I just finished Gone Home and it's potentially the absolute worst ending I've ever seen in a video game.

*Spoilers begin here*

So. "It was a dark and stormy night" and you arrive at a creepy mansion with no one at home and the lights turned off. Strewn throughout the house are references to the occult, ghosts, and an old man going mad. You arrive at the attic to find the source of the mysterious note hastily scrawled out on the front door asking you to please not search for what has happened to "sam", only to find that... she ran away a couple of hours ago and is probably fine.

O_o

What?

Like, seriously, WHAT?

I can't believe Patrick gave this game 5 stars. I mean, I LIKE what they were trying to do. I LIKE the interface, and the graphics, and the house and everything. But when you bank your whole game on the story, the story has to be good, and this story is absolutely terrible. It shows absolutely no understanding of the concept of "tone". You don't write a ghost story and then end it with "then they found out there's no such thing as ghosts and everyone lived happily ever after." It's an absolute red herring, and I'm still baffled as to WHY they put in a huge red herring. I mean, literally, the WHOLE GAME is a red herring. That's, like, the definition of a poorly constructed story. At the end of a good mystery, the audience says "HOW could I have not figured it out! Way to go story!" because the clues were always there, they were just so cleverly hidden that you miss it. In a badly constructed mystery, like 'Gone Home", all the clues point to one outcome, and then the author, at the last moment, substitutes a random deus ex machina to change the ending. You didn't see it coming, because it is completely unsubstantiated by the story.

I can't help but feel like Patrick gave this game 5 stars purely because he is in love with the concept of what they are trying to do instead of rating the actual game.

It's not the developer's fault you interpreted it as a ghost story. I mean, I interpret Call of Duty as the most erotic dating simulator and come away disappointed every time, but I don't hold it against Activision/Treyarch/Infinity Ward..

Another problem, OP: you're interpreting what's in this game as a cohesive single story. What this game gives you is a whole lot more like real life: a bunch of facts, of a bunch of details -- whereas stories are things created by observers. There are any number of "stories" we might see, or wish to see.

I think the game is very skillfully made in this regard.

At what point was it suppose to be a ghost story?

The thing is, mcguffens, deus ex machina, and red hearing are all part of storytelling.

I could reduce anything down into a mcguffen. Lord of the Rings, the Wizard of Oz, green eggs and ham, give me any story.

deus ex machina, what deus ex machina? The story was the same all through out, the hints are right in your face, she hates her life there. How is running away less plausible then ghosts?

Yes, there are red hearings, but that is part of the game, a mystery book, using your example isn't fun if the detective only reads the clues that support his case.

Ye, after I heard the whole Idle Thumbs ghost story I found the game to be sorta silly. I understand that the game doesn't necessarily evoke a ghost story, but I sure as hell got that feeling when I watched the QL without knowing anything about the game. The game is probably great if you know what you're getting into, but there's just no getting around the general convention of "empty house on a dark and rainy night".

That is complete BS.

There is a concept in storytelling called tone. Tone is the single most important aspect of storytelling, because it tells you what you can and cannot do in a story.

The developers VERY MUCH, INTENTIONALLY made this game with horror trappings. Everything from it taking place in the dead of night in a dark empty house during a thunderstorm, to the house noises, to the jump scares (like the light that goes out), to the televisions being left on, to the red hair dye in the bathroom that you were supposed to mistake for blood, to the references to the occult, to the fact that the mansion the game takes place in has rumors of being a "psycho" house. The game is a horror game through-and-through, right up until the ending, where it's not.

It's the same as if a movie had strong elements of a romance between two characters, with the director constantly showing their lingering glances and long touches, only to, at the end of the film, have them shake hands and walk off in different directions.

How about at the point they start talking about ghosts?

Yeah, and the story is that you come home after a year away and have absolutely no idea where anyone is or what has been happening with your family, and it seems like something terrible may have happened. Your investigating leads you to the answers. The creepy setting is totally valid because under those circumstances the character would probably be extremely worried by what she finds upon her arrival.

Story tellers are allowed to play on your expectations

@mildmolasses: the thing is though (at least according to Idle Thumbs) that the developer wanted anything _but_ make people think there were ghosts in the game. It's not playing on expectations, it's just blatantly turning a blind eye to a very obvious "problem" with the game.

You were the ghost in the game. Katie actually died in a plane crash on the way home. That's why you hear noises but can't see anyone, you are DEAD.

I don't Jaz's criticisms hold up for the most part, as deceiving expectations was entirely the point of what the developers were trying to do here, but it's pretty clear they were trying to make you think it was a ghost story at certain points. Weird noises, Journal entries openly talking about ghost sightings, a creepy secret passage with pictures on the walls, an exorcism behind the stairwell.

While there might be some horror game trappings sprinkled throughout, I think there's also plenty of info to make it clear that there isn't anything supernatural or creepy actually occurring.

Honestly if you go in, or get caught in some of the trappings just as you're playing to expect that and then be disappointed, its your own damn fault. Its simple as that, the game does what it does wonderfully, if you have a problem with that based on those reasons, get mad at yourself for expecting whats been done a million times.

It's a little weird that some people are saying that it's a problem that someone expected the game to be what it presents itself as.

Very well said.

I actually enjoyed how it flirted with horror but kept bringing the player back to reality with all the little details. If there actually had been a ghost in it or some kind of supernatural ending, i would have been super-disappointed.

Remember Catherine? The real-life parts were the best bits, and when it ended up getting crazy nuts at the end, it because a whole lot less interesting. If I'd had to battle demon-Oscar at the end of Gone Home, I would have been pissed. I applaud their restraint.

@lackingsaint: All of these things can be explained by you exploring an old creepy house.And in the proces finding the results of teenage girls doing what bored teenagers do when they are stuck in a big creepy house: looking for ghosts.

The steam description of this game even states that you are not going to be attacked and there is no combat.

I don't understand how the criticism you make of the game makes Gone Home the Lost of video games.

Lost's problem was that it raised a whole bunch of questions it never really adequately answered. The show actually tried to build tension through creating mysteries which actually had no answers, until it became a rather silly mess. At the end of the series, it turned out the thing people had long suspected and even joked about being the answer was the answer, and it was super unsatisfying.

Gone Home isn't like that. All the questions it raises it answers in clear, logical ways. It's not building bogus tension, and the ending makes complete sense given the context of the story.

Now, you may have thought it was unsatisfying because you weren't given the answers you wanted (and seem to be implying that since it uses some horror tropes, the premise should be horror), but that's kind of a subjective thing, isn't it? Personally I found it quite refreshing I didn't know where the story was going, and don't think the game would have been any more meaningful an experience by simply adding ghosts in for real.

The game succeeds in simulating the real-life phenomenon of getting scared in big, empty houses on dark, stormy nights. Just as in real life, it always turns out to be absolutely nothing.

Yes, it was intentional. But the payoff is that, in Gone Home, even THIS is grounded in reality. There is no such thing as ghosts. The players mind (and Sam's mind) leaps to conclusions. (I actually don't think Sam truly believed there was a ghost. She was just "playing make-believe", as kids do, and it was something fun to do with Lonnie.)

The parallel between Lost and Gone Home is that both works contain an adventure that is engaging and engrossing and an ending that invalidates the entire experience.

There is very much a difference between subverting expectations and outright LYING.

If you make a movie where the main character is a woman, and early on she beats up a grown man, THEN you have subverted expectations. You played upon what the audience THOUGHT was going to happen with no input from you. If you make a movie where the the main character is a woman who is constantly shown to be incapable of taking care of herself, unable to lift even moderately heavy objects, and proves to be completely uncoordinated, and then you show her beat up a grown man, you haven't subverted expectations, you just lied to the audience.

The scene in the game where you walk into the bathroom and find red splatters all over the tub and then hear the voicover that says "Oh, hey, we were just dying our hair red! haha!" is like a SPOOF of a horror movie. To think it's supposed to be taken seriously in this game is outright unbelievable.

I feel like I keep seeing people praising as genius what a basic writing class would call "terrible writing".

Did you throw the ball into the basketball hoop?

It's a ghost story why? Because teenagers call an old house the "psycho house"? Because an 18 year old girl is hunting them or says she can't live without her girlfriend? Because there's a storm out?

And there were clues all the time that Sam was ok. Where were the VCRs? Sam said to apologize to the parents for the things she took. She also gave Katie her room. Doesn't seem like a sisterly thing to say "Hey take my room, I won't need it anymore, since I'm dead in the attic. We don't see the ending coming because we're playing a game; we think anything can happen and suspect the extraordinary, but these are ordinary flawed people, and rummaging through all their junk THAT is exactly what we see. Your deus ex machina is seriously that the developers reveal there's no ghost and no one committed suicide? This wasn't some unsolvable riddle or solution, but oh hey this book actually has a cipher in the back. The answer to the dilemma was to not commit suicide. It's a solution that is present throughout the whole game and is ignored in favor of the supernatural, but yes, the clues were always there.

It's a story about family and growing up. The "ghost story" arc was there simply to develop the characters and have a window into their lives. It's *not* the main story.

I feel like you missed the entire point of the game. But I guess these types of games aren't for everyone.

The OP has missed the point of the game by the widest margin possible.

I just don't have much interest in this game, since the story is basically a known thing even though no one has spoiled it for me.

@jazgalaxy said:

All of those things are things that seem scary, but in the end turn out to be totally fine. The dark empty house has nothing else in it but you. What you call a 'jump scare' is just a lightbulb going out, and was not at all scary in the first place. The televisions are simply left on, with nothing else notable about them. The blood is, as you say, actually red hair dye. All of the stuff about the house being haunted, and the Ouija boards, etc. are accompanied by notes saying they didn't find any ghosts.

And then you finish the game, and any fears you had about Sam and Lonnie are gone. How, exactly, is that a tonal shift?

@stalefishies: Exactly. For me it reminded me of wandering around my friend's farm at night in the 90's as a kid. Which is what I think they were going for. Also, all of the ghost stuff was just Sam and Lonnie messing around, probably after watching too many episodes of the X-files if their VHS collection is anything to go by.

@jazgalaxy: Honestly, by the sound of things you have this pretty fixed idea about what Gone Home is to you and came here to complain about it instead of getting a fresh perspective or actually listening to what anyone has to say. Gone Home isn't for everyone, but not for the reasons you're describing.

@jazgalaxy:

You seem very focused on this idea of tone. GH is setting out to nail a particular tone, which is that of the irrational fear you have when coming home and finding it in a state that you did not expect (empty when it should be full of people). Or that odd sense of dread you get when you try calling a loved one a few times in a day, and they never answer. I've experienced it. I know my kid's experienced it (I've gotten the phone call from her, "Where are you guys, why aren't you home!?"). It's close to a universal experience. The real horror in this game comes from worrying about family, a type of primal fear few games or movies explore. Is my sister okay? Are my parents getting a divorce? Is dad an alcoholic and/or crazy? Do I even know these people, and what does that say about my life if my family are really strangers to me?

Do people who are attacked by ghosts normally leave notes on their own front door? It was obvious from the beginning that she ran away, the mystery is why she did it and why no one else was around.

Good stories are meant to circumvent your expectations. Storytelling is in such a state that the "twist" now is not having a twist. Oh the thing that would probably be what happened in real life is what happened, and you're mad that a phantom didn't pop up because bad tv has trained you to expect that. This is the opposite of Lost.

I actually found it really interesting how the game repeatedly hits you over the head with "everything that seems spooky has a completely logical explanation." The note about the electrical wiring being the perfect example. Also, why should a game be a slave to some form of pre determined tone? I enjoyed the fact that you're uncovering something of a mystery. The setting makes the mystery actually feel mysterious all the while being simply "what's up with my family?"

I loved the realism and I saw great opportunities with the way the exploration worked. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit disappointed by the ending though. I might be square, but I like ghost stories. The game really had me for the duration of it -- what kept me interested in playing was essentially the anticipation to get creeped out. Also the way the game clearly guided you to go find item X to open door Y felt a little game-like and took some of the realism out of it (FOR ME).

Pssssst. Pssssssssssst?

That thing? That whole "you expect the game to be about ghosts and stuff but then it isn't"?

That's the joke.

I'm kind of amazed at how many people don't get this at all. I don't know if that's making the devs glad that so many "gamers" went for it so hard or making them give up on humanity. I mean, they do play up the survival horror clichés a lot on purpose, but I wonder if this oblivious ranting is as satisfying to them as the clever, I-see-what-you-did-there acknowledgement that I assume they were fishing for.

That's one aspect I would fairly count against this game. You're not a stranger to this house, yet you're "discovering" these secrets in the house (that you already knew about, presumably) as you read letters as well as the code to your own lock, etc. I understand why it was done for the purposes of progression and narrative but it makes little sense for someone who's lived in this house their whole life to basically forget all this stuff then go "oh right the secret hallway etc" after reading an old letter. That led me to the expectation that this person isnt who she thinks she is, so that didn't pay off narratively and really was simply a function of being a game and needing a game style progression.

Just play that mansion section part of Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines and you're good. That is actually a game.

There used to be a time when games got a low score when there were little to no gameplay elements in it(since it's, you know A GAME), I guess times have changed. It's all about the ART-aspects of games now.

There's a game that does art and gameplay well though, and that game is Journey. 3 hours long, actual gameplay elements, co-op and replayability. And it's 15 bucks

You bet your ass 'Gone Home' will show up on at least one 'Top 10 Games of 2013' My guess will be Patrick's.

I thought the ending was genuinely touching and well written/told.

You're playing as someone who had been abroad for a year. All of this stuff happened when you were gone. This is the first time that person has ever been to that house since the family moved there after you left.

Why do you assume that people who didn't like the end doesn't "get it"? Of course we get it, it's not some sort of deep philosophical meaning behind this that makes you or anyone else special for appreciating it. Just accept that people want different things out of video games, some like to have their expectations turned upside down, and some people like to get creeped out.

I was actually pretty annoyed with Patrick's review because off how he tried to sell us the game by going on about how the "house has a story to tell" but when in reality the opposite is true. And we're supposed to be awed somehow because of that, because it did something we didn't expect?

If the game had crashed in the middle by design and become impossible to start up again, that'd been unexpected, but I wouldn't have been satisfied with it.

Straight from the steam description:

No Combat, No Puzzles: Gone Home is a nonviolent and puzzle-free experience, inviting you to play at your own pace without getting attacked, stuck, or frustrated. This house wants you to explore it.

I really just think you missed the whole point of the game. It depicts a real world scenario, when you come home late at night and a bulb blows in your hallway which scares a pet into making a noise does the culmination of events which momentarily frighten you turn your situation into a real world horror story that NEEDS ghosts to explain? or does it just make your real world experience creepy and or scary for the moment where your imagination runs wild before reality asserts itself again as your girlfriend walks out and asks why the hell you didn't buy an energy saving lightbulb?

The game plays on the second, it's up to your imagination early on as to what you think has actually happened, then notes in the game help reassert normality and give real world explanations for everything. It's an experience, an experience anyone might have out there in the big scary real world, it's not amnesia: homecoming.

People who don't like the ending of Lost, didn't understand Lost.

It did have a story to tell. I'm not really sure what Patrick was wrong about. The story just isn't about ghosts. It's about what this family has been through that past year.

@sethphotopoulos: To be fair, yes, but it's not a story you traditionally sell a game on. It could just as well have been a story about a monster who looked and acted exactly like a human being.

What I'm saying is, some people may like that fact, and some don't. But you shouldn't piss on those who don't (not saying you do personally). If you like it, it doesn't entitle you to anything.

There's little to understand with the ending. That's sort of the idea, instead of wrapping up the threads, they just threw out catchall. This explains everything, in that it allows us not to have to explain anything. That stuff you were following no longer needs resolving, we just throw it into this wide net because we didn't do what most smart mystery writers do; write the ending first. Nothing not to get. They thought it would be too much trouble to clean the town so they nuked it. Things that weren't resolved were simply dissolved. Nobody's smarter for liking the ending to Lost because nobody didn't get the ending. Many were just insulted that they were made to think they should pay attention to a bunch of things that the writers never intended to pay off.

Yes you are. The family moved into the house while you were abroad. You have never been there until the start of the game.

I too thought when first firing up the game, I was in for a ghostly surprise, but very soon realized it wasn't about ghosts at all. It was actually about an average family's struggles.

To get completely hung up and dismiss the game as a whole based on early expectations is unfortunate. If you had a legitimate personal hang up on the way the narrative played out, then to each his own. Personally, I thought this game had one of the most sincere and touching stories in recent memory and I'm really glad I played it.

Intimate little stories like these won't emotionally resonate with everyone. We all have different tastes.