Before I buy: Is this pretentious?

[claiminglight]

I love it when a game makes a point or takes a stand. But I don't feel like being lectured to as though I were a child. Stanley Parable was really bad at that, I felt.

[shodgson8]

You may get some differeing opinions here but I do not think it is pretentious, the ideas that it presents are interesting enough that I do not think it comes across as 'trying too hard' or anything like that, it feels like a 'smart' game that explores interesting ideas but it also feels like it earns it as well if that makes sense...

When it comes down to it even if you are not overly into the story there is still one of the better puzzle games I have ever played underneath that to enjoy.

[Serious Sam]

I don't believe so. Game doesn't push hardcore philosophy into anything. There's a subplot about the nature of consciousness throughout the game, but it's a pretty basic "you can do anything, but just don't do that one thing" type of story with a unique spin on the archetype.

[DJ Dostoevsky]

One of the things I wrote about TTP in my GOTY piece was that it successfully presented its ideas in a subtle & sophisticated manner. Info it's parsed out in a bread-crumb manner, urging the player to connect the dots on their own. You're never beaten over the head with the themes as so often ham-fistedly happens in the medium.

This gave me a lot a respect for the developer as it indicates that they respect their audience's intelligence and comprehension levels. The whole experience just feels smartly executed with little to no pretension or pandering.

[claiminglight]

Originally posted by DJ Dostoevsky:

One of the things I wrote about TTP in my GOTY piece was that it successfully presented its ideas in a subtle & sophisticated manner. Info it's parsed out in a bread-crumb manner, urging the player to connect the dots on their own. You're never beaten over the head with the themes as so often ham-fistedly happens in the medium.

This gave me a lot a respect for the developer as it indicates that they respect their audience's intelligence and comprehension levels. The whole experience just feels smartly executed with little to no pretension or pandering.

Very cool.

Thank you all for your replies!

[inappropriately_gendered_fungus]

The texts are generally pretty heavy, but I never felt like I was talked down to. They're also entirely optional. The game seems to know it's smart, but it never treats you like you're stupid.

[shadow]

Originally posted by fungusdude4:

The texts are generally pretty heavy, but I never felt like I was talked down to. They're also entirely optional. The game seems to know it's smart, but it never treats you like you're stupid.

Well, except the MLA...if you pick the 'wrong' answers.

[inappropriately_gendered_fungus]

Oh, yeah. That's just how his character is, though.

[claiminglight]

See, I don't mind intellegence. I don't mind when a game takes a stand. My problem with the Stanley Parable was how full of itself it was. Very smug, I felt. And they sorta get to take the 'comedy' excuse... but it's a convienent excuse.

When I saw the trailer for this, it made me think of Stanley. So I thought I'd ask.

Though, for what it's worth, you should all check out the 'Rapheal' trailer on the Stanley Parable's store page. It's hysterical.

[shadow]

Originally posted by claiminglight:

See, I don't mind intellegence. I don't mind when a game takes a stand. My problem with the Stanley Parable was how full of itself it was. Very smug, I felt. And they sorta get to take the 'comedy' excuse... but it's a convienent excuse.

When I saw the trailer for this, it made me think of Stanley. So I thought I'd ask.

Though, for what it's worth, you should all check out the 'Rapheal' trailer on the Stanley Parable's store page. It's hysterical.

Actually, the point of the Stanley Parable was to poke fun at the majority of the 'mainstream' video game industry for doing exactly what it parodied: treating the players like idiots and holding their hands the entire game. There's a reason why it's a near-perfect example of the trope "The Devs Thought of Everything."

That's also why the entire commentary for the game is meant to sound rather grating and ironic -- he's just being more obvious about the fact that he's trying to guide you along a path.

*EDIT*
And I'll admit, yeah, the commentary can get a bit annoying after a while, but, to be fair, I already hold most AAA game titles in pretty low regard, given their cookie-cutter nature.

[claiminglight]

Originally posted by shadow:

Originally posted by claiminglight:

See, I don't mind intellegence. I don't mind when a game takes a stand. My problem with the Stanley Parable was how full of itself it was. Very smug, I felt. And they sorta get to take the 'comedy' excuse... but it's a convienent excuse.

When I saw the trailer for this, it made me think of Stanley. So I thought I'd ask.

Though, for what it's worth, you should all check out the 'Rapheal' trailer on the Stanley Parable's store page. It's hysterical.

Actually, the point of the Stanley Parable was to poke fun at the majority of the 'mainstream' video game industry for doing exactly what it parodied: treating the players like idiots and holding their hands the entire game. There's a reason why it's a near-perfect example of the trope "The Devs Thought of Everything."

That's also why the entire commentary for the game is meant to sound rather grating and ironic -- he's just being more obvious about the fact that he's trying to guide you along a path.

*EDIT*
And I'll admit, yeah, the commentary can get a bit annoying after a while, but, to be fair, I already hold most AAA game titles in pretty low regard, given their cookie-cutter nature.

And that part I was fine with. It was the determinism overtones that annoyed me.

[shadow]

Originally posted by claiminglight:

And that part I was fine with. It was the determinism overtones that annoyed me.

Hrm.
Can you elaborate? I know what determinism is, but I can't say that I really see what you're talking about in this context.

[KJG]

Originally posted by shadow:

Originally posted by claiminglight:

And that part I was fine with. It was the determinism overtones that annoyed me.

Hrm.
Can you elaborate? I know what determinism is, but I can't say that I really see what you're talking about in this context.

MLA plays with idea of determinism in two seperate conversations. The first is that you are a computer program, and thus inherently deterministic. You don't alter from the code written for you, as such all your decisions/actions are predetermined. If determinism is real then supposedly you don't have free will. MLA points this out when he asks you to tell him you have free will. You can't, prehaps he knows the code in which you operate from? The second is the conversation where MLA asks you how morality should play out in your world. When you go down the path of saying bad people will be punished, he retorts through a series of responses such as bringing up the fact people are a product of their environment and genetics. So is it really right to punish them for having no control over who they become? That again is determinism. I'm not sure why this topic annoys claiminglight, often I find people who disagree with it do so purely because they can't admit to themselves they're not a "self built man/woman" and are only well-off due to their circumstances in life and easily could've ended up in government housing, spending their days drinking themselves into oblivion if they'd been brought up differently or prehaps even had different genetics. Or it makes themselves feel really insecure like me, but that doesn't stop it from being an interesting topic, pivotal in a game about philosophy!

[checkers_of_shalmone]

Originally posted by Kiano:

MLA plays with idea of determinism in two seperate conversations. The first is that you are a computer program, and thus inherently deterministic. You don't alter from the code written for you, as such all your decisions/actions are predetermined. If determinism is real then supposedly you don't have free will. MLA points this out when he asks you to tell him you have free will. You can't, prehaps he knows the code in which you operate from? The second is the conversation where MLA asks you how morality should play out in your world. When you go down the path of saying bad people will be punished, he retorts through a series of responses such as bringing up the fact people are a product of their environment and genetics. So is it really right to punish them for having no control over who they become? That again is determinism. I'm not sure why this topic annoys claiminglight, often I find people who disagree with it do so purely because they can't admit to themselves they're not a "self built man/woman" and are only well-off due to their circumstances in life and easily could've ended up in government housing, spending their days drinking themselves into oblivion if they'd been brought up differently or prehaps even had different genetics. Or it makes themselves feel really insecure like me, but that doesn't stop it from being an interesting topic, pivotal in a game about philosophy!

The fact that "The Talos Principle" (and by that, I mean the theory from the fictional Straton of Stageira that states that it is possible to reduce the meaning of being a human to mechanical explanations) is totally true in, well, the human world, means that Milton's arguing a moot point with you because it would become generally accepted (or for some, unacceptable) that conciousness is a selfish myth. Thus when he argues about conciousness, that's purposely proving you wrong by pretending to have one opinion to get you to agree with him, then showing the premise was never right to begin with.

Milton seems to have more control over the terminal systems even more so than faking error messages and the like - though it's enhanced with Milton being an AI and thus does not suffer from a human's requirement of needing time to type. He can even remove responses from you, noteworthy in the two scenarios where he removes the "nonsensical" answers from you (like "The dog is an automaton" and "The dog is pretending for its own benefit") and "Do you have free will? Tell me now." and only able to say "I have no free will."

Of course, accepting that totally gets rid of the excitement of getting Milton to type in all-caps, but at the same time, just imagine what kind of inconsistent and incoherent mess Samsara is going through because of all the simulation resets. It's like dying as a human and somehow remembering all in the previous life in your "new body", but then this game takes that one step further and in your "new life" none of the things in the previous life make any sense (like "Oh you killed someone in your previous life! NOW HE'S YOUR FRIEND IN THIS LIFE!")

[Viter]

The only pretentious thing is that you will be asked about some of your philosophical principles, like what makes a good person, and the counter argument it comes up with are often kinda weak, or strawman. Other than that it's a great game, and as the other people have said, it actually delivers the story in a non pretentious manner.

[claiminglight]

Originally posted by Kiano:

Originally posted by shadow:

Hrm.
Can you elaborate? I know what determinism is, but I can't say that I really see what you're talking about in this context.

MLA plays with idea of determinism in two seperate conversations. The first is that you are a computer program, and thus inherently deterministic. You don't alter from the code written for you, as such all your decisions/actions are predetermined. If determinism is real then supposedly you don't have free will. MLA points this out when he asks you to tell him you have free will. You can't, prehaps he knows the code in which you operate from? The second is the conversation where MLA asks you how morality should play out in your world. When you go down the path of saying bad people will be punished, he retorts through a series of responses such as bringing up the fact people are a product of their environment and genetics. So is it really right to punish them for having no control over who they become? That again is determinism. I'm not sure why this topic annoys claiminglight, often I find people who disagree with it do so purely because they can't admit to themselves they're not a "self built man/woman" and are only well-off due to their circumstances in life and easily could've ended up in government housing, spending their days drinking themselves into oblivion if they'd been brought up differently or prehaps even had different genetics. Or it makes themselves feel really insecure like me, but that doesn't stop it from being an interesting topic, pivotal in a game about philosophy!

The topic of free will doesn't bother me in the slightest. All I mean is, in Stanley, I find the tone condescending and... (lol) pedantic.

There are, by the way, a few reasons to believe that we are not purely deterministic. Even if reality turns out to be The Matrix, we are very likely users running avatars, rather than lines of code.