The review by Drakensang spoils the story of the game. (Don't read it if you want to play it!) It should be removed as it has no constructive purpose, only hate against these kind of games and hate against people in general.

Also, thanks to the GOG team for giving me back my nickname promptly upon my request!

I find the fact that this game makes people angry hilariously sad. Who cares if it's "not a game?" That doesn't mean it's not worth the money. Newly released movies these days are 30 dollars+ with the same amount of entertainment time. The game wouldn't be sold in digital movie stores, the game wouldn't be sold in digital book stores, so where sell it? Probably with all of the other interactive material: game stores. People need to get over themselves.

First of all, who cares what people think? Gone Home is a game, no question.

Second, if you feel hilariously sad, shouldn't that more or less even out so you really don't feel anything either way?

Third, perception of value is very subjective, and well this game is very far from being a new release, it's a year old.

Your first and second points are arguing semantics. Not sure why you bothered.

Last point is quite obvious. I shouldn't need to say I'm stating my opinion, should I? It's kind of implied.

Why I bothered? Because you ended your post on this line: "People need to get over themselves."

While being oblivious to the irony that after a rant like you made, you should consider your own advice. :)

I don't think you saw the original reviews that have been taken down. You know, like the one this thread is about, spoiling the game for political reasons. Not to mention the "reviews" that just say "not a game." These aren't reviews. These are people who go and attack someone's project (which the devs are trying to make a living off of) with blanket statements about the game without giving it a chance, all with the sole purpose of destroying the game's reputation. These are the people who need to "get over themselves." These are people who simply don't want games to exist on any storefront for their own selfish reasons.

You brought nothing to this conversation really other than trying to argue semantics, and flame other people. Get off your high horse and at least make an attempt at trying to comprehend what my post (and reply) is about, instead of bringing up petty straw-man arguments. You completely dismissed every point I made with no rebuttle other than an attack. If you think it's "ironic" and I should "get over myself" for being selfless and defending the integrity of the developers, then you should look in the mirror with the kind of replies you've made. You essentially brought yourself down to what you're arguing about. Ironically enough. :)

Edit: Grammar.

That's a lot of stuff about me, what about you?

Okay, clearly I am talking to a child.

His post was paradoxical since the point he was arguing was that it was useless for you to complain about others opinion of a game. That would make his post even more useless. He was probably just arguing for an argument's sake.

But he was funny, you gotta give him that :-)

" Second, if you feel hilariously sad, shouldn't that more or less even out so you really don't feel anything either way? "

Because games have yet to be recognized by mainstream society as an art form, and the examples that do get any major recognition as examples of games as art seem to increasingly be games like Dear Esther, which remove or severely cut back on gameplay. One might argue that a continuation of this trend risks leading to a scenario where the only way that games get accepted as art will be if they remove gameplay, and a false dichotomy between "just games" and "games as art" with minimal to no gameplay. As a result, games that try to have something to say while actually having gameplay that serves to give the player immersion and stakes in the story might be produced in lower quantities, assuming that they are even made at all, while games that actually retain gameplay are more likely to be marketed to the lowest common denominator without any attempt to do or say anything profound.

I argue that the more pressing problem is that more games that don't actually have gameplay means less resources (i.e. profits from sales) are made available to produce games with substantive gameplay that have artistic aspirations. That means more games that only allow the most limited of interactions with the world, and fewer games like Silent Hill 2, Planescape Torment, and Spec Ops: The Line (of which we already have precious few), which relied heavily gameplay mechanics and tropes to convey tone, atmosphere, and the mindset of the protagonist. This might not be so bad if, say, Dear Esther was doing something that couldn't be done in a film or a poem, which by all accounts simply isn't the case. Mind, I just recently picked up Gone Home, so who knows, it might not turn out that bad and actually have enough gameplay to enhance the experience where other things like Dear Esther have failed.

I would argue that computer games aren't art but games, unlike movies, music, painting and books. That is not to say that art is not a part of computer games, as surely artistic talent can contribute immensely to a game, for example in sound design and 3d modeling. But computer games in themselves are not art but games. Whether you agree or not should depend on your definition of the word art. I think that a lot of the reason that people try to argue that computer games are art is because games and gaming carries negative social prestige with them while things considered art carries mostly positive social prestige with them.

Another reason is the one you that you mention, that many people want better games. I think there is no need to worry for the last issue since gaming is here to stay it will continue to develop.
As for the first i think that gaming will continue to be more socially acceptable, but I can't really see it getting any prestige associated with it since playing games is an activity for the masses, while art has always been a minority interest..

I personally think the way games can convey their story through gameplay is where I'd start to consider them art. Sadly, games that do this are so few and far between that it kind of becomes hard to tell or appreciate them when they do it.

I don't think Gone Home does an amazing job of this, but to be fair I think these kind of games are more of an experiment on how games could tell a story that are unique to the medium.

Laugh as much as you want, but I still believe that Super Metroid is the best example of telling a narrative in a video game. I wish more games would copy (used loosely) it's masterful story telling as much as they do it's masterful game play mechanics.

As you pointed out though, art is interesting in that it's not really everyone's interest and it is extremely subjective. There are some games that make me feel "this is art!" that others wouldn't, but I don't really seek out artful games. Most of the time, I play games to have fun more so than wanting to attend a video game art museum. :)

Thanks for an interesting reply. I think storytelling in games whether through linear or branched narrative or other means can be artistic in themselves, but as they only form a part of the whole that is a game, the game in itself does not become art by containing it. The exception to that is if storytelling or some other artistic work completely dominates the game part of the computer game. Perhaps such a computer game should be considered a game\art hybrid project, or perhaps not even a game at all. The last option I'm not to found about since that would in essence make me agree with those angry types like the one in the original review that complains that these are not games!

Stories in games is an interesting topic. When it comes to linear narratives I don't think gaming has come very far, and by it's current state it is currently hard to make big leaps. Even the games with the best narratives are far worse at this then the great number of quality films and novels\short stories that excel at this. That is not to say that I do not appreciate a good story in a game, I do, but I actually think graphics, sound and music are more important at least in most games that I play.

But games has many examples of interesting storytelling that is (for the most part) not possible in the traditional mediums. Branched narratives is an example, and if the storytelling and gameplay is well entwined
these kind of games can get very complex. The real good games with this type of storytelling is probably few and far between. Certain role-playing games though not many would fill the criteria. Some early experimental adventure games (before the point and click era) is probably like this. The best example (though not one I'm familiar with myself), is the genre of interactive fiction. These game forgo graphics completely and uses just a text to tell the unfolding story. Without graphics to worry about the game designers can spend more time on the quality and complexity of the story\game.

Another type of storytelling not available to books and films is the kind were the players themselves create the story (either in their heads or write it down and post it to the internet) based on their experiences in the games. This is very common with grand strategy games like the historical games of Paradox Interactive, the Civilization series and fantasy game with a lot of backstory and descriptions like Age of Wonders.

I haven't played Super Metroid yet, but eventually I will so I will not click on your link to spoil the game for me! :-) But from what little I've tried of the first and second level several years ago the game was very atmospheric and serious. I like the darker type of Super Nintendo games, like Super Castlevania IV and Actraiser a lot so it is a game I must play.