ITT games that really make you think

ITT games that really make you think

that fucking ending

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IJqhLc16rWs
rifters.com/crawl/?p=6953
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I liked SOMA but I never thought it was very deep. The whole world ending thing also sort of sapped the motivation for me.

You should've seen that ending coming after the First copying.

Holy fuck, I'm at that part with the teleporting fucker, and the bitch on the monitor is telling me to go out play with him. He's waiting right outside the door.

>ITT: shallow games for pretentious retards

Technically speaking the game should have ended the first time you copied your memory to go into the next suit. I don't buy the whole "coin-toss" thing, the copy goes to the new body and the original stays put.

The coin toss probably comes from the many worlds theory that theres 2 worlds that are exactly the same and each quantum wave fuction collapse they diverge.
So the data in the arc and simon are exactly the same, then they converge. Theres no real disctinction between them.

Will anyone ever know the true meaning behind all of this? The symbolisms? The story? The eveeything?

what is this

Inside

Spoilers

it likely doesn't mean anything in particular, the creator of the game just wanted to imply deeper meaning.

Inside.

The coin-toss was just an analogy to make Simon feel better, it doesn't actually mean anything, so you are perfectly justified in not buying it. However, there is no reason for it to be a technicality since we the player don't have to be confined to a single perspective.

Also pic related really gets the neurons firing.

I was interested in this game since I first heard of it pre-release but never got around to playing it. Is it really that good?

This would probably be my last purchase from this sale

whoops

is this related to SOMA? I've never seen that before.

I don't know. If the clear objective was just to play the game. It wouldn't have been made

>the creator of the game just wanted to imply deeper meaning.
I'm not so sure this is the case. Having an implied deeper meaning is an old tired trope. It seems more likely that the creator of the game wanted to make something that seemed cool, and this was an interesting idea to him. What deep meaning could there be about this blob thing?

interesting and fascinating plot but not much gameplay

youtube.com/watch?v=IJqhLc16rWs

I doubt it given how little sense it made in hindsight, is probably correct though (or it could be a mix of both)

its plot has some interesting details, but I personally feel its overhyped on Sup Forums as the gameplay is a slog and the plot isn't quite as amazing as it sounds.

I thought symphony of the night didnt have whip

Peter Watts praised it on his blog; that has to count for something. I personally really liked it (but as said; little gameplay) as it has top tier atmosphere, world building and an interesting plot. A lot of people complain about the latter for dealing with a relatively common sci-fi theme; conciousness.

rifters.com/crawl/?p=6953

You can unlock Richter and play the game as him.

The game takes place in the same universe as Limbo. the mind control worms (which stood for the jewish/globalist propaganda) from that game are gone, in Inside the people who were affected by the worms are lined up and shipped to factories (the mainstream normie world) where they are controlled by jewish scientists with the helmets. Eventually the big blob (which symbolizes America) recruits the boy to finally set itself free from the masterminds and the game ends with the blob at the edge of the dead sea (to symbolize the coming WW3).

well meme'd, Sup Forums

There is no 'coin toss'. It's a lie to make the idiot feel better and get him to cooperate.

I like to think the original copy grows some balls and makes his way back to the surface to rebuild the earth after realizing the truth.

Fuck the fascinating plot and "makes youth ink" ending.

Some people didn't spare him though.

That ending was fucking retarded, it was spelled out what was going to happen and I even looked for a way for my copy to get back out but instead it throws you straight out of the game by doing something the character should have known was coming.

Really makes you think.

The player should have known what was coming, the character was heavily in denial and had brain damage.

If you are deliberately separating the character from the player then the game has failed. Especially in horror games where immersion should be top priority.

top kek

The game failing is a subjective feeling. Personally I felt more dread knowing what was coming in the end, hoping that something would change somehow along the way.

The atmosphere of the game is magnificent. I loved walking around the ocean floor just looking around. It's too bad the story was kinda forced, but I understand that they were going for a certain kind of narrative experience: you have no choice but to do terrible things, and you won't be rewarded for it. You'll just keep being used for the sake of the "greater good".

I forget her name, but the girl you help through the game is insane, like the "Love is the fourth dimension" chick from Interstellar.

Watching Game of Thrones has a similar effect.

Some games have an interesting duality where the playable character is to be literally embodied by the player within the game as an avatar with no true narrative agency beyond the actions and whims of the player, or a lens through which the player experiences the world and plays as but is otherwise a totally separate figure with agency and identity from that of the player, or a mixture of both. An example of the first would be Minecraft or GTA, an example of the second would be The Last of Us, and an example of the third would be SOMA.

You play as Simon, Simon's clone, Simon's clone's clone, and Simon's clone's clone's ARK clone. I think to a degree, whether intentional or not, the idea of clones and AI derived from incomplete and degrading sources fits with the concept of the player playing, but not wholly the character. None of the four POVs in the game are quite the same, just as the player is never quite the same as any of them. There's a separation despite an intimate connection and interweaving of POVs. I think one could make the case for SOMA exploring the separation of protagonist (Simon) and participant (player), as both are intimately tied together and function as one being ingame despite being separate individuals on a literal level. The dissonance between Simon being a retard and the player being able to call the coin toss what it is - bullshit - might have been a total oversight, but in hindsight it honestly fits into the themes pretty well. For all the clones feel, there is no separation between their entire lives and memories, and the real Simon, same as the playable character and the player.

Most nuances in art are pure accident, and I'm not saying this was the intention, but it's really interesting to note there are very strong parallels, and this was a very intelligently written story, so who knows. I'd be inclined to say it's me reading into things too deeply but I think it's near regardless.

>holy shit I'm in the ocean
>man, I hope they don't force me to go to that ultra deep part where not even light can pierce
>the game says you have to go to the abyssal zone

I guess it's just a different experience. The game's clearly not meant to be won, and you can't change how it ends no matter what you do. You're just going along with being used, so your only involvement is to wonder whether or not Catherine was right or was full of shit.

Like, it would've been really interesting if you chose to question Catherine more until you were allowed to decide whether or not to destroy the ARK, or just seal it away somewhere. I guess the problem with this agency is the developers can't expect for everyone to have the same experience, and then you wouldn't have any reason to venture down to the abyssal zone. Was there anything else to do down there except launch something into space?

and? I think there can be horror in playing a game as a character who very clearly is missing some information or sanity required to make the right decision.

If all it is is player stand-ins there's always going to be something missing since the player will always have information that the narrative doesn't.

Spec Ops the line wasn't actually yelling you to stop playing, that whole thing was meant to piss you off. You couldn't just stop playing and feel that you stopped something bad happening and Walker couldn't just walk away from Dubai.

The idea of having the game purposely tell you things that are clearly wrong is difficult to pull off correctly since it requires the skill of writing to do it well and the audience knowing and going with that idea.

I've found, in my own experience, is players tend to go with whatever the game says since how the fuck are they supposed to know any different?

I think the best bet for a non-pretentious way to have an opening scene that establishes this with a sledgehammer and then let the subtleties play out over the course

I feel like it's a problem with the game's presentation of continuous events, vs an actual human's experiences. For example, you see 4 different Simons in the game, but it's presented in a way to suggest that you were only ever the 3rd Simon, and everything else you played was simply the memories of his past experiences. We know this because every scan results in you "switching bodies" immediately, yet the last scan doesn't. You're trapped in the 3rd body, and you never get to control the 4th, only seeing what happens in a cut-scene From that perspective, the game could have just as easily had you be the 4th Simon the entire time, winning the coin toss.

However, people's memories don't really work that way. The copy will be identical the moment it is scanned/transferred, but it's not like their entire continuity plays out to them when it happens. They start creating new experiences immediately, and are a new entity. If they think, they are, and thus know 100% they lost the coin toss. At least if they aren't on the Ark.

Decide to "spare" the last human or kill her.
Destroy WAU or let it live.

Neither changed the ending, though.

It change how you could interpret what happened after the ending.

Star Trek: TNG covered this in a arc about Riker being cloned in a transporter malfunction, and both Rikers ending up going their separate ways.

That's besides the point.

>That's besides the point.
What do you mean?
>Was there anything else to do down there except launch something into space?
Those aren't reasons to go down that you'd know of if thats what you were asking, but they are things that affect the story and change how one interprets the end.

>What do you mean?
Besides the game's ending not showing any change, there wasn't a whole lot to think about.

The last human may as well have been dead before you ever found her, so leaving her alive or killing her doesn't matter. Choosing to kill the WAU or spare it is an interesting sequence in and of itself, but your only exposure to the outside world is the memories of the first Simon, while what you know of the WAU is that it either traps people in heaven or hell and never lets them die.

What all of the choices do is make you feel differently about yourself, not so much make you think about what'll happen later. They're moral choices, and the game doesn't make much of a comment as to what choices you make, or shows you any consequence. If it did, then it breaks the sort of nihilistic narrative experience it's going for.

The monsters in SOMA are annoying, blatantly teleporting to harass you and generally being in such tiny linear spaces that there isnt shit you can do but eat a hit and run. Simon is a fucking moron, but the setting is wonderful.

And I'm getting real tired of this fucking fireworks captcha. Stop making me click 6-8 times google.

It was refreshing to see a game at least TRY to have a good story.

this

I mostly liked it for the atmosphere and spooky weird science base vibe it had going on

>go into chick's room
>she comments on it
>rifle through her underwear
>no commentary

maximum disappointment

can't remember exactly the kind of stuff she comments on, but she probably couldn't "see" in detail what you were doing, and could only detect that you went into a room, turned on lights, etc. anything that could be detected digitally

I think that's right

I think I just assumed at the time she could see through a camera or something