Support NeoGAF

[WrenchNinja]

I'm offering my viewpoint. It's a message board.

I'm well aware it's a message board. Here we are, conversing about your view point.

I played the game just fine. So did many others. And you can watch videos of people with hands of all sizes playing the game just fine. The key is simply cradling part of the system against your palm and fingers -- it settles perfectly naturally when you don't clutch the system for dear life as though it's going to scamper away at any moment.

Yes, I've heard this all before and I've tried this all before. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before. It doesn't work for me and it doesn't work for others. I suffered through playing the game nonetheless, other people couldn't, and their point is equally as valid. KIU can just as easily be called a"non-game" for them. But that wouldn't really be cool, just as it's not cool for you to claim that TWD and Journey are "non-games". They are games, games that you don't particularly like, but games nonetheless.

Can you outline what you do in TWD other than moving to points of interest and picking a choice? Journey could make a longer list, but I wouldn't exactly celebrate what constitutes platforming, stealth or exploration in the game...

Light puzzle solving and some poorly made shooting sequences. Yes, you could make a long list for Journey. And I wouldn't exactly celebrate what constitutes for shooting and slicing in Kid Icarus, but here we are.

 

[AniHawk]

Hm, most of the critizising comments do feel like they have a very negative underlying tone and Journey and TWD are unacceptable as GOTY just out of principle. I can understand critic on gameplay elements but going through a checklist to decide whether these are eligable for GOTY or being called games at all is too narrow minded imo.

the walking dead doesn't need any sort of platforming levels or whatever to be considered a game, but maybe doing something to actually differentiate it from, say, mass effect 3, would be enough. telltale has a story, and you're going to follow it no matter what god dammit. this is how these choose-your-adventure games go: you don't actually choose your own adventure.

and on top of that, it's not particularly great-looking. the art style is nice, but the animation is pretty janky, and the models are kinda rough, so from a storytelling perspective, the performers aren't that great. there are some technical issues too. i've had to restart a game already because of a pretty nasty glitch in episode 3. there's also stuff like scenes being left behind and characters moving their mouths without any sounds coming out.

the choices you make are interesting ones, and it does feel like you're making a hard decision a lot of the times, but the reality is that you're not- things are going to play out generally the same way. to be really considered best of the best for the year, i think a game should do something really special, and the walking dead does not.

i would like to add that i am enjoying it, but now that the smoke screen has cleared, i'm a lot less invested in the outcome, and i care a lot less about my choices.

 

[KalBalboa]

I never said you weren't affected by it. Only that your actions don't have meaningful effect on what happens in the game. In other words, you affect it as much as a choose-your-own-adventure storybook. The interaction is that limited in potential. I'm not questioning whether it still affected you emotionally. I have, and remain to focus, on the gameplay.

Well, never mind the fact the choices made in TWD have no actual impact --

All games are, to me, are what I get out of them. My actions in The Walking Dead concretely affected which characters were with me, the amount of stress I endured, the situations I found myself in, and the overall weight of emotions I experienced. That is how I played the game.

It's no different than having higher XP or having more ammunition after making certain moves in a game from a different genre. Decision making in The Walking Dead changes the experience from person to person.

The interaction is that limited in potential.

The same can be said of Kid Icarus and thousands of other games. Interaction, in most games, has incredibly limited potential. There are even entire GOTY award-winning games about that exact concept.

 

[Risette]

The part of the game you play...?

Uh, okay. Are you saying that people do not play these games?

 

[Jarmel]

The actual gameplay in TWD was subpar at the best of times.

 

[mxgt]

I'm not "salty." I just find it remarkable that games with minimal or mundane gameplay are getting so far on the strength of their visuals, sound and/or writing.

This has always been the case. See:

MGS4 - half the game (if not more) is boring, shitty cutscenes
Uncharted 2 - absurdly linear 'press x to platform' gameplay and endless shooting galleries

Hardly the types of games for extreme intellectuals with riveting gameplay.

 

[PKrockin]

Now I want Journey to win GAF GOTY just to spite OP, and I haven't even played it yet.

Games aren't necessarily about gameplay. Games are about entertaining the player. How they accomplish that doesn't matter. I played X-Com to test my brain, Mega Man to test my timing and reflexes, Phoenix Wright for the kooky characters, Okami for the visuals and music, and Zelda for a combination of all of the above. Games appeal to us for a variety of reasons and they're all legitimate. If it's interactive, it's by definition a game and I don't see the point in drawing a line in the sand saying "it needs exactly this many player involvement whatever BS moments per second"

 

[KalBalboa]

This has always been the case. See:

MGS4 - half the game (if not more) is boring, shitty cutscenes
Uncharted 2 - absurdly linear 'press x to platform' gameplay and endless shooting galleries

Hardly the types of games for extreme intellectuals with riveting gameplay.

Dust beneath thy feet.

 

[Neiteio]

I'm well aware it's a message board. Here we are, conversing about your view point.

Exactly. Just harmless opinions, so no need for anyone to get upset.

Yes, I've heard this all before and I've tried this all before. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before. It doesn't work for me and it doesn't work for others. I suffered through playing the game nonetheless, other people couldn't, and their point is equally as valid. KIU can just as easily be called a"non-game" for them. But that wouldn't really be cool, just as it's not cool for you to claim that TWD and Journey being are "non-games". They are games, games that you don't particularly like, but games nonetheless.

TWD has its share of game-breaking glitches like the save issue. I suppose that disqualifies it. *kenanandkelawwwhereitgoes*

Light puzzle solving and some poorly made shooting sequences. Yes, you could make a long list for Journey. And I wouldn't exactly celebrate what constitutes for shooting and slicing in Kid Icarus, but here we are.

The "shooting and slicing" in Kid Icarus is incredible. Intensity 9.0 shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'll be bored of sliding down a hill, twirling up an air stream or moving left of the flying snake in Journey a bit sooner than besting KIU's higher intensities.

 

[Zombie James]

I never said you weren't affected by it. Only that your actions don't have meaningful effect on what happens in the game. In other words, you affect it as much as a choose-your-own-adventure storybook. The interaction is that limited in potential. I'm not questioning whether it still affected you emotionally. I have, and remain to focus, on the gameplay.

I'm starting to question what your definition of gameplay is. In Journey, traversing the environment with your companion (among other things) is the gameplay. In TWD, making choices (among other things) is the gameplay. Gameplay isn't something set in stone, it's whatever the game needs to do to get it's point across, whether that's jumping on platforms, shooting guns, or walking across a desert.

 

[Jarmel]

This has always been the case. See:

MGS4 - half the game (if not more) is boring, shitty cutscenes
Uncharted 2 - absurdly linear 'press x to platform' gameplay and endless shooting galleries

Hardly the types of games for extreme intellectuals with riveting gameplay.

The shooting in Uncharted 2 is great. MGS4's 'gameplay' has been controversial for the longest time however parts such as Act 1 and 2 seem to be regarded fairly well because of the larger amount of actual gameplay.

 

[KalBalboa]

The "shooting and slicing" in Kid Icarus is incredible. Intensity 9.0 shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'll be bored of sliding down a hill, twirling up an air stream or moving left of the flying snake in Journey a bit sooner than besting KIU's higher intensities.

But that's not evidence of anything other than your opinion- you enjoy Kid Icarus in probably the same way I love Max Payne 3. That doesn't discount the way people have played and loved Journey and The Walking Dead.

Their game play isn't "inferior." It's simply different.

 

[WrenchNinja]

TWD has its share of game-breaking glitches like the save issue. I suppose that disqualifies it. *kenanandkelawwwhereitgoes*

Personally, I think it certainly does. But I'm not saying sites or regular joes can't have TWD be their GotY or Kid Icarus have their GotY because of some weird stance about what constitutes a game

The "shooting and slicing" in Kid Icarus is incredible. Intensity 9.0 shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'll be bored of sliding down a hill, twirling up an air stream or moving left of the flying snake in Journey a bit sooner than besting KIU's higher intensities

Okay?

 

[Neiteio]

All games are, to me, are what I get out of them. My actions in The Walking Dead concretely affected which characters were with me, the amount of stress I endured, the situations I found myself in, and the overall weight of emotions I experienced. That is how I played the game.

It's no different than having higher XP or having more ammunition after making certain moves in a game from a different genre. Decision making in The Walking Dead changes the experience from person to person.

Sure. But what you did still had no really meaningful effect within the context of the game itself. I don't doubt that it still affected you emotionally, though. It affected me emotionally, as well. Some of the most well-realized characters in gaming.

The same can be said of Kid Icarus and thousands of other games. Interaction, in most games, has incredibly limited potential. There are even entire GOTY award-winning games about that exact concept.

It's not just the literal inputs you perform, but the way the game world and actions therein are shaped by your action. In BioShock's case, for example, you not only have a myriad of plasmids and weapons at your disposal, and ways to traverse the environment and stuff to uncover therein, but the enemies are reactive and even the physics of objects be telekinetically thrown into them and everything pinballing around has an immensely stronger sense of "you're here in this virtual space and having a presence" than anything in Journey.

 

[kinoki]

I don't get the non-game critique. They're games; get over it. If they don't align with your definition of games then perhaps your definition of games is dated.

In the games-are-art discussion it's been revealed that the only real conflict is what meaning people ascribe "art". Not the art-forms themselves. This is very similar.

Could The Walking Dead or Journey get their point across in any other medium? My answer is no. They picked the medium that fit the narritive best and made their art, as a game. They're part of the interactive medium known as videogames.

If anything Journey shows how bloated Zelda has become and how little bloat you need to get the sense of epic adventure and wonder across. It also seemlessly adds online multiplayer and making it a core mechanic in a game where you really don't need a partner making it the contender for best multiplayer title also.

The Walking Dead on the other hand is as much of a game as any entry into the point-and-click adventure game. Take that Monkey Island.

Heck, we might disqualify child's play as games since it's only people moving and talking, that's not playing that's what we do anyway. Or pen and paper RPGs which is just writing, talking and sitting. Not much interaction there.

 

[KalBalboa]

Sure. But what you did still had no really meaningful effect within the context of the game itself. I don't doubt that it still affected you emotionally, though. It affected me emotionally, as well. Some of the most well-realized characters in gaming.

There was plenty of meaningful effect when my decisions got certain characters killed or worse. It changed the game and it evoked a response out of me.

You can't invalidate that The Walking Dead has game play, so I suggest you move off of something as subjective as defining what makes for "meaningful effect".

 

[Neiteio]

I'm starting to question what your definition of gameplay is. In Journey, traversing the environment with your companion (among other things) is the gameplay. In TWD, making choices (among other things) is the gameplay. Gameplay isn't something set in stone, it's whatever the game needs to do to get it's point across, whether that's jumping on platforms, shooting guns, or walking across a desert.

I have been using the phrase "minimal or mundane" for many posts now, in relation to TWD and Journey, respectively, if that helps clarify. There's an experience to be had but the part that is actually played isn't particularly notable. It's how that part that's played is recontexualized by everything else that's notable, and my argument is that while it's valid to be entertained by that and emotionally affected by that -- as with anything -- I just feel it'd be more appropriate to recognize gameplay, first and foremost, since that's the defining feature of the medium.

 

[Wiktor]

I wonder if Walking Dead's popularity might help visual novels break through to western market more, considering there's not much difference between them outside of presentation. That would be nice.

 

[KalBalboa]

I have been using the phrase "minimal or mundane" for many posts now, in relation to TWD and Journey, respectively, if that helps clarify. There's an experience to be had but the part that is actually played isn't particularly notable.

But who are you to say that's a universal truth for all those who played Journey and The Walking Dead?

 

[VeryGooster]

People willing to recognize the "minimal" gameplay of TWD and Journey and call them two of the best games of this year says more about what people perceive gameplay to be, what they want out of games today, and that the medium is allowed to change.

 

[Neiteio]

But who are you to say that's a universal truth?

No one's claiming a universal truth. We're sharing opinions. My opinion is TWD has minimal gameplay, and Journey has mundane gameplay. My opinion is TWD and Journey are great (or at least interesting) experiences, but fall flat in terms of how much there is to actually play and how good that playable part is. And my opinion is that an award called "Game of the Year" should focus on the playable part. It's fine if you disagree with the opinion, but that won't stop me from articulating it regardless, nor any of you articulating your viewpoints, and that's all fine and well.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I wonder if Walking Dead's popularity might help visual novels break through to western market more, considering there's not much difference between them outside of presentation. That would be nice.

Boy I hope so. There are lot better visual novels than TWD. Playing through 999 and VLR is just...wow.

 

[Neiteio]

Boy I hope so. There are lot better visual novels than TWD. Playing through 999 and VLR is just...wow.

I loved 999 and still need to play VLR, but I have a 3DS, not a Vita, and I'm wary of the glitches that delete save data. :-\

 

[mxgt]

Boy I hope so. There are lot better visual novels than TWD. Playing through 999 and VLR is just...wow.

Shame it's been so overlooked. Better story and more engrossing than TWD.

 

[PKrockin]

No one's claiming a universal truth. We're sharing opinions. My opinion is TWD has minimal gameplay, and Journey has mundane gameplay. My opinion is TWD and Journey are great (or at least interesting) experiences, but fall flat in terms of how much there is to actually play and how good that playable part is. And my opinion is that an award called "Game of the Year" should focus on the playable part.

Why? It's called "Game of the Year," not "Gameplay of the Year." We're talking about the whole package. And a lot of people thought despite Journey not having the most complex gameplay mechanics they had a better time with it than any other game that year.

 

[KalBalboa]

People willing to recognize the "minimal" gameplay of TWD and Journey and call them two of the best games of this year says more about what people perceive gameplay to be, what they want out of games today, and that the medium is allowed to change.

Absolutely.

 

[Neiteio]

Why? It's called "Game of the Year," not "Gameplay of the Year." We're talking about the whole package. And a lot of people thought despite Journey not having the most complex gameplay mechanics they had a better time with it than any other game that year.

I guess I've always thought of a game as something you play.

 

[KalBalboa]

Why? It's called "Game of the Year," not "Gameplay of the Year." We're talking about the whole package. And a lot of people thought despite Journey not having the most complex gameplay mechanics they had a better time with it than any other game that year.

Good observation. If that were the case, games like Hotline Miami, Sound Shapes, and Mutant Blobs Attack would be considered inferior to Final Fantasy 13 and Haze due to the fact they have "shallower" game play.

 

[Afrocious]

Comparing 999 and VLR to The Walking Dead is hilariously off. Both are terrific but to say one is superior to the other is too severe of a case of simplification.

 

[Neiteio]

Good observation. If that were the case, games like Hotline Miami, Sound Shapes, and Mutant Blobs Attack would be considered inferior to Final Fantasy 13 and Haze due to the fact they have "shallower" game play.

Not the way I define it. Hotline Miami may have fewer systems than FFXIII and Haze but is mechanically airtight and constantly engages the player with plenty to do, and what the player does affects a great deal within the game itself. So the gameplay is plenty strong.

To be clear, though, I'd sooner replay TWD and Journey than FFXIII or Haze.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

This year we had some amazing 'non games' and disappointing AAA 'core games'

Stuff like Journey deserves the GOTY awards given how mediocre everything else was and how exceptional it was on what it set out to do

 

[VeryGooster]

I guess I've always thought of a game as something you play.

So does everyone else.

I wonder which will end up better received down the road: the point-and-click story-driven Walking Dead, or the arguably more interactive probable Call of Duty-cloned Walking Dead based on the AMC show?

 

[KalBalboa]

Not the way I define it. Hotline Miami may have fewer systems than FFXIII and Haze but is mechanically airtight and constantly engages the player with plenty to do, and what the player does affects a great deal within the game itself.

Precisely my point: I find the controls, input, and things evoked from Journey and Walking Dead to be incredibly concise and rewarding. They are well-conceived and executed in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they carry the same short-term variability as Kid Icarus 3DS.

To be clear, though, I'd sooner replay TWD and Journey than FFXIII or Haze.

Good edit (;

 

[Wiktor]

So does everyone else.

I wonder which will end up better received down the road: the point-and-click story-driven Walking Dead, or the arguably more interactive probable Call of Duty-cloned Walking Dead based on the AMC show?

That FPS actually sounds pretty nice with all the Oregon Trail elements

 

[Jonny Rizzo]

No one's claiming a universal truth. We're sharing opinions. My opinion is TWD has minimal gameplay, and Journey has mundane gameplay. My opinion is TWD and Journey are great (or at least interesting) experiences, but fall flat in terms of how much there is to actually play and how good that playable part is. And my opinion is that an award called "Game of the Year" should focus on the playable part. It's fine if you disagree with the opinion, but that won't stop me from articulating it regardless, nor any of you articulating your viewpoints, and that's all fine and well.

So basically you want the GOTY to be the Best Controls of the year award?

What TWD and Journey lack in controlled/playable experiences they make up for in other areas. Sounds, Music, Story, etc. A GOTY pick should focus on the experience as a whole not just one aspect.

Really, why do we need to have a limitations on what someones favorite game of the year can be???

 

[Neiteio]

Precisely my point: I find the controls, input, and things evoked from Journey and Walking Dead to be incredibly concise and rewarding. It doesn't matter if they carry the same variability as Kid Icarus 3DS.

It's not just variability, it's how much the player is involved in the moment-to-moment gameplay. To me, Journey felt like a lot of "press forward," and unlike, say, a Mario game, there was little required on my part -- go to the left to get past the snake, push slightly left to get to one air stream and slightly right to get to the other, etc. The world of Journey just felt sort of... Empty. Boring. Not much to do. And TWD, of course, is just a matter of making periodic choices. Again, it worked emotionally, in some regards. But game-wise... Ehhh.

 

[PKrockin]

edit: I'm just repeating myself.

If you thought Journey's gameplay was boring and that impacted your enjoyment of it as a whole enough to not consider it for GOTY, fair enough, but many people don't agree.

 

[Neiteio]

Good edit (;

The edit went from "I'd rather play AGAIN" to "I'd rather replay" since I knew people would see the world "play" first and not "again" and jump to conclusions. Saying the same thing, but different ways because some are a bit... quick to jump to conclusions.

 

[Neiteio]

You do play TWD and Journey. The gameplay mechanics don't have to be the reason you love it though. Psychonauts has some pretty mediocre gameplay--it's plagued with wonky physics and glitches, but I loved it for the quirky story, characters, originality, music, and sense of humor. As a whole, it was one of the most enjoyable games I played that year, so I would have nominated it for GOTY. It's that simple.

Sure, I understand TWD and Journey aren't getting GOTY awards for their actual gameplay, but rather the experiences, and everyone can dole out this shit however they see fit, and no one's saying otherwise. I'm just trying to champion gameplay as what's most important.

 

[Incendiary]

Ironically, I really enjoy this aspect of TWD (and the first Mass Effect, for that matter). But I'm able to separate my appreciation/enjoyment of such elements from my evaluation of the actual gameplay. And I'm just saying, for me, gameplay is the deciding factor in Game of the Year.

Why don't you consider dialogue choices as gameplay? I mean, you're the one making the choices. Just because it's not action-oriented or a test of your motor/visual recognition skills makes it not gameplay? Do you not consider, say, You Don't Know Jack a game at all because you're answering trivia questions instead of shooting things?

 

[KalBalboa]

It's not just variability, it's how much the player is involved in the moment-to-moment gameplay. To me, Journey felt like a lot of "press forward," and unlike, say, a Mario game, there was little required on my part -- go to the left to get past the snake, push slightly left to get to one air stream and slightly right to get to the other, etc. The world of Journey just felt sort of... Empty. Boring. Not much to do. And TWD, of course, is just a matter of making periodic choices. Again, it worked emotionally, in some regards. But game-wise... Ehhh.

And that is, of course, one's opinion on the game. Calling it a non-game is the silly part you're going to garner plenty of contention over, considering Journey has plenty of mechanics, objectives, experiences, enemies, obstacles, and such that constitute its "game play" (whatever the hell that even means).

People don't reward GOTY based on "deepest control & short-term variability." They rate them on the experiences they had which can come from something as simplistic as the (ostensibly) two games of the year (Journey & The Walking Dead) or something as controller-dense as a Vanquish or Twisted Metal.

I'm just trying to champion gameplay as what's most important.

And many people in this thread think you're glibly trying to sell the "gameplay" of Journey & The Walking Dead incredibly short.

 

[Neiteio]

Why don't you consider dialogue choices as gameplay? I mean, you're the one making the choices. Just because it's not action-oriented or a test of your motor/visual recognition skills makes it not gameplay? Do you not consider, say, You Don't Know Jack a game at all because you're answering trivia questions instead of shooting things?

TWD is more or less a choose-your-own-adventure book. I've actually come to think of literal paperback choose-your-own-adventure books as games without graphics, precisely because of TWD.

 

[Neiteio]

And that is, of course, one's opinion on the game. Calling it a non-game is the silly part you're going to garner plenty of contention over, considering Journey has plenty of mechanics, objectives, experiences, enemies, obstacles, and such that constitute its "game play" (whatever the hell that even means).

Gameplay is the part you play. In Journey, it consists of walking through empty spaces... Then twirling up to some platforms... Sliding down sand... Walking around a snake... Twirling up some air currents... Walking around another snake... Waiting for hard winds to pass... And then some bits at the end that shall not be spoiled. Your scarf can get longer, and you can bark at people you meet online. These must be the meaningful things that happened in the game because they're all that made any sort of impression for me to remember. I played it once and that was enough for me. I'm just explaining why I found it mundane, and if you disagree, that's fine.

People don't reward GOTY based on "deepest control & short-term variability." They rate them on the experiences they had which can come from something as simplistic as the (ostensibly) two games of the year (Journey & The Walking Dead) or something as controller-dense as a Vanquish or Twisted Metal.

Everyone handles these things differently (as is clear from the myriad of viewpoints in this thread). I just look at it in terms of how much there is to do and how much involvement is asked of the player, and how quality the things to be done are in the game.

 

[Raonak]

Ironically, I really enjoy this aspect of TWD (and the first Mass Effect, for that matter). But I'm able to separate my appreciation/enjoyment of such elements from my evaluation of the actual gameplay. And I'm just saying, for me, gameplay is the deciding factor in Game of the Year.

And thats the exact problem. For you, the deciding factor is gameplay, but for most people, it's the overall experience. Gameplay is just one component. An important component, but only one part of the whole game that you're experiencing.

And even with that, I'd argue that TWD/journey don't have more/less gameplay, rather just different types of gameplay.

 

[KalBalboa]

Everyone handles these things differently (as is clear from the myriad of viewpoints in this thread). I just look at it in terms of how much there is to do and how much involvement is asked of the player, and how quality the things to be done are in the game.

 

[Neiteio]

I don't mean to come off as patting you on the head. I'm sincere.

 

[Gustav]

Every time "non games" pop up on GAF I try to explain that most of the games that are called that are indeed games in the traditional sense.

I studied and tought Game Design. Here is one (maybe the most prevalent) definition of what constitutes a game.

Rules
A set of rules the game logic adheres to.

Goals
Goals can be either set explicitly by the game or the game provides the player with the framework to make up his own goals (e.g. high scores) or both.

Play
Is basically interaction with the ruleset which alters the outcome of your action.

Pretend
This part lies on the player. You must pretend that the rules and goals you interact with are of value to you. E.G. Kicking a ball into a goal makes no sense in the real world. You need to pretend this action is of value and something worth striving for. Pretending builds the context in which a game makes sense.


Now, for gameplay.
There is a very simple definition. Gameplay is actions and challenges. Nothing more, nothing less. You exercise the actions provided to you by the ruleset of the game to overcome the challenges in the game.

Both these definitions fit TWD and Journey perfectly.

 

[OmnipotentO]

Games are more about providing an experience now. We've reached that point.

 

[Neiteio]

Every time "non games" pop up on GAF I try to explain that most of the games that are called that are indeed games in the traditional sense.

I studied and tought Game Design. Here is one (maybe the most prevalent) definition of what constitutes a game.

Rules
A set of rules the game logic adheres to.

Goals
Goals can be either set explicitly by the game or the game provides the player with the framework to make up his own goals (e.g. high scores) or both.

Play
Is basically interaction with the ruleset which alters the outcome of your action.

Pretend
This part lies on the player. You must pretend that the rules and goals you interact with are of value to you. E.G. Kicking a ball into a goal makes no sense in the real world. You need to pretend this action is of value and something worth striving for. Pretending builds the context in which a game makes sense.


Now, for gameplay.
There is a very simple definition. Gameplay is actions and challenges. Nothing more, nothing less. You exercise the actions provided to you by the ruleset of the game to overcome the challenges in the game.

Both these definitions fit TWD and Journey perfectly.

Sure. Like I said in the OP, I feel they pass the basic metric of interaction to meet an objective. It's just how well they pass that metric, and whether the way they do it is more commendable than other games.

 

[toastyToast]

If GOTY titles were awarded for mechanical and structural depth, fighting games would be sweeping them routinely. While I can appreciate them, others probably don't. I don't like space sims because they confuse the shit out of me. The best space sim ever would probably look like any other, honestly

It's about palatability. TWD and Journey provide rich experiences for a lot of people and it's precisely because of their mechanical simplicity. I don't like mechanical simplicity but a lot more people than I imagined don't seem to mind