Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
[…] the puritan can never be free of sexuality, but is vindictive towards the reality of sexuality. It’s easier for them to express their own sexuality through abuse and violence than it is to confront it or interrogate it.
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.
https://youtu.be/iCkwMFoQno0
So you’re saying this game is a work of art that will endure the ages? Worthy of hundreds of years of praise?
Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?
I’m asking if its good or if its edgelord shovelware.
Have you played it?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Thank you for the thorough answer, this is what I was looking for.
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.