The Witness - A Great Game That You Shouldn't Play

When you're done playing, I recommend watching this video: [this video] Games are part art, what's more to understand? There's some fun image out there I can't exactly recall, but it's basically of an interview with some game devs, and one of them saying something like "We wanted to have a pot with flowers on the table here, and when you come back to this room later, the color of the flowers changes. No gameplay consequences. But we cut it for time. Why did we want it? Because we thought it'd be cool." But in a lot of games there's tons of stuff like that which doesn't get cut. Gamedev is full of those "because it'd be cool" or other vague artistic reasons (as opposed to business reasons or researched game testing reasons) for something to be there, or something to be polished well beyond reason.

> "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed" I think the critiques in this video [0] sum up my main feelings about the game. The puzzles are fantastic. The <spoiler> puzzles are fantastic. The movement, environment, graphics, etc are all fantastic. But, the "story" and "message" of the game can be interpreted in many ways. It is art in the sense that everyone gets something different from it. But it is pretentious because, if everyone gets something completely different from your "experience", you really didn't convey anything. That's what most people (I think) are talking about when they say "<art> is pretentious". [0] - [this video]