OK, I'll give you Portal, that one was actually good. Sword & Sworcery I haven't played, but Aquaria is pure boredom. Maybe something starts happening eventually, but I played it for at least an hour or two and it was just swimming around through practically empty space. Yes, there were enemies, but they were so trivial to avoid they might as well not have been there at all. Some people compare it to Super Metroid and I have to wonder if they played a different version of Super Metroid than me.

Pretty much. No, we are totally not misogynistic overweight neckbearded basement nerds wearing black metal t-shirts, we are just regular overweight neckbearded basement nerds wearing black metal t-shirts.

I just opened this thread to see why people are still posting, and I think you managed to summarise it quite nicely here.

I swear though. If EA and Ubi turn a blind eye to how they're being turned into hate propaganda for a con, Japanese companies won't. They have something that's been lacking in this industry, and that is a spine. I'd like to see their response about this alleged statement.

Aquaria gets metroid-y with the shape-shifting, and its crafting system is very supportive of the combat mechanics, it's also atmospheric, with world building touches you may go after, but do not need to progress. It does start slow, I'll give you that, and the control scheme is very important to play it fluidly, I think it took me a while to get comfortable with its combat and movement (I assume perhaps wrongly, it's designed for controller), but for me at least, it was rewarding. I haven't finished it yet, but I think about it and have it installed, as the exploration is the heart of it, and it does leave an impression.

I take it you haven't heard of Mirror's Edge, then; fair enough, I don't exactly remember it making too many waves, which is a damn shame. Sure, it had some dodgy design issues, but most of them could be minimized by using the slowdown power the game kept throwing at you, and the parkour gameplay was solid and entertaining. The plot was a little weak and felt a bit derivative, but I liked Faith as a character, and kind of dug the relationship she had with her sister.

As for the rest... by 'not a game', I'm not sure what you mean. If it's the lack of enemies or the ability to die in game, then I have to wonder what your thoughts are about LucasArts adventure games; the only combat I can recall in any of those were the joke fights in the Monkey Island series that you couldn't lose, and they were well known for never making it possible to kill the player character, to the point that the Curse of Monkey Island actually made a joke about it when Guybrush Threepwood had to fake his death to proceed.

Gone Home is the only one I can see you on, but I'd argue that it is still very much a game; it's just that it's gameplay is poorly designed; games that use documents as a means of worldbuilding and providing hints on how to progress are nothing new *cough*ThiefSystemShock2HolyFuckThereAreTooManyToListFully*cough*, but Gone Home falters but failing to use the documents to provide tips on how to find the necessary secret passage in the closet, making the game grind to a halt as it devolves into glorified pixel hunting. Even then, my ire is primarily reserved for the story's ending rather than the gameplay; yes, the gameplay is poorly designed, but the story it is used to tell ends up being insulting, as the writer's failure to examine the rather horrifying consequences of the ending demonstrates that this, despite being an ostensibly personal story for the writer, is one that they had an inadequate understanding of.

To be fair, he replied to the ones I suggested, and I haven't played Gone Home. I saw an interesting comparison by Raph Koster on its design recently. Saw that?

That did bother me. As soon as secret passages were mentioned, I did a lot of wall-clicking looking for them. Guess what? Doesn't matter, you can only find them and open them after you read a specific document telling you where to look, even if you already looked there. And its not even like you are told how to open them. Click the correct document and presto, they appear on your minimap and now open to a click.

But even then, its clearly an adventure game. If you substitute clicking on the correct documents for talking to the correct avatars in the correct order, not much difference. And many adventure games are similarly short. The biggest problem is the gameplay is almost completely thoughtless, almost all clicking and no deeper thought required. The only time I can think of where even the remotest deduction is necessary involves a side narrative unnecessary to the main plot. Whereas in most adventure games, you need to think of the correct people to talk to next or the correct items to use, etc.

I have heard of Mirror's Edge, but I never played it. It doesn't matter though, the only reason it's on the list is not because of game merits, but because the protagonist is a woman.

About what a game is... Sid Meier once said about the content of a game the following: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sid_Meier

Think about it, why is it people keep gathering to watch a sports match over and over again? The story is non-existent, the rules are always the same, the playing field is always the same, the same thing happens over and over again. Not quite, while the principles are set is stone the way the game will play out is always different.

What makes it interesting is the choices that can be made. You never know if a player will hit the ball, and this creates an endless amount of interesting possibilities. In an adventure game none of this is true. Let's be honest, no one plays adventures because of the game. Ask anyone what they love about their favourite adventures and the answer will always be something like "the memorable characters" or "the engaging story" or "the unique humour", never will it be the gameplay. There are still puzzles though, that makes the genre at least borderline "games" by a long stretch of the definition, but walking simulators don't even have that. They literally are not games. The only choices you have are either meaningless (go straight to the goal or keep looking at stuff) or trivial (keep going on or turn the thing off).

I'd say some adventure games are memorable for the interesting puzzles. Not thinking of any particular one off the top of my head, but I appreciate well-paced adventures with enough intelligence and puzzles you don't scratch your head at. Minimal backtracking is a strong plus, I do like them to be somewhat linear (or at least have everything nearby if its a more open world). The worst thing is to struggle over a puzzle, have to look up a solution and think, "How the heck was I supposed to figure that one out?". I guess the next worst thing is to have a game with puzzles that are so simple it insults your intelligence or are pretty much non-existent. .

I think the only exception I'd make would be a game like Gomo which clearly seems intended for younger players, hence the puzzles are rather simple. I thought it was rather cute and would recommend it for children. Adults, well, it plays very short when you breeze through every puzzle...

If Anita wants to be a curator, let her.

I find it hilarious that you can only be a member by invite only.

Her work in the curation page is shallow and one dimensional, basically if the game has a female protaganist, themes of cooperation or social justic it gets recommended. Other important factors are ignored. For example she recommends Never Alone. This game has been critised for some poor or buggy game mechanics around the bola and the companion. (The December 5 Update claims to have fixed this) She doesn't mention it at all.

Her recomendation of Mirror's Edge is one word "Faith" and a lot of her recommendations have less than 5 words total. If this is the level of effort she is going to put into this, I give it six months before she forgets about this completely.

"There is no feminism in Japan" is definitely a bold exaggeration. Owen's response naturally triples the exaggeration in the opposite direction.

The misogynist tropes in Japan's narrative media are plenty; the misogynist tropes particularly in Japanese games are sickeningly refined and reiterated. Sarkeesian's analysis particularly in the later "damsel in distress" videos does an OK job at putting a very necessary finger on them. As to the situation of women in Japan, well, I.e. they are in deep shit. "Women only trains" to prevent sexual harrassment, seriously? Sorry, feminism is not about segregation. But all's well for the fat bloke with the cat, I guess.

"Racial hatred" and "could not be more wrong" – honestly, I'm so sick of the hyperbole. There's an argument to be made against the idea that the US "bombed Japan back to traditional values". There's an argument to be made against the idea that they "completely embraced western values". Good arguments against both extreme sides, absolutely.

Obviously, Jordan Owen is incapable. Fuck him. Pompous, arrogant, self-righteous, extremist voice in a discussion that has enough of that shit already.


Arguing "it's not a game" for any interactive entertainment product denotes the inability of the speaker to criticise game mechanics with any kind of skill. If that "argument" is found, there really is no need for callback questions. I wouldn't touch Gone Home if my life depended on it, but it still is: a game.

With every right to exist and be sold, and sold as such.


No, sorry, it's not OK. It's not OK for anyone even remotely connected to video game journalism to be a "curator" on Steam. Valve conflates game publishing and journalism to an absurd degree, and anyone who doesn't go to the barricades because of this perverse practice has no interest whatsoever in "ethics in game journalism" or simply doesn't understand what is going on.

Maybe I don't understand, but Steam describes curators as an individual or group that makes game recommendations. I think of curators as game critics or reviewers. I have no problem with anyone calling themselves a curator and posting reviews on steam. I do have issues with reviews that leave out vital info or reviews for cash.

For me steam is a store and I don't see how adding reviews or curator recommendations to product pages has anything to do with ethics in game journalism. It is just more info about the product. The consumer can use the information, ignore it or seek additional sources.

Jimmy Wales has come out critisising gamergate. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a617618/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-replies-to-gamergate-criticism.html

One of the few people who criticize #GG and can put forth a genuine reason for it, no matter how misinformed it was. Salute to reasonable critics FTW.