Journey - PSN

[blackoak]

Anyone played this yet? I'm going to download it tonight... I've been waiting since hearing about it a couple years back. From what I've gathered skimming the gamefaqs forums, its been very well received and mostly achieves what it set out to do.

[louisg]

I played the 2600 version and it was OK

[CMoon]

I've played about an hour of it but unfortunately was too busy to play much more, which is too bad since I think the game is clearly all about immersion. If you think Ico lite, that's pretty much the feel of it, which I think is a good thing.

[JBC]

I'm very interested in it. Alot of my support is going towards games that defy the status quo lately.

I'm also pretty interested in The Witness for this reason.

[Estebang]

Not even fifteen years ago, the prospect of paying $15 to run around in a boring, featureless wasteland and solve idiotic non-puzzles would have been utterly laughable. The Myst series was still fresh in everyone's minds, after all.

Now, people are just eating this manipulative nonsense up, deluded into thinking that its self-proclaimed status as "art" somehow invalidates it of all criticism. This shit really, really needs to stop. Developers need to stop making it, and players need to stop giving it a free pass. Myst and Riven didn't need to be "art" to be defining works of the adventure genre--they just needed to provide gorgeous, fascinating, unique scenery and brain-busting puzzles. Journey don't got neither of those.

Alot [sic] of my support is going towards games that defy the status quo lately.

As it now stands, "art games" and faux profundity ARE THE STATUS QUO. They're cheap and easy to develop, and you can inflate their perceived value to ridiculous levels. Braid gets massive support and advertising from Microsoft, Journey has Sony all over it, while the likes of DFK and Strania are confined to obscurity.

[TLB]

Myst and Riven didn't need to be "art" to be defining works of the adventure genre--they just needed to provide gorgeous, fascinating, unique scenery and brain-busting puzzles. Journey don't got neither of those.

The atmosphere is enough for the people who would buy the game.

You know how all this goes and I know how all this goes, but if icy felt the need to tell people that they were doing it wrong here, he would do it himself. Just let the people shit it up here. This is a similar situation to jumping into a thread called "Thread for sensitive Dodonpachi fans" and saying, "Dodonpachi fucking blows, fagets." Whether or not you follow it up with good points (and whether or not you're banned instantly) that may or may not sway some people (had they heard it from their priest, mom, buttbuddy, etc.), you are just wasting your time.


Come to Strategy and play with us. The important part of games is the playing.

[JBC]

Alot [sic] of my support is going towards games that defy the status quo lately.

As it now stands, "art games" and faux profundity ARE THE STATUS QUO. They're cheap and easy to develop, and you can inflate their perceived value to ridiculous levels. Braid gets massive support and advertising from Microsoft, Journey has Sony all over it, while the likes of DFK and Strania are confined to obscurity.

... Call of Duty is the status quo homey. This isn't that, so I support it much the same as I support Heavy Rain and Mirror's Edge. I like things that are different, thus they defy the status quo.

[LtC]

It's a great experience, although it's pretty short. Best to play it in one session and be connected to the internet for the multiplayer. I went through the game twice so far and I had the person I was playing with stick with me from start to finish.

One of those games you could recommend to anyone whether they are into video games or not. Then again, apparently it's just a pretentious hipster 'art game' that the masses just eat up like suckers...

[Estebang]

That's an overly defeatist point of view, TLB. Good rhetoric always has a purpose (even a negative one), and it will always be heard by someone.

Truth be told, it was only a couple years ago that I was very much into the idea of "art games." I thought Cave Story was one of the top 10 best games ever (despite what Icy thinks, it's good, just not that good), I played tons of slapped-together shit from Glorious Trainwrecks, Ludum Dare, and TIG Source, and I convinced myself that most of it was both enjoyable and profound. There was a time when I would have responded to criticism of something like Journey with "You're missing the point!!". But I was eventually convinced into seeing the error of my ways.

I like things that are different, thus they defy the status quo.

Congratulations at being a complete and utter marketing sheep. The idea of a status quo is more complex than one game--it includes things marketed by the same people to appear as more progressive "alternatives". Louisg made a good post about this in the Phil Fish thread:

Companies that aim their products at teenagers often try to make it look as if the band/game/whatever in question is part of a grassroots movement. The message is "you're being individualistic by buying this, unlike all your stupid friends who are hooked on mass-marketed bullshit, maaaaaan". It's really cynical.

There are *lots* of true indie devs still. They're often low profile; that's because they're indie.

[maxlords]

I enjoyed Flower just because it was fun, not because someone told me to. What does that make me?

[JBC]

I like things that are different, thus they defy the status quo.

Congratulations at being a complete and utter marketing sheep.

It's different than Call of Duty and Gears and Halo. Get off your high horse, guy who also buys things because they appeal to him for various reasons.

[Estebang]

I enjoyed Flower just because it was fun, not because someone told me to. What does that make me?

It might mean you have low standards and shallow, superficial taste, but not necessarily. If you started holding it up as an artistic achievement and a defining example of the medium, then I would have to call BS.

Just like bad movies, bad games don't have to be unwatchable, unplayable or unenjoyable. Super Meat Boy is "fun" (a rather meaningless and vague descriptor) for a limited amount of time. That doesn't make it any good.

[CMoon]

Wow, way to fag up the journey thread.

[Moniker]

I enjoyed Flower just because it was fun, not because someone told me to. What does that make me?

It might mean you have low standards and shallow, superficial taste, but not necessarily. If you started holding it up as an artistic achievement and a defining example of the medium, then I would have to call BS.

Just like bad movies, bad games don't have to be unwatchable, unplayable or unenjoyable. Super Meat Boy is "fun" (a rather meaningless and vague descriptor) for a limited amount of time. That doesn't make it any good.

But Super Meat Boy is good. I question your taste, sir.

Haven't played Journey, but if you didn't have fun with Braid, I wonder where your head's at (though I have an idea). A chap on Roguelike Radio said that art games tend to be both bad art and bad games, and I tend to agree, but enough people like these games (as they also like CoD, &c.) that it's pointless and pretentious to tell them they're doing it wrong. Your sentiments may or may not be accurate, but your "good rhetoric" is wasted and unwanted in a thread like this; it would be better suited for a review or blog post. <- Personal opinion.

[TLB]

Not to start a raging flamewar, but you like Super Meat Boy and Braid?! What?! hahahahaha

[Estebang]

But Super Meat Boy is good.

Compared to what? The numerous platforming masterpieces of the 8 and 16-bit eras? Even something like Tempo on the 32X? I don't think so.

I guess you're also wondering where Roger Ebert's and Soulja Boy's "heads are at." Braid isn't terrible, just boring, dumb and embarrassing. "Hey guys, 'your princess is in another castle' is this complex metaphor for unrequited love!!" Give me a goddamn break.

A chap on Roguelike Radio said that art games tend to be both bad art and bad games, and I tend to agree, but enough people like these games (as they also like CoD, &c.) that it's pointless and pretentious to tell them they're doing it wrong. Your sentiments may or may not be accurate, but your "good rhetoric" is wasted and unwanted in a thread like this; it would be better suited for a review or blog post.

As I already explained, I've disproven this on myself. Assuming they possess enough basic intelligence, people's opinions can be swayed by criticism and evidence (unless it's party politics, lol).

[Drum]

Myst sucked. I have no opinion on Journey other than it looks like it has nice graphics.

Estebang, have you played Noitu Love 2? You should give it a shot.

[Estebang]

Journey might have nice graphics if they actually depicted anything other than sand dunes and boxy, featureless ruins.

People only say Myst sucks because it's old and they remember it as the only game their dad ever liked.

I haven't played Noitu Love 2, though I've seen videos. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of a mouse-controlled platformer, but it looks pretty sweet. The creator's clearly a fan of Alien Soldier.

[Moniker]

Your sentiments may or may not be accurate, but your "good rhetoric" is wasted and unwanted in a thread like this; it would be better suited for a review or blog post.

As I already explained, I've disproven this on myself. Assuming they possess enough basic intelligence, people's opinions can be swayed by criticism and evidence (unless it's party politics, lol).

To what end? Convincing people that a game they enjoy is empirically unworthy of enjoyment? That they would be better served playing Strania or something? In any case, berating someone in a thread they created to discuss said game is a bit tacky. Making a specific point about the game and backing off is more likely to convince someone than broadening your attack to an entire genre/whatever. Bad rhetoric.

By the way, that cynical gamer's site you linked is the most depressing thing I've ever seen. Talk about a waste of time.

[Drum]

Journey might have nice graphics if they actually depicted anything other than sand dunes and boxy, featureless ruins.

People only say Myst sucks because it's old and they remember it as the only game their dad ever liked.

I haven't played Noitu Love 2, though I've seen videos. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of a mouse-controlled platformer, but it looks pretty sweet. The creator's clearly a fan of Alien Soldier.

It's much better than Alien Soldier.

[njiska]

Tossing in my two cents, I played Journey and loved it. The atmosphere is captivating, the connection you for with another random partner is compelling, and the final flight scene is just pure exhilaration. This is a game that's meant to be played for emotional response and it hits all the right notes. Does that make it an "art" game? Yes. Is it to everyone's tastes? No. Like any piece of art you either get it or you don't and it's not right or wrong to have either response. There's no point being a pretentious dick about it.

That said I see one major problem with the game. The power of Journey comes from not only the journey into the unknown, but from sharing that experience with another person. Discovering neat tricks and encountering surprises together is exciting and reward, but once you've played through it the game once loses its mystery and by proxy all of its power. Instead of bravely venturing forth you're re-treading old ground. There may be some excitement to be found hunting for hidden items, but i don't think the experience lends itself to replayability and for the price tag of $15 that's a bit disconcerting.

[TLB]

Tossing in my two cents, I played Journey and loved it. The atmosphere is captivating, the connection you for with another random partner is compelling, and the final flight scene is just pure exhilaration. This is a game that's meant to be played for emotional response and it hits all the right notes. Does that make it an "art" game? Yes. Is it to everyone's tastes? No. Like any piece of art you either get it or you don't and it's not right or wrong to have either response. There's no point being a pretentious dick about it.

That said I see one major problem with the game. The power of Journey comes from not only the journey into the unknown, but from sharing that experience with another person. Discovering neat tricks and encountering surprises together is exciting and reward, but once you've played through it the game once loses its mystery and by proxy all of its power. Instead of bravely venturing forth you're re-treading old ground. There may be some excitement to be found hunting for hidden items, but i don't think the experience lends itself to replayability and for the price tag of $15 that's a bit disconcerting.

I have a feeling I know what Estebang's response is going to sound like. Tune in next week.

I should buy this game because it looks like it is worth its value for money and has great ganeplaz?

[Estebang]

Like any piece of art you either get it or you don't and it's not right or wrong to have either response. There's no point being a pretentious dick about it.

Here's the old fallacy that just because someone says something is "art," it automatically has all this hidden meaning and significance, and all objective criticism is void. Duchamp knowingly duped the art world for decades with this, despite being a great artist, because he saw that it was actually easier to get noticed by being lazy. Shock value and novelty uber alles, baby!

Tell me, is there anything to "get" out of this, other than "Hey! I just proved that artists can do fucking anything they want, no matter how effortless or tasteless, call it art, and get tons of fame and attention!" Hint: There isn't.



(Now, I'm not saying that Journey is quite this bad: that award goes to the likes of unplayable, ugly artgame garbage like Passage.)

[maxlords]

Fuck, you guys are brutal as hell. A few simple facts.

1. All video game graphics are in one manner or another, art.

2. Just because you don't like the art direction of a game (or any artistic creation) does NOT make that game any less artistic. It just means that you don't like it, find it kitchy, etc.

3. Minimalism is a valid style of art whether you like it or not.

4. Art does NOT necessarily have any hidden meaning or significance. The only person who KNOWS it does is the artist. Everyone else is only interpreting and seeing what they want to. Art can just as easily be straightforward.


These things being said, I did find Flower to be an inherently artistic game. I enjoyed the style and patterns, and found the gameplay interesting. I wouldn't call it a "defining example of the videogames medium" but I found it to be a unique and enjoyable game. I didn't find it bad in any way....it was exactly what it was sold as, a quiet, relaxing game that was different. I don't really see how you could call it bad, as it set out to and successfully achieved exactly what it seems to have been intended to, and did it well. Super Meat Boy is very similar. The stated direction of the game is exactly what the creators intended, and the game does exactly what it set out to do.

I will buy Journey because I enjoyed Flower and want to try the next release from the company. I could give a rat's fuck ass what anyone else thinks about it's artistic merits. I will decide that entirely on my own. I only read this thread to see if anyone had any major issues with it before I dropped the $15. Length isn't an issue for me as long as I enjoy it.

Only you can decide what is artistically worthwhile...FOR YOURSELF.

[njiska]

Tell me, is there anything to "get" out of this, other than "Hey! I just proved that artists can do fucking anything they want, no matter how effortless or tasteless, call it art, and get tons of fame and attention!" Hint: There isn't.

What is there to get? I'm not making any comment about hidden meaning or that crap that art majors love to ramble about. In fact i'll happily agree that 90% of what gets labelled art is little more than pretentious crap. All I'm saying that the game is an enjoyable experience. It's carefully crafted to evoke specific emotions and reactions in the player and that's just simple psychology. No different than the work that goes into making a game like Fatal Frame scary. If you don't get it (i.e. don't have the targeted reaction) then you don't get it and you don't enjoy it. It doesn't mean the game is bad or shallow, it just means that you didn't get the same experience out of it as someone else.

The game is an art game because art game is a genre. No different than how the term indie music has been bastardized from meaning independent of the major labels to one being a vague descriptor of one specific sound. Stop getting tripped up and militant on the word art.

[Estebang]

1. All video game graphics are in one manner or another, art.

Are you really willing to apply this to everything? Pictured: Art?

2. Just because you don't like the art direction of a game (or any artistic creation) does NOT make that game any less artistic. It just means that you don't like it, find it kitchy, etc.

3. Minimalism is a valid style of art whether you like it or not.

4. Art does NOT necessarily have any hidden meaning or significance. The only person who KNOWS it does is the artist. Everyone else is only interpreting and seeing what they want to. Art can just as easily be straightforward.

I must pass this pearl of wisdom on to you: If everything is art, then nothing is. Also, plenty of artists have made shit that they didn't know what the hell it meant. Some have even admitted this publicly. They get away with it by labeling it as "open to interpretation."

[Moniker]

If everything is art, then nothing is.

This does not follow.

[Estebang]

If everything is good, then there is no concept of good--nothing to distinguish it from evil.

If everything is art, there is no non-art, and there is no point in labeling anything as art. It becomes a valueless concept.

A pretty 1:1 analogy, I'd say.

[Estebang]

All I'm saying that the game is an enjoyable experience. It's carefully crafted to evoke specific emotions and reactions in the player and that's just simple psychology. No different than the work that goes into making a game like Fatal Frame scary. If you don't get it (i.e. don't have the targeted reaction) then you don't get it and you don't enjoy it. It doesn't mean the game is bad or shallow, it just means that you didn't get the same experience out of it as someone else.

But games are games, things you physically interact with, not pictures, music or movies. Sure, they can contain all those things, but their sum forms a very different whole. I'm all for emotional impact and quality production values in games. I love Mother 3, Killer7, and SotC. But the components of a passive experience by themselves are simply not enough. I guess it's possible to evoke emotion purely through gameplay mechanics, but I've yet to see it done successfully. (No, Passage doesn't count.)

I know you'll say that Flower and Journey do in fact require player input, obviously, but it's so easy, simple and unsubstantial that the game might as well be playing itself. To a lesser extent, this also goes for the Batman: Arkham games, where everything constantly auto-zooms, auto-locks in, auto-highlights itself, and the combat consists of mashing a button.

[JBC]

The argument is boring and predictable. I'm sure there are other aspects of Journey worth talking about other than whether or not it's art. I bet every other Journey thread on every other forum has some dbag that starts with that crap.