Chefelf.com Night Life: Voicebox - Viewing Profile

I liked it...quite a bit actually.

We all like different things. No big deal.

You know what Yahtze reminds me of with that hat,coat facial hair, accent. He doesn't look exactly, but he reminds me of the watcher from that movie Buffy the vampire slayer.

http://www.youtube.c... feature=related

(I couldn't find any pictures the best I could do is a youtube video. He's the old guy walking with the blonde in the very begining, Its like a an old man version of Yahtzee)

Anyway thats all I could think off while watching Washington DC, I didn't finish watching his ZP this week, I agree with the majority very boring.

HAHAHA. That deer...thing looks like the forest spirit from the movie princess monoke.

Again, its an interactive story. Telling a different version of red riding hood.

Understandably you're upset with how the author feels about themselves and how they've decided to label what they have as a game (or realtime art, which you know what, isn't a bad thing to call what they've created. Art doesn't necessarily have to be GOOD to be called art). Which in a way it is. Fun or not you get to interact with the characters collect items ect. Not your cup of tea. No, but still a game.

If you strip it down take all the outside sources out, then your left with an interactive story. You can pull all these links proving how pretentious the authors are and how they're arguing they're gods gift to the gaming world.

But nobody here is arguing that point. So its pointless to bring those things up.

The games sucks? As a game yes. I haven't played it but I will agree, I probably wouldn't enjoy it. Some people have. Why is that wrong?

I have lost what we were debating, First it was about wether it was a good game, then if its worth money, then what they game was about, and now if the creators are dicks and a little too full of themselves.

My opinions all all these arguments since we can't stay on one. Its not a good "game" (not having played it my argument loses some of its points) Its a story that you act out, ment to play out as a horror title (Or mind fuckery title) but story wise, I have say, givin my spoiler filled message above, that it was an interesting take on a very old story. Although it could have been less artsy to get the message across to a broader audience. Given the authors are very full of themselves thats probably something they'd refuse to do.

Ten bucks? Its worth the money if you have money to spare or this type of thing is something you enjoy.

I stand by what I said the story was about. It makes sense, if it was about brutilizing little girls and raping them then the ending makes no sense.

They do seem a bit full of themselves. I wonder how much money they've made so far though. Plus the feedback they get. A manifesto maybe they were bored, maybe they're trying to rake in a larger fanbase. However I have not met any of the people behind tales of tales. I have not spoken with them, I don't know them. So my opinion on the creaters remains completely apathetic.

Someone on Youtube said something that perhaps makes me understand your points a bit more. I think you would agree with this. I feel these statements are fair.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't mind an artistic game. I thoroughly enjoyed Braid, for example. Well worth $15.00. However, if you're going to make an art project using interactive computer software as a medium, market it as a game, advertise it as a game, you probably ought to include more actual gameplay. This could have been a slightly interactive movie / animation (think the Grandma's house sequences) for the entirety, and it would not have lost anything. It would have gained, IMO.
I should also say that I'm not one of those folks who're sore because it wasn't what I was expecting when I bought it. I'd read a lot about it and knew exactly what I was getting into, I don't regret buying it. I just feel it was poorly marketed, very buggy, and that the people who're defending it are doing so because they don't consider it to be a game and so consider it to be immune to most of the criticism it's getting, saying the people who don't like it just don't get it.

What part of the live journals are a good argument against any of what I said? I'm not entirely sure how these journals make my points invalid. I haven't read them I'll just take your word that they're awful. (Honestly if they're really bad I don't know if I could handle reading it ) I'm just curious how its supposed to make what I said wrong. I'm not sure I get the point your trying to make.