wtf was he trying to say tho, i don't understand these kind of articles jisme itni lambi kari wi ho xD
What i understood was that he was saying, that games aren't meant for storytelling and they should focus on something else, then he was nagging about why Edith Flinch game wasn't an animated film, it wouldn't have changed anything.
My response to that is. It's all bullshit xD
Quoted from the article
"The true accomplishment of What Remains of Edith Finch is that it invites players to abandon the dream of interactive storytelling at last. Yes, sure, you can tell a story in a game. But what a lot of work that is, when it’s so much easier to watch television, or to read."
I don't like reading. That doesn't mean i'll come out and say why novel, why not make it an animated film, much better and "easier" that way. I can actually see what's happening and its a lot more immersive. The writer is being too subjective imo. He thinks it's easier to watch television or to read 1000 pages but it think it's much easier to play. You are thinking, your brain is working, you have a world to explore. You ain't just sitting on your ass and getting your throat thirsty or staring at a colorful box.
"On this measure, alas, the best interactive stories are still worse than even middling books and films. That’s a problem to be ignored rather than solved. Games’ obsession with story obscures more ambitious goals anyway."
Again how the heck is he making those claims?
So according to him we should stop focusing on making games portray stories and start focusing on something else. Well industry has done this there are many popular games that have little to no story but they are popular because of their gameplays and other things. But this doesn't really mean we should stop making games that try to focus on presenting a great story and have done a job well done like "Life is Strange", "To the moon" and other multiple titles with rich storylines.
BC gaming zero ho gai he! bas roti bannay ke time per Clash royale khel leta ho!!:tpc: 
