@WormYourHonor64 absolutely correct, however i couldn't help but feel melancholic after it was all over. I dont think ive ever had a more rewarding feeling than when the sound que for three correct answers plays.
I have gotten a number of people to play it... that is my part. Then watch them hack at it there way... and seeing other details I missed on my first run.
pope is an amazing dev. who else would think of a ghost ship murder mystery and then present it in such a bizzarely appealing way? this is what all indie games should aspire to be.
sorry, i have to stop watching this video. this game already seems incredibly cool and i don't want to spoil it for myself. i'll come back once i complete it.
@@0SC2 Not OP but I decided to play after seeing the premise in this video. I think it's one of my favourite games ever due to the detective itch it scratches that no other game has ever done.
As long as we're being pedantic, it's not really either inductive or deductive. Even if we stick to a one-word simplistic description, abduction is probably the way to go. We're not really working with general principles and broader conclusions--we're using specific details and limited information to make informed guesses about other similarly specific conclusions. But really none of these words address why it does or doesn't work very well.
This game is special to me in a very unique way. It is the first time I found a game that I could play together with my mother. Any other games I have tried before always had the issue that either she would have to control a character in 3D space (which she doesn't like at all. an example being portal 2) or it would be a game where no discussion between us was needed (a game where the answere is obvious as soon as you see it. think where is waldo or The Witness) or simply not practical (too much dialog or text to possibly have the time to talk). Return of the Obra Dinn allowed me to take control of the character while my mother was simply watching, and allowed enough interpretation in what was going on that a discussion between us was necessary. The ability to repeat a death to listen to the dialog again, as well as being able to simply read it, might have been one of the most important aspects. In the end we weren't fully satisfied with the story of the game, as some things were never quite clear. The actual ending wasn't as good as we hoped either. Still, it was a unique experience that no other game was able to deliver me so far.
You and your mother might enjoy playing the MYST series! Very simple controls, with a heavy emphasis on environmental storytelling. The first game is currently being remastered for next gen hardware. Also, L.A. Noire might be fun, as a mystery game.
I - like many of you - probably watch a lot of long form video game analysis content on TH-cam. But every single video from Matt is so thorough and well considered that I actually come out with new perspective on not just any single game, but on video games as an artistic medium every single time. Great work again Matt.
I wish I knew of more long form analysis stuff. I know all the big ones, errant, mandalore, sseth, btongue, grim, joseph. Any others I should check out?
I don't actually think there's a way to design a game like this wherein all reasonable doubt can be removed for each crew member - either the lengths one would have to go to to accomplish such a thing dwarf a little game like Obra Dinn;s budget or (more likely) that would result in a less fun game. Yeah, there's a chance one guy would have taken another's sword. However, consider we only get snippet's of these characters lives along with the fact that identifying someone through their shoes or their sword is a clever and fun moment that isn't worth doing away with to make an unnessecary point about certainty. I love your videos as always Matt
A version of the opposite is really cool in a game (VN) like Umineko where the gimmick is for the detective to cast any reasonable doubt you possibly can to show the one explanation cannot be true by having any alibi at all.
You could make it so that the player has enough information to know for certain who each crew member is. If one of the topmen was sleeping in another bunk then you would need some other piece of info from another scene to determine that fact and use both pieces of evidence combined to figure out who they all are. I was a little sad there wasn't a few red herrings in Obra Dinn like a person of one nationality having the accent of another because they had lived abroad for a long period. I felt it would have kept the player on their toes and made it more rewarding when you found the piece of info that confirmed their identity.
Omg i've been waiting for a good review/ critique/ commentary of this game for so long. I want to say that most of the game CAN be solved with DEDUCTION, but with the additional premise that you have to treat it as a game and assume the game always "plays fair". Example: premises: there is always a way to tell who's who in the game. The only clue abiut the Chinese topmen is there shoes. Therefore they can be discerned by there shoes. This of course requires us to always see it as a game but with this art style, the watch and the sea monsters, we are constantly reminded of the contrived nature of this story Also your use of the game art is pure brilliance
I'll be honest, I didn't use any clever tricks to identify the Chinese. I just had to look at their faces. Same thing with the Indians and the Russians really. Lucas Pope has some superb ethnic drawing skills, and it shows.
Actually you could guess about half of the chinese topmen just by time of death alone, as the timeline progresses they keep dying and their cots get removed, so you know who are the last ones alive because only their cots remain on board there are always at least 2 methods to deduce (or induce) someones identity
At the Persian inductive reasoning. I first thought that the turban-guy was a Sikh who live in India (there were many Indian sailors in the roster). Sikhs carry a knife or a sword with them at all times as a part of their religion, so only after I had identified all of the Indians I was confident to identify the Persian.
Honestly, I preferred how Obra Dinn required uncertainty in order to figure out the crewmates. It almost made me feel smarter being able to put outside knowledge of the characters' cultures to use rather than have everything spoonfed to me like I was a child in a vacuum. My only gripe was with how easy it was to bruteforce guess which character was which by abusing the system. I didn't bother finding out the shoe clue for the Chinese topmen, I just input their names systematically til I got it right. The ending was just a complete letdown, though. The shells were interesting, but this game was more interesting because of its complex human stories rather than just the spooky monsters. The monsters weren't what drove the plot, the characters' group reactions to them was. I don't really know why they built up the ending for such a weak pay-off; it's not like I was on the edge of my seat about why the kraken left. I was hoping to see something really horrific in the lazarette, something that cause madness and mutiny in the crew, or maybe a twist about the surgeon stealing the shell, but instead I got a boring and straightforward answer to a question I wasn't particularly concerned about.
You literally just asked for a different version of the same thing. I agree the ending is lacking, mostly because of the order it’s presented in, but yer solution is just as lacking
So i guess none of you saw that the light of the shell that the mermaid had on the horizon in the "present" when the investigator was exploring the ship, that detail gives you the "ohhhh" moment at the ending because you realize that the ship was brought back by the mermaids and you had seen one in the distance (thus aldo making the story come full circle)
@@diegokevin3824 Well I don't know how common this is, but I figured that light was a shell long before the ending simply by observing the shell in other scenes. Personally I suspected the captain did a blood sacrifice or something in the lazarett, hence the mutiny and build up to the ending.
@@wonderguardstalker nope, those are completely different things. my suggestions revolve around the characters. the actual ending revolves around the monsters. i literally explained it
the lovecraftian artifact made everyone crazy cliche is so boring. glad you didnt write this shit ii can at least respect the game’s cliches as they are: hurr durr humans are the real monsters. but ooo the magic thingy did it? seriously - what a lazy copout.
Wonderful review, I disagree about the induction vs deduction, I think they're going more for making you feel clever than making you feel like you've truly solved it. Some other people have explained the point better than I have. My biggest complaint is the story's climax kind of happens 2/3 in, and then its just kinda busy work after that point. Additionally, the monkey trick is awesome and super clever, but there's no real revelations behind the monkey so you feel like "yeah thats cool but I already knew this", the supernatural arc of the story is pretty well explained by that point already. Which is a real shame, because the narrative itself is wonderful. I agree it's not perfect, but it's a flagship for what is almost an entirely new genre, and it's absolutely fantastic on top of that. A flawed masterpiece can still be a 10/10.
Rewatching this video and the line "It's a petty complaint, but less petty than it first appears." stands out as one of the most Matthewmatosis lines ever.
The real question is... dies mario revive after death, or does a temporal time shift cause him to re-live his previous moments... just food for thought
@@edgarallanpwned6666 A worthy explanation, another possibility that I like to think about is that Mario is just an army of clones, a bit like how his lives are presented in the 100-man Mario challenge in Mario Maker. Which then just begs the question if extending your life through clones counts as immortality or if the clones count as his children.
@@Cathonis If thats the case the real question ought to be, "Is each clone part of one collective concience or is Mario maker where failed experiments get 'repurposed' after they are killed in the plethora of other Mario games.
@@edgarallanpwned6666 The collective conscience answer is the child-friendly answer Nintendo *wants* us to believe. For that reason alone I am much more inclined to go down the rabbit hole which you suggested, that Mario Maker is where failed clones of not just Mario himself, but all Mario characters all end up. The players are scientists toying with the hapless clones and their world as we wish.
As a teacher of university 'Critical Thinking' courses, I wish my students were as enthusiastic about the deductive/inductive syllogism distinction as Matthew seems to be here. Maybe I should show them this video for inspiration?
Yes! My favorite game from 2018. Great review as always and really insightful and bringing up questions I never thought about, but which make perfect sense.
I managed to get a second playthrough out of the game by really limiting myself to only entering information I could really justify. I feel that restriction would have made the first playthrough a bit too tedious, but made the second one still interesting.
You made me like my favourite game even more. And though I understand the critiques, you also discovered new wonderful aspects which made me love it even more. Thanks for this beautiful video. One of the videos I have enjoyed the most of all youtube.
I wonder if it was a creative/technical choice. If the game was completely deductive it would boil down to sudoku - which places a lot more restrictions on how events interact with each other. Given that needs to be combined with a coherant world and space I wonder if this the choice was deliberate.
The induction thing is what really threw me off while I was playing this one. I could never be certain that my guess was correct because there was never quite enough information to know, just enough to make a likely guess. I kept hitting this wall, then wondering to what extent I could trust the game to stay in this realm of likelihood as opposed to wandering off into any of the possible edge cases. Eventually this question became too much. I didn't stop playing the game, I did beat it on my own, but I ended up deciding to relax my self-imposed rule of making no random guesses, because as far as I was concerned, what the game ended up asking me to do was semi-random guesswork, so if I had stuck to that rule I wouldn't have been able to play at all.
I really enjoyed the game until I hit the end of the road and realized I only had about 70% of the crew covered. I think this review perfectly depicts most points. I'm not ashamed to say there was some things I had to look up (like the tags) and seeing the reasoning behind them soured the taste, let alone trying to search through all of these scenes again to find the ones I was looking for. The only other issue that wasn't brought up was how people were killed. There is a large list of potential ways to die and not only does this spoil some of the mystery but there are instances where it can feel exceptionally cruel when you are incorrect on a technicality, which you can't verify.
About the "potential ways to die" list, I personally found it to spark interest in continuing to see the story through to the end. There are *so* many red herrings in the possible death list that you can't take any of them as true spoilers. "Dies of old age" is on the list, as is "Killed by hostile natives", to name a few. The technicality part I can completely get though, as with the poor man that gets shot with a cannon that is wrapped in the beast's tentacle.
Excellent review! But I don't agree on a critical point: real detective/judicial work is carried through the use of human mind. Even juridical law (and philosophy) states that facts can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, not for certain. So I feel induction reasoning is more intellectual honest choice as a framework for game design, other than more appealing for my personal taste. Yeah I REALLY liked Obra Dinn. (Source: I have a degree in criminology with a thesis in psychology of reasoning)
I fail to see how replacing inductive reasoning by deductive reasoning would fix the problem you mention (which is, if I understand correctly, that it's hard to feel fully immersed and satisfied with an experience based on inductive reasoning when we know it is the product of a human author and not the product of real life circumstances). Indeed, my counter argument is that we already have countless fully deductive games: Puzzle games picross and sudoku are the purest form of deductive reasoning games (granted, you could also include some puzzle platformers) and yet, they miserably fail to summon the feeling of uncertainty and relief that Obra Dinn creates. I do agree that the premise of developing a purely inductive ruleset to progress in a game might have its limits, buts Obra Dinn clearly goes beyond what has been done before in both video games and other mediums. I would argue, the closest medium to reach Obra Dinn's level are real-life escape rooms, which manipulate the players by creating a high pressure environment which helps keeping the player suspending their disbelief. But what Obra Dinn does infintely better is scale: An escape room is only 1h tops and is restricted to a very small area, the amount of problems to solve has to be scaled accordingly and most of them fall into a very simple deductive formula which isn't very satisfying either (specially considering the price).
I don't think the argument was that inductive reasoning is less satisfactory or immersive when is fiction, but that inductive reasoning always comes with a lesser feeling of confidence about the conclusion reached, making it less satisfactory than a deductive conclusion, the reason why real life vs fiction was addressed in the video is that, while in real life, inductive reasoning is basically unavoidable, in fiction you can have a 100% deductive experience, so is hard to justify using induction at all.
I got the e-mail for this video and saw "I strongly recommend avoiding this..." and I was terrified that something behind the work of this game was so terrible that it would be cause enough for you to announce to everyone that they should avoid it on moral precedent. Thank GOD that was not the case. Glad to see you upload as always
Just finished playing this game. I’m a little disappointed in this review because it veers hard into subjectivity. He basically says “deduction is better than induction because deduction is more certain”. More certain, yes. But does more certain equal better? More fun? I actually found the fuzziness of the induction to be more interesting and immersive. So whereas he knocks the game for it, I think it actually elevated Obra Dinn. It’s a shame he went subjective with this one because all his other reviews are so nicely objective.
matt is on a whole other level when it comes to video game critique, every single one of the points he makes is so air tight and the pacing of the videos is so well considered
Great review throughout but mimicking the game's own fate outcome/insurance report for the final review was top notch. Subbed for that attention of detail
Love this video but I’d like to point out that the first syllogism is actually a non distributio medii or undistributed middle fallacy. To explain, it’s like saying: Cats are animals. Some bats are animals. Thus, cats are some bats. The second subject needs to be the first subject in the second line to be logically correct. For instance, cats are felines. Felines are animals. So cats are animals.
I mean, you do make a good point. If the audience is expecting a curve ball and never get it, that could diminish the experience you take away from it. Though I question how you'd make a game like this based on deductive reasoning while still being able to keep a good sized audience engaged?
discovering that the hammocks could be used to identify crew was a totally joyous moment for me, absolutely only possible with this kind of game. i like the idea of the fates not validating automatically but i think at this scale it wouldn't be possible (while still being a challenge)
So... the Case of the Golden Idol is following in these footsteps! You might wanna check it out! I just finished it last night, and it was quite a blast! :)
Andrew Scarpati I think I’m just too dumb for it. It’s the one game I’ve ever refunded on Steam. I wish I enjoyed it as everyone else seems to have universally given it too praise, but alas it’s not marketed to me. But I look forward to watching this entire video and at least somewhat capture the “magic” of this title.
@@Outplayedqt I feel that, I love Matt's videos but I'm actually incredibly dense when it comes to puzzle games, which seems to be his forte, so I enjoy living vicariously through his content.
ChaseFace Haha dude as soon as I posted my comment, I wanted to edit it and add the phrase - living vicariously - because it’s the perfect description for folks like us who view these reviews. By the way Chase, your videos singlehandedly convinced me to buy and sink dozens of hours into The Evil Within 2, AND after enjoying it so much, I played through TEW1 to see if I agreed with your comparison. Looking forward to any new uploads :)
"Deduction" and "induction" are terms that people commonly confuse. For instance, most people call Sherlock Holmes' mental gymnastics "deduction", when in fact most of his solutions require a fantastic imagination and specialized knowledge to even guess at. Most real-life detective work requires making assumptions, at least to begin with, and is therefore inductive, so I'm not at all surprised that a detective game would lean towards inductive reasoning for its challenges. Logic puzzles (the kind where you have to find out who brought whisky to the party, who was wearing the green dress, who had blonde hair, etc.) are strictly _deductive_ , but that makes them kind of boring to most people. I'm a big fan of nonograms (a.k.a. Picross if you're a Nintendo fan), and those are usually deductive too, but making guesses is a fun way to approach them. Even though deductive puzzles often require greater mental effort than guessing games, you don't _feel_ as smart when you play them because the solution is something you're led to rather than something you invent. I think that's why Yahtzee was such a big fan of this game in particular; it makes you feel really smart by offering a lot of grist for your mental mill. It's not my cup of tea personally, nor was Papers Please, but I have to admire Lucas Pope for his dedication to testing people's minds in unusual ways.
The reasoning Sherlock applied in his detective work is neither deductive nor inductive, it's called *abductive* reasoning: forming a inference from a set of observations that give the simplest and most likely explanation for these observations. Or as Sherlock put it: _''when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth''_ and I guess that's what made this game so satisfying to figure out the solution because the solution on it's own then _sounds_ very likely. I disagree that deductive puzzles don't make you feel smart because as much as you get leaded to the correct solution it's still up to you to make that final mental step and that's still difficult on the first try.
@@islandboy9381 If we're going to split hairs here, I never actually said that Sherlock Holmes' reasoning is induction (read it again if you doubt me). Also, even the man who introduced the term "abduction" to logic admitted that he frequently used it interchangeably with inductive reasoning or inference. However, I get your point. Holmes' work is an act of creativity, the construction of a technically fictional sequence of events that makes logical sense from a disconnected set of known facts. My personal favorite example of this kind of reasoning is found in Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op, who admits on several occasions that his work is more about making a good story stick than strictly finding out the truth. I said you don't feel _as_ smart when you practice deduction, not that you don't feel smart. Any puzzle can do that for you. I admit that this is subjective, but it's my opinion that puzzles which invite you to be creative are more flattering to the player's vanity and make you feel better about yourself. I would actually say that deductive puzzles are generally _harder_ than inductive ones, because the solutions to inductive puzzles are deliberately chosen to be intuitive, the kind of thing that an average person would imagine given enough time. Deductive puzzles aren't made to be easy to guess; inductive ones are. Thank you for your thoughtful response, by the way.
With your discussion regarding induction vs deduction, I think you’re correct, and induction is the correct term to describe how you’re actually meant to play. Occam’s Razor is your best friend, and is applicable to every case in this game unless there is clearly conflicting evidence.
@gibbdude it doesn't matter how "educated" in law you are, if it's a judge making the final judgement(which it usually is) then they are being swayed either illegally or by personal feelings.(a judge with children vs one without is always going to judge a pedophile differently even if with the same evidence presented to them. The point of a jury system isn't necessarily for them to determine if a law has been broken but if the individual who broke the law should be forgiven and to what extent they should be forgiven. Reasonable doubt is always up to a person's own determination, but at a point, when there's enough or a specific type of evidence, personal determination doesn't matter much and it enters the realm of the widely accepted limits of coincidence
If you've finished all of Matthew's videos, check out Noah Caldwell Gervais. He also does long form gaming critiques without any TH-cam-culture bs but often covers more nerdy games than Matthew does. Along with Joseph Anderson, they're the holy trinity of TH-cam critics.
@@ilyasibz Noah is clueless and while I generally like Joseph Anderson's videos, he indeed often needs 10 minutes to make a point one could make in 1. Anderson is clearly below Matthew in the quality of his critiques, and Noah shouldn't even be listed. He doesn't make a lot of videos, but SaltFactory is surprisingly good.
@@roberttausig9170 Yeah don't get me wrong, I definitely don't think Joseph Anderson is on the same level as Matthew. I'm clueless as to why you think Noah's clueless though. It's a rather vague criticism of his critiques. I didn't mention Salt Factory because he's way too 'TH-camr-y' (for want of a better phrase) compared to the rest of the people mentioned and I was specifically talking about creators that don't fancy up their videos and buy into TH-cam culture the way most do.
When i got my hands on it, i felt like i didn't play this game right, that i wasn't approaching it correctly. I'll give it another try after watching this :D
Been a huge fan for a long time. Just curious if the into/outro parodying the style of the game itself was inspired by Kevin Perjurer's Defunctland. Either way, it was a great addition and a wonderful video as usual!
AHH, I think you have just nailed why I can't stand 'who dun it" shows like Poirot, Mid Summmer murders and all that. It's inviting you to guess who the murderer is and even feeding you clues to test your wit but I can never get over the fact that all I am analysing is who I think the writer would like the killer be. Red herrings and plot twists abound. It is for this reason, the only detective show worth watching is Colombo.
Anyone know how he kept that color scheme for some things? My guess is black and white conversion, then turning all blacks to that greenish color, but how the second step over video?
Can I just say I appreciate how you used music to punctuate certain parts of your review in the same way and same style as the Obra Dinn. I only picke up on it at the deduction section but it was actually such a great feature.
He thinks that while the game has some areas as a detective game could be improved, few other parts of the game could be improved. He finds a bit of fault in the game's "deduction" due to the logic being induction but nonetheless he finds the game fantastic.
As someone who hasn't played this game it seems like a very good review (albeit it might reveal too many plot twists like krakens and crab people, I wouldn't know). Though there's one particular part I feel that was kind of out of far left field. When talking about the chinese you're asserting that its possible that people might have switched bunk beds. And while I don't deny the possibility, its a bit of a big stretch and not something a person could reasonably be considered to start thinking about without any reason. Besides that little tidbit I think all your argumentations and reasons are very strong and that your conclusion does seem to be very sound. Therefore from my perspective your video was very good and entertaining. Sadly though this isn't my type of game, as I do not like detective stories.
I think his point was more that even if it is very unlikely, it is still within the realm of possibility and should therefore be considered but then you can't actually fact check these possibilities so your always a little unsure about your own deductions, basically he is saying you have to put a little too much faith in the game.
YES!!! I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!! Edit: Also, no mention of the glowing dot out in the middle of the water? Implying that the quicksilver seashell was returned to its rightful owners in the sea?
The game was pretty good but I couldn't help but be let down by the lack of any significant development of the story as I got to the end. It was just a bit too minimalist for me.
Matthew, did you played "Her story"? In this game you need to discover what happened to a seemingly normal middle-aged woman by accessing a database filled with videos of her, the catch being that a search will give out only the first 4 videos related to the entered keyword. Each video you watch is an occasion to learn new thing about her and gather keywords which you can then use in the search engine to repeat the process all other again. When you raised the point of induction in your video, I immediatly thought about this game, because unlike Obra Dinn it never tells you when you are right about something, not even at the end, in fact there is no ending to it. Instead, it's the player and the player only which decide whether he deduced enough and wants to stop. This mights make "Her story" the perfect embodiment of the player-driven detective game, at the cost of being more frustrating than its maritime counterpart. There might be a point on whether some streamlining is better than true player freedom, especially when you want to present a story in addition to all the investigation stuff, but that will take a few pages of developpement. For any one who took time to read this comment, I'd like to know your thoughts on whether it achieved the induction aspect better. Thank you.
Good job keeping Phoenix Wright in the same color pallet as the whole video. Very good to avoid eye burning at night.
The worst part of Obra Dinn is that there isnt more of it.
@WormYourHonor64 absolutely correct, however i couldn't help but feel melancholic after it was all over. I dont think ive ever had a more rewarding feeling than when the sound que for three correct answers plays.
Yes yes... We all developed stockholm syndrome for the Obra Dinn...
I have gotten a number of people to play it... that is my part. Then watch them hack at it there way... and seeing other details I missed on my first run.
Knock-offs need to come out, this game has to be the start of a genre
Obra Dinn could have been *boss* on the Wii U; the Gamepad could have worked well for the journal.
holy shit
pope is an amazing dev. who else would think of a ghost ship murder mystery and then present it in such a bizzarely appealing way? this is what all indie games should aspire to be.
If you made a 40 minute retrospective on "rock-paper-scissors" I would watch it.
sorry, i have to stop watching this video. this game already seems incredibly cool and i don't want to spoil it for myself. i'll come back once i complete it.
Did you like the game?
@@0SC2 Not OP but I decided to play after seeing the premise in this video. I think it's one of my favourite games ever due to the detective itch it scratches that no other game has ever done.
As long as we're being pedantic, it's not really either inductive or deductive. Even if we stick to a one-word simplistic description, abduction is probably the way to go. We're not really working with general principles and broader conclusions--we're using specific details and limited information to make informed guesses about other similarly specific conclusions.
But really none of these words address why it does or doesn't work very well.
I was about to comment that it leans more on abductive reasoning.
I think this game, deserves a analysis, scene by scene.
This game is special to me in a very unique way. It is the first time I found a game that I could play together with my mother. Any other games I have tried before always had the issue that either she would have to control a character in 3D space (which she doesn't like at all. an example being portal 2) or it would be a game where no discussion between us was needed (a game where the answere is obvious as soon as you see it. think where is waldo or The Witness) or simply not practical (too much dialog or text to possibly have the time to talk). Return of the Obra Dinn allowed me to take control of the character while my mother was simply watching, and allowed enough interpretation in what was going on that a discussion between us was necessary. The ability to repeat a death to listen to the dialog again, as well as being able to simply read it, might have been one of the most important aspects.
In the end we weren't fully satisfied with the story of the game, as some things were never quite clear. The actual ending wasn't as good as we hoped either. Still, it was a unique experience that no other game was able to deliver me so far.
Okay?
@@ddd-op5wy Glad to hear that you are okay with my experience of the game.
You and your mother might enjoy playing the MYST series! Very simple controls, with a heavy emphasis on environmental storytelling. The first game is currently being remastered for next gen hardware.
Also, L.A. Noire might be fun, as a mystery game.
@@CheddahSlingah isn't myst really old?
@@l3loodyfingers Just because it's old doesn't mean it isn't still good, especially with a fresh coat of paint.
I - like many of you - probably watch a lot of long form video game analysis content on TH-cam. But every single video from Matt is so thorough and well considered that I actually come out with new perspective on not just any single game, but on video games as an artistic medium every single time.
Great work again Matt.
RPS 100%, he really expands your thinking
I recommend Errant Signal. Great content.
I wish I knew of more long form analysis stuff. I know all the big ones, errant, mandalore, sseth, btongue, grim, joseph. Any others I should check out?
soundlust mauler
soundlust and Noah gervais
I don't actually think there's a way to design a game like this wherein all reasonable doubt can be removed for each crew member - either the lengths one would have to go to to accomplish such a thing dwarf a little game like Obra Dinn;s budget or (more likely) that would result in a less fun game.
Yeah, there's a chance one guy would have taken another's sword. However, consider we only get snippet's of these characters lives along with the fact that identifying someone through their shoes or their sword is a clever and fun moment that isn't worth doing away with to make an unnessecary point about certainty.
I love your videos as always Matt
A version of the opposite is really cool in a game (VN) like Umineko where the gimmick is for the detective to cast any reasonable doubt you possibly can to show the one explanation cannot be true by having any alibi at all.
@@matilyn_rf what
You could make it so that the player has enough information to know for certain who each crew member is. If one of the topmen was sleeping in another bunk then you would need some other piece of info from another scene to determine that fact and use both pieces of evidence combined to figure out who they all are. I was a little sad there wasn't a few red herrings in Obra Dinn like a person of one nationality having the accent of another because they had lived abroad for a long period. I felt it would have kept the player on their toes and made it more rewarding when you found the piece of info that confirmed their identity.
@@matilyn_rf Are you talking about Episode 5 of Umineko?
Omg i've been waiting for a good review/ critique/ commentary of this game for so long. I want to say that most of the game CAN be solved with DEDUCTION, but with the additional premise that you have to treat it as a game and assume the game always "plays fair". Example: premises: there is always a way to tell who's who in the game. The only clue abiut the Chinese topmen is there shoes. Therefore they can be discerned by there shoes. This of course requires us to always see it as a game but with this art style, the watch and the sea monsters, we are constantly reminded of the contrived nature of this story
Also your use of the game art is pure brilliance
@@nothingnowherenobody same i never noticed the shoes myself.
Lucas Pope turned me into a foot fetishist during the Cold Chapter and I don't know what to feel about that
I'll be honest, I didn't use any clever tricks to identify the Chinese. I just had to look at their faces. Same thing with the Indians and the Russians really. Lucas Pope has some superb ethnic drawing skills, and it shows.
@@MultiMetarI'm Chinese and I couldn't recognize any face at all. Probably just because I'm too face blind lol
Actually you could guess about half of the chinese topmen just by time of death alone, as the timeline progresses they keep dying and their cots get removed, so you know who are the last ones alive because only their cots remain on board
there are always at least 2 methods to deduce (or induce) someones identity
G I A N T
E N E M Y
C R A B S
"Giant enemy crabs"
RIIIIIIIIDGE RACER!
Well worth my money despite not having replay value.
At the Persian inductive reasoning. I first thought that the turban-guy was a Sikh who live in India (there were many Indian sailors in the roster). Sikhs carry a knife or a sword with them at all times as a part of their religion, so only after I had identified all of the Indians I was confident to identify the Persian.
I have been waiting for this. Thank you! Your videos are just top tier.
Honestly, I preferred how Obra Dinn required uncertainty in order to figure out the crewmates. It almost made me feel smarter being able to put outside knowledge of the characters' cultures to use rather than have everything spoonfed to me like I was a child in a vacuum. My only gripe was with how easy it was to bruteforce guess which character was which by abusing the system. I didn't bother finding out the shoe clue for the Chinese topmen, I just input their names systematically til I got it right.
The ending was just a complete letdown, though. The shells were interesting, but this game was more interesting because of its complex human stories rather than just the spooky monsters. The monsters weren't what drove the plot, the characters' group reactions to them was. I don't really know why they built up the ending for such a weak pay-off; it's not like I was on the edge of my seat about why the kraken left. I was hoping to see something really horrific in the lazarette, something that cause madness and mutiny in the crew, or maybe a twist about the surgeon stealing the shell, but instead I got a boring and straightforward answer to a question I wasn't particularly concerned about.
You literally just asked for a different version of the same thing. I agree the ending is lacking, mostly because of the order it’s presented in, but yer solution is just as lacking
So i guess none of you saw that the light of the shell that the mermaid had on the horizon in the "present" when the investigator was exploring the ship,
that detail gives you the "ohhhh" moment at the ending because you realize that the ship was brought back by the mermaids and you had seen one in the distance (thus aldo making the story come full circle)
@@diegokevin3824 Well I don't know how common this is, but I figured that light was a shell long before the ending simply by observing the shell in other scenes.
Personally I suspected the captain did a blood sacrifice or something in the lazarett, hence the mutiny and build up to the ending.
@@wonderguardstalker nope, those are completely different things. my suggestions revolve around the characters. the actual ending revolves around the monsters. i literally explained it
the lovecraftian artifact made everyone crazy cliche is so boring. glad you didnt write this shit
ii can at least respect the game’s cliches as they are: hurr durr humans are the real monsters. but ooo the magic thingy did it? seriously - what a lazy copout.
I missed that sweet silky voice
Wonderful review, I disagree about the induction vs deduction, I think they're going more for making you feel clever than making you feel like you've truly solved it. Some other people have explained the point better than I have.
My biggest complaint is the story's climax kind of happens 2/3 in, and then its just kinda busy work after that point. Additionally, the monkey trick is awesome and super clever, but there's no real revelations behind the monkey so you feel like "yeah thats cool but I already knew this", the supernatural arc of the story is pretty well explained by that point already. Which is a real shame, because the narrative itself is wonderful.
I agree it's not perfect, but it's a flagship for what is almost an entirely new genre, and it's absolutely fantastic on top of that. A flawed masterpiece can still be a 10/10.
Exactly I truly think this can be the birth of a genre of murder mystery games, if I could I would make one myself
Damn. Your closing words were so well written!
Love your videoes.
Great youtuber talks about a great game
*everyone liked that*
th-cam.com/video/LCCxnuLlS18/w-d-xo.html
Your vids make me feel so smart, I learn so much.
Rewatching this video and the line "It's a petty complaint, but less petty than it first appears." stands out as one of the most Matthewmatosis lines ever.
Lucas Pope is simply an indie game god.
Innovative and setting standards for every part of his games.
If Mario never ages and can revive after death, is he still mortal?
The real question is... dies mario revive after death, or does a temporal time shift cause him to re-live his previous moments... just food for thought
Does*
@@edgarallanpwned6666 A worthy explanation, another possibility that I like to think about is that Mario is just an army of clones, a bit like how his lives are presented in the 100-man Mario challenge in Mario Maker. Which then just begs the question if extending your life through clones counts as immortality or if the clones count as his children.
@@Cathonis If thats the case the real question ought to be, "Is each clone part of one collective concience or is Mario maker where failed experiments get 'repurposed' after they are killed in the plethora of other Mario games.
@@edgarallanpwned6666 The collective conscience answer is the child-friendly answer Nintendo *wants* us to believe. For that reason alone I am much more inclined to go down the rabbit hole which you suggested, that Mario Maker is where failed clones of not just Mario himself, but all Mario characters all end up. The players are scientists toying with the hapless clones and their world as we wish.
As a teacher of university 'Critical Thinking' courses, I wish my students were as enthusiastic about the deductive/inductive syllogism distinction as Matthew seems to be here. Maybe I should show them this video for inspiration?
the best way to let students engage with the subject is practical examples so yes it can inspire :)
@gibbdude Haha I had no idea until you replied to my comment. I'm flattered!
Yes! My favorite game from 2018. Great review as always and really insightful and bringing up questions I never thought about, but which make perfect sense.
I managed to get a second playthrough out of the game by really limiting myself to only entering information I could really justify. I feel that restriction would have made the first playthrough a bit too tedious, but made the second one still interesting.
You made me like my favourite game even more. And though I understand the critiques, you also discovered new wonderful aspects which made me love it even more.
Thanks for this beautiful video.
One of the videos I have enjoyed the most of all youtube.
I wonder if it was a creative/technical choice. If the game was completely deductive it would boil down to sudoku - which places a lot more restrictions on how events interact with each other. Given that needs to be combined with a coherant world and space I wonder if this the choice was deliberate.
I usually don't comment before watching the video, but this was my favorite game from its year and I'm really looking forward to the review. Cheers!
The induction thing is what really threw me off while I was playing this one. I could never be certain that my guess was correct because there was never quite enough information to know, just enough to make a likely guess. I kept hitting this wall, then wondering to what extent I could trust the game to stay in this realm of likelihood as opposed to wandering off into any of the possible edge cases. Eventually this question became too much. I didn't stop playing the game, I did beat it on my own, but I ended up deciding to relax my self-imposed rule of making no random guesses, because as far as I was concerned, what the game ended up asking me to do was semi-random guesswork, so if I had stuck to that rule I wouldn't have been able to play at all.
7:15
I like how he couldn't contain the laughter
I like that he kept it in
Possibly my favorite part of the video.
I really enjoyed the game until I hit the end of the road and realized I only had about 70% of the crew covered. I think this review perfectly depicts most points. I'm not ashamed to say there was some things I had to look up (like the tags) and seeing the reasoning behind them soured the taste, let alone trying to search through all of these scenes again to find the ones I was looking for. The only other issue that wasn't brought up was how people were killed. There is a large list of potential ways to die and not only does this spoil some of the mystery but there are instances where it can feel exceptionally cruel when you are incorrect on a technicality, which you can't verify.
About the "potential ways to die" list, I personally found it to spark interest in continuing to see the story through to the end. There are *so* many red herrings in the possible death list that you can't take any of them as true spoilers. "Dies of old age" is on the list, as is "Killed by hostile natives", to name a few. The technicality part I can completely get though, as with the poor man that gets shot with a cannon that is wrapped in the beast's tentacle.
I see what you did at the beginning, I love it.
"It's a petty complaint, but less petty than it first appears"
No, it's exactly as petty as it first appears
Excellent review! But I don't agree on a critical point: real detective/judicial work is carried through the use of human mind.
Even juridical law (and philosophy) states that facts can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, not for certain.
So I feel induction reasoning is more intellectual honest choice as a framework for game design, other than more appealing for my personal taste.
Yeah I REALLY liked Obra Dinn.
(Source: I have a degree in criminology with a thesis in psychology of reasoning)
Pretty cool to hear your perspective on it!
I just completed this game and my thoughts on it were identical. This is an incredibly good review, thank you.
I fail to see how replacing inductive reasoning by deductive reasoning would fix the problem you mention (which is, if I understand correctly, that it's hard to feel fully immersed and satisfied with an experience based on inductive reasoning when we know it is the product of a human author and not the product of real life circumstances).
Indeed, my counter argument is that we already have countless fully deductive games: Puzzle games
picross and sudoku are the purest form of deductive reasoning games (granted, you could also include some puzzle platformers) and yet, they miserably fail to summon the feeling of uncertainty and relief that Obra Dinn creates.
I do agree that the premise of developing a purely inductive ruleset to progress in a game might have its limits, buts Obra Dinn clearly goes beyond what has been done before in both video games and other mediums. I would argue, the closest medium to reach Obra Dinn's level are real-life escape rooms, which manipulate the players by creating a high pressure environment which helps keeping the player suspending their disbelief. But what Obra Dinn does infintely better is scale: An escape room is only 1h tops and is restricted to a very small area, the amount of problems to solve has to be scaled accordingly and most of them fall into a very simple deductive formula which isn't very satisfying either (specially considering the price).
I don't think the argument was that inductive reasoning is less satisfactory or immersive when is fiction, but that inductive reasoning always comes with a lesser feeling of confidence about the conclusion reached, making it less satisfactory than a deductive conclusion, the reason why real life vs fiction was addressed in the video is that, while in real life, inductive reasoning is basically unavoidable, in fiction you can have a 100% deductive experience, so is hard to justify using induction at all.
So glad you reviewed this. One of the most interesting games of the last few years.
I got the e-mail for this video and saw "I strongly recommend avoiding this..." and I was terrified that something behind the work of this game was so terrible that it would be cause enough for you to announce to everyone that they should avoid it on moral precedent. Thank GOD that was not the case. Glad to see you upload as always
Just finished playing this game. I’m a little disappointed in this review because it veers hard into subjectivity. He basically says “deduction is better than induction because deduction is more certain”. More certain, yes. But does more certain equal better? More fun? I actually found the fuzziness of the induction to be more interesting and immersive. So whereas he knocks the game for it, I think it actually elevated Obra Dinn. It’s a shame he went subjective with this one because all his other reviews are so nicely objective.
gibbdude I’d like to introduce you to a man named Mauler.
matt is on a whole other level when it comes to video game critique, every single one of the points he makes is so air tight and the pacing of the videos is so well considered
Great review throughout but mimicking the game's own fate outcome/insurance report for the final review was top notch. Subbed for that attention of detail
I adore this critique. You took a game I already loved and gave a take that added just that little bit more artful nuance.
You're a joy to listen to, even for a game I've never heard of.
when is your projared roast video and game of thrones season 8 rant coming
don't
Damn Matt, nice review, once again
Just finished it. Glad I didnt watch your review till after, as you got a couple spoilers in here. Good video though, agreed about the deduction
I’m gonna wait to watch this till I’ve played the game. Just had to stop by and like&comment to support the boy.
Love this video but I’d like to point out that the first syllogism is actually a non distributio medii or undistributed middle fallacy. To explain, it’s like saying: Cats are animals. Some bats are animals. Thus, cats are some bats. The second subject needs to be the first subject in the second line to be logically correct. For instance, cats are felines. Felines are animals. So cats are animals.
Better review than joseph's one
Peraonally I am sick of "detective" games that require you to achieve a perfect solution via the only line of logic the game has peepared for you.
This game explicitly *doesn’t* do that, though.
@@0SC2 Aye. This is why I brought it up. Joaeph himsdlf contrasts this one as counterexample.
Am I an asshole, when I am disappointed when matthewmatosis video is under 2 hours?
I mean, you do make a good point. If the audience is expecting a curve ball and never get it, that could diminish the experience you take away from it. Though I question how you'd make a game like this based on deductive reasoning while still being able to keep a good sized audience engaged?
Wow that intro hit me
I never know what mathewmatosis is going to think or say about a game and that's one of the reasons I like him so much as a videogame critic.
discovering that the hammocks could be used to identify crew was a totally joyous moment for me, absolutely only possible with this kind of game. i like the idea of the fates not validating automatically but i think at this scale it wouldn't be possible (while still being a challenge)
I like your vids mate
So... the Case of the Golden Idol is following in these footsteps! You might wanna check it out! I just finished it last night, and it was quite a blast! :)
I fucking loved this game. Glad to see it get publicity.
Andrew Scarpati I think I’m just too dumb for it. It’s the one game I’ve ever refunded on Steam. I wish I enjoyed it as everyone else seems to have universally given it too praise, but alas it’s not marketed to me. But I look forward to watching this entire video and at least somewhat capture the “magic” of this title.
No disrespect to Matthew, but I think being named Zero Punctuation's Game of the Year is already the most publicity it's going to get.
@@Outplayedqt I feel that, I love Matt's videos but I'm actually incredibly dense when it comes to puzzle games, which seems to be his forte, so I enjoy living vicariously through his content.
ChaseFace Haha dude as soon as I posted my comment, I wanted to edit it and add the phrase - living vicariously - because it’s the perfect description for folks like us who view these reviews. By the way Chase, your videos singlehandedly convinced me to buy and sink dozens of hours into The Evil Within 2, AND after enjoying it so much, I played through TEW1 to see if I agreed with your comparison.
Looking forward to any new uploads :)
Thanks for tuning me into this.
Yeah, the deduction induction distinction was something which I didn't understand when I was 11 years old getting into ace attorney.
I now confirm that Matt is the smartest game critic I watch!! This video is amazing!
"Deduction" and "induction" are terms that people commonly confuse. For instance, most people call Sherlock Holmes' mental gymnastics "deduction", when in fact most of his solutions require a fantastic imagination and specialized knowledge to even guess at. Most real-life detective work requires making assumptions, at least to begin with, and is therefore inductive, so I'm not at all surprised that a detective game would lean towards inductive reasoning for its challenges.
Logic puzzles (the kind where you have to find out who brought whisky to the party, who was wearing the green dress, who had blonde hair, etc.) are strictly _deductive_ , but that makes them kind of boring to most people. I'm a big fan of nonograms (a.k.a. Picross if you're a Nintendo fan), and those are usually deductive too, but making guesses is a fun way to approach them.
Even though deductive puzzles often require greater mental effort than guessing games, you don't _feel_ as smart when you play them because the solution is something you're led to rather than something you invent. I think that's why Yahtzee was such a big fan of this game in particular; it makes you feel really smart by offering a lot of grist for your mental mill. It's not my cup of tea personally, nor was Papers Please, but I have to admire Lucas Pope for his dedication to testing people's minds in unusual ways.
The reasoning Sherlock applied in his detective work is neither deductive nor inductive, it's called *abductive* reasoning: forming a inference from a set of observations that give the simplest and most likely explanation for these observations. Or as Sherlock put it: _''when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth''_ and I guess that's what made this game so satisfying to figure out the solution because the solution on it's own then _sounds_ very likely. I disagree that deductive puzzles don't make you feel smart because as much as you get leaded to the correct solution it's still up to you to make that final mental step and that's still difficult on the first try.
@@islandboy9381 If we're going to split hairs here, I never actually said that Sherlock Holmes' reasoning is induction (read it again if you doubt me). Also, even the man who introduced the term "abduction" to logic admitted that he frequently used it interchangeably with inductive reasoning or inference.
However, I get your point. Holmes' work is an act of creativity, the construction of a technically fictional sequence of events that makes logical sense from a disconnected set of known facts. My personal favorite example of this kind of reasoning is found in Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op, who admits on several occasions that his work is more about making a good story stick than strictly finding out the truth.
I said you don't feel _as_ smart when you practice deduction, not that you don't feel smart. Any puzzle can do that for you. I admit that this is subjective, but it's my opinion that puzzles which invite you to be creative are more flattering to the player's vanity and make you feel better about yourself. I would actually say that deductive puzzles are generally _harder_ than inductive ones, because the solutions to inductive puzzles are deliberately chosen to be intuitive, the kind of thing that an average person would imagine given enough time. Deductive puzzles aren't made to be easy to guess; inductive ones are.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, by the way.
With your discussion regarding induction vs deduction, I think you’re correct, and induction is the correct term to describe how you’re actually meant to play. Occam’s Razor is your best friend, and is applicable to every case in this game unless there is clearly conflicting evidence.
I don't think MM knows what "reasonable" doubt means. I hope he never stands in a jury.
Cynical takeaway from a brilliant video, but sure.
@gibbdude it doesn't matter how "educated" in law you are, if it's a judge making the final judgement(which it usually is) then they are being swayed either illegally or by personal feelings.(a judge with children vs one without is always going to judge a pedophile differently even if with the same evidence presented to them.
The point of a jury system isn't necessarily for them to determine if a law has been broken but if the individual who broke the law should be forgiven and to what extent they should be forgiven.
Reasonable doubt is always up to a person's own determination, but at a point, when there's enough or a specific type of evidence, personal determination doesn't matter much and it enters the realm of the widely accepted limits of coincidence
The only reviewer that makes me want to buy games /before/ watching their review...
Hey man, what do you think of the new Oddworld game footage so far?
Matthew, you are a goddamn treasure, best critic on TH-cam, easy.
If you've finished all of Matthew's videos, check out Noah Caldwell Gervais. He also does long form gaming critiques without any TH-cam-culture bs but often covers more nerdy games than Matthew does.
Along with Joseph Anderson, they're the holy trinity of TH-cam critics.
@@ilyasibz joseph anderson is trash and doesn't understand the importance of brevity
@@ilyasibz
Noah is clueless and while I generally like Joseph Anderson's videos, he indeed often needs 10 minutes to make a point one could make in 1.
Anderson is clearly below Matthew in the quality of his critiques, and Noah shouldn't even be listed.
He doesn't make a lot of videos, but SaltFactory is surprisingly good.
@@roberttausig9170 Yeah don't get me wrong, I definitely don't think Joseph Anderson is on the same level as Matthew.
I'm clueless as to why you think Noah's clueless though. It's a rather vague criticism of his critiques.
I didn't mention Salt Factory because he's way too 'TH-camr-y' (for want of a better phrase) compared to the rest of the people mentioned and I was specifically talking about creators that don't fancy up their videos and buy into TH-cam culture the way most do.
@@ilyasibz Joseph Anderson is far from the holy trinity of youtube critics, especially with how dragged out his videos are
Cute presentation as always Matt. By the way I just want to remind you that Umihara Kawase is the best 2D platformer ever made.
@gibbdude Good, don't forget it.
When i got my hands on it, i felt like i didn't play this game right, that i wasn't approaching it correctly.
I'll give it another try after watching this :D
Been a huge fan for a long time. Just curious if the into/outro parodying the style of the game itself was inspired by Kevin Perjurer's Defunctland. Either way, it was a great addition and a wonderful video as usual!
i am convinced that Matthew is a lawyer in real life
AHH, I think you have just nailed why I can't stand 'who dun it" shows like Poirot, Mid Summmer murders and all that. It's inviting you to guess who the murderer is and even feeding you clues to test your wit but I can never get over the fact that all I am analysing is who I think the writer would like the killer be. Red herrings and plot twists abound.
It is for this reason, the only detective show worth watching is Colombo.
This is just one of my favourite game i have ever played
This was the most Matthewmatosis-reviewable game I played last year. I knew it was only a matter of time.
Finally one of these I've actually played
Anyone know how he kept that color scheme for some things? My guess is black and white conversion, then turning all blacks to that greenish color, but how the second step over video?
I love how Matt is like "it's good, but can we make it HARDER?"
Aww hell yeah. I'm ready.
This was my favorite game in 2018
Is a video on the last guardian in the making?
Why didn't you do a review for mario oddessy ? :(
Can I just say I appreciate how you used music to punctuate certain parts of your review in the same way and same style as the Obra Dinn.
I only picke up on it at the deduction section but it was actually such a great feature.
I'd love to see your take on The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.
Thank you for your work. c:
Cant watch, it's on my wishlist and I intend on playing it very soon.
I will ask this: Does Matt like it or not?
He thinks that while the game has some areas as a detective game could be improved, few other parts of the game could be improved.
He finds a bit of fault in the game's "deduction" due to the logic being induction but nonetheless he finds the game fantastic.
@@contendo64 Much thanks, ill give this a watch after I play
@@TheOrangeRoad If you are debating Ill just say: PLAY IT!!!!
As someone who hasn't played this game it seems like a very good review (albeit it might reveal too many plot twists like krakens and crab people, I wouldn't know). Though there's one particular part I feel that was kind of out of far left field. When talking about the chinese you're asserting that its possible that people might have switched bunk beds. And while I don't deny the possibility, its a bit of a big stretch and not something a person could reasonably be considered to start thinking about without any reason.
Besides that little tidbit I think all your argumentations and reasons are very strong and that your conclusion does seem to be very sound. Therefore from my perspective your video was very good and entertaining.
Sadly though this isn't my type of game, as I do not like detective stories.
I think his point was more that even if it is very unlikely, it is still within the realm of possibility and should therefore be considered but then you can't actually fact check these possibilities so your always a little unsure about your own deductions, basically he is saying you have to put a little too much faith in the game.
Yes that's exactly what I just made a comment on you fucking moron.
@@Trakesh Yea you're right, my bad.
YES!!! I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!
Edit: Also, no mention of the glowing dot out in the middle of the water? Implying that the quicksilver seashell was returned to its rightful owners in the sea?
That’s made clear in the cup of tea epilogue section isn’t it?
Hey, Matt. Have you ever played Hollow Knight? I'm really curious about your thoughts on the game.
0:00 btw the font for the game is actually closer to (or exactly) IM Fell DW Pica. For future reference if you choose to revisit the game.
This game has a crazy visual style--I like it.
Please do MGS5 Matt. It pains me that you're one short in your reviews.
Konami never finished the game so why should he finish the review? Jokes aside it would be great to hear Matt's thoughts on the game
The game was pretty good but I couldn't help but be let down by the lack of any significant development of the story as I got to the end. It was just a bit too minimalist for me.
Matthew, did you played "Her story"?
In this game you need to discover what happened to a seemingly normal middle-aged woman by accessing a database filled with videos of her, the catch being that a search will give out only the first 4 videos related to the entered keyword. Each video you watch is an occasion to learn new thing about her and gather keywords which you can then use in the search engine to repeat the process all other again.
When you raised the point of induction in your video, I immediatly thought about this game, because unlike Obra Dinn it never tells you when you are right about something, not even at the end, in fact there is no ending to it. Instead, it's the player and the player only which decide whether he deduced enough and wants to stop.
This mights make "Her story" the perfect embodiment of the player-driven detective game, at the cost of being more frustrating than its maritime counterpart. There might be a point on whether some streamlining is better than true player freedom, especially when you want to present a story in addition to all the investigation stuff, but that will take a few pages of developpement.
For any one who took time to read this comment, I'd like to know your thoughts on whether it achieved the induction aspect better.
Thank you.
boat puns!
Matthew please i have my leaving cert
Amazing vid, man. You are a Pearl.
Very satisfying, pun-ridden summary. Provoking and poignant review too.
YEEEEESSSSSS! LOVED THIS GAME! LOVE YOUR VIDEOS!