Was this game deep or was it all just a bunch of bizzaro bullshit to try and seem deep?
Just some weird stuff, don't try to take it too seriously.
>>319443656
Probably both.
>>319443656
4deep3you
Why does it have to be deep anyway? Can't it be bizarro bullshit without being deep?
>>319443656
If you have to ask, you should already know the answer.
So what exactly is wrong with being deep? Just another /v/ buzzword?
>>319444451
Because it's a video game. They're supposed to be fun, trying to shoehorn an overarching philosophical agenda without adding anything of particular enjoyment into something made to be fun is just retarded
>>319444910
So basically "It's bad because I don't like it" logic. Neat.
If I made a fun game with a deep story, does that make the game no longer fun? Even if the "deep story" doesn't get in the way of gameplay?
>>319443656
The ending definitely got me.
At some points it was tryhard, likethose babies when you go back to a purified area, but a lot of it was fun and visually appealing.
And honestly, anything can be deep if you see it that way.
>>319445092
You conveniently overlooked the part where I said "if it doesn't add any enjoyment". If the story adds to the game then fucking cool but if it's just obviously trying to say something for the sake of being philosophical for no reason then it just comes off as retarded and out of place
>>319443656
Bizarro
>>319445728
When the fuck did you say that? It seems like you're just trying to parrot everything /v/ says and demand everything be a linear and simplistic. Quit being a contrarian and go outside for once.
>>319444074
I agree with this guy
Your daily reminder that Batter did nothing wrong.
>>319446303
>philosophical agenda without adding anything of particular enjoyment
not him but you fucked up senpai
