unrelated event without coloring your view of what I'm saying and thus how you must respond, it's time to put me on ignore. It's simple as that. You'll save everyone time.
So I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone. I will never put arbitrary restrictions on the type of negativity or positivity I am allowed to share simply because others cannot stand the injustice of their games being critiqued. If you disagree with my assessment or have some other comically transparent complaint regarding the imagined slights I make against people who have different opinions than me, please for the love of God put me on ignore. I won't judge you for it; I'm not afraid of dissenting positions and continue to have not a single individual on ignore. It's up to you. But fucking hell, for the millionth time, if you cannot respond to the CRITICISM of the game versus the PERSON making the criticism, then that's how you know it's time to skip that person's posts or put them on ignore. My posts in this topic have been fair, measured and on-topic. So if you are bringing your baggage into the discussion, it's time to disassociate yourself. If you don't have the self-control to put me on ignore, I'll do you a favor and simply choose to not respond to your consistently hilarious, knee-jerk commentary on how I post.
I guess this is what I am trying to wrap my head around. Putting in co-op, anonymous or not, should accomplish something other than just running together.
Also, is everyone online in the same world like an MMO? If there are 1000 people playing, would I be bumping into people every 5 minutes?
That doesn't really fit the analogy. It would be the equivalent of buying a movie, not just seeing it.
Miggytronz
Member
Right. I see this as buying a full length 3hr feature film. Except its my own feature film.
@Amir0x I believe that your view of what a game should be, and, more specifically, what it should offer you is a little too narrow to create any enjoyment for a game like Journey. You're looking for more mechanics-heavy experiences, but Journey is looking to facilitate an assortment of emotions in the player that simply can't have been created by cluttering the game (if you want to call it that) with too many conflicting mechanics. The core of the game is the emotional response the game generates from the player, and the way they accomplish this is through the somewhat linear progression forward to the mountain while on the way encountering areas that hopefully pique your interest enough to explore and also by finding other players and interacting with them.
I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, but it seems like a game like Journey simply isn't for you. Thatgamecompany probably know that this kind of game isn't going to work for everybody. Still, thanks for backing up your opinion haha.
I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, but it seems like a game like Journey simply isn't for you. Thatgamecompany probably know that this kind of game isn't going to work for everybody. Still, thanks for backing up your opinion haha.
timetokill
Banned
Well said. Ultimately I'm also interested in the discussion itself, and in having thoughtful criticism. Unfortunately I think a lot of people aren't ready to deal with criticism, or aren't interested in having a discussion.
It's well known that a lot of people look at reviews as a way to justify or reinforce their already formed opinion of something, and I think that behavior can be found in "reviews threads" and OTs a lot as well.
If a person wants to believe that Journey is the most amazing thing ever and "high art" and so on and so forth, they don't want to hear dissent - they instead want to hear a reinforcement of those beliefs.
I guess the experience is a little bit hard to explain (for me, anyway). I can tell you how I felt playing the beta, if that helps.
To answer your other question though, the game only has two people partnered up at any one time. Once you get paired with someone else, you won't meet any other players as long as you stick together. If you separate for a while, then the connection will break and you'll be on your own until the game pairs you up with another player who happens to be nearby.
At first, I felt a bit reluctant to latch onto other players who appeared, and would typically ignore them. Sometimes they would follow me, other times they would ignore me, and sometimes they would attempt to communicate with me with what means are given. After I got over this period of wanting to do things on my own, I'd be a bit more open to partnering up with people. One of the most interesting experiences in co-op is how one can, through those same limited means, attempt to introduce others to secrets that they haven't yet found. This works in both directions, obviously. It's kind of a unique bonding experience that you can't quite find anywhere else.
I hate to break into cliches, but the co-op isn't really meant to provide any mechanical advantage, but rather a different emotional experience. You say that co-op "should" be for more than just running together, but in a way, it's the fact that you are doing little more than running together that makes Journey so different and kind of special.
I'm sure this isn't something everyone will "get" and that's by no means a slight, it just depends on what specific people expect and want from a video game.
I agree with you Amir0x, don't let the haters sway your opinion.
The game does look very repetitive. Sure, people say "then go play modern warfare, luly lulz" in response, the fact of matter is this game is ONLY 3 HOURS LONG.
If the price was around $5-10, I would buy, but no way this game is worth $19.99 when all you do is surfing/floating around vast of nothingness with some different terrains, no matter how "artistic" it is.
Admit it people, the only reason you guys like this game is because it's a different from other games. It's considered fresh of new air. But that's about it.
I'll buy this game when the price goes down (eventually).
The game does look very repetitive. Sure, people say "then go play modern warfare, luly lulz" in response, the fact of matter is this game is ONLY 3 HOURS LONG.
If the price was around $5-10, I would buy, but no way this game is worth $19.99 when all you do is surfing/floating around vast of nothingness with some different terrains, no matter how "artistic" it is.
Admit it people, the only reason you guys like this game is because it's a different from other games. It's considered fresh of new air. But that's about it.
I'll buy this game when the price goes down (eventually).
Last I heard it was $14.99?
That may be the case. In fact, I'd wager it's exactly true... it isn't for me. I think there is some merit in having a discussion about how we value games like Journey which are $15 and offer relatively little gameplay for that buck though, no? I mean that's why I even engaged in the initial response to my comment. I find this a compelling discussion.
What does determine a game's value? Well, it's subjective. Everyone has different metrics. Let's say I'll spend $15, beat this game in an hour and a half like Eurogamer says, and then that's it. In the meantime, I'll have to suffer Journey's non-content gameplay... so of course, that's a problem too. But putting that aside, is there a point where you say "well, for those $15 bucks I can get an experience that is three times, maybe four times as long and just as enjoyable?"
But I do think there is another fundamental discussion worth having. About games and their gameplay. What is the net benefit to Journey of having a game with absolutely no gameplay requiring any forethought? If a game needs to enhance its 'mood' by subtracting as much fun gameplay and challenge as possible, this experiment becomes very controversial by default. Why couldn't Journey have been a better game for utilizing your jumping/howling skill set to face a series of difficult obstacles during your exploration? Would I be distracted somehow? Would I 'feel' something less? I love the concept of Journey... I 'feel' like here's a concept that would be so amazing if it was done with some real attention to non-incidental gameplay. I feel like I now can't enjoy it because of this road.
And of course, others feel the opposite... they have so many games that are one way, so enjoy a diversion into a game that is so different from those. But to me, Shadow of the Colossus is an example of a game that evokes the feeling of traversal and exploration without also necessarily sacrificing a fundamental foundation in making that journey challenging.
To end on a lame cliche note, what's that quote from Samwise Gamgee during the LOTR movie?
Indeed, Mr. Gamgee. Indeed
I just hope one day we can have topics where both negativity and positivity are welcomed in equal order and someone isn't immediately dismissed as trying to 'stir the pot' simply because they are not falling in line with the general majority consensus.
I really appreciate when someone takes the time to expand on their points and explain their positions to me or others. So many wasted posts, one liners, whining... it's a shame.
R_thanatos
Member
i bought flower on release and i have no regrets..
The experience ,the mood are just too awesome.
Flower can be completed in 1Hour yet i spent 1 full month playing it.
I have just no reason to hesitate for journey.
The value of a game is how long you play it
But I don't have a gaming platform to watch movies. I like games.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
End of the day it depends on how much you value an experience like this, art, music, the theatre etc, some people don't get very much emotional feedback from these things, I do, I can lose myself in a beautiful painting, weep while listening to my favourite opera, be encapsulated by a play, I crave the feelings I get from experiencing these things.
How long does a painting last?, a fleeting glance? I say it lasts as long as it provokes an emotional response.
For some people that is worth a lot of money.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I believe that there is an inherent danger in commoditzing games like that. If all game experiences are completely substitutable for one another then that's a serious industry-wide problem. But I don't think there's a glut of Journey clones out there.
Some people here are defensive to anything that isn't laudatory. But others seem to think that something essential was lost in the process of creating a vivid description of what's wrong with Journey. Maybe the whole point of Journey was lost. Which is the same reason why people responded so negatively to certain Vanquish criticism. Or when people say that hip hop is just a bunch of cursing.
I was only addressing the logic, not making a literal substitution. Hypothetically, if someone created a completely unique 3 hour gaming experience that was just as engaging as a 3 hour film would it be worth $15? If not, then what is it about games that makes them worth less money per hour?
checkeredknight
Member
Bah. I really can't wait for Journey, but I'm not paying for three months PS+ only to then pay for my game and get it a week early. Just find it a hassle, and since I don't use my PS3 that often I can't imagine getting my moneys worth from PS+. Just a shame we'll have to wait an extra week.
dr_octagon
Banned
@Amir0x - It's got nothing to do with injustice, I don't take the criticisms personally, it is just a game. You've read way too much into my post - I dunno why you are saying I'm not staying on topic when this is about a discussion about the game. I was looking for clarification on specific points (one sentence would have done it tbh). There's no suggestion you are wrong in any way and I would never discourage people from sharing their opinions.
I was genuinely interested and like someone said 'It's about going in among people who may feel differently than you and trying to understand their perspective.'
I was genuinely interested and like someone said 'It's about going in among people who may feel differently than you and trying to understand their perspective.'
oh my god dude, I am sorry. I meant to ALSO respond to your post in that response of mine separately and accidentally forgot to so it looks like I was aiming the comments I had at LevenNth toward you as well.
I consider you one of the people who was engaging me and wanted to participate, I will remedy that right now lol
Edit:
1. I think there are some mechanical nuisances, but I feel there is actually a wonderful flow with the basic sense of movement. I don't think they actually approached the idea of surfing on sand (and snow) poorly. The problem is in the mechanics being engaged by the developers to likewise engage the player. The example I use is that instead of simply walking about and barking to open doors, maybe there would be some sort of tough floating/jumping challenges to try to traverse the remnants of this dead civilization. The game actually has some incidental mechanics in which you can surf 'better' or 'worse', but the game fails to engage the player by requiring to actually master getting better at utilizing these features, and you can always get by with the barest minimum of effort.
2. In terms of disengaging the player? Sure. I felt "Dear Esther" was similar to this. I also felt like that in that game "To The Moon."
3. If it were perhaps a 400ms point experience or something, I'd snap it up - that's around the price I'm willing to grab such imo vapid indie/art house game "experiments"... especially at this length.
4. The key thing I would improve would be to add some level of mechanical engagement. I.e., the ability to use the games core jumping/howling mechanics to actually add gravity to your journey. As far as I am concerned, Journeys are always more interesting and poignant when there is something to lose in the journey. I don't mean enemies, by the way. This is a game about traversal and exploration. There could have been some meaningful environmental puzzles utilizing your howling and traversal abilities, and some genuine environmental obstacles to impede the progress of players who have yet to master the games more nuanced jumping/flying mechanics.
5. I'm not sure I understand this question..
Naked Snake
Member
Do you need to be connected and online to play this game?
I'm trying not to read reviews or this thread because I want to minimize my exposure to anything about this game; I already know it's my cup of tea.
I'm trying not to read reviews or this thread because I want to minimize my exposure to anything about this game; I already know it's my cup of tea.