"And this is rather a problem. As a game, it's pretty boring."

Mm, this is why I've refrained from trying it. Shame really~

dis gamez 5ux0rz

It is pretty sad that it's such an either "love it or hate it" game. So to those who have played it--does finding the items have that big of an impact on how the house looks? To be honest picking them up didn't seem to change much, though I won't know until my next playthrough I guess.

Same with flowers, any incentive to finding all of them? There's no way in hell I'll ever find all of them so that's why I'm curious.

so, it sounds like those games by the guy that made Gravitation. It's more of an experience than a game

I don't get the deal with 'art' games.

A painting is art because it looks nice.
A book is art if it is a good read.
So a game is art if it's fun to play, right.

I'm fine if the developers want to stir up emotion and feelings or whatever, but can't I just have some actual fun while doing so? Not indie, but Mother 3 is a good example.

How would you say this game compares with arty non-game Killer 7?

I really liked this game. It's probably best to play on a lonely evening with nothing else going on, so you can immerse yourself somewhat. On further playthroughs I've gained more insight to how the stories of the girls interconnect, and how it fits with the outcome.
The game's technical problems probably have more to do with the Quest3d engine more than anything -- Quest3d sounds awesome but not if it isn't optimized out-of-box for different computer configurations.
Which brings up the real 'game as art question': Can art have system requirements? Patches? DLC?

********SPOILER ALERT********

(Not really, it's in the manual)
There IS in fact an advantage to going straight to Grandmother's house, at least once!

To give an alternate view from another editor here (albeit one who hardly ever posts), I *did* in fact find the game fun. I don't think it's boring. It's good because it's fun, not because it's artistic. But other than that, factually this review is correct.

It just... seems like the game didn't really touch you the way it touched those of us who like the game. Like you didn't really care about the characters, or something? That's fine, maybe you're not the type of person who likes things like this (anyone who uses terms like "artsy-fartsy" always comes off like an anti-intellectual to me).

@YuRiPa

You obviously haven't looked at a lot of art. We kind of decided that paintings don't have to be pretty to be meaningful about a hundred years ago. If the painting is just pretty, the book just a good read, and the game just a fun way to pass the time, it's a shallow experience. Not that there's a problem with something being enjoyable at face value, but that's usually not something that qualifies as art. Considering video games have been really derivative and market-driven throughout their development, I think it's important to have more 'artsy-fartsy' games like this to assert that the medium can do more than entertain.

Nice game, very deep atmosphere and beautiful setting, however game play meaning is completely screwed - first time I played I walked almost straight and only had few funs in the forest, and guess what - the game told me I have failed, now how can one fail if he did exactly what was said in the beginning? It is like saying "well our game is about discovering different experiences in the forest, you are free to do what you like” and right in few minutes after “oops you discovered too little, failed, start again”. From other perspective I enjoyed the game pretty much.

Yeah, except if you look at the manual (or I've seen it elsewhere as well, on the website I think) it says: "There is one rule in the game. And it needs to be broken.
There is one goal. And when you attain it, you die."

But I agree, it does seem kind of funny--like when I watched that "speedrun" video and they got to Grandma's house safe and sound and it said they failed.

"You obviously haven't looked at a lot of art. We kind of decided that paintings don't have to be pretty to be meaningful about a hundred years ago."

But does something need to be meaningful to be art?

As far as I'm concerned, if it's good, it's art. If it's crap, it's not.
No matter how much meaning someone tries to put into a game, if it fails at what it sets out to be, a game, it's not art.
(File this under opinion. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all if anyone doesn't agree).

(I've not actually played The Path, so I'm not in a place to comment on that specifically, but Van Gogh's Sunflowers hardly has any deep meaning, and nobody hesitates to call that art).

I bought this and I have to say it's awesome. You miss the point in this review: just like how indie movies are made for specific groups of people, not everyone will enjoy a certain brand of horror movie, etc, this game is of the same vein. I think people try to make games that 'everyone' can enjoy. The people behind The Path made a game for a specific type of person: someone who enjoys venturing to the dark corners of the earth, who enjoys surreal experiences.

The Path doesn't suffer from schizophrenia, it's not that it doesn't know what it is. It knows exactly what it is: it's a short horror game. They just left out the "psychological" before the "horror" and they didn't put a warning sticker on it saying "this is an video game experience, not a video game."

Therein lies the rub: people play video games to make themselves feel better (usually about their sorry state in life, or to just unwind) because they fill you with a false sense of accomplishment. Yay! I found the Princess! Yay I killed all the mushroom guys! Yay my Jedi discovered he was really the bad guy's apprentice!

The Path does none of those things, unless you really want to. You can go "yay! I collected all the items in the woods!" and
"yay I got all 144 flowery things!" but that's not really what it's about. There's no sense of accomplishment to The Path, you're basically punished for beating the game by potentially witnessing horrible things happen.

The games as art debate is retarded. Just because the Atari had no graphics capability, it's like that set the standard that games are games and art is art (whatever the heck art is), but that's just wrong on so many levels.

Art is art, it makes you feel something, period, even if it's brief elation over a series of flowing colors. Games make you feel things. Television does (and good television is art and I'm sure someone even considers bad television their art), movies do, paintings do, books do, and games do. EOT.

FYI:

AMD X2 4800+ (3 yrs old)
2 GB RAM
Geforce 260 GTX Core 16 OC
1920x1080 full options turned on
==
22-27 frames per second.

This game is unoptimized, but it still runs at a 'film-like' frame rate and I didn't even notice the low framerate until I looked at my keyboard's OSD.

Wow, sorry for the comment flood. This stupid form isn't saving my personal info.

I take back 'this review misses the point' as it doesn't, there, at the end.

Also, 5.1 sound rocks in this game. They put random girls going "AH!!" in the rear channels randomly to freak you out. Lots of fun.

To the guy who asked about Killer 7: I played Killer 7 and I loved it. Killer 7, however, was actually a game. It gave you objectives, had puzzles to solve, you'd go into first-person to shoot stuff all the time, you could become injured and die, you could increase your health, there was a variety of characters and an elaborate (yet non-sensical somewhat) story line. Killer 7 was by all means an arty game, but it was far more game than The Path.

Killer 7 was 80% game (as in you could edit out all the weird shit and add in normal shit and it would be a game).

The Path is about 10% game. If you cut away the intrigue due to it's weird nature then there would be nothing left but a "walking through the woods collecting random items" simulator.

@Brad: Of course, everyone is going to have different opinions about The Path - there's a whole range of 'excellent' to 'dismal' ratings all over the internet.

The problem with this kind of game is that the levels of entertainment a person can get out of it depend on the person themselves, whereas a game dedicated to being fun has a better chance of fitting everyone's needs.

I personally didn't enjoy The Path that much - many others will. Tale of Tales knew that's what would happen when they began developing it, and I'm sure they are pleased with the response they have provoked.

The best thing of this game probably is the fact that everybody is discussing it right now. Just look around on the web. I think this is a great thing!
This game puts the whole concept of a game into unbalance.
Now we should not start a discussion about what is an art game. I mean: people have been discussing the question "what is art" for decades now, and nothing has ever come out of this discussion. So let's not waste our time!
The interesting discussion is: "What can a game do that we haven't thought of yet?".
Entertainment is as much of a complex concept as art or meaningfulness... there's several ways to entertain and there's thousands of things we can do while entertaining somebody!

I liked The Path a lot. At the beginning I was even wondering why I liked it. The controls where awkward, when walking it felt like slow motion, when running the camera would pan so you could not see where you where going... and then there's this feeling of being lost, of not knowing what to do.
But then it's like being in the woods... and the atmosphere is great! And the characters have depth, and the artwork is just so amazing!
And of course this has a lot to do with me linking David Lynch, Silent Hill and Sisters of Mercy :)
I think the Path is a game. It's just a different type of game... something we should analyse closely to see what more we can do with the media!

It's disappointing that the reviewer refuses to call The Path a game.

I thought indie gamers were supposed to be open to new ideas? Instead, the game is rejected categorically because it (on the surface) doesn't meet with preconceived expectations of what constitutes a game.

I thought indie gamers wanted innovation? Instead, we see it denounced and rejected because it isn't like other games we've played.

This is as much a game as any point and click adventure game. Those are linear stories told with a series of "puzzles" blocking progress between each story segment. So, how are those considered games while The Path (which facilitates non-linear exploration of a story) is not?

Boil away the presentation and look at the mechanics. There's not a lot to adventure games, yet they are a revered form of gaming. And then this game is accused of not being a game at all.

No more whining about a lack of innovation in games. Obviously, not that many people want something new. They just want the same thing repackaged in a slightly different flavor. That's not innovation. That's iteration.

If nothing else, we should all buy this game to support the developers' spirit of exploring the limits of what we call "games."

I think hanzo and jason are absolutely right. I seriously wonder why this should be considered less of a game than Knytt for example, which has been referred to here and there. I think that any program which involves making a narrative unfold by actively exploring a virtual universe deserves the definition ''game'' as well as anything. The Path involves ''playing'' within the bounds set by the authors as much as Resident Evil or Super Metroid ; but while others perform very well at giving thrills, it simply strips the experience and aims straight for a certain sense of wonder and anxiety, which is rarely embraced at such a frank degree. And I personnally think it works very well in that regard.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

I would totally agree that “the path” is a GAME. I also think that the logical approach would be to put every thing that is like a toy or something you can play with into the “games”, the only problem I see with “the path” is the logic behind game mechanics and “game play meaning”, I mean they are not tuned at all, more importantly if we look from the different perspective it gets even worse.

First the collecting of shining boxes, and above all displaying how may you have collected simultaneously puts you into Arcade mechanics, secondly you fail if you don’t get raped or killed, so basically it is it is “world exploration” game with radar, map, targets that are optional and those that are must visit, and finally with some kind of scores even (ranking).

I don’t want to disappoint the artistically targeted audience, yet with this game mechanics and the game play as it is, The Path is much more of a exploration game wrapped in “indie, art”, a very good one, while the actual game experience I would like to see are vague, and disappear soon after you got familiar with atmosphere, visual beauty and music.

Oh and, yes it reminds me of “Lovecraft Game” by cactus.

This is of course a personal reaction, but The Path is the first 'game' I played where I suddenly realized it had tapped into something really deep inside me. While that's happened with other media, this, at least in my personal universe, was a threshold moment for computer-games/video-games. A slim handful of other games have come close, but this one snuck up on me.
Your mileage may vary.

A painting is art because it looks nice.
A book is art if it is a good read.
So a game is art if it's fun to play, right.

No. A painting is art because of a combination of factors: composition, statement, effect, appearance. "looking nice" is only one factor.
A book is art for the same things, substituting "plot" for appearance.

Your criteria would render Klimt worthless, and Thomas Kinkade the master of painting. Dan Brown would be the greatest novelist in history.

Art does not work that way. What you present is important. How you present it is important. the intended effect on the audience is important. but "fun!=good."

"If nothing else, we should all buy this game to support the developers' spirit of exploring the limits of what we call "games.""

Rubbish.

It's a sad day when a game like this is judged purely on the most mechanical aspects. The review reads more like a mainstream gamer trying to understand Flower than anything else, the mechanics of the experience are looked upon and naught else.

It's like looking at a beautiful work of art and commenting on the state of the frame, the rate of decay of the canvas, and a little colour bleeding here and there without actually paying even the slightest attention to what's on the canvas. Some people refuse to allow themselves to be immersed by art and drawn into another person's mind, and that's what I see happening here.

It's a shame, really.

I found The Path to be a beautiful experience, and not every beautiful experience has to be a flowery, fairytale land. This one was maudlin, self-absorbed, and dark, but none the less beautiful for it. I found a lot there to think about, to analyse, and even to analyse my reactions to. This is some of the best interactive art I've seen.

That some people won't get it and will just look for mainstream gaming elements in it instead, and be disappointed when they find none, is disappointing to me, I'd be disappointed with them as people, but it's their loss, and not the fault of The Path that they can't feel or perceive it for what it is.

Sometimes you have to move outside hard defined lines like "Art" and "Game" and feel around for yourself, figure out what things are for yourself, and see what you find. If you go in with forced expectations, then don't expect to get anything out of an experience in return. The World's going to be as flat tomorrow as it was yesterday.

"The Path" seems to me like "Alone In The Dark" from 1992 put in different context of presentation. AITD games from 90's era were quite mysterious and messed up.

Assume that "Alone in the Dark (1992)" is about exploration and not a conventional game and you'll have *similar* experience.

I think there's something missing by suggesting you must have an appreciation of art to like this game.

The fact is, this game is a world and an experience. If you want to explore that world, get inside of -- if not entirely to the bottom of -- that experience, and if you approach this with a modicum of curiosity, as something to explore, much like you might like exploring a psychological horror novel, then this game / story will take you away and give you a very rewarding experience. The artistry will actually make it all the more intense and emotionally involving, just like a well-written thriller might do.

If, however, you find getting absorbed by a story to be boring and you'd rather be getting off on mock violence and power trips by killing things and developing yourself into a godlike, irresistable force, like every other game out there, then you should do that.

"So a game is art if it's fun to play, right."

I don't think that's necessarily true; or at least that's not the only means to the end. I think a game can qualify as art if it's sufficiently immersive, and invests you in an emotional experience in a way that other mediums are unable to. So while I wouldn't call Shadow of the Colossus 'fun' (in the same way that I might Mario Party, for example) I would absolutely say that it is art. Saying that a game requires 'fun' to be art is like saying that a movie has to be pleasing and happy to qualify.

So, I figured that I should answer a few questions about this game, and then follow up with a few comments of my own. I'm not sure if you'd call them spoilers or not, but read them if you desire. I'm aware this is kind of out of date...

First off, yes, the house does change a lot depending on the objects you find in the forest, however, some objects will just idly make an appearance in the house, while others, ones specific to a certain girl, will unlock doors and let you explore entirely new areas, after all, you couldn't think the doors around grandmas house were all inaccessible could you? A different one will open up for each girl when unlocked.

As for the flowers, they too have a purpose. You are in no way obligated to find all the flowers, that's not what they're there for. Occasionally, you'll find a flower and it will show you the location of an item the girl you are currently helping can interact with.

One of the important things to realize about this game disturbs me. The Path IS a game, however, it is not a game you PLAY, it is a game you observe and progress. The girls that you "play" as are not there for you to become, you are there to help them along their "path". Each girl will interact sometimes with things on her own, do things you don't expect her to or want her to. What is important about the game is to focus on the girl herself and her emotions. The more you start to care for your character, the more meaningful and even "fun" the experience therein becomes.

What saddens me, is that people judge it so frequently on it's appeal in terms of "entertainment", however that is completely based upon ones opinion of a game. When one realizes that a flower is a flower, and a rose is a flower, they can see the rose as nothing but a flower, yet its characteristics are completely different than that of a daisy, deep down in it, it works the same way, it functions like a daisy, it is a flower, a daisy is a flower. But a rose is not a daisy. So certainly, The Path doesn't compare to Halo 3, or the Final Fantasy series, these "games" are well accepted by the public and have become what people look out for, but in the same way, it is as much of a game as either of them are. Yes, you have goals and certain elements from the community's idea of gaming, but that obsessive obligation to judge things is something, I was under the impression, most "gamers" and especially those who consider themselves "indie" didn't rely on.

It has also been judged on its "meaning". Metaphorical and unconventional, the game comes across as being one seeking to show you a deeper meaning. Here is where I smile, everything is meaningful. Whether it is created with the intention of meaning something more, or is simply created to be a "game" it holds meaning, all it takes it some concentration and half a brain to understand that, but that half just has to be able to delve deeper.

There are shooters and RPGs and, in this case, Art GAMES. This is considered an Art Game for a reason, do not distrust the gameplay, and do not be turned off by it.

Play the game, decide for yourself. I'd hate to see you miss out because you refuse to understand what it is.

@Dan: Well, hm. Van Gogh's Sunflowers reveals a deeper meaning when considered in the context of Van Gogh's religious upbringing and the tradition of Dutch allegory. But perhaps that's neither here nor there. And I liked 'The Path,' but I agree it's not for everyone.

lol, duchamp, fountain, art is whatever the hell you want, there are no beurocratic boxes to fill in. i do find it very annoying that i found a website called indigames (joy) then realized it was like indi music, not actually what it stands for, ideologically at least.

I recently completed this "game" and I have to say I'm very disappointed. Yes, the scenery is pretty - not the best I've seen by far but rather okay. As someone who isn't a fan of shoot 'em games but is a dedicated fan of fairy tales I was excited about playing this. Here you go: You wander around the woods, collect items, collect flowers (which are worthless to pick up as stated by the game's creator), encounter a metaphorical wolf and die. I understand this "game" is about exploring and such, but in games like that there are stories to the exploring. The Path does not have this. You get tidbits about the girls which I can only assume you're supposed to use to make up your own stories about them. If so, I can understand why people say this game is so good. They played the game like me, were confused by the sparsity of storyline, thought out their own, and then figured they were smart enough to have discovered the "real" meaning of the game. Wrong. If you want to argue this is art - sure, I absolutely agree. Anything anyone creates is considered art. However, this is not a GAME despite being marketed as one. This isn't even an "artsy" game. The developer should have left out the x/144 flowers and just called it an interactive artistic landscape with limited choices.

I can't believe none of you have found the minigun yet.

Wait? You had a problem with Flower? Sorry, that kind of instantly tells me that your review is useless for my tastes.

Flower is among my favorite games of all time.

THE PATH really sucked, how do i get my money back? Their FAQ mentions nothing about people hating the game and refunds, and the demo makes it look like there might be more to the game once you reach grandmas (there isn't).

all you do is walk around for hours, there is no point, no ending, no objective. Think GTA but just walking, no fighting or hitting or guns or any of it, just... walk.... and objects you find make no difference in the game. Horrible game, if you can call it a game.

I really feel like I was scammed. 419 nigerian scammers could learn something from these con-artists.

This was a great game! Really beatiful. Sort of a metaphorical game. About life. I love it.

Okay....here's my take on things.

I had no expectations for this game. The controls are god-awful (and I think it was intended that way), the girls all move like a snail drowning in an ocean. The only time you get some freedom of movement is when you run, but that would negate everything you're trying to do.

Really, the only time you have any control in this game is when you run. Other than that, you pretty much have very little control of your character.

However, at the same time, just seeing them walk around, and going to places, you do (or I actually) become somewhat attached to them. It's a sense of empathy/ sympathy if you like to put it. You just feel so sorry for them because you know you're the one responsible for getting them "killed"

So basically, I had no idea what would happen when I would a meet a wolf. So I started out as Ginger, walked around the woods for a couple of hours doing random things before....it's time to go see the Wolf. Now here's the part where I started feeling guilty. The closer I got to the Wolf, the more and more guilty I felt, the more tension I felt, it's almost as if I want to turn back. And that music starts playing when you get close to the Wolf. Now, I have no freaking idea what's gonna happen.

But for a 300 MB game...I was shocked at how good the cutscene was. The cutscene was just beautiful when you meet the Wolf. And you see them interact, and do various things, and yeah....it's pretty disturbing and freaky. Ginger's wolf was incredibly disturbing I found.

And then you walk into Grandmother's House....and all I have say is goddamn...that was some of the freakiest scenes of any game I've played. I mean damn that was just twisted, disturbing, painful, and just plain extraordinary at the same time.

So, this game isn't really scary per se, until you meet the Wolf...and then from there it just becomes a complete headtrip.

The "gameplay" is boring and mundane, yes, but that's not the point of this game. The point is seeing what happens to the girls.....