• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Never Alone Scores a Perfect 10 from Eurogamer...

Well, would you rather a game trying to be culturally significant that doesn't speak to people of similar cultures? Sounds like it's the perfect reviewer for the game to me, at least we know the game succeeded in one of the main things it was trying to do.

I'm glad it got a 10 out of 10. Just a few things to note though. As the reviewer says, the Native Americans are a sort of dying breed, and there probably aren't that many gamers who have Native American blood in them. So the game needs to evoke emotions out of people who aren't of that culture to be honest. Which is the point of the game from what I've read. So wouldn't it have been better to have either two people review it from either perspective, or someone who has no connection to the culture at all?

Disclaimer: My Ancestors are Native Americans.
 
Is this one of those games that I'm supposed to despise because it's not a 'real game'? I'm finding it hard to keep track of the criteria.

Am I supposed to get really excited and have to pre-order this game because it got an arbitrary perfect score from some gaming site, even though it looks boring? I'm confused too.
 
I'm glad it got a 10 out of 10. Just a few things to note though. As the reviewer says, the Native Americans are a sort of dying breed, and there probably aren't that many gamers who have Native American blood in them. So the game needs to evoke emotions out of people who aren't of that culture to be honest. Which is the point of the game from what I've read. So wouldn't it have been better to have either two people review it from either perspective, or someone who has no connection to the culture at all?

Disclaimer: My Ancestors are Native Americans.

the real thing is if you see that the reviewer being native american was an influence on the score, you can ignore the review and read other impressions. hell, you can even just look at video clips and screenshots and decide for yourself if you want to get it.

people dont need reviews as buyers guides anymore, if you cant tell a game is for you based on the plethora of media available on games pre release, not including reviews, then you really dont know what you like
 
I understand that but at the same time the point of a review is to tell the reader whether, in that critic's personal opinion, a game is any good in order to help them decide whether to buy it.

If the answer is "I loved it because I'm a Native American and it spoke to me" then that doesn't really help anyone who isn't.

It's just my opinion, but I feel a review should focus on a game's content and mechanics rather than the emotions it evoked in that individual player, because as we all have completely different experiences and memories to draw from those sort of reviews aren't particularly useful to me.

Having read that review all I could conclude was: "Great, you liked it because you could relate to it. I can't, so what's the actual game like?"

Then read more reviews and make a decision based on the consensus? Do you not see the value in hearing how an individual with Native American heritage feels about this game and the way the subject manner is presented?

The beautiful thing about video games is that you have a medium that can reach and entertain people in a variety of ways. You may be focused on the mechanics of a game over the story, which is completely valid. Never Alone probably isn't a game for you since the mechanics are simple and in service of the story.

I don't understand why every single review for a game needs to be all things to everyone. Some reviewers will focus on mechanics, others will focus on the story. Game reviews don't and shouldn't need to be binary in how they talk about games. Otherwise they may all just as well issue the same FAQ sheet and call it a day.
 
As someone studying anthropology who wants to help Native Americans preserve their language and culture, I'm very interested in this game. I'm gonna wait a few weeks cause there's no way my girlfriend would stand me buying another game after I got LBP3 and a DS4 this week, but I am for sure getting this. I hope some more tribes follow this trend - I'd love to see something from the Pacific Northwest and Mesoamerica.
 
the real thing is if you see that the reviewer being native american was an influence on the score, you can ignore the review and read other impressions. hell, you can even just look at video clips and screenshots and decide for yourself if you want to get it.

people dont need reviews as buyers guides anymore, if you cant tell a game is for you based on the plethora of media available on games pre release, not including reviews, then you really dont know what you like

I've already mentioned I'm getting this game day1. I've been psyched for it for ages. I don't use reviews as buying guides. I was just stating that I could understand why some people question the perfect 10. To be fair I'd be inclined to just call it an opinion piece or article, Because it barely reviews the game whatsoever.
 
That review was a little top gushing in my opinion. It went on and on about the artistry of the game and not much about how the game played itself. What mechanics should I expect, you know.. the playing of the game itself.
With that being said, the review had done it's job of sparking my interest in the game. So... good job I guess.
 
Fuck yes! I'm so glad this looks to be a decent buy. I saw this for the first time a few weeks ago on a random GAF thread and have been looking forward to it ever since.

Day one for me.
 
The fact that the game was lauded by a Native American doesn't really mean "maybe you have to be a Native to love the game" to me, but rather "the cultural elements of the game were so good that a Native reviewer loved it". So if you're interested in other cultures, that will always be a plus, even if you're not of that culture.
It's a bit like if an historian praised a game for its historical accuracy, it doesn't mean that you need to be a historian to appreciate it. Or even that it's a perfect game per se.
 
I've already mentioned I'm getting this game day1. I've been psyched for it for ages. I don't use reviews as buying guides. I was just stating that I could understand why some people question the perfect 10. To be fair I'd be inclined to just call it an opinion piece or article, Because it barely reviews the game whatsoever.

i never said you needed it as a buyers guide. im saying in this day and age when people can see people playing full games online and when games media is releasing tons of footage before games release, the review as a product evaluation is silly. reviews should become more critical in an artistic sense because reviews as a mechanical/functional evaluation of games is pointless.
 
I'm glad it got a 10 out of 10. Just a few things to note though. As the reviewer says, the Native Americans are a sort of dying breed, and there probably aren't that many gamers who have Native American blood in them. So the game needs to evoke emotions out of people who aren't of that culture to be honest. Which is the point of the game from what I've read. So wouldn't it have been better to have either two people review it from either perspective, or someone who has no connection to the culture at all?

Disclaimer: My Ancestors are Native Americans.
It would seem really strange to tell the Native American reviewer he can't review it by himself because he might like it. There's no shortage of other sites that don't have Native reviewers for other perspectives, and at least one of them (PS Nation) gave it high marks also. Some of them didn't, but sometimes reviewers, like regular gamers, don't like things that are culturally significant as opposed to visceral, cinematic experiences. And that's okay. But do we need two or more reviewers for every game? Does someone that always skips cutscenes need to co-review every Uncharted game?
 
Nice to hear. I was worried that it was going to be hollow like that game Sony announced and released at E3. What was it called again? Enchanted?
 
Wonderful review. We need more review writing like this in the industry. Mad props.

Game is now next on my play list.
 
Never heard of it, but I've been itching for a game like this for some time. Will give it a look when it releases on PS4 next week.
 
it's what people call a game where they aren't challenged to kill or maim someone, or to use twitch gameplay to get through the game's design.

basically, it's a pejorative for games that people can't accept that the challenge that the game presents might be exclusively in its empathic themes, its narrative, or a combination of both, thus they give it a name like walking simulator to show their disdain for it.
Or it's just an accurate description of games that literally only contain one verb. Challenge or killing has nothing to do with it.
 
Watching a few videos the platforming looks better than I thought it would be. Kinda reminds me of DKC2 in a way, a game that looked amazing but was so much more than graphics underneath all that.

But then again, that's just from watching a few videos. Might not be fair to compare it to DKC2 just quite yet.
 
Will give it a look when it releases on PS4 next week.

The game was released two days ago.

10557534_10204289599174113_7114788904042763560_o.jpg
 
Or it's just an accurate description of games that literally only contain one verb. Challenge or killing has nothing to do with it.

name me a "walking simulator" that literally works off of one verb, because it doesn't exist afaik

we can all agree that a game, any game regardless of form, has a primary function: to pose a challenge. Perhaps you don't like how "walking simulators" challenge you, and that's fine, but labeling a game with said term and dismissing it outright for having those qualities insults both you as a gamer and those who made the game.


then you played a different game than i did.
 
If we ever reach a point where game reviews can be accepted as critiques removed from all notions of consumer advice like almost every other artistic medium, I will be happy.

Great review. And the art design in the game looks great.
 
I understand that but at the same time the point of a review is to tell the reader whether, in that critic's personal opinion, a game is any good in order to help them decide whether to buy it.

If the answer is "I loved it because I'm a Native American and it spoke to me" then that doesn't really help anyone who isn't.

It's just my opinion, but I feel a review should focus on a game's content and mechanics rather than the emotions it evoked in that individual player, because as we all have completely different experiences and memories to draw from those sort of reviews aren't particularly useful to me.

Having read that review all I could conclude was: "Great, you liked it because you could relate to it. I can't, so what's the actual game like?"

Diversity of opinion should be celebrated. This sounds eerily like an "ethics in game journalism" request. Should everyone else demand a re-review if a white male reviewer reviews games with white male protagonists which don't reflect our emotional resonance to these characters? Because that's basically what you're asking.
 
Or it's just an accurate description of games that literally only contain one verb. Challenge or killing has nothing to do with it.

Reading, discovering, thinking, and feeling are all verbs that apply to walking simulators. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
 
It would seem really strange to tell the Native American reviewer he can't review it by himself because he might like it. There's no shortage of other sites that don't have Native reviewers for other perspectives, and at least one of them (PS Nation) gave it high marks also. Some of them didn't, but sometimes reviewers, like regular gamers, don't like things that are culturally significant as opposed to visceral, cinematic experiences. And that's okay. But do we need two or more reviewers for every game? Does someone that always skips cutscenes need to co-review every Uncharted game?

I loved the review. And I'm glad it was him who reviewed it. And I'm glad it got a 10. I was just simply saying that it would of been great to see how the game would of felt from someone who has no connection to the culture. I mean after all the whole point of the game is to raise awareness of this delicate and dying culture.
 
I really dig the art style. But...

There are so many games these days. So I'll probably wait for the winter sale and see what discount the game will get.
 
Seems to be a love/hate experience. Gamesradar gave it a 4/10 :o

I reread that review just now and while I share some of his gripes some others are rather baffling. Like complaining about a water level. Yes, there's swimming but only briefly, it works fine and I never once drowned. I also disagree about the 'narrative twist' and liked the slight change in gameplay but that's very subjective. "too wordy"? Some well done voice-overs spoken in Iñupiat from time to time which imo totally fit the overall mood. Also looks like he reviewed an unpatched version, there are still glitches but not nearly as bad.
 
What a bizarre review.

I'm getting more and more convinced that games don't deserve to be reviewed with a number attached. It's stupid and unjust. I don't see how a perfect 10 correlates to what the hell I just read.
 
What else is a review but a subjective opinion? If you start reviewing games thinking "hmm how might other people like this game" you are doomed before you even start. So you can always play that "what about" game to the end of the world but it gets you nowhere.

Can't stress this enough. People complaining about reviews being subjective make question their intelligence.
 
I mean after all the whole point of the game is to raise awareness of this delicate and dying culture.

I think GAF is has taken the mantel, and has and will now be raising awareness for this title (as seen in this thread). I assume plenty of reviews will now be written by some of the crew on GAF that will raise even more awareness for this game. ^_~
 
Diversity of opinion should be celebrated. This sounds eerily like an "ethics in game journalism" request. Should everyone else demand a re-review if a white male reviewer reviews games with white male protagonists which don't reflect our emotional resonance to these characters? Because that's basically what you're asking.

Bingo.

I for one welcome reading why a game is valuable to someone of a different background to me (I'm a white male, btw), and I think judging a game solely on its game mechanics and content rather than how people react to it is silly, anyway.

A game is a product of everything that goes into it: its visuals, its audio, its writing, how the player interacts with it, and so on. Part of a game being successful is how all of these things elicit a response from the player.

In fact, really, it's impossible to judge a game without assessing the emotional response to it. When a game's gameplay sucks, players get annoyed. When its story is poorly-written we respond appropriately. If the the graphics suck it is offputting, and terrible audio is annoying. On the flipside, good gameplay can make us happy, or it can be thrilling, or it can make us feel like we were challenged. Good graphics inspire awe in us, while an amazing story produces "the feels" (as much as I hate that term), whether that's a positive feeling or a more negative one we are moved all the same, while a great game soundtrack is something we hum, whistle and sing over and over.

All of these are emotional responses, and there is no objective way to quantify them. The whole process is entirely subjective depending on one's tastes and background.
 
I understand that but at the same time the point of a review is to tell the reader whether, in that critic's personal opinion, a game is any good in order to help them decide whether to buy it.

If the answer is "I loved it because I'm a Native American and it spoke to me" then that doesn't really help anyone who isn't.

It's just my opinion, but I feel a review should focus on a game's content and mechanics rather than the emotions it evoked in that individual player, because as we all have completely different experiences and memories to draw from those sort of reviews aren't particularly useful to me.

Having read that review all I could conclude was: "Great, you liked it because you could relate to it. I can't, so what's the actual game like?"

Is this so widespread that you can't find any reviews of this game that help you?
 
Reading, discovering, thinking, and feeling are all verbs that apply to walking simulators. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
When I say verb I mean in the context of interaction; pressing a button to make something happen in a simulation. The thing that is intrinsic to the medium. The thing that actually is different from movies or books. Having empathy or thinking about something is not an actionable verb.

Mind you, I say these things when games like The Wolf Among Us and Walking Dead and Limbo and Brothers and Journey are some of my favorite "experiences" in games. And I have played through Dear Esther, Gone Home, Proteus, etc. I'm not speaking out of disdain.
 
I was _this_ close to impulse buying this based on it's blurb on the xbone store. Then I realized it was that thing they were talking about on NPR and now I own it.
 
I'm a huge fan of Native American mythology, so it's cool to see more NA-inspired games come out. Shocking tho that the last one came out almost a decade ago in Prey.

That large a gap is pretty much an embarrassment on the industry, and society.

If the answer is "I loved it because I'm a Native American and it spoke to me" then that doesn't really help anyone who isn't.
Really, man? Really? Are you this narrow-minded with everything?

Ask yourself how many Native American-themed games have come out this past year. Just one, this one right here the thread's about. Over almost the past decade? Two, counting Prey, which never got a sequel.

It's not like the concepts of Native American mythology and culture don't have equivalents in other cultures, either. But if they have to "look like you" in order for you to relate that, that's just pure ignorance on your end*

*And yes, I realize the irony in saying that w/ my post. But in this case I'm talking about in relation to the bigger picture. My ideas on the concept of "race" aside, you can't argue that in Western media there's a 90% influx of white people and the "scraps" go to everyone else. So if you identify w/ that 90% you don't have to worry about being underrepresented or stereotyped the few times you are (more often than not). You get to see yourself in lots of ways everyday through the media. Others...don't. Or they have to work a hell of lot harder to find the stuff the media doesn't want to show or talk about.
 
I'm getting more and more convinced that games don't deserve to be reviewed with a number attached. It's stupid and unjust. I don't see how a perfect 10 correlates to what the hell I just read.
I think if all of the major outlets got rid of scores, they would suddenly find that they could write literally anything they wanted and not hear a shred of backlash, and I bet the people who are actually interested in varied opinions would actually engage and read the subject matter more, and better quality, more diverse, more interesting writing would actually happen.
 
All reviews are subjective. All reviewers have some kind of bias. They are supposed to. That's the whole point.

Indeed, the impressive part of the review is that the reviewer clearly states his bias, and kindof bases the review around it.

After reading x,000 reviews from people pretending to be robots, that's was a refreshing thing to read.
 
When I say verb I mean in the context of interaction; pressing a button to make something happen in a simulation. The thing that is intrinsic to the medium. The thing that actually is different from movies or books. Having empathy or thinking about something is not an actionable verb.

Mind you, I say these things when games like The Wolf Among Us and Walking Dead and Limbo and Brothers and Journey are some of my favorite "experiences" in games. And I have played through Dear Esther, Gone Home, Proteus, etc. I'm not speaking out of disdain.

I understand where you're coming from, but I am not convinced that verbs intrinsic to the medium are the only ones that "count" and I'm not sure whether one could make a sound argument for that position.

In other words, why does a verb have to be actionable to be a valid part of a game experience? Even if every game makes you think and feel to some extent, not every game is focused on that aspect. How is doing so an invalid creative choice?
 
"1 or 2 characters that go on a journey with very minimal gameplay also one of them probably dies in the end" is really becoming a tired trope for indie games

The game consists of a number of stories that are actually those passed on from Alaskan natives. Whether the end outcome is as you state, it wouldn't be due to a simple indie trope
 
Top Bottom