The Stanley Parable is a good game to try out. It is short game and probably the most influential in starting Walking Simulator genre. It is a good game to start experiencing the genre and setting your expectations for other similar games in this field.
For discussion or full reviews: Calicifer’s Reviews
The Stanley Parable is an interesting game. Initially it can feel as incredibly short and shallow. Game requires a player’s initiative to get the most out of it. Game requires you to be engaged with its secret hunting element in order to be entertained and to get its fair value out of it. Otherwise, there is simply barely any game here even if you do few endings by yourself.
Writing
Walking simulators live and die by the sights and engagement which player receives while walking. This is why it is particularly difficult to create a walking simulator which just does not feel empty or boring. Developer has far fewer tools in making player engaged and those fewer tools has to carry a greater burden. One of those tools is writing.
Narrator
- Narrator’s voice and performance just fits perfectly well in the role that he got. His delivery is clear, filled with emotion when appropriate. Writing flows naturally and does not feel forced. He is a little bit temperamental and quick to mood swings, but that is part of a course I guess. A short game requires a quickly changing moods, writing.
Humour tends to flow naturally from a situation you are currently and it doesn’t feel forced. Sometimes narrator is slightly off, there are segments where script is supposed to describe your actions, but script is too static and your actions are dynamic. A good example is when you turn mind control machine on. Narrator assumes that you are desperately looking for a button while you are standing still.
Pretension - This game is touted as some sort deep, philosophical commentary about game design. While there is certainly is commentary about game design, answer me this. How much philosophy, depth and insight 18 year old can have? The answer – not much. Everything in this game is paper thin. Its own insights are obvious and self evident. It is more of a refined complaining that a game is not perfect rather than providing a real insight on how it could be better. It is like complaining that in Dota balance is not perfect and making fun of it. It is like complaining that in survival games, its own mechanics are tedious and making fun of it. This is it. This is the whole depth and impact this game has. Other games have humility in being a parody games. This game is a parody game, but pretends to be something else.
Tone Shifts - Another aspect is that this game has just one good ending. All the other endings are just you trying to derail the story. There is one ending which seems out of place, one where you turn on mind controlling machine. Narrator gets uncharacteristically angry and reveals how bloodthirsty he is. In a same way when you try to go for an escape ending, there is suddenly a different narrator. She can change events on its own, but at the end kills you with no explanation. Some endings are messed up logically and thematically. Narrator is a completely different person outside of these two endings. It just messes up whole writing of him and situation you are in. Other endings become illogical and convoluted.
Design
Game is quite well designed. However, there are many areas for improvement, but even ones which I mark as imperfect could still be considered good. Game is based on a source engine and like all non-Valve games, it just feels like a mod rather than its own game. It is enjoyable experience, but there is that distinct roughness in a game which are distinct to Source engine. The Effort
it is difficult for me to judge a game without a context. I did not played Walking simulators before, because base idea is just terrible. This was my introduction into the genre and it was great one. I will use The Stanley Parable as a template and as a standard how good other games in the genre has to be.
- The Stanley Parable had a surprisingly big development team behind it. It took them three years to develop and when you will be reading this review, 2 whole remasters. Team effectively worked at least five years on a game which could be finished in several minutes. Such lousy development rate can be explained on amateurish team, learning as they go and inability to work full time on a project. It is neither polished well or there are some intricate design decisions. The key decision is extremely basic, go to the left or right. Any ending and additional content is quick to do when you know how to work with the engine. Even with all this money which developer got from this game, they could not make another game or to properly end this one. Some endings are just not done like Escape pod ending requires mod to be used while narrator remains silent all the way until you reach the ending and then game just resets to the start.
Developer clearly got this job, because of his family’s connections. That or drug money. Drug money which he got from sales of this game which he later used for drugs and hookers.
Problematic Design - This game highlights the problem with an open ended games very well. If you want meaningful endings, you essentially cut length of your game in two if you can take an action at the start of a game which would lead you in an entirely different direction. This game is incredibly short, no matter which ending you go for. Despite that, developers had to spend more effort in designing their game and they had to spend a lot time per one minute of playtime.
Game takes You for Granted - Game does a poor job of incentivising player to replay game and just assumes that this is that player will do on its own. Game needs a gentle push towards the right direction, to get players hooked, because it is not a given that an individual will be interested in exploring the game on its own. Non-repeated comments from narrator when you start second play through, visual changes in a map like a graffiti “Do not trust the narrator” and later a sign leading to a shortcut. This would organically enrich the world and make game feel more alive. At the same time, it would hook player on its gameplay.
Static Game World
Game world does not feel alive. Game is too reliant on “Go to point A -> Activate narrator” interaction. There is precious little interactions with you and the world.
- What if you AFK? Game does not dynamically account for that.
- What if you want to explore sparse few places which are there? Game does not take account of that.
- What if you intercept door behind you? Narrator is silent.
- What if you go into many rooms you are not supposed to? Narrator is silent.
- What if you want to un-power computers? Narrator is silent.
Game is too static, it feels dead. There is hardly enough optional content in a game which would allow player sense of wonder. A sense that game is more clever and full than it really is. Game relies on set rooms which are quite obvious when they activate their triggers. Other times it is just sheer blind luck in discovering secrets. That or wikis and every time when game requires you to open a wiki, it is a failure of game design. It breaks immersion and experience becomes muddied as you can’t be as excited about finding a secret as you otherwise would be.
Development team which went nowhere - It is just a shame that this was one time hit. Chief designer and development studio never had any other projects. Designer is talentless and his other projects were flops.
Conclusion
it is difficult for me to judge a game without a context. I did not played Walking simulators before, because base idea is just terrible. This was my introduction into the genre and it was great one. I will use The Stanley Parable as a template and as a standard how good other games in the genre has to be.