Gone Home and Game Formalism

I find this review pretty interesting and it is aptly placed within a show called "Anti-Semantics." This is especially clear when the discussion moved to the topic of "games that are not games" and the claim that we lose sight of what the range of possibilities for gaming are if we attempt to delineate what a game in fact is. I tend to disagree with the movement away from definition and thus from form, and I wonder if the old people music analogy is a bit prematurely dismissive the formalist's contention that we must understand something of the nature or structure of what we are talking about if we are to intelligibly speak of it. Perhaps some so-called games are perfectly enjoyable interactive video experiences but lack the actual nature of a game. Like many simulators, they may not be games properly speaking but that does not prevent them from being legitimate or enjoyable in their own right. I always appreciate something that is constructed true to its nature, and this is a very anti-semantical review, although it is a bit ironic(?) that this is so on terms that are very formal and semantically clear. Anyway, a very well done video!

-"There are items pivotal for progression, but focusing on progression alone can actually hinder our experience. Personal progression and the reward for actually finishing [Gone Home] are found in the miniscule."

I think this is a healthy attitude for appreciate games, interactive media, and really anything in life. A lot of players get too caught up in the big picture, in simply moving through the game, in thinking in more extrinsic terms such as rewards, in completing stuff instead of taking enjoyment of things in the moment. They start to miss where the actual experience is happening between point A and point B.

-"In some ways I would say BioShock is slightly more forgiving because, though wandering Columbia or Rapture can add to the experience, the story will still unfold for you if you mechanically shoot your way to the end."

I disagree. There's nothing particularly different between Gone Home and BioShock in this regard. In both titles, you look around the environments and pick up on details that communicate what has transpired in the past. The difference is BioShock actually has a story the player-character is a part of and moves through in the present. The environmental details exist almost like flashbacks in a movie or TV show, expanding upon and giving context to events in the present. Gone Home, on the other hand, doesn't really have storytelling. It's all flashback. Simply walking around a virtual space is no more of a story than the experience of walking around a real space like a museum or haunted house.

-"Storage media with greater capacities allowed game designers the option of embedding encoding videos into their titles. We saw in-engine cinematics as well. This did something to storytelling. It allowed game designers to lean on an already established art of film to create large and familiar experiences... but it was a false sail."

Cutscenes are not an much of an issue. They are a very effective tool of storytelling. There is a reason why mediums like novels, film, and video resonate so much on a storytelling level. They are really able to highlight and condense the meaningful details of a story. They can easily move around space, time, and perspective to communicate narrative events in particular ways. It's all about what to describe/show, what not to describe/show, when and how long to present it all, etc.

I have no problem with games that switch from cutscenes for their storytelling back to moments of gameplay. It's effective and efficient. Who cares if it doesn't take advantage of "the spine of games?" If it works, it works. People who understand how difficult it is to communicate complex and meaningful ideas aren't going to be too picky about this sort of stuff. Even in Gone Home, the most meaningful details are conveyed through other mediums like photos, notes, voiceovers and tape recorders, videos, etc. That these things exist in a more diegetic presentation within the virtual world of Gone Home doesn't matter. Is it really all that different to a cutscene?

There are drawbacks to ways Gone Home, BioShock, and similar titles convey information in the ways they do. We can't just ignore the fact there are consequences for giving players complete freedom to explore the details of a narrative at their own pace from a singular, limited, and in this case first-person perspective. Earlier in the video you pointed out how "no item is more or less key than anything else." This is not a quality of good storytelling which, again, is supposed to highlight details to elevate them as being important or meaningful. Thirty Flights of Loving seems to me like a more successful experience in this style because it can still have a controlled story with its movie-like pacing and editing which allows events to be presented and condensed across space and time. I also really like how many Japanese RPGs and adventure games like Persona 5 and Professor Layton embrace different kinds of tools as they move between fully voice-acted anime-style cutscenes, in-engine cutscenes, character dialogues with text, some voice-acting, and mildly expressive character pop-ups, environmental exploration, and their respective core gameplay spaces (turn-based combat and logic puzzles).

-"Gone Home makes great use of player agency. Player agency means having the capacity to make meaningful decisions within a game world."

Player agency is nothing more than a buzz word to me. Obviously agency is important to games, teachers and tests of skill, because players by necessity have to engage with them to get any meaning. But beyond that, people conflate this concept of player agency with a whole bunch of other odd ideas.

Player agency and decision-making aren't the same thing. Rhythm-action games like Guitar Hero and Rhythm Heaven don't have any decision-making in their gameplay (with the exception of choosing when to use Star Power in the former example). It's just a matter of putting in the correct input at the right time. But those games are still all about player agency.

-"If a game consists stages instead of creating a red pill or blue pill for a player to choose, the developer may create pill #1 to swallow before pill #2. Or, if multiple pills are offered, rather than having each pill yield a unique result, they could all be rigged to yield the same initial event for the sake of initial progression."

Perhaps it would be better to just stick with concrete examples of games rather than having these analogies. The examples you do choose don't help to clarify this point. Are you saying the boss selection menu in Mega Man X is an example of greater player agency than Sonic's linear level progression? That's an odd comparison. Remember in the beginning of your video when you said how "focusing on progression alone can actually hinder our experience?" Well, this is an example of how focusing on progression is hindering your understanding. The difference between these two games in terms of amount of player agency is virtually nil. Being able to select stages in Mega Man X does have an impact on how the game introduces ideas and builds complexity compared to Sonic, but it has nothing to do with player agency. The player will (hypothetically) play all the stages in both games anyways. Whether there is a set order to them or not is irrelevant. Player agency comes into play during the moment-to-moment gameplay.

-"You had a chance to feel what the subject [Kaitlin] felt while still being yourself."

This is what Jespur Juul calls the "half-real" nature of games and interactive media. While it is certainly a unique experience, that insight in and of itself doesn't tell us what exactly the pros and cons of this experience are within the context of what is trying to be accomplished. I am much more interested in the "myself" part of the half-real equation when the experience is actually about me and I get to express myself through gameplay. But when it comes to storytelling, "myself" is not as interesting. I care about the perspectives of others and what they have to share about the world in those instances. It's honestly pretty weird that, in Gone Home, I am part Kaitlin, yet I don't share critical knowledge that Kaitlin has. It makes Kaitlin behave in ways that are completely "myself" and, well, not Kaitlin. In the context of Gone Home, the player is supposed to be Kaitlin. But really it's more like the player is a stranger breaking into an unfamiliar house, with Kaitlin being no more of a distant character than any other member of the Greenbriar family.

-"BioShock Infinite shared an encouragement of casual exploration and flirted with controversial topics, but your agency was still at the will of who you were playing."

Again, no less than Gone Home. It just seems that way because BioShock Infinite actually has a story and by extension Booker is a more fleshed-out individual independent of the player. The player's role in all of it is still the same. It's still weird, but no different. If Gone Home had an active story with a more defined, fully voice-acted Kaitlin and a stronger sense of narrative events for that character to react to, the same issues would come up. In general, BioShock has more "player agency" than Gone Home just by way of having gameplay and therefore more for the player to engage with than looking around and listening to things. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing for Gone Home and I don't think it's entirely fair to use player agency as a measurement of its quality. But if you really want to go there by comparing these titles in terms of meaningful interactivity, BioShock wins by a country mile, no question. Which brings us to the whole "anti-game" topic.

Is Gone Home a game. No. And it has nothing to do with not having guns or violence or a HUD or whatever. You said you aren't willing to die on that hill, so I won't get all technical on you with definitions and logic (although it's pretty tempting considering some of the low jabs you threw in there). People just call Gone Home and things like it games because they exist within the same digital space and market as things that are games. Try to translate Gone Home outside of this digital medium and no one would call it a game anymore than they call walking around a museum or a haunted house a game. Try to recreate a Mario level in real life and people will still call it a game.

It's cool that creators like the ones you've quoted have found a unique space to express themselves in and some of the things they are doing are pretty neat. But it's not an evolution of gaming beyond the general technical facilities we use to build all these kinds of software. That Dragon Cancer is not what an evolution to Super Mario Bros. looks like. Super Mario Odyssey is what an evolution of Super Mario Bros. looks like. These experiences are kind of doing their own thing, and we should try to understand that for the sake of appreciating it all the more.

I'm so happy he referenced Explosions in the Sky. I love the Post-Rock genre, especially Explosions in the Sky and Mogwai.

My problem with gone home was the fact that it was boring for me. I played though the entire game and never found it fun, or interesting. I was never able to connect to the characters and the gameplay was repetitive and too slow.

I loved Stanley Parable, but Gone Home wasn't a good experience for me. The Stanley Parable was different because it was clear decisions that the player made affected their playthough. Gone Home was the same for everyone that I've personally talked too. I would not play it again, but I would love to replay Stanley at any given moment. They are very different and it shows.

Stanley not only has a clear butterfly effect, but I feel that the narrator adds so much to the game. It adds another very active voice to the player, one that reacts to every move you make. This could make the player go against the narrator, or do as he wishes, and at many points in time they make small decisions that change everything.

Oh, and Stanley isn't pretentious and doesn't take itself too seriously. Gone Home just felt like it was a game that felt it was too good for anyone to play with it.

If there is no game play then its not a game. This is not a game.

Gone Home and Explosions in The Sky mentioned in one video? Instalike

Satchbag's Goods Can we just bring back Pogs? Now there was a game. :)

Another outstanding review. In the same ways as you observed, but were eloquently able to put into words that I couldn't, this game made me feel the same way. Thank you.

The problem with this "non-game" debate isn't with those titles at its core, but rather with the word "game" itself. If we went back in time and referred to Pong as some other word than "game", let's say "experiential software" instead, would we still be having this debate? I think what we are discovering now is that "video game" is an insufficient term to describe what the art form has become but, for the sake of convenience and through the force of habit, we continue to use the word regardless.

Then again, as you stated, everything is relative.

yes, there is player agency, yes there is interactivity, yes there is a story that unfolds, yet i think that the main reason people call this a "non-game" is that by their definition of "game" you also need an obstacle that you work around or overcome within the rules set by the game in order to reach a goal presented to you. In Gone Home, the goal is finding out what happened, so the obstacle lying in your way is figuring that out through clues, so the effort put forth to use these clues to reach your goal is the effort to interact with them, observe them, and interpret them, which is arguably about as much interactivity as you might have with a book or a movie, thus giving no distinct separation between Gone Home and a movie except for the fact that you can control the pacing, which you can also do in a movie simply by pressing the pause button.

The argument that "Iron Maiden is music, therefore Gone Home is a game" sort of does the whole debate injustice. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you: I personally lean towards a very broad definition of "game". I just think that the debate is much more geared towards game developers than gamers; that a game developer who has a specific philosophy of game design has a specific understanding of what kind of game he or she wishes to make. Beyond its practical application for devs, the argument sort of falls into abstract philosophy.

After a thoughtful analysis like this I know where to go for game reviews from now on.

Technically, Gone Home is a game. However I don't think its fun, my experience with the game was not as fun or entertaining as I expect games to be. So for some, this kind of thing could be fun. But I feel most of the people who play games today, including myself, expect a game to promise enough fun to satisfy. Of course that would ask the question "What is fun?" but that's also complicated.

While i disagree with your video.  I will say that you did made good points, the production values is nice, and the audio quality was excellent.  My only real problem (besides me disagreeing with your opinion on this review of course)  Is that i think you spent a little too much time on the quotes near the end.

I may have disliked your video, but im a fan and have subscribe.

Everyone's stating their opinion on Gone Home, so might as well join the bandwagon.
My verdict is this: Gone Home is certainly not for everyone. Many people don't like it, and I can understand why. I personally do. While it may not be the "Game-iest" game, it certainly is an interesting take on narrative and story in games without shoving it in our faces.
If you disagree, reply! I'd love to see what other people say about it. :)

"Gone Home" isn't a game though, it's more like some sandbox house with things to look at, it doesn't have anything that links it to a game other than somehow getting itself on steam.

Spoiler Alert:


She's a lesbian
Such a deep and creative plot twist huh?

Good game indeed. Great video too! Grats satch.

Good game indeed. Great video too! Grats satch.

I might get hate for this but gone home is, in my opinion at least one of the most horribly overrated "games" of all time

While I understand the principle of "You get out of it what you put in", I don't understand how a game developer can charge $20.00 for content that, when whittled down to the most basic level, is under two minutes long. If you wanted to explore the full game, see all the intricacies of the plot, etc. why not just watch someone else play through the full game, or go on the wiki and literally read the entire story from beginning to end? I feel like there is a trend beginning in games, one where games are becoming less about fun and more about a narrative experience. Don't get me wrong, games with stories aren't a bad thing when the game comes first and the story blends in with the actual game itself, but when the mechanics of the game are designed around telling the story (Flipping around objects/opening them to read bits of the story) then I feel like I'm watching a movie where you control where the camera goes. I don't want to de-value the work that the developers obviously put into this game, but I do feel that spending $20 on a plot and some ideals thrown at me isn't a wise way to spend my money.

I am always impressed by the level of effort Satch puts into his videos.

Iron Maiden is not only music, but it's the greatest music ever created. Fact.

The only thing wrong with this video is the out of control flashing effects.  This kills my eyes and happens way to frequently, sometimes two or three times within a five second time period.  This is not needed and although some people may think it's cool, this degrades your videos and makes it almost impossible to watch in a low light environment.  Other than that your videos are very professional both in script and in other visual choices.

A new good vid by satchbag

Dayummm, the production levels in your videos is ....seriously, out of control, do you edit/produce and do all the motion graphics? - all the same, great work man - much respect

I think the main reason why people were praising this game and dishing awards to it is because it features a lesbian relationship. That's it really. It would have made no difference to the story if it was a heterosexual relationship. But the critics would not have praised the game it if it were a heterosexual relationship. It's only because the game appeared to be "progressive". Lets be honest about this.

Not a fan of the gay right propaganda in this game, but nice video.

Good Lord...

The production quality, the editing, and the writing of your show are incredible.

Seriously, you've got the chops to be on a big network show if you keep at it. These episodes are sublime.

I am truly excited to see more art done through an interactive medium like this. Under the assumption that art is meant to provoke emotional reactions and feelings; like nostalgia, I'm honestly excited to see what this epic possibility will lead into. And I hope it leads into something.

Dude, you're awesome. I actually already played Gone Home and just watched your video because i was curious to see if you'd talk shit about the game like the rest of the internet. But i totally agree with you, This game is fucking art and a beautiful one at that. You made some very good points and i got goosebumps at the end when you throw in those awesome quotes LOL. You just got a new subscriber =)

Satchbag, I truly admire your work. I started with a bit more random shows, but to watch something focused on serious controversial and important is nice. I really am interested into this.

As everyone has opinions and some differ in the eras they were born. Calling something an anti-game is disgusting. I probably personally wouldd not enjoy the game, as that is not the kind of games I feel are appealing. It's like hating gay people or black people or anyone else because they are not you or not what you enjoy.

That said, it's very difficult to break away and change old ways. The brain has problems with changing, as that is just how it goes. Respect should be had for everyone and everything, even if you might not agree with them or like them.

I feel that one day this game will be much more accepted. Even though it may not be hailed as the best for everyone, people will understand more about how ignorant they were and hopefully we will have less "OOOOMGSOD COD JERK LOLZ" and more "Thank you for revealing this new perspective to us".

Anyways, great vid Satch.

Does anyone other than me see the irony in a video show called "anti-semantics" debating over: "Can we call this a game or not a game?" Because that's semantics right there. And for a video that opens with the definition of "concision", it spews a lot of BS, and takes it's sweet time to get a rather confused point. But there is a point, and though it's a good one, I think you missed the opportunity to actually say something interesting about formalism allowing to maitain certain standards for these types of experiences, when you fell in love with the sound of your own voice.

that background noise in transitions is absolutely jarring.  please don't do this.  The content itself is brilliant, great video.

The review is just perfect.You are not afraid to praise the game for what it is and there was not a single moment I found myself bored.However the transitions are annoying as hell,sorry but you have to change them :)

I just want you to know that your videos are amazing.
I can't believe I forgot about you ;-;
Never again

Spoiler alert: I have no interest in video games, but I cannot get over how well produced your videos are.

To start things off, I'd like to point out that the comparison between Booker and Kaitlin seems like a very loaded one because Bioshock Infinite was the first in the franchise where you had the player character make quips and remarks as a pre-established character. So what does that mean for the franchise's predecessor characters like Jack or Subject Delta - we're only given a bare minimum of information about them and they don't have any pre-established motivations or beliefs just like Gone Home's player character - why not use those as a comparison instead? They are characters that are just as faceless as Kaitlin (beacuse "distant and neutral" isn't any different from the "faceless and mute" protagonist equivalent in modern games).

In addition, the story that unfolds in Gone Home has already happened, there is nothing to be influenced we are merely 'looking for audio tapes describing the downfall of Rapture' to continue with the Bioshock analogy. So saying that we're unravelling or progressing the story by finding notes, diary pages and other forms of writting is a blantant lie or at least very hypocritical, we're gaining knowledge of the setting but not actually progressing through it - which Bioshock did with letting us reach Andrew Ryan and then subsequently Atlas. It accomplishes it's goal of letting the player explore, but that's because it's a game based around exploring and if we stripped Rapture off of any available guns, enemies and other hazards the same effect would be achieved, if not a greater one because the story of Rapture is at the very least interesting and not a total bore rooted in mundane events that unfolded in a mundane setting.

And in no way does Gone Home accomplish even its bare minimum of human empathy simply on the basis that Sam is not a very likeable character to begin with. Bear in mind, this is opinion, but I still stand by my opinion that the game was an overpriced, technically and mechanically barren experiment in creating a story-driven game with praised garnered only for it's subject material being very difficult to disregard or just put aside without inevitably offending a lot of people. (the same way Bioshock Infinite was supposedly controversial with it's 'hardline stance' on idealogical fanatism and racism being bad, which - and excuse my crude and outdated remark - but no fucking shit Sherlock)

With that out of the way, I'd just like to say that the next video should not rely so heavy on static, screen flickering as this one did. It reminded me too much of Dawn of the Dead and I felt the urge to play Johnny Cash's 'When the Man comes around' everytime it happened which was to say the least, pretty distracting.

Nice review. There was a little much cutting for my taste though, and it started to wear on my nerves. As for the subject matter, I have to say I disagree. Gone Home felt ridged and cliche, and i felt very little freedom playing it after the first 30 seconds. The entire game has 2 options ever to be made, and both yield the same result. You go upstairs or downstairs, that's it. Nothing changes based on your own exploration or choices, and you don't learn anything different.
As far as my friend was concerned, I had even subjected myself to a lesser experience by choosing to top floor first, which is actually fairly valid considering the earlier journals were on the first floor as is all the hints at a haunting (other than the upstairs Ouija board and the attic).
As an RPG gamer, and fan of general exploration, I felt that there was no driving impetus to find anything beyond the bare minimum. The music wasn't stellar (most even annoying me), so finding and playing every song felt like a waste of time, especially in a game where you walk at a snail's pace. The exploration felt tedious, and felt ultimately meaningless as the journal's are what feel most important anyways. The only things I've been told I missed were a few scraps about the relationship between the dad and uncle, which I didn't find that appealing to look into, so I can't say I'm sorry I missed it.

Overall, it felt so much duller than similar games. it felt cliche and like it was touting the controversy of homosexuality and teenage angst to make the story good. My issues with it are even further compounded as it only takes 2 hours to complete, having almost no replay value, while costing 20 dollars.
Nothing about this game is exceptional in my eyes, except perhaps it's cost. It's characters were flat, and I honestly couldn't care less about the MC, and ended up just being annoyed with the younger sister for making exceedingly poor life choices. Overall, a game's intention is to deliver a message and entertain, or at least succeed in one area. For me, unless the developers wanted to make me angry, they have failed.

I did like the review though, so I'll be looking through the rest of your channel ^_^

"it can be very tempting to overstate simple design choices" yes it can. case in point; the transitions. otherwise great video

I can tell the effort put into this, and the video overall was pretty good and professional! Gave me some insight on what's so great about Gone Home (haven't played it yet). It's a great start for games to evolve on a storytelling level, I find. However, one criticism I have about the video is that the constant flicker transitions gave me a bit of a headache. Tone those down a bit if you can.

Gone Home wasn't a two-way conversation; the developer can't hear your feelings mid-game. Gone Home hardly even classifies as a game: you can't fail, your skills aren't tested, and after learning the controls, there's no player progression. It's a game, sure, in the same sense that exploring anywhere is a game, but a good game is one where you can fail and improve in. Gone Home told a neat little story and told it well, but we all know deep down that the only reason it garnered all this praise was because it catered to the LGBT and feminist movements that are so vocal in the industry. Good storytelling for sure, but it wouldn't be attracting nearly as much attention if Samantha weren't a lesbian.

This is great, trust me the time and effort you put into these reviews really shows .
But srsly what's with the seizure enduring transitions that happen every 10 seconds?

To many un-needed effects and edittations. 

Dang Satch why are you so smart.

This was incredibly enlightening and interesting.
Satch, you fill a hole in the world's (Or at least your humble viewers'!) perspective and understanding of gaming that nobody else can fill!

Those transitions hurt my eyes.

I really like your video edition and your intelligent ideas and speech. Great video as always.