I have been gaming for a long time and as such, my perception of what constitutes a video game might be different from most members of this website. I remember when graphics were very rudimentary, just black and white images or line drawings. And then there were other games with no graphics where storyline was king. Yes, no graphics. For those of you who havent been gaming since the beginning of time, once upon a time there were text adventure games that had no graphics or sound at all! You read text on the screen then typed in commands, and you solved puzzles in order to advance the story. If you got stuck, there was no internet, no websites with walkthroughs or guides or hints of any sort. You had to rely on your own brain, or maybe the help of friends who would play with you (multiplayer in those days were friends gathered in your living room taking turns at the keyboard). There may have been a phone number to call but it would have been available only during normal business hours and long distance charges would have applied. These were some of my favorite games - the Zork series, the Enchanter Trilogy, and, my absolute favorites, Moonmist and Infidel! Then video games advanced and graphics improved and pretty soon the first point-and-click adventure games came out. Simple graphics but, again, the story was the primary lure of these games. You had to click on everything and explore everywhere. Myst is probably the most well-known of this kind of game.
The reason I bring this up is that I recently purchased and played a new game, Gone Home. It was nostalgic, it was moody, and it was emotionally engaging. I Loved It! It reminded me of those old text adventure or point-and-click games. I bought it almost immediately after the game went on sale and played it all the way through. After playing it, I checked out reviews of the game (on several different websites) and was pleased that it received high ratings but... some of the negative comments I saw about this game surprised me. So many people insisted that this was not a real game. As if a game doesnt follow the format of Call of Duty or one of the GTA games, it cant be a real game. I cannot help but shake my head; the people who think this way must be those who began gaming only after modern advances in video gaming and have a very limited viewpoint of what a game should be.
And then there were the comments by people who complained about the rating this game received with comments such as "I cant believe this game got a higher rating than fill-in-the-blank". What difference does it make?!? How does the rating of this game affect their enjoyment of fill-in-the-blank. But what really made me laugh and shake my head were those commenters who stated they had no interest in this game, would never play this game, could not imagine spending $20 on this game, and yet watched play-throughs on YouTube in order to support their negative comments. I dont know about you, but if I felt that way about a video game then I would not care about that game! I wouldnt care what rating it received. I wouldnt care how much it cost. I wouldnt care if everyone else in the world played the game. And I darn sure wouldnt research the game in order to argue with someone who liked the game!
Annoying! Oh, well, I guess it takes all kinds.