Gone Home: strangely high reviews?

[CottonRabbit]

Who said anything about flash games? Gone Home isn't anything remotely like a flash game.

Maybe the trailer sells it short, but it basically looks like this done with an off the shelf 3D engine being sold for $20.

 

[MetalMat]

The only reason they posted high reviews is because of the

Spoiler

lesbian angle

. Even if it is an overpriced game with a generic story that leads to disappointment, if you post anything less than great you are "intolerant".

This is just a situation where the "gaming journalism" industry has failed yet again as it continues to present itself as a complete hack.

 

[Doppel]

SPOILERS ahead, I won't tag them, but you have been warned.

I just played this game.

First off, I'd like to say we as a gaming culture need to get the F off this indie-is-God kick. I mean damn. This was nominated as an IGN game of the year? REALLY!? I swear it's like any indie game gets an automatic 2-3/10 more points thrown on top just because.

Look, the game was worth a single play through. Not more. And not for $20. The "story" was actually quite uninteresting, kept interesting only under the guise of maybe something strange happening.

I also have to wonder if the homosexuality was there to entice some sympathetic reviews, but I find that homosexuality is massively over-represented in pop culture when one looks at how prevalent it really is, and this is not a new thing, using it to garner attention.

I REALLY thought they'd throw in some exciting- a tragedy or turn of events... it would've made the game MUCH better.

Probably so.

Here is all that frickin happened: Parents aren't there because they went away for the weekend and main character's sister isn't there because she went off to find her lover.

 

[badb0y]

I thought I caught them all.. care to elaborate on these?

Spoiler

1. Mom having affair? I only saw her excellent work and getting promoted.

2. I don't remember anything about having a cat or Sam killing it.

3. What illegal acts in basement? The only 'edgy' thing I saw was ouija board with the pentagram and the dead uncle's picture- which is really just a child's play.

I didn't think for a minute that Sam killed herself because right from the first note at the door, it's clear she just ran away. All that talk about Lonnie- obvious it was with her. No foul play. And the parents just went on their anniversary trip. After those two things were established about 30% into the game, that's when it got boring for me.

I REALLY thought they'd throw in some exciting- a tragedy or turn of events... it would've made the game MUCH better.

Spoiler

That was my disappointment. I didn't expect 'pew pews' but....

No interaction with anyone or anything from start to finish.

No dialogue ever.

No extra effort into the ending? It was literally reading ANOTHER note as the screen faded away. That was painfully bad. At LEAST you can script something budget friendly like Sam calling the phone in the attic, Katie (you) pick it up, and then you hear Sam's voice 'live'. She tells you a heartfelt good bye and screen fades away.

Now THAT would've been just as simple to make with no extra resources. And it would've been ten-fold more satisfying.

You didn't explore shit lol. I even caught those details and I wasn't even trying to rummage through everything.

 

[DigDog]

the game's speedrun is 47 seconds.

 

[Doppel]

the game's speedrun is 47 seconds.

Looks like while clipping or something. A more legit speed run seems a touch over a minute hehe.

-----

Big disconnect with this game and people playing it. It actually edged to most overrated game in this poll: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/2013-s-most-overrated-game-1466093/

And at game spot where it got a 9.5 the actual readers have it at low 6's right now. So I thought what about a game I think was really good? Looked up ac iv and the review at gamespot was similar to reader scores.

I think reviewers missed it on this one, the professionals I mean.

 

[Stringjam]

/facepalm - do you also think "teh gayz" are out to get you?

That isn't really the point, and I think it's a fairly objective view to hold in this case.

Replace Samantha's love interest with a male character and this game probably wouldn't have even made Steam distribution, let alone gotten any kind of decent reviews.

And this isn't coming from someone who hated the game. I actually liked it. I bought it on sale and felt like I got my money's worth. I found the story, and the various notes / journals about each family member interesting. I cared enough to keep reading / exploring until the end. It was a very simple story told by narrative from a decent voice actor.

I hope more environment-driven games are made in the future. I can see bigger and better attempts at the theme coming out -- most notably The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.

I would even be very happy to see more of this element in other gameplay genres. I think Underhell (a free Source mod, which I can't recommend highly enough) did an amazing job of combining FPS action with the same kind of exploratory theme in the "home" environment. It was a nice change of pace to switch back and forth between the two themes and I felt like it kept things interesting.

 

[Doppel]

I hope more environment-driven games are made in the future. I can see bigger and better attempts at the theme coming out -- most notably The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.

That looks like it may end up being an actual game. In fact, the more I think about it Gone Home is not; as others have described it it's an interactive novel, to a pretty damn pedestrian story wrapped up in an ostensible horror event--this is probably why Eurogamer used the word dishonesty (they were the harshest professional reviewer on the "game"). There are very near no game play elements. It is not a game of skill, nor does it require wit; there were no puzzles to solve and finding clues was not difficult.

It's hard not to be negative against so much overwhelming cultlike love for this. It's not that I thought the experience was bad, but I just find the high scores utterly baffling and thoroughly without merit.

 

[Geosurface]

It struck me as the kind of game that is designed to appeal to reviewers.

Yep.

I played through the game and I enjoyed it, I liked the atmosphere they created and I liked the unconventional theme, setting, etc... I also got a pleasant dose of 90's nostalgia.

but, while it is good, it is most certainly overrated and a big part of that has to do with reviewers seeing it as an opportunity to show how hip and enlightened they are by fawning over it. This is something which is done with movies fairly routinely, but is a somewhat new trend in games.

Come to think of it, prior to the recent trend of fawning over indie games and giving them greater praise than the game really deserves on its own merits (someone talked about adding a few points on to the score for it being indie and I think that's fairly true) - can anyone remember some games in the past which were treated this way?

The thing that comes to mind for me right away is Myst. I feel like that was a game people praised for status and to show that they were sophisticated. That was more on a person to person basis than within reviews though, as far as I know.

 

[BSim500]

I find game reviewers are just like art critics. If one influential reviewer likes the game they all just follow like sheep.

^ This +1000! Gone Home isn't a bad game, but +95% should be for once-in-a-decade epic's.

As for Metacritic, about the only useful reviews are the aggregated user scores as they show up shill reviews like a flare in the dark. When IGN, etc gives CoD :Ghosts 88% and starts gushing over 30fps locked NFS:Rivals, whilst over 2,500 users give them respectively 19% and 30%, you know there's a seriously "professional critic" credibility problem...
http://gamersushi.com/2013/02/12/9gn-how-ign-went-overboard-with-game-reviews/

 

[Lil Frier]

Ok, while I agree with users scores being good in SOME cases, CoD is a bad example. I'm 100% certain that CoD "haters" (apologies for using that term) troll sites like Metacritic with bad scores on those games. As I was saying to someone in an article about the series a month or two back, the release of Battlefield 3 almost directly lined up with when CoD scores started going way south.

Consider that, despite being one of the most-broken games released in...probably forever...Battlefield 4 still has a 6.0 from users on Metacritic. Black Ops II, which I would certainly say is a passable FPS (and didn't need 16 patches during its first month of life) has a 3.6 (on PC; I played it on 360, where it has a 4.5).

I mean (and this is 360 analysis), Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 were about the same game, minus a few tweaks. Somehow, the user score of the former was 6.1, and the latter was 3.3. The MAJOR difference between the two, in my opinion, is the existence of the fanboy CoD-vs.-Battlefield wars.

(By the way, to point out, I hate MW2 AND MW3, though it took the release of Black Ops to show me the garbage things I hated about MW2).

So I agree that the fawning by critics over Ghosts is silly, but I think that the bad user scores on CoD and Battlefield and are both suspect, because they are likely coated in troll scores. While the locked FPS in Rivals might blow (I haven't played it), it admittedly looked like the first EA title good enough to consider a purchase from me in 5 years (though part of that was the lackluster launch titles from the new consoles, and the failings of Forza on the microtransaction front).

With the mainstream, sequel-driven stuff, you can mostly ignore ALL reviews, if you played a previous installment. With everything else, you definitely want to check user scores over critic ones. The exception is that if you care to actually READ reviews (and not just look at numbers, like most of us do), it's probably better to check what critics say, because you're more-likely to see consistency in complaints about a game.

 

[Doppel]

As for Metacritic, about the only useful reviews are the aggregated user scores as they show up shill reviews like a flare in the dark.

This is a great point and in this game you can see the huge disconnect.

However, COD Ghosts getting 2.3. Is it really that bad? I cannot imagine it is. As Lil Frier alluded to, gamers are a very hateful bunch. I thought "What game has garnered a lot of hate lately? Mass Effect 3!" So I went there and, yes, that game was not given fair reviews by people. A lot of people use reviews as a weapon against some perceived slight by the publisher/developer.

My conclusion is that in the case of a game that has a popular "problem" (real or otherwise) the regular joes will impale it on a spit, and professional reviewers are more fair.

For Indie games I think the professionals are gushing buffoons.

That article link at gamersushi is interesting. From it:

Of late, there is this idea that if a game gets anything less than a 9 or higher, it is crap.

I suffer from this. Maybe I can blame IGN, but even an 8.5 I am disappointed with, and yet my favorite game from 2013 (AC IV) got that. I also thought Contrast was great for a free download on the PS4 and it got only 7.5. I was certainly a wildly better game than Gone Home. Yes, wildly.

 

[Lil Frier]

Oh, I'm all over the opposite of sub-9 = crap. If I was to rate games, people would think I hate everything. However, it's just that I operate on a different scale than most. I think that the problem with this is that people treat game scores the same way they treat grades in school, so the ratings system becomes a total mess. In school, you get an "F" if you get less than a 60% (it was under 70% for my school, but it's an exception). So people see that if you're under 60% with a game, it's an utter failure.

Because of this, you see the outpouring of 9's and 10's by reviewers. If you like something, you give it a 10. If you don't, you give it a 7. If you are a fanboy, 1. In my opinion, this isn't the way it should work. When we're talking that 1-10 scale, I think that you need to be able to use the entire scale, or the scale itself serves no purpose. As such, I consider "5" to be average. If I give something more than a 5, I'd probably say it's worthwhile to play. Under that, I'd say it's probably more based on preference (unless you get to a 2 or something). I really like Black Ops II but I'd probably give it a 6/10. I love Skyrim, but I'd probably give it a 7 or 8, because I don't think it's got a lot of replay value, the difficulty scaling isn't very good, and it's got a good number of bugs. I can't think of a single game I'd throw a 10 at.

But like I said, I blame schools for the broken rating system. When you're raised being told that average is 70%, and failure is 50%, you're going to carry that mindset with you--mostly because it makes sense, in a lot of cases. You can't do half of your job and expect things to work out, haha. If a doctor knows half of what is wrong with a patient, how's that going to go? You NEED to be in that 90% success rate territory.

For entertainment, that doesn't need to apply. If the game is functionally sound, then you need should primarily be judging personal preference here. If you think something is an "average" game, why not take the "average" point on the scale, a 5/10?

 

[werepossum]

I wish there were more reviews like this.

LOL! Epic!

Spoiler

Why can't Sam call Katie?

Sam knows the parents are obviously gone for the entire week- dad even left $40 for pizza.

Sam also knows when Katie arrives, that's why she left the note at the start of the game ("Don't look for me").

It wouldn't be a scripted event. It would be the exact same mechanic as the game has been:

1. Phone rings

2. Walk to it, left click to pick it up.

3. You hear Sam's voice. It's 'live' in the game world, but it's same as hearing the journal entry. It can very well be an one-sided conversation that would work perfectly- "Hey sis... I knew you'd pick up. I just wanted to say good bye... I'm so sorry. But Lonnie is taking good care of me. Tell mom and dad I love them. See you.. some day."

That would've been perfect. I mean I did appreciate the game's draw. But the ending so so piss poor... just one same note and screen fades? WTF. I almost got mad- all that amazing build-up, all that investment... then nothing.

But that way they wouldn't have a game. This way they . . . Um . . . Kinda maybe sorta almost do.

Haven't seen this many black bars since 60s porn.

 

[Craig234]

^ This +1000!

There's some of the critics following each other, but I think it's more just that some games tend to seem better to critics more generally.

Black and White was a good example of critics having about a month when it came out of 'oh my gosh breakthrough' before the honeymoon was over and regret arrived.

Gone Home isn't a bad game, but +95% should be for once-in-a-decade epic's.

Hard to define that - one interpretation would say that 95% should be given to 1 in 20 games, but of course we know there's a 'real' scale where very few get under 50%, and 95% is reserved for well under 5% of games, while there's a huge cluster of ratings in the 70%'s and 80%'s.

As for Metacritic, about the only useful reviews are the aggregated user scores as they show up shill reviews like a flare in the dark. When IGN, etc gives CoD :Ghosts 88% and starts gushing over 30fps locked NFS:Rivals, whilst over 2,500 users give them respectively 19% and 30%, you know there's a seriously "professional critic" credibility problem...
http://gamersushi.com/2013/02/12/9gn-how-ign-went-overboard-with-game-reviews/

I find metacritic useful, and more reliable than user reviews which sometimes misrate games over some pet issue.

Most game publications have a system of 'preview is hype, and reviews are independent'.

 

[DigDog]

You know what, i'm ok with people liking this, being emotionally touched by the story and all - who am i to judge someone who has never experienced teen angst before.

What i am not ok with, is reviewer who have pushed this as a GAME. Its not a game, just like a CD of Linkin Park isn't one (even though they contain the same exact emotions, and possibly, the same amount of gameplay).

And if you have mistaken Going Home for a game, you really can't be a games critic.

 

[Lil Frier]

In that case, I think you have to question whether or not it's something Steam should distribute, if you see it as an "interactive movie" or something. Since Steam is presented as a gaming market, if you wouldn't consider this a game, would you agree with the assessment that Steam shouldn't sell it (unless they're going ot announce that they're now going to offer books/movies or something)?

 

[gothamhunter]

In that case, I think you have to question whether or not it's something Steam should distribute, if you see it as an "interactive movie" or something. Since Steam is presented as a gaming market, if you wouldn't consider this a game, would you agree with the assessment that Steam shouldn't sell it (unless they're going ot announce that they're now going to offer books/movies or something)?

They offer non-game software already.


I know this is the PC sub-forum, but what about Journey? What are your guys opinion on it?

 

[DigDog]

I wouldn't go as far, but when advertised, it should be clearly marked as interactive storytelling. People are furious over spending $20 for this, and not getting what they expect (phrase open to interpretation, but if you sell it along with games, and market it as a game, people expect to get a "classic definition of" game)

 

[Lil Frier]

I don't think you can complain about what you get here, in my opinion. It's like someone who collects art getting mad because an artist sold him a drawing, when the rest of the person's art collection is paintings. Just because you don't like the interface for creation (general exploration, rather than going from a beginning to an end by killing enemies or driving a car or something), it doesn't necessarily mean it's not a game.

You might like the TYPE of game, but that's why you don't buy games blindly, if you're one to complain. I almost bought this, but then I read the stuff on here, and now I'll never touch it.

 

[Doppel]

They offer non-game software already.


I know this is the PC sub-forum, but what about Journey? What are your guys opinion on it?

I've thought of playing Journey but been really hesitant to try it. Some of the people who've played it have said it is an otherworldly experience, a mind-blasting soul-elevating rapture of emotion. And yet, seriously, no. It can't be. I've seen others say great things about ICO and after 30 minutes with it I thought it sucked balls.

 

[DigDog]

i liked ICO; it was eery, and it had interesting GAMEPLAY mechanics.
JOurney is more of an adventure style game, with 3d controls, but it's still a game. Also, when Journey was sold, it was made VERY CLEAR that it was a game focused on exploration, understanding and visuals.

Also, it didn't suck balls. Gone Home has bad graphics and a bunch of wav files, no gameplay, and a story which some might find compelling, but which surely isn't anything new.

 

[artemicion]

The only reason they posted high reviews is because of the

Spoiler

lesbian angle

. Even if it is an overpriced game with a generic story that leads to disappointment, if you post anything less than great you are "intolerant".

This is just a situation where the "gaming journalism" industry has failed yet again as it continues to present itself as a complete hack.

Haha, paranoid much? Write a good review or the gay mafia is going to smash all the windows at IGN.

...said no one ever.

Gone Home got inflated reviews because:
1) Reviewers got it for free so they didn't have to eat the $20 overpriced cost
2) Reviewers spend 90% of their time playing the same kinds of games, so anything different is novel to them
3) Reviewers usually review games in an office/social setting, so games that provide water cooler fodder are usually given inflated reviews. Games like Stanley Parable, are probably more fun when you're sharing your experiences with your buddies ("Hey, did you find X," "Hey, did you get the X ending," etc).
4) Reviewers are usually given assignments to review the types of games they like, so ALL game reviews are inflated to some degree. They don't tell the guy that hates football to review Madden. They don't assign Starcraft 2 to the reviewer that hates RTS games. Gone Home was probably reviewed by the "indie guy" that has a predisposition toward quirky games.

 

[werepossum]

Haha, paranoid much? Write a good review or the gay mafia is going to smash all the windows at IGN.

...said no one ever.

Gone Home got inflated reviews because:
1) Reviewers got it for free so they didn't have to eat the $20 overpriced cost
2) Reviewers spend 90% of their time playing the same kinds of games, so anything different is novel to them
3) Reviewers usually review games in an office/social setting, so games that provide water cooler fodder are usually given inflated reviews. Games like Stanley Parable, are probably more fun when you're sharing your experiences with your buddies ("Hey, did you find X," "Hey, did you get the X ending," etc).
4) Reviewers are usually given assignments to review the types of games they like, so ALL game reviews are inflated to some degree. They don't tell the guy that hates football to review Madden. They don't assign Starcraft 2 to the reviewer that hates RTS games. Gone Home was probably reviewed by the "indie guy" that has a predisposition toward quirky games.

Well reasoned.

 

[thedosbox]

Haha, paranoid much? Write a good review or the gay mafia is going to smash all the windows at IGN.

...said no one ever.

Indeed.

1) Reviewers got it for free so they didn't have to eat the $20 overpriced cost

That's true for all professional game reviews though. They get free review builds before an NDA expires, then publish when it does. Hence you get to see reviews of games on release day.

2) Reviewers spend 90% of their time playing the same kinds of games, so anything different is novel to them

I think that's the key point.