I think people being extremely critical of the game for a supposed bait and switch ending is really unfair. There was never any super spooky or supernatural stuff going on, it was a game grounded in reality and it ended that way too.
the ending sucked because the gameplay sucked.
if a game with boring gameplay has a strong narrative drive, you would expect the story to overcome the gameplay's dullness. if the game play was fun and engaging then firewatch's story as it was would have been good enough.
the story is a 3/5 and the gameplay is a 1/5. in a game as story heavy as firewatch I would weight the gameplay and story equally, therefore the game as a whole gets a 2/5
[QUOTE=meppers;53086822]the ending sucked because the gameplay sucked.
if a game with boring gameplay has a strong narrative drive, you would expect the story to overcome the gameplay's dullness. if the game play was fun and engaging then firewatch's story as it was would have been good enough.
the story is a 3/5 and the gameplay is a 1/5. in a game as story heavy as firewatch I would weight the gameplay and story equally, therefore the game as a whole gets a 2/5[/QUOTE]
i mean it's a walking simulator, so idk what you were expecting gameplay-wise. that's like critiquing doom for being nothing but shooting.
I want my walking simulators to walk me through places I can't go in real life, this is why the stanley parable is leaps and bounds superior to firewatch.
[editline]27th January 2018[/editline]
firewatch needed some serious rock climbing that would make your palms sweat from the sense of height, or other visually interesting things
No it didn't.
It sounds like you're upset that the game wasn't something it wasn't trying to be.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53086772]I think people being extremely critical of the game for a supposed bait and switch ending is really unfair. [sp]There was never any super spooky or supernatural stuff going on, it was a game grounded in reality and it ended that way too.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Tbh I think the most amazing trick the game played
was making you think you [sp]suffering demetia/being manipulated/being stalked by the 'government'[/sp]
it makes you question the reality of the game when in fact it was the characters who weren't grounded in reality. They were so locked away from reality and isolated that they've become a stranger to it.
Did this really need explaining? It's pretty straightforward what they were going for.
The ending was such a letdown. I understand what they were trying to do and even then they offered no actual closure.
This is probably still one of my all time favorite walking simulators next to the Stanley Parable. The character chemistry, dialogue and setting itself really felt natural and mature. Even with the [sp]untwist of nothing paranormal or conspiracy-like happening[/sp] actually strengthened it [sp]because it's natural for people to go over their heads too and think of plenty of possibilities.[/sp]
I get why some people are disappointed about it but I really found it to be a relatable and poignant experience.
[QUOTE=meppers;53086822]the ending sucked because the gameplay sucked.[/QUOTE]
The ending sucked because the main plotline suddenly resolves itself before it could fully develop. The same problem would arise if Firewatch were a movie. It had absolutely nothing to do with the gameplay.
The ending sucked for me at first but after thinking about it as a whole more I did enjoy it more
it didn't decide anything for you, it kind of just let you imagine it on your own. It wasn't good or bad, it was there because the meat of the story was in the game itself
that being said I have a hatred usually for choices 'not mattering', but because of how grounded in reality the story was I don't think it needed to matter.
I can get why the ending is good. But boy o' boy if I played the game blind I would have felt so let down by the end.
"You mean this game about overcoming grief, isolation, responsibility and the futility running from your life's problems WASN'T actually about aliens and government conspiracies? What a stupid ending for stupid people."
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53086906]The ending was such a letdown. I understand what they were trying to do and even then they offered no actual closure.[/QUOTE]
But it did if you took like 5 minute of thinking about what you just experienced?
When I played on release I specifically remember getting annoyed when they introduced the conspiracy stuff. If anything the ending's return to the mundane was a relief, but by that point I'd spent most of the game being irritated that the writers had (in my mind) started reaching for something I felt shouldn't have been in the game's scope, the whole thing never seemed to fit even after it ended.
I think the game was overall pretty disappointing, as I said the characters spent too much time thinking they were being targeted by men in black. But what was good (the themes mentioned by skyward, dialogue between the characters) almost makes playing the game worth it.
They probably should have gone with a psychopathic mountain-man instead.
People hated the ending because there wasn't a twist or some bigger conspiracy going on
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;53087540]People hated the ending because there wasn't a twist or some bigger conspiracy going on[/QUOTE]
Honestly I'm glad that the twist was realistic
it was something that was both surprising and grounded in good narrative story-telling
what it wasn't was a story that was done 5000x times before where there is a ~deeper mystery~ and ~hidden lore~, it was all about the characters themselves, that's it.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53087432]But it did if you took like 5 minute of thinking about what you just experienced?[/QUOTE]
No. Like i said I got what they were doing and I felt that the twist at the end was realistic and gave an interesting message about responsibility, but it still felt like they just ran out of time and gave up at the very end of the game.
It's as if they were too lazy to model another living person.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53086772]I think people being extremely critical of the game for a supposed bait and switch ending is really unfair. There was never any super spooky or supernatural stuff going on, it was a game grounded in reality and it ended that way too.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't remotely disappointing with the ending, not sure why others were. Few games have ever left me as surprised as Firewatch did, and I thought it was incredibly brilliant just how well they managed to make my own mind play tricks on me. [sp]Was there really a government conspiracy going on? Is there a monster out there? etc etc[/sp]
I think people hated it because it didn't go anywhere. It's bad that he's isolating himself and he has problems, wow we knew that from the start. It's not a story it's like a footnote, something that could have fit well into the text intro. The lack of alphabet agencies isn't important, it still needed more going on than telling you running is dumb which is something you end up contemplating within the first few minutes.
Something being slow paced and emotionally driven doesn't automatically make it good. By the end I just didn't care about the characters and was dragging myself through with some sunken cost fallacy, CIA involvement or some other wacky excitement wouldn't have changed that at all.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53086772]I think people being extremely critical of the game for a supposed bait and switch ending is really unfair. There was never any super spooky or supernatural stuff going on, it was a game grounded in reality and it ended that way too.[/QUOTE]
Oh no the idea of wild speculation & paranoia vs. reality was probably the best thing it had going for it.
People are extremely critical of the game because it touted itself on good story with choice, or rather the [I]way[/I] you spoke with the lady on the other end of the microphone being a big deal, and ended up with more dialogue restrictions than god damn [I]Fallout 4[/I].
Firewatch was a series of truly scenic locations filled with non-puzzle puzzles and climbing stops so you didn't blow through the non-story story as fast as it was worth.
Firewatch was a story that fundementally did not work at all as a game. It would have made a great movie though.
[editline]28th January 2018[/editline]
There was simply no [I]input[/I] to the game. The only play you had was continuing the plot, or continuing the plot sarcastically. Even "walking simulators" are not exempt from this crucial aspect that [I]all[/I] games require. Just look at Stanley Parable. That's a walking sim and it's probably one of my favorite games of all time.
I just personally can't stand how the consensus is to rag on Gone Home while praising Firewatch when it's within the same tier of quality, if not [I]lower.[/I]
[editline]28th January 2018[/editline]
also the dev is a HUGE cunt so, glad I can hate on this game guilt-free now.
[QUOTE=Viper_;53087832]I think people hated it because it didn't go anywhere. It's bad that he's isolating himself and he has problems, wow we knew that from the start. It's not a story it's like a footnote, something that could have fit well into the text intro. The lack of alphabet agencies isn't important, it still needed more going on than telling you running is dumb which is something you end up contemplating within the first few minutes.
Something being slow paced and emotionally driven doesn't automatically make it good. By the end I just didn't care about the characters and was dragging myself through with some sunken cost fallacy, CIA involvement or some other wacky excitement wouldn't have changed that at all.[/QUOTE]
The game not presenting resilove is not the same as "not going anywhere"
I think a big thing that people stumble on is that a game can do exactly what the devs did but that doesn't make it a good game objectively.
Games are primarily entertainment, and while I believe that any emotional response can be the purpose of a game (I've played games that made me feel angry, scared, sad, lonely etc and enjoyed them) I think that there is *one* location on that spectrum that's taboo, and that's frustration.
Yes, a developer can set out to make a frustrating game (or story) but I think it's kinda the one emotion where you're shooting yourself in the foot. Honestly in my mind it's a complete fucking waste of time to expertly craft something frustrating intentionally, when most games are frustrating [I]unintentionally[/I].
I'm all for freedom of expression, and I think the firewatch devs made what they wanted, but I think that's only half the picture. If people are actively upset by something then, to some degree, it wasn't a good experience. Pulling a bait and switch 'fuck you' on your players is something that's actually really easy once you put your mind to it, and it generally only serves to make the developer feel clever but not the player.
Just my 0.02, I think at minimum the game is absolutely gorgeous at all times. I think it's an alright game, I'm just not impressed by this kind of twist ending.
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;53088428]I think a big thing that people stumble on is that a game can do exactly what the devs did but that doesn't make it a good game objectively.
Games are primarily entertainment, and while I believe that any emotional response can be the purpose of a game (I've played games that made me feel angry, scared, sad, lonely etc and enjoyed them) I think that there is *one* location on that spectrum that's taboo, and that's frustration.
Yes, a developer can set out to make a frustrating game (or story) but I think it's kinda the one emotion where you're shooting yourself in the foot. Honestly in my mind it's a complete fucking waste of time to expertly craft something frustrating intentionally, when most games are frustrating [I]unintentionally[/I].
I'm all for freedom of expression, and I think the firewatch devs made what they wanted, but I think that's only half the picture. If people are actively upset by something then, to some degree, it wasn't a good experience. Pulling a bait and switch 'fuck you' on your players is something that's actually really easy once you put your mind to it, and it generally only serves to make the developer feel clever but not the player.
Just my 0.02, I think at minimum the game is absolutely gorgeous at all times. I think it's an alright game, I'm just not impressed by this kind of twist ending.[/QUOTE]
I honestly just disagree with this. Games and media in general now are far too challenging-lite. They post a challenge or critical concept but then never push through to how frustrating it can be.
Frustration is just as much a part of decent game design as reward and follow through. Its the difference between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3. Far Cry 2 and games like it(XCOM, Xenonauts, Dark Souls) are filled with frustrating mechanics that push violently back against the player, turning the experience from one of just blind enjoyment into a harrowing journey of growth and challenge.
We don't nearly have enough games like that, especially singleplayer games. However, at the same time there's been a rise of 'Man this game is hard because the mechanics are terrible'. Which doesn't actually push back and instead is closer to just smashing your controller for trying to have some fun.
Personally I thought the ending was really clever.
I wasn't frustrated. I was pretty happy about the ending leaving out the stuff that made you feel frustrated. It's mature and the ultimate notion that full closure is barely ever achievable in life and the game does reflect that very well for me.
I didn't hate the ending, but I did find it kind of mediocre in its execution. I totally get what they were going for, and I do like the idea [I]in concept[/I], but the landing of it was a bit flawed. We had little reason to care about the dead child, whereas in Walking Dead (Campo Santo staff previously worked on the Walking Dead game), we built relationships to the characters instead of just having those relationships be pre-established and thrown at us.
The "dead kid" plot twist felt kind of like a cheap attempt to pull at the heart strings, and I feel the execution of their idea would've worked better if they had built up the character relationships more and used some other variant of the same story idea where we encounter a "mundane, down to earth" problem that actually incorporated previous character development, build-up, etc, outside of vague and passing hints of some kid that went hiking in the past years back.
I really liked the character based interpersonal drama that you play out in the text-based "choose your own adventure" style mini game at the start, and I was hoping that the actual main gameplay would deal with similar writing/character drama. [I]That[/I] was what I wanted to see more of, personally speaking.
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53088820]I honestly just disagree with this. Games and media in general now are far too challenging-lite. They post a challenge or critical concept but then never push through to how frustrating it can be.
Frustration is just as much a part of decent game design as reward and follow through. Its the difference between Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3. Far Cry 2 and games like it(XCOM, Xenonauts, Dark Souls) are filled with frustrating mechanics that push violently back against the player, turning the experience from one of just blind enjoyment into a harrowing journey of growth and challenge.
We don't nearly have enough games like that, especially singleplayer games. However, at the same time there's been a rise of 'Man this game is hard because the mechanics are terrible'. Which doesn't actually push back and instead is closer to just smashing your controller for trying to have some fun.[/QUOTE]
no because challenge and frustration are not the same thing
challenge is good, frustration is not. frustration can come from challenge but its still not good, thats the point where you should take a break from the game because its starting to have a negative effect on you.
[QUOTE=elowin;53090148]no because challenge and frustration are not the same thing
challenge is good, frustration is not. frustration can come from challenge but its still not good, thats the point where you should take a break from the game because its starting to have a negative effect on you.[/QUOTE]
What's the point in taking part in a medium if it makes you [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft"]uncomfortable[/URL] or gets you [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22"]frustrated[/URL]?
Its almost as if some of the most influential works that helped shape our modern culture were frustrating or uncomfortable to deal with. Its almost as if pushing back against the viewer and treating them like an intelligent adult actually helps mediums grow versus comfortably treating them like children and providing a 'challenge'.
If your definition of gaming is just to relax and sit back, more power to you but that's really not helping the medium because its absolutely over saturated with that, or its extreme opposite.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
