Talk:Gone Home

Katie's Age

The description at the top explains she is a teenager coming home abroad, but Sam is 17 and even explains that Katie is 3 years older than her, meaning Katie is 20 and no longer an teenager. I'm just wondering whether this ought to be changed.

Kranitoko (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception: Critics versus Consumers

Roughly 40% of consumers are disappointed by Gone Home and believe it has been overhyped by critics. At Metacritic, the average user score is 5.3 based on 212 ratings. Consumer reviews at Metacritic and on the Steam Community forum mention the following criticisms, among others: just 1.5 to 2 hours of gameplay for more than 15 dollars/euros is not a good price/quality ratio, the game has no replay value, it contains no puzzles or intellectual challenges of any kind, its ending is predictable, and it's too slow-paced. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Unless it is reported on by reliable sources, it is considered original research and impermissible to include this content in the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. The reason why is, there have been many YouTube videos that show consumers playing the game, which has been given high ratings by reviewers, and beating Gone Home in less than 3 minutes. --Matt723star (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. This is pretty much a perfect example of OR and POV pushing. Silverseren^C 03:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, now the article has absolutely nothing but praise for the game. In no way is this bias, nope. Perfect game, 10/10. Not one real complaint clearly.76.98.53.123 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. I mean, I can understand not putting something like "this game fking sucks and was overrated". But to deny the polarizing reception the game had is just dumb and biased, now the article just talks about praise, so it's apparently a perfect game. Really, there are plenty of proofs, check ANY review site and look at the average review score for this game, it is well beyond 4 points less than the site's review score. Why cant this be considered a reliable source if the link takes you straight to the site? Regardless of the critics being through or not, most users were NOT happy with the game and that should be enough to simply add "Gone home received praise from reviewers but much more polarizing reviews from users". http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home http://www.gamespot.com/gone-home/summary/ http://www.ign.com/games/gone-home/pc-134185

Seriously if that's not considered reliable to show that the community in general didn't liked the game as much as reviewers did, then I dont know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.174.241 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the reason why the game has low user ratings is because this kind of game is not for everyone. I mean, no more than 10% of gamers can play it. But the game itself is really perfect, I enjoyed it so much and I can give it no less than 10/10. There are no bugs, sufficient amount of options (including FOV), the house is very detailed and a lot of effort was put into the game. So I think that this game is actually a piece of art, and it is outstanding. The fact that it is just for small number of people don't make it any bad, it just requires to clarify gameplay process so that people know what they are getting. Alexander Smetkin (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who LOVED the game...to not include data on user reception is biased. Particularly if you're going to use Metacritic for critical reception and then claim the SAME CITE is unreliable for user reviews...no, I'm sorry, either Metacritic is a reliable source or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, that's self-selected cherry picking of data. @Alexander...I agree that the game isn't for everyone, but I think that's the point of the user reviews. But...I also agree with you that the game is a sophisticated piece of art. StoneProphet11 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be an inclusion of the naysaying by the consumers, there must be citation of well-structured reviews on the part of the displeased consumers. Also, I would caution StoneProphet11 here that the list of critic reviews is considered "reliable" because of circumstances which make them very different from the user reviews. Firstly, there is what I have mentioned about structured reviews, and not all of those naysaying user reviews pass as well-written. Secondly, their authors are identified and thus their reviews can be considered as verifiably attributed to a single person (the same cannot be said so easily about the user reviews on Metacritic). This is your "cherry-picking" there - do mention how it is not justified instead of making a "both ways or no way" argument.2001:E68:3001:4C1:859A:D0DA:C54F:3F4 (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Are these "circumstances" rampant corruption and nepotism? The whole industry was thrown into such disrepute by GamerGate that I think user reviews are now at least as reliable as critic reviews. Critic reviews were always a big joke and the fact that they were mostly bought and paid for was kind of an open secret, but I don't think anybody can deny anymore that there's ample proof that the corruption is very far-reaching, especially when it concerns indie games. I would personally argue that the worst offending websites should be considered unreliable sources and unusable on Wikipedia, since it isn't much of a "critic" review when collusion is so blatantly exposed. In fact, Gone Home itself proves this as it was involved in the same kind of scandal when proof was found that the Polygon writers who reviewed and promoted the game were personal friends of the creator of the game, which throws that "10/10 GotY '13" opinion onto thin ice. I don't think it's intellectually honest to treat corrupt critics as an authority on the subject while not only denying the same status to the vastly more critical user reviews simply because these do not have the luxury of being considered "critic reviews", but also blatantly sweeping the issue under the rug by not even mentioning the issue. This is a textbook example of an appeal to authority. Wikipedia is better than that. 70.31.237.186 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@76.98.53.123: @82.170.113.123: - It's a limitation of Wikipedia: Because nobody in a "published reliable source" has written about the criticism as a secondary source, it can't be included. We'll have to cross our fingers and hope somebody does write about it. The same issue came up when I wrote Single Asian Female. There's a reason why I included talk page explanations on why the racism accusations (I state it politely as "allegations of racism" but to be frank, I agree with the characterization of the comic being racist) are unable to be included in the article: Talk:Single_Asian_Female#On racism accusations and Talk:Single_Asian_Female#On racism accusations - My suggestion is to write to a gaming magazine and ask them to write an article on why Gone Home is problematic. The moment somebody does that, we can include the criticisms. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoplite12 (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Can we now talk about the criticism of Gone Home instead of being ostriches with our heads in the sand?

I've read over both of the articles, they explore the theme of how narrative and genre conventions work in video games, but nothing there seemed to indicate any 'talk about the criticism of Gone Home'. Can you explain what criticism you feel that these articles are making and what relevant changes you'd like to see in the WP page for Gone Home?Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This critically acclaimed "game" is better than Ocarina of Time or Half-Life 2. Period. No questions asked. 10/10. Sarcasm aside, this entire Wikipedia article should be flagged for deletion. The article's content is complete garbage, and I am surprised it passed Wikipedia's "strict guidelines". You know it's a bad article when Encyclopedia Dramatica has a more accurate representation of real criticism of this game than Wikipedia. 2601:7:400:81:284A:FE08:E088:50F4 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a review site.Justin.Parallax (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How come they included the user-review score from Metacritic on "Kung Pow! Enter The Fists" wiki page but no ones allowed to post it here to show the stark contrast between the public and critical views of this? Sounds like nothing but censorship to me, but a bunch of people who are angry about the game having any sort of negative image cast upon it. Deal with it and grow up, facts are facts, and a lot of people didn't like it, why is it not being shown as such on this wiki page when this wiki page is supposed to be a non-biased take on things? Literally no excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoplite12 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only changes proposed have been a derivation of "although the game was critically acclaimed, some people did not like it", which is not included not due to 'censorship' (WP does not censor), but because it is utterly generic and not notable as the same could apply to any video game in existence. Please see above. Baring that in mind, what exact text would you like to be included or changed? Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since gaming journalism is clearly biased and corrupted (I mean how many games get very high scores by "critics" when in fact they are later shown to be flawed and even bad). "Crticial acclaim" means very nothing these days since game "critics" can be bought quite cheaply by game developers... and those who refuse to be bought are often fired (see the Kane & Lynch Gamespot scandal a few years back). Justin you say "WP is not a review site"... the why the hell even put what crticts say then? If you want an UNBIASED "reception section" you should actually put in it HOW THE GAME WAS RECEIVED, not only by corrupted journalists but also by the consumer who plays the game. Hence WP is deceiving also the consumer, since a consumer might be curious also what WP says about the game.

That said you cannot even say "Gone Home" is not even a game. It falls more in the nonsense of "The Flowers of Robert Mapplethorpe" cathegory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked, so I'll answer. WP uses critical reviews in their reception segments because critical reviews, along with sales figures, are the most direct and accurate methods to discuss an item's reception. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding. We use reliable sources (see reliable sources) such as review publications to ensure that original research (see original research) does not cause bias (see Neutral point of view) or give undue weight (see Undue weight) to fringe theories (see Fringe_theories). As a result, sites like IGN are used, whereas Bob from Newark is not, no matter how much of a fan of angry video game reviews he might be. This is why such sources are included. I hope that answers your question.Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoplite12 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)I fail to see how your counter argument to mine in summing up what I said as "some people didn't like it" is relevant, since "some people" didn't like Kung Pow either and yet we still see a constrast in comparisons between user reviews and critic reviews. The same could not be applied to every video game in existence because not every video game in existence has such a stark contrast between consumer and critical stand-points. I'll say again, why is this not being high-lighted?

I've had a look at Kung_Pow!_Enter_the_Fist#Reception, the impression it gives is entirely the opposite of what you are stating in relation to this article. If you feel that there is such a stark contrast, then show it and, if your edit meets WP standards which have been mentioned and linked several times in this talk page for your convenience, it'll be a positive inclusion to the article. I hope that helps.Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I have a horse in this race, but how is the review for Kung Pow not the same situation? Critics thought one thing, consumers thought the opposite, the citation is Metacritic reviews for the consumers thinking the opposite of critics. If you mean the situation is the opposite as in what the critics and the consumers felt about the product, yes it is exactly the opposite, but the dynamics are the same. There it was acceptable to point out that although critically panned, Kung Pow was received well by consumers, yet here its not acceptable to say that despite being critically acclaimed. Look I'm not big on editing wiki i know that, don't even have an account, but I read a lot of talk pages. Seems to me double standards is the standard here on wikipedia when one scratches the surface. Its apparent from reading this everyone wants to do OR and brush off the negative reviews as people just 'not getting the game'. Which is probably true, but I'm sure you can cite a source saying that, after noting that this well received game has a 5.3 rating on Metacritic. 204.194.141.30 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Spoiler alert?

Would it be a good idea to add a spoiler alert at the beginning of the Plot section, since a big part of the game is discovering the plot through gameplay?

71.228.112.72 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler says no. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, if you do not want spoilers do not read the plot... simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Best Story

For anyone who feels like editing this semi-protected page: Gone Home was nominated at GameTrailers Game of the Year Awards 2013 in the category "Best Story" but lost to The Last of Us. For source, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTk0Bg0QegE. --195.75.73.1 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also: The Best PC Game of 2013: Gone Home - IGN's Best of 2013 --62.220.191.226 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

In Metacritic as well on steam has received a poorly reception from users, on metacritic getting an score of 54 average based on 1195 Ratings. Criticizing mostly the game length and the story plot.12 On Gamespot an 6.3 on average based on 663 reviews.3

Category

The opening sentence is hard to read due to there being no popularly agreed-upon term for this sort of product. It currently reads as "Gone Home is a first-person interactive story adventure video game," while linking to several different articles that cover the same kind of products, such as interactive stories, adventure games and video games. However adventure games ARE video games, and so are interactive stories -- at least by popular conception.

It also leaves out the separate Wikipedia article for interactive fiction. I think these all should be combined somehow in terms of categorization. I don't know what the best word is, but a "game" ought to have elements that are challenging, with winning and losing (or some kind of failure), as that is the meaning of the term well before video versions of games came about in the 70s. I don't know whether "adventure" is a good term either because that implies excitement and exploration, whereas "interactive fiction" or "interactive storytelling" is too abstract and descriptive and doesn't exactly roll off the tongue easily.

Perhaps a word from another language like French could be borrowed.

Cast

I added a section concerning the game's voice cast to the article but it seems to have been removed. Any particular reason for this?

References:

1 http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home/user-reviews Retrieved 10 January 2014 2 http://steamcommunity.com/app/232430/reviews/ Retrieved 10 January 2014 3 http://www.gamespot.com/gone-home/reviews/ Retrieved 10 January 2014 GastonArg (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Two of your sources cited are blogs, which are not verifiable sources for WP. Justin.Parallax (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Suggestion

This page was a little hard to find because of the underscore. I wonder if someone can set up a redirect from "Gone Home (video game" which is what I tried at first? I'm not quite sure how to set that up being a newer user. StoneProphet11 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

StoneProphet11, I'm not sure what you mean. All Wikipedia articles that have a space in the title replace the space with an underscore. But later in your query it looks like you actually looked for "Gone Home (video game)". "(video game)" is only used in a title in order to distinguish for other subjects with the same name, for example if there were a novel called "Gone Home", we'd name it "Gone Home (novel)" and a movie, we'd call it "Gone Home (film)". In this case, there is no need for it.

To create a redirect is simple.

1. Find (or create) a link for the redirect you wish to create. In this case, Gone Home (video game) (in your post, you omitted the final close paren, but this is what I think you meant).
2. Click on it.
3. A blank article page opens. Enter the page you want to redirect to. It requires some special synttax. In this case, you'd enter #REDIRECT [[Gone Home]]. Note, there is no underscore. The Wikipedia software enters that automatically.
4. Save the page.

It's fairly straightforward, but in this case, I wouldn't recommend doing it. Articles are generally easier to find without the extra distinguishing postfix. In the case of Gone Home, there is nothing (yet) to confuse it with. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gone Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222214648/http://static.bafta.org/files/games-nominations-2014-2166.pdf to http://static.bafta.org/files/games-nominations-2014-2166.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)