Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Interesting point of view.
I think that the commentary combined with the gameplay is what makes it artistic. So I'd say that I agree, I wouldn't feel the same way without the commentary, because it's part of the experience. Without the commentary it'd just be an annoying and difficult game. With the commentary it becomes more of an allegory for challenge in general, plus a sort of commmentary on gaming as a whole.
As for the whole "games containing/being art debate" - I personally think that a game can be art in and of itself. Take for instance Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. That is an art game, but mst impostantly, it could not exist in any other form. It uses just its gameplay and mechanics to create a sense of kinship, and it does it very well.
Unnecessary? The narration is what makes brings an already good game to a level where it really shines.
The narrator tries to be coy and witty, but ultimately comes off as annoying.