Journey is IGN's Game of the Year. Now Gamespot GOTY too! What in the world.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by HipHopBeats (2722 posts) -

I see it as more bad than good. On one hand, it's a cool game and it's nice to see a PS3 exclusive get noteriety, especially from an indie company.

On the other hand, it promotes digital downloads which the gaming industry will use to suckerpunch gamers. Devs have already cut costs by doing away with instruction manuals and releasing unfinished games. Physical media is the next target. DLC, season passes, etc, it's like being in a casino. The house always wins.

While games like Journey and The Walking Dead are creative and refreshing, I wouldn't want see a gen where all good console games are only available via digital download let alone released in episodes.

#-48 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

I think it's a very good thing that they gave GOTY to an original and unique game, rather than rewarding some developer for turning out yet another generic sequel in the bland sea of mediocrity that made up this past year in gaming.

#-47 Posted by wiouds (5519 posts) -

I think it's a very good thing that they gave GOTY to an original and unique game, rather than rewarding some developer for turning out yet another generic sequel in the bland sea of mediocrity that made up this past year in gaming.

Jackc8

Why should something win game of the year if it is debatable that it is game?

Why shoudl something that is lower than mediocrity game get game of the year?

Why should something that does not bring anything that is truely original and unique get game of the year?

Why should something that use the equivalent to boobs and booms in an action movie get game of the year?

#-46 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

I think it's a very good thing that they gave GOTY to an original and unique game, rather than rewarding some developer for turning out yet another generic sequel in the bland sea of mediocrity that made up this past year in gaming.

wiouds

Why should something that can be argue not to be a game be even in the running for game of the year?

Why shoudl something that is lower than mediocrity game get game of the year?

Why should something that does not bring anything that is truely original and unique get game of the year?

Why should something that use the equivalent to boobs and booms in an action movie get game of the year?

Why should we argue with someone that no understand that leading question no is argument?

#-45 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

I think it's a very good thing that they gave GOTY to an original and unique game, rather than rewarding some developer for turning out yet another generic sequel in the bland sea of mediocrity that made up this past year in gaming.

CarnageHeart

Why should something that can be argue not to be a game be even in the running for game of the year?

Why shoudl something that is lower than mediocrity game get game of the year?

Why should something that does not bring anything that is truely original and unique get game of the year?

Why should something that use the equivalent to boobs and booms in an action movie get game of the year?

Why should we argue with someone that no understand that leading question no is argument?

You're obviously talking to Yoda, show some respect, dammit.
#-44 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -
How did it get GOTY over real games?
#-43 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

There is no way we can lump Walking Dead in with Journey like some have been doing in this thread. It's an old school point and click adventure games, reinvigorated with a fantastic new control scheme and some of the most devastating choice based gameplay I've ever had the joy to play. Same with Heavy Rain. You are constantly in danger of dying. Yes, it's most QTE based but there are sections where you have to collect and piece together all the clues, make choices that directly affect the outcome of the story. Both games are adventure games in the purest terms.

#-42 Posted by MarkAndExecute (378 posts) -
[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

I think it's a very good thing that they gave GOTY to an original and unique game, rather than rewarding some developer for turning out yet another generic sequel in the bland sea of mediocrity that made up this past year in gaming.

Why should something win game of the year if it is debatable that it is game?

Why shoudl something that is lower than mediocrity game get game of the year?

Why should something that does not bring anything that is truely original and unique get game of the year?

Why should something that use the equivalent to boobs and booms in an action movie get game of the year?

Why should Batman's cape be black instead of blue?
#-41 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

There is a difference between being interested in games which dare to be different and being a 'psuedo-intellectual'. Journey is a masterpiece. The most revolutionary aspect is the way it handles online play. People tend to act like @ssholes when playing online, but Journey (which rewards coorperation and doesn't allow for the hurtling on insults) shows that doesn't have to be the case.

Journey was a fascinating, unique game. Cooperating with other players to get to high up places, avoiding the stone dragons, surfing on the seas of sifting sand (all the crazy stuff they did with sand was fascinating), it was unlike anything else out there. That is no small thing given how much many videogames take all of their design cues from other videogames and movies (Kingdoms of Amalur was an original game which was well done, but contained nothing really original).

CarnageHeart

Randomly connecting two players at specific points and removing voice chat = revolutionary? It does nothing interesting, it forces online on you whether you want it or not. There is zero magic on meeting another player cause the game will force a player in your game. Oh and this garbage that people magically work together,what are they supposed to do??? There is NOTHING a player in this game can do except just move forward, it's not like they can ruin your game even if they wanted to. The game was specifically crafted to make sure everyone experiences the same thing, the illusion being that this is some incredible unique experience you will experience. This game had some of the best marketing ever seeing that so many people bought into the BS they talked about.

Strawman.jpg

Who said people magically work together? One can work with other players or do one's own thing. Cooperation makes things easier, but it isn't forced. Players who want can do their own thing and ignore the other guy. Some of your claims are demonstrably false.

For one, there are collectibles (specifically, runes) in Journey. Some people prefer to scour the world looking for them (one hops from area to area, each of which can be freely explored), some people (particularly those playing for the first time) focus on just moving forwards, towards and later, up the mountain.

*Shrugs* If its any consolation, your point that player A can't ruin the experience of player B is true.

There is nothing to do in the game, you have to go forward. I guess if you want you can wander around the small area they give you and explore the boundaries but again it's just to ohh and ahh at the visuals. I think there are a few collecta led but like the rest of the game it is very simple. I believe I already went over my thought on the game in another thread , what bugs me in this thread is how can one directly compare journey to all the other games that came out this year. You guys mention xcom, I agree one of the best games of the year but I can't fathom comparing journey to it, xcom is so far ahead. I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game. I don't get how one can play Dishonored or Xcom or mass effect 3 or chose whatever genre you enjoy and then compare that game to Journey and you say I enjoyed Journey more. How bored of the actual games must you be that Journey is the best game you played this year. I guess some will drop the "it shows games can be a higher artform" argument which I assume is what IGN said, that is basically the free pass journey is gettiing simply cause its artsy.
#-40 Posted by c_rakestraw (14787 posts) -

I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game.dvader654

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

#-39 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game.c_rake

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.
#-38 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game.dvader654

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.

Mass Effect 3 is a top notch game, but it has bugs up the ass, it's anything but polished.

#-37 Posted by Pikminmaniac (9393 posts) -

I played through Journey at a friend's house. It was interesting for the hour and a half it lasted. It's definitely well done, but I feel it didn't deserve the big award this year, but that's coming from someone who's very focused on the gameplay of a game over absolutely everything else so...

I feel that the GOTY award should always go to the game that showed great expertise in gameplay mechanics and level design because those are aspects that are unique to this medium. strengthening what makes the medium unique is something that deserves the highest praise.

#-36 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

Black_Knight_00

A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.

Mass Effect 3 is a top notch game, but it has bugs up the ass, it's anything but polished.

Wel games that actually try to be deep can be harder to fix. :p
#-35 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.dvader654

Mass Effect 3 is a top notch game, but it has bugs up the ass, it's anything but polished.

Wel games that actually try to be deep can be harder to fix. :p

You do have a point though: comparing Mass Effect 3 and Journey is silly. They belong on a completely different shelf and Journey had 1/100 of the budget ME3 had. Journey is a metasensorial experience, ME3 is a third person shooter. It's like comparing violins and dumbbells.
#-34 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

I played through Journey at a friend's house. It was interesting for the hour and a half it lasted. It's definitely well done, but I feel it didn't deserve the big award this year, but that's coming from someone who's very focused on the gameplay of a game over absolutely everything else so...

I feel that the GOTY award should always go to the game that showed great expertise in gameplay mechanics and level design because those are aspects that are unique to this medium. strengthening what makes the medium unique is something that deserves the highest praise.

Pikminmaniac
Exactly. Journey winning an award for best game is like some movie like Jackass winning an Oscar. It's devoid of most things that make a game good.
#-33 Posted by Shenmue_Jehuty (5207 posts) -

I see it as interesting, more than good or bad.

I don't think it was game of the year worthy, in fact it was one of my least favorite games of the year, not because it was a bad game by any means I just personally found it boring, you never really do anything, though it's soundtrack is excellent.

The reason I see it as interesting is that both this, and The Walking Dead are widely considered two of the best games of this year, yet both come from smaller developers, where as larger titles like Assassin's Creed III, and Mass Effect 3 have come under a lot of criticism from fans. I believe this might open the door for Developers and Publishers alike to finally start taking some risks again, both Journey and TWD are games that a lot of publishers wouldn't have touched (well maybe TWD, but they would have wanted it turned into an FPS), this will hopefully open there eyes and show there is a market for more than just mindless FPS and that people will buy new IP's.

spike6958

This!

I have yearned for such a long time for the gaming industry to become as dynamic and innovative as it was in the 80s and 90s (part of the early 2000s as well). I just feel for the sake of minimalizing risk and making tons of $$$ they copy a successful idea and rehash it over and over until people get tired of it. Doesn't really inspire, at least not me.

#-32 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] Randomly connecting two players at specific points and removing voice chat = revolutionary? It does nothing interesting, it forces online on you whether you want it or not. There is zero magic on meeting another player cause the game will force a player in your game. Oh and this garbage that people magically work together,what are they supposed to do??? There is NOTHING a player in this game can do except just move forward, it's not like they can ruin your game even if they wanted to. The game was specifically crafted to make sure everyone experiences the same thing, the illusion being that this is some incredible unique experience you will experience. This game had some of the best marketing ever seeing that so many people bought into the BS they talked about.dvader654

Strawman.jpg

Who said people magically work together? One can work with other players or do one's own thing. Cooperation makes things easier, but it isn't forced. Players who want can do their own thing and ignore the other guy. Some of your claims are demonstrably false.

For one, there are collectibles (specifically, runes) in Journey. Some people prefer to scour the world looking for them (one hops from area to area, each of which can be freely explored), some people (particularly those playing for the first time) focus on just moving forwards, towards and later, up the mountain.

*Shrugs* If its any consolation, your point that player A can't ruin the experience of player B is true.

There is nothing to do in the game, you have to go forward. I guess if you want you can wander around the small area they give you and explore the boundaries but again it's just to ohh and ahh at the visuals. I think there are a few collecta led but like the rest of the game it is very simple. I believe I already went over my thought on the game in another thread , what bugs me in this thread is how can one directly compare journey to all the other games that came out this year. You guys mention xcom, I agree one of the best games of the year but I can't fathom comparing journey to it, xcom is so far ahead. I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game. I don't get how one can play Dishonored or Xcom or mass effect 3 or chose whatever genre you enjoy and then compare that game to Journey and you say I enjoyed Journey more. How bored of the actual games must you be that Journey is the best game you played this year. I guess some will drop the "it shows games can be a higher artform" argument which I assume is what IGN said, that is basically the free pass journey is gettiing simply cause its artsy.

A fake argument akin to stating that 'If you like shooters you must hate jrpgs'.

Mass Effect 3 is a POS that epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern game design, in that it emphasizes volume over polish. Clearly the designers just threw stuff in up until the last minute without worrying about how it all worked. I'm happy to beta test for free, but I'm not willing to pay for the privilege.

#-31 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]I understand journey can be a great experience but its not experience of the year, it's game of the year. Yes games are about giving you an experience but the best ones give you an amazing experience and still be an objectively great game.dvader654

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.

If I credited designers for time served, I would praise Mass Effect 3 and Duke Nukem Forever, but I care more about the final product so despite the years the designers wasted on the products, I can't find it in me to praise them.

#-30 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Mass Effect 3 is a top notch game, but it has bugs up the ass, it's anything but polished.Black_Knight_00
Wel games that actually try to be deep can be harder to fix. :p

You do have a point though: comparing Mass Effect 3 and Journey is silly. They belong on a completely different shelf and Journey had 1/100 of the budget ME3 had. Journey is a metasensorial experience, ME3 is a third person shooter. It's like comparing violins and dumbbells.

True but The whole point of a GOTY is to compare games to each other so now journey is forced in comparisons. The criteria one uses to determine the GOTY shows a lot. Like the poster above I am all about the game, I enjoy games twith excellent design and great gameplay and I feel that is the standard for judging games. Now others clearly loved journey as experience like yourself but even you wouldn't compare journey to ME in terms of gameplay right? This is more about what I feel a GOTY game should represent.
#-29 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

So how do you define an "objectively" great game then?

CarnageHeart

A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.

If I credited designers for time served, I would praise Mass Effect 3 and Duke Nukem Forever, but I care more about the final product so despite the years the designers wasted on the products, I can't find it in me to praise them.

It has nothing to do with time it's about the amount of work and aspects they had to design. Making a game like ME3 is far far far more difficult and complex than making something as simple as journey. It's like one painter paints the last supper and another draws a happy face.
#-28 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Mass Effect 3 is a POS that epitomizes everything that is wrong with modern game design, in that it emphasizes volume over polish. Clearly the designers just threw stuff in up until the last minute without worrying about how it all worked. I'm happy to beta test for free, but I'm not willing to pay for the privilege.

CarnageHeart

Whoa. Aside from the ending, there is nothing rushed/unpolished/buggy about the game. It's as polished as say an Uncharted or Halo. There are over 8 classes in this game and all of them are balanced. It's the most deepest combat engine ever made and it all works smooth as butter. If it wasn't for the ending which I will give you felt half assed, this would be everyone's game of the year.

Mass Effect is not Skyrim.

#-27 Posted by c_rakestraw (14787 posts) -

Now others clearly loved journey as experience like yourself but even you wouldn't compare journey to ME in terms of gameplay right? dvader654

Of course not. Only a fool would think that's a comparison worth making. It's like when IGN compared Dark Souls against Skyrim last year: they're both very different games with very different goals in mind. To compare them is to ignore what each game is and what it sets out to achieve.

#-26 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="dvader654"] Wel games that actually try to be deep can be harder to fix. :p

You do have a point though: comparing Mass Effect 3 and Journey is silly. They belong on a completely different shelf and Journey had 1/100 of the budget ME3 had. Journey is a metasensorial experience, ME3 is a third person shooter. It's like comparing violins and dumbbells.

True but The whole point of a GOTY is to compare games to each other so now journey is forced in comparisons. The criteria one uses to determine the GOTY shows a lot. Like the poster above I am all about the game, I enjoy games twith excellent design and great gameplay and I feel that is the standard for judging games. Now others clearly loved journey as experience like yourself but even you wouldn't compare journey to ME in terms of gameplay right? This is more about what I feel a GOTY game should represent.

I wouldn't compare them but not because one is better than the other, I wouldn't compare them because they have virtually nothing in common. I agree that Journey has little gameplay, but still it's something fresh and unique, which is why it shines compared to a year that took very little risks.
#-25 Posted by Socijalisticka (1554 posts) -

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

Explain how.

Black_Knight_00

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

If you're capable of analysis like that, why slum with comments such as "lol that piece of sh*t"? And comments such as "if I wanted to see landscapes I'd go hiking" really reveal how not everyone can understand experimantal gaming. To some people a game must give you a gun and a couple spetsnaz to shoot or it's not a game. God forbid trying something new.

I placed as much efforts in my criticisms, as the 500+ dev team had done so on Journey. What is there to Journey that I'm oblivious to? Experimental is this case is apparently the subtraction of system and mechanics in favor of pure aesthetics. Imagine Shadow of the Colossus without the colossi. Retrogression does not equate to originality. Just as ARTS, void of all creative endeavors, derives itself from a far more dynamic genre. It's not a game because there are no underlying mechanics.

#-24 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

I'm pessimistic about adaptations between different mediums. How can a work of literature ever fully manifest in a game? How can you impose the wonderful narrative of Half Life 2 onto paper? However important aesthetics are, it's not enough for a game to function without the "nuts & bolts" and its systems.

Allicrombie

I actually agree with you on this point and furthermore, Campbell's work is not a narrative but rather an anthropological and literary study, identification and classification of redundant myth constructs and paradigms that have been a common factor in various cultures throughout the ages.

right, which is why its even more impressive that they managed to successfully turn it into a game at all, let alone one that is a serious contender for one of the best games of the year.

Campbells work isn't merely dealing with one mythos but rather is a broad survey of the commonality of certain elements and components that repeat within many different cultures and stories.

Emulating the Journey of the Hero is not particularly difficult as most narratives that center on a heroic protagonist do so by default.

#-23 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

All this journey talk has made me want to start a new playthrough. If anyone wants to do a collectathon run, let me know and we will figure out if we can join each other's game.

#-22 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

I played through Journey at a friend's house. It was interesting for the hour and a half it lasted. It's definitely well done, but I feel it didn't deserve the big award this year, but that's coming from someone who's very focused on the gameplay of a game over absolutely everything else so...

I feel that the GOTY award should always go to the game that showed great expertise in gameplay mechanics and level design because those are aspects that are unique to this medium. strengthening what makes the medium unique is something that deserves the highest praise.

dvader654

Exactly. Journey winning an award for best game is like some movie like Jackass winning an Oscar. It's devoid of most things that make a game good.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but generally speaking -- I agree. I wasn't all that thrilled with Journey. I heard all this effusive praise for the game and how it would make a huge mark on me emotionally and it was basically a really boring (albeit pretty) game about sand surfing. Or at least, that's what I got out of the half of the game I played. I just didn't see anything in the game that blew me away to any appreciable degree. Plus, as others noted, it was really bizarre to have people just jump in the game.

It wasn't a bad experience, it just wasn't worthy of the gasping praise it had heaped on it by so many people

#-21 Posted by fl4tlined (4134 posts) -
alright let's be serious here.. for those who thought games like the walking dead and journey did not deserve goty which game would you think deserves it? BLOPS 2? halo 4? even dishonored? why reward a game GOTY if it under performs even though its an idea used and overused over and over again? is this how we should give out goty? To games that are games just because of how they play? Even if said gameplay is overused and repetative? Why would that be remembered?
#-20 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Grammaton-Cleric

This. Good lord this. The ONLY reason IGN or any other game site would ever give Journey GOTY is for attention and so they can be seen giving GOTY to an "artsy" game. Look at us! We just gave this super artsy indie game GOTY! See! Video games can be art and we're so in touch with that!

#-19 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

Socijalisticka

If you're capable of analysis like that, why slum with comments such as "lol that piece of sh*t"? And comments such as "if I wanted to see landscapes I'd go hiking" really reveal how not everyone can understand experimantal gaming. To some people a game must give you a gun and a couple spetsnaz to shoot or it's not a game. God forbid trying something new.

I placed as much efforts in my criticisms, as the 500+ dev team had done so on Journey. What is there to Journey that I'm oblivious to? Experimental is this case is apparently the subtraction of system and mechanics in favor of pure aesthetics. Imagine Shadow of the Colossus without the colossi. Retrogression does not equate to originality. Just as ARTS, void of all creative endeavors, derives itself from a far more dynamic genre. It's not a game because there are no underlying mechanics.

It's a multisensorial experience, experimental in the way it seamlessly combines visuals and sounds to convey an unspoken narrative and generate emotion and a sense of immersion. It's an allegory for life: starting by gliding through a wide and open landscape, then traversing and emerging from darkness, in turn climbing a cold inhospitable peak, sinking in the snow, feeling powerless as the character can only rely on his/her legs and no arms while struggling against an impossibly strong wind, up to a glorious climax with a great feeling of liberation.

Maybe it takes a more honed sensitivity to fully appreciate it, I don't know, but to me it's simply amazing.

#-18 Posted by Allicrombie (25560 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Maybe it takes a more honed sensitivity to fully appreciate it, I don't know, but to me it's simply amazing.

I'm gonna go with this.
#-17 Posted by Socijalisticka (1554 posts) -

Your response was as I expected. It's pure aesthetics with nothing underneath. How do you feel powerless when god mode is enabled?

Also there are folks in this thread who refer to Journey as an "indie game" which it clearly isn't.

#-16 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -

Your response was as I expected. It's pure aesthetics with nothing underneath. How do you feel powerless when god mode is enabled?

Also there are folks in this thread who refer to Journey as an "indie game" which it clearly isn't.

Socijalisticka
No offense, but you seem to have completely misunderstood my response if you think it in any way endorses the idea of Journey being nothing but aesthetics. I expressed the exact opposite. Play the game to the end, don't just watch it on youtube, maybe you'll catch the powerlessness facet, or maybe you won't: we don't all appreciate the same things in life.
#-15 Posted by Greyfeld (3006 posts) -
When there is no conflict, there is no sense of powerlessness.
#-14 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] A game with good gameplay, good design, a game that gives the players lots of quality content. You look at a game like mass effect 3 and all that the game offers, all done extremely well, very polished. Then you look at what journey offers, well it's polished but there is almost nothing there. It's an insult to mass effect and all the devs that spent years making such an expertly crafted game to compare it to journey which is as basic a game as you can get. Let me ask you this, make the game ugly, imagine it looked like some PS1 game, everything else is exactly the same. No one would ever give this game a second look cause its not a good game.dvader654

If I credited designers for time served, I would praise Mass Effect 3 and Duke Nukem Forever, but I care more about the final product so despite the years the designers wasted on the products, I can't find it in me to praise them.

It has nothing to do with time it's about the amount of work and aspects they had to design. Making a game like ME3 is far far far more difficult and complex than making something as simple as journey. It's like one painter paints the last supper and another draws a happy face.

Are we talking about the same Mass Effect 3 which suffered from a massive backlash which pushed the founders into retirement from an audience famously forgiving of dodgey game design (polish is the exception rather than the rule in wrpgs) so long as the list of bullet points is long enough?

Ambition is wonderful, but if you are throwing in multiplayer rather than making sure your game is bug tested or (most problematically for the audience) has proper endings, then you are doing it wrong.

If ME3 were a painting, it would have been a messy, incomplete mural. I'm old school so games being finished when I buy them is kind of important to me.

#-13 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

Socijalisticka

If you're capable of analysis like that, why slum with comments such as "lol that piece of sh*t"? And comments such as "if I wanted to see landscapes I'd go hiking" really reveal how not everyone can understand experimantal gaming. To some people a game must give you a gun and a couple spetsnaz to shoot or it's not a game. God forbid trying something new.

I placed as much efforts in my criticisms, as the 500+ dev team had done so on Journey. What is there to Journey that I'm oblivious to? Experimental is this case is apparently the subtraction of system and mechanics in favor of pure aesthetics. Imagine Shadow of the Colossus without the colossi. Retrogression does not equate to originality. Just as ARTS, void of all creative endeavors, derives itself from a far more dynamic genre. It's not a game because there are no underlying mechanics.

Good to know you don't let total ignorance stop you from posting on a topic and pulling lies out of your butt to support your arguments. There were 18 people on the Journey development team (not counting the community manager).

http://thatgamecompany.com/games/journey/

#-12 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19100 posts) -

When there is no conflict, there is no sense of powerlessness.Greyfeld
Nonsense, you don't need Hitler or an evil dragon breathing down your neck to feel powerless. A steep climb on a snowy mountain against the wind, your legs failing beaneath you, that will do just fine.

#-11 Posted by Zen_Light (1614 posts) -

I think it's very funny that some people seem to feel threatened by a game like this. I guess a game has to be brutal in difficulty, and require tons of deaths and trial and error to be a superb game? Give me a break.

Journey takes the player on a spiritual adventure, an atmospheric experience that doesn't need to be physically overcome. People should really appreciate living works of art and be glad that someone out there cares about creating unique games.

#-10 Posted by wiouds (5519 posts) -

I think it's very funny that some people seem to feel threatened by a game like this. I guess a game has to be brutal in difficulty, and require tons of deaths and trial and error to be a superb game? Give me a break.

Journey takes the player on a spiritual adventure, an atmospheric experience that doesn't need to be physically overcome. People should really appreciate living works of art and be glad that someone out there cares about creating unique games.

Zen_Light

Can you call it a game? Is it even art in game terms?

For me it is no for both. It is a interactive story but I would not call it a game.

#-9 Posted by Socijalisticka (1554 posts) -

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] If you're capable of analysis like that, why slum with comments such as "lol that piece of sh*t"? And comments such as "if I wanted to see landscapes I'd go hiking" really reveal how not everyone can understand experimantal gaming. To some people a game must give you a gun and a couple spetsnaz to shoot or it's not a game. God forbid trying something new.CarnageHeart

I placed as much efforts in my criticisms, as the 500+ dev team had done so on Journey. What is there to Journey that I'm oblivious to? Experimental is this case is apparently the subtraction of system and mechanics in favor of pure aesthetics. Imagine Shadow of the Colossus without the colossi. Retrogression does not equate to originality. Just as ARTS, void of all creative endeavors, derives itself from a far more dynamic genre. It's not a game because there are no underlying mechanics.

Good to know you don't let total ignorance stop you from posting on a topic and pulling lies out of your butt to support your arguments. There were 18 people on the Journey development team (not counting the community manager).

http://thatgamecompany.com/games/journey/

It's much larger than that, here's the full credits. Hardly an indie game.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/journey/credits

#-8 Posted by c_rakestraw (14787 posts) -

It is a interactive story but I would not call it a game.wiouds

All games can be called an interactive story, just as all games can be called experiences, and vice versa. I don't see what you're trying to say here.

#-7 Posted by wiouds (5519 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]It is a interactive story but I would not call it a game.c_rake

All games can be called an interactive story, just as all games can be called experiences, and vice versa. I don't see what you're trying to say here.

That is like say all squares (games) are rectangle (interactive story). The thing is not all rectangles are squares. There are games with no story and they are just fine.

All games are base off of meaningful problem solving. Games as art is at its best with it bring new meaningful problem solving. How can they call something with no meaningful problem solving in it game?

Worse is that the Journey show you doo not need to be innovative or unique to be praised. You just need to come up with a gimmick and a little show & dance.

#-6 Posted by Zen_Light (1614 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

I think it's very funny that some people seem to feel threatened by a game like this. I guess a game has to be brutal in difficulty, and require tons of deaths and trial and error to be a superb game? Give me a break.

Journey takes the player on a spiritual adventure, an atmospheric experience that doesn't need to be physically overcome. People should really appreciate living works of art and be glad that someone out there cares about creating unique games.

wiouds

Can you call it a game? Is it even art in game terms?

For me it is no for both. It is a interactive story but I would not call it a game.

By your strict standard, titles like Metal Gear Solid and Heavy Rain wouldn't qualify as games either.

#-5 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

I placed as much efforts in my criticisms, as the 500+ dev team had done so on Journey. What is there to Journey that I'm oblivious to? Experimental is this case is apparently the subtraction of system and mechanics in favor of pure aesthetics. Imagine Shadow of the Colossus without the colossi. Retrogression does not equate to originality. Just as ARTS, void of all creative endeavors, derives itself from a far more dynamic genre. It's not a game because there are no underlying mechanics.

Socijalisticka

Good to know you don't let total ignorance stop you from posting on a topic and pulling lies out of your butt to support your arguments. There were 18 people on the Journey development team (not counting the community manager).

http://thatgamecompany.com/games/journey/

It's much larger than that, here's the full credits.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/journey/credits

Credits include everyone tangentially involved with a game (and the makers of the game) not just the design team.

The list you provided names every member of the advertising team, all of the playtesters, every musician who played a note, every member of Sony's upper level management on each continent, every senior member of the Sony's legal team (on various continents), financial guys, Sony Santa Monica (which runs Sony's external relations), thatgamecompany's talent agent, the staff of various PS Blogs, the staff of PS Home, the guys who run PSN, and friends, kids and significant others of the members of the development team...

Don't get me wrong, some of the names played very important roles in the development process (without extensive testing, games tend to be buggy messes) but most of the roles on the list aren't normally counted as members of the development team.

#-4 Posted by Lulekani (2151 posts) -
Judging by the negative attitude people have towards Journey I'm beginning to vaguely understand why call of duty sells so much. Anyway congradulations to Journey ! EXCELSIOR !
#-3 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

I think we are getting a bit too much into simply "I hate Journey" vs "I like Journey". That we can argue forever both ways, its just opinions, most of which I have heard before. I want to look more into the GOTY aspect of this, what does GOTY mean to you. I keep seeing the same reasons thrown out about why Journey is fantastic but any time it comes to comparing it to other games the question gets dodged. To me Journey could win most original game or most artsy game, something along those lines. But for it to win GOTY from a major gaming site that is supposed to understand games the same way us hardcore understand them just rubs me the wrong way. I expect Journey to win from places like Time Magazine or New York Times but not IGN.

GOTY to me means the best game you played this year, I would assume that is what it means to most everyone. To say Journey is your GOTY you are stating clearly that Journey is better than every other game you played this year, better than XCom, better than Mass Effect, better than Dishonored, there was a great game in every genre. A GOTY is a comparison of all games you played and you are saying Journey is better than them all. If you do really feel that way I can't help to think you and I are not looking for the same thing in games anymore.

Is it wrong to celebrate Journey, no, but to proclaim its better than anything else this year is almost dangerous to me. I do not want minimalist design in my games, I dont want to send a message that a simplistic 2 hour game (which is another thing, if this were the Acadamy Awards something as short as Journey would not even be allowed to be nominated for best picture as they have a separate category for short film. There is no way you can argue that Journey is not a really really short game.) is better than the other well receieved games this year. I am not saying there shouldnt be a variety of games, yes stuff like Journey is great to have but Journey itself would have been better if it tried to have better game elements, I know some of you would try to argue it wouldn't but trust me it would. You can have that entire life reflecting emotion in a game that is better designed and offers more options to the player.

#-2 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

All this journey talk has made me want to start a new playthrough. If anyone wants to do a collectathon run, let me know and we will figure out if we can join each other's game.

S0lidSnake
LOL me too. I dont think I got all trophies, so now I want to.
#-1 Posted by Zen_Light (1614 posts) -

I think we are getting a bit too much into simply "I hate Journey" vs "I like Journey". That we can argue forever both ways, its just opinions, most of which I have heard before. I want to look more into the GOTY aspect of this, what does GOTY mean to you. I keep seeing the same reasons thrown out about why Journey is fantastic but any time it comes to comparing it to other games the question gets dodged. To me Journey could win most original game or most artsy game, something along those lines. But for it to win GOTY from a major gaming site that is supposed to understand games the same way us hardcore understand them just rubs me the wrong way. I expect Journey to win from places like Time Magazine or New York Times but not IGN.

GOTY to me means the best game you played this year, I would assume that is what it means to most everyone. To say Journey is your GOTY you are stating clearly that Journey is better than every other game you played this year, better than XCom, better than Mass Effect, better than Dishonored, there was a great game in every genre. A GOTY is a comparison of all games you played and you are saying Journey is better than them all. If you do really feel that way I can't help to think you and I are not looking for the same thing in games anymore.

Is it wrong to celebrate Journey, no, but to proclaim its better than anything else this year is almost dangerous to me. I do not want minimalist design in my games, I dont want to send a message that a simplistic 2 hour game (which is another thing, if this were the Acadamy Awards something as short as Journey would not even be allowed to be nominated for best picture as they have a separate category for short film. There is no way you can argue that Journey is not a really really short game.) is better than the other well receieved games this year. I am not saying there shouldnt be a variety of games, yes stuff like Journey is great to have but Journey itself would have been better if it tried to have better game elements, I know some of you would try to argue it wouldn't but trust me it would. You can have that entire life reflecting emotion in a game that is better designed and offers more options to the player.

dvader654

You're making way too much of a big deal about the significance of website awards. Remember that these things are nothing more than opinion, and that the majority of gamers don't care or even know about these stupid things. Would you be happier if these sites just passed the buck and declared Call of Duty win these things every year?

#0 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

I think we are getting a bit too much into simply "I hate Journey" vs "I like Journey". That we can argue forever both ways, its just opinions, most of which I have heard before. I want to look more into the GOTY aspect of this, what does GOTY mean to you. I keep seeing the same reasons thrown out about why Journey is fantastic but any time it comes to comparing it to other games the question gets dodged. To me Journey could win most original game or most artsy game, something along those lines. But for it to win GOTY from a major gaming site that is supposed to understand games the same way us hardcore understand them just rubs me the wrong way. I expect Journey to win from places like Time Magazine or New York Times but not IGN.

GOTY to me means the best game you played this year, I would assume that is what it means to most everyone. To say Journey is your GOTY you are stating clearly that Journey is better than every other game you played this year, better than XCom, better than Mass Effect, better than Dishonored, there was a great game in every genre. A GOTY is a comparison of all games you played and you are saying Journey is better than them all. If you do really feel that way I can't help to think you and I are not looking for the same thing in games anymore.

Is it wrong to celebrate Journey, no, but to proclaim its better than anything else this year is almost dangerous to me. I do not want minimalist design in my games, I dont want to send a message that a simplistic 2 hour game (which is another thing, if this were the Acadamy Awards something as short as Journey would not even be allowed to be nominated for best picture as they have a separate category for short film. There is no way you can argue that Journey is not a really really short game.) is better than the other well receieved games this year. I am not saying there shouldnt be a variety of games, yes stuff like Journey is great to have but Journey itself would have been better if it tried to have better game elements, I know some of you would try to argue it wouldn't but trust me it would. You can have that entire life reflecting emotion in a game that is better designed and offers more options to the player.

Zen_Light

You're making way too much of a big deal about the significance of website awards. Remember that these things are nothing more than opinion, and that the majority of gamers don't care or even know about these stupid things. Would you be happier if these sites just passed the buck and declared Call of Duty win these things every year?

Well that is what this thread is about. I dont think cause IGN gave it GOTY sweeping changes would occur, I just dont like the idea of it. I would like the sites to give the award to what they thought was the best game not the most experimental or unique one.