Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックの作成者がこの投稿に質問への回答というマークを付けました。
ルールとガイドライン
40 
この投稿を報告する
I was not disappointed.
I have only ever played one game I would truly consider as pretentious, and even so, I realize that someone else could likely find more meaning in it than I did. This can be extended, too. People could claim Zork as pretentious, since it's trying to impress the atmosphere of danger on a player, but only using text. "There's no time-dependent urgency," someone could say. "It's all just words on a screen, they don't show any real danger. This game's pretentious."
But, of course, very few people would consider Zork as pretentious, and most people see it as an incredible milestone in gaming history.
"Pretentious" is a word that describes a completely subjective perspective. It can't ever be used to describe anything more than that. As such, when you label a game as pretentious, you are only saying that you, yourself, personally, got nothing out of it. It is a word used to describe you. And if you see a game as pretentious, try playing it with a more open mind.
If you're asking why you should care, maybe explore that yourself. Figure out why you should care, and listen to what the game is telling you. Find what it is showing you. There is no one you can objectively blame but yourself.
This interpretation doesn't really work IMO. Story!Davey is named after the real one, voiced by the real one, presented as the real one, and has the same psychological problems the real one has talked about struggling with. So very probably Davey = Davey.
If "we" are anyone in this game, we're almost certainly just the other unnamed audience - in addition to the audience of the actual game - that he shows Coda's altered games to because he is hooked on that sense of validation in an unhealthy way (which, again, the real Davey has talked about having problems with).
No I mean he's literally calling out people who over analyzed The Stanley Parable to the point of burning him out. Coda represents him making the game (and mod first) just for fun and Davey represents the people who would give much more meaning to the game. Does the fact that there's no good ending to TSP plus the boring office work etc. mean that Davey is depressed, does it mean that if finds office work unfulfilling, etc.
If you read his message on his old blog http://www.galactic-cafe.com/ you'll see how so many people contacted with their perceptions of his game the same way that we see Davey always talking to Coda about his game and how muc hthey're both burned out.
I don't think it's wrong to say "This game is lack of entertaiments" or something like that. I really can imagine that I would not understand this game at all and might even get disappointed if I haven't had same experience which Code did. It is great to give feedback for anything!
But I really think it is totally wrong to say "Then do not say 'This game is created by the creator of The Stanley Parable.'"
Davey has been saying that this game is NOT one of the products of Galactic Cafe before this game launched, and he was truly one of creators of The Stanley Parable.
Your "opinon" sounds like "Game owns its creator," but the reality is that "Creator owns its game!" I think that kind of thought which you have only makes limits and pressures on people who create something and it is really disrespectful to them!
Sorry if someone else has already said similar thing here.
What if the person you're watching skips past a part you would have wanted to check out? Or doesn't spend as much time reflecting on section as you would have? You need to have a spare few hours, and go through this with yourself in my opinion.
Maybe because, right here, you totally fumbled the point.
His problems are universal. "Oh boo hoo, interacting with people is Haaaaaaard, people have expectations of meee? whut am I supposed to doooo wuuh huh huh!"
And the problem is, he doesn't provide any new light or actual answers to this issues, he just basically whines about it for an hour and pretends to be deeper than he really is. Whatever. Glad I got a refund
Heres the thing, how did it in any way describe itself as anything but a narrative driven piece?
So you didnt like it, greeeeat. Awesome. Golf clap for you. Now here you are...
Making yourself feel so special a little snowflake...
Because oh boo hoo, interacting with people is sooo harrrd...
And I cant understand why they might have different tastes to me...
And I wont provide much more in terms of answers other than that I am right, and you are all idiots...
Because whaaa whaaa whiney whine, this wasnt for me, and I demand to know whyyyy...
Because Im just going to start a thread, for a game I hated...
And Im going to spend more time whining, and crying, and going on and on and on...
Than I ever did playing the game.
Because I want people to think Im more important than I really am.
I need people to agree with me.
Why dont they all agree with me?
And why do I give a single ♥♥♥♥ when I have already gotten my money back?
...jus sayin.
Narratively-driven piece" can be said about 90% about walking simulators.
And I like hating things I dont like
Definition of a video game has nothing to do if it has failure conditions or other gameplay elements.
video game
noun
noun: video game; plural noun: video games; noun: videogame; plural noun: videogames
a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display.