Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Though it's a good example of how narrative games should be done. You get choices and the game makes the story around that. Not like Everybody's Gone to Rapture which is just follow the floaty, glowy orb.
Personally, I found it to be frequently funny, inventive, loved the narration, and it brought up some good points about free-will in videogames. But like others said, once you're done with most of the endings, there's little reason to go back.
for example, in many games, you get many ways of doing things, such as character customization, skill points, followers and so on, even down to the way you aim, run and jump, all as a guise of player-made decisions, but they all culminate towards a single goal that, more often than not, relies on none of those decisions, only that you partake in the game itself to reach it
borderlands 2, as an example of such, has various characters and playstyles, as well as various skins, weapon types and ammo and whatnot, but the primary goal remains the same, regardless of choices: receive story quest, kill monsters, return to quest giver, progress in the story, rinse and repeat until reaching the boss
now the same happens in the stanley parable, in a more abstract way
for example, following the narrator's directions directly gets stanley the best possible ending, however, the narrator says that stanley came to this ending all by himself via his own decisions (even though he was only merely following orders)
now, did stanley really have free choice? was it really his (the players) decision to end up with that ending? was he really following his own free will or was he made to believe it was his own decision via the illusion of free choice?
now all the alternate endings are explorations on the theme of free choice in videogames, and how, even if they don't give the best possible in game endings, they're all still illusions of free choice, since the game is programmed to respond according to your actions
so in the stanley parable, the primary goal of the game is simply to end the game via reaching one of the endings, and although you're offered various "choices" to reach this goal, they all have the same penultimate factor: you end the game
i'm not too good with meta theory analysis so pick ya brain over this cause i probably interpreted this wrong but w/e
but ya once you get all the endings, there's very little replay value
Yes, it's weird - but it's supposed to be weird, and hilarious.
theres no real way to LOSE or WIN
doesnt change the fact that i love it for being so creative, i fucking gasped when i saw something that i havent seen before