Rich should try What Remains of Edith Finch. My favorite in the "walking sim" genre. There are great games in this style! It is a valid genre/medium for suburb storytelling! If done right.
Yeah, it was one of the things I liked a lot about their reviews, it's not just a circlejerk or dunking on games on both sides, except maybe tearing apart alien isolation, they were spot on with that door opening dumpster fire haha I will say though, while I usually think rich is full of shit when he thinks games can't be story focused, like he shits on last of us and uncharted like their gameplay is shallow But this game really is just sooo nothing It has 2-3 minor dialogue moments that are okay but it is totally on rails
So IIRC Jack always skips/ignores cutscenes/dialogue to go straight to the gameplay... but now he's unable to do so, because the entire thing is cutscenes, and he finds the experience engrossing. What.
@@CadaverJunky8 haha I guess because he liked the dull "gameplay" I totally agree with them on alien isolation being door opening crap & this But they'll be totally wrong sometimes like saying last of us is the same as order 1886 because third person plus story hahaha And they definitely have some super outdated outlooks on stuff, and they suck at offering good arguments But still love these old reviews
Yeah same here. But perhaps this game does need to be in its own category. Its still interactive entertainment media but not in the traditional game sense
Yeah same here. But perhaps this game does need to be in its own category. Its still interactive entertainment media but not in the traditional game sense
+Rat Jackson Wow so you need validation to hate someone that genuinely likes a piece of media that you don’t? You know just because a reviewer likes something that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people should as well.
gotta go with Jack on this one surprisingly for me. I really dont understand why some people feel the need to dismiss completely "walking simulators". Sure, dont call it a game, but there is something to gain from letting a player just wander around an environment
*"I think your getting to caught up in what a GAME IS"* Jack said this. JACK said this. Those of you that are long time viewers of PreRec know how ironic this is....
I think it should be a rule that you guys disagree with each other on the game you discuss because it makes your videos infinitely more interesting and engaging.
I get what Jack is saying here. The point of the game is loneliness, and the fact that you are playing the game makes you feel that loneliness. You don't get that in movies. You are watching someone else be lonely, but you don't feel lonely. When you play a game about loneliness, you become the lonely person.
***** But when you are locked in a closet, do you feel the ambiance of the wilderness? Do you experience the story of a blossoming relationship between two lonely people? No, you don't. That's what games do for us. They make us feel in ways that we couldn't before. That's why some of the most emotional games are some of the most well received.
Jack saying Rich is getting hung up on what gameplay is is like the makers of Manos: The Hands of Fate telling everyone they're getting hung up on what Story is.
I really liked Firewatch and I'm with Jack, the walking around and stuff really helped the pacing of the game and drive home that "you're by yourself in the woods" feeling.
Firewatch needed the walking in the woods. The gameplay and feeling of isolation informed through the gameplay is what makes it works. Watching someone walk alone doesn't work but BEING the one walking alone does. That is what made you become the main.
Do not trust Jack's lies. Turning off the localizator does not make any difference. I played it first with it turned off and at no point in the game i was in any way lost. The map is just a small set of corridors, so there is no point.
The whole problem with the "You can go anywhere on the map!" argument is that, while you can go over there, nothing will fucking happen. And then you'll end up having to just walk farther to get to the next story point.
I'm with you on this one Jack. It's an alien concept that a video game can be as interactive as an average book and still be a game. You would also love Oxenfree, Gone Home, Life is Strange, and What Remains of Edith Finch.
I hated the end of what remains of Edith finch. I felt like it fell apart. All of a sudden one or two of the deaths didn’t even seem to connect to the story? It was insanely depressing and to me it was coming apart at the seams near the end. That game is depressing and sadly relatable
8 years later, I finally got around to playing Firewatch. Even though Rich and Jack have completely opposite opinions, I somehow agree with both of them. Rich is right that there's no "game", and the exploration is just a series of tubes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed walking around the woods, and had no problem with the pacing or flow of the story. But I did leave my "guy locator" on and made sure to take the shortest path everywhere I went.
Also, Jack was way off base here. Rich's assessment that the game is tubes is absolutely on point. The game does not give you much freedom at all. Maybe a few times you can go here or there, but it's not genuine exploration. Exploration puts you, essentially, in a box with a bunch of landmarks and you can find your way around. Skyrim does this. You could do it on a smaller scale, but they didn't do that. Also PRE-REC needs to make a comeback. Get off your asses, you hack frauds.
I agree 100% with Jack. Pacing is important in a movie, but its not important in a good story-heavy game. The reason why pacing is 'slow' in story-heavy games like Firewatch, SOMA, and The Last of US is because you ARE the protagonist. In order to enjoy games like these, you need to immerse yourself in the character. You need to 'be' the character in this fantasy world. In a movie, you're just watching strangers experience the story. You may feel for the characters involved, but ultimately you're removed from the experience. In a good story-heavy game, you are experiencing the story yourself. You ARE part of the story...or at least that's what the developers want you to feel. If they 'trimmed the fat' in a game like this, it would completely kill the immersion. It's pretty obvious that Rich isn't capable of immersing himself in these types of games. That's fine...to each is own, i guess. Still love ya, Rich! As the reviews of these games show, most people really enjoy this type of experience...myself included. Some of my most memorable gaming experiences happen in games like these.
Rich, you've accurately explained why i've always had an issue with walking simulators like dear ester, its essentially a virtual museum that they try to put things into to distract you from the fact that there is no gameplay.
Firewatch is less of a "game" and more of an experience. It's an interactive art piece about a man alone in the woods with only his thoughts and a radio to keep him company during a somber part of his life. Playing a game like this is a lot like going to an art exhibit: you're not going to have a lot of fun or instant gratification, but you will definitely experience something you've never seen before. And if you are someone who appreciates video games as an artform, that is worth experiencing.
+Dom King - When I played, I never felt like checking out anything off of the path of the current objective. Mainly because I knew that I wouldn't find anything meaningful that I could interact with.
+Dom King - Agreed. Connect all the elements. It's these kind of things that bug me about quasi-open world games (e.g. L.A. Noire). There's no point in going off of the beaten path.
"You're wrong, and it's fine that you're wrong." Definitely one of my new favorite quotes. After playing Dear Esther and Layers of Fear, I hate to say I'm with Rich. Both were great, beautiful games which felt like they could've been great if there had just been a little gameplay to make me feel like I'm interacting with the story instead of just watching it. Firewatch does seem to have multiple choice dialogue, but I don't think it's enough.
So it's, like, using the medium of videogames to do interactive storytelling. I don't see why that's not valid - I thought it was a really interesting experience
It's just that the execution fucking sucks - you don't do anything interesting and important and story-wise nothing happens. Oh wow, you learnt that you shouldn't escape from the problems in your life, so wise
I like these guys. Because they enjoy more than just video games and have a repertoire that reflects that, you get genuine unbiased opinions. A debate about Firewatch instead of a definitive 0 or 10? Thank you. Even the intro to this video is better because of it. People who only talk about or enjoy video games can't do anything without a reference. It's like without Hotline Miami, they'd never have heard a single piece of ambient music in their lives. It's nice to see human adults talking about this stuff for once.
I'm in full agreement with Jack here. The isolated nature, the methodical reflective pacing, terrific characters - it's all great. FIREWATCH isn't for everyone, but it's an interactive story that uses the medium to give those who enjoy such experiences a great 5 hours.
Kingsley Zissou Which is shit reasoning. Why force yourself to your own lack of imagination when you can better see the intent of the creator by their direct visuals.
Or interactive art if you will. A narrative that is somewhat changed or transformed by it being made interactive, but lacking the elements that would make it a "game".
Has Jack ever played an exploration based game? Choosing between 2 or 3 trails using a compass to decide which one is the right one and which ones lead to dead ends is not "freedom to go where you want". Imagine if he played Minecraft, it would blow his mind.
Design an elf character for a D&D campaign. Now take away the big ears, the racial stat bonuses, the harmonious and nature-attuned culture, and the prowess with bows. You're now left with an "elf" who's just a human with a fancy name. Jack completely fails to understand that video games are a unique storytelling medium because they're the ONLY medium with any modicum of interactivity. Take away the interactivity (turn a sandbox into "tubes" (no exploration), remove obstacles to overcome...), and it's just a very long, boring movie where you press and hold W to play the tape. Rich is 100% on the money.
If the "gameplay" is exploration, you can use that argument for just about any game with the gameplay elements taken out. Imagine Skyrim but without all of the combat, leveling, crafting, and puzzles. All you're left with is a big, open map where you do nothing but walk around. Sorry, but that's not a game. If that's a game, then walking from one end of your house to the other is a game. Jack's argument that the game is meant to make you feel lonely is a pretentious excuse because you would feel the exact same way if you played Skyrim without the enemies, even if that isn't the "point". As Rich rightfully pointed out, if all you're interested in is telling a story and you're not going to have any sort of actual engaging gameplay elements, then don't make a game. Make a movie or write a book.
+Dr Shaym I don't consider these types of what you people mistakenly refer to as games, but there is no better single word for it. I call them "Electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experiences" If you have a better word for it, let me know, and I'll tell the "electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experience" community the new word that we can use for these types of "electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experiences"
I gotta agree with Rich. Though I can understand Jack or someone else liking it. It's more an argument about what standards one can hold for a what a game is. For Firewatch I think most people can watch a Let's Play and not lose anything that they would otherwise get from experiencing the title itself.
When we talk about storytelling as a narrative form, it is logical to think that there are different types of assembly or montage to tell the same story. Rich point is very valid because it refers to the type of continuous assembly that is common in films having faster cutting; gets rid of narrative gaps. An example may be the films of Martin Scorsese, in wich the editing in his films is very consistent and not lose sight of the details; but that's only one point of view of the intention of the narrative, because then we have filmmakers like Béla Tarr and Tarkovsky who have a more contemplative and long approach, a different type montage (Jack's approach). The point is that always depends on the intention of the creator, there is not something that's "wrong" or "fine", because in that case we fall into a purely reductionist approach. We have to see the two sides in the structure of a story, in that way we see other alternatives to expand the boundaries of meaning in a narrative. Cheers! :)
+ZGoten That's the point, I think that Jack tried too hard to defend it as a game. Instead he should have defended its value as an "interactive story" or "experience". I haven't played firewatch but enjoyed playing through Journey, definitely not a game but a neat experience nonetheless.
Why don't we use the term "First Person Adventure" for games like this. It works a bit like point and click adventure games but in the first person perspective.
+Pop Culture Primer (Pop Culture Primer) Point and click adventures required you to solve puzzles within the environment, it wasn't just "press button to progress"
+Pop Culture Primer (Pop Culture Primer) The problem is that "adventure game" is meant for puzzle games. Just like RPG is meant for games where you can customize your character by developing it, making it stronger. These are historical conventions that make no sense, but you confuse people if you don't follow them.
Rich complains about the pacing of the story, and then complains that the map is like a tube and that you can't really explore. What do you want? an exploration game or a story game? I personally agree with Jack that the pacing of the "game" sets just the right tone, and puts the "player" in the right mindset for the environment the story is set in, making the impact of the story hit you much closer to the heart.
I think what Rich is getting at, and what I essentially disagree with, is the idea that the most efficient way to tell a story is the best way to tell a story. That's certainly true sometimes and with some stories, but sometimes you don't need to "trim the fat" in editing, sometimes that fat is important and powerful and makes for a better, more moving experience, even if it doesn't seem to be moving the story along the path it's supposed to be on. imagine cutting the fat from Solaris, or from The New World, or from hell, even something like John Carpenter's The Thing- there's more efficient, sleeker versions of all of those movies that have the digressions cut out, but those more efficient versions of those movies would invariably be worse.
I enjoyed it. Good artwork/sound design. Sometimes I wanna play a game like Pac Man, sometimes I wanna watch a movie like Fargo. Sometimes, I want to do something in between. I don't mind playing walking sims when they look that gorgeous.
I'm with Jack on the 'gameplay' argument. You don't need the facade of gameplay, but you make a game rather than a movie or book because a game involves interaction. No other medium uses audience interaction. The dialogue choices and the immersion / empathy of finding your way are why it's a game.
+Chris Buchanan More than interaction, I think the key element that the medium of video games add to storytelling is role-playing, at least in this type of intimate stories. Video games allow you to experience stories in a more personal level. By the way, I though Jack was much more gameplay-oriented than Rich, surprised he defended this game.
+Chris Buchanan But you didn't make a game. You made a choose your own adventure book in computer program form, not a game. Also that argument might make sense in the context of a game like Heavy Rain, where the choices matter. But in Firewatch they don't. The interaction was a sham from the start.
+Thanatos2k "But you didn't make a game. You made a choose your own adventure book in computer program form, not a game." You mean the typical definition of a video game? www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=video+game+defintion Can't say I really buy the arbitrary hurdles some people put in place to determine what is/isn't a game.
+Chris Buchanan Audience interaction doesn't necessarily make something a 'game'. I think there's something to say that for anything to be a 'game', there needs to be an element of practical of cerebral skill to get through the story. If it doesn't take any practical or cerebral skills whatsoever, I think something isn't a 'game' anymore but for example an 'interactive movie'. Now the interaction might give you a deeper resonance with the movie, but it doesn't make it a game. A game takes practical or cerebral skills to finish. A movie just needs an open mind. And 'empathy' isn't a gaming skill, at least not when you don't need it to make important in-game decisions that decide whether you win or lose the game. You can lose a game, but you can't lose a movie. The moment you can't lose, you're not gaming anymore.
I agree. The developers exploited the console and PC mechanics to make an interactive story. No need in getting caught in the weeds about defining "game."
Jack and Rich look at a still painting of scenery: Jack: See, this is a great movie. Rich: What!? It's a picture. There's no cinematography; hell, there's no movement! Jack: No, the movement is when you move your eyes across the painting, to ultimately see the whole picture Rich: It's not a movie though!!
i enjoy this contrast. they both have really good points. overwatch isnt my type of gaming, mainly because i share similar opinions as rich. but this video was very entertaining!
Its kinda funny watching their old videos and seeing that Jack seems to love Firewatch for some of the same reasons he didn't seem to care for the Order 1886.
WALKING SIMULATOR. Yes this is a genre now. You guys ever try Wander? I agree 100% with Rich though. This is a GAME, not a book. A game should have shit to do in it.
Jack makes me want to play this now I live in a village surrounded by woods overlooking a bay Going for walks through the woods can be very relaxing so this seems like something I can get into
I sure do get sick of the "They should have just made a movie" argument. Like it either has to be fully CONSTANTLY interactive, or not at all, there's no room for any blending of the elements. I especially wanted to start shouting back at my screen when he started going on about how this game has "no genre". Like somehow he has completely missed the massive resurgence of narrative graphic adventures led by Telltale Games and other developers over the last decade (let alone the ORIGINAL wave of these from the 80s upon which said resurgence is based, and which was largely responsible for launching the PC gaming industry to begin with...)
Jack is just so wrong about this walking simulator and Rich is justifiably confused at how Jack could find this “game” to be a good time. It’s not a good time. It sucks. Balls.
+Fidelio I think that's the sticking point. It's an experience, not so much a "game" in the traditional sense. Maybe call it an interactive story instead? I don't know, but for those that enjoyed it I can see why. I can also see why some people don't
Jack's right. Rich is too caught up thinking about games and movies in traditional form. To me, Rich's complaints remind me of music theory. Music theory lays rules for the foundation of what music "should" be. And yet all of your favorite songs break the rules of music theory. I can guarantee it. Once we establish basic rules, that gives people the chance to break them and expand the boundaries of art. Would you say any song that doesn't follow the classical music theory structure is "bad"? Would you say the same of movies not following the traditional story and pacing structure? Would you say the same of video games not following traditional gameplay structure? Rules become meaningless when we always follow them. Sometimes games need to break the rules intentionally to see what else is out there, and Rich doesn't have to like it but his reasoning being that it's "not a game" is like me saying that Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody is "not a song" just because it isn't in classical music form. For the record Bohemian Rhapsody is fucking incredible.
I thought Rich would love Firewatch. He's so cool about fire safety.
+JoesGuy I know right? Plus he doesn't have to worry about spilling linear french fries.
+AtomizerVersion1 all French fries are linear, they're a straight line. (With the exception of curly fries, of course(
Yeaaahhh!!!
that's why he hates it, PTSD from trying to make fries
Rich should try What Remains of Edith Finch. My favorite in the "walking sim" genre. There are great games in this style! It is a valid genre/medium for suburb storytelling! If done right.
I really liked the contrasting opinions in this episode.
Yeah, it was one of the things I liked a lot about their reviews, it's not just a circlejerk or dunking on games on both sides, except maybe tearing apart alien isolation, they were spot on with that door opening dumpster fire haha
I will say though, while I usually think rich is full of shit when he thinks games can't be story focused, like he shits on last of us and uncharted like their gameplay is shallow
But this game really is just sooo nothing
It has 2-3 minor dialogue moments that are okay but it is totally on rails
I like how Rich was right and Jack was wrong.
@@hoonaignachowaneha did Jack steal your breakfast, puss y?
So IIRC Jack always skips/ignores cutscenes/dialogue to go straight to the gameplay... but now he's unable to do so, because the entire thing is cutscenes, and he finds the experience engrossing.
What.
+willfreedo I'm not saying anyone's opinions are better than others...
But Jack is objectively always wrong about everything.
+willfreedo hey, at least he changed his mind in a game with great writing and voice acting.
firewatch doesn't have cutscenes. cutscenes = interrupting player control to show a scene.
you're cutting away - hence cutscenes.
@@CadaverJunky8 haha I guess because he liked the dull "gameplay"
I totally agree with them on alien isolation being door opening crap & this
But they'll be totally wrong sometimes like saying last of us is the same as order 1886 because third person plus story hahaha
And they definitely have some super outdated outlooks on stuff, and they suck at offering good arguments
But still love these old reviews
He's a contrarian, he annoys me. Rich Evans is right 99.99% of the time.
I love this review because I completely understand where both sides are coming from.
Yeah same here. But perhaps this game does need to be in its own category. Its still interactive entertainment media but not in the traditional game sense
Yeah same here. But perhaps this game does need to be in its own category. Its still interactive entertainment media but not in the traditional game sense
@@nicosmind3 it's a visual novel
The game was an over-glorified long-distance relationship simulator. Ran terribly too.
+YourMovieSucksDOTorg Not a terrible simulation of a relationship. Not a great game.
BASED ADAM
The furry god has spoken. based adum thank you
+Rat Jackson Wow so you need validation to hate someone that genuinely likes a piece of media that you don’t? You know just because a reviewer likes something that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people should as well.
The Rian Johnson of games.
gotta go with Jack on this one surprisingly for me. I really dont understand why some people feel the need to dismiss completely "walking simulators". Sure, dont call it a game, but there is something to gain from letting a player just wander around an environment
"Firewatch: a series of tubes." - Rich Evans
Sounds like Rich Evans sex tape. Sequel to Motherlode.
Firewatch is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.
*"I think your getting to caught up in what a GAME IS"*
Jack said this. JACK said this.
Those of you that are long time viewers of PreRec know how ironic this is....
+Marvin Thompson Mr. I dislike XCOM 2 because it's not a FPS? Nooooooo way.
The subversion of games.
Rich wanted a game, Jack got an experience. That's the difference.
It sounds like I could get almost exactly the same experience watching a Let's Play as I could actually playing the game.
I think it should be a rule that you guys disagree with each other on the game you discuss because it makes your videos infinitely more interesting and engaging.
After Jack didn't like Xcom 2 and loving this, I feel like Rich is about ready to strangle him
Pretty sure most gamers don't need to pay money to feel alone Jack.
D^8
feelers hurt
Real talk
I get what Jack is saying here. The point of the game is loneliness, and the fact that you are playing the game makes you feel that loneliness. You don't get that in movies. You are watching someone else be lonely, but you don't feel lonely. When you play a game about loneliness, you become the lonely person.
***** But when you are locked in a closet, do you feel the ambiance of the wilderness? Do you experience the story of a blossoming relationship between two lonely people? No, you don't. That's what games do for us. They make us feel in ways that we couldn't before. That's why some of the most emotional games are some of the most well received.
DreamParadox Breath of the Wild manages to make you feel lonely too, but it has actual gameplay to keep you engaged.
You can make a game feel lonely without discarding gameplay.
Jack saying Rich is getting hung up on what gameplay is is like the makers of Manos: The Hands of Fate telling everyone they're getting hung up on what Story is.
I really liked Firewatch and I'm with Jack, the walking around and stuff really helped the pacing of the game and drive home that "you're by yourself in the woods" feeling.
Hey Rich, this game teaches you to be cool about fire safety.
+Derrick Bangle HA! References...
+Derrick Bangle NNNNOOO GAME!
+Derrick Bangle That's why he hated it.
Fire is nature's way of cleaning the forest.
Firewatch needed the walking in the woods. The gameplay and feeling of isolation informed through the gameplay is what makes it works. Watching someone walk alone doesn't work but BEING the one walking alone does. That is what made you become the main.
Do not trust Jack's lies. Turning off the localizator does not make any difference. I played it first with it turned off and at no point in the game i was in any way lost. The map is just a small set of corridors, so there is no point.
The whole problem with the "You can go anywhere on the map!" argument is that, while you can go over there, nothing will fucking happen.
And then you'll end up having to just walk farther to get to the next story point.
I'm with you on this one Jack. It's an alien concept that a video game can be as interactive as an average book and still be a game. You would also love Oxenfree, Gone Home, Life is Strange, and What Remains of Edith Finch.
I hated the end of what remains of Edith finch. I felt like it fell apart. All of a sudden one or two of the deaths didn’t even seem to connect to the story? It was insanely depressing and to me it was coming apart at the seams near the end. That game is depressing and sadly relatable
8 years later, I finally got around to playing Firewatch. Even though Rich and Jack have completely opposite opinions, I somehow agree with both of them. Rich is right that there's no "game", and the exploration is just a series of tubes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed walking around the woods, and had no problem with the pacing or flow of the story. But I did leave my "guy locator" on and made sure to take the shortest path everywhere I went.
Also, Jack was way off base here.
Rich's assessment that the game is tubes is absolutely on point. The game does not give you much freedom at all. Maybe a few times you can go here or there, but it's not genuine exploration. Exploration puts you, essentially, in a box with a bunch of landmarks and you can find your way around. Skyrim does this. You could do it on a smaller scale, but they didn't do that.
Also PRE-REC needs to make a comeback. Get off your asses, you hack frauds.
This is what I like about this show, both of them make really great points and can be on completely different sides.
"So you can explore the woods and that makes the game" BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPLORE.
NONE.
ZERO.
I agree 100% with Jack. Pacing is important in a movie, but its not important in a good story-heavy game. The reason why pacing is 'slow' in story-heavy games like Firewatch, SOMA, and The Last of US is because you ARE the protagonist. In order to enjoy games like these, you need to immerse yourself in the character. You need to 'be' the character in this fantasy world.
In a movie, you're just watching strangers experience the story. You may feel for the characters involved, but ultimately you're removed from the experience. In a good story-heavy game, you are experiencing the story yourself. You ARE part of the story...or at least that's what the developers want you to feel. If they 'trimmed the fat' in a game like this, it would completely kill the immersion.
It's pretty obvious that Rich isn't capable of immersing himself in these types of games. That's fine...to each is own, i guess. Still love ya, Rich!
As the reviews of these games show, most people really enjoy this type of experience...myself included. Some of my most memorable gaming experiences happen in games like these.
why am I not surprised Jack defends the walking simulator? I never thought I'd say it, but thank god for Rich Evans for keeping us grounded
This was a pretty, fascinating game with tones of relaxation, stress, hurry, and character-building social decisions.
I don't believe you at all.
Rich, you've accurately explained why i've always had an issue with walking simulators like dear ester, its essentially a virtual museum that they try to put things into to distract you from the fact that there is no gameplay.
Firewatch is less of a "game" and more of an experience. It's an interactive art piece about a man alone in the woods with only his thoughts and a radio to keep him company during a somber part of his life. Playing a game like this is a lot like going to an art exhibit: you're not going to have a lot of fun or instant gratification, but you will definitely experience something you've never seen before. And if you are someone who appreciates video games as an artform, that is worth experiencing.
Its a semi-interactive drama game. Basically in the vein of Gone Home which also was story and exposition focused.
It's... an interactive story?
+blankificationful There were many of those when the CD driver appeared for PC.
I wouldn't buy Firewatch, but I watched some people "play" it. It's basically a well made interactive story.
+frodofraggins Yeah, I've watched a few play throughs and enjoyed the story as well as the way others interacted with the story.
Ha...sounds like if you watched someone play it you essentially already played it as well.
Jack: You can go anywhere you want and explore!
Jack: Parts of the map are gated off like Metroid and you need the proper tool to access them.
wat
+Alex Haitz That is such crap. If there's not a story mission the exploring amounts to a computerized hiking tour.
+Dom King - When I played, I never felt like checking out anything off of the path of the current objective. Mainly because I knew that I wouldn't find anything meaningful that I could interact with.
Because there's nothing there. The game should have merged the storytelling with some random doing your job sub missions.
+Dom King - Agreed. Connect all the elements. It's these kind of things that bug me about quasi-open world games (e.g. L.A. Noire). There's no point in going off of the beaten path.
Yeah, and at least this had the excuse of an indie game, LA Noire cost 50 million and was repetitive.
It sounds like "Cutscene, The Game" ... but Jack loves it?
"You're wrong, and it's fine that you're wrong." Definitely one of my new favorite quotes. After playing Dear Esther and Layers of Fear, I hate to say I'm with Rich. Both were great, beautiful games which felt like they could've been great if there had just been a little gameplay to make me feel like I'm interacting with the story instead of just watching it. Firewatch does seem to have multiple choice dialogue, but I don't think it's enough.
And now it's becoming a movie. You got your wish Rich.
"I like watching the fat guy argue with the skinny guy " Homer Simpson
So it's, like, using the medium of videogames to do interactive storytelling. I don't see why that's not valid - I thought it was a really interesting experience
It's just that the execution fucking sucks - you don't do anything interesting and important and story-wise nothing happens. Oh wow, you learnt that you shouldn't escape from the problems in your life, so wise
So you're justifying what Rich is saying, it's not about the gameplay, it's an interactive movie/ tv show
"What's a good plate with nothin' on it? I mean, what good's a plate with nothin'' on it?" - Jay, Clerks
I like these guys. Because they enjoy more than just video games and have a repertoire that reflects that, you get genuine unbiased opinions. A debate about Firewatch instead of a definitive 0 or 10? Thank you. Even the intro to this video is better because of it. People who only talk about or enjoy video games can't do anything without a reference. It's like without Hotline Miami, they'd never have heard a single piece of ambient music in their lives. It's nice to see human adults talking about this stuff for once.
Movies: Cheapest location: Woods
Games: Most expensive location: Woods
Holy crap, Jack Packard you beautiful man. This guy gets that not every game has to be the same thing.
I'm in full agreement with Jack here. The isolated nature, the methodical reflective pacing, terrific characters - it's all great. FIREWATCH isn't for everyone, but it's an interactive story that uses the medium to give those who enjoy such experiences a great 5 hours.
Rich Evans is correct. This is not a game - I play games for enjoyment - not to feel even worse about my life.
"You couldn't have somebody walk through a wood for 20 minutes with nothing happening because it'd be boring"
Yep... I entirely agree
10:39 someone make a gif of Jack right there
Well it´s great to see these two really trying to find common ground and to respect differing opinions.
The genre is a visual novel.
Which is shit. Novels are great because your mind creates the visuals.
Kingsley Zissou Which is shit reasoning. Why force yourself to your own lack of imagination when you can better see the intent of the creator by their direct visuals.
Requiemrex
What lack of imagination? Speak for yourself.
Or interactive art if you will. A narrative that is somewhat changed or transformed by it being made interactive, but lacking the elements that would make it a "game".
Great episode, guys! Love it when you have opportunity to go deeper into games beyond just a normal review.
Has Jack ever played an exploration based game? Choosing between 2 or 3 trails using a compass to decide which one is the right one and which ones lead to dead ends is not "freedom to go where you want". Imagine if he played Minecraft, it would blow his mind.
I love this so much. Seeing two different ideologies just go game and no game, i'd love to see them review Dear Esther or Gone Home.
I loved this game. LOVED IT. I LOVED THE GAME RICH!
Agree with the locator thing. I had it on for the first hour and once I realised I could turn it off it made the whole way more immersive.
Design an elf character for a D&D campaign.
Now take away the big ears, the racial stat bonuses, the harmonious and nature-attuned culture, and the prowess with bows. You're now left with an "elf" who's just a human with a fancy name.
Jack completely fails to understand that video games are a unique storytelling medium because they're the ONLY medium with any modicum of interactivity. Take away the interactivity (turn a sandbox into "tubes" (no exploration), remove obstacles to overcome...), and it's just a very long, boring movie where you press and hold W to play the tape.
Rich is 100% on the money.
I think this has to be one of my favorite reviews I've ever seen of a game.
If the "gameplay" is exploration, you can use that argument for just about any game with the gameplay elements taken out. Imagine Skyrim but without all of the combat, leveling, crafting, and puzzles. All you're left with is a big, open map where you do nothing but walk around. Sorry, but that's not a game. If that's a game, then walking from one end of your house to the other is a game. Jack's argument that the game is meant to make you feel lonely is a pretentious excuse because you would feel the exact same way if you played Skyrim without the enemies, even if that isn't the "point". As Rich rightfully pointed out, if all you're interested in is telling a story and you're not going to have any sort of actual engaging gameplay elements, then don't make a game. Make a movie or write a book.
+Dr Shaym I don't consider these types of what you people mistakenly refer to as games, but there is no better single word for it. I call them "Electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experiences" If you have a better word for it, let me know, and I'll tell the "electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experience" community the new word that we can use for these types of "electronically-induced atmospheric narrative experiences"
The game's base is in the job of being a firewatcher, which most of it is solitude, and this game deliver pretty good
Jack, you get it. Thanks for balancing out Rich.
I gotta agree with Rich. Though I can understand Jack or someone else liking it.
It's more an argument about what standards one can hold for a what a game is. For Firewatch I think most people can watch a Let's Play and not lose anything that they would otherwise get from experiencing the title itself.
I love how the guys are mic'd but somehow they sound like they are in a giant cave. Still love em!
With Rich on this one. Not every story should be told through a video game. Firewatch works as many things. A video game is not one of them.
Rich Evans is wearing a Joliet Slammers hat! Rich Evans has been in my home town! Neat!
Where Jack said you don't see a movie where you have someone walk alone for thirty minutes they really needed Revenant to pop up
+Timothy Bates I was going to say, Jack was way off the mark there.
When we talk about storytelling as a narrative form, it is logical to think that there are different types of assembly or montage to tell the same story. Rich point is very valid because it refers to the type of continuous assembly that is common in films having faster cutting; gets rid of narrative gaps. An example may be the films of Martin Scorsese, in wich the editing in his films is very consistent and not lose sight of the details; but that's only one point of view of the intention of the narrative, because then we have filmmakers like Béla Tarr and Tarkovsky who have a more contemplative and long approach, a different type montage (Jack's approach). The point is that always depends on the intention of the creator, there is not something that's "wrong" or "fine", because in that case we fall into a purely reductionist approach. We have to see the two sides in the structure of a story, in that way we see other alternatives to expand the boundaries of meaning in a narrative. Cheers! :)
poor Jack, this feels like advertising 'space odyssey' to a transformers fan.
The genre of the game is train simulator: you hold down W to follow
along the track, while looking at the landscape to entertain yourself.
Jack nailed it. Who cares if it's a game or not? It's its own product, and the only thing that matters is that it's a quality product.
+ZGoten That's the point, I think that Jack tried too hard to defend it as a game. Instead he should have defended its value as an "interactive story" or "experience". I haven't played firewatch but enjoyed playing through Journey, definitely not a game but a neat experience nonetheless.
It's like Jack is taking crazy pills.
Rich seems really passionate about trimming the fat when it comes to film and stories...
Why don't we use the term "First Person Adventure" for games like this. It works a bit like point and click adventure games but in the first person perspective.
+Pop Culture Primer (Pop Culture Primer)
Point and click adventures required you to solve puzzles within the environment, it wasn't just "press button to progress"
+Pop Culture Primer (Pop Culture Primer) The problem is that "adventure game" is meant for puzzle games. Just like RPG is meant for games where you can customize your character by developing it, making it stronger. These are historical conventions that make no sense, but you confuse people if you don't follow them.
one hundred percent with rich on this one. NO GAME
Rich complains about the pacing of the story, and then complains that the map is like a tube and that you can't really explore. What do you want? an exploration game or a story game? I personally agree with Jack that the pacing of the "game" sets just the right tone, and puts the "player" in the right mindset for the environment the story is set in, making the impact of the story hit you much closer to the heart.
definitely the next shitskel and eatbert
I think what Rich is getting at, and what I essentially disagree with, is the idea that the most efficient way to tell a story is the best way to tell a story. That's certainly true sometimes and with some stories, but sometimes you don't need to "trim the fat" in editing, sometimes that fat is important and powerful and makes for a better, more moving experience, even if it doesn't seem to be moving the story along the path it's supposed to be on. imagine cutting the fat from Solaris, or from The New World, or from hell, even something like John Carpenter's The Thing- there's more efficient, sleeker versions of all of those movies that have the digressions cut out, but those more efficient versions of those movies would invariably be worse.
These """discussions""" are always plagued by an inordinate amount of passive-aggressive scare quotes.
I get it! Rich's recommendation was a recommendation in the same way Firewatch was a game!
I enjoyed it. Good artwork/sound design. Sometimes I wanna play a game like Pac Man, sometimes I wanna watch a movie like Fargo. Sometimes, I want to do something in between. I don't mind playing walking sims when they look that gorgeous.
I'm with Jack on the 'gameplay' argument. You don't need the facade of gameplay, but you make a game rather than a movie or book because a game involves interaction. No other medium uses audience interaction. The dialogue choices and the immersion / empathy of finding your way are why it's a game.
+Chris Buchanan More than interaction, I think the key element that the medium of video games add to storytelling is role-playing, at least in this type of intimate stories. Video games allow you to experience stories in a more personal level.
By the way, I though Jack was much more gameplay-oriented than Rich, surprised he defended this game.
+Chris Buchanan But you didn't make a game. You made a choose your own adventure book in computer program form, not a game.
Also that argument might make sense in the context of a game like Heavy Rain, where the choices matter. But in Firewatch they don't. The interaction was a sham from the start.
+Thanatos2k "But you didn't make a game. You made a choose your own adventure book in computer program form, not a game."
You mean the typical definition of a video game?
www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=video+game+defintion
Can't say I really buy the arbitrary hurdles some people put in place to determine what is/isn't a game.
+Chris Buchanan Audience interaction doesn't necessarily make something a 'game'. I think there's something to say that for anything to be a 'game', there needs to be an element of practical of cerebral skill to get through the story. If it doesn't take any practical or cerebral skills whatsoever, I think something isn't a 'game' anymore but for example an 'interactive movie'. Now the interaction might give you a deeper resonance with the movie, but it doesn't make it a game. A game takes practical or cerebral skills to finish. A movie just needs an open mind. And 'empathy' isn't a gaming skill, at least not when you don't need it to make important in-game decisions that decide whether you win or lose the game.
You can lose a game, but you can't lose a movie. The moment you can't lose, you're not gaming anymore.
I agree. The developers exploited the console and PC mechanics to make an interactive story. No need in getting caught in the weeds about defining "game."
It's a 'blandbox' game.
The people who like this game are the same people who say games should be more than a game but are happy playing games with no game play.
100% with Rich on this one, this isn't a game it's just a story where you decide when you want to hear the next bit.
Thanks guys, for the old set.
I agree with Rich. not every story needs to be a walking simul- I mean, game
Jack and Rich look at a still painting of scenery:
Jack: See, this is a great movie.
Rich: What!? It's a picture. There's no cinematography; hell, there's no movement!
Jack: No, the movement is when you move your eyes across the painting, to ultimately see the whole picture
Rich: It's not a movie though!!
i enjoy this contrast. they both have really good points. overwatch isnt my type of gaming, mainly because i share similar opinions as rich. but this video was very entertaining!
Its kinda funny watching their old videos and seeing that Jack seems to love Firewatch for some of the same reasons he didn't seem to care for the Order 1886.
Shitting on The Order was trendy. That game's production values were too high to be considered artistic so it didn't get a pass.
I wish I could subscribe to this channel one million more times. Great stuff.
honestly one of the best pre recs in a while! nice work! good talk!
WALKING SIMULATOR. Yes this is a genre now. You guys ever try Wander?
I agree 100% with Rich though. This is a GAME, not a book. A game should have shit to do in it.
People enjoy different things and no game is universally enjoyed by all.
The new Ebert And Siskel of video games.
2:10 I didn't realize Rich was doing a bit and thought he was just really drunk at the moment.
Jack makes me want to play this now
I live in a village surrounded by woods overlooking a bay
Going for walks through the woods can be very relaxing so this seems like something I can get into
Isn't Jack the one that usually hates stories in games?
I sure do get sick of the "They should have just made a movie" argument. Like it either has to be fully CONSTANTLY interactive, or not at all, there's no room for any blending of the elements. I especially wanted to start shouting back at my screen when he started going on about how this game has "no genre". Like somehow he has completely missed the massive resurgence of narrative graphic adventures led by Telltale Games and other developers over the last decade (let alone the ORIGINAL wave of these from the 80s upon which said resurgence is based, and which was largely responsible for launching the PC gaming industry to begin with...)
Firewatch makes David Cage look like David Lynch.
Jack is just so wrong about this walking simulator and Rich is justifiably confused at how Jack could find this “game” to be a good time. It’s not a good time. It sucks. Balls.
I don't care what anyone says, I loved this experience
+Fidelio I think that's the sticking point. It's an experience, not so much a "game" in the traditional sense. Maybe call it an interactive story instead? I don't know, but for those that enjoyed it I can see why. I can also see why some people don't
Is it me, or is this episode lit really strangely? It's almost like it was lit by the glow from all of Neil Breen's laptops.
Jack's right. Rich is too caught up thinking about games and movies in traditional form. To me, Rich's complaints remind me of music theory. Music theory lays rules for the foundation of what music "should" be. And yet all of your favorite songs break the rules of music theory. I can guarantee it. Once we establish basic rules, that gives people the chance to break them and expand the boundaries of art. Would you say any song that doesn't follow the classical music theory structure is "bad"? Would you say the same of movies not following the traditional story and pacing structure? Would you say the same of video games not following traditional gameplay structure? Rules become meaningless when we always follow them. Sometimes games need to break the rules intentionally to see what else is out there, and Rich doesn't have to like it but his reasoning being that it's "not a game" is like me saying that Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody is "not a song" just because it isn't in classical music form.
For the record Bohemian Rhapsody is fucking incredible.
I'll agree 100% with Jack on this one. Walking around doing nothing for long stretches of time makes the story more effective.