Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

116 Comments

The Stanley Parable Review

4
  • PC

Prodding at The Stanley Parable and seeing how it will react to your various actions makes for a great, brief experience.

Will you get up the nerve to even leave your office?
Will you get up the nerve to even leave your office?

The Stanley Parable is a genius bit of interactive fun that originally started out as a free mod for the Source Engine. It plays around with the concepts of game narration and player choice in some really inventive ways that will likely appeal most to people who enjoy thinking about the nature of games and the push-pull relationship between their creators and their players. But that's really only half the story, if that. The core of The Stanley Parable only works because it's genuinely funny. It's brief, but powerfully effective, with plenty of moments where you think you might have found a situation that the creators didn't account for... only to be proven wrong yet again. Once you've replayed as many different paths as you can think of, there won't be much reason to go back and play it again, but the few hours you'll probably spend with The Stanley Parable are worth its purchase price.

The crux of The Stanley Parable is as follows: The narration will tell you what happens next, and you can either do that thing or, in most cases, do some other thing. Or maybe do nothing. The opening of the game, for example, strongly implies that Stanley--a worker drone who seems to push buttons for a living with next to no authority or autonomy in his job--leaves his office. From there, you can walk out of the office immediately, stick around in the office until the narrator pipes up to account for your complete inaction, or close the door leading out of your office, triggering one of the game's many different conclusions. The decisions spin out from there, rarely becoming complicated but definitely becoming more and more ridiculous. You poke at The Stanley Parable and The Stanley Parable pokes back. Restarting the game--whether that's your decision or the narrator's--is part of the game, and the way the story accounts for and occasionally addresses those restarts helps create some mind-bending twists and turns that blow the logic of the scenario apart in a handful of ways. Are you Stanley? Or are you the player controlling Stanley? Depending on the choices you make, the narrator may address you as either.

Do as you're told. Or don't.
Do as you're told. Or don't.

Of course, none of this would work unless the writing and narration were able to keep you engaged and interested in seeing what else you can find. Both of these aspects are very sharp and keep you exploring around the edges, looking for one more way for the game to react to your current level of obedience/disobedience. There's a dry wit to the writing, which pairs well with the British narrator's performance. His exasperation when you deviate from his instruction feels genuine, but a certain amount of malevolence--or at least utter disdain for Stanley's role in this story--comes through, as well. But, most importantly, The Stanley Parable works because it's funny. Its unexpected turns are best left unexpected, so you'd do well to go into the game a bit blind, but the way it gets fed up with your performance and the ridiculous things it occasionally asks you to do are truly great.

This is a telephone, as seen in The Stanley Parable.
This is a telephone, as seen in The Stanley Parable.

It's worth noting that the free, mod version of The Stanley Parable has much of the same foundation as this new, paid version, and you'd certainly get the gist of all this from that previous release. But this isn't just some simple visual makeover. The writing has expanded in some smart, more interesting directions, and the game has evolved to allow (and account for) more deviance on the player's part. The mod feels like a rough draft by comparison--you can see the bones and structure in the older release, but the rewriting and tuning of existing material along with the introduction of new material makes the final product much, much sharper and funnier.

It's a small, very charming release. You could blow it up into something bigger, if you like, and talk about how it serves as commentary on how meaningless player choice in most games actually is, and certainly there's some amount of discussion you could have about the larger context in play. But you don't need to have that conversation to enjoy The Stanley Parable. It works because it's fun to explore the limits of the scenario and see which bits they've written smart, well-delivered dialogue for and how many different "endings" you can come up with as you play around.

Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

116 Comments

Avatar image for seminormal
SemiNormal

196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@seminormal: What do you mean by disservice? Do you the game was funnier than what the demo represented? Because I came away from the demo, pretty underwhelmed. I could see how the game would be cool. But I didn't really find the narrator funny. Having a British accent doesn't make you funny.

What I mean is that I thought it was better starting the game thinking that it might be "more serious" than it ends up being.

The demo was more "on the nose," and while the game does have that aspect, it's something that uncovers itself over time rather than shoving itself in your face from the get-go.

That said, if you dislike the narrator, you'll dislike the game.

Then again, if the word "Obama" showing up in the "Despair Emotion Cubicle" doesn't sell you, I don't know what will.

Avatar image for furieman
furieman

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@richardzk: Because for this type of review its about the general feeling of how good the game is. It is not about taking all the positives and subtrakting all the negatives.

Avatar image for maxopower
MaxOpower

286

Forum Posts

323

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 7

Edited By MaxOpower

@seminormal: What do you mean by disservice? Do you mean the game was funnier than what the demo represented? Because I came away from the demo, pretty underwhelmed. I could see how the game would be cool. But I didn't really find the narrator funny. Having a British accent doesn't make you funny.

Avatar image for deathfromace
deathfromace

508

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

@deathfromace said:
@2headedninja said:

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).

Yeah I never understood that either. If anything it would be a 9/10 but Giantbomb does not go by that system for a reason.

4 out of 5 is 80%. That's why Metacritic says it's an 8/10 (or a 80/100 can't really remember)

I know but that is not taking into account why Giantbomb does it out of 5 and their actual thoughts on game. You can not convert it from one scale to another and expect that same value to be what the reviewer would of given it on a different scale.

Avatar image for seminormal
SemiNormal

196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Having played the demo AFTER the game, I feel like it actually does the game a disservice, and the Quick Look was actually a better starting off point.

I have to say this is the first GENUINELY funny game I've played since... Portal? That made it worth more than the asking price for me, despite the shortness. Took me about 4 hours to find most of the endings by myself (I missed two that I ended up looking up).

Avatar image for defbref
defbref

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@2headedninja:

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).

Its not a comment on GB rating or metacritic, its just a silly joke to do with the demo.

Avatar image for thedarkon3
TheDarkOn3

76

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).

WOOOSH

Avatar image for giyn
GIyn

205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Having played the free mod, I kinda thought it was underwhelming in terms of scope. I felt it should have been "bigger," given the time since that free mod's release. Then again, I know nothing about this game's dev cycle or if I've even discovered everything, so my opinion here is likely meaningless!

My thoughts exactly. Because the concept is so neat. You really want them to hit it out of the park. But all you really get is a slight roll 10 metres away. I'm thinking another narrator game comes along not too long.

Avatar image for development
development

3749

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Having played the free mod, I kinda thought it was underwhelming in terms of scope. I felt it should have been "bigger," given the time since that free mod's release. Then again, I know nothing about this game's dev cycle or if I've even discovered everything, so my opinion here is likely meaningless!

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

@sweetz said:
@humanity said:

Unlike GlaDOS which is the closest comparison I could find to this, I didn't take a liking to the narrator from what I heard in the demo that Patrick played, and thus elected not to play the full game. It's a really big gamble to base your entire game on that one aspect, as I think it makes or breaks the experience.

Bit of an odd statement I think. I'd say there are quite a number of games based on the one aspect of moving a reticule over things, pressing a button, and watching them die or explode.

I mean, how is this effectively different than saying "you have to like the gameplay to enjoy the game" ; well...yes, that is the case. In this respect, I'm not sure how the Stanley Parable is more of a gamble that any other creative endeavor. Nothing pleases everyone and the game wasn't made for people who don't like it...

That said, you should play the demo yourself. Experiencing it second hand alters the experience a bit because the narrator isn't reacting to your actions. The Stanley Parable shouldn't be passively experienced.

-----

Regarding the review score and whether or not it is justified - I don't have much of an opinion one way or another, but I do just want to point out that Jeff has talked about reviewing methods in the past (either on Jar Time or Bombcast, I can't recall which). In particular he encourages a peer review process and he specifically made mention about how if the score doesn't feel justified by the text, he would talk to reviewer to get at the meat of what they really wanted to say. As a result of that dialog, the score would either change or the reviewer would have a clearer vision of what they wanted to point out and the review would consequently improve. Therefore, if people believe that the score isn't justified by the text, I think it is fair of them to point this out as this is a standard that Jeff holds himself and his staff to. That is of course, all still matter of opinion that Jeff doesn't have to agree with, nor do you.

For my own part, I really like the game. It isn't for everyone, but neither is any game.

There is a fundamental difference here. What I'm referring to is an overbearing element of the game overlayed onto the existing framework of press button, make things happen. I think it's a gamble because the game itself is fairly interesting in of itself; the idea of action/inaction defining a malleable course of action is quite unique in a sea of linear corridors. This interesting gameplay component is relying on the narrator to drive it forward, and in this case I don't like the narrator, which in essence is stopping me short from wanting to experience the actual gameplay which I am interested in.

Avatar image for sweetz
sweetz

1286

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sweetz
@humanity said:

Unlike GlaDOS which is the closest comparison I could find to this, I didn't take a liking to the narrator from what I heard in the demo that Patrick played, and thus elected not to play the full game. It's a really big gamble to base your entire game on that one aspect, as I think it makes or breaks the experience.

Bit of an odd statement I think. I'd say there are quite a number of games based on the one aspect of moving a reticule over things, pressing a button, and watching them die or explode.

I mean, how is this effectively different than saying "you have to like the gameplay to enjoy the game" ; well...yes, that is the case. In this respect, I'm not sure how the Stanley Parable is more of a gamble that any other creative endeavor. Nothing pleases everyone and the game wasn't made for people who don't like it...

That said, you should play the demo yourself. Experiencing it second hand alters the experience a bit because the narrator isn't reacting to your actions. The Stanley Parable shouldn't be passively experienced.

-----

Regarding the review score and whether or not it is justified - I don't have much of an opinion one way or another, but I do just want to point out that Jeff has talked about reviewing methods in the past (either on Jar Time or Bombcast, I can't recall which). In particular he encourages a peer review process and he specifically made mention about how if the score doesn't feel justified by the text, he would talk to reviewer to get at the meat of what they really wanted to say. As a result of that dialog, the score would either change or the reviewer would have a clearer vision of what they wanted to point out and the review would consequently improve. Therefore, if people believe that the score isn't justified by the text, I think it is fair of them to point this out as this is a standard that Jeff holds himself and his staff to. That is of course, all still matter of opinion that Jeff doesn't have to agree with, nor do you.

For my own part, I really like the game. It isn't for everyone, but neither is any game.

Avatar image for abendlaender
abendlaender

3100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@2headedninja said:

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).

Yeah I never understood that either. If anything it would be a 9/10 but Giantbomb does not go by that system for a reason.

4 out of 5 is 80%. That's why Metacritic says it's an 8/10 (or a 80/100 can't really remember)

Avatar image for icicle7x3
icicle7x3

1280

Forum Posts

1260

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hayt said:

Is this game Dear Esther short or 30 Flights of Loving short?

Can be beaten in under 5 minutes, but there are multiple endings and tons of secrets to look for so it should take you longer.

Also, SECRETS FOR PRESIDENT 2016!

Avatar image for benderunit22
benderunit22

1978

Forum Posts

9567

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 1

The question has to be asked, is this better than Brothers?

Avatar image for hayt
Hayt

1837

Forum Posts

548

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Is this game Dear Esther short or 30 Flights of Loving short?

Avatar image for wukong
wukong

76

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

It is worth noting that the demo for The Stanley Parable is completely original content, and is very clever in and of itself.

Avatar image for white_lando
White_Lando

52

Forum Posts

141

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By White_Lando

@slightlytriangularrectangle: Playing games for fun is not some bygone era we can but only be wistful and nostalgic for. Grand Theft Auto 5 alone made over a billion dollars in a few days and it wasn't because the people who bought it were looking for some kind of insightful meta commentary on modern game design. Actually, if you want more examples, look to almostevery single game released on consoles. You're being melodramatic because a game you decided you don't like was released.

Also please, I'm begging you, tell me which video games "need" to exist.

Avatar image for ch3burashka
ch3burashka

6086

Forum Posts

100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By ch3burashka

I tried the game, played around with it a bit, said, "hey, this is neat," then left it and felt no desire to return to it.

This game, like so many recent indie titles, to me, reeks of something that need not exist, of creative talent gone to waste. With The Stanley Parable specifically it seems that the developers said to themselves in planning something like, "let's make a game that pokes fun of all the conventions used in other games because we're smart enough to understand those conventions, but others are too stupid to notice them without our assistance."

I sure do miss the days when people played games because they were fun, not because they were "art" or extended commentary on the genre itself.

Is it remotely possible to have both? Also, is this not the age of the "pure mechanic" game as well as the "art" game? There's Stanley Parable for the latter, and something like Spelunky/Binding of Isaac for the former. Maybe it's not a "creative talent gone to waste, something that need not exist" just because you can't respect to concept. That's kind of fucking harsh.

Avatar image for deathfromace
deathfromace

508

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).


Yeah I never understood that either. If anything it would be a 9/10 but Giantbomb does not go by that system for a reason.

Avatar image for 2headedninja
2HeadedNinja

2357

Forum Posts

85

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@sydlanel said:

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

uhm, no its not. The GB system doesn't work like that. You can't just double the stars to get a 10-point version even if metacrtic does it (which is stupid).

Avatar image for ilikepopcans
ilikepopcans

979

Forum Posts

3100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Yeah, I really want to play this too. Watched a play through of the mod so I know I will like this.

Also for the people complaining about the review scores, just stop. I do lean toward the text saying this is a 5 star, by it really does not matter AT ALL. Especially since the metracritc score surly won't effect the creator as it would for AAA games.

Avatar image for mithhunter55
mithhunter55

1104

Forum Posts

709

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

I tried the game, played around with it a bit, said, "hey, this is neat," then left it and felt no desire to return to it.

This game, like so many recent indie titles, to me, reeks of something that need not exist, of creative talent gone to waste. With The Stanley Parable specifically it seems that the developers said to themselves in planning something like, "let's make a game that pokes fun of all the conventions used in other games because we're smart enough to understand those conventions, but others are too stupid to notice them without our assistance."

I sure do miss the days when people played games because they were fun, not because they were "art" or extended commentary on the genre itself.

As if their is a lack of everything else? Why is it a problem that the game space is so large that people can explore concepts.

Avatar image for naeblis213
naeblis213

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I really loved the game myself. I only wish it did the Telltale thing of showing how many users chose left or right on their first playthrough and stuff like that. It probably would ruin the surprise though.

Avatar image for deathfromace
deathfromace

508

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

@mrfluke said:

@shaanyboi said:

@richardzk said:

Don't see why this is only 4 stars, the review doesn't mention any negatives.

That's not how reviews work. 5 stars, on the giantbomb scale tends to mean "holy shit, you should really play this, this is something special, I (the reviewer) had a helluva time." 4 stars means "This was a really cool and interesting thing. It may not be for everyone, but it warrants atleast taking a look at." and so on.

also a star got knocked due to the fact that the game is short

Once you've replayed as many different paths as you can think of, there won't be much reason to go back and play it again

I don't believe a star would get knocked off for the length of the game. I think it's best to just say that he felt like it is a 4 star game and that's it. The flip side of it would be the game is to long and wore out it's welcome and for what the game is I think a couple of hours is more then enough.

Avatar image for necrotron
Necrotron

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Necrotron

This game is GOTY material. At least for me. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Agreed. I can highly endorse this game.

Play the demo, it is it's own game in and of itself, and completely free. If that doesn't strike you, you probably won't like the full game. I personally loved it.

Avatar image for xbob42
xbob42

927

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I tried the game, played around with it a bit, said, "hey, this is neat," then left it and felt no desire to return to it.

This game, like so many recent indie titles, to me, reeks of something that need not exist, of creative talent gone to waste. With The Stanley Parable specifically it seems that the developers said to themselves in planning something like, "let's make a game that pokes fun of all the conventions used in other games because we're smart enough to understand those conventions, but others are too stupid to notice them without our assistance."

I sure do miss the days when people played games because they were fun, not because they were "art" or extended commentary on the genre itself.

The game is plenty of fun. Not every bit of fun needs to be "hit buttons to make stuff explode."

Avatar image for obsurveyor
Obsurveyor

109

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Obsurveyor

I felt absolutely nothing for the Quick Look of the demo I saw. It was way too on the nose with the developer's obvious hate of demos bleeding through. The first scene in the Quick Look of the full game showed me something that I love and absolutely do with nearly every game I play: try to break the shit out of it. I had to pick it up after that. I stopped the Quick Look and immediately purchased and have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the game so far.

I disagree that it's "only a couple hours" though. After the 3.2 hours I've spent on it this weekend so far and still not getting through the story the narrator wants to tell yet, I estimate I will probably put 10 to 15 hours into the game, depending on whether I play a certain less-than-a-mini-game for the required 4 hours to see if that yields anything or not.

The amount of things this game takes into account in my attempts to circumvent the narrator is pretty great though it could always use more. I've had a number of ideas during my play that could make it more interesting but I'm sure the voice narration isn't cheap and that makes it all work.

Avatar image for mrcraggle
mrcraggle

3104

Forum Posts

2873

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By mrcraggle

I ended up buying this after watching the QL earlier today but it's been on my radar for the past few weeks in the build up to its release. It's one of the few games out there that really just invite you to poke at everything until it breaks which the game often takes quite literally. If I had to liken it to other games out there, I'd say it was a combination of Portal 2 + Antichamber. The writing is top notch and genuinely funny with plenty of WTF moments that kept me hooked and I intend to go back for more. The biggest knock I can give against the game is how it repeats itself and then other times it's aware of what has already happened and comment on it. For example, if you hide in the closet like Jeff did in the QL and go back again in another playthrough, the narrator will question your fascination with this meaningless broom closet.

Avatar image for huser
huser

1452

Forum Posts

81

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gregoryc said:

I don't have any problems with authority, but if I played this I'm sure I would never listen to the narrator..

The thing of it is, the narration accounts for that as well. You can at most temporarily countermand the story, but only to have the narrator include whatever you do back into it.

Avatar image for seedofpower
Seedofpower

4138

Forum Posts

6866

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

This game is GOTY material. At least for me. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
ArbitraryWater

16106

Forum Posts

5585

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 66

This seems like something I would absolutely enjoy. It also seems like something I will purchase for $5 on sale, play for 2-3 hours and then never touch again.

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

This will be the perfect game to break up what else I am playing. Max Payne could use the break also, the way he goes on about things.

Avatar image for beachthunder
BeachThunder

15269

Forum Posts

319005

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 30

@neonie said:

I'll just be over here in this broom closet.

At first, I read that as bloom closet, which would certainly be an apt description of the last image.

Avatar image for sydlanel
Sydlanel

352

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Sydlanel

well as many people have noted.. the score 4 / 5 is equivalent to 8 / 10.

8

8

8

Avatar image for markdarkness
markdarkness

56

Forum Posts

297

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

See... Jeff can write a review of an abstract game without going "hurr durr just trust us" like some OTHER gaming sites that get the hell hyped out of them. That's why Giant Bomb is the best.

Avatar image for mormonwarrior
MormonWarrior

2945

Forum Posts

577

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 21

Avatar image for familyguy1
familyguy1

108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If there is anything this game told me, its that I would love to have the narrator narrate my life...

I loved this game though, well worth the $12 I spent.

Avatar image for mrfluke
mrfluke

6260

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By mrfluke

@richardzk said:

Don't see why this is only 4 stars, the review doesn't mention any negatives.

That's not how reviews work. 5 stars, on the giantbomb scale tends to mean "holy shit, you should really play this, this is something special, I (the reviewer) had a helluva time." 4 stars means "This was a really cool and interesting thing. It may not be for everyone, but it warrants atleast taking a look at." and so on.

also a star got knocked due to the fact that the game is short

Once you've replayed as many different paths as you can think of, there won't be much reason to go back and play it again

Avatar image for slightlytriangularrectangle
SlightlyTriangularRectangle

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I tried the game, played around with it a bit, said, "hey, this is neat," then left it and felt no desire to return to it.

This game, like so many recent indie titles, to me, reeks of something that need not exist, of creative talent gone to waste. With The Stanley Parable specifically it seems that the developers said to themselves in planning something like, "let's make a game that pokes fun of all the conventions used in other games because we're smart enough to understand those conventions, but others are too stupid to notice them without our assistance."

I sure do miss the days when people played games because they were fun, not because they were "art" or extended commentary on the genre itself.

Avatar image for cassus
cassus

401

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Actually bought this game a few hours ago. Haven't played it yet. I'm glad it's short, cause I don't normally get into these kids of games.

Avatar image for tarsier
Tarsier

1491

Forum Posts

126

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Tarsier

woa jeff actually likes something?

Avatar image for mrfluke
mrfluke

6260

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

i like this review.

Avatar image for soulcake
soulcake

2874

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

i really liked the game but i liked the demo more for some odd reason.

Avatar image for benu302000
benu302000

221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

8

Avatar image for comradecrash
comradecrash

603

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Cool review! Might check out the demo first to see if this will run on my laptop. Thanks!

Avatar image for shaanyboi
Shaanyboi

1804

Forum Posts

3224

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Don't see why this is only 4 stars, the review doesn't mention any negatives.

That's not how reviews work. 5 stars, on the giantbomb scale tends to mean "holy shit, you should really play this, this is something special, I (the reviewer) had a helluva time." 4 stars means "This was a really cool and interesting thing. It may not be for everyone, but it warrants atleast taking a look at." and so on.

Avatar image for jimmyfenix
jimmyfenix

3941

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jimmyfenix

Will get this later. Damn you back log.

Avatar image for teapoted
teapoted

19

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By teapoted

I loved the Stanley Parable, but for it to be a '5 star game' (whatever that means) it would need to be a bit more.

My main issue with the game is that you start off by believing that you will move the story along by learning more about the world and gathering clues among the different endings you pursue. But you quite quickly realize that the purpose of the game is more akin to a Douglas Adams version of I wanna be the Boshy that just wants to find new ways to kill you.

It is more parts satire of video games than it is a unique way to tell an interesting story. The latter is what I expected from the opening scenes, but in actuality it is rather shallow. A wonderful journey, but as the game alludes to at one point, without a destination. Some might think that's enough, but I can't be super impressed when in reality it's nothing more than 'lets see how many different paths we can code in for people to take', of course, brilliantly executed, but nothing earth shattering.

Avatar image for jimmyfenix
jimmyfenix

3941

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Will get this later. Damn you back log.

Avatar image for brendan
Brendan

9414

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

I feel like the last paragraph was addressed partially to Tevis Thompson haha.