I often struggle with abstract stories and ideas. A childhood of Montana education systems and Nostalgia Critic videos have sort of poisoned my mind to largely view text as literally as possible. At the same time, I really treasure the unexplained in stories. Its hard as a writer to leave something up to interpretation, but it adds a layer of discussion and analysis to a work that I think so many stories tend to lack.

The idea of Games As Art is a hard topic because it slams right into that question of what exactly makes something art. I'm not looking to point fingers at any group of people online, so I'll just fill in David Cage as my strawman. Your David Cage types think the Games As Art question is all about creating something that everyone loves and adores without thinking too much deeper than that. I generally tend to imagine art needs to serve a purpose. An argument, an idea. But that's not fair either, forcing a requirement that a story shouldn't be beholden to. Maybe I don't know how to define art. Maybe I'm not supposed to.

I don't know how to define Kentucky Route Zero either. Its an ambitious story that somehow feels low-scale despite the full reach of its ideas. So much of the story leaves itself to your own imagination. Building up characters and backstories to your own leisure. You aren't controlling everything per se, but you are shaping things. Interpreting them. Its not a game where choices matter or change things. You can't stop the direction of the story. You can't keep every character safe. But... your choices still matter. It matters in the sense that you made those choices. They matter to you.

Tl:dr

The critically acclaimed game is good and made me cry.