Current Events > What the hell is What Remains of Edith Finch and why did it win Game of the Year

(+) Yeah! (+)

...at the BAFTAs?
---

What Remains of Edith Finch is a mystery adventure video game developed by Giant Sparrow and published by Annapurna Interactive for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. It is a story-focused drama with first-person gameplay.

As Edith Finch, Jr., the youngest child of Dawn Finch and the last remaining member of the Finch family, players explore the Finch house and surrounding wilderness through a linear series of rooms, footpaths and secret crawlspaces. Players are guided through the house by expository voice narration from Edith herself, and encounter a series of memorials and shrines dedicated to deceased relatives. Players make progress by interacting with these shrines and experiencing the death of these family members (or embellished or fictionalized accounts thereof) in various forms, including flip books, cutscenes, and first-person minigames.

Composer Jeff Russo, whose previous works include the soundtracks to the Fargo TV series, The Night Of, and Power, composed the soundtrack for What Remains of Edith Finch.[8]
---

A story focused indie game. One of the actually good ones it seems.
---

You think these awards are for good games? They're like any other awards community, rigged with buyouts and corrupt businesses.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

What Remains of Edith Finch is a mystery adventure video game developed by Giant Sparrow and published by Annapurna Interactive for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. It is a story-focused drama with first-person gameplay.

As Edith Finch, Jr., the youngest child of Dawn Finch and the last remaining member of the Finch family, players explore the Finch house and surrounding wilderness through a linear series of rooms, footpaths and secret crawlspaces. Players are guided through the house by expository voice narration from Edith herself, and encounter a series of memorials and shrines dedicated to deceased relatives. Players make progress by interacting with these shrines and experiencing the death of these family members (or embellished or fictionalized accounts thereof) in various forms, including flip books, cutscenes, and first-person minigames.

Composer Jeff Russo, whose previous works include the soundtracks to the Fargo TV series, The Night Of, and Power, composed the soundtrack for What Remains of Edith Finch.[8]

Honestly, that sounds incredibly boring. Might as well watch a movie instead of play a game.
---

Esrac posted...

Honestly, that sounds incredibly boring. Might as well watch a movie instead of play a game.

And this type of response will never not be stupid. A game can do things a movie will never be able to do by its very nature.
---

Esrac posted...

Honestly, that sounds incredibly boring. Might as well watch a movie instead of play a game.

Video games can do things that movies can't.

Gaming is it's own form of media.

A game like Life Is Strange has less gameplay challenge than Space Invaders but would make for an awful movie.
---

TC, it had a a good build up by the end. short story and very overrated in my opinion. Ethan Carter was much better in some respects, and many other games in that genre.

It was fine, just overrated, that happens all the time.
---

lol remember Undertale?
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Esrac posted...

Honestly, that sounds incredibly boring. Might as well watch a movie instead of play a game.

And this type of response will never not be stupid. A game can do things a movie will never be able to do by its very nature.

Obviously. But this game doesn't seem inclined to do that, it seems like it just wants to tell a linear story in a linear way to the player that will be experienced basically the same way on every playthrough. If that's the case, you'd tell the story more efficiently, and maybe more effectively, in a different medium.

I mean, if you strip out all but the most rudimentary gameplay, tests of skill/chance, competition, fail states, etc and leave a totally linear experience where the game narrates a story at the player, what do you really get from it that wouldn't be done just as well or better as a movie or book? That's the impression I get from what I've read about the game anyway.
---

Gunpo posted...

lol remember Undertale?

I try not to.
---

Esrac posted...

Obviously. But this game doesn't seem inclined to do that, it seems like it just wants to tell a linear story in a linear way to the player that will be experienced basically the same way on every playthrough. If that's the case, you'd tell the story more efficiently, and maybe more effectively, in a different medium.

"I didn't play it so let me tell you how it is!"
---

Esrac posted...

I mean, if you strip out all but the most rudimentary gameplay, tests of skill/chance, competition, fail states, etc and leave a totally linear experience where the game narrates a story at the player, what do you really get from it that wouldn't be done just as well or better as a movie or book?

Interactivity.
---

Walking simulator. Gone Home but only slightly less stupid.
---

It was the Oscar Bait equivalent of indie games.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Players are guided through the house by expository voice narration from Edith herself, and encounter a series of memorials and shrines dedicated to deceased relatives. Players make progress by interacting with these shrines and experiencing the death of these family members (or embellished or fictionalized accounts thereof) in various forms, including flip books, cutscenes, and first-person minigames.

Eternal Darkness did it better
---

It's an indie game where you walk around which makes people softly weep about its existence
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Esrac posted...

I mean, if you strip out all but the most rudimentary gameplay, tests of skill/chance, competition, fail states, etc and leave a totally linear experience where the game narrates a story at the player, what do you really get from it that wouldn't be done just as well or better as a movie or book?

Interactivity.

Sure. But in this case, what does the interactivity contribute to the experience?

If the limit of the interaction is clicking something and listening/watching while the media narrates story at you, how does the player benefit from interacting with it instead of observing as they would a movie or book?

I'm not trying to bring down an enjoyable experience, but I don't see the point of a "game" that lacks the typical defining characteristics of a game. If the point is just a lovely narrative experience, I figure that'd be better served by a movie or book.

But you're right, I haven't played WRoEF, so I could be off base.
---

What Remains of Edith Finch is most definitely not a walking simulator, nor is it point-and-click. The mechanics are crucial to the storytelling and they continually change in surprising and inventive ways.
---

Polycosm posted...

What Remains of Edith Finch is most definitely not a walking simulator, nor is it point-and-click. The mechanics are crucial to the storytelling and they continually change in surprising and inventive ways.

That's good to know. Can you elaborate?
---

Esrac posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Esrac posted...

I mean, if you strip out all but the most rudimentary gameplay, tests of skill/chance, competition, fail states, etc and leave a totally linear experience where the game narrates a story at the player, what do you really get from it that wouldn't be done just as well or better as a movie or book?

Interactivity.

Sure. But in this case, what does the interactivity contribute to the experience?

If the limit of the interaction is clicking something and listening/watching while the media narrates story at you, how does the player benefit from interacting with it instead of observing as they would a movie or book?

I'm not trying to bring down an enjoyable experience, but I don't see the point of a "game" that lacks the typical defining characteristics of a game. If the point is just a lovely narrative experience, I figure that'd be better served by a movie or book.

But you're right, I haven't played WRoEF, so I could be off base.

Exploration of the world around you. There's a major difference between seeing something happening on a screen and being able to walk around that world at your own leisure.

If these games aren't for you that's fine. But acting like they have nothing to offer is silly. There was a time when people thought games were pointless if they didn't have a high score to chase. Games have long gone past being solely about skill and overcoming obstacles.
---

Esrac posted...

I'm not trying to bring down an enjoyable experience, but I don't see the point of a "game" that lacks the typical defining characteristics of a game. If the point is just a lovely narrative experience, I figure that'd be better served by a movie or book.

Why are you saying games can only be certain things? It's bullshit. Like, even following those stupid standards, Nier: Automata does something a movie would never be able to do. If you live in ignorance, why the fuck you speaking on it?
---

Esrac posted...

Polycosm posted...

What Remains of Edith Finch is most definitely not a walking simulator, nor is it point-and-click. The mechanics are crucial to the storytelling and they continually change in surprising and inventive ways.

That's good to know. Can you elaborate?

Can't really give a complete example without spoiling the story somewhat-- the mechanics are deliberately chosen to serve each vignette. What I can broadly say is that you explore a house, finding stories about past occupants. Each story plays out in a sort of sub-game, each with totally different gameplay. In an early vignette you control a cat leaping through trees, then a bird divebombing rabbits, then a shark hunting prey, then a tentacle monster slithering around a boat and eating people... and believe it or not, it all makes sense in the context of the story being told. Most of these segments don't neatly fit into any one genre.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

And this type of response will never not be stupid. A game can do things a movie will never be able to do by its very nature.

---

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Esrac posted...

I mean, if you strip out all but the most rudimentary gameplay, tests of skill/chance, competition, fail states, etc and leave a totally linear experience where the game narrates a story at the player, what do you really get from it that wouldn't be done just as well or better as a movie or book?

Interactivity.

Sure. But in this case, what does the interactivity contribute to the experience?

If the limit of the interaction is clicking something and listening/watching while the media narrates story at you, how does the player benefit from interacting with it instead of observing as they would a movie or book?

I'm not trying to bring down an enjoyable experience, but I don't see the point of a "game" that lacks the typical defining characteristics of a game. If the point is just a lovely narrative experience, I figure that'd be better served by a movie or book.

But you're right, I haven't played WRoEF, so I could be off base.

Exploration of the world around you. There's a major difference between seeing something happening on a screen and being able to walk around that world at your own leisure.

If these games aren't for you that's fine. But acting like they have nothing to offer is silly. There was a time when people thought games were pointless if they didn't have a high score to chase. Games have long gone past being solely about skill and overcoming obstacles.

Fair enough.

dave_is_slick posted...

Esrac posted...

I'm not trying to bring down an enjoyable experience, but I don't see the point of a "game" that lacks the typical defining characteristics of a game. If the point is just a lovely narrative experience, I figure that'd be better served by a movie or book.

Why are you saying games can only be certain things? It's bullshit. Like, even following those stupid standards, Nier: Automata does something a movie would never be able to do. If you live in ignorance, why the fuck you speaking on it?

Because games only can be certain things. Words have meaning, dude. We distinguish games from other forms of play and simulation. To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

But it seems we're just getting to the same old debate about what is and isn't a game and I don't think that's going to be very productive with your hostile attitude.
---

Esrac posted...

We distinguish games from other forms of play and simulation. To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

To be a game it just needs to be an interactive experience that requires input from a player. That's it. That's enough to distinguish it from other mediums. That is something other forms of media inherently cannot provide.
---

Polycosm posted...

Esrac posted...

Polycosm posted...

What Remains of Edith Finch is most definitely not a walking simulator, nor is it point-and-click. The mechanics are crucial to the storytelling and they continually change in surprising and inventive ways.

That's good to know. Can you elaborate?

Can't really give a complete example without spoiling the story somewhat-- the mechanics are deliberately chosen to serve each vignette. What I can broadly say is that you explore a house, finding stories about past occupants. Each story plays out in a sort of sub-game, each with totally different gameplay. In an early vignette you control a cat leaping through trees, then a bird divebombing rabbits, then a shark hunting prey, then a tentacle monster slithering around a boat and eating people... and believe it or not, it all makes sense in the context of the story being told. Most of these segments don't neatly fit into any one genre.

Thank you. That is informative. I can see them emulating those events in a film or book medium, but I suppose I can see that it would be a unique experience to play through.
---

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

We distinguish games from other forms of play and simulation. To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

To be a game it just needs to be an interactive experience that requires input from a player. That's it. That's enough to distinguish it from other mediums. That is something other forms of media inherently cannot provide.

I disagree about the first part.

I think to be a game it requires more than just interactivity from a participatory person. Like the aforementioned competitive element, test of skill, a way to win or lose, etc. But I'm repeating myself. Sorry.
---

Esrac posted...

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

We distinguish games from other forms of play and simulation. To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

To be a game it just needs to be an interactive experience that requires input from a player. That's it. That's enough to distinguish it from other mediums. That is something other forms of media inherently cannot provide.

I disagree about the first part.

I think to be a game it requires more than just interactivity from a participatory person. Like the aforementioned competitive element, test of skill, a way to win or lose, etc. But I'm repeating myself. Sorry.

So a sandbox like Minecraft isn't a game? I completely disagree.
---

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

We distinguish games from other forms of play and simulation. To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

To be a game it just needs to be an interactive experience that requires input from a player. That's it. That's enough to distinguish it from other mediums. That is something other forms of media inherently cannot provide.

I disagree about the first part.

I think to be a game it requires more than just interactivity from a participatory person. Like the aforementioned competitive element, test of skill, a way to win or lose, etc. But I'm repeating myself. Sorry.

So a sandbox like Minecraft isn't a game? I completely disagree.

Your player character in Minecraft can be killed and has enemy mobs that try to kill the player character. That is a fail state and a means of competing against the computer.
---

Esrac posted...

Your player character in Minecraft can be killed and has enemy mobs that try to kill the player character. That is a fail state and a means of competing against the computer.

It doesn't have to have those things.

What about The Sims? What's a fail state in that game? Dying? That's inevitable in the sequels. The point of that game is you have a scenario and you as a player can handle that as you see fit. There are several games like this.

It's a silly line to draw. The Stanley Parable has no 'fail states' and that game is absolutely relies that you know and understand game design, gameplay and how that relationship is drawn between the player and the game.

How about a puzzle game with no fail state? Is that so different than most 'walking simulators'? Most walking simulators don't progress until you do or find the right thing to unlock the next segment.

The neat thing about video games is that they can be anything. An interactive story. A sandbox. A test of skill. A logic puzzle. Something to explore and find. A fun way to learn coding. A rhythm experience. etc. Give control to the player and there's automatically potential you cannot find anywhere else.

Even something like Gone Home relies on you as a player poking and prodding through someone's home. Reading their letters, looking through their belongings, finding their hidden secrets etc. It would not work as a book or movie. It would not have the same meaning for people. Pretty much all walking simulators are like this. They communicate something to players that can only be found in video games. Think of how much exploring Rapture connected with people. So many stories can be told solely through an interactive environment that a player explores.
---

its a really good game just no action.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Esrac posted...

Honestly, that sounds incredibly boring. Might as well watch a movie instead of play a game.

Video games can do things that movies can't.

Gaming is it's own form of media.

A game like Life Is Strange has less gameplay challenge than Space Invaders but would make for an awful movie.

how bout for every choice the audience goes into a different theater
---

Esrac posted...

To be a game, it typically requires a set of rules, a competition (even against a computer) decided by skill/chance, a fail state of some kind, etc.

Nope. Video games are not sports, therefore they don't need to follow the same rules.
---

Darmik posted...

Esrac posted...

Your player character in Minecraft can be killed and has enemy mobs that try to kill the player character. That is a fail state and a means of competing against the computer.

It doesn't have to have those things.

What about The Sims? What's a fail state in that game? Dying? That's inevitable in the sequels. The point of that game is you have a scenario and you as a player can handle that as you see fit. There are several games like this.

It's a silly line to draw. The Stanley Parable has no 'fail states' and that game is absolutely relies that you know and understand game design, gameplay and how that relationship is drawn between the player and the game.

How about a puzzle game with no fail state? Is that so different than most 'walking simulators'? Most walking simulators don't progress until you do or find the right thing to unlock the next segment.

What about VR? Lots of games impress because of the interactivity in the world around you. Picking up a can on a table and throwing it at someone. Are these not games because you can't fail? But yet people can spend a lot of time just messing around with stuff around them to see what happens.

The neat thing about video games is that they can be anything. An interactive story. A sandbox. A test of skill. A logic puzzle. Something to explore and find. A fun way to learn coding. A rhythm experience. etc. Give control to the player and there's automatically potential you cannot find anywhere else.

Even something like Gone Home relies on you as a player poking and prodding through someone's home. Reading their letters, looking through their belongings, finding their hidden secrets etc. It would not work as a book or movie. It would not have the same meaning for people. Pretty much all walking simulators are like this. They communicate something to players that can only be found in video games. Think of how much exploring Rapture connected with people. So many stories can be told solely through an interactive environment that a player explores.

I don't consider The Sims a game. It's more akin to a rudimentary third person life simulator.

I don't know anything about The Stanley Parable, so I won't comment.

What puzzle games can you think of that don't involve a fail state? Then again, if you can't fail in some way, I wouldn't consider it a game. Not all puzzles are games.

If the VR title in question doesn't have some of the elements I listed, it probably isn't a game. It's probably some kind of reality simulator.

Yes. We all know there are many kinds of video games. No one will dispute that. But right now we are quibbling over what we count as a game.

I acknowledge the particular benefits of exploring an interacting, immersive environment. Those are nice qualities to have in a game, but they aren't enough to qualify a piece of media as a game. Interactivity is just one of several qualities that a game must have. Not every interactive thing you can manipulate and play with is a game; some are toys, for example.

I don't think either of us is inclined to change our minds. Maybe my definition of "game" is just more rigid than yours.
---