Well, maybe, but that means a big blow for the people who argue that games are art - because if games alway have to tread lightly and are forced to tippy-toe around certain subjects they can never be considered art.

I agree with both sides here. Games are somewhat exceptional because, unlike most other works of art, the participant as has a degree of agency in the work. Whereas with most art the participant is more commonly a consumer in a reactive role (say with a film or a painting), they possess an active role within a game. Naturally their actions are constrained by the parameters of the gaming world and what it allows, but once the player is granted agency the nature of the work changes.

That being said, there should still be scope for games which allow for a variety of experience, and they do not need to all conform to the same moral compass. Just as there are films and books and music with perspectives and content that one may find objectionable, even reprehensible, so too should there be games that challenge our notions and ethics. The consumer can exercise whether or not to partake of the works that fall into area, rather than insisting that all be made palatable to them.

I do however believe that this artistic license should be used responsibly. It is far too easy to create works for simple shock value, or to perpetual harmful biases. The same social proscriptions against hate speech and prejudice should be brought to bear against games that cross that line for prurient reasons. But there is no reason that one cannot make a game which is just as complex and confrontational as some of the great modernist works of art. One merely needs to be more careful in doing so since one is relegating agency to the observer, and that places the work within a separate context than art traditionally occupies.

Choice quote Which would explain this article, even though I'm fairly certain that this guy's brain has been contemplating suicide ever since he took those lit crit classes.

I'm only halfway through the game, so my opinion isn't final. But so far, the only valid criticism that is put forth are the "placeholder animations". The rest is just the usual political correctness drivel that these supposed gaming "journalists" like to beat you over the head with instead of just doing their fucking jobs.

RPS , Kotaku and TB reviews sucks .

The last professional gaming reviews I found useful were the ones in the pages of Amiga Power. Since then I've only bothered with the reviews from "regular" players, like the folks here on GOG. The game review industry is too tainted and too filled with "personalities" to do their job any more.

Yeah, almost every Kotaku review I've ever read has been pretty bad. They said South Park was unplayable due to bugs and stuttering (it wasn't, and nobody else thought so), and they casually dismissed the well put together plot of Bioshock Infinite and its DLCs without even attempting to put any real thought into figuring them out. And many people post reasons on here why you should avoid RPS.

Just a bit more slope, and what you have is a very nice roller-coaster!

People can try the demo on Desura, and make up their own minds. I don't think it's that awful, certainly not any worse than The Raven, which got relatively glowing reviews.

edit: I don't think either game is their asking price, though.

demo on steam too.

well i usually turn off sounds and such, but the music sounds good atleast so far, and i don't say that easily.

Music is one of the better things about the game. The opening credits track is quite cool.
And yet.... during the beta there were parts where there were no music (like the last chapter)... and the music theyv used to replace the silence is extremeley repetitive ambient tracks.. really not great.

It depends on the game we're talking about and the way player can define the character. If someone made an RPG where all my moral choices are between Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil - that's bad design. In RPG, you should be able to define your character, make his\her worldview and generally customize the character far beyond his\her initial stats.
In adventures, you get pre-defined character. Sometimes the character is an ass and does assholish things. For a genre that's about telling a story rather than making you build it, evil-only options are fine (in my book).
What's wrong with Deponia? Sure, this setting would work much better in a non-comedy game and it's not my kind of humor, but other that that?

2 more reviews:

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/moebius-empire-rising-pc-review-lets-go-round-again

9/10

http://gamingillustrated.com/moebius-empire-rising-review/

8.2/10

Some people found Deponia sexist and misogynist...
I just think it was a lot of fun.

This is exactly what makes video games so amazing compared to other art forms. The breadth and depth of experiences that can be explored in this medium is just wonderful, interactive story telling allows a level of immersion that simply isn't possible with books, paintings and films. Many people argue that interactive story focused games like Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls and The Walking Dead to name a few aren't really games because there is no real gameplay in them.

But, I would argue that the ending of The Walking Dead had a much stronger impact compared to other games which have a lot of actual gameplay but finish with an ending cutscene that just shows you the result of your actions. The ending for the game was the same for everyone and yet it resonated a lot more with people as compared to say a film, mainly because you were the lead character/player dealing with all the emotional turmoil in the story. So in my opinion there is room for all kinds of varieties and one cannot just exclude these interactive stories from the classification of games.