Ironside last edited by tokeeffe9
Hi. I bought this game last weekend on a sale and I thought I'd be enjoying it more. It's a walking simulator, but so far there's just a rather restrained walking. There's almost no exploration, there's no dialogue, I can't even move the character for most of the game. So far the redeeming points I found are aesthetic. What do you think of it?
FutureCorpse last edited by
I think its more interesting than it is good. I liked what they were trying with the silent narrative storytelling and the jump cuts, but it didnt quite work for me as I thought by the end the story was a bit of mess although i get what it was trying to do.
Kornfan2007 last edited by
Make sure you increase the turn sensitivity to full. I played it on PS4 and it was much worse to play when sensitivity was default.
Sentinel Beach last edited by Sentinel Beach
@FutureCorpse Pretty much my thoughts as well. By the end the story got too weird for me. Like I got the idea, but I don't know, would have preferred something more "traditional" in a sense for the story. But it still was an interesting few hours, I don't often play that kind of games. I bought it after Huber's suggestions, only costed a couple euros in PS Store at the time.
thenerdtheword last edited by
It is a narrative game through and through, one that tries to translate a lot of aspects of cinematic storytelling not previously explored in games. Mainly cutting and editing to tell a story. I'd say its restrained in its gameplay and there are bits of exploration at a few key points.
logic__error last edited by
I'm still trying to finish it because it gave me motion sickness :(
edsortiz last edited by
Finish it first. My favorite part of the game is the discussion of what happened and yourself experiencing/identifying those things as that character. I think its supposed to be more of a personal experiment as to everyone felt and took something different.
I've dove into a couple of forums discussing what happened, and nobody really has a conclusive idea.
I loved that
Sat down to this tonight and decided to run through it a second time since it's relatively short game and easy platinum.
I think I'm on the side of finding this to be a cool thing but not a good game. At first I was taken aback by the edits. It felt a bit choppy initially I thought but then I really got into them and honestly that was the big reason I bought the game. The soundtrack is really good, I think the artstyle is nice, maybe a little too minimal even for me.
Clearly the game has David Lynch vibes all over it and probably a bit too far. I feel like they go a bit out there in terms of just throwing the kitchen sink to confuse the player as opposed to their being a "aha" moment.
I feel like I've the general gist after my own interpretation and reading a bit but I'm just not sure if I would entirely recommend this game to someone unless they were avid Lynch fans.
logic__error last edited by
@tokeeffe9 I'd like to go back through and see anything I may have missed, I know there were achievements I didn't get, but I don't think it is worth the literal headache I will get. I agree that it is cool but not a good game. It's an interesting story, it is neat if you think of it as an art piece, but not great from a game standpoint. I'd definitely recommend it to certain people but probably not as a "game"
Ironside last edited by Ironside
I finished it this morning and I didn't like what was left. I didn't understand the story, after reading Polygon's article of multiple interpretations I still don't get it. I'm not really a fan of the lack of conversations, the visual element wasn't enough for me to build a bond with the characters. I don't know about their personalities, nor about their motivations or weaknesses. There weren't even enough moments between the characters and the moments that existed felt rushed, often showing little and finishing abruptly. One thing they could have done was to give the player more chances to explore the setting, by allowing me to grab more objects, have more tangible elements, but I bareIy had anything to do or look at despite the only gameplay element being looking or moving towards something to press X. In the end, for me this game had no gameplay, without a defined plot or a chance to enjoy the characters. The visuals are nice, but I don't think they're enough to redeem the game.
DeweyDecibel last edited by
Apologies for resurrecting this dead thread, but I just got around to playing Virginia.
Virginia is a tough game to write about. I don't think there's a critique one could make about this game that I'd take issue with. Almost every aspect of Virginia could be a strength or a weakness depending on the beholder. Swimming in sevens has become something of a meme, but Huber's always talked about how sevens have character and take risks that bigger, higher rated games can't. With a 74 on metacritic, Virginia epitomizes the seven. And I think the creators knew this too. In their Letter to the Player found in the main menu they write:
It's been a strange and confounding experience making Virginia. We hope it's resulted in a strange and confounding game.
Say what you will about Virginia: good game; bad game. Virginia is a game created with seeming indifference towards commercial success. It's the fulfillment of inspiration with little-to-no artistic compromise and I appreciate it's existence on that merit, regardless of anything else.
I love story driven games. I love single-sitting games. I love dialogue-less narratives. I love everything Virginia is on paper, and heck, I might still love Virginia in form, but that love is certainly not without some extreme reservation. I've always believed the media should justify its medium, and I just don't think Virginia justifies itself as a game. I realize that a major design choice from the inception of Virginia was using cinematic editing, and I loved that; that is not where my issue lies. Virginia has sluggish controls, minimal interactivity, and worst of all, little direction provided. None of those things are necessarily awful on their own, but the combination really hurts Virginia as a game. Throughout the first half of the game I spent most of my time wondering what I was supposed to be doing, when I would have liked to have been thinking about what was going on and putting pieces of the puzzle together. The lousy controls add to the disorientation (and the queasiness for me), and the lack of interactivity causes for some very non-cinematic periods of just wandering, accomplishing nothing. Once I started to get my bearings (and this may just be a problem with me) I found I was so concerned with keeping the game's cinematic feeling that I didn't want to explore the environments. It's as though the game qualities and the movie qualities are fighting with and even undermining each other. At the end of the day I believe I would have enjoyed watching a well-played, cinematic let's play more than I enjoyed my time with the game.
@tokeeffe9 The Lynch vibes are definitely there and the creators have talked about their love of Twin Peaks and other Lynch films in interviews. However, Jonathan Burroughs & Terry Kenny have credited Brendon Chung (who appeared once on GT Live with Quadrilateral Cowboy), and his game Thirty Flights of Love as the "inspiration [which] illuminates this work," with regards to the cinematic editing. I haven't played Thirty Flights of Love yet, but the story segments of Quadrilateral Cowboy are very similar to Virginia in how they're cut.
A few closing notes. The soundtrack is amazing, and I love how they take advantage of this editing style in the composition of the OST. The outdoor environments are super beautiful and I dig the art style as a whole. I have no clue what is real and what isn't and although it still had an emotional impact on me I would prefer a clearer conclusion.