I think you played the game backwards?

aspro said:

Foolz said:

I think you played the game backwards?

I think you are pulling your dick backwards.

Your chronology is in reverse and, unlike a penis, a linear narative cannot be reversed except by the observer.

Anyway, I fucking beat that game (Papo and Yo).

aspro said:

Anyway, I fucking beat that game (Papo and Yo).

Don't worry. It deserved to be beaten. That's what it's telling itself anyway.

I had the game gifted to me and I played it to completion last year.  My evaluation was much the same as yours.  As a game, it's basically shite.  And all the self-pity about "oh my dad was a drunken monster" rings ultimately hollow and doesn't help make it any less of a shite game.

I just remembered you played this in two bursts far apart, so are unlikely to remember things better than I. Thus, and the day's routine having gone to shit, I am in a position to agitate my suffering and reply:

Your disorientation issue makes little sense, because what you described as being the chronology of Papo & Yo is completely and inexplicably backwards. As the game progresses, rather than the disorientation being played up, more and more reality is showed (ie. the disorientation decreases); the way you describe it implies the opposite, but maybe I'm misinterpreting you?

The reason for this has little to do with any form of disassociation (or building disturbance). Rather, it is symbolic of his mental (literally him aging) or emotional development (unrelated to the abuse), up to the point where he comes to the conclusion that he can fuck over his father and stop helping him get drunk*. I see nothing unrealistic about that; but it wouldn't matter if I did, given that we are dealing not with a general statement, but a personal one**. Even if what you described was present in the game, it's not an interesting (one might even describe it as masturbatory if one was a puritan) criticism for this reason: when making a general statement about people laughing at public executions, one is a fucking idiot and factually wrong if they say the reason has anything to do with humour; even black humour. However, when making a personal statement one might perceive that the laughter is caused by the sense of humour, and it would, conversely, be untrue for them to say otherwise. The audience might even be full of sadists (as Middle Eastern public executions presently are, apparently).

Which is not to say the personal cannot be criticised (and if it had had no shitty marketing, or was made by someone who hadn't been abused; or he hadn’t been abused [who really cares, is this the fucking Oprah Winfrey show?], it would still be a personal statement unless the game was completely different; just as Depression Quest would still be a general statement even if whoever made it had depression), but that criticism should be based on the conviction of the personal statement; not prejudice against the content, whereas a general statement may be reasonably criticised on both. This is merely for the sake of good taste and refined aesthetic output.

*"So the whole thing rings majorly hollow" Do I recall incorrectly that you were impressed by the realistic dependency of Papo? Whole thing, then, seems like an overstatement...but the initial statement surprised me in the first place almost as much as your ambivalence towards the gameplay when it should have been disgust. Other than that I am unsurprised, but confused a little by the rather odd reverse interpretation of the chronology. Without that I probably wouldn't even reply.

**Personal and biographical are two different things. This is also the least realistic part of the depiction (mainly due to idiotic music selection), unless he is a sociopath and the story was about him becoming a sociopath, in which case it's perfect.

P.S. Papo & Yo's distinctive feature has nothing to do with anything mentioned in this thread. The storytelling is superb in its use of the medium; it wouldn't matter if the story was complete shit like the gameplay. But even with the one single quality we once, and perhaps still do, agree[d] on (depending on the quality of my aforementioned recollection), it's certainly more mind blowing content for a videogame than something like The Walking Dead. Which, if we ever record another podcast, you’ll find out is deserving of no credit for being groundbreaking...which means I should lower my score to a 6, and you lower your score to an 8? (In hindsight The Walking Dead’s score should be lower due to its hideous influence on the games that followed it, ugh; unfortunately you were right on that one.)

P.P.S. I wonder if this is like Bioshock? I still do not understand how you can go from your initial reaction to it which was adoration, to utter contempt; while expressing both opinions saliently (unlike here; remove that chronology and it's all good, though). If you start liking Bioshock Infinite in a few years time, then our friendship is over (that’s your way out if you ever need one)...

P.P.P.S. Fuck you my review was good.

aspro said:

In the penultiamte evel they start messing with the physics (walking up walls etc...) which was when I wrote what I wrote.

And I will never like Bioshock Infinite, that would be impossible.

Which is more fantastical and physically absurd than walking houses?

Rationally yes, but that doesn't stop me from worrying.

aspro said:

It was sold "as is". The developer (presumably, since this is a small game) signed off on how it was marketed.

Yes, it was a personal expression, as would any game made by 1 or 2 people. As for the execution living up to the marketing it failed. Or it suceeded. Either the game or the marketing failed. How about that?

I would say the marketing, becuase if I knew nothing about the game going in I probably would not have thught it as heavy handed.

Conversely, without the obnoxious marketing it would have scored a lot lower; half the reviewers who lauded it for its content probably wouldn't have noticed it if they hadn't been told. Which means the marketing succeeded on a critical level because it inflated the MetaCritic by about 2-3 points; but when it comes to people who don't need to regurgitate marketing in the form a review, then it was just as likely to engender a more negative reaction as a more positive one.

Part of the point in the quote was that marketing and product should be separated in analysis, unless the analysis deliberately encompasses both (in which case, one must understand that they are not actually talking directly about the product). Otherwise the resultant expression is one that is polluted with the sort of bias that actually is negative (insincerity); not the sort of bias that videogame criticism is afraid of, which is actually utterly harmless and irrelevant.