Did Sup Forums lie to me?

Played it. Not even tumblr. Bretty gud. Undeniably GOAT soundtrack.

What's your excuse?

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#!fdwkiQpa!d-qLPkBAMhCqB5q7aaaVHF7mE6QXG_bUSpdNds6FI_U
mega.nz/#!KEx13BrJ!lDBrL4NshXMyUZ4Sgzp_TJ7dumweN4eFsyqL2kJkQYc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Is there a torent for the linux version?

>What's your excuse?
Too many games I haven't even played. I am highly limiting my purchases until I work through a number of them.

Night in the Woods is on my wishlist, though, to keep tabs on the game.

>buying games

My excuse is that I don't play games made for children. Adventure games are usually better suited for children trying to learn how to play videogames.

They have all of the potential in art, sound, and narrative that other genres of vidya have, but their puzzles and logic tools are better suited for children. Why would you make a mature videogame with no gameplay? Why would you abandon ludonarrative in an interactive medium?

The point of any narrative driven game with gameplay is that they require a level of cognitive ability to adapt to button inputs and understanding how a game works, and thus you could truly appreciate when the gameplay and the narrative compliment and drive eachother. Adventure games don't require that in the slightest.

Basically, I don't want to play a game with mature themes that treats the player like a child.

Furthermore, I've literally had zero interest in it due to the blatant "not even trying" viral marketing attempt this game had prior to release. This insults my intelligence even more than simply making an adventure game.

It heavily turned me off and I don't plan on playing it until after the developer can't even receive money from it. Maybe then I'll regret my decision, but I don't know. I doubt it.

That being said, I only know about the game's decent art style, edgy tone, its alleged genre, and the marketing campaign, so I'd be willing to be proven wrong.

>not doing whatever the hell you want with money

>Being a socially irresponsible consumer with no respect for yourself or others.

My excuse is that I'm absolutely not interested in this game.

If you want to shill so badly, how about you post a webm of the gameplay?

Lower the autism levels there buddy.

I'm still playing through it at the moment. I don't regret buying it but it's not worth £15.
More like 5 or 10 or something along those lines but price is trivial in comparison to the actual product.
Should you buy it? Nah, just buy VA11 Hall-A

If the game is any good, then it's worth spending my money on.

If the game is not any good, then it isn't worth spending either my time or my money on.

In either case, whining about random people not pirating it is fairly pointless. I wouldn't have the time to play it even if the developers gave me a free copy, so hunting down a valid torrent is a zero priority for me.

Yes you should definitely purchase Night in the Woods™ available on Steam™ now!!! It's not Tumblr at all and is in fact quite redpilled my fellow 4channers. And only 20.00$ US! What a steal!

>Come up with a reasonable argument as to why I have no interest in a game designed for children.
>Attacks my character instead of refuting my points.
Well, I guess I'm done here then. You asked why I don't care, I gave my reason why, and since you don't care enough about the game to argue against my otherwise reasonable points, then I see no reason why I should buy it if even the people who like it don't care that much about it.

Just watch an uncommentated let's play on Youtube. You're not missing much.

>Undeniably GOAT soundtrack.

Agreed. Which is why people should just seize the means of production instead of buying this shitty game.

Vol 1
mega.nz/#!fdwkiQpa!d-qLPkBAMhCqB5q7aaaVHF7mE6QXG_bUSpdNds6FI_U

Vol 2
mega.nz/#!KEx13BrJ!lDBrL4NshXMyUZ4Sgzp_TJ7dumweN4eFsyqL2kJkQYc

The musicians in the reoccurring dream Mae has may be a band that used to play in town who eventually started trying to play to ghosts in the woods before dying of exposure one night.

: The cultists who have been kidnapping and sacrificing vagrants and criminals to the Black Goat. They clearly don't enjoy the acts they are committing and have no plans to hurt Mae and the others even if they choose not to join the cult. They were even very apologetic for almost shooting Mae and most of them held nothing against Gregg for shooting one of them with an arrow (victim of said shooting being the sole exception). And everything they do, they do for the sake of the town. Shame it involves sacrificing those they consider the garbage of society to an Eldritch Abomination.

It had some charming moments

While the mystery is solved and the cultists are killed, Mae is still alone in the world and has no idea what she's going to do next with her life. Bea is still stuck in the job she hates, unable to pursue her dreams, and Gregg and Angus have an uncertain future together if Bea and Gregg's own predictions are correct. Even then, they only have so long left before the town is hit with another disaster that could injure or kill even more people, with the town eventually dying as a result of the Black Goat. In the end, all the group has left is each other, spending what are potentially their last real times as friends with one another.

>uncommentated let's play
Let's Plays are always commented you idiot. The word you are looking for is Longplay/Walkthrough or whatever.

Mae isn't alone, really. Her mom and dad are amazing and her friends equally so. If you go with Bea route as cannon she has a close bond with her by the end. They're stuck, yeah. But stuck together

I regret buying this "game".

I haven't seen one webm or screen shot with remotely interesting dialogue or story, which is ostensibly the only thing this game could have going for it. Who is this game's target audience? Animal characters are patently autistic. Also you continue to shill the idea that these characters are suppose to cover personality archetypes that people might of encountered growing up but it just seems like the developers are delusional.

Just finished it, wanted to drop game several times when characters started screaming what a piece of shit i am. I'm miserable already, why? Soundtrack is great though.

You two are the closest things to people claiming the game is close to "good" and you've given enough credibility that you've beaten it.

Do you agree with 's sentiments on the game, or was it ultimately worth going through? As in, would you have preferred to never play it and instead play a better game? If not, why? Do you care enough about the game and the developer to try to convince someone else to play it if it might appeal to them?

>ludonarrative
This is how I know you're a snobby faggot. And this is coming from someone who doesn't think this game looks appealing at all.

Sorry for using your trigger word Mr. Delicate. I'll be sure not to use 8th grade level vocab next time.

What's wrong with Ludonarrative? It's a good term to define something that only makes a game feel more organic and real if executed well, and thus allows you to immerse into a virtual world more easily and experience everything you dev wanted you to.

In addition to that, you wouldn't want games to have inconsistent narratives and gameplay, right? What would even be the point of having a narrative? You should just write a book at that point, because if you don't know how to incorporate it into gameplay, why are you making it a game?

i dont like vns

Oh fuck off, it's just a 10 dollar world you're parroting from some insufferable "games analysis" blog post you read. And how does that make me "delicate"? I'm fucking sick of dipshits acting like any negative reaction to their post is a tumblr-tier triggering like that defuses my opinion.

The truth fears no investigation, if it weren't true then you would be able to argue against it, but instead you're choosing attack the credibility with "because I said so."

Also, what "opinion" is there to defuse? You never made a reasonable argument to begin with, you just acted like a cunt.

Any talking point that could be boiled down to "This would be better as a FPS" stands out as having a problem. I mean, I can see your point that there could be a more mechanical way of dealing with interaction in the game, but without pointing out better examples like Oxenfree, or even Telltale's first Walking Dead, you sound like someone who has been drinking the "Everything is better as interactive" kool-aid set out by the troll kids a bit too much.

Furthermore, your points ignore the aspect that merely being interactive and giving the player freedom to move around as they wish can be important in itself. It doesn't need to be more "game mechanic"-y than that, especially if the base interactivity is the important aspect.

Ludonarrative is kind of a bullshit word, generally used by people who want to sound smarter than they really are. Night in the Woods is about moving around and talking with characters, and the mechanics involve moving around and talking with characters. Ironically, the game aspects which you propose (and yet, never seem to supply a good example of) would likely be more "ludonarratively dissonant" due to throwing in abstract or absurd game mechanics when they are not needed.

It is the problem presented with cutscene QTEs or button prompts: Sure, a non-interactive unskippable cutscene is a bad thing, but throwing in random button prompts in the middle of it to force people to pay attention does not improve anything. Just being interactive does not make it better.

It makes him sound like a pretentious idiot. There was no reason for him to use the word, because he was just repeating himself with it anyway. Not the guy he replied to btw.
This.

Is this the most shilled game ever on Sup Forums?

>currently 8 Zelda threads active at the moment
>has been 5-10 or more Zelda threads constantly since BotW was released
>this game is the most shilled
Keep kidding yourself.

Did you even read the thread? The developers took a "not even trying" approach to marketing before release.

I grant you that you put way more effort into your post than the average viral marketer but all of it was put into making strawman arguments and using examples that are vastly inferior to games that have unique gameplay and consistent ludonarratives, such as Silent Hill 2, Psychonauts, or Majora's Mask. In fact, Psychonauts and Majora's Mask are practically "how to do ludonarrative 101." They're timeless classics within the medium and it's a shame you think that Oxenfree or Walking Dead, games 3 year olds can play with efficiency, are in any way similar. It's kinda disgusting, but nonetheless, it won't convince anyone to buy the game so it's fine, and you could just go ahead and say "the game won't appeal to you" and I'll be like "k i won't buy it then."

"Ludonarrative" was used perfectly in the post and the only thing I could say in place was the description of the word. Just because you don't know what it means doesn't make it pretentious. In fact, it's so important to narrative driven games that it'd be like criticizing a film critic for using the word "cinematography." How retarded is that?

I honestly cannot believe how many threads it gets for just being a simple walking and talking game with furries. Shit, at least Undertale had a video game portion in it.

You do realize that misinterpreting what someone said only makes you look retarded, right?

I was thinking of buying it after being reminded by this thread but I opened it, saw and I was pretty convinced not to buy it after seeing all of the responses just calling him pretentious, as well as a huge post filled with strawmans.

so now I have no interest

thanks op

this game is being talked about on Sup Forums 10x more than games that have 100x more current players, so yes

>"Ludonarrative" was used perfectly in the post and the only thing I could say in place was the description of the word.
>"Why would you make a mature videogame with no gameplay?"
>"Why would you abandon ludonarrative in an interactive medium?"
And I didn't even say otherwise. I said that you were repeating yourself for no reason but to sound smart or padding your blogpost. Reading comprehension might not be your thing.

>What's your excuse?
Not being a fucking mongoloid

You know what I just realized?

Due to how this is a really small indie game that people aren't playing in spite of the shilling, the shills must be the developers themselves.

And being called out on the fact that they took the laziest method of making a narrative-driven game triggers the FUCK out of them.

That's so hilariously pathetic.

Back to the drawing board, oy vey!

Hell no. It might be the most blatant, but fucking endless Bioshock Infinite threads or Cisquisition threads made the board nigh unusable.

>Due to how this is a really small indie game that people aren't playing in spite of the shilling, the shills must be the developers themselves.
You must be really smart if you figured that out just now considering how many shill threads this shit has had. I'm not even interested in this retarded furry VN, I was merely pointing out that you sound like an insufferable faggot.

Well I respect your bold and somewhat true statement but the way I articulated my argument doesn't change the fact that it's right and we should atleast compromise and say we're different people who like different niches and would probably hang out with different people.

Literally no? Are you too new to remember Undertale or Hotline Miami 2?

I didn't understand what you were trying to say there? Maybe you could rephrase that?

I like games with gameplay.
Games that have no gameplay are not worth my time.

Silent Hill 2 was fairly good. It does a good job with the atmosphere, and with limiting your weapons and what you can do with them, in establishing the horror elements they were going for. I'd actually mention the old Resident Evil titles as well, for doing something similar: the restrictive camera angles and slow movement gave the player a good sense of not knowing what was down the next hallway, and having difficulty in avoiding the dangers which might suddenly pop up.

Psychonauts... well, have you played the game? It is, basically, a 3D collectathon. It's a highly strange one, with stages presented as different characters' minds. But it does basically boil down to a collectathon. You're going through the stages collecting things, to move on and unlock new areas (or abilities) to collect more things. I mean, there are parts of the game where you need to collect 10 widgets and then ground-stomp a switch in order to progress. Which part of the narrative is that intended to invoke? Because when you start claiming ludonarrative consistency as one of the main points of the game, then the controls and objectives in the game itself are part of that discussion. Psychonauts was more noteworthy for its strange art style and the themes it dealt with, as opposed to revolutionary or noteworthy interactive controls.

(cont, fuck character limits)

You can't argue with autism, buddy. Especially with that anime gif.

>Makes a post about how he completely misunderstands the point of Psychonauts and takes it at facevalue because he's a retarded philistine.
>Considers Silent Hill 2 "fairly good," without expressing any understanding as to why it's considered a masterpiece.
>Expects to be taken seriously.
ok

(cont.)

Your Majora's Mask example suffers from a similar problem. What do the awkward horse control have to do with the game's narrative? What does rolling around everywhere as Young Link have to do with the narrative? Or, for that matter, what does the great swimming physics have to do with it? As with the Resident Evil example, above, control schemes can help enforce the theme or narrative in a game. So what does Young Link rolling around (the best method of movement until the Goron ball, in a game where moving around quickly is important) have to do with the narrative of him being trapped in a strange world and stuck in a time loop? Because you didn't just claim that Majora's Mask was a good example - you claim it to be "how to do ludonarrative 101." In which case, I would expect it to be the best example of ludonarrative consistency, not just a standard set of movement mechanics slapped into the game just because that is how the last one handled it.

Also, in regards to Night in the Woods, Oxenfree, or Walking Dead: these games primarily involve talking with characters and dialogue. Conversation is their narrative. As such, good or interesting conversation mechanics are highly related to their "ludonarrativeness". The idea that a game must behave like Mario in order to possess some ludonarrative consistency is absurd. In order to possess ludonarrative consistency, the game mechanics must BE ABOUT what the narrative itself is about, not just be about moving around in a 3D space or whatever sort of interaction you prefer. As such, making a game more "interactive" in that since can actually lead to more ludonarrative dissonance, due to becoming more game-y or stranger game mechanics getting in the way of what the game narrative is attempting to present.

Fine, I'll pick apart your retarded argument.
>What do the awkward horse control have to do with the game's narrative?
Because actually controlling a horse is awkward.
>What does rolling around everywhere as Young Link have to do with the narrative?
It was your choice to roll around everywhere as young link, and he's a child, who are normally acrobatic. This fits perfectly with the situation, in addition to that, there is nothing within the rules of the strange world or time loop that imply he shouldn't do these acrobatics, especially when it makes him go (supposedly) faster, and it helps him leap ledges further. Just because something a character can do doesn't correlate to a single key element of the game doesn't mean it conflicts with the narrative.
>Or, for that matter, what does the great swimming physics have to do with it?
You are wearing the transformation mask of a dead Zora and thus gain his abilities and use them efficiently.

You haven't pointed out any inconsistency within the narrative and the gameplay, the characters within the game have these powers because of their environments, which compliments the world, which is a part of the narrative.

Want to try again or do you want to make up more non-arguments that can be easily refuted.

>completely misunderstands the point of Psychonauts
Alright then, what is the point of collecting all those widgets? I will admit that I didn't get to completing the game, so there is certainly something that I could've missed.

There isn't. Psychonauts is a heavily flawed game but the reason it's such an important "ludonarrative" title is because it teaches what can happen when components of gameplay, such as level design, are driven by the narrative. Every single level in Psychonauts tells a story about the person the level is occupied in.

The fact you couldn't understand why it's so important despite being so flawed shows you don't really understand the concept of ludonarrative at all.

>You haven't pointed out any inconsistency within the narrative and the gameplay
Wait, are you still trolling or are you actually attempting some sort of argument with this?

How well or how poorly a set of mechanics works within the narrative of the game, or how well the mechanics work with what is currently happening - how "ludonarrative" the game is - is a range of values. You could have mechanics which work very well, mechanics which work somewhat well, mechanics which work poorly, and mechanics which don't work at all. You could even have some mechanics which work and some which don't - good movement controls but an awkward menu, or vice versa. The "ludonarrative consistency" is not a simple yes-or-no value where you check if the is a massive inconsistency between the gameplay mechanics and what is happening with the characters, and then declare everything is fine if the inconsistency is not found.

This is a large part why everyone is looking down on the use of ludonarrative and arguing against using it. You seem to have viewed a single article or video on Bioshock Infinite and the combat/story loop and them think that ludonarrative dissonance is to only be applied to when there is a massive dissync between the two, and that everything is perfectly fine otherwise. Other people are instead asking how well a particular mechanics help to enforce the scene or narrative currently happening, and thus how consistent those mechanics are with the story - not a simple yes/no answer trying to blanket everything as completely positive or completely negative.

(cont.)

(cont.)

And this is a good example of what I mean. You didn't talk about the game mechanics. You didn't talk about what is happening in the game. You mention one point (level design, although I would say level theme) and then declared the entire game as "a good example of ludonarrative" as a result.

It didn't matter to you that what you were actually doing in the game (the ludology, or ludo- part of ludonarrative) had nothing to do with the narrative. Which, ironically, means you misunderstand the definition. Ludonarration is not involved with the artistic theming.

>played

>doesn't even show ass
ehhhhhhh

moar webms