I’m actually curious to why this is. It is completely outside of my taste and people keep saying. What makes it exceptional?
Comment on Indie Game Awards Disqualifies Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Due To Gen AI Usage
naticus@lemmy.world 8 hours agoTheir use of AI to make placeholder assets (which aren’t in the released game) is why it felt off? While it’s not for everyone, it’s still objectively one of the best games released recently.
orioler25@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
naticus@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
- The soundtrack is just pure art. There’s more variety in this than most games, across many genres, and is over 8 hours long in total. Lorien Testard is a genius and we need more of his work in gaming beyond this game and even beyond Sandfall. Also Alice Duport-Percier (the female vocalist) has true perfect pitch, is an opera singer, and has beautiful diction despite my not knowing French.
- The story is very fresh, unpredictable (though I’ve seen people take wild stabs at it while playing and getting somewhat close but still missing), and isn’t written in the cliche ways that we’re used to because the lead writer, Jennifer Svedberg-Yen, has never worked in the gaming industry, nor ever published a piece of writing before. She writes primarily for her own entertainment and as an outlet, and is brilliant in her own right outside of writing. Also her work in writing believable dialog made things feel more authentic, especially when characters argue. It just flows well.
- The voice acting is top-notch. The fact Kepler was able to throw money at this game specifically for the voice cast because they believed in it, says a lot. Sandfall didn’t ask for this money, but Kepler knew they had to help out however they could.
- The gameplay is what I’m guessing is what you dislike the most, as that’s normally what those who don’t like it talk about. Very subjective, but for those of us who love turned-based games or who are into tight combat found in Souls-likes (I’m in the former, but now looking at the latter), it keeps people engaged. I’ve played thousands and thousands of hours playing turn-based games, but this one doesn’t just let you passively fight until you’ve made significant progress and learn the timings. The countering feels powerful, and if you really want you can completely break the balance if you want and are creative in your setup. And now that they added the ability to make things more difficult, even the pros have a challenge to come back to.
I’m not trying to pressure you into giving it another shot, but those 4 things are enough to land this game into my top 3 all-time games.
orioler25@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I mean, I’ll never give it a shot to play. It’s too long, I have a job, and I have games I want to play more that will certainly be more. I never played this game, as I said it’s not even remotely my taste. That’s also why I need to have someone explain what makes it supposedly good for what it is.
Most of these remarks are circular though, “it’s good because it’s good/I liked it.” Which is fine, but doesn’t really speak to the game. Gameplay seems to be where you’re better at articulating what’s actually good here. I don’t know this genre, so it’s exceptional that there is a combination of active and passive combat tied to the player’s experience? This is something exclusive or executed in a notable way here, or it’s just something that’s been done before that you feel is elevated because you like the story production?
bilb@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
Wrong
naticus@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
No, objectively right. You can quantify the overall appeal very easily. It was the top user-rated game on MetaCritic EVER, had critical acclaim, obviously won many awards despite this AI debacle in the IGAs, sold over 5 million copies already even though it was on GamePass, and has maintained a fan gathering all these many months later even before they won at the TGAs.
bilb@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
No
naticus@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
K.