Errant Gamer critique of Stanley Parable

[alanschu]

Spoilers inbound (I highly recommend the game)

 

I enjoyed this and figured I'd share it here.

 

EDIT: Note that the comments contain spoilers to Game of Thrones, as someone tries to prove a point because this video has spoilers for games like Half-Life 2.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

Well, I can see why people are raving about this game and how deep it is.  Better than his video on games being political too, heh.

[alanschu]

 

 

Better than his video on games being political too, heh.

 

I'd agree.  If only because this video is really well done (i.e. I still think the politics in video games one is fine too.  But then, I think this notion that video games are apolitical is a bit of a myth.  If doing something that is outside the status quo makes it a political statement, then that makes the status quo itself a political statement).

[Quetzalcoatl]

I thought the observations the Stanley Parable made were incredibly banal, and painfully hamfisted to boot. Everybody who plays a game is aware they're playing in a limited simulation, that's hardly some shocking revelation. That doesn't mean there's no value in trying to give the player as much freedom as humanly possible while providing valid justifications for the unavoidable limitations.    

 

Errant Signal is a very shallow reviewer, I've found. He focuses mostly on AAA mainstream stuff under the pretense that it's the cutting edge of video game innovation (hint: it's not) and ignores everything outside of that sphere. The points he makes are not very cogent and don't delve particularly deep (like in this video ignoring that games are an abstraction out of necessity or not even questioning the existence and popularity of achievements and what they represent).

Edited November 30, 2013 by Quetzalcoatl

[Orogun01]

From just the first minutes (and after seeing the duration of the video) I would say that reviewer is not only full of himself, he puts an effort on being full of himself. 

 

Edit: Ok, I've never listened a review by this guy but I now hate him.

REdit: That guy should really stick to reviewing the game instead of using it as a platform to rant about his opinions on game structure.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Orogun01

[AGX-17]

Who? If your video review is longer than 5 minutes you're just a bad reviewer. And where'd he get the idea that Far Cry 3 is meant to be some kind of satire/deconstruction of video games?

Edited December 1, 2013 by AGX-17

[Nonek]

Reminds me of Extra Credits, that is not a compliment. Personally I thought the game was so-so, though I did like the Hitchhikers voiceover.

[Oner]

I found Errant Signal loves to come up with a(n unfounded) theory about a game, then ignores everything and tries to shove the theory down our throats telling us it's true.

The Kid's primary motivation is his dead "girlfriend", whose keepsake you find in the beginning, even though NOTHING supports or even indicates this.

Dishonored is sexist because Lady Boyle is just an innocent nympho. Nevermind that she FUNDS the brutal tyrant regime you've been fighting all game. And almost every geniunely morally good character in the game is female (Jessamine, Good-Emily, Callista, Ceelia), but hey, who cares!

 

 

Who? If your video review is longer than 5 minutes you're just a bad reviewer.

God forbig someone actually does a detailed examination and critique.

[Meshugger]

Allosauros Rex is the only reviewer you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oL5yoyBPVo

[Meshugger]

Yeah, he reviews games too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FHxZf1Iff0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUp0VNp8fSJu3OmHQnD2fu0w

[Oner]

Left out 'Bastion' from my first example.

[Walsingham]

I loved the Stanley Parable. I found it more of a commentary on my professional working life than video games. The points being made may seem a little less obvious seen in that light.

 

Mind you, I work with a lot of 'process' obsessed bloody engineers/halfwits. They'd regard being Stanley as heaven.

[Raithe]

Who? If your video review is longer than 5 minutes you're just a bad reviewer. And where'd he get the idea that Far Cry 3 is meant to be some kind of satire/deconstruction of video games?

To be fair, the main writer of Far Cry 3 keeps trying to say that. The problem being that none of the people who played the game saw that is the fault of game players not being deep or aware enough to see that. Take sharp note that the island is "Rook Island" which obviously points out the nature of being a game-piece on a board, or the target in a con.

 

Seriously. The writer is all over the place when he tries explaining what he tried to do with Far Cry 3.

[Lexx]

Maybe I should try again to play Far Cry 3, because I never noticed such things.

[licketysplit]

A game's attempt at post modernism and satire...usually doesn't end well.

[Blarghagh]

I liked this game but it was nowhere near as deep as it throught it was. I liked it more for the entertainment value than the games' commentary because to me, it only stated the obvious. I think this game may have been developed for more "run of the mill" gamers, since people here tend to already be of the intellectual variety in the first place - or at least Obsidian fans. We've already thought about the nature of choice, freedom and consequences in games through things like Torment, Mask of the Betrayer, KotOR II.

 

So pretty much my favourite bit was finding the broom closet boarded up.

[Fighter]

How I feel about most things with "commentary" (*cough* Spec-Ops). Sure enjoy the game trying to mess with you but don't latch on to how it 'exposes' anything as if no one knows.