no idea why i didn't play this sooner, these games were pretty important to me back in the day and it's a rock-solid conclusion to the series as well. though, plunging back into clementine's world after so many years spent apart did cheer up an otherwise unremarkable birthday - nothing soothes the soul like saying hi to an old friend.
it's possible (guaranteed actually) that i'm being a bit sentimental because of my attachment to this series and to clem's character, because while playing i did feel some reservations about this cinematic choice-driven genre of games that telltale pioneered - as much as i like the series, a lot of it is tied up in my personal view of its themes and characters. it's hard to tell when i'm reading depth into the narrative that's not truly present, or when the game actually accounts for my feelings and choices in a meaningful way. it's hard to tell whether this story being told through branching choices just adds extra fluff that dilutes the storytelling potential by spreading itself thin, or whether it's the whole reason these games are any good at all, by allowing clem's journey to be dictated so personally. i'm really not sure. even if you're satisfied with how the game followed through on your choices, what does it mean that the game offers you that other choice? if the game always feels compelled to craft an interesting and satisfying narrative out of whatever you choose, to what extent can it really assert its themes? this isn't actually too big of an issue because the range of outcomes is never as big as the game ideally wants you to think they are, but that connects to another problem: that is, whether these games take proper advantage of the medium. it feels like at its best you fall for the illusion that contingency is allowed for on a level that meaningfully extends beyond minor interactions, but it's just that, an illusion; once you look behind the curtains and start noticing the seams it's all a little cheapened. part of the problem is how contextual the design is - undertale is pretty railroaded too, but your choices always feel meaningful because they're not actually "choices" at all; the game is just reacting to what you do in gameplay. i know i'm not blowing anyone's mind by saying all that - everyone knows how these games work by now - but still, it leaves me wondering if these would actually be better off if they were just films.
of course, this is all just in that far-off realm of theories and hypotheticals. in truth, the fact that these are games probably accounts for most of the charm. the weird 3d-cartoon aesthetic (which looks great here, btw!), the robotic movements and silly exaggerated expressions that switch on a dime, the contrived ways in which dramatic choices are set up for you, the compulsion to walk around and inspect everything, check every corner, even if it's at complete odds with the tone of the scene. these sure seem like imperfections, but spend enough time with these games and all their little blemishes start to look so very beautiful. why yes, i want to play the dumbest, shallowest QTEs and minigames you can throw at me. why yes, i want to replay 15 god damn minutes because i forgot to check a corner which hid some stupid collectible, or because i misclicked a dialogue option, or because clem just didn't say what it said she would say. bathe me in your lovely acid.
uh oh im doing an anti-intellectualism. idk. i'm not sure what my point here is, actually. kinda just did the writing equivalent of spinning around in a circle until you become dizzy. which i do a lot actually but im better at hiding it usually i think. maybe i just wanted to wax lyrical about liking art even when its foundations are flawed. because its foundations are flawed. i'm not sure where the line is on whether analysis should be descriptive or prescriptive. maybe the bottom line here is just that i have bad taste actually. anyway i wrote too much to throw this in the trash so im just gonna click that post button real quick. here's to regrets
it's possible (guaranteed actually) that i'm being a bit sentimental because of my attachment to this series and to clem's character, because while playing i did feel some reservations about this cinematic choice-driven genre of games that telltale pioneered - as much as i like the series, a lot of it is tied up in my personal view of its themes and characters. it's hard to tell when i'm reading depth into the narrative that's not truly present, or when the game actually accounts for my feelings and choices in a meaningful way. it's hard to tell whether this story being told through branching choices just adds extra fluff that dilutes the storytelling potential by spreading itself thin, or whether it's the whole reason these games are any good at all, by allowing clem's journey to be dictated so personally. i'm really not sure. even if you're satisfied with how the game followed through on your choices, what does it mean that the game offers you that other choice? if the game always feels compelled to craft an interesting and satisfying narrative out of whatever you choose, to what extent can it really assert its themes? this isn't actually too big of an issue because the range of outcomes is never as big as the game ideally wants you to think they are, but that connects to another problem: that is, whether these games take proper advantage of the medium. it feels like at its best you fall for the illusion that contingency is allowed for on a level that meaningfully extends beyond minor interactions, but it's just that, an illusion; once you look behind the curtains and start noticing the seams it's all a little cheapened. part of the problem is how contextual the design is - undertale is pretty railroaded too, but your choices always feel meaningful because they're not actually "choices" at all; the game is just reacting to what you do in gameplay. i know i'm not blowing anyone's mind by saying all that - everyone knows how these games work by now - but still, it leaves me wondering if these would actually be better off if they were just films.
of course, this is all just in that far-off realm of theories and hypotheticals. in truth, the fact that these are games probably accounts for most of the charm. the weird 3d-cartoon aesthetic (which looks great here, btw!), the robotic movements and silly exaggerated expressions that switch on a dime, the contrived ways in which dramatic choices are set up for you, the compulsion to walk around and inspect everything, check every corner, even if it's at complete odds with the tone of the scene. these sure seem like imperfections, but spend enough time with these games and all their little blemishes start to look so very beautiful. why yes, i want to play the dumbest, shallowest QTEs and minigames you can throw at me. why yes, i want to replay 15 god damn minutes because i forgot to check a corner which hid some stupid collectible, or because i misclicked a dialogue option, or because clem just didn't say what it said she would say. bathe me in your lovely acid.
uh oh im doing an anti-intellectualism. idk. i'm not sure what my point here is, actually. kinda just did the writing equivalent of spinning around in a circle until you become dizzy. which i do a lot actually but im better at hiding it usually i think. maybe i just wanted to wax lyrical about liking art even when its foundations are flawed. because its foundations are flawed. i'm not sure where the line is on whether analysis should be descriptive or prescriptive. maybe the bottom line here is just that i have bad taste actually. anyway i wrote too much to throw this in the trash so im just gonna click that post button real quick. here's to regrets