The stanley parable

It was good, and full of easter eggs, even some for which you need the console, which isn't even possible to get by normal means.

But I didn't run it on steam lol

Also the demo is a separate thing entirely, with different content, which is nice.

There's also The Beginner's Guide, by the same studio. Really recommended, it's a story about wandering through a game dev's abandoned folders, and meeting a character through his work.

It was a good walking simulator, in that it did something that wasn't already done better in fucking non-interactive text.
I can't really recommend it though, unless the walking sim genre gets some shit that actually works as a walking sim rather than a failed screenplay.
I liked it, at least

sage

Have you played The Vanishing of Ethan Carter? It's almost totally linear but so beautiful to wander around in.

Still, I share your desire for a more sandboxy kind of walking sim.

that just sounds gay.

It was way too short. It's worth downloading if you have like about 2 free hours. I don't know how much it costs, can't say if it's worth the money or not

>what does you think of
Away from here, back to the other madmen!

It costs too much money. Otherwise, it's ok.

Never been really interested on it. Is it one of those games you can watch online for basically the same experience as playing it?

did you get the broom closet ending? that one's my favorite :^)

Meme game that was only acceptable when it was a free mod. Jokes should be free of charge.

For the most part. There are multiple endings, but if you watch them all online, you'll get the idea and save yourself the time of having to repeat sections.

...

It was fun to "play" a "game" that makes fun of """""""""""""""games"""""""""""""""" like it.

This is a video games board

more like

I wouldn't call it a game really but I had a fun few hours with it. It needed more secrets and content though. If there was a universe where walking simulators weren't pretentious shit and were actually engaging and fun then this would be the worst of the lot.

sage&report

pretty funny
sometimes mildly clever
technically it is a game, deal with it dumbass

here are my subjective opinions about it

The thing with the game/ noGame arguing is that a shitload of stuff can be a game. We should instead focus on sorting games by the ammount of gameplay mechanics they have and the quality of these mechanics. So Id say that Stanleys parable is a pretty trivial game with zero replayability but still enjoyable (subjective)

It's a great 2/3 hs game to have some laughs and then delete it and never look back.

pretty funny and clever. it's not a game that's for sure.

The beginner's Guide is shit. I was waiting for something fun to happen but it was one of those it's too deep for me to understand things.

It's a good exercise in narrator subversion, and a fair demonstration for what happens when players derail a bad DM's adventure.
It also does have some nice humour.

its barely a game but it was funny.

Narration gets annoying after first few times.

It's the only walking sim besides LSD that's pretty alright, though its more of an experiment than an actual game.

well they are not meant to play more than once.

It was decent, but the devs are super buddy buddy with Zoe Quinn and co

Yeah pretty much. Just see some video showing all the possible routes and thats the whole game.

Maybe with the difference that here its not just a strictly linear path so making the decisions yourself or finding all of the endins might be more enjoyable when you do it.

how come its not a game ? Does it lack player input ? or gameplay with challenges (however trivial they might be) ?

Wasn't the whole game supposed to be about how games lack player options now? Why would the devs be buddies with a hack who encourages that?

no fail state = no game buckaroo

No, that game has a fail state

I thought it was pretty good, the narration was on point and it kept me actually motivated to finish it. Shame it loses its value once you get all the endings but as far as walking simulators go it was alright.

What about Epic Yarn?

Shit gameplay with no real challenge.
Watching it on youtube will give you a better experience than playing it yourself

this is one of those game where playing it yourself is wayy better. you'd just spoil it if you watch it since it's not exactly a 'linear' game. also it's not on the playsation

the broom closet ending was terrible

so the rubiks cube is not a game ?

Games are a system the player interacts with through abstract rules. Stanley parable is a game in the sense it has this littlest amount of interaction with the system it can.

Its not funny, its predictable and despite its nice presentation is very boring after the first 5 minutes.

Player does something he shouldn't. Narrator reacts and relates it to the nature of video games. Boring.

keep walking simulator threads on 4chan

theyre games too. And even if mostly badly made since its mainly idiots who make them now, they still have place here

It's fine from a narrative perspective. It isn't exactly a full fledged game, but a choose your own adventure like a VN; selecting multiple paths to a predetermined ending.

For the writing and humor, you're either going to hate it or like it. Simple as that.

It's shit. It can be a novelty when "playing" it the first few times, but any more than that especially if it comes to you praising its meta mechanics, then you are just a pretentious faggot who wants to feel that you are somehow better than 99% of gamers for "getting" the creators' intentions. Much like art students, lit-crit faggots and other elitist hipsters, actually, which is why this shit appeals so highly to them and those with sensibilities similar to theirs.

Fun little interactive art piece (not a game). It's unfortunate that the creator is an asshole, but the work is still interesting.

...

Most of the genre is linear, so it doesn't matter if you're playing it, or just clicking the play/pause button to simulate the walking simulator experience. stanley parable is at least non-linear, so there's some merit to doing it yourself for the trial and error/exploration aspect if you're into that type of thing.

If you ABSOLUTELY have to play a walking sim, Stanley Parable is probably your best bet. Its probably as good as those kinds of games are gonna get, which is to say, chuckle worthy, but overall meh.

That game was pretentious garbage and made me lose what little respect I had for the dev. It wasn't even worth the $1 I paid for it. It left me waiting for something fun to happen that never came. The only part even close to being slightly enjoyable was that one bit where you do chores for that one box face lady and she asks you questions.

There is nothing wrong with walking sims some of them are pretty good and have more interactivity than your average """"game"""""

nu male non-game

Care to name some?

...

...

Just another pretentious Walking Simulator that sells itself on a disembodied Narrator being DEEP AND/OR QUIRKY.

...

Name literally one other game.

It made me laugh, but honestly should have stayed a sourcemod. They only did really really basic shit with the new version of hammer for portal 2, it's not really worth the money from up porting it from the HL2 engine version to the Portal2 engine Version.

I did think the way they recycled portals was neat.

The Beginner's Guide

Cum on step it up

I can't.

Walking Simulators ain't games.

What?

Does it still count if it's just a sequel to the same game?

Fun, interesting with actual good writing.
Tongue in cheek game about choices in games that takes the piss out of choosing things.

I honestly loved it, although the price point on release was way too high and the maker is a faggot hipster that went on to make trash

That wasn't specified.

Simply said to name one other game that fit previously set parameters.

There are better options if you want walking simulators.
Why can't I

I meant to ask why can't I embed more than one image? It keeps overwriting itself.

It was okay.

It was the original pretentious walking sim

It's not a sequel, it's just made by the same dev.

Also the fun part for me was modding / tinkering with this walking sim. Such as importing the portal gun, installing "the raphael parable" mod and doing other random shit.

man, I played a mod (the raphael parable) of a mod (the stanley parable) of a mod (portal) of a mod (half-life).

Are those walking sims, and if so why better?

Not really walking sims but more games that have aspects of it that are walking sims.
Valley is a puzzle platformer that starts off as a walking simulator until you get the leaf suit then it gets some really good movement mechanics(Some people equate it to tribes but it's more a faster A Story About My Uncle) and Furi is a boss rush game with walking simulator parts before each boss for mood setting/exposition delivering

the single best walking simulator on the market. enjoyable to explore, but it doesn't quite qualify as a game.

Walking sims are generally pretty worlds you can walk around and explore. Stanley is more unique

The only one I know that qualifies your description is pic related.

I liked it quite a lot because the world is really beautiful and there's nothing telling you where to go so they really made a game that's nice to just wander around in.

What else do you know that's a nice world to explore?

Pirated it. Stood in the closet and found it very funny. Then discovered everything else in it is very mediocre.

The fail state of a rubiks cube is picking up the rubiks cube.

It's like playing Sudoku, it gets boring once you figure out you've just became an algorithm machine. That's why maths people find Sudoku, 2048 and similar games boring to play.

A game has a failure state and mechanical systems for the player to use. Most games have goals which are derived from failure states and mechanical systems. It's really not that complicated.
Barely. The Stanley Parable does have failure states which undo player progress, but everything else is ankle-deep.

I honestly can't tell if you're joking. The Rubik's cube is a toy, not a game. Barbie dolls and G.I. Joe playsets aren't games either.

Lets talk about this for a moment actually

Can Walking simulators ever be good?

Is it actually possible, through clever game design, to make a good walking sim?

I consider the GTA series to be good walking sims but that may actually be stretching the definition of walking sim too far

i think you should kill yourself

the beginner's guide was bretty gud, but you can't really go through another critic bait walking simulator and strike lightening in a bottle twice in a row, hence it being much lower in public perception

No. The Stanley Parable is inoffensive, but there is nothing it does which could not be done in a video game with mechanical depth and traditional structure equally as well or better. The reason why meta humour or interaction isn't usually constant in a video game (or any work of fiction) is because it can be grating if done well and destroy the work if done poorly. At some level, you consume a piece of fiction because you want fiction - you don't want a character to look at the camera and say WOW, YOU SURE ARE PLAYING A VIDEO GAME, HUH.

When games commit too hard to this stuff, you get things like Undertale. It's fun the first time around, but the characters don't hold up under any amount of critical scrutiny because they exist as vehicles for the author to speak to the player rather than characters in their own right. The gameplay naturally suffers as a result of this.

The Metal Gear Solid games have a lot of fourth wall breaking, but they're also good fucking video games with so much content and so many easter eggs that half a dozen instructions to look at the back of the box to find Meryl's codec number or to put the controller on your arm to soothe your muscles don't break the player's immersion. MGS is also very up front about stuff like this: the characters in the game tell Snake to press Select to bring up the codec menu in the opening minutes of MGS, and the series continued walking that line as part of its identity. Kojima wanted the game to reach out to players using the PS1's hardware as much as possible; he wanted the player to become MORE immersed, not sarcastically, painfully aware he is sitting in front of a TV playing a video game.

No, just no.

Most people dislike it because you can't do shit, but that makes sense because you're supposed to be opening random unfinished experiments from an autistic failure.

I'm not saying it was great but it was definitively refreshing as a concept.

I want reddit to leave.
It was an unfunny gimmick.

Honestly, it would have to do something REALLY amazing that would break the genre in two. Something earth-shatteringly new and innovative with it that I don't think the simple act of walking can accomplish without gameplay to back it up and the moment gameplay is involved, it stops being a walking sim since walking sims are the blank slate. Its like asking if a blank canvas could be considered art. Story can be good, but story isn't NEARLY enough to stimulate over the mundanity of walking from one spot to the other. People joke about how visual novels aren't games, but there are VNs that give you agency and thus, make a game. Phoenix Wright is a good example of how you can make a game out of not much at all by giving JUST enough gameplay to let the story shine through, something walking from place to place cannot really accomplish unless you're simple minded and they show off pretty visuals. The Stanley Parable only got away with this by allowing agency in its pattern by allowing the player to use choice to take the story where they wanted rather than the other way around, which I believe is the only innovation the genre was able to spawn, really.

TL;DR: No. It doesn't have enough gameplay to innovate or be creative with to make up for it being the sole mechanic.

Just watch someone else playing, it's absolute the same as doing yourself.
Just another try hard to be deep with overuse of dialog indie game.

"Failure" state does not make it a game. This doesn't have "failure".

It has a state where it undoes your progress and makes you start over again. Compared to something like Her Story or Life is Strange, The Stanley Parable is an actual video game, if just barely.

Failure states are the defining characteristic of video games. Undoing player progress is not something any other kind of fiction is even capable of doing intentionally.

LET'S SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL
== ARE VIDEO GAMES ART? ===

Yes, duh. Not all art is high art though, so some games are more artistic than others.

That has a score mechanic, which is arguably just as good or better than fail states. Remember how games started and highscores were how you judged success, instead of simply progress?

So I guess booting up an OS makes it a game.

i fucked up the redtext, sorry guys.
offtopic

Just another game that briefly pokes a stick at the common themes of tropes of video games and storytelling without coherently explaining why it's bad or what the author believes will change this. Probably the easiest way to make yourself feel smart without actually saying anything.

Yes, they are. Graphics, level design.etc all require artists to make, its not an exact science

Yes, modern AA games run on a formula, but you can say the same about pop music

Yes, pretentious fucks think making video games art means making them into interactive movies, but that's not going to stop me from saying Super Mario Bros. is art

Yes, relativists want to say everything is good art. And they are fucking wrong. Very few (read; less than 1 percent) of games out there are truly good art, but that doesn't mean video games aren't art.

No. They are composed of artist elements, such as music, cinematography, literature, and visual art, but video games (or any kind of games) are not themselves art. This distinction is what throws a lot of people off, but it's simple enough if you think it through.

For instance, I'm playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons with my friends, right? So I tell the DM that I want to move over to one of the bandits attacking my friend and hit him with my sword. Then I roll some dice, he notes down how much damage I dealt, and we're on to the next guy in the initiative order.

Was what I did art? Obviously not, unless you're some kind of California-educated faggot who thinks everything is art because everything is performance art or spoken word. If you dislike D&D or don't know anything about it, apply the same line of thinking to chess or five-man's morris or checkers or fucking tic-tac-toe. They obviously aren't art.

The same holds true of a video game. When I play Super Mario Brothers and jump on three goombas in a row, is that art? No. But the sprites are art, the animation is art, the music is art. In a similar line of thinking, if Mario dies and I have to restart the level with all the enemies and coins reappearing, that isn't something any form of art can reproduce.

This isn't to say video games should be held to their own standards in terms of how to make them: writing a good story in a video games will borrow a lot from writing a good story in a novel. Not everything, but enough that good writing in a video game can be easily recognized as good writing without needing to be put through some kind of filter. Four-act structure and the hero's journey are still good storytelling foundations whether they appear in a cheap paperback or some pixelshit indie trash heap.

I think I'm rambling by now, but hopefully I made enough sense.

An operating system is a tool. The malfunctioning (or misuse) of a tool is not the same thing as a game.

Nope. Comes off as a lot of rambling that doesn't mean shit. You basically said games are made up of tons of things that ARE ART, but didn't explain how it all stops being art suddenly when put together.

Hell, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Video games are an art form more than it is art. The end result isn't always art and since the indie scene is filled with people who are pushing a political message with their games making it a vehicle for propaganda.

It's weird that older games, that just wanted to evoke an emotion and had simple mechanics and score systems are far more artistic than modern hipster shit that tries to push a message they don't even fully understand half the time. I think your average person would feel more from playing a few rounds of Defender than they would from playing Gone Home from start to finish.

It's really not that complicated.

The actual, physical act of pushing buttons on a controller, or saying "I attack the bandit with my greatsword," or moving your bishop to E6, is not art.

Games are defined by gameplay, and gameplay cannot occur without you pushing a button. Therefore, games are not art.

I can hang a painting for 600 years and it will still be art - people might interpret it differently, but it's still there. A video game left alone for 600 years won't progress past the start menu because it requires actions from the player which are not art.

One of the better walking sims out there, but the dev is a massive fag. If you absolutely have to play it instead of just watching cutscenes on youtube, get your refund just before the limit.

Oh, and the Beginner's Guide is a steaming pile of shit that I would probably say is worse than Gone Home.

This isn't a walking sim.

So if you use something as a tool, it cannot be a game? So now we are adding to the definition? Who decides if something is a tool or not? If you use "failure state" as your only criteria for what makes a game, then I can too. Path of Exile doesn't have a failure state, but is it not a game? You don't lose anything unless you quit.

If we go by your amendment, then knife throwing, darts, and GTA:LCS can't be considered games because they are tools.

Also, the state of undone progress is called an "ending". This criteria would include jigsaw puzzles as games because when you put in back into the box, your progress is undone thus reaching a "failure" state.

Pushing buttons is just turning the page, sitting through the movie, or actually standing and LOOKING at a painting. Are you seriously saying that viewer participation stops it from being art? You have to open a book to read it, you control the pace of the reading and at times you're doing MORE work to get the most out of the work. A comic books is as much about what the reader puts between the panels as it is what's on the page.

Your entire argument is that art has to be a completely passive experience, and reality says different. This mentality that leads indie shits to make games as uninteractive as possible, or games like Order 1886 just being movies that put in interaction to be sold as a game. You're entire argument is that Silent Hill 2 isn't art because you swing a pipe? That's laughable.

Gameplay is art, games are not art.
Your personal experience is art, but not the game itself. Games are a tool to make art, your own personal art.
Watching people play games is like giving a blind person a picture book in bralle, they can understand it but they can't understand it truely.

I figured you would have the common sense to realize that something like a screwdriver is not a game. If you want to be postmodern about it, then eating dinner can be a game because you could just barf your food back up upon having an allergic reaction. But no-one in his right mind would think that because a screwdriver is obviously made for driving screws, and unless you think that reality itself has progress then it can't undo your progress.

If you unscrew a screw from a piece of wood, God won't come down and tell you did it wrong. If you die in Path to Exile, you lose some experience (which is clear, quantifiable progress) and are moved back to town. I'm not a Path to Exile expert, so correct me if I'm wrong about the experience thing.

Knife throwing, darts, and any GTA title are obviously games because they have failure states, either stated or implied: missing the knifeboard, scoring lower, or having your health reduced to 0.

I would also count jigsaw puzzles as games, since they have an implied failure state, which is the failure to reach the win state of solving the puzzle.

Everybody who sits in a movie theatre watching Star Wars will have the same experience. The same sequence of images onscreen, to break it down to the brass tacks.

Not everybody who plays Silent Hill 2 is going to have the same experience: some will get the water ending and some won't, some will die fighting the abstract daddies in the hotel and some won't die once. Ignoring the variable of time, even a linear game like CoD4 will have wildly different player experiences based on the mechanics.

I think the difference between us is whether or not we think a tree falling in the forest still makes a sound if no-one is around to hear it. Do you define sound as rarefactions in the air, or as rarefactions in air being interpreted through a microphone/the human ear?
(This is a bit of a poor example since it's scientific, but I believe there is an objective way to define something as art which exists independently of people's perspectives. A tree falling in the forest does make a sound even if no-one's around to hear it.)

Creating motion in a comic book and making it easy for the reader to fill in the gaps is an objectively measurable skill. The human imagination is not something I consider art.

I'd argue that both fall under various definitions of art, but obviously both have different standards for being great. Though I assume you mean more along the lines of playing well or uniquely is a creative skill much like playing an instrument. Even if performing a known song or fixed combo, they're a practiced art.

But that implies that the movie goer brings NOTHING to the experience, which is false, and decades of fandom prove that one work of art can be a very different experience for many people. And if someone gets up, pauses the movie, or just doesn't finish it, they've changed the experience. Your saying because the player can have a measured effect on the outcome of the game (beyond simply not finishing), that it's not art? Why, when the viewer always brings in personal experience, culture and preconceived notions into any work of art they partake in.

So, find me a definition of art that precludes viewer interaction. And then explain where that line is. Hell, watching a movie WITH PEOPLE is experiencing the art in a different way than watching it alone.

I mean more in the aspect that a movie isn't art unless you watch it, and how paintings aren't art unless you view them

But they are tools. If I put a scoreboard one my computer, does that make my os a game?

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what kind of person would consider it a game, it matters if it can be defined as such using your definition. I can throw a screwdriver at the wall and have someone keep score, but it wouldn't be a game because it's a tool?

My point is, your made up definition is shit. I can and (currently am) easily make a mockery of it in the same way you make a mockery of games using your shit definition. I can go on all day about all how all kinds of shit are and aren't "technically" games using your definition and either you have to either change your definition or accept windows 95 as being a game.

sanic you newfaggot

Watch this:
topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-beauty-matters/

It's not about games but the whole thing will make you think about what is the definition of art.

The moviegoer does not change what is actually onscreen. The moviegoer's perceptions are changed by his life experiences and all that jazz, but the movie itself is still the same whether the viewer thinks Luke is a kid from Tatooine or a symbol of African geopolitics.

If the viewer experience adds so much to art, how can anything be known by anyone? If I ask someone "hey, what did you think of the new Wes Anderson film?" then his answer will be irrelevant because we all add SO MUCH to the viewing experience that each experience is impossibly different from the next (frankly, how do I even know he understood what I said?). But simple common sense and experience tells us this isn't the case: if your friend asks you what you thought of a movie, then you tailor your answer to be more receivable for his tastes and opinions, but you aren't overcome with an existential crisis about what it truly means to process information. This is because viewership cannot change art.

Dark Souls as giantdad with 20 estus flasks is fundamentally different from Dark Souls as a rogue with 5 estus flasks. Even two people with the same character will go through the areas in different orders and die to different traps. There is no "right" way to play Dark Souls. You can maximize items, or play it the fastest, or complete it without dying, but the minute-to-minute gameplay will be different for each player. There's no common ground in the same way a movie has common ground.

There's a fundamental difference between interaction and perception.

All you've done so far is prove you're retarded and will stop at nothing to deliberately misinterpret what I say.

The act of gameplay is unique to and necessary to games, and is not art. Therefore, games are not art.

Playing darts with a screwdriver is still playing darts. A screwdriver by itself does not have a clear or implied failure state, and neither does your OS. They are tools. A game, video or traditional, has a failure state which is either stated or implied by its component parts and rules.

Tools don't have rules because they are simply objects that exist within our world. A Fire Flower has rules because it exists within the context of Super Mario Brothers.

But not between art and not art, because you haven't made a case for that. You're trying to treat art like it's a completely objective thing, but it's not, it's subjective in nearly ever aspect except technical. Micheal Bay is TECHNICALLY a talented director, but most would agree he can't make films that are considered "high art". You're saying games do not abide by the same rules you would use to judge older forms of art, but you haven't explained why it's not art.

You're basically saying the experience of art is MORE PERSONAL than other medium, and THAT means it's not art. Look again at the definitions, or look some up on your own, and tell me where the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination does NOT apply to videogames. Because you can make up a reason, but it has NOTHING, objectively, to do with the definition of ART. And if you want art to be objective instead of subjective, it might be best to treat the English language the same way.

Looks like you got lost here, friend.

I didn't say anything about playing darts with a screwdriver, I said throwing a screwdriver. Here's the thing, friend, the reason I specifically mentioned darts and throwing knives are because they are both tools and to throw them is to use them as they are specifically designed. Throwing these two objects at a target is their intended purpose as tools and as a part of a game. That is to say: the act of throwing a throwing knife was not intended to be a game and yet it is and you've acknowledged that is a game even though it's a tool in the same way windows 95 is a tool.

Now, none of this really matters at all. You've already shit the bed when you said " If you want to be postmodern about it, then eating dinner can be a game because you could just barf your food back up upon having an allergic reaction." and "I would also count jigsaw puzzles as games, since they have an implied failure state, which is the failure to reach the win state of solving the puzzle." So long as you control the definition of what a game is, you can consider anything you want to as a game. Thus your definition of game has little meaning because you consider eating dinner a game.

That difference has nothing to do with whether something is "art" or not.

Music doesn't stop being art to the musician, plays don't stop being art to the actors.

how knew r u?

Can you explain what you think the word subjectivity means or implies in that context?

"Eye of the beholder" bullshit.

Can you phrase that in a complete sentence that connects it to what I said?

Reddit Humor Walking Simulator
your game is shit.

You're not my professor. Figure it out yourself.

Did you misinterpret his post and now you're too afraid to admit it?

There, there, user. Everyone plays the fag, sometimes.

...

Fucking kill yourself condescending nigger.
He wrote,
ART IS NOT SUBJECTIVE

And now bring it home and explain how those two statements are contradictory.

And, it would only be considered as "art" (assuming the craftsman is bad) by some narcissistic hipster faggot. It stops being art when you're master tells you it's fucking shit. I once made pasta that was fucking awful, and I was told off for it. I thought it tasted fine, but the chef knows best.

But they aren't.

*assuming I'm thinking of the right statements, of course.

Can playing a game be considered art?

Get fuck out of here, Henry!

You will never have your scuttlebug jamboree.
EVER
V
E
R

Wasn't really a game but it was a funny thing to pass the time with.

Narrator was top notch.

Can't go wrong with Yume Nikki. It's about as classic as they come by this point.

...

...

That's pretty cool Henry, but is there a youtuber more autistic than Pannenkoek2012?
And I'm not just talking about the Pannenkoek that set out to beat mario in as few A presses as possible. I'm talking about the Pannenkoek with knowledge of not only mathematics, but code, and all of Mario 64's levels and enemy placements, with a channel filled with informative videos from his journey, with the scuttlebug raiser, and the ability to travel through QPU's at will. It doesn't stop there. He not only sat through the 12 hours of speed building in real time, but he was working on another run simultaneously with his free eye and counting PU increments with an abacus using his feet. He has not only memorized the conditions of where mario sleeps, but if he can or cannot for every possible place mario can stand in both NA PAL and JP versions of the game. In addition to that, by the time I finish typing this there is a large chance he will also have solved how to kill the mystery gooba without hacks or even emulator tools, thanks to the main channel hiatus that followed his immensely popular commentary video that has earned him a dedicated fanbase and worldwide recognition.

...

Nice

...

...

it's hard to tell whether you win the game or not in stanley parable. the win state is you finding another easter egg or getting a different ending

Yes. You can tell by the fact how theres actual GAMES (AKA contemporary art) and "modern art" games that aren't art, games or anything but pretentious hipster bullshit thats read into way too much

nice

PRAISE JESUS, I WON

Perfect example of how Holla Forums can never just enjoy things.