I just finished inside and my playtime on steam is 2 hours. 20 bucks for two hours of running to the right isn't worth it to me. Does this make me a bad person? The puzzles were easy, story non-existent, and then it just ended.

I feel terrible for refunding it because I loved limbo and wanted to support the team but I can't justify the cost for what I got out of it.

Anybody else feel the game just wasn't very fun?

I agree with you, the puzzles were boringly simple, the story/narrative was bland, and there just wasn't any substance.

I know there are hidden collectibles and a hidden ending but that isn't enough. I am really surprised by the enthusiasm the game received.

The price to playtime ratio for this game is definitely on the high end, but it's narrative has stuck with me much more than any game in recent memory. It really depends on what you value in a game and how much money you have to throw around. If you enjoy complex unconventional story telling, or you have tons of money to throw around, I would strongly recommend the game, but if you prefer simpler stories or you do not have a lot of money, and games are your main hobby I would recommend picking up something longer or more replayable, at least until it drops in price.

@alucitary: What story? You are a kid running away from unknown dudes and dogs. They never explain what the complex is, why you are in the woods, what the hat mechanic is actually for etc. It's not like I need things handed to me in a game but at least in limbo you had your sister and that's the motivation. Inside doesn't have an equivalent motivation to continue running right except to see what's next.

I liked the game a lot more than Limbo

I didn't care for limbo and this looked like more of that so I just stayed away.

Haven't played the game but what I've seen of it looks a lot more intriguing than Limbo. Seems like things are actually happening in this game, whereas Limbo was mostly just a cool aesthetic to wrap a game around.

I am in the same boat...but I got it for Xbox and thus, no refund. I kept waiting to be blown away by what it had to offer, particularly in the puzzle department, and just found the whole thing fell flat, outside of early into the ending sequence which was weird, cool, but ultimately wore out its welcome with me.

The game looks amazing, but other than that, I don't get it.

I haven't played the game so I can't comment, but that was exactly the same complaint people had about Limbo.

I wound up enjoying it, but the praise seemed a little hyperbolic. Like Limbo, I thought it was a fun, clever puzzle-platformer.

Not a masterpiece by any means, but a solid 4/5. I actually finished it with disappointment because I had these grand visions of being an incredible achievement doing crazy shit left and right. It wound up being a lot safer than I expected. Unlike a 1/5 like Gone Home, however, missing the masterpiece hype didn't ruin my enjoyment at all.

For Inside to actually have less story than Limbo, surely that has to be the developers greatest accomplishment. I wouldn't have even thought such a thing possible.

I bought Limbo because I played the demo, and I was very interested to know where I was, who was trying to kill me, and why they wanted me dead. Then I reached the end and found out Limbo was actually a game about Limbo, which is about the only question asked that the game bothers to answer.

To each their own and all, and of course this is all subjective, but after the absurd hyperbolic praise this game--and LA Noire--received, I quickly learned to never listen to Brad about any game ever again.

Six years later and another glowing five star review? Fool me twice, shame on me.

I think a game this short is absolutely going to come up against the value/time/cost analysis regardless of its quality. I found Inside to be a superior game to Limbo in nearly every capacity, and even I found myself idly wondering if the going retail price was too steep.

Speaking personally, I was happy to spend the money on it. I genuinely want more of these kinds of games to be made. The two and a half hours I spent exploring the world of Inside were more gratifying to me than any film of equivalent length I've seen in recent memory.

Frankly, there is a lot to the game that isn't the game. The visual storytelling, the music; I'm consistently amazed by how Playdead can achieve so much with so little. But those are all, again, extremely subjective value statements about an even more subjective interpretation of this product.

You're well within your right to question this game's value. In fact, I'm in full support of you doing so.

I'm the same, I stopped listening to Brad a long time ago. He overrates pretty much every game he plays.

@dweezilx: Just because the game doesn't tell you anything explicitly, doesn't mean there's nothing there. I found this to be one of the most thought provoking games I've played in a very long time. I don't have time to post my thoughts on the story right now, but there are multiple threads on this forum with many different interpretations of the game that you could read through if you are interested.

I didn't really like Limbo that much, and honestly, I'm surprised you compare that games story to Inside. I am not that enthusiastic about Inside either, but I would say I liked it more. Limbo is more subtle, as well as more simplistic. Nowhere in the game does it say that the female figure is your sister, I read that after I played it, so in the end, I was at a loss for the motivation to have gone through it. It is in hindsight just running, and figuring out how to get through a map; very little else. To me, Inside was a game that takes tired themes and does it interestingly enough. I said it a few times on different threads, but I find it weird that people got soaked up in the games world as they did, when to me, all it was, was about an allegory. It just felt like it was a game where developers were trying to say something about reality, instead of having the player become immersed in their fictional world.

This is exactly what I was afraid of after listening to Brad in the Quick Look. I still remember getting burned by his Brothers recommendation. Guess I won't be buying this game.

I loved it. Part of the fun is wondering what the hell is even happening, and coming up with theories as you go along. There was definitely a story, it was just told in a non-traditional fashion. I really liked that I could piece it together myself. Plus, I think that even if you don't (or can't) engage with the the moment to moment story telling, the themes and ideas Inside is trying to convey are actually darn explicit.

Plus, I don't think "it just ends," like you say it does. There is definitely escalation, and an eventual cathartic climax. But I could see how if you weren't engaged with it to begin with how the ending might seem like an anti-climax.

As for the puzzles, yeah they aren't crazy complicated, I don't need every game to be kicking my ass to enjoy it. There were definitely a couple here and there that had me stumped for a few minutes, and that was enough of a challenge for me.

I don't mind that the game is short, and I don't mind paying $20 for it considering how much time obviously went into polish alone.

But all of these things are subjective. Different strokes for different folks I guess

I thought Inside was incredible. Elegant design decisions and arresting ideas around every corner.

Man, reading through this thread, I love all of the games that folks are claiming Brad overhyped. Guess he and I are just wired similarly. (On that note, Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts rules.)

@dweezilx: To answer your question of whether the game was actually fun, I'd agree with you and say that, yes, Inside is not a fun game.

It is also a game that I can't stop recommending to people. Inside is a tense, convoluted, and evocative game, and it is not fun to play. There are sections in that game that demand repetition, trial and error, and really precise timing, and I really believe that all these mechanics tie into the core meaning of the game. Its not a game that tells you its story explicitly, but manages to surface it in nearly every gameplay moment and mechanic it uses. And absolutely, 100% it is okay for you to feel cheated by this as a player. Most gamers I imagine go into games and expect to have fun, as they should. But I think Inside, kinda like Spec Ops, is a rather meta experience in what it is trying to do that transcends what players expect from it. It's a bit of a shameless plug, but I've written a few words on how I think it succeeds in doing in a blog here that you may be interested in, if you are looking for meaning (though keep in mind that this will contain SPOILERS for the whole game and the secret ending): http://www.giantbomb.com/inside/3030-46558/forums/inside-and-its-parallels-to-game-development-spoil-1799412/#2

Here's one thing to consider though: The title screen explicitly says "Playdead's Inside"...interesting distinction, mmn? Compare that with how Limbo's titles screen said "Playdead Presents A Game By Arnt Jensen: Limbo".

Assuming mine is one of those comments, it might be that I'm wired weird. For me, gameplay is like 90% of what makes a game enjoyable. I end up not enjoying most games that I try (or I enjoy them for maybe a couple hours tops). For some reason I can't explain however, I really enjoyed Gone Home. Even though the gameplay in that game is virtually nonexistent. That's why I still look with some interest to games that don't necessarily focus on gameplay. But Limbo and Brothers never did it for me, and I'm afraid Inside looks like it falls into the same category.

Like, I'm totally not being funny here... but why not research the games you buy beforehand to prevent situations like this happening?

Brad going on and on about Brothers is what finally made me realize that the more excited Brad is for a game the less I'm going to like it. I enjoyed Limbo quite a bit, but his gushing over Inside had me worried, and it's sounding like it was justified.

Why is "I personally didn't like Inside" turning into some sort of Brad hate thread? Every member of the Bomb crew who has played it so far (Alex, Dan, Will and Jeff Bakalar) have talked about Inside in glowing terms. It's sitting at Overwhelmingly Positive on Steam. it has great reviews from most every publication that has reviewed it. It's not like Brad is on an island when it comes to liking Inside. Not liking the game is fine, but there's no reason to diminish the opinion of others just because it doesn't match yours.

@frodobaggins said:

I kind of wish Howlongtobeat.com was permanently stickied atop the Steam store.

@cav829: yep, I personally check that site for every game I buy, just so I have some idea what I'm getting into.

@cav829: I can only speak for myself, but often I find my tastes lining up with Brad's (Witness, for example). So, I don't really care about other member's opinions, or particularly user reviews, in this case. I certainly don't want it to sound like I'm bashing on Brad, I just would be lying if I didn't say I kept waiting for these amazing moments that he has referenced, and next thing I knew the credits hit and for the most part I was like "Um...is that it?"

I don't think that your comment was directed at me or anything, I just wanted to respond because I'm guessing mine is a similar response for many other duders.

@sethmode: Yeah, no sweat dude. I wasn't even trying to "call out" anyone in particular. It was just meant to be a "could we tone it down a notch" comment. Even though I liked Inside (just finished it last night), I enjoy reading intelligent critiques of video games, and I think more people would enjoy that than a thread piling on Brad.

I know what you're saying though. There are a bunch of games like that for me. The most recent example was Hyper Light Drifter, a game I thought for sure I'd love based on the fact it sounded like exactly my type of game and the fact a number of reviewers who generally align with my likes seemed to be into it. But I ended up walking away from it pretty disappointed. Or with the GB staff, I just picked up Superhot from the Steam sale and thought it was okay, but nothing particularly great. I just try to remember that even when my opinion lines up with a particular critic 95% of the time there are still those outliers.

The price to value to time ratio doesn't really bother me. $20 is what I'd pay to see a movie of the same length, and an interactive experience like this will most likely stay with me longer than the majority of movies I've seen recently. I typically don't even pick up new $60 releases until they've been out for a while and drop to $30 or so, so I get wanting to not throw away money unnecessarily, but I think $20 is reasonable for a concise game that hits hard and errs on the side of being too short rather than being too long.

Learn to be shown and not told and you'll enjoy your fiction more.

I think you should have checked the length first. Fair enough, I don't think Brad ever mentioned it in his review, but besides knowing from experience what type of game it is(These kind of "short experience, light gameplay, try and make you feel something" indie games aren't uncommon at this point) there are other places you could have looked. The value problem is why I never bought Limbo(I sat next to a friend for two hours instead), and waited for sales/PS+/Games with Gold for Gone Home, Brothers and Journey.

I was a little disappointed in the lack of "reason" for being there, but I respect it nonetheless. I enjoyed my time with it and greatly appreciated the style of it.

brad gets too excited about games! jeff doesn't get excited enough! NOBODY WINS!

@dweezilx: I imagine if you are super budget conscious and are just looking for a game to play for a large number of hours rather than something to be impressed by, then get a civ game or an MMO or something instead of this. I have played seven hundred hours of civ 5, and mebbe 4 of this, and I'm super happy with both.

I was amazed by the things they were praising during the Quick Look. Sometimes the press seem to just get carried away with themselves. It's just a goddamn sunset.

A story is present, a bit harsh to call it non-existent. It was a contained experience with an aim to create wonder and doubts. Plus, just like any other medium, video games don't necessarily have to be fun. But 20 dollars is 20 dollars. If you weren't satisfied after completing it, then so be it

the hype was a bit much, sure it gets weird at the end but it didn't exactly blow me away either. But looking at it a different way, this is probably as good as this type of game can be, very polished and atmospheric. if your still on the fence wait for a sale and you'll probably enjoy it more.

The story isn't meant to be direct, the game is an allegory for classism and social uprising.

Games as art yo.

As a puzzle game, yeah this is not that new or interesting. But I was won over by the visual story telling. It really invites the player to try to figure out the world and make sense of it, similar to how a Souls game would. And the ending was visually so amazing and fit really well with the story I had pieced together. That made it worth the $20 for me.

Depends on what you want from games. There was a time when I totally judged a game's worth based on how many of my hours it would soak up, and how "complex" the gameplay was. These days I look for memorable experiences that I can't get from films/TV, and complex or difficult gameplay isn't necessary for this. Plus I work two jobs and have almost no free time, so my value judgement has almost completely inverted. I'll happily pay 20 bucks for a concise, compelling experience. At this stage of the year Inside will be in my top 3 of 2016 for sure.

I haven't played it yet, but it seems to me the game is about visual design and contextual storytelling through its visuals as commentary on social dynamics of sorts. I don't think it's meant to be a masterful puzzle game.

I really really liked it. As an experience, not so much as a game. Game wise there isn't much to it. The controls are simple and the puzzles are simple.

The value is where it takes you. The scenery, the setting, the sounds and the animations are master-class. So evocative.

You won't be getting a refund if Steam says you played for 2 hours.

It looks great and the world design is amazing. But no real narrative and deadsimple gameplay made me dislike it as a whole. Unlike many other short indy games like Brothers, Gone Home, To the Moon, The Cat Lady... this didn't really make me feel anything. I loved all of those games, but this just wasn't an experience woth spending $20.

You shouldn't make such blanket statements so freely. I've got a Bachelor's in English Philology, especialized in literature, and my PhD is focused on comparative literature. I'm kinda familiar with several types of literatures, narrative techniques and so on and so forth. If I didn't enjoy Inside (which I didn't) isn't because I "didn't get it". I played through it, I came up with my own interpretations (some people seem to agree that it can function as an analogy for a natural abortion) and, in the end, I didn't enjoy the game. Big deal.

This rhetoric of "you don't link this indie game because you're not intelligent enough" is really tiring.

@joey_ravn: I didn't say the OP was stupid. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying his assertion that this game had no story is completely false. This game has a narrative, it's just not explicitly told to the player. Just because the game doesn't, for example, say "These entities you're controlling with the helmets are worker drones that do 'menial' tasks in this society" doesn't mean that can't be inferred through their behavior and their clothing.

The fact that someone didn't see that doesn't make them stupid, nor do I think that people who don't like this game are stupid. I just think that asserting that "Inside had no story" or that the story was "non-existent" is objectively false. I can see how my statement could be read in a condescending manner, but I assure you that I didn't mean it that way. Apologies to you and especially the OP if he thought I considered him stupid or ignorant for not liking the game.

Ignoring the story (or lack thereof) the puzzles all felt very tedious. A lot of back tracking/repeating things for seemingly no reason (for example pulling the planks whilst having dogs chase you so you have to keep jumping the fence).

I think the game is awesome, but there is massive hyperbole surrounding this game. I have read headlines stating that Inside is "The Best Game on Xbox One" and other such opinions touting it as God's gift to video games. It's not that good. It's a cool well made game, but come on.

Inside and Limbo both are semi-experimental games that somehow became not just critical darlings, but also downright popular despite being extremely not for everyone. Of course there's going to be a lot of people not liking it; them's the breaks with media of this nature.

For me, though, it's top-notch stuff. Video games are notorious for hitting the players repeatedly across the head with every detail of the story, so let me have this for once, please.

I think I'm around an hour and a half in and I love it.

It's just really succinct, and it constantly has my face in a concerned expression.

To each their own, but if someone asked me if they should buy/play it - I would recommend it absolutely.

I really enjoyed playing Inside with my lady friend. Nothing about the gameplay was very engaging but the look and the feel really made this a worthwhile experience. We were both on edge the entire play through. At $20 it is a bit steep but i would recommend it if you can afford to spend that on something you will only play once.