Recommended Posts

THERE WILL BE SPOILERS FOR BOTH GAMES YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

 

So I'm just gonna say this outright, I did not like Gone Home. I'm not up in arms about it, I didn't think it was supposed to be a horror game, I just do not like it. It's not a bad game, don't get me wrong, I just don't think it needed to be a game. 

 

But Brothers, now that was a game. It starts with that wonderful cutscene showing the youngest brother watching his mother drown and struggling to cope with the fact that he is too small to save her at all. Boom, tone set right out of the gate before you even start playing. It just screams "this game is going to deal with loss." And that theme does keep popping up, in the first major fantasy area where you reunite a troll with his lost wife (girlfriend? I don't know, she wasn't wearing a ring, so maybe he's a deadbeat). Even by interacting with various NPCs and animals in the area you can tell that the brothers themselves are very different people with their own weaknesses, strengths and motivations. But they do share one motive, to save their remaining parent from a painful and slow death from a mysterious disease. When the actual game proper starts the player has to immediately reconcile the differences between the brothers by learning to make them cooperate, work together towards a common goal. By the time you've left the small town that serves as a quick tutorial you've already figured out that all they have to rely on is each other. They're all they have left.

 

Each puzzle is relatively different, but mostly follow the same guidelines. Work together to get to/unlock something. All there is to the gameplay, besides the initial gimmick, is simply variations on a theme. Luckily you're introduced to new areas and small story arcs regularly enough to make the three hours it takes to complete the game pass very quickly. Each new environment is a spectacle to take in and there are new secrets to interact with in almost every area. This is a game that compels you to finish it. It presents you with a story and a several themes to tackle through the plot and the gameplay itself. I connected with the characters, even the NPCs, I wondered at the fantastic landscapes, I I felt like my $15 was well spent.

 

But Gone Home, now that was something else. It starts with no cutscene establishing what is happening but rather a note taped to a door. This is not something I'm complaining about, in the game world it felt very real and plausible, but by the end it felt like this introduction on the porch was only the first of many lumps of exposition sitting there waiting to be discovered. This note on the door did do something right, it set the tone for confusion. The player is curious as to why there is nobody there to greet you when you come home from your trip abroad. Maybe it was just me, but as soon as I started the game I was slightly upset "my family" wasn't there to hear about "my story." This game is about "my story," right? 


This is our first major divergence. From the very first moment of gameplay, Brothers and Gone Home differ in how you want to consider the plot. In Brothers the player is immediately thrust into the role of mediator between these two characters, forcing them to cooperate and complete the tasks set before them to further their story. In Gone Home you approach a strange house, discover that the (absent) NPCs have a much more interesting story to tell, and then try to uncover their story. From the get go, it's not your story anymore. Some would argue that it's still Katie's story, a story about an older sibling coming home and discovering all that's changed in her family. I couldn't disagree more. Katie isn't given much of a backstory at all, she's just the older sister who came back from a jaunt around Europe. To me, it's very clear that Katie is left mostly in the dark so that the player can more easily relate. I saw in the thread about Gone Home that someone roleplayed the game as Katie and refused to search things Katie wouldn't. By the time he was upstairs he was already justifying going through drawers for more information. Gone Home was never written to be about the players experience, it's about someone else's. The game even takes place entirely in a setting inhabited by the absent NPCs that drive every aspect of the story. Katie has no effect on the plot at all*.

 

Which brings me back around to why I don't think Gone Home is a good itself game. If I'm playing Gone Home for the empowering story and not the gameplay or design, why is it a game? If I went down to my local Barnes and Noble I could probably find at least a half dozen books in the Teen Fiction section with plots centered around a character discovering their own sexuality. If the game isn't about the player, then why not make the story into, well, just that. Was Katie necessary? It would have been easier to write a story about a girl learning about her sexuality without having to insert Katie. Did the act of exploring the house help the story in any way? Well, that's tougher. You could argue that a theme of "discovering new in the familiar" is present in it, what with exploring your family's new house while your parents work out their new problems and your sister uncovers new feelings for old friends. But overall, I'd say no. This story could have easily been written out and at the same time could have more fully fleshed out the relationship between Lonnie and Sam.  This is the exact area that Brothers excels in. Regardless of how you play the game, you are the force that drives the characters forward. The plot of Brothers isn't just that of the titular brothers, it's yours, too. By the last levels of the game I'd almost come to regard it as "ours." 

 

 

This post is the product of [3] double Manhattans and the IGN Game Awards

 

 

 

*I would like to point out that the house is incredibly well designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think it is important that the player must be involved in the plot? And, more importantly, why do you think that a game plot is illegitimate if the player is not involved in the plot? (The player has no meaningful control over a JRPG plot, and plot is the chief appeal of that genre.)

 

I ask these questions because your criticisms, to me, boil down to 'good games contain these elements I like and not these elements I don't like', which is a very common error by people just starting to analyse games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete opposite. I thought the "game" portions of Brothers was a completely unnecessary distraction. I thought the story was lite and boring and can be summed up as A pair of brothers with a sick father go to get a magical mcguffin to cure him, one of them dies in doing so but the other makes it through and cures the father. And that's it, that's all she wrote. What characterization, if any, of any of the characters is so sparse and fleeting that I didn't care about either brother. Oh, ones a joker that's afraid of the water and the other is responsible. That's literally all you get. You don't even know if the dad is worth saving, or what their life was like, or... anything else. There's maybe some vague idea of environmental storytelling that's so perfunctory you can read anything into it that you want. "Oh it's mysterious!" is basically the same as it's not filled out at all.

 

Gone Home at least had a story with actual characterization and progression. Since both are basically story games frankly I like the one where there was more to that story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think it is important that the player must be involved in the plot? And, more importantly, why do you think that a game plot is illegitimate if the player is not involved in the plot? (The player has no meaningful control over a JRPG plot, and plot is the chief appeal of that genre.)

 

I ask these questions because your criticisms, to me, boil down to 'good games contain these elements I like and not these elements I don't like', which is a very common error by people just starting to analyse games.

 

I don't necessarily think that the player should be involved in the plot, but at least given the idea that they are involved in it. Katie is simply an observer of several stories that happen in one location, she has no impact on the plot whatsoever. I don't think that a game plot is illegitimate if the player has no impact on the plot, but I do think that because it is a game the plot should attempt to show that the players actions have had some sort of an effect. I know it's been stated a thousand times in a thousand different articles, but the big difference between games and any other medium is that it is an interactive experience. I don't think Gone Home gained anything from being delivered to me in the form of an interactive experience, it could have been presented as a miniseries, book, almost anything else. Katie just didn't really seem to matter to the plot of the game or to me, so why bother having her?

 

While I'm new to actually writing down my thoughts on games instead of ranting to coworkers, I don't think I'm falling into that trap. Maybe I'm not quite as articulate as I'd like to be, though. I definitely don't want to say "this is more game than story so I like it more." Then again, I did write this drunk.

Complete opposite. I thought the "game" portions of Brothers was a completely unnecessary distraction. I thought the story was lite and boring and can be summed up as A pair of brothers with a sick father go to get a magical mcguffin to cure him, one of them dies in doing so but the other makes it through and cures the father. And that's it, that's all she wrote. What characterization, if any, of any of the characters is so sparse and fleeting that I didn't care about either brother. Oh, ones a joker that's afraid of the water and the other is responsible. That's literally all you get. You don't even know if the dad is worth saving, or what their life was like, or... anything else. There's maybe some vague idea of environmental storytelling that's so perfunctory you can read anything into it that you want. "Oh it's mysterious!" is basically the same as it's not filled out at all.

 

Gone Home at least had a story with actual characterization and progression. Since both are basically story games frankly I like the one where there was more to that story.

 

 

And that's a totally opposite reading that I completely understand. I still think that Brothers told what little story it had better than Gone Home told the bigger story it piled on me. 

 

[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think that the player should be involved in the plot, but at least given the idea that they are involved in it. Katie is simply an observer of several stories that happen in one location, she has no impact on the plot whatsoever. I don't think that a game plot is illegitimate if the player has no impact on the plot, but I do think that because it is a game the plot should attempt to show that the players actions have had some sort of an effect. I know it's been stated a thousand times in a thousand different articles, but the big difference between games and any other medium is that it is an interactive experience. I don't think Gone Home gained anything from being delivered to me in the form of an interactive experience, it could have been presented as a miniseries, book, almost anything else. Katie just didn't really seem to matter to the plot of the game or to me, so why bother having her?

 

I don't get your point, really. Sure, interactivity is one of the strengths of video games as a medium, but also as a part of the audience participation they also allow. You are allowed to decide the extent to, speed of, and order in which you are told the components of Gone Home's story, which is more effective high-level agency than almost any linear FPS, which despite all the low-level agency really only offers the choice between "see the ending" and "don't see the ending."

 

As far as Katie as a framing device, a clueless intruder in a family with whom she ought instead to be intimate, I think others could argue her relevance better than me, but I think it's really up to taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think that the player should be involved in the plot, but at least given the idea that they are involved in it. Katie is simply an observer of several stories that happen in one location, she has no impact on the plot whatsoever. I don't think that a game plot is illegitimate if the player has no impact on the plot, but I do think that because it is a game the plot should attempt to show that the players actions have had some sort of an effect. I know it's been stated a thousand times in a thousand different articles, but the big difference between games and any other medium is that it is an interactive experience. I don't think Gone Home gained anything from being delivered to me in the form of an interactive experience, it could have been presented as a miniseries, book, almost anything else. Katie just didn't really seem to matter to the plot of the game or to me, so why bother having her?

 

I think there's a very big difference between presenting players with a choice and allowing players to have an effect. It's legitimate - in some cases, exciting - to provide players with a choice that misleads players into thinking their actions have an influence for artistic intent. JRPGs have been doing this since they began: you can't tell the princess 'No', which means, eventually, you have to choose to say 'Yes'. That choice, as manipulative as it is, is still a choice freely made. Shadow of the Colossus and Prince of Persia 2006 both make hay out of players choosing to do something very unwise because that's the only option available to them - while The Stanley Parable makes fun of the idea that quitting the game counts as a choice, it also points out that on some level every 'choice' made in a game is a manipulation to some extent. And players do feel, particularly in Shadow of the Colossus, that they freely made an awful choice. So I reject the idea that it's important for players to have an influence on the plot to be using the medium to full effect.

 

I would suggest there's a much more important property: the player controls the pacing. In the West, using cutscenes to advance the plot is frowned upon because it puts the pacing out of the player's hands. Open-world games and RPGs in particular allow players to explore the world, uncovering little details that would slow down the story in other mediums, but can be presented in games because the player dictates the pace. In Gone Home, Katie's movements, where she is in the house, determines the pacing of the story. This can be very subtle, indeed - even something as simple as asking the player to acknowledge text gives players some control over the pace, although usually IF needs a little more going on to justify being IF as opposed to a short story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Limbo is worse than Gone Home but better than Brothers. On the other hand Brothers is better than Gone Home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Limbo is worse than Gone Home but better than Brothers. On the other hand Brothers is better than Gone Home.

I feel like they're all the same. But Limbo is slightly worse then Limbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not played Brothers, so I can't compare the two from first hand experience, but I disagree with the idea that Gone Home would have been just as effective as a book.  Had it been written as a story, I would have read it from start to finish and learned about everything in a linear order.  But that's not how my Gone Home experience went.  I didn't find the journals in order, I didn't get all the notes, I didn't find all the clues.  This means that I experienced Gone Home in a particular way.  Going through the thread on this forum, it seems like other people had different experiences than I did because they found different notes or drew different conclusions or played a different way.  We all played the same game yet got different things out of it.  When I replayed the game, my thoughts and feelings changed as I learned more.  To me, this is a crucial part of my appreciation for the game.  Maybe as a player I didn't have a lot of impact on the plot, but the way I encountered the plot had a lot of impact on me.

 

From what I understand of Brothers, this would not have happened.  It may tell a meaningful story in a meaningful way (and from what I hear it does), but I don't think it's likely to vary as much from person to person, subject to how much they connect with the story.  Everyone will experience the same story in a similar manner.  That doesn't make it any less important than Gone Home, it's just different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a second there, I though this was going to be a fan art thread where people draw Lonnie and Sam battling against the brothers from...Brothers, in hilariously wild situations. but I guess I was wrong.

 

My stance on all this is that both games tackle narrative in distinct and both perfectly valid ways. I will not elaborate right now because I have to go to class. Good day. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a very big difference between presenting players with a choice and allowing players to have an effect. It's legitimate - in some cases, exciting - to provide players with a choice that misleads players into thinking their actions have an influence for artistic intent. JRPGs have been doing this since they began: you can't tell the princess 'No', which means, eventually, you have to choose to say 'Yes'. That choice, as manipulative as it is, is still a choice freely made. Shadow of the Colossus and Prince of Persia 2006 both make hay out of players choosing to do something very unwise because that's the only option available to them - while The Stanley Parable makes fun of the idea that quitting the game counts as a choice, it also points out that on some level every 'choice' made in a game is a manipulation to some extent. And players do feel, particularly in Shadow of the Colossus, that they freely made an awful choice. So I reject the idea that it's important for players to have an influence on the plot to be using the medium to full effect.

I would suggest there's a much more important property: the player controls the pacing. In the West, using cutscenes to advance the plot is frowned upon because it puts the pacing out of the player's hands. Open-world games and RPGs in particular allow players to explore the world, uncovering little details that would slow down the story in other mediums, but can be presented in games because the player dictates the pace. In Gone Home, Katie's movements, where she is in the house, determines the pacing of the story. This can be very subtle, indeed - even something as simple as asking the player to acknowledge text gives players some control over the pace, although usually IF needs a little more going on to justify being IF as opposed to a short story.

I'm not trying to say the player character has to actually have control or influence over the plot, just that the illusion of choice should be there. Providing at least the illusion of choice makes the story being told belong to the player.

You brought up Shadow of the Colossus and I think that illustrates my point very well. Wander is committed to reviving Mono, so much so that he's willing to go into the forbidden land and follow a disembodied voice. When you press forward in the game because there is no choice but to advance, it reinforces Wander's determination. In the face of doubt he persists, his faith and passion compel him. The player can choose to proceed forward in the field or not, but it always comes back to your mission. It comes down to the fact that there is no choice for Wander, he must save the girl.

Brothers, I think, does the same thing. Your father's inevitable death is looming at all times, so Little Brother's seeming lack of focus irritates Big Brother. With choices to save individuals from suicide or rescue lost turtles sprinkled throughout, the player is given great control of the pacing and given the illusion that they are affecting the world as well.

Gone Home keeps its plot distinctly in the past, disallowing the player from even experiencing the illusion of choice. Sure you can skip opening a safe, sure you can explore at your own pace, but it still begs the question why deliver the story this way. Is pacing the only reason to tell this story as a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a second there, I though this was going to be a fan art thread where people draw Lonnie and Sam battling against the brothers from...Brothers, in hilariously wild situations. but I guess I was wrong.

 

My stance on all this is that both games tackle narrative in distinct and both perfectly valid ways. I will not elaborate right now because I have to go to class. Good day. :P

I would look at that fanart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing to add, but I found this snippet really amusing and can be taken out of context.

 

"But Brothers, now that was a game. It starts with that wonderful cutscene"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If I'm playing Gone Home for the empowering story and not the gameplay or design, why is it a game? If I went down to my local Barnes and Noble I could probably find at least a half dozen books in the Teen Fiction section with plots centered around a character discovering their own sexuality."

 

I'm curious to know how you felt about what I felt was the core gameplay element in Gone Home: exploring a space set in a specific point in American cultural history.  That is why it is so clearly a game to me.  I can't go to Barnes and Noble and find a piece of historical fiction that allows me to do that in the same way that Gone Home does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the real choice of how to explore the house, how to leave the items and lights, which order to look at things, and how methodical to be over the illusion of choice of linear progression. Brothers is great, but that takes nothing away from Gone Home which I found to be a much more coherent and well-crafted experience, not reliant on an (admittedly very cool) gimmick.

e: man, I hope Steve gets the Brothers designer on Tone Control - that would be amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gone Home is telling its story through the environment the player occupies. If you told the story as a short story or film, it wouldn't make any sense to have Katie as the protagonist. The story is unique because it is told via game, rather than some other medium. Frankly I have a hard time finding that the story would be as interesting in another medium. If it didn't suit you, that's fine, but I vastly preferred Gone Home's understated storytelling techniques to Brothers' melodrama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now