Support NeoGAF

[ViewtifulJC]

You're completely missing the idea behind its gameplay mechanics and how everything actually functions within the game if you believe in what you're saying. Journey's gameplay is actually a fully thought out and brilliantly executed piece of work. The level design is kept simple for the player, but the design itself is complex. Every single thing about journey, from the movement, level design, co-op function and especially the jumping mechanic is done while keeping in mind the intent for said gameplay and the story it is trying to tell. If you believe its design is so perfunctory, it's obvious that you're merely viewing the tip of an iceberg. The only thing Journey does is it uses deep gameplay mechanics (not in terms of actions done by the player, but in terms of the purpose of such mechanics on a more subtle, emotional level), but only uses as much as it needs. It's a tight and efficient game that is great at evoking thought and emotion from players, as can be seen by its huge fanbase. Complexity for a player is not inherently a good thing, depth is.

Journey did the opposite of what you say. It didn't take a stance against complex or deep mechanics (those are two fundamentally different things), it in fact chose to emphasize the importance of deep mechanics as the entire game is dependant on just that (example: Jumping around in the game is not there for the sake of jumping, it is intended to subtly evoke a specific emotion in our unconscious, which it then exploits during the climax) Journey shows just how incredibly good games can be if they utilize the medium they're in. It plays with the nature of its gameplay in order to evoke the reaction it so desires from the player and makes sure that every single thing it does (gameplay, visuals, music, everything) is done while having a single goal in mind. The design is complex and has plenty of depth, but in this case it makes sure that the player only feels the result.

It is indeed simple for the player if you look at it on a superficial level, but calling the game design or player action superficial couldn't be further from the truth.


I generally don't like open-world games either, but Sleeping Dogs was incredibly fun. It manages to keep the game tight, while effectively utilizing a huge explorable world. It feels vibrant and alive and has character, rather than giving off the stagnant/stale and dead feel you can get from most open-world games.




If you're not realizing just how the game is built up, there are tons of articles you can find that explain this fairly well. Journey could not have existed outside this medium, the reason why it works so well is because it is 100% gameplay centric and because the gameplay is perfectly merged with the story it's trying to tell and the experience it is trying to create. Having tons of options in a game is not inherently a good thing if the game cannot utilize it and merge it seamlessly with the final product it is trying to create. The goal should be to create games that do what they're trying to do without cluttering the product, to create compelling gameplay and using the medium efficiently to reach its goal. The things you guys believe are missing in journey are exactly the things that make Journey so great and the reason why it's so popular. It looks superficial and simple from the surface, if you deny yourself to look for the reasons as to why it works so well, but it is the opposite of that. That is not to say that all games should be like Journey, but every aspect of the game has more depth behind it than you guys may realize and it is the fact that it utilizes this medium so perfectly that it's so incredibly popular.

That was a lot of words, I'll say that much. Neiteio would be impressed by your verbosity.

 

[Neiteio]

That was a lot of words, I'll say that much. Neiteio would be impressed by your verbosity.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

One of my favorite writers in gaming Chris Avellone had to this to say about Journey.

Read more here.

I love that. Journey to me is like the equivalent of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the film) in how the visuals are the story. Kubrick is able to say more in one scene than C. Clarke could with his book. Journey manages to feel the same way to me albeit on a smaller scale.

I want to agree in theory, but there's too great a gulf of depth between what's trying to be said by either to really compare the two. 2001 had volumes to say, Journey does not. Journey might in a way be like the 15 minute light show at the end as Dave transitions from one state of being to another.

What really didn't work about the story for me is that, well, there was one. I don't agree that the game had a story that you just invented along the way. I think that would have been superior to what we got, which was a tiny fable - in a way a fable about playing games - told in hieroglyphs and nods with some interpretation about the specifics, but the gist of the thing was really pretty telegraphed. It had cutscenes even. There's no question what it was about, or what happened to you after you finished it.

A major reason I did enjoy the game was because it had some hidden bits, and in conjunction with the plot I thought made an interesting reason for replaying the game. In case someone is still avoiding endgame spoilers here:

Spoiler

The white robe bit is an interesting reward for finding everything, and serves the plot as well, but the only way the game really worked to me was as something you discovered with someone who was also green. When you encounter someone in a white robe, in a game where you are trying to keenly follow visual cues, it sort of undermines the significance or mystery of the white robed figures shown in the cutscenes by making them obviously just return players.

This brings me to the issue that has been mentioned about multiplayer which doesn't seem to get brought up often, which is that a fellow traveler could hand hold you through the whole experience if for some reason you chose to do nothing but follow. Call me too picky, closed-minded, or rattling off a checklist, but for me, a game where there are no actual ways to fail needs to at least avoid hand-holding to still give a satisfying experience. By not having any rules or matchmaking logic in the multiplayer, the game gives a player the ability to diminish the experience for others just by showing up more than once,

Spoiler

which in a way, also undermines its narrative.

I do feel kind of weird claiming some modicum of ludonarrative dissonance regarding something this minimalist, but there you are.

All that said, unlike some, I thought the multiplayer is what raised up the whole package of Journey. Aside from experiencing the admittedly gorgeous path for the first time with another inexperienced stranger, the moments where people just chose to ignore the path and instead chose to play in the sand together made the whole experience better for me. Some people got creative and drew things in the sand - that sort of emergent stuff really worked for me.

 

[B-Genius]

It's not that you didn't "get" Journey, it just didn't hit you emotionally. That's all. Like a piece of art, a movie, or music, people aren't going to receive them the same way. Saying they didn't "get" it is the wrong way to look at it, because that assumes there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to perceive creative work.

The game is not incredibly deep, it's not complicated, and there's no profound hidden message to uncover.

It's just a very beautiful looking, beautiful sounding, trip through that characters life.


I cried at the end of Braveheart when I first saw it. If someone else didn't, saying they didn't "get" it would be elitist and stupid of me.

Good post. It can depend how something like this connects with you on a personal level.
For some, it's a really engaging and emotional tale. For others, it's simply a series of pretty events tied together.
You could say similar things about a painting (let alone many other games). It could just be how much a person chooses to 'read into' something.

Call me too picky, closed-minded, or rattling off a checklist, but for me, a game where there are no actual ways to fail needs to at least avoid hand-holding to still give a satisfying experience. By not having any rules or matchmaking logic in the multiplayer, the game gives a player the ability to diminish the experience for others

I wouldn't call you too picky or closed-minded. However, I will say that perhaps for a small number of people, being led through the world by a player who seemed much 'stronger' than them provided a satisfying experience in itself.

In almost every game with multiplayer of some kind, there will inevitably be ways in which you can "diminish the experience for others". The day this is conquered will be an interesting one - and maybe it won't even be 'true multiplayer' anymore...

We're all basically saying the same thing in a number of ways, but Journey (as with other games, works of art, etc.) is what you make it. You expressed this in your final paragraph about kicking back and drawing/dancing in the sand.
If there wasn't an overarching story to branch away from, and it was literally just a 'sandbox', would it have still worked for you, I wonder?

 

[zoukka]

The story was meant to be very minimalistic and barebones. The focus was purely on the mechanics of traversing and player to player interaction.

Journey is also a very good example of how to guide the player with visual ques.

 

[katsubento]

I honestly felt sad when I lost track of companions during the course of the game. Incredible at making you feel without saying a singe word.

 

[zoukka]

Incredible at making you feel without saying a singe word.

It's exactly what enabled the emotional connection. If there was any form of higher means to communicate, the game would fall to pieces (penises).

 

[PaulloDEC]

The thing that made Journey special for me was the way it kept giving me things I'd never seen or experienced in a game before. The incredible world, the minimalist storytelling, the anonymous co-op, the stripped-down controls, the sweeping score... it all felt totally fresh and exciting, and it was all superbly executed. Everything came together perfectly, or as close to perfectly as I've ever seen in a game.

 

[Blinck]

This is why we get reviews like the Uncharted 3 review. People should be able to break down why something works or why it doesn't. While some people have done this, we also get garbage like this. Journey very much is a videogame. Now you might have an experience from playing it but making the game itself out to be an experience is ludicrous.

Sorry, but for me Journey is not a videogame in the traditional sense. I don't get much from the interaction itself...the gameplay is so minimal that it becomes completely secondary.
It's meant to be an audio-visual-experience, and have a social component to it.

If they wanted they could have made an 8 hour game that uses more then 1 button, but they didn't, because that's not the point.
What they did was make gameplay secondary and put all their effort into the visuals, the audio, and the social aspect.

If ThatGameCompany would've set out to make a traditional videogame than they would have obviously failed, don't you think? But they set out to make a 90 minutes experience and succeded at it.

It's fine if you have another opinion, but please don't call my comment "garbage" just because you don't agree with it.