FYI this was recorded on my 770 as my 1070 was busy rendering at the time. Next up we have the end of year review as well as my best and worst GOTY, it's already recorded, just need to edit it all today. So post below what your best and worst games of the year, be interesting to see if anyone chooses the same as me.
Best game to me was Doom Worst game, jeez, take your pick from 85% of what's on Steam, how about No man's sky, simply because of the hate/lies that game brought forth, refunded that one.
Man, shame that this masterpiece is being judged by price. And by replayability it depends whether you enjoy the experience, and that also includes the meaning and storytelling. It's like rewatching a favorite movie, you know what happens and you still love it
IMO You shouldn't judge a game based on it's length so much. Inside had a great story, excellent graphics/atmosphere, amazing sound design, it was a complete joy for the 4'ish hours it took me to finish it. Titanfall 2 you said was worth a buy for the single player alone, so why not inside? The single player only lasts around 5-7 hours and equates to about the same price per/hour as Inside.
Inside's single player is heavily scripted, railroaded as fuck. Titanfall 2, you can run on any wall, blahblahblah. Titanfall 2's singleplayer is much, much better.
+Loupis Canis When judging them on single player? No, both are great at what they do, inside excels at its atmosphere/world/story and the mystery aspect along with fun platforming and puzzles, titanfall 2 excels are fun fps gameplay and a good story. Inside has a secret ending you can find that will take a while to piece together, outside of reading a guide. Both are good but short games.
gyloir I wouldn't say Inside was great at what it did. The story is the typical indie 2deep4u crap that hides its poor writing with lack of exposition. The gameplay is one of the most linear things I've seen in a long time, and so are the puzzles. To say Inside "excelled" is an overstatement. The only thing it nailed was the atmosphere, and even then that's only because they refused to explain the story at all. Any game can do that by forcing you to do something without explaining it, and plenty of games have. It's the cheapest method of adding atmosphere, right next to directly telling the player how to feel. (For example, The Last Guardian, where it has to tell you how you and the dog feel rather than actually showing it without narration. Not only that, but it refuses to explain the magitech soldiers or how anything came to happen, much like how Inside refuses to explain literally everything).
Poor writing? Just because it made you think and try to leave you with a mystery doesn't make it poor writing, in fact there are many people that like its story for those very reasons, a story that makes you actually think about it and try to uncover its secrets and things that you probably missed by going through it only once. Not all stories have to be tied up with a bow that gives you complete closure and spells everything out for you.
When have you played a 3 hour demo? Also good old days in gaming is partly nostalgia; yes some games were great back in the day, but they also usually didn't have a lot of content either; which is why most games back then were so difficult; you'd have to constantly replay the game; inching further and further to the end. A lot of games from the older consoles like the Genesis and NES could be beat in an hour or two if you didn't die very often or have to start over a lot. I think it was partly because of the size limitations of the cartridges and such.
Sure, if you want to ruin it for yourself. When are people going to wise up and realize that watching someone else play a game is not even remotely the same as playing it themselves?
A game that's focused on narrative and atmosphere that's 3 hours long with no replay seems more like a purchase to you than a watch? I don't see anything in this game worth playing and I constantly replay my old games. This would just be sitting on my harddrive after I'm done, and there isn't even any guarantee I'm going to like the story either. If it's a play to you then go play it, but for stuff like this I'd rather watch it.
Inside is a one-trick-pony, although it does a fabulous trick if you've seen it already, either directly or second-hand, there's little incentive to go back.
That's not untrue, but I also think of a game that offers a singular experience with no obvious replay value as worth owning in the same way that a painting you love is worth looking at again, as an object to be appreciated. You might not be surprised by Inside on a second playthrough, but that doesn't mean you'll never want to go through it again just because you like it, you know?
Uhh yeah that's not the same thing though. People don't own paintings simply because they like them. If they just liked them they could buy a cheap print and frame it, or use it as their desktop wallpaper. People buy and own paintings because they have value, and that value appreciates over time, so they are an asset. Games as digital goods have no inherent value apart from what they currently go for on the market, since you as a user do not own that game but merely hold the license to use that game and as digital goods your ownership of it is limited. Saying that though, I can still appreciate the experience by looking it up on CZcams, you make a comparison to a painting, but I think you forgot about prints and replicas of paintings as well as digital copies of paintings, and that actually hurts your comparison than helps it. I can look up different playthroughs of the game at any time, but like I said, if you find value in owning the game, then it's good for you.
This is a typical game that tells you a lot about how a reviewer thinks, which is important if you are to discern to what extent that reviewer reflects your own preferences. Check out Joseph Anderson's review. He does in depth game analysis and he didn't like this game at all. Then check out Jim Sterling's review, he loved it to the point of it becoming farcical.
I think one of the things that separates Mack from the other reviewers is that most other reviewers get their games for free so the fact that such a product costs a really high asking price usually goes right above their heads. They may mention it but they may fail to realize the value of that much money since they never had to buy it. I usually only trust reviewers who have bought the game themselves and almost always the ones who bought the game are more critical than the ones who were handed it for free.
It's one of those games, where you can get as much out of it just watching a lets play, than buying it yourself. I watched it a while back. Still would have loved to see Mack playing it though.
"Game" has been an umbrella term for a variety type of experiences for a long time now. Let's look at the obvious with 3 examples: Besieged vs. The Walking Dead vs. Abzu. Besieged is like painting - you're given red, blue, and yellow paints for you to mix and match and a canvas to create whatever you want. The Walking Dead is similar to reading a graphical novel. Abzu is similar to going to an exotic location and look at the beautiful environment. Creative problem solving, reading a novel, and exploring the environment are 3 fundamentally different human experiences, but when made interactive, we somehow to sell, reviewed, and judged these wildly different experiences all under the term "games". I think for people like me, we associate "game" with interactive experiences that have interesting decision-making at their core (e.g. Chess, Go, Plant vs Zombies). This is why despite the terrific production value of games like Inside, we are much more focused on judging the interesting decision aspect and care less about the look and atmosphere of those games.
Visual storytelling at its finest. Great game. There is a hidden section in this game, actually a few, but most quite short. But if you find the pod I guess you would call it, that gives a slight change to things. Well worth the money for the play through, I dont care if it is short once that time is high quality and the love put into the game is clear.
Mate, the ending sequence is worth 15 quid alone. It's a beautifully paced game and people won't find much better in this genre. I played it twice for the achievements (finding all secrets without Google is good fun). I agree it's not worth more than £15. Thumbs up.
£14.99 is just acceptable and there is a second playthrough in therewith an alternate ending if you find all the collectables. I got 8 hours out of it with 2 playthroughs and finding a secret area.
Hey again Mack. I think there are at least two endings to the game so it doesn't have "no" replay-ability, but I wouldn't want to play it all the way through again for that.
There is a reason to go back if you are looking for the secret ending, which sometimes involves solving optional puzzles. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
There is an alternative ending that seriously changes the ending if you activate all the hidden gizmos, so there is some reason to replay it, and I'm actually planning on it soon.
That's in my opinion as lame as giving the players artwork after you've fought to unlock a challenge in a game. I'm getting flashbacks of all the japanese hack n' slash titles I've been grinding side area challenges on, only to unlock a secret gallery of dumb artwork.
I wouldn't say so, given that the game's original ending is so cryptic and haunting and the alternate ending apparently helps a lot to make sense of it. At least, I'm quite motivated to go through and get the alternate ending. It's a small thing but actually I don't feel that the price is such bad value in any case and it can't be compared to something like 7 Days to Die or even worse NMS which has infinite hours of terrible gameplay. Inside had more impact on me than any other game in 2016.
This game's ambiguity feels forced, near the ending. It doesn't really leave you with a "I wonder what that was all about..." kind of feeling, it leaves a more "What the actual fuck was the point in that?".
I enjoy Mack's reviews a lot because I often disagree with his criteria. For example, I strongly disagree with Mack using pounds per time spent as the most important measure to value a game's worth, but I do agree that there is an "inflection point" where no amount of quality or length can justify the price, anyway. And to me, this game sits slightly above that worth-a-buy threshold. This is because the game is different enough so that other criteria becomes relevant (like how much is one pound worth to you, or how much you enjoy genres other than first person shooters). Even the core of the game - the puzzles - are not complex enough. The game keeps you engaged via other means, which is exactly why was so successful. For example, every casual gamer whom I have recommended the game has enjoyed it quite a lot, which clashes with Mack's recommendation. In the end, it's one of those experiences that open your mind about gaming, which ultimately makes you enjoy them more. Eventually, at least.
I totally disagree with you on this one. This game is totally worth the 15$. The comparison you made with 7DTD doesn't make any sense, because, as you said it's totally different. And I personally think that INSIDE *does* have replayability. I assume you know how the game ends, *SPOILER* and if you are just a tiny bit curious about it you could play the game again to see if you missed *any* parts of the story (because the ending being so weird as it is). Not to mention there's a secret ending to the game too. This is one of those games that, once you've made it to the end, it doesn't feel like 3 hours. In fact, the game is designed in a way so that the player actually *wants* to get closer and closer to the ending as he plays through the game. And on top of all of that, like you said, everything in this game is just crafted perfectly. My opinion, get this game and play it, you simply won't regret it.
On the other hand, Mack, 3 hours that are THAT good (as you say, I haven't played it yet), COULD be worth a lot more than 20-30 hours you give to a game of similar price but wasn't as good an experience. The example I have in mind is Valiant Hearts. That game for me was an AMAZING experience, very short as well, but worth a lot more than the price I bought it for. And also worth a lot more than games of that price-range that can offer 5x the playtime...
I played this game and it is absolutely fabulous. Possibly the best three hours of gameplay I've ever played. That being said it is expensive. But, steam had a 2 hour refund policy so just give it a try. If you don't like it refund it. It is also made by the same studio that made limbo which is another great game. I understand why you gave it a thumbs down but as you said think of it as an experience not a game.
Even though that game is very short, it's one of the few games that was possible for me to 100% complete. So at least there's that. It's also a very fun and intriguing game, you should get it on a steam sale or for it's 15 pound if LIMBO was worth it's full price for you.
yeahh buddy The quantity of a game is also an aspect of quality. Some people don't have much money to spare, so when they buy a game they want to buy it for good and want to play it for a long time. But you don't want to play the same 3 hour game over and over again. INSIDE is still a good game that i would recommend everyone i know.
The animation and play style of the game reminds me a lot of 'Another World' which was also a short game but revolutionary for its time. Prince of Persia from the Snes also comes to mind.
This is a pretty good example of why I don't think price should enter into the discussion when reviewing media. You wanted to recommend this but were trapped by the sort of consumer-advising angle of your channel. Especially for gamers today, time is more valuable than money, and quality is worth more than quantity. The discussion of how many hours of content a buck should buy you is really damned uninteresting; people can make that judgment for themselves and decide whether the game sounds good enough to merit the price because the quality is so densely packed or whether they personally need to wait for a sale because price per hour matters that much to them.
I hate platformers and I hate puzzles in games, just started this to get the badges from steam to sell and ended up getting hooked and completing it, the attention to detail is amazing!
Got it on the Steam sale currently for £10, it's a game I've wanted to play for a while but admittedly found a tad steep at £15. For me that price is just about WAB, I'm sure at some point it will drop to £5 in another sale.
Have to disagree based on how much I enjoyed the game. Yes its ~3h long but unlike most/all? games these days it doesn't waste a second of it. Its so well constructed, atmospheric and well thought out that nothing ever feels padded, but rather like a worthwhile experience throughout. And that's a rarity! I cant recall a game these past 10 years that's managed anything similar. This game almost made me feel like a kid again, where your uncharted, halos etc. just make me fall asleep of boredom.
Would buy it if they made a linux version ;-) A lovingly crafted 3 hour expirience is worth more then your typical, mildly entertaining 25-50h AAA Blockbuster title - and they are asking way less...
Nice review, I do like the look of the animation. Have you thought of adding a 3rd way of marking/labeling a game? You've got the red thumbs down, the green thumbs up, perhaps a yellow thumbs sideways? It would mean "some caveats" which would most likely either be, "get it on sale for proper value for money" or, "great for people who like the genre but not for the average gamer" type. With the dialogue in the review making it clear what the caveat is.
Seconded! Building a impentrable fortress is great fun. And developing strategys to optimally use the dead raiders that soon pile up in your fortress as a resource is even *more* fun.
Yep, cannibalism. Also, you can craft clothes out of their skin. Cannibalism/butchering humans comes with some mood penaltys though, unless all your colonists have the cannibal or psychopath trait. A penalty free way to use raiders is to feed their corpses to you pigs, then let your colonists eat the pigs. That kind of indirect cannibalism doesn't count as cannibalism.
You should really write children's novels :P But that is an interesting idea. I've never kept farm animals in any of my playthroughs yet, so I think I'll definitely do that when I get back into RimWorld.
I think you should do a WAB on Ole Meg. I'd pay to see that:) Even if you have to get some random girl to be Ole Meg and play it all out, I'll still watch that review. Here are things you should cover in your Review: Cooking Skills, Fellatio, Conversational Skills, Etc... And if you could some how throw X-ray vision in there, that would be great. Thanks in advance Mack:)
I agree the price point is too high but it's like you said- it could be like buying a movie. 3 1/2 hours is longer than most movies so ya. but it should be half the price
I totally agree with you, 7 days to die is a great value game. I've played 800+ hours and i still love it. Do another review Mac please of this game and show and educate people and hopefully some developers what a real game should be like.I would pay £100+ for this game and still feel like it was worth a buy. People are accepting rubbish and developers are getting away with producing rubbish,that way the gaming industry going down-hill.
Mack I think you should review your game based solely on the game quality itself, regardless of the price. Then let the viewer decide if is worth the money. It this case you could say it is worth a buy but not for this much money.
One quick comment about there being zero re playability. There are two different endings to the game. Yep, it's short game at 3 hours, but to get the other ending, that adds up to over six. Overall, another marvel from Playdead.
GameThruz well, probably they spent a good amount of money developing this.. And they probably know that the game will have a small fanbase who will buy it for sure.. The other strategy would be to make it 8.99 and hope for a hype...
"Hey, guys...this game is fun, has a sense of dread which makes it very immersive... BUT IT'S ONLY 3 HOURS LONG! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS GAME!" Stay classy, mac.
Thumbs down? Really? There is a big difference between quality and quantity. This is an amazing quality game. This is why I still play video games at 30 years of age. 15 pounds? So what? You definetely spent that kind of money when going to the movies to see one of them awful new Star Wars movies. And they weren't anywhere near 3 hours long (thank the lord!!). Anyway, this game is worth a buy. I paid 16 Euros on GOG and never felt cheated at all!
I really enjoyed this game. It reminded me a lot of another game back in the day - Another World. There is an true ending to this which is tricky to get but an utter mind-fuck, but yes, not really much replay value. Short and sweet. Not worth £15 but if you can get it on sale for less than £10, it's worth it.
Seriously? Gutted about this. Mac! You're my go-to guy for game reviews... but you've let yourself down again (Witcher 3) with this one. This game is definitely worth £15. Without doubt. Its a truly exhilarating, haunting experience. Blueray movies cost about £15 new and this is longer than a movie a much more immersive. THUMB IT UP :(
Amazing game, for such a shrot one, what an experience! But I kinda agree, I had so many indie gems combined on sale for that price. I highly recommend getting it on a sale, at 30% or 50% off.
FYI this was recorded on my 770 as my 1070 was busy rendering at the time.
Next up we have the end of year review as well as my best and worst GOTY, it's already recorded, just need to edit it all today.
So post below what your best and worst games of the year, be interesting to see if anyone chooses the same as me.
Worth A Buy best game of 2016 has to be blood and bacon!
Best/Worst games of the year, are my favorite. Thank you for doing this!
I just play csgo all day lol, but i like ashes of the singularity a lot
W000t can't wait love your videos really make me laugh.
Best game to me was Doom
Worst game, jeez, take your pick from 85% of what's on Steam, how about No man's sky, simply because of the hate/lies that game brought forth, refunded that one.
3 hours is all it takes for me to get inside
I was already laughing while watching the review and I scroll down and this just completes it
*OMG* XDD
Best comment ever!
The exact same time it took the French to surrender, quelle surprise!
Bryce I don't get it
"3 hours is half as much time I take when I'm having sex" - Mac
You crack me up Mac!
A bit short, I agree, but 3 amazing enjoyable hours, with an insane ending... 31% discount now on Steam... then it's definitely worth a buy
Only the INSIDE + LIMBO Bundle.
Inside is only 30% off (13,99€)
*Ding!*
You are right, corrected...
RuddsReels haha, actually laughed:)
it ended up as a dead meat ball....what's so amazing about that ending?
Man, shame that this masterpiece is being judged by price. And by replayability it depends whether you enjoy the experience, and that also includes the meaning and storytelling. It's like rewatching a favorite movie, you know what happens and you still love it
7:13 WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK WAS THAT!? XD HAHAHAHA!
A maggot. Mack mentioned it earlier in the video.
there will be way more weird stuff going around later in the game :D
Sismanski
interesting ...
xD
IMO You shouldn't judge a game based on it's length so much.
Inside had a great story, excellent graphics/atmosphere, amazing sound design, it was a complete joy for the 4'ish hours it took me to finish it.
Titanfall 2 you said was worth a buy for the single player alone, so why not inside? The single player only lasts around 5-7 hours and equates to about the same price per/hour as Inside.
Inside's single player is heavily scripted, railroaded as fuck. Titanfall 2, you can run on any wall, blahblahblah. Titanfall 2's singleplayer is much, much better.
gyloir , Dude you really dont see the diffrence tween them 2 games?
+Loupis Canis When judging them on single player? No, both are great at what they do, inside excels at its atmosphere/world/story and the mystery aspect along with fun platforming and puzzles, titanfall 2 excels are fun fps gameplay and a good story. Inside has a secret ending you can find that will take a while to piece together, outside of reading a guide. Both are good but short games.
gyloir I wouldn't say Inside was great at what it did. The story is the typical indie 2deep4u crap that hides its poor writing with lack of exposition. The gameplay is one of the most linear things I've seen in a long time, and so are the puzzles.
To say Inside "excelled" is an overstatement. The only thing it nailed was the atmosphere, and even then that's only because they refused to explain the story at all. Any game can do that by forcing you to do something without explaining it, and plenty of games have. It's the cheapest method of adding atmosphere, right next to directly telling the player how to feel.
(For example, The Last Guardian, where it has to tell you how you and the dog feel rather than actually showing it without narration. Not only that, but it refuses to explain the magitech soldiers or how anything came to happen, much like how Inside refuses to explain literally everything).
Poor writing? Just because it made you think and try to leave you with a mystery doesn't make it poor writing, in fact there are many people that like its story for those very reasons, a story that makes you actually think about it and try to uncover its secrets and things that you probably missed by going through it only once.
Not all stories have to be tied up with a bow that gives you complete closure and spells everything out for you.
Only a couple years ago games that lasted only 3 hrs were free and called demos
Wow you're right. I'd completely forgotten about those good old days in gaming!
When have you played a 3 hour demo? Also good old days in gaming is partly nostalgia; yes some games were great back in the day, but they also usually didn't have a lot of content either; which is why most games back then were so difficult; you'd have to constantly replay the game; inching further and further to the end. A lot of games from the older consoles like the Genesis and NES could be beat in an hour or two if you didn't die very often or have to start over a lot. I think it was partly because of the size limitations of the cartridges and such.
"The sentence, of the developer"
Seems the type of game to 'experience' on CZcams.
Sure, if you want to ruin it for yourself. When are people going to wise up and realize that watching someone else play a game is not even remotely the same as playing it themselves?
A game that's focused on narrative and atmosphere that's 3 hours long with no replay seems more like a purchase to you than a watch? I don't see anything in this game worth playing and I constantly replay my old games. This would just be sitting on my harddrive after I'm done, and there isn't even any guarantee I'm going to like the story either. If it's a play to you then go play it, but for stuff like this I'd rather watch it.
Inside is a one-trick-pony, although it does a fabulous trick if you've seen it already, either directly or second-hand, there's little incentive to go back.
That's not untrue, but I also think of a game that offers a singular experience with no obvious replay value as worth owning in the same way that a painting you love is worth looking at again, as an object to be appreciated. You might not be surprised by Inside on a second playthrough, but that doesn't mean you'll never want to go through it again just because you like it, you know?
Uhh yeah that's not the same thing though. People don't own paintings simply because they like them. If they just liked them they could buy a cheap print and frame it, or use it as their desktop wallpaper. People buy and own paintings because they have value, and that value appreciates over time, so they are an asset. Games as digital goods have no inherent value apart from what they currently go for on the market, since you as a user do not own that game but merely hold the license to use that game and as digital goods your ownership of it is limited.
Saying that though, I can still appreciate the experience by looking it up on CZcams, you make a comparison to a painting, but I think you forgot about prints and replicas of paintings as well as digital copies of paintings, and that actually hurts your comparison than helps it.
I can look up different playthroughs of the game at any time, but like I said, if you find value in owning the game, then it's good for you.
I can't wait for the sequel.. " Outside"! lolz.
This is a typical game that tells you a lot about how a reviewer thinks, which is important if you are to discern to what extent that reviewer reflects your own preferences.
Check out Joseph Anderson's review. He does in depth game analysis and he didn't like this game at all. Then check out Jim Sterling's review, he loved it to the point of it becoming farcical.
Exactly, mine is real and understandable :)
I think one of the things that separates Mack from the other reviewers is that most other reviewers get their games for free so the fact that such a product costs a really high asking price usually goes right above their heads. They may mention it but they may fail to realize the value of that much money since they never had to buy it. I usually only trust reviewers who have bought the game themselves and almost always the ones who bought the game are more critical than the ones who were handed it for free.
I didn't feel cheated when I finished this game. It might be scripted but I enjoyed it so much that I can easily see myself replaying it.
This looks like a sequel to Limbo. That was short but amazing too.
It's one of those games, where you can get as much out of it just watching a lets play, than buying it yourself. I watched it a while back. Still would have loved to see Mack playing it though.
thanks for showing this gem some love :)
"Game" has been an umbrella term for a variety type of experiences for a long time now.
Let's look at the obvious with 3 examples: Besieged vs. The Walking Dead vs. Abzu.
Besieged is like painting - you're given red, blue, and yellow paints for you to mix and match and a canvas to create whatever you want. The Walking Dead is similar to reading a graphical novel. Abzu is similar to going to an exotic location and look at the beautiful environment.
Creative problem solving, reading a novel, and exploring the environment are 3 fundamentally different human experiences, but when made interactive, we somehow to sell, reviewed, and judged these wildly different experiences all under the term "games".
I think for people like me, we associate "game" with interactive experiences that have interesting decision-making at their core (e.g. Chess, Go, Plant vs Zombies). This is why despite the terrific production value of games like Inside, we are much more focused on judging the interesting decision aspect and care less about the look and atmosphere of those games.
I do understand the price concern but glad you still enjoyed it Mack. :)
Visual storytelling at its finest. Great game. There is a hidden section in this game, actually a few, but most quite short. But if you find the pod I guess you would call it, that gives a slight change to things. Well worth the money for the play through, I dont care if it is short once that time is high quality and the love put into the game is clear.
Finding all the secrets takes much longer than 3 hours.
Can someone tell me the Origin of Meg? Who is she and why is Mack bringing her up on many of his vids? xD
Charzey interesting! x)
Got it on sale for 4.99 USD
Mate, the ending sequence is worth 15 quid alone. It's a beautifully paced game and people won't find much better in this genre. I played it twice for the achievements (finding all secrets without Google is good fun). I agree it's not worth more than £15. Thumbs up.
Do a Worth a Buy on Old Meg.
£14.99 is just acceptable and there is a second playthrough in therewith an alternate ending if you find all the collectables. I got 8 hours out of it with 2 playthroughs and finding a secret area.
I just finished this. It was a little expensive for the 3-4 hours but like you I enjoyed it.
Mack, you should make an orange colored logo with a minus and money sign on it, meaning it's only worth a buy when on sale, or something like that.
Mac is spending donation money on old meg!
The reason why Titanfall 2 is wab and Inside is not is because it has replayability.
Sedar Games I'm waiting for a big sale
Guerrier Lory Well, now's the time cause christmas sales
3 hours dont matter if you love the game. some of my fav games ever are less than that
yea like journey. little nightmares too
Yay! You have now done a WAB on Inside!
Hey again Mack. I think there are at least two endings to the game so it doesn't have "no" replay-ability, but I wouldn't want to play it all the way through again for that.
I lasted 3 hours inside.
I wonder what Mack would think of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.
There is a reason to go back if you are looking for the secret ending, which sometimes involves solving optional puzzles. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
There is an alternative ending that seriously changes the ending if you activate all the hidden gizmos, so there is some reason to replay it, and I'm actually planning on it soon.
That's in my opinion as lame as giving the players artwork after you've fought to unlock a challenge in a game. I'm getting flashbacks of all the japanese hack n' slash titles I've been grinding side area challenges on, only to unlock a secret gallery of dumb artwork.
I wouldn't say so, given that the game's original ending is so cryptic and haunting and the alternate ending apparently helps a lot to make sense of it. At least, I'm quite motivated to go through and get the alternate ending. It's a small thing but actually I don't feel that the price is such bad value in any case and it can't be compared to something like 7 Days to Die or even worse NMS which has infinite hours of terrible gameplay. Inside had more impact on me than any other game in 2016.
This game's ambiguity feels forced, near the ending. It doesn't really leave you with a "I wonder what that was all about..." kind of feeling, it leaves a more "What the actual fuck was the point in that?".
3 hours, just enough to fall outside of the Steam refund period...
Mark of the Ninja is still one of the best modern platformers.
I enjoy Mack's reviews a lot because I often disagree with his criteria. For example, I strongly disagree with Mack using pounds per time spent as the most important measure to value a game's worth, but I do agree that there is an "inflection point" where no amount of quality or length can justify the price, anyway. And to me, this game sits slightly above that worth-a-buy threshold. This is because the game is different enough so that other criteria becomes relevant (like how much is one pound worth to you, or how much you enjoy genres other than first person shooters).
Even the core of the game - the puzzles - are not complex enough. The game keeps you engaged via other means, which is exactly why was so successful. For example, every casual gamer whom I have recommended the game has enjoyed it quite a lot, which clashes with Mack's recommendation. In the end, it's one of those experiences that open your mind about gaming, which ultimately makes you enjoy them more. Eventually, at least.
Been waiting for this wab for a while, my friends highly recommended it
Definitely worth a watch though. Very interesting atmosphere and story, quite an unique experience. Pick your favorite CZcamsr and it's a great time.
Lol, I tried to press shortcut to turn off Shadowplay FPS counter :D
Woops - it was in the video.
I totally disagree with you on this one. This game is totally worth the 15$. The comparison you made with 7DTD doesn't make any sense, because, as you said it's totally different. And I personally think that INSIDE *does* have replayability. I assume you know how the game ends, *SPOILER* and if you are just a tiny bit curious about it you could play the game again to see if you missed *any* parts of the story (because the ending being so weird as it is). Not to mention there's a secret ending to the game too. This is one of those games that, once you've made it to the end, it doesn't feel like 3 hours. In fact, the game is designed in a way so that the player actually *wants* to get closer and closer to the ending as he plays through the game. And on top of all of that, like you said, everything in this game is just crafted perfectly. My opinion, get this game and play it, you simply won't regret it.
I loved Inside, and I agree it's worth the money! It's so breath-takingly beautiful!
5:20 LMAO!! Damn,that gave me an ulcer. =))))
Well, IGN gave this game a 10/10 score.
On the other hand, Mack, 3 hours that are THAT good (as you say, I haven't played it yet), COULD be worth a lot more than 20-30 hours you give to a game of similar price but wasn't as good an experience.
The example I have in mind is Valiant Hearts. That game for me was an AMAZING experience, very short as well, but worth a lot more than the price I bought it for. And also worth a lot more than games of that price-range that can offer 5x the playtime...
I played this game and it is absolutely fabulous. Possibly the best three hours of gameplay I've ever played. That being said it is expensive. But, steam had a 2 hour refund policy so just give it a try. If you don't like it refund it. It is also made by the same studio that made limbo which is another great game. I understand why you gave it a thumbs down but as you said think of it as an experience not a game.
Reminds me of 'Another World' and 'Flashback' on the Amiga.
Even though that game is very short, it's one of the few games that was possible for me to 100% complete. So at least there's that. It's also a very fun and intriguing game, you should get it on a steam sale or for it's 15 pound if LIMBO was worth it's full price for you.
Mr Miste i dont understand this gen with people act like " if game isnt atleast 20 hours long, not buying" . they think quantity over quality.
yeahh buddy The quantity of a game is also an aspect of quality. Some people don't have much money to spare, so when they buy a game they want to buy it for good and want to play it for a long time. But you don't want to play the same 3 hour game over and over again. INSIDE is still a good game that i would recommend everyone i know.
Double frame counter I like it Mac
this looks a bit like a limbo clone
pete wrigly I know this comment is late but they're made by the same people and Inside is supposed to be kind of a spiritual successor
Mac... you... read the words.
The animation and play style of the game reminds me a lot of 'Another World' which was also a short game but revolutionary for its time.
Prince of Persia from the Snes also comes to mind.
If you're reading this have a good day!
Thank you.. You too mate
This is a pretty good example of why I don't think price should enter into the discussion when reviewing media. You wanted to recommend this but were trapped by the sort of consumer-advising angle of your channel. Especially for gamers today, time is more valuable than money, and quality is worth more than quantity. The discussion of how many hours of content a buck should buy you is really damned uninteresting; people can make that judgment for themselves and decide whether the game sounds good enough to merit the price because the quality is so densely packed or whether they personally need to wait for a sale because price per hour matters that much to them.
I loved this game. Worth a buy to me. Would have been nice if it was about $10.99 though.
Happy New Year, Mack!
I hate platformers and I hate puzzles in games, just started this to get the badges from steam to sell and ended up getting hooked and completing it, the attention to detail is amazing!
Inside: A.K.A. Better animated Limbo
This review is longer than this game
did you guys know that apple sell a book with pictures of their products just pictures and it cost 350 dollars
3 hours? Maybe a game I actually have time to finish
Got it on the Steam sale currently for £10, it's a game I've wanted to play for a while but admittedly found a tad steep at £15. For me that price is just about WAB, I'm sure at some point it will drop to £5 in another sale.
Have to disagree based on how much I enjoyed the game. Yes its ~3h long but unlike most/all? games these days it doesn't waste a second of it. Its so well constructed, atmospheric and well thought out that nothing ever feels padded, but rather like a worthwhile experience throughout. And that's a rarity! I cant recall a game these past 10 years that's managed anything similar. This game almost made me feel like a kid again, where your uncharted, halos etc. just make me fall asleep of boredom.
Its like a movie. Movie tickets costs like 15€ and they last about 3h.
You're comparing apples to spag bol.
Where do you live man? 15€? What the actual?!?! for movie ticket? I live in center europe, and I pay for movie tickets 5-6€...
Finland
Myst Germany here. Around 10€
In Norway its even more expensive.
It's basically limbo.
Would buy it if they made a linux version ;-)
A lovingly crafted 3 hour expirience is worth more then your typical, mildly entertaining 25-50h AAA Blockbuster title - and they are asking way less...
Mentioning of Star Wars Force Awakens made me think you should also do some Worth-a-Watch videos :)
Nice review, I do like the look of the animation. Have you thought of adding a 3rd way of marking/labeling a game? You've got the red thumbs down, the green thumbs up, perhaps a yellow thumbs sideways? It would mean "some caveats" which would most likely either be, "get it on sale for proper value for money" or, "great for people who like the genre but not for the average gamer" type. With the dialogue in the review making it clear what the caveat is.
I know it's still in Early Access, but my game of the year is RimWorld :D
Seconded! Building a impentrable fortress is great fun. And developing strategys to optimally use the dead raiders that soon pile up in your fortress as a resource is even *more* fun.
How do you use the dead raiders as a resource? Are we talking cannibalism?
Rimjobs!!!
Yep, cannibalism. Also, you can craft clothes out of their skin. Cannibalism/butchering humans comes with some mood penaltys though, unless all your colonists have the cannibal or psychopath trait.
A penalty free way to use raiders is to feed their corpses to you pigs, then let your colonists eat the pigs. That kind of indirect cannibalism doesn't count as cannibalism.
You should really write children's novels :P
But that is an interesting idea. I've never kept farm animals in any of my playthroughs yet, so I think I'll definitely do that when I get back into RimWorld.
I think you should do a WAB on Ole Meg. I'd pay to see that:) Even if you have to get some random girl to be Ole Meg and play it all out, I'll still watch that review. Here are things you should cover in your Review: Cooking Skills, Fellatio, Conversational Skills, Etc... And if you could some how throw X-ray vision in there, that would be great. Thanks in advance Mack:)
I agree the price point is too high but it's like you said- it could be like buying a movie. 3 1/2 hours is longer than most movies so ya. but it should be half the price
I completed this game and wanted to replay it straight away
I totally agree with you, 7 days to die is a great value game. I've played 800+ hours and i still love it. Do another review Mac please of this game and show and educate people and hopefully some developers what a real game should be like.I would pay £100+ for this game and still feel like it was worth a buy.
People are accepting rubbish and developers are getting away with producing rubbish,that way the gaming industry going down-hill.
5:30 - sneaky but accurate review of Star Wars: Rogue One.
Mack I think you should review your game based solely on the game quality itself, regardless of the price. Then let the viewer decide if is worth the money. It this case you could say it is worth a buy but not for this much money.
One quick comment about there being zero re playability.
There are two different endings to the game.
Yep, it's short game at 3 hours, but to get the other ending, that adds up to over six.
Overall, another marvel from Playdead.
Please do Shadow Tactics.
i though it was going to be a behind the scenes video.
I honestly don't know how devs come up with their prices sometimes.
GameThruz well, probably they spent a good amount of money developing this.. And they probably know that the game will have a small fanbase who will buy it for sure.. The other strategy would be to make it 8.99 and hope for a hype...
Back when YT reviewers didn't undertsand nuance
Ah those were the times
looks like limbo, that was a good n. looks like it will be worth picking up on a steam sale.
Oh, I thought this was gonna be a "behind the scenes" vid. ;(
do you use V-synch or a Frame Rate limiter?
This game suffers from "BUT MUH ART GAME" Syndrome.
Yeah.. guessed as much from limbo being so short lived too. Going to buy it when the price is reasonable.
This looks like something from the creators of the game limbo
Probably because it is
"Hey, guys...this game is fun, has a sense of dread which makes it very immersive... BUT IT'S ONLY 3 HOURS LONG! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS GAME!"
Stay classy, mac.
Thumbs down? Really? There is a big difference between quality and quantity. This is an amazing quality game. This is why I still play video games at 30 years of age. 15 pounds? So what? You definetely spent that kind of money when going to the movies to see one of them awful new Star Wars movies. And they weren't anywhere near 3 hours long (thank the lord!!).
Anyway, this game is worth a buy. I paid 16 Euros on GOG and never felt cheated at all!
it's in my top games..but u were right
For me,it has to be Day of Infamy 😁
Damn, it's not on Mackscorner to watch :(
I really enjoyed this game. It reminded me a lot of another game back in the day - Another World. There is an true ending to this which is tricky to get but an utter mind-fuck, but yes, not really much replay value. Short and sweet. Not worth £15 but if you can get it on sale for less than £10, it's worth it.
Seriously? Gutted about this. Mac! You're my go-to guy for game reviews... but you've let yourself down again (Witcher 3) with this one. This game is definitely worth £15. Without doubt. Its a truly exhilarating, haunting experience. Blueray movies cost about £15 new and this is longer than a movie a much more immersive. THUMB IT UP :(
Amazing game, for such a shrot one, what an experience! But I kinda agree, I had so many indie gems combined on sale for that price. I highly recommend getting it on a sale, at 30% or 50% off.
The game is same price as a movie cause it is like a movie the price is reasonable
you should make a yellow sideways thumb for games like this instead of green thumb up or red thumb down.
I am loving it myself, but I too waited until I got a good sale before I snatched it finally.
Best-DOOM
Worst -Dishonored 2 BCS OF THE OPTIMISATION
Thank you....