The Stanley Parable Review

[@LaughingManRa]

"Being ambiguous doesn't equate to depth" Man, I can think of a lot of media that deserves that criticism. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. :-)

[@seroccoprime2774]

+LaughingManRa I found it somewhat ironic, though. He said this game is designed to avoid criticism, which in itself is a critique that automatically disarms people from criticizing him. See, my problem with this review is that he's primarily critiquing the game from a design perspective. He's rather limited in how he can view it.

[@pglAymer]

+DrTheKay Then again, there are people that miss the point or misunderstand the depth of a game entirely and then try to compensate by claiming the people who *do* understand are being foolish. This works both ways. The way I see it, The Stanley Parable isn't a game about taking either stance in particular, but the conflict between these two stances itself, and the humor in how it doesn't even matter anyway.

[@whiteperson4613]

+LaughingManRa Neon Genesis Evangelion?

[@sheep3370]

+LaughingManRa Shadow of the Colossus/Ico comes to mind

[@seroccoprime2774]

Ceasar Actually, no. Matthew really enjoys Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.

[@terraformthesun2896]

Hearing Matt say "fock" gives me life.

[@yambone635]

I approached The Stanley Parable expecting a comedy game, and I ended up really enjoying it. To use your knock-knock joke metaphor, I came to The Stanley Parable asking to hear some good jokes. It did that really well, at least in my opinion.

[@skaterdude7277]

exactly, it was a joke game. Like goat simulator, human fall flat. Something you show to your friends, and may give you a fun afternoon, but you really can't get a lot of satisfaction out of it for too long.

[@employee4275]

Well Mark, it's my 2nd favorite game of all time and I've cherished every moment of it since I first played it, so I must be doing something wrong.

[@cavorkehl6777]

Yes, if you ask the game for a joke by going through a different door, "same set up" won't be too much a downside. But if you ask a game for a "different set up"... Let's don't assume that is easy.

[@inferno33222]

The knock-knock joke metaphor doesn't work for a different reason: he's asking for the jokes. Nobody is strapping him to a chair demanding he play every ending. I don't even think the game is designed to be played that way. It's a game that asks you to poke and prod at it until you've had your fun. I played through about 70% of the endings, felt satisfied, looked up the other endings and thought, "Oh, those are clever," and uninstalled the game.

[@DestroyedArkana]

@mamuburaa The original developer that worked on the Half Life 2 version of The Stanley Parable didn't work on that other game The Beginner's Guide, which I thought was completely pretentious. Stanley Parable was a really funny joke game, mostly because it's fun to hear the narrator react to your decisions.

[@TheStolken]

I really do like it when you add little jokes in your reviews. "I don't mean to offend you but fuck you" certainly caught me off guard. Great review Matt! I'm certainly excited for the next review on the way.

[@luiseduardomedina7833]

Chris O'Berry Oh man that made me laugh so hard!

[@cam897]

Chris O'Berry With an attitude?

[@KyleAPemberton]

I didn't get out of the game the same experience you did. I think you focused more on the elements of the game such as the humour and commentary that idiots on reddit were bringing up. While at times I did find it quite funny (but that's mostly subjective) and some commentary made me laugh or react. I found it primarily to be a game about exploration. To me it effectively made you want to understand the depths the game allows for choice. For example the ending where you climb out the window that you lampooned to me says alot about how you played the game. Because I feel you must've googled that ending. Because I got the joy and pleasure of finding that ending in the first place. To me the joy came from the experimentation itself not the commentary it implied.

[@JohnnyOrgan]

All I'm going to say is this: I played through The Stanley Parable with my 16 year old daughter one evening and we laughed a lot. Figuring out the broom closet ending had us particularly proud and hysterical. Afterwards we ate popcorn and chocolate, drank coke and discussed the meta of the game and it's use of the narrator and player mechanics. It was the first, real in-depth discussion we ever had about video games and their nature together. We'd normally play the likes of the Trine games or Rayman Legends or Lego games or some retro beat em ups. But we never discussed them the way we discussed a good movie or book. Even when we were completely sucked into the world of Fez together and it's puzzles. Now she has her own gaming PC and playing tons of Indy/non AAA games like Her Story and loving them. She finally grasped why her old Da loves video gaming. So it's a 10/10 for me.

[@Murkrust]

+Johnny Organ Amazing.

[@Bigdaddymittens]

+Murkrust Sounds like hipster girl.

[@marlonyo]

+Johnny Organ same coment as the wasteland games any game can be made fun with company. it is how it stand when you played alon or with strangers that shows the game true worth

[@JohnnyOrgan]

marlonyo Exactly, That's kinda all I was saying brah.

[@LordMarlle]

I had my bro, who has NO interest in games what so ever, ask me if this were playable on his mac after we played it together and discussed its ideas 10/10

[@Greyinkling276]

The Stanely Parable is a parable. All the commentary and mocking of other games is just fluff, like the simple and calming design or the majority of the game. I think the confusion ending is the most important. If you ask many people who played the game which one was "the most fun", most tend to say the confusion ending. The interesting thing is that it's the ending where both you and the narrator are equally at a loss for what might happen. Because he doesn't know what lies ahead you can easily lose the feeling that everything is determined, and though you're strapped on a rail you can't divert from, it's too easy to still feel the thrill of adventure racing along the adventure line, curiosity and intrigue that you are exploring the unknown, not walking a set path. If the adventure line is the middle, then the two opposites are the ending where you do everything the narrator says, and the one where you always oppose him. One leads to a dull story you feel no interest is because it's way too glaring how controlled the path is, and the other has you walking empty hallways in the end with nothing happening because nothing was determined to happen. That is what the parable is about, the balance of the player and the game designer working together, and how a balance is needed between choice, set in stone story, and the player's awareness of the path, for a game to be a more enjoyable experience.

[@Poet_Lorien]

The idea that the game suffers from diminishing returns is pretty valid. That being said, those first few go arounds are so incredibly fun and good to me. Still, a well-reasoned review.

[@peteimbesi98]

I've never found myself so at odds with one of your reviews! I absolutely adored the evening I spent with The Stanley Parable.

[@collectorduck9061]

Many of his reviews are heavily colored by a seemingly obsessive need to find things to criticizeinstead of things to laud. He also contradicts himself constantly in most of the review. A quick example from this one because obviously I just watched is that he first goes on and on about how telling a hundred knock knock jokes in a row isn't funny and that's how he felt playing the game... quickly transforms into praising Stanley Parable as being one of the more successful comedy games out there. So in other words either he has no fun with any game because he had no fun with Stanley Parable and he considers it one of the more successful ones... Or he .. did .. have fun with it and he didn't just feel like he was told a hundred knock knock jokes and it was stale? Oh well.

[@IanZWhite00]

“The quality of the jokes becomes irrelevant because of their proximity to one another” It may do well with humor but it’s structure is what causes it to fail. That’s the crux of the video. I’m not particularly excited by the fact that, with a direct quote and a short paragraph, I was able to dismantle that argument. If anything it’s a little disappointing, and if I were you’d I’d definitely feel a little embarrassed. Matthew’s reviews are very much analyses, and you should expect to have to think a little bit harder and more critically than you apparently did to really understand what he’s saying, his rumination on more complex and interesting thoughts and feelings beyond “I enjoyed it, but also I didn’t.” Seeing as it likely takes a rather simple person to enjoy everything about the Stanley Parable to begin with, maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.

[@natsim8581]

@@IanZWhite00 You watch Rick and Morty I presume

[@IanZWhite00]

@@natsim8581 I guess I used to, jesus I’ll swallow my pride and leave it up. I might not be that person anymore but they certainly still exist. Hopefully it shows that people can change. Sorry for being a cunt 3 years ago

[@HonsHon]

@@collectorduck9061 What?

[@MorroWolf]

I think you failed to realize that each "ending" or experience with the game was stand alone unto its self, the narration was meant to only ever express any opinion or make claims on what you were doing at that exact moment not tie things together from multiple endings. When the narrator says this is the most boring adventure he's ever been on, he is making a statement solely on the current run, which happened to just be a bunch of doors almost a commentary on too much choice and also insulting the player for boring him with his need to look around and explore a world that the narrator already knows completely. I think what makes the Stanley parable so interesting is actually that it stands in stark contrast to gaming as a whole in a way you did not capture that being that in most games the goal inevitably becomes moving towards an ending which the game sets up for you in advance, where as in the Stanley parable after the first ending which they do try to rush you through, the focus for the player then shifts to finding as many ways as possible to avoid doing what game/narrator expresses that you are supposed to do.

[@wimblesbimbles8865]

The narration is boring too.

[@wimblesbimbles8865]

@@Dwarfplayer yes

[@Senmetsu]

"I don't mean to offend you but, fuck you." I melted. That accent always gets me.

[@Finalblue1234]

Im actually glad you decided, even though you didn't like the game, to give it a fair look amd not rip it apart. I still certainly liked the game, but I can see some of your points as well. The humor just reminds me of Portal where half the fun was hearing the next joke, but probably because they were spread out between 10-15 min puzzles, made them more effective.

[@KillerKingMusic]

You said "fuck you" in your thick Irish accent. My day has been made.

[@PWXKN]

I need to make that into my ringtone.

[@2000sDigitalBoy]

The Stanley Parable is a game that ended up falling short for me because I went in expecting a lot more from it than it really was. I was told that this was a game that I had to play, but that telling me anything about it would spoil the experience for me. On my second playthrough I got the explosion ending, where the narrator mocked my helplessness and lack of control as a timer counted down the seconds to my demise. And it was here that I made the severe mistake of thinking that The Stanley Parable was a game with an actual objective: to overthrow the narrator. I thought that by exploring the different endings that I would eventually make progression toward a "true" ending where Stanley would overcome the narrator. That seemed like an idea worthy of the praise that the game received, and the boarded up broom closet already demonstrated to me that the game could remember your actions and was perhaps designed around the idea of multiple playthroughs. But rather than having an overarching goal, the game turned out to simply be a handful of branching paths with no relation to each other and no purpose beyond finding all of them. It was reasonably entertaining but still ended up feeling a bit shallow. The Stanley Parable is built on a very clever premise (i.e. a player that can defy the actions of an entity narrating events as they occur) that I don't really feel goes anywhere, but instead quickly devolves into pontificating and quirky humor for its own sake.

[@seroccoprime2774]

+2000sDigitalBoy In one ending, you could "disconnect" from your character and watch as the narrator futilely tells you to open the door.

[@ashthedood9169]

Only one week after your W101 review you manage to present another in depth review. A nice different opinion on something Iv'e seen discussed a lot. I agree with the too much humor and no substance point a lot. Portal had a fine mix of humor, serious moments while keeping things unexpected. Nothing felt too predictable. Good Job Matthew.

[@consensualsenses]

These reviews are great. I found myself enjoying the Dark Souls 2 critique quite a bit and now I can't hardly stop myself watching these videos over and over again since I discovered your channel last week :D

[@DeadPalette]

So if your criticism of The Stanley Parable is that it's designed to avoid criticism thus making it hard to criticize; doesn't that mean you're trying to avoid criticism of your criticism of The Stanley Parable by essentially saying all or none of the criticism the game faces is valid? This is all too meta for me, I'm going to take a nap.

[@Veolynn13]

Even Leonardo DiCaprio is confused.

[@NujabesGaming]

>So if your criticism of The Stanley Parable is that it's designed to avoid criticism thus making it hard to criticize. No he's saying it's dull to criticize. It's like a child failing to grasp a certain point, and when confronted with said failure, the child spouts "but me failing was the point". It's juvenile and obviously a lie. >doesn't that mean you're trying to avoid criticism of your criticism of The Stanley Parable by essentially saying all or none of the criticism the game faces is valid? No, you're projecting this to make an obvious joke.

[@Veolynn13]

NujabesGaming ur avi cuet az fuk 69/69 woud def cuddl.

[@NujabesGaming]

ayyy lmao

[@ostingguitar]

I love your reviews, but I expected more of your review of Stanley Parable. I'll say why: I think you covered pretty much all of the mechanics and "game experience" part of this game. But I think you only scratched the surface of the critique of gaming culture and form that it tries to accomplish. This is a game about games, and about gamers, and about itself. It is about the conflict between the designer's programming and player freedom (does it really exist?). It is a satire of both the narrator (designer) and his attempts to overcontrol everything. Anda it also is a satire of the player's attempt to express himself inside a system that is overly limited. I'd love to see your thoughts about that problem, and I think Stanley Parable is probably the only game that is sufficiently metalinguistic to raise this kind of thoughts.

[@Rocketpig55]

"If you suck ironically, you still suck." - Hsu from Spookingtons Media

[@Havinstroke]

The problem with the "get out of jail free" argument is that the game ISN'T actually being boring when it's calling itself boring. If the whole point of the game is to listen to the narrator and make choices (which are at least what I valued the most), then the game is still accomplishing one of its goals in providing the presence of the narrator (which was indeed entertaining a good 90% of the time in my opinion). While, yes, this is technically easy to pull off and hard to criticize negatively, it's still entertaining in one of the most unique and refreshing ways I've ever experienced, so it doesn't matter. I would just call it being efficient. But yes, I think the game could have played with a lot more ideas, and I think the "glitch" ending was one of the weakest moments of the game. Overall, this is a fair review.

[@highestsettings]

When you spoke about going out through the window and how that wasn't a glitch and said nothing about glitches. I think that's a misinterpretation. What I think was meant to be portrayed was that anything that you can find, was placed there by the developer. You've found something that was supposed to be found. You're never truly free to do what you like in a game, because anything and everything you do in a game (apart from bugs and glitches of course) was specifically programmed into the game. It's meant to highlight the limitations of computer games in that you can only adhere to the rules. Even cheats have to be programmed in. Stanley Parable is an obvious breakdown of what makes a game a game. Even with all the graphics, sound and story. Gameplay consists of systems and everything else seeks to compliment those systems. Stanley Parable just wants to highlight that I think. It's all a farce, to contextualise the different situations put there in order to make you play with the systems.

[@Cory1392]

this review is so ridiculously well thought out. Great job!

[@AlquimistEd]

To me this was a really great game.

[@curbyour____9506]

This game's always been in my top 5 PC games growing up, it's never in your face about comedy like you say and exploring whole ass endings from finding tiny details in the level is one of the best feelings in the world.

[@harambeflambe]

Don't talk shit on the broom closet. The broom closet ending is the best one.

[@TheBellman]

I love Matthewmatosis's content because it's always of a strong and dissenting opinion (to the point that I could call it pretentious) it's good to expose oneself to another viewpoint.

[@TheBellman]

lavulman "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed". Matthew quite often seems to head straight to dissenting opinions on subjects, which isn't always a bad thing.

[@mamayareborn]

TheEliteGir A dissenting opinion does not equate to a pretentious statement. An opinion that is pretentious implies that it's not only being made without any firm basis, but also as implying that it is somehow superior to the opinions surrounding it. Matthew, from what I've gathered from watching his videos back-to-back, is not trying to convince you of anything, least of all trying to undermine other opinions. A pretentious comment is: "This game is bad, because I find it bad and I'm clearly more intelligent than the rest of the reviewers, so you should feel ashamed to not agree with me." Matthew's analysis originates in a basis of objective knowledge. He isn't "having an opinion", so much as he knows what aspects of a product should be analysed, and he does so, going through relevant criteria that are then tackled with either very objective, impersonal, technical observations, or very personal and subjective aspects, which are very often pointed out as such in the moment the statements are made. I understand what you're trying to convey, and I realise your comment was made three months ago, but I couldn't help but to respectfully disagree.

[@MrBenMcLean]

I really liked The Stanley Parable. It seemed to be doing a great job of bringing the humor of classic text adventure interactive fiction games into modern 3D.

[@Anonie324]

The gamesound is too loud compared to your dialogue. It's difficult to separate them.

[@unslept_em]

I think this review (and by extension the lovely responses in the comments) more than anything brings up an interesting point-- it really depends on the lens you approach this game from. This really becomes more apparent from Davey's second commercially-released game The Beginner's Guide, where it raises a lot of questions and just sorta leaves you to sort out the answers. In a sense, you get a sort-of blank slate where you're allowed to project your own thoughts and experiences without the game explicitly telling you what to think or how the game is "supposed" to be. I find this concept particularly great because there becomes a layer of replayability built into the game that can exist outside of gameplay. I think it's an important step in game design that hasn't been fully realized yet. So. The idea that a game can be _many things_ at once is perhaps something that could use more exploration, and I think so far has not experienced much exploration 4.5 years later, especially out of the realm of "walking sims". Though: giving credit where credit is due, Braid has also gone for the many interpretations approach. Good job, Jonathan. ----- I left this review somewhat dissatisfied because I was expecting Matt to go more in-depth with the merits and disadvantages to this sort of storytelling as it relates to design/gameplay, especially taking into consideration the ways in which Davey Wreden's film school experience and William Pugh's level design meshed together. It's a personal gripe, I guess, and perhaps something that maybe only I'm interested in, but I saw it bringing a lot of new and interesting ideas to the table that many games have not touched on. But maybe that would be better for an analysis. Not that there will ever be one, I don't think. :/ 10 internet points to anyone who stopped by the video and read my comment. Respond with thoughts, I'd like to develop a few of my own opinions a bit more.

[@majema007]

I wish mainstream reviewers were more like you Matthew. I gotten sick on how condescending some of them can be towards members of their site like the reviewers at Gamespot who act as if their word is complete fact, while flowering their reviews with big words that don't fit their skill level just to make their criticism look like its valid. You don't do that Matthew. You simply take a game you felt like talking about, look at how the positives and negatives affect the game as a whole, and then bring up possible solutions to the problems a game is suffering from. You take a simple approach to reviewing games to easily explain your points with causing confusion, and go as in depth into the review as possible in a way I seen no reviewer do. But most of all, I simply love it how you present yourself in such a humble manner, even when you start to pick apart the flaws on a game. I might sound like I'm just ass-kissing, but you truly deserve more traffic to your page. Keep up the amazing work.

[@lozfoe444]

I never tired of the humor. The absurd context and "gameplay" do well in complementing the humor by presenting an environment where such winks and nods are appropriate. But humor a really subjective part of the game. It's one of the things that holds the game up, and if it's not to your taste, the game will crumble. I think everyone should give the demo a try, and if the humor is to their liking and they're interested in what the game as to say about games, then it's definitely for them.

[@HeuristicsEnjoyer]

I agree that it didn't make any meaningful commentary on gaming and the like, but I still had a blast playing it. Not trying to refute the criticism of it, I'm just saying that regardless of all the different narrative interpretations of a game, the one thing that really makes it good is a subjective measure: how fun it is. And for me, I had a blast playing it. Now, it doesn't have much replayability, but I thought it was a nice little game that was worth the money.

[@IcyPheonix3]

My home is currently being buried in snow. Good thing I have a Matthewmatosis review to watch and tide the time.

[@Sinrus1]

I think that the Stanley Parable is best to be viewed as something extremely abstract. When making it, the development team probably had a general idea and wanted to put a bunch of stuff together, but I feel that the thoroughness of their critique of videogames is an important one. For me, the ending where you watch the narrator beg for a response from Stanley is the best. For all its smart, wittiness, games are nothing without the player. I see where you are coming from with the whole knock-knock joke analogy, but I feel that they had to be thorough with their "jokes" to make sure that they cover all angles and interpretations. While the Stanley Parable is overall an analysis of game design, it also has a lot of good commentary about the human condition and how games can impact the player (like when the narrator gets upset at the ending where the player throws themself from a tall staircase).

[@byter75]

I think the biggest thing going for the Stanley Parable is it's narrator. If you cut the narrator, then it's a rather empty game where you just walk around... I don't think the game is particularly trying to be a game about games... one sequence does have you go to minecraft and portal, but those experiences are still defined predominantly by the narrator's presence. I also don't think it ever has any pretense at being a particularly long gaming experience. ( It is called a 'Parable' after all). The way I look at the game, is that its principle engagement is listening to the narrator react to your actions and in some ways, finding all the hidden playthroughs. The Stanley Parable is a game filled with several different little journeys. As with any journey I feel we can derive meaning and parallels with it and any other journey, without it necessarily having to have the same structure or gameplay as another title. The Stanley Parable is a book of knock knock jokes. Your mileage may vary, but I would never say that the jokes are incapable of meaning or incredibly lame.

[@HaIsKuL]

its*

[@pseudocalm]

TheKhal Use proper grammar. How do you expect the English speaking world to understand a thing you say with comments like that, you barbarian.

[@HaIsKuL]

LucidityNow lol

[@sdmsdmsdm]

Your eye for rhetoric is unmatched in the video game journalism world, keep it up man.

[@blackdragonkalameet3844]

I find the idea of him just sitting there for an hour telling me 100 knock knock jokes oddly appealing.

[@MrSwac31]

It would be a good piece of absurdist theater. Well know example of said theater : FIRE CHIEF: "The Headcold." My brother-in law had, on the paternal side, a first cousin whose maternal uncle had a father-in-law whose paternal grandfather had married as his second wife a young native whose brother he had met on one of his travels, a girl of whom he was enamored and by whom he had a son who married an intrepid lady pharmacist who was none other than the niece of an unknown fourth-class petty officer of the Royal Navy and whose adopted father had an aunt who spoke Spanish fluently and who was, perhaps, one of the granddaughters of an engineer who died young, himself the grandson of the owner of a vineyard which produced mediocre wine, but who had a second cousin, a stay-at-home, a sergeant-major, whose son had married a very pretty young woman, a divorcee, whose first husband was the son of a loyal patriot who, in the hope of making his fortune, had managed to bring up one of his daughters so that she could marry a footman who had known Rothschild, and whose brother, after having changed his trade several times, married and had a daughter whose stunted great-grandfather wore spectacles which had been given him by a cousin of his, the brother-in-law of a man from Portugal, natural son of a miller, not too badly off, whose foster-brother had married the daughter of a former country doctor, who was himself a foster-brother of the son of a forrester, himself the natural son of another country doctor, married three times in a row, whose third wife… MR. MARTIN: I knew that third wife, if I'm not mistaken. She ate chicken sitting on a hornet's nest. FIRE CHIEF: It's not the same one. From the Bald Soprano.

[@Dahras1]

I feel like your accusation that the game was using self deprecation as a "get out of jail free card" and thus it couldn't be critiqued for anything is actually a "get out of jail free card" for you to avoid seeing many of those stances the game does actually take. This game is one in which games and indeed even society outside of games is critiqued for not providing meaningful choice. The game ALSO, however, critiques players and people for intentionally going counter to every single suggested path in order to find some "alternate" or "superior" path, which in the end is also contained in the complete design/societal space, i.e. the revolution is symbiotic with that which it fights. In this way, it suggests that fight as you might, you are trapped in the design space. As the female narrator says, how can you choose when all of the paths have already been laid out before you started? This is a stance. If you do not agree with this stance, or Stanley Parable's portrayal of that stance, that is certainly fine. But it does accept criticism, it is just making a larger point than one contained neatly in the game itself. Also, the game is not just comedic. I was personally really creeped out both by the phone and the completely disobedient endings, even the completely obedient endings. I think to completely ignore these moments in your analysis is a little distorting.

[@Ratttzable]

The Stanley Parable is more of the "interactive software" breed than the "game" breed. As an example, consider if you removed all graphical, textual, and audio content of The Stanley Parable, and let's say XCOM. No matter what your decision is, The Stanley Parable is a delivery content mechanism, using interactivity to gate that content, resulting in you receiving a null payout for player choice. In XCOM, however, you'd notice that actions return payouts in the form of victory/loss, material gained/lost, as well as more nebulous payouts for moment-to-moment actions like tactical advantage. When your software is designed to pay out content, you leave yourself at the mercy of the player's internal payout scheme for content, that is, how the player values the content they received, as opposed to structuring your software so that the player has to determine what payouts are worth within the context of the grander game system. All of this makes The Stanley Parable a pretty shitty game, but as a piece of interactive fiction, it beats the adventure books I've read as a kid easily, and stands heads and shoulders above most other interactive fiction works I've read/played.

[@guycomments]

Matt's point about 100 knock-knock jokes is well taken, and it's a funny way to frame the problem, but the point is kind of undermined by stand-up comedy in general. I understand the point was specifically about reusing the same setup throughout the whole game, but I'd argue a skilled enough writer could work within this constraint. People go to comedy clubs expecting to laugh, and it works out if the comic is good. The main issue is whether or not the joke surprises you. Just because your expectations line up with reality doesn't mean they can't be simultaneously subverted. Just because you expect to get tricked doesn't mean you're immune from getting tricked, it's just a matter of whether or not the other person can catch you off guard. It's not like you can think of everything. But when things aren't going so well, jokes can still be clever and witty without being funny, and these are usually felt as annoying. This is what happens when something is good, but has ceased to surprise you. My conclusion is Matt is just too clever for The Stanley Parable

[@NiGHTSChao689]

I'm very happy about your criticisms regarding the game. I too felt that after a few hours the novelty wore off without warning and I was left feeling a slight of buyer's remorse. I liked the idea, but it needed more depth and tone.

[@mikaxms]

I probably would have muted the narrator for the video.

[@totty2524]

The skeptical review i have been waiting for. Good job!

[@TheFilipFonky]

You should have lowered, or otherwise completely removed, the game audio. It can get a bit confusing when both yours and the narrator's voice are heard at the same time. Other than that I found this review very interesting as per usual.

[@collectorduck9061]

You'd think someone who spent so much time criticizing other people's work would have found time in their busy schedule to look at their own video before publishing and finding out if that would be annoying or not. Guess not.

[@partahauki1]

@@collectorduck9061 It is much easier to critique than actually make things.

[@Lawlietho]

Grat review. You always provide a (I don't find find a better adjective) "balanced" opinion. Enjoying a lot your videos.

[@TissueCat]

I wonder if Matthew has played The Beginner's Guide. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on it.

[@ThatCelticGuardian]

This review just strikes me as missing the forest for the trees.

[@Sollazzina]

Great video, man! Can you review "The Beginner's Guide" too?

[@moritzkorsch9029]

+SOLLAZZATORE I would love to hear Matthewmatosis' thoughts on the art installation that is "The Beginners Guide"

[@marlonyo]

+SOLLAZZATORE i cannot give this any more like it was the second game i ever refunded in steam, the first being halflife 2 because apparently valve has change that game engine and never bother updating the game to fit to it.

[@ArtileiroDoCapeta]

Great, insightful critic as always. Can you review Half-Life? I would like to hear your opinions on that.

[@OMGpandemic]

I love how frequent Matthew's uploads have been!

[@ThomasGiles]

I loved this game, but I can see the problems you raised. Solid critique.

[@MFMegaZeroX7]

I found the narrator's dialogue constantly amusing, and I played the entire game and got all of the endings (discluding the 4 hour one). I laughed out loud multiple times. I'm not sure why you seemed to get so bored of it so quickly. And if you did, then you should have taken a break before going to the other endings. I know playing The Walking Dead Episode 4 on the same day as Episode 3 ruined it for me because I got really bored. So I stopped for episode 5. You should have just done the same thing if it really became a chore. No one was forcing you to trudge through it for a deadline.

[@DuckieMcduck]

I think Stanley Parable is a really nice piece but I can't really classify it as a game. It's more of a reflection piece to me, a work of satire. Having played games for all these years, seeing it tear the bare concept of playing a game through decision-making-yet-not-quite was interesting to sit through, as you're given the impression you're disobeying the narrator when in reality you're really just following through with what the developer allowed you to do. Freedom in games is but an illusion.

[@eyozin]

DuckieMcduck Define "game".

[@DuckieMcduck]

eyozin A video game to me is a state machine with at least a win and a fail event, one of which is designed to have the player consciously try to avoid. Anything shorter than that is either a model to making a game or an interactive "adventure" as the player advances through it at their leisure thinking about what is going on, rather than what they should do to avoid failure. True immersion happens when both these thoughts become superposed. You can never fail in Stanley Parable as even the endings that could classify as bad endings unlock further meta for you to explore. So it isn't really "a game", even if you say that getting all the endings is the main goal. When I sat through SP. my focus was slightly on trying to, in some way, break the narrative tailored by the developer, which doesn't happen because otherwise it would fundamentally be a bug as everything you see in the game is part of a flowchart where all conditionals lead to the different endings, or Win events.

[@eyozin]

I see your point, very nice explanation. Thank you for your time writing it all in detail.

[@eyozin]

It actually is and I didn't say I agree with him, but if you like you can give it a shot, too.

[@acetylen42]

+CommentSection Barbarian I think that the fact we're having this conversation is the testament to that. Defining what a game is mostly contextual, as the boundaries can shift to exclude popular titles or even entire genres (e.g. the win/lose state definition would make a shitton of acclaimed point'n'click games like Monkey Island not games, because you can't lose in them, only get stuck) or to include things that are clearly not games.

[@The_Red_Drifter]

While I did enjoy the Stanley Parable, I agree with your opinion on the humor getting tiring. Because of that, I stopped playing after getting most of the "reasonable" endings. I do believe it deserves some of the attention it has gotten, especially in comparison to a few other games that became critic darlings in the past couple of years.

[@kingofthesharks]

This is the 1st time I've watched one of your reviews without having played the game. But I'm glad I did, because I played the mod in 2011 and you point out basically why I didn't shell out the money for the full game. After playing the demo, even on the first couple paths, I was like "I get it" and wanted to move on. I ended up completing the entire mod, but the diminishing returns were definitely there except for maybe the lady voice at 1 point. If the full game is basically a beefier version of the mod, I can't say I'd enjoy it or find it any more novel than what I've already seen in games. You heavily imply games like Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid 2 at 4:35 and I can even add Portal to the list of games that add the narrative-defiance card as a twist (and Bioshock 1 to an extent)...all of which had more impact than the Stanley Parable within the context of their more conventional quests. In the end, TSP exists as a more accessible and obvious nod to game commentary, but it's premise isn't worth my money considering my gaming experience (or yours).

[@DeoMachina]

Huh, I never thought of the self-awareness as a kind of "get out of criticism free" card, so it didn't bug me for that reason. I really dislike this genre but I honestly had a lot of fun with the Stanley Parable. But like comedy movies, it's funnier when you're with other people and when you're not marathoning it. I think how you play it makes the difference.

[@Gunman071]

I love the video, but I had a bit of trouble keeping track of what you were saying over the narration of the game. Next time you should tone the game volume down further than you did. Can't wait for your next review.

[@masterplusmargarita]

I actually thought that the original mod was an absolutely brilliant game, but this full release kind of let me down. Most people (Or, at the very least, me) went into the mod not really knowing what they were going to get, and ended up being treated to an unexpectedly clever and really tightly put together commentary on game design. By the time the payed version came out, everyone kind of knew the trick, which pretty much defeated the whole point. I also think it lost a lot by adding more endings: Whilst some of them were pretty good, the mod allowed me to get to every ending in one play session and without too much effort, and leave satisfied. To get every ending of the full release I had to play for a couple days, and by the end of it it had gotten really stale: I was bored, I didn't want to play anymore, and any comment that the game had to make about the relationship between player and designer had been explored one too many times already at that point.

[@GingisConn]

Not that anyone cares, but I think there are actually three options for the telephone. Answer, Not Answer and Unplug from the wall. Great review, you raise valid points in all of your reviews.

[@Nocturn3]

So...gone home, when?

[@PressA2Die]

Probably when it's biggest legitimate critizism is delt with. It's horrendous price.

[@masterspongebat2387]

6:46 When you’re trying to get on your parents good side but they burnt your cereal.

[@MarylinBreakdown]

I never knew Atlas did game reviews. How did you break out of Rapture, dude?

[@NawVecBdK]

WARNING GREAT SPOILER!!!! He died :(

[@MarylinBreakdown]

ATLAS IS KILL?

[@TheTankbus]

Stuart Adams Atlas was killted ;_;

[@MarylinBreakdown]

K

[@bunkerbill]

Would you kindly review a game please...

[@RetroMenace]

While I personally disagree with your criticism of the game's jokes and style of humor, I still very much enjoyed your review. It's very common for many people to get angry with reviewers for not agreeing with them. However, you explain your point-of-view and opinions very succinctly, and while I do find myself with differing opinions on some subjects you cover, your intelligent arguments and explanations keep me from faulting you in any way. You're very efficient about explaining your own personal view-point and opinions, and that's what makes you such a great reviewer. No matter what your reviews sublime and a simple joy to listen to.

[@nerdpiggy]

4:36 Wow, you described Undertale before it even came out.

[@Linguinex]

So many videos in such a short time!

[@ZarkTide]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Matosis. I felt the same way.

[@Bromirez]

Brilliant as always.

[@Cosmoandtherobins]

"That wasn't 100 knock knock jokes just now" "sir, argument clinic's next door"

[@mcgibs]

I feel it's best played episodically, as in if you get a new ending, stop playing for that day or somesuch. Also, the one where you go down to carpark is the most disturbing one and I always get anxious when I pass by those stairs down, like any basement entrance in a haunted house.

[@aBDKstan]

The Knock Knock analogy is how I felt about Portal. It's just not my type of humor and I didn't find any of the jokes in the game funny, but when Glados was attempting to make me laugh every 30 seconds, It really ruined the game for me.

[@ZobmieRules]

aBDKstan If you take out Glados, then the game becomes mediocre. If her commentary is what bothers you though, why not simply mute it?

[@aBDKstan]

ZobmieRules Well, Glados seems to be what everybody loved about the game. Even without her, the game is just a bland 2 hour puzzle imo

[@ZobmieRules]

aBDKstan She's a big part of it, of course, but the puzzles are still professionally crafted and are a great fun. Just put a podcast or similar track on in the background and I still believe Portal would be fantastic. If you didn't enjoy the humor, then that's disappointing but okay. What's "funny" is subjective, and there are always people that won't enjoy a certain style of humor. I'm just trying to help you enjoy what really is a flawless game. (Or what's essentially as close as you can logically get to "flawless".)

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

I couldn't get into Portal. I think it's overrated. I couldn't even understand Glados half the time over that screechy intercom.

[@ZobmieRules]

tiakpark >Didn't play Portal.

[@Lordidude]

from about 5:00 on is one of the most intelligent review parts i have ever heard.

[@BeanbonVG]

To be honest I think it's counter-productive to criticize the Stanley parable's gameplay. I can understand why it would be seen as boring, but I view it more as an interactive experience than a true video game. And as an experience, I like it a lot

[@borfuses]

This is a great review! One thing that was on my mind however is that It is a bit distracting to try and listen to what you're saying while there is additional dialog going on in the background. I think showing the gameplay with quiet instrumental music in the background would be nice especially since you already have subtitles displayed. Just a small suggestion from someone that doesn't make videos though so take that for what you will. Also this video was made two years ago so you might already understand this.

[@chrsfaria]

Great video! I would love to hear your thoughts on Gone Home!

[@thewerepyreking]

I actually really enjoyed this game but loved your review as well.

[@adpt_music]

Great critique. Agreed with a lot of what you had to say. Once again you put into words what I could not. Especially when you touched upon the humour and it's repetitive nature and how after a while it's commentary and humour became expected and obvious.

[@moma026able]

This video should've been titled "Matthewmatosis doesn't understand arthouse".

[@zdueker]

Watched the video twice but can't disagree or add anything insightful. Well done.

[@vaIiduser]

I think the Stanley Parable is, as the name suggests, just a parable on videogames. It makes the point that you can only live the experiences the programmer has thought of and implemented. This is made screamingly obvious by stretching it over a far too long period. While other games try to suggest to have endless possibilities by having huge maps and randomly generated stuff in them, the Stanley Parable will always bring you back to the point where it tells you: "yeah, that is something meant to happen". It is a one trick pony about "players are trapped within a limited possibility space when they boot up a game (8:00)" but that, within the media, was a revelation. No other game (that I know of) ever was as critical to the whole medium "video-game" within its own boundaries. Therefore, it deserves respect and ten minutes time of every game-developer in my humble opinion.

[@leilahnicki2111]

I think that point being made, as you describe. Is just a current limitation of the medium. Generation algorithms are getting more and more powerful, eventually there will be AI able to make games within certain Genre's, even the stories will be generated eventually. It will be a one man show like the old days, but the one man will be an AI. AI is going to take every single Job currently in Existence except for the government. Which will be our job as humans in the future. We will be the bureaucrats for our technology. Now THAT would be an interesting not to mention TIMELESS idea for a game to explore. Stanley Parable will be dated in 10-15 years, utterly irrelevant. Which makes it not very good art in my opinion. After all Shakespeare is still relevant, games should aim to have the same longevity or really encapsulate a generation's culture for future generations to get worth from as a historical piece. Unfortunately MathewMatosis didn't make this point himself.

[@leilahnicki2111]

Of course this is very rare, but a lot of games have value as historical pieces. "Resident Evil," "Devil May Cry," "Final Fantasy VI," "CastleVania," "Super Mario Brothers," All far more important games for a developer to play than the Stanley Parable.

[@QuikVidGuy]

I'd say the narrator is about 10% furious, without humor, 10% despairing, without humor, 10% giving directions and telling you to get back on track, without humor. If 70% humor/light misdirection is too much for you, that is more than understandable, but I loved it. I found it very interesting that depending on how much you disobey, either you or the narrator is presented as more in-control of the game. In some endings, neither of you are. It's an effect that really only hits you if you space out your playtime. If you're playing it for several scenarios in a row, like for a review, it's going to wear on you, which does not seem like something the designers prepared for.

[@SpartanWolf222]

Hey Matt, I enjoy always listening to your reviews after I play the games myself, and I wanted to do this especially for the TSP review since I wanted to experience it for myself. I was actually surprised by how much you didn't seem to like it (or maybe it's better to say you didn't think the game was as thought-provoking as people made it out to be.) I tried to think of some way to best answer the problem of the game's "get out of jail free-card" feel, and the only answer I can think of is, "Why does it matter whether or not the game is pretentious of itself?" I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm asking a legitimate question. Yes, the ambiguous stance of the game does make it more difficult to critique, but the game (and its message of player choices) isn't trying to be smarter than itself. I don't want to delve into tastes because the script felt more like an intentional choice to be the game-creator's desire for wanting to have the ultimate say on the narrative. I just don't know why that aspect matters so much. The one thing I think many people enjoyed TSP for, like myself, was how much the game made you feel like a lab-rat in a maze. The Easter-eggs, for example, were enjoyable to discover because the choices you always had in the game could be much more complex than walking through one door (like how to break the Portal puzzle). The game never had to state what were the choices you could make and where were they, and that aspect of the game felt like a reward for your curiosity. And whenever you think you had outsmarted the game, you'd be rewarded by a quip from the narrator to remind you that the game knows all of your choices before you ever make one. Although, like you said, one too many jokes can get dull after a while, which is why I'm fine with its short length. Maybe I'm more forgiving of TSP because I played a game where it felt way too pretentious and seemed to think quantity of jokes was better than the quality of them, Jazzpunk. The difference I find between the two is TSP is more subtle about its commentary and humor than Jazzpunk, and the game doesn't feel bloated with jokes like Jazzpunk because its sessions are much shorter. Just thought I'd try to give some feedback on your review, and thanks again for making interesting commentary on game design.

[@7411y]

Oh Jesus. I was eating a piece of cake while watching this, and purposefully left the icing until last. So I was sitting there eating icing, and then 3:50 goes and happens.

[@neoman289151]

Another great review. Me personally, I enjoyed the experience for what it was, although I doubt I'd play through it again, which kind of makes me wish I bought it on a sale.

[@x-com6227]

I experienced the game like this: A friend of mine gave it to me, and I started playing it, knowing that it was kind of "weird", when it comes to the way it narrates its "plot". My friend already knew it. I early on disobeyed an order the narrater gave me, and got one of the stranger endings. The I got set back. Then I played it "normally", and got another ending. Then, at some point I got the "Baby-fire-ending"... I never had any idea, what the game was about, I didn't know if I could make any progress at all, or if I did any progress at all (the "ending" with the adventure line felt like a breakthrough, because it suddenly felt that I made progress, because the "reset" moments suddenly were a lot different)... The longer I played, the more different endings I discovered, but also, the more I got kind of frustrated. As the evening went on (and my friend was sitting next to me, just kind of observing me, while doing something else on his laptop), I got more and more confused, still kind of missing the point, and my friend started helping me, discovering more and more different endings... And then, eventually, he kinda helped me to find the last official ending, then I played around a bit more, and then we talked about it a bit, and that was it... In other words: I had a great, kind of interesting, kind of frustrating evening, full of exploration and fun. Not much more, not much less... but it was totally worth it. I love this "game" for what it gave us. I don't know what it is worth, and I don't really care. It's kinda funny, kinda frustrating, a bit stupid, kinda deep, and kinda shallow... I'm glad it exists, and glad that I could play it the way I did. This doesn't negate ANY criticism and doesn't validate any praise the game gets... It's just how I experienced it, and I think that was fun enough.

[@AlexusPius]

I think this guy's really skilled and I appreciate how thoughtful most of his videos are. But I do strongly disagree with him on The Stanley Parable. I think part of the problem is with people labeling it as a game. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME: I love games, and I think they are an amazing medium. But in this case it might be easier to think of TSP as something like an interactive story. In other words I didn't think that the gameplay was bad, simply because gameplay is soooo far from being the focus of TSP. Instead the narration / story is the focus and I thought that was done very well, and the weird way of telling this story works really well. As for the narrator, I guess it's a matter of personal taste but I really am shocked that more people didn't like it. He seemed consistently funny and interesting to me, and although they discussed several issues about interactivity in games I never thought that it got preachy or pretentious, partially because it was interspersed with humor and the bizarre new situations you are shoved into. I just hope more people can at least try it themselves, even if they end up disliking it because it is a very original and memorable experience either way.

[@leeleeisgay]

Just regarding the audio balance, I found myself having to go back a couple times to make sure I was paying attention to what you were saying as the narrarator kept distracting me especially with the subtitles being there. I don't know if that could be remedied by lowering the game audio or something. I dunno, maybe I'm alone in that regard.

[@lleon79]

I agree when you say that it becomes repetetive and unfunny because after a while you expect everything it throws at you. Buy I think you are seeing it the wrong way. I love this game becasue it is a critisicm of videogames themselves, I did not seek this out as a way to have fun, but instead as a way of reflection. Still your review is fair enough.

[@mamayareborn]

The point is that, while *you* may have looked at it as a way to seek reflection on the medium, The Stanley Parable still doesn't exceed its own medium. It doesn't transcend it, but it seems to carry itself with the impression that it does. The Stanley Parable isn't a critique, it's a videogame. It is software being sold and distributed as a product within an established medium. That, is how the product should be reviewed and analysed. I can certainly see why Matthew points out that it revels in moments where it can point out flaws or observations about videogames in general and then pat itself on the back. That's not hard to do, it's also hardly a surprise and it doesn't add anything to the medium. Yes, glitches exist. Yes, a videogame limits you to a predetermined path. Is this such an insightful piece of information that it requires critique to begin with? It's like making a movie about how humans can't subsist in an environment devoid of oxygen, and then call it critique on humanity as a whole. In my opinion, it doesn't exceed any expectation, fails to point out any glaring undersight about the medium, definitely does not transcend it, and is incapable of blurring any lines. It was written by someone with good observational skills, seen as it becomes apparent that the general audience has never questioned the topics tackled by this game's narrative (for some reason), and outstanding argumentative skills, as its marketing, its ethos and its delivery is seemingly crafted with great care so as to nullify any form of criticism, but that's pretty much the extent of its brilliance.

[@lleon79]

Alma Aleph Then I think you have failed to see it's point. It doesn't only talk about restricted narrative, it is a satire about other things. And sorry, but your comparison is stupid. It would have to be a movie about movies. Not a movie about humans. The Stanley Parable is not a game about humans, rather a game about games. I understand your point but you failed to make a valid comparison.

[@JayTohab]

To add to the discussion, I think the original MOD was more effective in establishing the point that this was attempting to make. Because it had fewer endings, and wasn't as sarcastic for the sake of humor, it helped to emphasize the importance of each individual ending.

[@evilagram]

"As for me I'm more than happy to move on, and never think of it again" As am I. As am I.

[@skaterdude7277]

I would say it isn't worth thinking ever. It brings about an interesting issue. Game developers strive to give you an unparalleld experience, but not just a visual novel you hear and read about, but an experience. You shouldn't be told anything is bad, you knew so by first hand experience. So they wanna give you an experience, but a premade experience is rarely something achievable, and thats cause the experience that we remember best is OUR experience. If you got a different experience with a game than others, you have something unique. That uniqueness is likely not found in the laid out game, but in some hidden nugget of the game. Its a creator v created struggle. "I made you this thing why can't you enjoy it?" Why do we as people find something irresistible about disobeying orders, even when they are in our own best interest, our even the interest of others? Curiosity? Sadism? (of course the game format leads no risk of danger to not follow orders) But its sort of like the press the button flash game if i think of it, and thats free and only about how much time and knock knock jokes (well put matt) the player can deal with. Anyways, gameplay wise i really enjoyed all the surreal twists it had for you, like a nightmare. Plus the philosophy of it, while it takes no stance, ive found that i enjoy games that more so open a discussion and or pose a question left to our own development. It does suffer heavily from going down an outcome pathway a second time only to make one other decision at the end.

[@evilagram]

@@Dwarfplayer this is from 6 years ago.

[@evilagram]

@@Dwarfplayer it isn't.

[@MrLine]

What are your thoughts on The Beginner's Guide?

[@joe14joe]

Great review! I'd be super interested in a Spec Ops the Line review from you

[@moritzkorsch9029]

Did you ever play The Beginner's Guide? I think you might really enjoy it, from what you said in this video.

[@seroccoprime2774]

Wait. I don't understand where people found the humor in this game. Even those who didn't find it funny thought it was being comedic. I never did. I found it creepy. I didn't find it ambiguous. I didn't find it boring. I found it to be more of an allegory to some real life events regarding control and dissent. So the narrator scared me because he embodied what I hate the most, and he was talking to me directly.

[@brainnim9935]

The narrator's grip on the game world came off as disturbing to me as well. The silly bits that he mentions are funny in themselves but when they are expressed in manipulation of the player/world, it comes off as controlling or even threatening.

[@shep9194]

I second this notion, which really shines in the countdown timer ending. Its one of the few times a media has left me feeling completely powerless to an opposing force, and leaves disturbing implications for life.

[@bloodywanker49]

I agree the game is often humorous, but at the same time off putting. Like the Red Door and Blue Door. I found it quite disorientating and creepy when the Narrator forces you back into the room twice when you walk through the blue door. It did feel good finding ways to disobey the narrator, like jumping off of the cargo lift or unplugging the phone, so it kinda balances out the feeling of total lack of control, considering the fact the game makes clear in a couple of endings that the Narrator needs you (although you need him as well)

[@DanielSantosAnalysis]

I remember watching this video around when you initially released it, which caused me to not want to play the game. A couple of years back however, I ended up playing it regardless and thought it was enjoyable, so watching this review again was a bit strange as I can't help but feel that it's overly harsh. While I don't think everything you said was completely wrong, I can't say I agree with all of your conclusions, particularly in regards to how presumptuous you are of the intentions of the creator. That said, I do think The Beginner's Guide by the same creator is a far greater achievement and deserves more praise than The Stanley Parable did by comparison.

[@Arexion5293]

Huh.. probably the first criticising review I've seen of the game and.. I'm left feeling like I really cannot add anything to what was said in this review.

[@IanCaronia]

Nice review, mate, but I'm worried about you, Matthewmatosis. You see, there's a problem with your reviews: you've been approachable but professional in every one. This is a problem. This shows consideration, open-mindedness, and appreciation for videogames in an unpretentious manner. You're making gaming journalists look bad, Mr. Matosis. Either start whining or being pretentious to pander like the others, or you'll have to face the consequences of maintained/newly gained respect from people. It's your choice, mate.

[@BudgetCutsInc]

Thanks matt another great review :D also what games do you plan on doing in the future?

[@emmonsdavid4069]

Hearing the narrator's dialogue and your review at the same time is a bit confusing, I found it hard to digest sentences with the talk.

[@HyperGnome]

Im mean, at the risk of sounding like a dummy here, I actually enjoyed the jokes and the narrator predicting what i'd do ... or not. I suppose if you can see it all coming and doesnt like those jokes it's really bad tho. But it worked for me.

[@BiSk0iT01]

"I don't mean to offend you but FOCK YOU!" This made my day.

[@10kRats]

8:59 isn't Barry Kramer that guy from game grumps?

[@KotoCrash]

I think its because he told the game grumps to play the games demo on their channel, which generated a nice little boost in interest for the game