Art is subjective. opinions are subjective. just like any art form, people criticize it, I'm a artist myself and most of the time I spend at college is saying what we dislike and like about other students work so they can improve on it.
I think the problem with most artsy games is that it's not made by game creators that fully know how games are meant to be made. a artist has to first learn as much as they know about the medium before they can create a masterpiece. Journey is so good because the people who made it do understand how games are designed and how people are going to play through it.
From Steam message boards - "This game is beautiful and exciting. I don't like dating sites and don't drink so bars are crap for me. I just work now and come home and record music. When I enter this world of love and mystery, I remember who I am and what it feels like to be in love again. I think it's beautiful."
Hmmm I wonder what FrashFrash and the others would think of The Path... very artsy and weird as hell, but it is the kind that makes you think and doesn't waste your time.
Tale of Tales knows what they're doing. This is far from their first project. It isn't "broken" it just isn't what you want/expect it to be. And there's nothing wrong with that, for you, or for them.
It makes me sad that Jenova Chen was apparently involved in this, because I've enjoyed all of their games, because they were FUN to play, as well as making you feel something. This is just... Well it, uh, doesn't do either of those things.
That's the keyword right there; fun. Do all games have to be fun? What is fun anyway? Do games require to be fun and why can a movie that is not a comedy be enjoyed? Is a goalless game not a game? What people consider being a game falls apart pretty easily with just a few examples of successful games that people enjoy that break these rules. I'm not saying I have a better definition that I came up with. I think it's more complicated than that. But I still consider these experiences as games.
I don't think the problem is how I define games, but how games are defined by most people) Its a form of intertainment to kickback and complete a set of tasks to achieve some goal and have fun in the process) I work with games myself I can talk about what a game is from different perspective for a long time) But considering ToT games the word experience is the main thing. Their products always feature heavy symbolism, make you think and enterpret your own way.
you know Frash, i don´t think that the dev was trying to rip off people with content that he made unsincerely, i just think he made an artistic experiment, based on a vague idea and put it up his vision to the public, yes ten dollars is a lot for a game as simple as this in my opinion but you can´t just discredit the artist just because you don´t like one art piece
After doing my research on this game and playing it for myself, I can say that I respect it, and understand it's message. But this is a really douchbaggy way of getting your message out. The most perfect pieces of art are universally understandable, profoundly multifaceted, and never blatant. This game fails in most of these areas.
The whole point of these games is that they try to break "how games are meant to be made". Many of the people I know that create these kind of experiments are tired of the way that games are made today; from a machine of repetitiveness. Keep in mind that not all games are made to bring in cash and that not all game creators are motivated by money. Sometimes its interesting to just try and break some preconceptions without packaging it like a product. It does not always work but they at least try
90%-95% percent of devs that had released a game before the introduction of greenlight, were given the rights to bypass the system when any of their future games come out. This right is also given to those who have been through greenlight once already. It's good in theory because it means we don't see triple games, and games made by proven developers wait for them to get past greenlight system. The bad news is that devs who released a crap game before, they too still get to skip greenlight.
I never said you should. But the right and opportunity for others that do like these types of games should not be taken away. What Fraser is saying is that these games should not be on steam and I say that it was through steam that I found it. I enjoyed it and wouldn't have been able to if it hadn't been there. I'm not telling people what to play, but people are always complaining that the industry is not moving forward. Some developers at least try but get shunned for it.
As an art student, I would like to confirm we (artists) are all pretentious assholes, which is why I never tell girls I meet that I am an artist, because it makes me seem like a pretentious assholes (which, being an artist, I am)(I tell them I'm going into video game design, which, as a nerd, I am). And as an artist, I advise all of you youtubers to punch anyone who introduces themselves as an artist. Preferably in the face. Goodness knows we deserve it.
well The point I was making that even a abstract painter has to learn as much as they can about painting before stripping it back to its simplest form. I'm not against these games but some that I've seen I get a feeling a lot of people don't know what they're doing (just like most games that are bad) but hey, it's just my opinion and it's not based on facts. I actually do like the idea of this game. I was just addressing Frasers dislike for most art games.
Aaand, I think this is when I decided I was done with VGA. I've got no problem with people not liking stuff, but it's pretty shitty to make blanket, sweeping insults directed at people just because they enjoy something you don't. Plus, everyone on the show just echoing Fraser is pretty tedious. Have fun hating stuff. I'm going to go spend my time and energy being enthusiastic about things I enjoy.
Oh Becky, you are so adorable when the boredom kicks in. 'Is this the GAME?!' *FLOPWHINEPOUT* Not that I blame you I would be doing the exact same thing. Just you are much cuter doing it.
Like most of Tale of Tales games, its not hte game you play just for fun, its a game that gets into your head and you have to search for enterpertation. Like in their Graveyard - the whole game is grandma walking to a bench on a graveyard while sad music is playing) Or their Vanitas app...or the Endless Forest.... or the Path. Those are all great works of art, they shouldn't promote them as games really. Because they are not.
At least they could let you play regular chess or something. This is boring. Or even better: make a chess simulator, where you say different things based on the movements of your pieces. You could play with someone and you might want to avoid saying stuff you don't want to say or something. There, a better game idea!
I found the game via steam, I payed for it and I enjoyed it. A game can be worth buying not just because its fun to play, but because its interesting enough for me to want to support it. Why should that right be taken away? If we are not willing to pay for people trying new things, how are the medium ever going to evolve? I rather play an interesting game than "Bland Action Game 100.000 - Now with characters that are only slightly stereotypical".
I think the main problem with games like this is they don't understand how key mechanics are to games. The player needs to know what the hell he's doing. You have to give the player SOMETHING to go on to read into it. The chess game, what are the rules, when I place a piece here what the hell does it do? This just adds vague actions and broad skylines. No point having something to say if no-one can even begin to understand what's being said.
yeah, that makes sense. But there are just so many awesome games on Greenlight that get very few votes and it just pisses me of when you see this crap that would never get past Greenlight.
8:47 Wow, Becky...that thing you did was the equivalent of putting a pillow in your face and screaming endlessly, with your screams muffled by the pillow.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it bad. Not that I'm saying this is "great", but just cause something isn't entertaining, I don't know how that makes it bad. I read a good amount of seemingly meandering literature that's just absolutely genius; what would make games any different?
This just makes me wonder how many lonely men were sitting around waiting for a woman to come play with them. I doubt many women bought this let alone played it on Valentine's.
Oh my god. This was made by Tale of Tales, a Belgian game studio. As a Belgian, I hereby apologize profusely for this artsy piece of crap. Please forgive us, we provide you with great beer, chocolate and waffles!
This game looks and feels like something you'd find on the Xboxlive indie section! Granted there are a "Few" good games on there, but still. All you tend to find, is crap! lol
I was sadly watching this during the part where Fraser was asking for someone to get online with him. I have the game, but had to leave in a minute somewhere. >>;; Still... not a very enjoyable "game."
The chess game continues on after all options are exhausted, and nothing happens. Feels pretty broken. Plus, what is the point of it? It's not even a full game of chess, just 2-4 pieces you randomly place on the board. Absolutely no purpose to anything in the game. And that's just the chess portion! Not to mention the utter lack of progression or the poor quality in graphics -- of course they don't mean everything, but in a game that's supposed to be "art", it doesn't even LOOK good.
I went on the website for this game. All it is is a chess simulator for 2 players that allows you to travel around this mysterious world and uncover its "secrets", with an "extravagant" version for $40. This game is broken and has no purpose, much like those shitty XBL games you find made by half-assed programmers making a quick buck. No excuse, these guys should just admit they fucked up and actually learn to make a game.
One does not spend money on a tale of tales "game" if one wants to have a good time. It is know through out the indie community that their games are overly pretentious and always prioritize weird and obscure story stuff over even the semblance of gameplay.
Why should we pay with our hard-earned money to support something we don't like, just because it does 'something different' or 'interesting' to you. What if I want to support "Bland Action Game 100.000" because of how it was done? Because you don't like it, I shouldn't support it, but I should support something I don't like because you want me to? Get outta here with that noise.
