Your Superman example is so off the mark. You are comparing a flight sim to a platformer.

I am comparing a 2D exploration platformer to a 3D one. Exploring a 3D world is more immersive than a 2D one if the genres are fully utilized.

Odd. I thought you found Journey was far from "fully utilized".

I do. But there are plenty of other 3D platforming / exploration games that do it all really well.

Your Superman example is so off the mark. You are comparing a flight sim to a platformer.

I am comparing a 2D exploration platformer to a 3D one. Exploring a 3D world is more immersive than a 2D one if the genres are fully utilized.

You’re making my point for me. You didn’t even remotely come close to saying any of that. You said 3D is better than 2D and literally nothing else.

All other things being equal for a game about exploration 3D IS better than 2D.

You’re still wrong, but at least you presented and actual argument this time. (:

Here, I’ll fix my example. You think Super Mario Sunshine is better than Super Mario World? You think Twilight Princess is better than A Link to the Past? Because I don’t think either of those things are true.

Again, look at my ‘fully utilized’ Statement. You are comparing shit games to good ones. Try comparing a good 3D exploration game to a good 2D one. The 3D one will be better and more immersive.

If you give a master painter one color, and an idiot all the colors, you’d be saying one color painting is superior because that one came out better. See the problem with that way of thinking? Ask yourself what would happen if the master had all the colors.

You're right, of course. "Intend" was the wrong word. But you certainly went in expecting to not like it.

That's fine.

I won't tell you that you're wrong about any of what you said. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I just disagree with most of it. Not in that what you said was wrong, but in that I fundamentally disagree with you on what video games must be.

You say that you'd have lost nothing by just watching someone else play it. I disagree with that fundamentally. Yes, the game is very prescriptive. There's no real exploration to speak of, the mechanics aren't difficult to master. And while I think there's lots of lost potential. I'd love to see a version of the game that is more interactive, where abilities open up new possibilities in previous levels, where there is more mechanical challenge. But that's not the game that GRIS is, and I think that very idea runs counter to what the game is even supposed to be. This is a relaxed game, and I can enjoy that. Sure, the "puzzles," if you can even call them that, are incredibly easy. They're still mechanically interesting and fun. The timing puzzles with the trees are neat, even if you can see how to get through them almost immediately. The boss fight with the bird has a really great feel to it, even though it's impossible to screw up. Those red leaf launch pads just feel awesome.

Yes, it's a game that is all but impossible to lose, with no way to miss the set path forward, but it still fundamentally feels good. It's a case of the entire experience being more than the sum of its parts.

And there lies the problem. I guess it's a game about overcoming your demons? Well so was Limbo. But in Limbo you could die. You can't here. What's to overcome when you can't be harmed? What good is a world explored if it doesn't present danger? This is itself a huge failure of design and theme. It undercuts the game to the very core.

The position that the only obstacles worth overcoming in the context of a videogame involve death, violence, or the threat of violence is ridiculous and stupid.

It's a particularly objectionable bit of reductionist nonsense when discussing a game that is arguably about trauma. Your complaint is that the protagonist, in the struggle to recover from trauma, can't be KILLED during the context of the game.

I mean... WTAF, seriously.

If you can’t be killed, or much less even really fail, how much of a “struggle” is it? It softens this, and ultimately says overcoming your demons is easy because they don’t actually weigh you down.

If you are suffering from trauma and you fail to succeed at overcoming it, then you FAIL. You STILL HAVE TRAUMA.

You've doubled down on the stupidity that the only struggles worth experiencing in the context of a videogame are: death, violence, the threat of violence.

The idea that obstacles that aren't portrayed in those particular ways are "easy" and "don't really weigh you down" is particularly offensive.

I don’t believe I ever said that. You can explore all that through story and character instead of violence… but surprise. This game has none of that, so it’s up to the mechanics then. I am using exactly what the game presents to me.

I am done spending my time quoting you back to you. The words you wrote are in this post. Read them.