Alexander Bruce has stated repeatedly that the game was a metaphor for life, which made the line "but thanks to the build up I was expecting some kind of climactic encounter at the end, which the final sequence failed to deliver" pretty funny xD While I like the game a lot more than you seem to do, it's still a very good review addressing the strengths and weaknesses of Antichamer.
I always felt like the game was putting an emphasis on the artistic part, what I enjoyed was making progress and wander this trippy universe, it was putting me in a state of trance and wonder, and I liked it. I can't disagree on the fact that the gameplay and puzzles were somewhat sloppy and wonky, not well integrated, but the goal of the game itself always seemed to be, in my opinion, a one-time experience.
***** It really depends on the goal of the game itself, and how you, the player, see videogames in general; Journey is an artistic concept, much like Flowers, or Okami, a concept is something that might or not appeal to the player, a bet. Some games are thought as games, basically, they're meant to be fun, to be played and enjoyed, whilst others are seen as interactive art, they're meant to provide an experience to the player. I didn't liked Flowers, because I simply didn't liked what the game was about, the feeling that came from it, but loved Okami and Journey. Nowadays many games try to be games with an extra artistic value (Not to mention, most of the time capitalizing on it..), but often screw that up completely because they miss the whole point of gaming, games like Uncharted, TLOU, some FPS and other reference see games as movies, it's full of semi-interactive sequences where the player is put in a place where he's more of a spectator than a player, passive and uninteresting sequences with a strong Micheal Bay-ish influence, when the game itself seriously lacks of thought. Or even Ocarina of Time, by giving a more important place to the story and lore, the game required a lot of backtracking, you're being obligated to do a bunch of non-sens in order to make progress in the game, instead of just being able to keep up your adventure, you have to talk to a NPC to receive an item to go to another area of the game you would have visited anyway. Talking to the NPC was unecessary and obnoxious, since it sanction every progression you can make in the game until you completed that. It's cool to try to tell a story through the game, but it should never be more important than the game itself, it should be considered as an extra value, like in Demon's Souls, you can complete the game without paying attention to the lore or talking to any NPCs at all, it's very enjoyable, but it does not take too much place to the detriment of the gameplay. I'm not sure if it's very clear, english isn't my first language.
***** Well, MGS4 had this strong american influence.. It's not a bad thing, but it was such a sudden change, it felt kinda weird. There also were way too much cutscenes, it's a common thing in the serie, but it was too much, too long, after act 1 and 2 the game really felt too much directed, the time you played was very short and would always be followed by a cutscene. The thing is, the MGS series has always been full of movies reference, MGS and Kojima are very influenced by the cinema, it was always very subtle, and it translated in the mise-en-scène and artistic direction, while MGS4 was just a big movie. (30 hours of cut-scenes. 30 HOURS!!)
Regarding the signs, one thing that marred the experience for me (other than the goofy drawings that clashed with the style) was the placement of them. Most of them are placed AFTER the puzzle you just solved. If they'd been placed beforehand they might've felt like helpful hints, but instead it feels more like a condescending "this is the life lesson you have just learnt. Look, see how it applies to real life!"
I've heard similar complaints from other reviewers about the block puzzles, but I've never actually agreed with them. The main draw of antichamber is experimenting with and coming to an understanding of the game's bizarre mechanics, which is still present when using blocks. Each block except for the introductory blue one behaves in bizarre ways which are never completely explained and require the player to fiddle and experiment with, creating a similar sense of wonder. While I do agree that there was perhaps a missed opportunity in the amount of wall mounted puzzles on display, I don't think that the mechanics of the blocks are inherently at odds with the brain bending nature of the game's early puzzles.
did you actually watch the whole review? he mentioned that he actually likes the block puzzles a lot, and might have even enjoyed the game more if the focus was placed entirely on the puzzles. his complaint was that the exploration mechanics and the puzzle-solving mechanics are too far separated and there's a lot of missed potential.
I watched the video through to it's entirety. His comments seemed to imply that he felt the blocks were just uninteresting compared to everything else in game, which I disagree with.
i don't know how you inferred that when he specifically says multiple times that he enjoyed the block puzzles a lot and would have liked more in-depth puzzles
The block puzzles *DO* work with the exploration aspect: there are areas that aren't obvious how to get to, or are even obviously _there_ which doesn't sound like it makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't unless you've played it. The block guns aren't just a means to open doors, but also a means to get around spatially, And help you reach them. Further, as your guns evolve so does your freedom and ease of navigation, and also as your ability to understand and use the guns increase. It's easy to point out how the elements don't work together, but how the hell *would you use* the viewports with the blocks? I genuinely want an example that doesn't involve using the blocks as keys to activate them and becomes needlessly obtuse. It feels like the only reason it is mentioned is because it has such a strong initial impact, but it's still functionally a teleporter. Why is it fair to demand that this game incorporates interaction with them when you don't use teleportation in zelda games as anything other than simplifying navigation?
still waiting for a horror game in a claustrophobic non-euclidean setting. part of the advantage of horror in games opposed to other media is that the scares can be randomized and unpredictable; we just need more wrinkles like non-euclidean geometry to make something truly disorienting, unnerving, and terrifying.
F.E.A.R. is one to come to mind. I'm not very into the horror genre but I've occasionally watched MangaMinx and she's definitely more than once come into situations where space would get distorted in the same way that this game does.
I agree with most of your points, but the block puzzles stopped being interesting for me after a while. The last quarter of the game was a chore, I only finished it to get it over with.
i finished antichamber without ever picking up the red gun. it wasn't until i saw a review of the game on youtube i discovered that there actually was a red gun.
It has a clock on the wall that counts down. I used to think it pointless, but it's there for a reason. It's a draining game to the point where the game might've been better off being explicit about taking a break. I didn't finish it the first time around, despite enjoying it a lot. I recently started over on it, and taking breaks, even short ones - which is something I tend not to do, as I think it messes with the pacing of some games if I stop at the wrong point. However, this game is paced with the breaks in mind, instead of implementing any artificial breaks itself, like most linear games do - which is difficult to do in anything this open, not to mention nontraditional. Like most things, more man hours and resources would've benefited the project, probably exponentially in this case as it's practically a one man job, but he built something that takes a break from the norm, and as such has mitigated value if treated as such. It always comes across as defensive and pretentious to say someone has played it wrong, but the designer can't force you to eat so you're mentally prepared for more, or get you to take a break by turning the game off, without aggravating the player in another way, so the last bit you said is probably the best advice to give to people playing the game; you need to let it sit for a while.
Excellent video. I picked this game up as part of a Humble Bundle a while ago and enjoyed what I've played. I feel it deserves more recognition than it's earned, and it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one.
Great video Matthew, I don't think I ever would have said anything bad about this game, but you make some interesting points. Thanks for the video, keep on making more!
Good review, but I have to disagree with you when it comes to saying that the pictures were disconnected from the abstract puzzles. They were there to connect the abstraction of the game to real life. The texts were always given after a puzzle was solved, letting you know the lesson directly learnt from solving the puzzle. The pictures accompanying them showed that the lesson learnt was by no means specific to the puzzle, but could be applied to challenges in life, and finally the board in the hub showed the pictures coming together to show a synopsis of someone's life and at what event in their life they had to learn these lessons. You may not agree, but I think this is amazing! That it is arguably the entire point of the game. I say arguably, I mean literally, I've seen interviews from the developer :)
This is one of those games that you can argue against any criticisms, because it is unique. With that said, your arguments seem reasonable, and if the creator ever cares to make a sequel, he should definitely consider some things that you mentioned. Less use of the gun, and more using the visuals to solve the puzzles. I do like this game, and I agree with you, sort of. Although, for the map, I can't see it done well without it. Too many people would just quit because of how confusing the layout is. Though, they should have put in more landmarks to make later areas more memorable.
You do get the impression with a lot of these weird games, that they all want to become the next Portal. But it's starting to look more and more like Portal was really a combination of luck and being there at the right time. I mean even the creators couldn't match it with the sequel or the major disappointment that was Quantum Conundrum.
Sometimes I wish Portal had never been as popular as it was, solely because of the number of idiots who drove that 'THE CAKE IS A LIE XD' meme into the ground. One thing they did do right with the sequel was only bringing it up once. The other thing was taking on Steve Merchant for most of the VO work.
jordan windsor I'm not the OP, but I agree with him, and hopefully my opinion of why 1 is better can adequately explain his gripes as well. Portal 2 has a pretty damn good multiplayer and other kinds of puzzles that are also usually good, yeah, but it also has some major problems with pacing, or, to be more specific, thinking that it's the funniest thing on the planet. There are times in Portal 2 where it stops becoming a first person puzzle game entirely in exchange for a comedy that you can also look around in. Don't get me wrong, it's usually funny IMO, but the longer I sit on my first playthrough or revisit it, the less I laugh, and the less I laugh, the less fun it is for those scenes to play out. Repeat playthroughs have lowered my opinon of the game at a pretty consistent rate, and I'm very confident that's the reason why. Imagine someone that doesn't think Portal's brand of humor is funny at all (which is fine because humor is one of the most subjective things on the planet); unlike in P1 where the dialogue is usually put over you playing, or the mandatory humor is a lot fewer and farther between, 2 features longer and more frequent bits of comedy that, if you cannot find it humorous for whatever reason, is completely shot. It's not necessarily a flaw that its humor cannot be reached to everyone, in fact I appreciate that they try to be cerebral and dark despite its tendency to divide the people who enjoy it and don't, but it is a flaw that they do not provide those people with proper recompense, or a way to prevent these pretty extended bouts of, what is to them, nothing good, happen. If you are a game that focuses on two things, one that can be justified in a very universal sense (the puzzles), and the other that is much more subjective (the humor), you're going to have to realize that not everyone can make it there for both. That's really my MAJOR problem with 2, but there a few other critiques I could give (the white gel is a little contrived and boring in comparison to the blue and orange). It's still a great game in my eyes, by the way. 1 is just better more consistently.
***** I found Portal 2 too hard, compared to the first one. I enjoy a difficult game (Dark Souls etc.) but maybe I'm a bit of a wuss when it comes to puzzles.
Another excellent video as always Matthew, I'm impressed by your analysis and reviewing skills. You really dissect every detail of a game down to a 'T'. I love your work and keep it up! One quick question though before I disappear, although the answer is perhaps extremely obvious. Will you review Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain when it releases?
Nazareadain Yes I have and I really enjoyed the game despite it's short length. The stealth gameplay is great and I love the realistic approach to stealth, the improved, smoother controls, beautiful graphics and intelligent Ai and map design. I have high hopes for The Phantom Pain! :)
I think this could have emphasized the nonlinearity a bit more, to say there are multiple ways of reaching each bottleneck so most puzzles aren't mandatory. If you can't solve one, there is likely a way around it. I wonder what you thought of the dev rooms as bonus puzzles/easter eggs. Some of them were really tricky to get to. It's true that there were great block puzzles and great puzzles with other mechanics, but they didn't mesh well too often. Still, a great first playthrough isn't much to complain about, but it leaves you wishing for more of this style. I don't see the red gun as disappointing, though. The ability to fill areas was used in some pretty interesting ways, if I recall correctly. Although some of its trickiest uses would be for optional dev room puzzles. One interesting thing I've seen the dev mention is that Antichamber's puzzles are meant to be easily and quickly solvable once you know the solution. That's something I really enjoyed, but there are still a few puzzles that involve really fiddly gun usage.
Fantastic stuff as always. It's great to see this game have some more discussion around it. Despite its flaws I think it is an experience worth having, particularly the first hour or so. Thanks Matthew!
I never really got into this game. To me the biggest challenge was getting around. They never made it clear, at least as far as I remember, that there would be several different guns. I tried solving puzzles I wasn't able to solve yet. The actual perspective puzzles, which are the main draw of the game, were far too easy.
I for one agree with you completely both myself and streamers I've seen play this spend a lot of time attempting to manipulate the initially encountered green blocks shortly after receiving the blue gun to no avail and it can be quite some time before you come across the green gun and realise your folly
Jake Dingo I probably had the same problem as Matthew, after getting the yellow gun, I couldn't figure out what it did differently. Specially since it introduced a new command button to the controller, the mouse scroll wheel. The reason I feel the yellow gun is problematic, is that it is not intuitive. you can maybe dismiss my issue and say it needs to lateral thinking, but the fact is that you could miss the prompt on how to use the green gun and never miss a step. Not so with the yellow one. Noticing the writing on the wall was not a puzzle I had to solve until that point either. This ended up adding 3-5 hours of gameplay and most people would just stop at that point. I didn't want to rely on faqs, since I felt that for that particular game it would miss the point. I wanted to "outsmart" the game. Unfortunatly after I found out the new function, the puzzles seemed straightfoward.
I always liked the spacial impossibility ideas presented in Antichamber, as well as the minimalist, cryptic style. The hints on the wall and the map, etc, these things I could have done without. I came up with my own version of an Anti-chamber style game which would take some basic ideas of puzzle elements (thinking outside the box and reaching beyond human/physical possibility into the endless void of human imagination basically) and would incorporate it into a horror game with a commentary on the nature of video games, it's effect on players, artificial intelligence, etc. I think the abstract visuals and physical impossibilities of Antichamber give it a creepy vibe that could be extended into outright horror territory if applied correctly. No more brick puzzles though, and no more "guns" of any kind. And much more heavy emphasis on surrealism.
Antichamber always gave me Hypercube vibes. Also, I thought there are plenty of landmarks. The tower, the life room, the bridge you must walk slow on, the door you can only pass with your back to it, the HMMM..., WTF?, WALK, FLY room, the room with the two boxes enclosed in a block destroying field, the Don't look down room etc.
the first hour or so leading up to the gun/puzzle aspects are worth the price of admition alone. definitely a great game and matthew sums it all up pretty well
The atmosphere of this game is like a light hearted version of Cube 2: Hypercube, with all the white space, its the good kind of minimalism. I've never been good at puzzles (I quit Portal in frustration, not realising I was 2 chambers away from the end) and they are the kind games I'd rather watch someone else play than play myself, which is what I did with Portal 2. Hypnotoad of Hypnotoad productions did a pretty good playthough of Antichamber. I recall Marathon on the Apple had a usermade map called '5-D Space' that had a huge room with a series of portals that interconnected throughout that room. IIRC, Marathon was the first FPS to have rooms stacked on top of each other, and the first to let you look up and down (in a limited fashion).
i took about 6 hours for my first playthrough, under 1 hour with my second playthrough. this doesnt say anything about the games quality but more of how simple it is once you understand it, which is where the games concept really shines.
I think the only problem with the non-euclidian layout is that it becomes routine. Those puzzles are really neat when you first run into them, but when you have to re-traverse them a dozen or so times just to get around, they lose all that charm almost immediately.
That's not what non-Euclidean geometry means at all. Non-Euclidean space is just a space that does not have a flat space metric- I.e. Parallel lines do not stay the same distance apart. The surface of a sphere is an example of non-Euclidean geometry. This game does not have geometry really and is just nonsense as you've kind of pointed out.
Actually a more accurate description is that the layout of this game cannot be continuously embedded in Euclidean 3-dimensional space. Presumably (and quite likely) there is some other manifold with a non-euclidean metric, as you say, in which the layout of the game *could* be continuously embedded
I actually never did some of the puzzles and dont even think I found one of the guns. The exploration element seems to be a way to add replayability or at least choice. Your assertion that ou may not have solved some of the puzzles 'correctly' is actually very plausible.
i consider that ending one of the strongest parts of the game loved lexx in my childhood to with interesting stuff happening with very moody mood but no generic explanation
Yeah, I've watched the process myself. A youtuber that started off with a good attitude, really chill and entertaining. But the fame got to him and he became a fucking annoying pewdiepie clone.
I couldn't really get into this. I enjoyed a few of the rooms, and it was fun to have those 'eureka' moments every so often, but I admittedly got disinterested very quickly. Not to mention I couldn't play more than 20 mins before feeling queasy, motion sickness and all that.
+Benjamin McLean I know this comment is a year old, but I still felt this was an interesting question. Many puzzle-games with a narrative are built with puzzles that you can solve once and only once. Any time after that won’t feel nearly as rewarding. That said though, I do think it’s fair to ask a game with puzzles to have replay-value. The solution to that would be to not have the puzzles entirely unique and straight-forward, but intuitive and flexible instead. One of the most basic examples of that is, of course, Tetris. There’s an infinite number of possible playthroughs, the player must make decisions that shape the "level" that he must play in, and the further it gets, the more it challenges the player, making this mechanic interesting for all players of varying skills. The true challenge as a game-designer is to take such a mechanic and create a narrative for it that works in tandem with said mechanic. It’s certainly not easy, especially since the problem with mechanics like Tetris would be that it’s a game that you WILL lose to eventually. But a perfect puzzle-game like that is not unthinkable either - and there are a bunch of games, not necessarily puzzle-games, that have one definite start and one definite goal, but a multitude of ways to go about it, making it fun for everyone - less skilled players can take the easier route, more skilled players can try over and over again to take more challenging routes and test their skills. As it is now, Antichamber is like a Jigsaw-Puzzle, when it could be a Rubik’s Cube. I do think it’s reasonable that Matthew would judge this game to have replay-value, or at the very least, ask it to compensate appropriately for it. Just because a game is set up to be playable only once, doesn’t mean that this is the BEST option for the game.
+Benjamin McLean That clearly wasn't the case with Portal. I played through Portal multiples times, thus extending the value of the game, which wasn't the case with Antichamber. A genre shouldn't be excused if it lacks something as fundamental as value. Portal is a puzzle game that invites repeated playthroughs and this should be reflected in reviews.
I honestly didn't really like some of the puzzles in Antichamber. I didn't pick up on the hint that the block color corresponded to the gun color, but that was because when you encounter most of those puzzles, you've only found the first one or two guns and probably haven't solved every puzzle you can solve with them. As a consequence, it was really frustrating from time to time. I really loved the exploration of non-euclidean space and some of the trickery involved with that, but in the end, I felt like the game was just making me do tedious puzzles before letting me play around in weird space again. It's as you said: The non-euclidean playground and the puzzles just don't mix very well and I might have enjoyed the puzzles more if the game hadn't taught me to expect some clever space-bendy stuff. I felt like the game was giving me an amazingly fun toy (strutting around non-euclidean space) and then made me do math homework before I could play some more.
it is interesting how material is being thematised. Some outlines in this clearly digital world are looking very much like drawn pencil lines. I wonder why they look that way instead of being crisp digital lines
I feel this suffers from the innovators risk. The non-Euclidian scenario is a new mechanic and it's significance to the whole piece wasn't clear even to the creator during the building processes. Since it's a mechanic with few comparables in gaming, it's harder to design for it and to integrate it seamlessly. For us, with the ability of hindsight, it's easier to see where it's great and where it doesn't fit. Of course that does not excuse something from critique, but I believe it has to be considered as an intrinsic characteristic of innovative enterprises. It is hard to make something really good, especially so if it's newish. Its value is not only as a stand alone, but also as a steping stone for future games. It's like how there were other mp3 players before the iPod or how Microsoft presented tablets in the 90's that never caught on. I should mention that I like your review, agree with most of it and that I'm not saying you should be more lenient in your view or review of the game. I'm just saying that I find its flaws more excuseable since I see it as part of something bigger than itself. And that I understand if what was really interesting about the game was shoved aside for gun puzzles because it was what the designer could expect his audience would be more familiar and interested in (like the comparables I mentioned).
There is a part of the game you are missing, this game as it said on one of signs is said "Life is not about getting to the end". If you know what you are doing, or you are just lucky you can get to the end of the game exploring like 5-10% of it, true fun and challange is finding all the secrets that are there, and hardest to find out of them does not use a cube gun at all in it's puzzles, just all other mechanics of the game put together in creative way
I feel like the ending of the game was purposeful. The game's ending is a big build up, and then an Anti-Climax. Life is a struggle, and you don't get what you expect or want when the end comes. At best, you can feel a sense of a closure. I also liked the life chamber because.. it's an art gallery. By putting all those objects into a shared space, it makes it clear that they're not clues to any puzzles. They're just the artist's work put there to be appreciated on their own merit.
came back to see just how boring this video was post watch edit: compared to his other videos it is a bit on the boring end, but it’s still far more watchable than most other gaming related content on youtube
"Non-euclidean space as opposed to normal 3d space" (around 2-3 minute) Yeah no. This game has nothing to do with non-euclidean geometries (based only on the footage included in this video). Also I really don't think this kind of map design would be any easier to design than your standard 3d fpp game, as you suggested. I'd think the map was designed with many portal-like transitions all over the place. If someone knows how it was actually programmed I'd be glad to know!
The game actually has some very well hidden rooms that sort of visually explain a lot of the programming behind everything. If you're familiar with the idea of culling (where things that are off camera are unloaded to preserve resources) it uses a very similar thing for a lot of those space warping moments. With the staircase example, once you've turned the corner and the game knows you can't see the previous room anymore it unloads it and replaces it with the new path that you're intended to turn around and go down. The game actually requires you to do realize this for a certain puzzle where a hint is dropped not to take your eye off the prize, and doing the logical thing of turning around to grab a cube to unlock a door causes to the door to disappear by the time you turn around. Similarly for the viewports, once you've walked close enough to them that the room you were in is obscured, the game then unloads the old location and loads the new one. As for looking through the viewports, and other windows that allow you to see into spaces that shouldn't be there, it uses methods very similar to portal. I'm less familiar with the specifics of how that works, but you can see the trickery being broken if you set the game to an unsupported resolution (The "portal" view becomes misaligned with the border of the window you're looking through which breaks the illusion).
I stopped playing the game because I got stuck on like 3 puzzles at the same time. I would have liked if everything was like clearly one path (or different clearly seperat paths) because I was never sure if I was going the right way or if I have to combine the puzzles and then I just stopped playing. Visuals were cool at the start, but became boring fast.
the game loses its charm with all the gun puzzles, the game stops being about thinking laterally and more logically. Still, those first few minutes are amazing
One thing that frustrated me about this game was the frequency of sometimes time consuming puzzles, behind which were actually just extra content like concept art or models, etc. It felt deflating to have the satisfaction of solving a difficult puzzle immediately snuffed out by the realization that no real progress was made.
Hey. 4 year old comment, I know. The thing is: Antichamber is pretty short, and the ending is lackluster imo. The real accomplishment for me WAS finding those secret models and concept art. Also it was satisfying to fill in the wall with all of the "life lessons". I guess what I'm trying to say is - playing for the end is often a setup for disappointment. If you hated the game all throughout, I would give you that, but playing games just to finish them is not what most games are about. Anyway, thanks for listening to my NerdTalk, have a good day :)
Игры
Alexander Bruce has stated repeatedly that the game was a metaphor for life, which made the line "but thanks to the build up I was expecting some kind of climactic encounter at the end, which the final sequence failed to deliver" pretty funny xD
While I like the game a lot more than you seem to do, it's still a very good review addressing the strengths and weaknesses of Antichamer.
almost all these wired puzzler games are stanly parable antichamber superliminal eta eta.
I always felt like the game was putting an emphasis on the artistic part, what I enjoyed was making progress and wander this trippy universe, it was putting me in a state of trance and wonder, and I liked it.
I can't disagree on the fact that the gameplay and puzzles were somewhat sloppy and wonky, not well integrated, but the goal of the game itself always seemed to be, in my opinion, a one-time experience.
***** It really depends on the goal of the game itself, and how you, the player, see videogames in general; Journey is an artistic concept, much like Flowers, or Okami, a concept is something that might or not appeal to the player, a bet.
Some games are thought as games, basically, they're meant to be fun, to be played and enjoyed, whilst others are seen as interactive art, they're meant to provide an experience to the player.
I didn't liked Flowers, because I simply didn't liked what the game was about, the feeling that came from it, but loved Okami and Journey.
Nowadays many games try to be games with an extra artistic value (Not to mention, most of the time capitalizing on it..), but often screw that up completely because they miss the whole point of gaming, games like Uncharted, TLOU, some FPS and other reference see games as movies, it's full of semi-interactive sequences where the player is put in a place where he's more of a spectator than a player, passive and uninteresting sequences with a strong Micheal Bay-ish influence, when the game itself seriously lacks of thought.
Or even Ocarina of Time, by giving a more important place to the story and lore, the game required a lot of backtracking, you're being obligated to do a bunch of non-sens in order to make progress in the game, instead of just being able to keep up your adventure, you have to talk to a NPC to receive an item to go to another area of the game you would have visited anyway. Talking to the NPC was unecessary and obnoxious, since it sanction every progression you can make in the game until you completed that.
It's cool to try to tell a story through the game, but it should never be more important than the game itself, it should be considered as an extra value, like in Demon's Souls, you can complete the game without paying attention to the lore or talking to any NPCs at all, it's very enjoyable, but it does not take too much place to the detriment of the gameplay.
I'm not sure if it's very clear, english isn't my first language.
***** Well, MGS4 had this strong american influence.. It's not a bad thing, but it was such a sudden change, it felt kinda weird. There also were way too much cutscenes, it's a common thing in the serie, but it was too much, too long, after act 1 and 2 the game really felt too much directed, the time you played was very short and would always be followed by a cutscene.
The thing is, the MGS series has always been full of movies reference, MGS and Kojima are very influenced by the cinema, it was always very subtle, and it translated in the mise-en-scène and artistic direction, while MGS4 was just a big movie. (30 hours of cut-scenes. 30 HOURS!!)
To be honest i think puzzle games in general are supposed to be one tie experiences.
novel 6
This looks like the perfect Oculus Rift game.
Regarding the signs, one thing that marred the experience for me (other than the goofy drawings that clashed with the style) was the placement of them. Most of them are placed AFTER the puzzle you just solved. If they'd been placed beforehand they might've felt like helpful hints, but instead it feels more like a condescending "this is the life lesson you have just learnt. Look, see how it applies to real life!"
If they'd been placed beforehand, I probably wouldn't have clicked most of them.
novel 7 JerryTerry.
I've heard similar complaints from other reviewers about the block puzzles, but I've never actually agreed with them. The main draw of antichamber is experimenting with and coming to an understanding of the game's bizarre mechanics, which is still present when using blocks. Each block except for the introductory blue one behaves in bizarre ways which are never completely explained and require the player to fiddle and experiment with, creating a similar sense of wonder.
While I do agree that there was perhaps a missed opportunity in the amount of wall mounted puzzles on display, I don't think that the mechanics of the blocks are inherently at odds with the brain bending nature of the game's early puzzles.
did you actually watch the whole review? he mentioned that he actually likes the block puzzles a lot, and might have even enjoyed the game more if the focus was placed entirely on the puzzles. his complaint was that the exploration mechanics and the puzzle-solving mechanics are too far separated and there's a lot of missed potential.
I watched the video through to it's entirety. His comments seemed to imply that he felt the blocks were just uninteresting compared to everything else in game, which I disagree with.
i don't know how you inferred that when he specifically says multiple times that he enjoyed the block puzzles a lot and would have liked more in-depth puzzles
The block puzzles *DO* work with the exploration aspect: there are areas that aren't obvious how to get to, or are even obviously _there_ which doesn't sound like it makes a lot of sense, and it doesn't unless you've played it. The block guns aren't just a means to open doors, but also a means to get around spatially, And help you reach them. Further, as your guns evolve so does your freedom and ease of navigation, and also as your ability to understand and use the guns increase.
It's easy to point out how the elements don't work together, but how the hell *would you use* the viewports with the blocks? I genuinely want an example that doesn't involve using the blocks as keys to activate them and becomes needlessly obtuse. It feels like the only reason it is mentioned is because it has such a strong initial impact, but it's still functionally a teleporter. Why is it fair to demand that this game incorporates interaction with them when you don't use teleportation in zelda games as anything other than simplifying navigation?
novel 3
Nicholas Maddalena
.
still waiting for a horror game in a claustrophobic non-euclidean setting. part of the advantage of horror in games opposed to other media is that the scares can be randomized and unpredictable; we just need more wrinkles like non-euclidean geometry to make something truly disorienting, unnerving, and terrifying.
That's been done at least a few times. For better or for worse.
Really? I'd like to see some examples.
F.E.A.R. is one to come to mind.
I'm not very into the horror genre but I've occasionally watched MangaMinx and she's definitely more than once come into situations where space would get distorted in the same way that this game does.
I agree with most of your points, but the block puzzles stopped being interesting for me after a while. The last quarter of the game was a chore, I only finished it to get it over with.
i finished antichamber without ever picking up the red gun. it wasn't until i saw a review of the game on youtube i discovered that there actually was a red gun.
It has a clock on the wall that counts down. I used to think it pointless, but it's there for a reason. It's a draining game to the point where the game might've been better off being explicit about taking a break. I didn't finish it the first time around, despite enjoying it a lot. I recently started over on it, and taking breaks, even short ones - which is something I tend not to do, as I think it messes with the pacing of some games if I stop at the wrong point. However, this game is paced with the breaks in mind, instead of implementing any artificial breaks itself, like most linear games do - which is difficult to do in anything this open, not to mention nontraditional.
Like most things, more man hours and resources would've benefited the project, probably exponentially in this case as it's practically a one man job, but he built something that takes a break from the norm, and as such has mitigated value if treated as such.
It always comes across as defensive and pretentious to say someone has played it wrong, but the designer can't force you to eat so you're mentally prepared for more, or get you to take a break by turning the game off, without aggravating the player in another way, so the last bit you said is probably the best advice to give to people playing the game; you need to let it sit for a while.
novel 5 (some boring name that i wont bother to type.)
I just felt like checking my subscription box and bam Matthew
I'm psychic
same here
Everyone'sFavorite Mongoose Here, Here!
Excellent video. I picked this game up as part of a Humble Bundle a while ago and enjoyed what I've played. I feel it deserves more recognition than it's earned, and it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one.
Great video Matthew, I don't think I ever would have said anything bad about this game, but you make some interesting points. Thanks for the video, keep on making more!
Good review, but I have to disagree with you when it comes to saying that the pictures were disconnected from the abstract puzzles. They were there to connect the abstraction of the game to real life. The texts were always given after a puzzle was solved, letting you know the lesson directly learnt from solving the puzzle. The pictures accompanying them showed that the lesson learnt was by no means specific to the puzzle, but could be applied to challenges in life, and finally the board in the hub showed the pictures coming together to show a synopsis of someone's life and at what event in their life they had to learn these lessons. You may not agree, but I think this is amazing! That it is arguably the entire point of the game. I say arguably, I mean literally, I've seen interviews from the developer :)
novel 4 minch333
Matthew, I LOVE all your videos and they are all amazing! Keep up the good work!
This is one of those games that you can argue against any criticisms, because it is unique. With that said, your arguments seem reasonable, and if the creator ever cares to make a sequel, he should definitely consider some things that you mentioned. Less use of the gun, and more using the visuals to solve the puzzles. I do like this game, and I agree with you, sort of. Although, for the map, I can't see it done well without it. Too many people would just quit because of how confusing the layout is. Though, they should have put in more landmarks to make later areas more memorable.
novel 1 Jonah kirk.
You do get the impression with a lot of these weird games, that they all want to become the next Portal. But it's starting to look more and more like Portal was really a combination of luck and being there at the right time.
I mean even the creators couldn't match it with the sequel or the major disappointment that was Quantum Conundrum.
You didn't like Portal 2?
Sometimes I wish Portal had never been as popular as it was, solely because of the number of idiots who drove that 'THE CAKE IS A LIE XD' meme into the ground. One thing they did do right with the sequel was only bringing it up once. The other thing was taking on Steve Merchant for most of the VO work.
jordan windsor I'm not the OP, but I agree with him, and hopefully my opinion of why 1 is better can adequately explain his gripes as well.
Portal 2 has a pretty damn good multiplayer and other kinds of puzzles that are also usually good, yeah, but it also has some major problems with pacing, or, to be more specific, thinking that it's the funniest thing on the planet. There are times in Portal 2 where it stops becoming a first person puzzle game entirely in exchange for a comedy that you can also look around in. Don't get me wrong, it's usually funny IMO, but the longer I sit on my first playthrough or revisit it, the less I laugh, and the less I laugh, the less fun it is for those scenes to play out. Repeat playthroughs have lowered my opinon of the game at a pretty consistent rate, and I'm very confident that's the reason why.
Imagine someone that doesn't think Portal's brand of humor is funny at all (which is fine because humor is one of the most subjective things on the planet); unlike in P1 where the dialogue is usually put over you playing, or the mandatory humor is a lot fewer and farther between, 2 features longer and more frequent bits of comedy that, if you cannot find it humorous for whatever reason, is completely shot.
It's not necessarily a flaw that its humor cannot be reached to everyone, in fact I appreciate that they try to be cerebral and dark despite its tendency to divide the people who enjoy it and don't, but it is a flaw that they do not provide those people with proper recompense, or a way to prevent these pretty extended bouts of, what is to them, nothing good, happen. If you are a game that focuses on two things, one that can be justified in a very universal sense (the puzzles), and the other that is much more subjective (the humor), you're going to have to realize that not everyone can make it there for both.
That's really my MAJOR problem with 2, but there a few other critiques I could give (the white gel is a little contrived and boring in comparison to the blue and orange). It's still a great game in my eyes, by the way. 1 is just better more consistently.
jordan windsor
I absolutely loved Portal 2. Cave Johnson made the game for me.
***** I found Portal 2 too hard, compared to the first one. I enjoy a difficult game (Dark Souls etc.) but maybe I'm a bit of a wuss when it comes to puzzles.
Another excellent video as always Matthew, I'm impressed by your analysis and reviewing skills. You really dissect every detail of a game down to a 'T'. I love your work and keep it up! One quick question though before I disappear, although the answer is perhaps extremely obvious. Will you review Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain when it releases?
I'd say that's a safe bet.
I'm still wondering if he'll review Ground Zeroes
Ben Roycroft
I'm just going to ask; Have you played it, yourself?
Nazareadain Yes I have and I really enjoyed the game despite it's short length. The stealth gameplay is great and I love the realistic approach to stealth, the improved, smoother controls, beautiful graphics and intelligent Ai and map design. I have high hopes for The Phantom Pain! :)
I think this could have emphasized the nonlinearity a bit more, to say there are multiple ways of reaching each bottleneck so most puzzles aren't mandatory. If you can't solve one, there is likely a way around it.
I wonder what you thought of the dev rooms as bonus puzzles/easter eggs. Some of them were really tricky to get to.
It's true that there were great block puzzles and great puzzles with other mechanics, but they didn't mesh well too often. Still, a great first playthrough isn't much to complain about, but it leaves you wishing for more of this style.
I don't see the red gun as disappointing, though. The ability to fill areas was used in some pretty interesting ways, if I recall correctly. Although some of its trickiest uses would be for optional dev room puzzles.
One interesting thing I've seen the dev mention is that Antichamber's puzzles are meant to be easily and quickly solvable once you know the solution. That's something I really enjoyed, but there are still a few puzzles that involve really fiddly gun usage.
I never noticed that the Antichamber logo is made of the letters "AC" before.
Posting in the legendary most boringest MatthewMatosis review, revealed as canon in 2021's modern classic "Meta Microvideos"
Meta Microvideos was that long ago???
Fantastic stuff as always. It's great to see this game have some more discussion around it. Despite its flaws I think it is an experience worth having, particularly the first hour or so. Thanks Matthew!
I never really got into this game. To me the biggest challenge was getting around. They never made it clear, at least as far as I remember, that there would be several different guns. I tried solving puzzles I wasn't able to solve yet. The actual perspective puzzles, which are the main draw of the game, were far too easy.
Please never play Super Metroid. You'd be stuck at the first red door you find for hours." WAAAH no-one ever told me I need missiles WAAH"
moralapostel Metroid makes it very clear that you need other items or abilities to progress.
I for one agree with you completely both myself and streamers I've seen play this spend a lot of time attempting to manipulate the initially encountered green blocks shortly after receiving the blue gun to no avail and it can be quite some time before you come across the green gun and realise your folly
Jake Dingo I probably had the same problem as Matthew, after getting the yellow gun, I couldn't figure out what it did differently. Specially since it introduced a new command button to the controller, the mouse scroll wheel.
The reason I feel the yellow gun is problematic, is that it is not intuitive. you can maybe dismiss my issue and say it needs to lateral thinking, but the fact is that you could miss the prompt on how to use the green gun and never miss a step. Not so with the yellow one. Noticing the writing on the wall was not a puzzle I had to solve until that point either.
This ended up adding 3-5 hours of gameplay and most people would just stop at that point. I didn't want to rely on faqs, since I felt that for that particular game it would miss the point. I wanted to "outsmart" the game. Unfortunatly after I found out the new function, the puzzles seemed straightfoward.
I always liked the spacial impossibility ideas presented in Antichamber, as well as the minimalist, cryptic style. The hints on the wall and the map, etc, these things I could have done without. I came up with my own version of an Anti-chamber style game which would take some basic ideas of puzzle elements (thinking outside the box and reaching beyond human/physical possibility into the endless void of human imagination basically) and would incorporate it into a horror game with a commentary on the nature of video games, it's effect on players, artificial intelligence, etc. I think the abstract visuals and physical impossibilities of Antichamber give it a creepy vibe that could be extended into outright horror territory if applied correctly. No more brick puzzles though, and no more "guns" of any kind. And much more heavy emphasis on surrealism.
antichamber reminds me of the mod called Half Quake
Antichamber always gave me Hypercube vibes. Also, I thought there are plenty of landmarks. The tower, the life room, the bridge you must walk slow on, the door you can only pass with your back to it, the HMMM..., WTF?, WALK, FLY room, the room with the two boxes enclosed in a block destroying field, the Don't look down room etc.
the first hour or so leading up to the gun/puzzle aspects are worth the price of admition alone. definitely a great game and matthew sums it all up pretty well
Did you like Spec Ops: the Line Matt?
Thanks for the review
The atmosphere of this game is like a light hearted version of Cube 2: Hypercube, with all the white space, its the good kind of minimalism.
I've never been good at puzzles (I quit Portal in frustration, not realising I was 2 chambers away from the end) and they are the kind games I'd rather watch someone else play than play myself, which is what I did with Portal 2.
Hypnotoad of Hypnotoad productions did a pretty good playthough of Antichamber.
I recall Marathon on the Apple had a usermade map called '5-D Space' that had a huge room with a series of portals that interconnected throughout that room. IIRC, Marathon was the first FPS to have rooms stacked on top of each other, and the first to let you look up and down (in a limited fashion).
I can definitely see your points about its shortcomings, but I really liked this game.
I liked Anti-Chamber except the parts that required the gun.
I like games like this and "the Turing test". Games that portal inspired are always nice.
Yay new video! :D
i took about 6 hours for my first playthrough, under 1 hour with my second playthrough.
this doesnt say anything about the games quality but more of how simple it is once you understand it, which is where the games concept really shines.
Great review
I think the only problem with the non-euclidian layout is that it becomes routine. Those puzzles are really neat when you first run into them, but when you have to re-traverse them a dozen or so times just to get around, they lose all that charm almost immediately.
The only issue i had with the game is you can't turn off headbob, I ended up having to stop often due to motion sickness.
That's not what non-Euclidean geometry means at all. Non-Euclidean space is just a space that does not have a flat space metric- I.e. Parallel lines do not stay the same distance apart. The surface of a sphere is an example of non-Euclidean geometry. This game does not have geometry really and is just nonsense as you've kind of pointed out.
novel 2 aikidoka117.
Actually a more accurate description is that the layout of this game cannot be continuously embedded in Euclidean 3-dimensional space. Presumably (and quite likely) there is some other manifold with a non-euclidean metric, as you say, in which the layout of the game *could* be continuously embedded
@gibbdude novel 45789250742365
@@chrisdock8804 novel 89r472398569756837647456736547389567956965795632
I actually never did some of the puzzles and dont even think I found one of the guns. The exploration element seems to be a way to add replayability or at least choice. Your assertion that ou may not have solved some of the puzzles 'correctly' is actually very plausible.
i consider that ending one of the strongest parts of the game
loved lexx in my childhood to with interesting stuff happening with very moody mood but no generic explanation
God bless you, Matthew.
Christ, this is one trippy game.
Question: Do you find it depressing that gameplay videos nowadays are about manchildren shrieking at indie games?
I find it arousing
Yeah, I've watched the process myself. A youtuber that started off with a good attitude, really chill and entertaining. But the fame got to him and he became a fucking annoying pewdiepie clone.
p3drozroom
Out of curiosity, who would this be?
Bolt of Beef markiplier
p3drozroom
Ah, that's right. His earliest stuff was definitely entertaining and genuine.
I couldn't really get into this. I enjoyed a few of the rooms, and it was fun to have those 'eureka' moments every so often, but I admittedly got disinterested very quickly.
Not to mention I couldn't play more than 20 mins before feeling queasy, motion sickness and all that.
Why the hell would you be judging this title on the basis of replay value!?
Yeah, I've done that before. Most puzzle games are like that. Once you've solved the puzzles, that's kind of the end.
+Benjamin McLean
I know this comment is a year old, but I still felt this was an interesting question. Many puzzle-games with a narrative are built with puzzles that you can solve once and only once. Any time after that won’t feel nearly as rewarding.
That said though, I do think it’s fair to ask a game with puzzles to have replay-value. The solution to that would be to not have the puzzles entirely unique and straight-forward, but intuitive and flexible instead. One of the most basic examples of that is, of course, Tetris. There’s an infinite number of possible playthroughs, the player must make decisions that shape the "level" that he must play in, and the further it gets, the more it challenges the player, making this mechanic interesting for all players of varying skills. The true challenge as a game-designer is to take such a mechanic and create a narrative for it that works in tandem with said mechanic. It’s certainly not easy, especially since the problem with mechanics like Tetris would be that it’s a game that you WILL lose to eventually. But a perfect puzzle-game like that is not unthinkable either - and there are a bunch of games, not necessarily puzzle-games, that have one definite start and one definite goal, but a multitude of ways to go about it, making it fun for everyone - less skilled players can take the easier route, more skilled players can try over and over again to take more challenging routes and test their skills.
As it is now, Antichamber is like a Jigsaw-Puzzle, when it could be a Rubik’s Cube. I do think it’s reasonable that Matthew would judge this game to have replay-value, or at the very least, ask it to compensate appropriately for it. Just because a game is set up to be playable only once, doesn’t mean that this is the BEST option for the game.
+Benjamin McLean That clearly wasn't the case with Portal. I played through Portal multiples times, thus extending the value of the game, which wasn't the case with Antichamber. A genre shouldn't be excused if it lacks something as fundamental as value. Portal is a puzzle game that invites repeated playthroughs and this should be reflected in reviews.
@@MrBenMcLean
Because games without replay value are trash.
I honestly didn't really like some of the puzzles in Antichamber. I didn't pick up on the hint that the block color corresponded to the gun color, but that was because when you encounter most of those puzzles, you've only found the first one or two guns and probably haven't solved every puzzle you can solve with them.
As a consequence, it was really frustrating from time to time.
I really loved the exploration of non-euclidean space and some of the trickery involved with that, but in the end, I felt like the game was just making me do tedious puzzles before letting me play around in weird space again.
It's as you said: The non-euclidean playground and the puzzles just don't mix very well and I might have enjoyed the puzzles more if the game hadn't taught me to expect some clever space-bendy stuff. I felt like the game was giving me an amazingly fun toy (strutting around non-euclidean space) and then made me do math homework before I could play some more.
Aaaah IT'S SO BRIGHT, MY EYES!
please do a "The Witness" review
If his biggest complaint about Antichamber is "the puzzles don't integrate meaningfully with the world" then he will absolutely detest The Witness.
Just got to the yellow gun, quit the game for a break, and found this video.
Sweet coincidence
Have you played Always Sometimes Monsters? I'm very curious to hear your take on it. It's quite an original game, I think
it is interesting how material is being thematised. Some outlines in this clearly digital world are looking very much like drawn pencil lines. I wonder why they look that way instead of being crisp digital lines
Y u no use anti-aliasing @_@
I loved this game
to bad about those pink squares never dıd anything
i still feel like a phantom hourglass and spirit tracks comparison is called for.
I feel this suffers from the innovators risk. The non-Euclidian scenario is a new mechanic and it's significance to the whole piece wasn't clear even to the creator during the building processes. Since it's a mechanic with few comparables in gaming, it's harder to design for it and to integrate it seamlessly.
For us, with the ability of hindsight, it's easier to see where it's great and where it doesn't fit.
Of course that does not excuse something from critique, but I believe it has to be considered as an intrinsic characteristic of innovative enterprises. It is hard to make something really good, especially so if it's newish.
Its value is not only as a stand alone, but also as a steping stone for future games. It's like how there were other mp3 players before the iPod or how Microsoft presented tablets in the 90's that never caught on.
I should mention that I like your review, agree with most of it and that I'm not saying you should be more lenient in your view or review of the game. I'm just saying that I find its flaws more excuseable since I see it as part of something bigger than itself.
And that I understand if what was really interesting about the game was shoved aside for gun puzzles because it was what the designer could expect his audience would be more familiar and interested in (like the comparables I mentioned).
That's off topic, but i literally just now learned from you that there is a mp3 player from Apple called iPod. So... yeah.
4:45 [inappropriate comment about breasts]
wowe you've got a keen eye
There is a part of the game you are missing, this game as it said on one of signs is said "Life is not about getting to the end". If you know what you are doing, or you are just lucky you can get to the end of the game exploring like 5-10% of it, true fun and challange is finding all the secrets that are there, and hardest to find out of them does not use a cube gun at all in it's puzzles, just all other mechanics of the game put together in creative way
I'm a little frustrated that pink cubes have no use(
I feel like the ending of the game was purposeful. The game's ending is a big build up, and then an Anti-Climax.
Life is a struggle, and you don't get what you expect or want when the end comes. At best, you can feel a sense of a closure.
I also liked the life chamber because.. it's an art gallery. By putting all those objects into a shared space, it makes it clear that they're not clues to any puzzles. They're just the artist's work put there to be appreciated on their own merit.
came back to see just how boring this video was
post watch edit: compared to his other videos it is a bit on the boring end, but it’s still far more watchable than most other gaming related content on youtube
More reviews!
super good
/thread
Jeez you thik alot in a good way I mean
Antichamber walked so Outer Wilds could run.
With how much Matthew criticized the in-wall block puzzles (not saying it isn't a fair criticism), he must have hated The Witness
I enjoyed the few hours I put into this, but I could never finish it since it makes me nauseous :(
funfact: we know how is the black cube, but we cant compreend because is 4D
"Non-euclidean space as opposed to normal 3d space" (around 2-3 minute)
Yeah no. This game has nothing to do with non-euclidean geometries (based only on the footage included in this video). Also I really don't think this kind of map design would be any easier to design than your standard 3d fpp game, as you suggested. I'd think the map was designed with many portal-like transitions all over the place. If someone knows how it was actually programmed I'd be glad to know!
The game actually has some very well hidden rooms that sort of visually explain a lot of the programming behind everything. If you're familiar with the idea of culling (where things that are off camera are unloaded to preserve resources) it uses a very similar thing for a lot of those space warping moments. With the staircase example, once you've turned the corner and the game knows you can't see the previous room anymore it unloads it and replaces it with the new path that you're intended to turn around and go down. The game actually requires you to do realize this for a certain puzzle where a hint is dropped not to take your eye off the prize, and doing the logical thing of turning around to grab a cube to unlock a door causes to the door to disappear by the time you turn around. Similarly for the viewports, once you've walked close enough to them that the room you were in is obscured, the game then unloads the old location and loads the new one. As for looking through the viewports, and other windows that allow you to see into spaces that shouldn't be there, it uses methods very similar to portal. I'm less familiar with the specifics of how that works, but you can see the trickery being broken if you set the game to an unsupported resolution (The "portal" view becomes misaligned with the border of the window you're looking through which breaks the illusion).
I stopped playing the game because I got stuck on like 3 puzzles at the same time. I would have liked if everything was like clearly one path (or different clearly seperat paths) because I was never sure if I was going the right way or if I have to combine the puzzles and then I just stopped playing.
Visuals were cool at the start, but became boring fast.
Matt, man, non-euclidian geometry is anything on a curved plane. Our real world is non-euclidian. It doesnt mean mindfuck geometry.
This game creeps me out.
0:44 Saying Non-Euclidean is mathematically wrong.
the game loses its charm with all the gun puzzles, the game stops being about thinking laterally and more logically. Still, those first few minutes are amazing
Let's try a Darksiders review.
Poozles
Apparently this is his most hated video. What do you think?
Can I go home now?
One thing that frustrated me about this game was the frequency of sometimes time consuming puzzles, behind which were actually just extra content like concept art or models, etc. It felt deflating to have the satisfaction of solving a difficult puzzle immediately snuffed out by the realization that no real progress was made.
Hey. 4 year old comment, I know.
The thing is: Antichamber is pretty short, and the ending is lackluster imo. The real accomplishment for me WAS finding those secret models and concept art. Also it was satisfying to fill in the wall with all of the "life lessons".
I guess what I'm trying to say is - playing for the end is often a setup for disappointment. If you hated the game all throughout, I would give you that, but playing games just to finish them is not what most games are about.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my NerdTalk, have a good day :)
This looks as though it would be more intellectually taxing from my actual work, which is what I want a break from when I play video games.
That "non-euclidean" space is so unimportant for the gameplay I'd barely even remembered it existence before watching your video.
eh he just doesn't get it
you missed the point dude (five year later)
This review is boring.
Someone’s watched Meta Microvideos
Wow this was a really pretentious video
Why are the top comments all boring novels?
3:26 Do you say “simplistic” in every video? Please just say “simple” if you mean simple.
what is the difference
What do you mean? It's a perfectly valid use of the word.
That's not what non-euclidian means, stop trying to sound smarter than you already are
Horribly cynical review for a fantastic game