i haven't played the game yet but i really liked the article and understand that why some games affect some people more than the others. this is the beauty of games i believe. it's not often that people share the same thoughts and feelings regarding something that we've. but when we see a game (which is made by some people only), every once in awhile, whose theme or essence resonates with what we feel and think, the game becomes special to us even if in technical aspects it may be lacking what makes a good game thereby bringing it's (metacritic) score aggregate down. and this makes the game fail to reach many people, which it should, and in the way it did reach some people.

also when i read this article it makes me feel if i could only have more time to appreciate many games out there just like the author here was able to do so. when you're busy the whole day with your job, studies, family etc. and you know you could only give so much time to your gaming then there's this guilt that you know you're gonna gradually only miss out more of those things about gaming that made you fall in love with it in the first place. when you're only getting to play a game for a couple hours maybe even less then you naturally tend to incline towards the best out there which arguably are the AAA titles in the market. most of the time these titles pull off most things right because... well, because they're AAA titles. but still when i'm finished playing one of these 'blockbusters' i find myself trying to justify that why i played this game and why my time playing it was worth it. this i believe happens because, as the author in the article has stated "the best art often illuminates its subject matter in universal terms". the AAA games have to try to be the best in the market so that they can make the profit necessary to keep their AAA status. this makes them tend to focus more on technical and entertainment aspects of the content rather then the art aspect. and this makes the game try to bring as many people together as it can on a limited emotional plane which it uses to justify it's particular gameplay. but games like papa and yo, bastion and portal, i think their devs understand the best game is the one whose goodness is best justified by the experiences of gamers who play have played it rather than by the devs themselves through the fancy box art or heavy budget promotions and marketing.

but as much as the review-providing-crowd on net bashes even the good AAA titles out there by exaggerating what they missed out on (yes the mass effect 3 ending controversy most probably comes to your mind), the fact is we're used to them and they cannot stop nor they shouldn't. the AAA have their own place of MIND BLOWING ENTERTAINMENT in our minds we must admit. but with that we should also try games like papa and yo every once in awhile because they hold a special place in our heart called GAMING.

why do some people like to make statements that contradicts the consensus of majority of those who are actually on the receiving end of this sector of entertainment i.e. gaming, especially when it comes down to means of acquiring the product. (i'm not talking about game devs to shape game experiences based totally(!) on fan feedbacks) it was just yesterday or a day before i think where EZ's peter moore was also saying something along these lines except he exercised a lttle restraint and did say that we'll provide hard copies too if customers demand. thank you for obliging us. but you see what you need to focus on is making games that entertain us and in return we will pay you for the experiences. but how do we make that payment and how do we acquire your game should be something left totally on our convenience. i mean how about if we suggest that you let us "DOWNLOAD" 50% of the game and we'll pay for only that 50% of the game and if we feel like playing and paying for the rest of it we'll tell you.