Gone Home from The Fullbright Company

[Memphis-Ahn]

[TychoCelchuuu]

That's so scarily accurate. I can't believe I haven't heard of this channel before. That's actually so spot on it mostly made me angry that people actually agree with it unironically rather than [adjective that describes the feeling you get put when you are experiencing something funny].

[chummer]

"There are voice clips of girls but the house has no mirrors so you never know who you are playing as. I'm assuming a pissed off burglar who is so annoyed that he's broken into a house filled with nothing by VHS tapes and diaries that he decides he's going to steal items of sentimental value as revenge."- Witch Sniffer

 

Oh, Youtube comments.

 

These guys'

is pretty good. It's as if Dave Hills worked for EGM in the nineties.

[Tanukitsune]

Of course, he has to comment on the game's length/price ratio... 

[Memphis-Ahn]

These guys'

is pretty good. It's as if Dave Hills worked for EGM in the nineties.

I only find the Rockcock64 bits to be any good, personally.

 

Of course, he has to comment on the game's length/price ratio... 

Is that a problem for you?

[feelthedarkness]

Woof, brutal. An extended JeffK meets RedLetterMedia riff with commenters beating the exact same "idiot gamer" dead horse. I'm staring into a black hole. 

[Tanukitsune]

No, I have a problem with everybody else who seems to think the the price of game should be as high as it's length and I find it hilarious that not long ago gamers made fun of JRPGs for being too long "sloggy" wastes of time when that's every AAA game I've played lately.  

[Denial]

Kuchera didn't cite a single critic or developer who mocked people who complained about it being too short. With that in mind, I have no idea what his metric for "mocked" is. Plenty of people have said "It is a short game, and you will get more gameplay per dollar with other games, but it has other virtues", but that seems to me to be like saying "It is a game without shooting, and you will get more shooting with other games, but it has other virtues".

 

I don't think that's indie vs AAA, either. The best hours-per-dollar game I suspect in my collection right now is FTL - if you like what FTL is offering enough to gather up every element of the playing experience, you can easily put 100 hours into it. That cost me $10.

[Argobot]

Yeah, that Kuchera article is weird. He's talking about two separate ideas -- don't put a value price on art and don't judge people who want to get the most bang for their entertainment buck -- and acting like there part of the same issue, which I don't agree with.

 

Approaching games, or books or movies, with the idea that it has to met a certain dollar per hour spent ratio for it to be worthwhile, is a really unhealthy attitude to have, and I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out or trying to actively work against it. I played Gone Home in less than 5 hours and it was the most meaningful video game experience I can remember having. I played Gone Home in less time than it takes me to a read a book, and it was more meaningful than a lot of the books I've read recently. The hours played had little to no relevance to my emotional reaction to the game.

[Twig]

Kuchera didn't cite a single critic or developer who mocked people who complained about it being too short.

Do you really need any? It's fairly common for people to complain about game length/cost ratio and then for other people to scoff at their ignorance...

 

I can cite an example: on the Geekbox, there's a common exchange between two of the hosts: Ryan Higgins complains about the cost of digital games compared to their short length, and Ryan Scott is immediately dismissive of that attitude. Higgins is the person complaining, Scott is the person mocking. They were even talking about Gone Home when this exchange happened on the latest episode. Past offenses have been Limbo and other similar games.

 

...Sometimes I wonder why I even still listen to the Geekbox.

[Tanukitsune]

Wow, I'm glad to see in this thread that I'm not the only person who thinks the same ways about game length, I really thought I was the only one. I thought I was the only one who "scoffed at their ignorance". 

[Denial]

Do you really need any? It's fairly common for people to complain about game length/cost ratio and then for other people to scoff at their ignorance...

 

I can cite an example: on the Geekbox, there's a common exchange between two of the hosts: Ryan Higgins complains about the cost of digital games compared to their short length, and Ryan Scott is immediately dismissive of that attitude. Higgins is the person complaining, Scott is the person mocking. They were even talking about Gone Home when this exchange happened on the latest episode. Past offenses have been Limbo and other similar games.

 

...Sometimes I wonder why I even still listen to the Geekbox.

 

Right, so that's an example - except, actually, I still don't actually know what Ryan Scott said. "I don't think that's a useful way to assess the value of games" is disagreement, but it isn't mocking, or indeed scoffing. But I can go and listen to that exchange, and see if it fits my idea of mockery. "If you are complaining about the length of Gone Home, you are not really getting its value proposition, and are also probably not its target audience" is not necessarily mockery - it's just a statement.

 

So, I don't know what Ben Kuchera has read, or encountered, which has made him feel that it's necessary to write a counterpoint piece. I'm not denying that he feels that this is the case, or that he has encountered material that makes him feel that this feeling is justified, but I have no idea why he's drawn that conclusion. If people are saying "there is never a good reason to make purchasing judgements based on the length of a game relative to its cost", then I definitely think that's a position that can and should be criticised, because it's a silly position.

[Denial]

(Of course, the other interesting thing there is that $x isn't exactly the _cost_ of a game on Steam. It's the largest amount of money the creators of the game want to charge for it/think they can sell it for, which is a slightly different thing.)

[Erkki]

I think the attitude towards game length changes with age for many people (and certainly for me). If I remember correctly, I used to complain when big budget games suddenly started being less than 20 hours long. Nowadays, give me a 5-hour or shorter game and I'm happy. I couldn't complete Skyrim because of the time it required (and I think I spent 80 hours!). Occasionally I still spend a lot of time with a single game: Mount & Blade multiplayer, SpaceChem, FTL, now Civ 5, but that is more of an exception.

 

(I'm still ok with and expecting Witcher 3 and GTA V to be 100-hour experiences)

[Twig]

Right, so that's an example - except, actually, I still don't actually know what Ryan Scott said. "I don't think that's a useful way to assess the value of games" is disagreement, but it isn't mocking, or indeed scoffing. But I can go and listen to that exchange, and see if it fits my idea of mockery. "If you are complaining about the length of Gone Home, you are not really getting its value proposition, and are also probably not its target audience" is not necessarily mockery - it's just a statement.

 

So, I don't know what Ben Kuchera has read, or encountered, which has made him feel that it's necessary to write a counterpoint piece. I'm not denying that he feels that this is the case, or that he has encountered material that makes him feel that this feeling is justified, but I have no idea why he's drawn that conclusion. If people are saying "there is never a good reason to make purchasing judgements based on the length of a game relative to its cost", then I definitely think that's a position that can and should be criticised, because it's a silly position.

It was absolutely mockery, and if you listen to it and think it's not, then I guess I can sort of begin to understand why you think mockery doesn't exist all throughout the internet for this kind of attitude. Go to any average gaming forum and you'll have both sides yelling at each other for years.

[Memphis-Ahn]

Do you really need any? It's fairly common for people to complain about game length/cost ratio and then for other people to scoff at their ignorance...

Considering in the exact same paragraph he insinuates people who care about length value just want to shoot stuff, I don't think he does.

 

Yeah, that Kuchera article is weird. He's talking about two separate ideas -- don't put a value price on art and don't judge people who want to get the most bang for their entertainment buck -- and acting like there part of the same issue, which I don't agree with.

I see it as two sides to the same coin, value.

The first position is one where a person values the quality over the length, they want novel and interesting experiences. The second position is one where a person values a long lasting but fun experience even if repetitious. Kuchera is just saying people of the former shouldn't scoff/mock people of the latter.

I guess it's sort of like people who buy Call of Duty for the singleplayer vs those who buy it for the multiplayer.

 

Wow, I'm glad to see in this thread that I'm not the only person who thinks the same ways about game length, I really thought I was the only one. I thought I was the only one who "scoffed at their ignorance". 

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[sclpls]

I'm fine with critics and reviewers discussing the length of a game as long as it isn't in some "bang for your buck" context. How much a game is worth will depend on a person's economic status, and you can't make that judgment for someone else, but talking about things like the flow and pacing are obviously important.

On another note, I listened to a few podcasts Steve Gaynor was on talking about the game, and I hope he appears again on Idle Thumbs one of these days. I love listening to his perspective on things.

[Denial]

It was absolutely mockery, and if you listen to it and think it's not, then I guess I can sort of begin to understand why you think mockery doesn't exist all throughout the internet for this kind of attitude. Go to any average gaming forum and you'll have both sides yelling at each other for years.

 

If you actually read what I wrote - which seems like an increasingly forlorn hope on the Internet these days - you'll find I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that I don't know what Ben Kuchera means when he talks about mockery, because he didn't give examples. You gave an example of what you see as mockery - which is good! It's a step forward! - but didn't actually cite the elements of it that you saw as mocking.

 

That's fine; you're not a journalist - you're someone on an Internet forum providing a data point, and I can listen to it if I want to and see if I agree with you that the disagreement is being framed in a disrespectful fashion, which Is what I would understand as being definable in this context as mockery. Although that still doesn't help me to know what Ben Kuchera thinks of as mockery. Which is where we came in. I just would have liked him to evidence some of the responses he, personally, was taking issue with.

 

Considering in the exact same paragraph he insinuates people who care about length value just want to shoot stuff, I don't think he does.

I think you might be a little defensive, there. If you feel like liking games with shooting in means people look down on you, that's a thing I can't really speak to, but I like games with shooting in and like to play them. I don't think I need to be ashamed of that, and nor should you.

 

See above re: increasingly forlorn hope, but if you read what I said, it was:

 

Plenty of people have said "It is a short game, and you will get more gameplay per dollar with other games, but it has other virtues", but that seems to me to be like saying "It is a game without shooting, and you will get more shooting with other games, but it has other virtues".

 

I like shooters. There are many good games with shooting in them. Dear Esther is not a shooting game. Gone Home is not a shooting game. If you are looking for a shooting game, you should probably not go for Dear Esther or Gone Home (or indeed Spelunky, or FIFA, or Civilization). If you are looking for a game with 80+ hours of gameplay, you should probably also not go for Dear Esther or Gone Home, whereas FIFA or Civilization (or indeed Spelunky, which I've played the crap out of) might be a really good choice. Length is a game feature you might value over other features when making purchasing decisions. So might be the amount and quality of the combat in the game. It is possible for a game to have virtues which are neither related to its length or the amount or quality of combat in it.

 

This seems so self-explanatory that I'm surprised it needs this level of explaining, but here we are and there it is.

[Denial]

I'm fine with critics and reviewers discussing the length of a game as long as it isn't in some "bang for your buck" context. How much a game is worth will depend on a person's economic status, and you can't make that judgment for someone else, but talking about things like the flow and pacing are obviously important.

 

 

That's the other side of the coin - Gone Home, it seems to me, is about the right length _for Gone Home_. Obviously, that's going to vary between people. If you're not engaged by the story, it might seem overlong. But I think it would be hard to make the case that it would be a better game if it retained the same mechanics (i.e. no combat, no serious puzzling to solve, no other characters to interact with) but was ten hours long, say - that is, it was gated in such a way that you had to spend ten hours to get to the same narrative conclusion. I'd say that Thirty Flights of Loving is another example of a game that's exactly as long as it should be, to achieve its objectives.

 

(But "bang for buck" is not wholly meaningless - although campaign length is only one part of that bang. I often find myself telling people that they probably shouldn't pay full price for a game, but that when it reaches $15 or so it is interesting enough to justify the purchase.)

 

Looked at another way, the single-player campaigns of games like CoD are very short compared with, say Tales of Xillia. That's partly about the cost of generating a minute of gameplay, and partly about the amount of resource that goes into the multiplayer, but it's also about making the campaign the right length for the buyer - fulfilling an aesthetic criterion.

 

Many to most of the buyers of CoD are going to want to play the multiplayer for most of the time they spend playing the game over its life, so the single-player needs to be pretty snappy - because for many players it's there to a considerable extent to teach them about what's changed in the control scheme, what the new guns are like and things like that. Obviously Activision wants it to be good - to tell an engaging story, to have relatable characters - and will spend a lot of money on that, but they are sensitive to the fact that for a significant chunk of their audience it's a long tutorial as well as a campaign.

 

You can complain that the single-player campaign is too short or badly-plotted, or that the characters aren't relatable, and those can be valid criticisms, but they are probably less important than the same criticisms levelled at, say, Star Trek: The Video game for most of the potential buying audience.

 

Whereas Mass Effect 3's multiplayer could be buggy and strangely balanced and have less variety, precisely because the audience were not primarily buying Mass Effect 3 for its multiplayer component - in fact there was much consternation that the development of the multiplayer would lead to a shorter single-player campaign and interfere with the delivery of single-player DLC.

 

To look at a different medium for an example: I went to "The Drowned Man" recently - a theatrical event by Punchdrunk. They took over a postal sorting office - so, five floors, with a mix of small rooms and big empty spaces - and turned it into a Hollywood studio from the 1960s, then let the audience loose to wander. You got to spend 3 hours or so walking around the "set", interacting with the space, reading scripts, being grabbed by actors, following them around and watching set pieces.

 

In those three hours I got maybe 20-30% of the main narrative, and a smaller percentage of the "audiologs and grafitti" level information - I could have spent ten minutes reading all the clipboards on the wall of the doctor's surgery, or all the letters from hopeful actors in the producer's office. Did I feel like I could have spent longer there? Absolutely. But in reality I would eventually have got hungry, and tired, and probably ultimately bored. Even if something is good for its genre, there's a point at which you start losing your audience. Good games design recognises where that point is.

[Twig]

If you actually read what I wrote - which seems like an increasingly forlorn hope on the Internet these days - you'll find I said nothing of the sort.

You didn't say it, but the implication was there, whether you meant it or not. He shouldn't need to provide examples. That's not the purpose of the article. Why does a lack of examples invalidate his point? This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's an open letter to the types of people he's writing to. They know who they are. If you aren't one of those people, why does it bother you so much that he isn't calling out specific examples? It shouldn't. If you are one of those people, then you already know it.

 

Your condescending attitude doesn't make me want to continue talking about this with you, though. Please stop.

[elmuerte]

I calculate hours of fun per dollar. Gone home gave me close to $10/hour of fun. So, it's rather expensive. If it wasn't made by Steve I wouldn't have bought it at this price point (but this isn't due to the length of the game, more the kind of game). However, of all the hours I spend in gone home, all of them were fun. Hours of non-fun weight heavier than ours of fun.

I do think Gone Home was too short, or at least, I wish there was more. Maybe that's a good thing.

With quite some 'AAA'I;m glad its finally over (still haven't finished Darksiders 2 or Max Payne 3). Sometimes I'm content with the length (e.g. Borderlands 2 had almost the right length for me), but I'm rarely left wanting for more (Arkham City ended too soon for me).

Timing the game's length is impossible I think. For example, at 50 hours Borderlands 2 was good for me, but I'm quite sure a lot of others will think it was too long. Borderlands 1 at 40 hours was too long for me.

So there will always be complaints about the length of the game. But the price/length ratio is a dumb criteria for a game.

[Memphis-Ahn]

I think you might be a little defensive, there. If you feel like liking games with shooting in means people look down on you, that's a thing I can't really speak to, but I like games with shooting in and like to play them. I don't think I need to be ashamed of that, and nor should you.

 

See above re: increasingly forlorn hope, but if you read what I said, it was:

 

Plenty of people have said "It is a short game, and you will get more gameplay per dollar with other games, but it has other virtues", but that seems to me to be like saying "It is a game without shooting, and you will get more shooting with other games, but it has other virtues".

 

I like shooters. There are many good games with shooting in them. Dear Esther is not a shooting game. Gone Home is not a shooting game. If you are looking for a shooting game, you should probably not go for Dear Esther or Gone Home (or indeed Spelunky, or FIFA, or Civilization). If you are looking for a game with 80+ hours of gameplay, you should probably also not go for Dear Esther or Gone Home, whereas FIFA or Civilization (or indeed Spelunky, which I've played the crap out of) might be a really good choice. Length is a game feature you might value over other features when making purchasing decisions. So might be the amount and quality of the combat in the game. It is possible for a game to have virtues which are neither related to its length or the amount or quality of combat in it.

 

This seems so self-explanatory that I'm surprised it needs this level of explaining, but here we are and there it is.

My apologies, but it seemed to me like you were saying shooting games were lowbrow.

I personally don't even enjoy shooting games all that much.

[Badfinger]

Oh hey this thread was real rad until about 15 posts ago.

 

I Went Home today. It was awesome. Got a couple tears from me. The countdown to tears is over.

 

A few things I didn't see specifically get mentioned, or mentioned past by different people who had spoiler thoughts about or around

 

The books are Dad's newly published books, not ones that he's had sitting around trying to capture the magic again when he goes to the liquor cabinet.

 

I'm pretty sure they moved at least partially because Mom accepted an assignment to do their long term controlled burn for the forestry service.

 

Right before they went to the couple's retreat, Mom and Dad were invited to and attending Ranger Rick's wedding.

 

 

I didn't find the note that Katie chucks. Must have missed it!

 

A couple of the things linked focused really hard on the dad, and I think were too focused on his past. There's certainly some healing that's occurred if he was in fact abused.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Re: your book comment -

The vast majority of those books are not newly published. The newly publishes ones have different cover art - you can find a copy of each of them somewhere and you also find a letter talking about how there's new cover art. So yeah, most of those books are old ones.

[Denial]

You didn't say it, but the implication was there, whether you meant it or not. 

 

Implication requires intention - I can't imply something without meaning to do so, pretty much by definition. Implication is precisely something that somebody seeks to communicate without explicitly stating it.

 

What you mean is that the inference was there, which is true, because you made the inference. Incorrectly, in this case. But don't feel bad! None of us are perfect all the time.

 

In this case, though, the implication is pretty straightforward - I don't have an actual example what Ben Kuchera sees as an unreasonable response to the idea of length being a thing that informs purchases of games. In the absence of that information, all I have is how he characterises the behaviour:

 

And then critics and developers shake their heads sadly at the unwashed masses who just don't understand QUALITY and ARTISTRY.

 

That feels to me like something of a straw man, is all. It's always tempting to make people you disagree with sound like caricatures, but it's not usually conducive to a good discussion. If you're good with the Potter Stewart approach to this, that's fine. I'd just like a little more.

 

However, I don't imagine we're going to get much further on this, and there's something else in that piece which I think is more interesting, which is the follow-up:

 

I know, I know, claiming games are supposed to be fun is heretical to a critic. We don’t expect to go to Schindler’s List to like, enjoy it, but for most people the hobby of gaming is primarily about the pursuit of pleasure. We want to have fun, we want to be told a story, and we want to enjoy ourselves. That may not be true for everyone, or every game, but I’d argue that the idea of “fun” and “enjoyment” drive most game purchases.

 

This seems like a really interesting way to approach the idea of entertainment. I mean, Schindler's List is obviously not a knee-slapping laugh riot, but it's a piece of film that people get something out of seeing. That something is probably (hopefully) different from what one might get out of seeing Spinal Tap, but it's well within the bounds of the emotional range we ascribe to leisure pursuits. 

 

I don't think many people are playing Gone Home or Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons out of a sense of duty, or because they have to (barring some game reviewers, I guess...), and the people who are talking about how much they enjoyed playing them are not lying. So... what's the distinction being drawn, here?